In the Matter of the Petition by                               )
                                                                              )
                                                                              )
JAMES D. MOSELEY                                             )
244 Wildwood Drive                                              )
                                                                              )
                at                                                           )
                                                                              )
Bristol, TN 37620-2842                                         )  P.S. Docket No. DCA 94-55

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                           Charles Scialla
                                                                               Charles Scialla and Associates
                                                                               453 Preakness Avenue, #5
                                                                               Paterson, NJ 07502-1121

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                       Jeffery A. Meadows
                                                                              Labor Relations Specialist
                                                                              United States Postal Service
                                                                              P.O. Box 59401
                                                                              Charleston, WV 25350-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, James D. Moseley, filed a petition under the Debt Collection Act of 1982 as a result of Debt Collection Act notice received from the Postmaster, Bristol, VA/TN. The notice informed Petitioner that, as a result of his failure to provide proper security, he was responsible for losses in the amount of $18,385.41 that occurred during a burglary of the Stephen Holston Station in Bristol, Tennessee.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Prior to the Postal Service restructuring in 1992, Petitioner occupied the position of Supervisor, Customer Services at the main office of the Bristol VA/TN Post Office. In October 1992, he was delegated additional duties by the Bristol Postmaster due to the departure of three supervisors as part of the restructuring. Among the duties assigned to Petitioner were at least part of the responsibilities of a window services supervisor, including the responsibility for auditing the accountabilities of the window clerks who worked at the Stephen Holston Station. In delegating duties with respect to the Stephen Holston Station, the postmaster did not expressly include responsibility for security matters, believing that such responsibility was included in the duties of a window supervisor. (Transcript (Tr.) 11, 16, 42, 77-79).

2. Petitioner was also responsible for staffing at the Stephen Holston Station, at least to the extent of being responsible for assigning other employees to fill in at the station when regular clerks were on leave (Tr. 85).

3. Petitioner was stationed at the main post office and visited the Stephen Holston Station on an infrequent basis -- primarily when it was time to conduct an audit of a clerk's accountability⁽¹⁾ or when particular problems arose (Tr. 27, 79).

4. Since at least 1982, the clerks at the Stephen Holston Station had used the counterline drawers for the overnight storage of the stamp credit portion of their accountabilities. Before that time, the stamp credits had been stored in roll away cabinets. At no time since the opening of the station in 1961 had safes been used for overnight storage. The clerks at the station had not been instructed by any supervisor that storage of stamp credits in counterline drawers was improper. Storing stamp credits in the counterline drawers overnight was a violation of Section 433 of the Post Office Accounting Procedures, Handbook F-1 (Respondent's Answer, Exhibits (Ans. Exh.) 2, 12; Tr. 56).

5. The safes at the Stephen Holston Station had a number of compartments that could not be locked because they lacked either locks or keys. Had all the compartments been lockable, the safes at the Stephen Holston Station would have contained adequate secure space for the overnight storage of all the clerks' stamp credits. (Ans. Exh. 2; Tr. 47, 55).

6. In 1990 a finance and security audit was conducted at the main post office in Bristol and at the Stephen Holston Station. Although some security problems were noted, the fact that the stamp stock was being stored in the counterline drawers was not detected. In February 1994, a Function Four audit conducted in Bristol also failed to note this storage practice as a deficiency. (Unnumbered exhibits accompanying Petition (Pet. Exh.); Ans. Exh. 15).

7. By letter dated February 25, 1994, the Bristol Postmaster forwarded to each of his management personnel certain written material he had received from the Inspection Service concerning facility security. He asked each person to review his or her area of responsibility and inform him in writing if there were any areas in need of attention. (Ans. Exh. 8; Pet. Exh.). In response, Petitioner examined the window area and delivery area of the main post office and reported to the Postmaster verbally that he had found no problems. He did not examine the Stephen Holston Station because he did not believe there were any problems at that station and because he believed his responsibilities at the Stephen Holston Station extended only to counting the credits and handling staffing. (Tr. 88-90).

8. On the night of April 6-7, 1994, the Stephen Holston Station was burglarized, with the resulting loss of $19,474.41 in cash and stamps. $1,099 of the loss was cash taken from two stamp vending machines. The balance of the loss, $18,375.41, represented stamp stock stolen from the counterline drawers. The locked safes were not attacked. (Ans. Exh. 1).

9. By letter dated June 15, 1994, the Bristol Postmaster informed Petitioner that he was responsible for the loss of $18,385.41 in funds and stamps⁽²⁾ because he had failed to provide proper security and because proper stock levels had been exceeded (Ans. Exh. 3).⁽³⁾ Petitioner requested reconsideration of the decision in a letter dated June 25, 1994. That request was turned down in a letter dated July 7, 1994, and Petitioner filed a timely petition under the Debt Collection Act.

10. In 1987 the then Assistant Postmasters General for the Employee Relations Department and the Department of the Controller issued a memorandum stating the Postal Service policy "...in situations involving employee credit shortages where contractual or other reasons preclude collection of the shortage from the employee." The policy expressed was that,

"The Postal Service will not normally hold postmasters and supervisors personally accountable for such employee shortages if they do not have direct access to the credit or are not involved in collusion with the employee.... The policy is not intended to absolve a postmaster, supervisor or others who have financial accountability for postal funds and accountable paper from conscientiously enforcing Postal Service policies and procedures. However, rather than issuing a letter of demand to these individuals, it is more appropriate to consider counseling or discipline for failure to properly carry out the duties of their position. The action warranted should be determined on a case-by-case basis depending upon the particular circumstances."

DECISION

Respondent argues that Petitioner's area of responsibility included the Stephen Holston Station and that his responsibilities with respect to that station included security matters. Therefore, Respondent argues, Petitioner should have performed a security review of the Stephen Holston Station procedures when he received the letter from the postmaster directing all management personnel to perform such a review in their areas of responsibility. Moreover, Respondent argues that Petitioner, as a supervisor who visited the Stephen Holston Station, should have been aware of the inoperative safe compartment locks and the fact that counterline drawers were being used for overnight storage.

Petitioner argues that he should not be held responsible because the improper storage of the stolen stock was the responsibility of the clerks who stored their credits in the counterline or their prior supervisors who failed to instruct them that such a practice was improper. Petitioner argues that under the policy quoted in Finding 10, above, he should not be held financially responsible since there is no evidence that the loss involved any collusion by Petitioner. Petitioner argues further that he was never present at closeout and, therefore, would have no knowledge of the fact that counterline drawers were being used for storage or that the safe was partially inoperable. Finally, Petitioner argues that he was not formally assigned the duties of security officer with respect to the Stephen Holston Station and that he did not understand his duties with respect to the Stephen Holston Station to include security matters.

Having considered the evidence and arguments of the parties, I conclude that Petitioner should not be held liable for the loss of stamp stock that occurred during the burglary of the Stephen Holston Station. In his Supplemental Investigative Memorandum, Inspector Vlug concluded that at the time of the burglary, there was no "defined, clear-cut manager assigned responsibility for the Stephen Holston Station." From the evidence in the record I cannot conclude that Petitioner knew or should have known that his duties with respect to the Stephen Holston Station included duties as the security officer. Petitioner was not expressly delegated those duties by the postmaster. Respondent has also not shown that Petitioner was given a blanket assignment or delegation to take over all the duties of a window supervisor, including those security duties inherent in such a position, at the Stephen Holston Station. Instead, his duties with respect to the Stephen Holston Station appear to have been generally limited to one or two discrete functions -- auditing the clerks' accountabilities and dealing with staffing problems related to leave.

Further, given the large number of other duties Petitioner was assigned with respect to operations at the main post office and the infrequency of his visits to the Stephen Holston Station, it was not unreasonable for him to conclude that the Stephen Holston Station was not part of his "area of responsibility" in responding to the postmaster's letter asking managers to review security. Petitioner did not ignore or fail to respond to the postmaster's letter. Rather, he performed the security review with respect to those operations he believed were within his responsibility.

Moreover, Respondent has not shown that Petitioner was or clearly should have been aware of the security deficiencies at the Stephen Holston Station but failed to take action to correct them or bring them to the attention of the postmaster. Petitioner was not normally at the Stephen Holston Station at the time of closeout and, therefore, I accept his argument that he did not know that the stamp stock was being stored overnight in the counterline drawers. There is also no evidence that would show Petitioner was or should have been aware that some of the compartments in the safes could not be locked. Also, two outside audits that were at least partially concerned with security procedures in handling Postal Service funds also did not uncover these problems.

For these reasons I conclude that Petitioner is not indebted to the Postal Service because of the loss that occurred during the burglary at the Stephen Holston Station. The petition is granted.

David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge

1. Audits of a clerk's accountability are required at least each 120 days.

2. The total loss because of the burglary was $19,474.41. Petitioner was not charged with the $1,099 loss from the vending machines because they had been properly secured. Therefore, the amount assessed against Petitioner should have been $18,375.41 rather than $18,385.41.

3. At the hearing the Postmaster acknowledged that exceeding authorized stock levels was not a proper basis for assessing the loss against Petitioner, as monitoring stock levels was not part of his responsibility.