In the Matter of the Petition by           )
                                                          )
                                                          )
JAN P. BIZIEWSKI                              )
11115 Oberun River Court                )
                                                          )
    at                                                   )
                                                          )
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-2949    ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 95-318

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:      Marilyn Walton
                                                          National Association of Postal Supervisors
                                                          P.O. Box 980911
                                                          West Sacramento, CA 95798-0911

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:   Zane Maddox
                                                          United States Postal Service
                                                          3775 Industrial Boulevard
                                                          West Sacramento, CA 95799-0061

Petitioner, Jan P. Biziewski, has filed a petition as a result of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets issued to him following a determination of a shortage in the main stock at the Folsom, California Post Office, at which he is the main stock custodian.

1. Petitioner was employed as Supervisor, Customer Services, at the Folsom, California Post Office. One of his duties was to serve as the main stock custodian, a duty he had carried out since some time before 1993. (Transcript page (Tr.) 36).

2. As main stock custodian, Petitioner had physical custody of the main stamp stock (Tr. 57). However, the practice at the Folsom Post Office was to give access to the computer disk containing the main stock records to the finance clerk, who worked under the supervision of the main stock custodian (Tr. 47).¹  That practice had been in effect for at least five years (Tr. 32).

3. Access to the main stock records enabled the finance clerk to enter transactions that affected the main stock, such as receiving stamp stock from a stamp distribution office, dispensing stamp stock to the window clerks, and dispatching stock for destruction. The finance clerk entered those transactions via the IRT [Integrated Retail Terminal] into the main stock computer records. (Tr. 22, 23).

4. A new postmaster was appointed at Folsom in early 1993. Initially, he continued the practice of having a split in responsibility for the main stock between the main stock custodian (physical custody of the stock) and the finance clerk (record-keeping responsibility). (Tr. 35, 36). Some time prior to November 1994, the finance clerk, who had been appointed to the position in approximately May or June of 1993, objected to this arrangement, contending that it violated the Post Office Accounting Procedures, Handbook F-1 (Tr. 52, 70). No immediate action was taken in response to his objections. Also, on several occasions prior to November 1994, Petitioner complained to the postmaster about errors being made by the finance clerk in recording financial data. After receiving Petitioner's complaints, the postmaster suggested that Petitioner consider taking over control of the main stock disk, so as to combine the responsibility for making entries in the disk with physical control of the stock.² (Tr. 55). That suggestion was made in the course of casual conversation and was not taken by Petitioner as direction requiring immediate action on his part. (Tr. 84).

5. In November 1994, an audit of the main stock was conducted. The results of the audit showed an overage of $64.75. Petitioner and another employee conducted another audit on May 23, 1995. That audit showed a shortage in the main stock (after various adjustments) of $873.20. (Tr. 11; Respondent's Exhibit 2). The process of conducting a main stock audit consisted of printing out a record of the main stock from the computer data and then conducting a physical count of the stock to detect differences between what the computer data showed should be in the stock and the stamp stock actually present. (Tr. 7-10).

6. Following the May 1995 audit, the postmaster instructed the other employee who had participated in the audit and who had extensive experience in and understanding of finance procedures, to review all the paperwork involving main stock transactions since the November 1994 audit. The employee was asked to attempt to determine whether the May 1995 shortage represented missing stamp stock or was attributable to paperwork errors (Tr. 12). Despite her detailed review, the employee was unable to make that determination with any certainty. However, based on her review, she expressed her opinion that the problem could have been caused by one or some combination of the following:

Stock being given out to a clerk (outside the usual distribution time) without a record being entered into the IRT.

Errors in noting that stock orders by window clerks had been filled -- resulting in issuing stock twice on the same requisition.

Failure by the finance clerk to make corrections in the paperwork discovered and pointed out by the stock custodian. (Tr. 20, 24, 27; Attachment to petition (June 8, 1995 memo from Beverly Fleming))

7. In a letter of demand issued on July 7, 1995, the postmaster informed Petitioner that he would be held liable for the shortage discovered during the May 1995 audit. In a letter dated July 20, 1995, Petitioner requested reconsideration, but on August 29, 1995, the postmaster issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets, informing him that the sum of $133.50 would be deducted from each of his pay checks beginning on October 6, 1995, until the debt was paid off. This petition followed.

8. The record demonstrates that the finance clerk was prone to making errors in entering various transactions and in keeping records (Tr. 15, 16, 50, 53, 63). However, while data entry errors by the finance clerk could have created an apparent shortage in the main stock, the record does not show whether any of his errors actually caused or contributed to the discrepancy found during the May 23, 1995 audit.

9. Paragraph 132 of Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures provides:

"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."

Petitioner argues that the discrepancy reflected in the May 23, 1995 audit represents record-keeping errors, does not represent an actual loss of stamp stock and, therefore, does not represent an actual loss to the Postal Service. In particular, Petitioner argues that errors made by the finance clerk in entering transactions likely caused the discrepancy between the computer records and the actual stock. Petitioner concedes that he would be liable if he had control of both the actual stock and the stock records, but contends that without control over the main stock disk, he should not be held responsible for a discrepancy that may have been caused by erroneous data entry by the finance clerk.

Respondent argues that, as the main stock custodian, Petitioner is to be held strictly accountable for the loss. As to Petitioner's principal contention, Respondent argues that any errors made by the finance clerk have not been shown by Petitioner to have affected the main stock records.

Having considered the record, I conclude that Petitioner may not be held financially liable for the discrepancy revealed in the May 23, 1995 audit. Petitioner concedes that had he been responsible both for the actual stamp stock and for keeping records related to transactions out of that stock, he would likely be held responsible for any discrepancy. The record shows that an apparent discrepancy could be created by errors in entering main stock transaction data in the IRT, thereby creating inaccuracies in the data against which the main stock would be compared during an audit. However, under the system then in existence at the Folsom Post Office, such data could be (and normally were) entered by the finance clerk rather than Petitioner. This procedure took the process sufficiently out of Petitioner's control that he cannot be held financially liable.

The fact that Petitioner failed to take control of the main stock computer disk after the postmaster's first suggestion does not change the result. The suggestion apparently was just that -- a suggestion, and not direction. Further, although all parties were somewhat uneasy about the then current arrangement, there did not seem to be a pressing problem that required immediate action, particularly since transferring the disk to Petitioner would have necessitated an additional main stock audit or some equivalent procedure (Tr. 79).

Accordingly, I conclude that under the circumstances and the system then existing, Petitioner exercised reasonable care in carrying out his duties related to the main stock.

The petition is granted.

David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge

¹  In order to access the main stock portion of the computer records, it was necessary for an operator to enter a code or password. There is some question as to whether the finance clerk (and his substitutes) had exclusive access to that code or whether Petitioner also had access. (Tr. 29-32, 79). However, that issue need not be resolved to decide this matter.

²  The revised procedure suggested by the postmaster had been in use at his previous post office, and he believed that it represented the usual practice at other post offices.