In the Matter of the Petition by              )
                                                             )
                                                             )
PHILIP J. CLERKIN, SR.                         )
P. O. Box 915                                       )
                                                             )
               at                                           )
                                                             )
Norwich, CT 06360-0915                     )  P.S. Docket No. DCA 94-151

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:         Philip J. Clerkin, Sr., Pro Se

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:     John Galvin
                                                             Labor Relations Specialist
                                                             50 Brewery Street
                                                             New Haven, CT 06511-9411

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Philip Clerkin, filed a petition for a hearing on written submissions after receiving a September 16, 1994 Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from the Postmaster, Norwich, Connecticut. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to make withholdings from Petitioner's salary to collect $251.40 for a shortage in the Main Stock at the Norwich Post Office on June 22, 1994, for which Petitioner was accountable as the Main Stock custodian. The record includes Mr. Clerkin's Petition; his Supplement submitted on October 1, 1994; the Postal Service Response, dated October 8, 1994; the Postal Service Response to the Supplement, dated October 11, 1994; and Mr. Clerkin's final submission, dated October 28, 1994.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Postal Service Form 50, Notification of Personnel Action, reflects that Petitioner, Mr. Clerkin, holds the position titled Supervisor, Customer Services, effective February 6, 1993, as part of the Postal Service restructuring that took place in late 1992. (Postal Service Response, October 8, 1994, Exhibit E).

2. As part of the restructuring, Mr. Clerkin was assigned the collateral duty as "Main Stock custodian" at the Norwich Post Office. (Mr. Clerkin's Petition Letter, September 16, 1994).

3. The "Main Stock" of a post office is defined as "all stamps and stamped paper, nonpostal stamps, and philatelic products received by a post office that have not been consigned to the main office window unit, stations, branches, or window clerks." (Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, April 1991, Glossary).

4. Postmasters are accountable for the Main Stock, but "may assign responsibility for administering the Main Stock to a supervisory employee who will act as Main Stock custodian." (Handbook F-1, Sections 431.1 and 431.21).

5. On June 21, 1994 Mr. Clerkin signed a Form 3958 as "Custodian," showing that the Main Stock account balance was $78,929.75. (Postal Service Response, Ex. A). Form 3958 is a product generated by the computerized IRT (Integrated Retail Terminal) System, that shows an opening balance, account activity during the period covered, and a closing balance. It does not give a breakdown, by stamp denomination, of what makes up the account balance.

6. On June 22, 1994 a PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, was completed, showing total cash and stamp stock to be $78,678.35. This form was signed by the Postmaster, and by Mr. Clerkin in a box that reads, "I agree to the count." (Postal Service Response, Ex. B). Form 3294 is filled in by hand to record the results of a manual count of stock.

7. The difference between the June 21, 1994 amount shown on Form 3958, and the June 22, 1994 amount on Form 3294 is $251.40 - the amount for which Mr. Clerkin is charged.

8. The IRT System calls for the Main Stock custodian to have a personal "LOGON" identification number, so that only he has access to the Stamp Stock Menu, by which changes can be made to the inventory records. (Postal Service Response, Ex. G).

9. The IRT System also requires that specific entries be made whenever items are added to, or removed from, the inventory, such as when the custodian issues stock to clerks. (Postal Service Response, Ex. G).

10. There is no evidence of record to show precisely what denominations of stamps, or other items, make up the unaccounted for $251.40.⁽¹⁾

11. There is no evidence of record to explain what caused, or even what is likely to have caused, the shortage. Mr. Clerkin suggests that unreliability of the IRT System, and the fact that "at least three clerks" have access to the system, may have created an "artificial discrepancy." He has presented no evidence, however, as to who these clerks are, what their access is, or how this relates to the discrepancy between the June 21 and June 22 figures.

DECISION

The issue here is not whether Mr. Clerkin is an honest, trustworthy, or hard-working employee. There is no evidence that he is not. The issue is over how to apply the standards of accountability and liability that are prescribed for Postal Service employees who manage large sums of cash or stamp stock. The provision applicable to Mr. Clerkin is contained in Handbook F-1, Section 130 - Liability. Subsection 131 applies to Postmasters, and Subsection 132 to Other Employees:

132 Other Employees

The postmaster consigns postal funds and accountable paper to other employees. Employees are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties.

In the case of an unexplained loss, as in this case, the term "strictly accountable" means that to establish a prima facie case for liability, the Postal Service must only prove that there has been a loss and that the person charged was accountable for the stock from which the loss occurred. The Postal Service is not required to prove any specific dereliction or act of negligence by the employee. The burden then shifts to the employee to show that he, or she, exercised reasonable care.

There is no doubt that Petitioner was accountable for the Main Stock. He agrees that he was. The first contested issue, therefore, is whether the Postal Service has proved a loss. To do so the Postal Service points to the $251.40 difference shown by Form 3958 on June 21 and the manual count on June 22. Mr. Clerkin does not dispute the accuracy of the manual count, but he does suggest that the Form 3958 produced by the IRT on June 21 may not be reliable. He signed the form as "custodian," however, which I interpret as attesting to its accuracy. As this is what the system calls for as the proper means of keeping track of the Main Stock inventory, and as Mr. Clerkin has presented no evidence to show that this particular Form 3958 was inaccurate, I find this to be sufficient proof of loss.

The next, and more difficult, issue is whether Mr. Clerkin has met his burden of showing that he exercised reasonable care. He presents no independent evidence to show that he followed all required procedures in safeguarding his stock, but his petition letter refers to "no subterfuge, negligence or lack of diligence on my part." He says, "I have performed my duty as Main Stock Custodian with professionalism and integrity," and that "stringent adherence to procedure" was followed. If these assertions of reasonable care are enough, Petitioner should prevail, because the Postal Service has presented no evidence to rebut them, such as by showing instances where Petitioner failed to follow prescribed procedures in issuing, or accounting for, stamp stock.

On the facts of this case, I find these assertions insufficient to carry Petitioner's burden. Because of other statements in Mr. Clerkin's Petition, a demonstration of reasonable care under these circumstances required more than the general statements quoted above. Petitioner did not submit records of any Main Stock transactions, or statements from clerks or other personnel, to show that proper procedures were routinely followed. Rather than helping his cause, some of Mr. Clerkin's statements in the Petition tend to cast doubt on his exercise of reasonable care, and thus to support liability. For example, his statements that he is often interrupted when issuing stock, and that the pressure of handling other responsibilities "makes it somewhat inevitable that an error could be made," imply that he may not always have followed prescribed procedures. His belief that "allowance for loss is an accounting norm in private business," may be accurate for some businesses, but it does not comport with the standard to which Handbook F-1 holds Postal Service supervisors.

Petitioner's other contentions are also insufficient to relieve him of liability. He claims lack of training, but the record shows that he had some training on the IRT system (Postal Service Response, Ex. F), and that he has performed the duties of Main Stock custodian since approximately September 1992 (Petition Letter, Sept. 16, 1994). He also claims that changes in local accounting procedures, directed by Postal Inspectors after an audit in April 1993, made his job more difficult. It appears that the Inspectors' intention was to bring the Norwich Post Office in line with the procedures of the IRT system and away from the manual system they had been using. Whether or not this added to the difficulty of Petitioner's job is unclear, but even if it did, there is no evidence as to how this relates to the loss in question.

CONCLUSION

Because the Postal Service has established a prima facie case, and the evidence does not establish that Mr. Clerkin exercised reasonable care, he is liable to the Postal Service for $251.40.

Bruce R. Houston
Administrative Law Judge

1. ¹ There is a handwritten notation on the Form 3294, indicating that the June 22, 1994 inventory showed a shortage of 100 booklets valued at $5.22 each, a shortage of 1000 postcards, and an overage of 100 booklets valued at $2.90 each. There is no explanation in the record that would make these items add up to a shortage of $251.40.