Company dinners are a common practice around the world. Traditionally held around Christmas, many companies take a break from work to socialize in a more relaxed and friendly atmosphere. It’s a way to build team spirit, enjoy a pleasant time together, and connect with the person behind the employee.
Every company has its own way of handling this, depending on its size and structure. In this case, the management of the Public Agency for Personal Services (Azienda pubblica di servizi alla persona, Apsp) in Levico, Italy, decided to host a dinner for around 180 people, including managers and staff. The dinner ended up costing nearly $6,400 ($36 per guest) and was classified by the organization as a “representation expense.” Their intention was to reward employees of the healthcare facility — but now the director is being asked to pay the amount back.
As reported by Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, the judges from the Trento Court of Auditors ruled that this 2019 dinner had no connection to the official purposes or activities of the agency. They argued that public representation expenses are meant to improve the entity’s public image or efficiency — not to cover internal celebrations.
The now-former director, along with his lawyer, attempted (unsuccessfully) to justify the expense, claiming that the work environment was often challenging, and such events helped motivate staff. “It’s difficult to hire and retain caregivers. The ultimate goal was to ensure an adequate number and quality of staff,” he argued.
Other expenses under investigation
But the dinner wasn’t the only expense questioned by Italian authorities. There were also over $4,300 in additional purchases — including gold pins for employees with over 30 years of service, storybooks given to retirees, flowers for the dinner, and certificates of merit.
Altogether, the total amount of all expenses investigated came to approximately $11,000. However, in the case of these other expenses, they were deemed acceptable, as they were pre-approved and aligned with the organization’s internal regulations.
On another front, the Prosecutor’s Office alleged that the former general director failed to oversee the transactions carried out by the company’s accountant. However, the Court of Auditors ruled otherwise, stating that no internal regulation required the director to directly monitor those financial operations — and therefore, he could not be held personally responsible.
Get your game on! Whether you’re into NFL touchdowns, NBA buzzer-beaters, world-class soccer goals, or MLB home runs, our app has it all.
Dive into live coverage, expert insights, breaking news, exclusive videos, and more – plus, stay updated on the latest in current affairs and entertainment. Download now for all-access coverage, right at your fingertips – anytime, anywhere.
