In the Matter of the Petition by

COLLEEN H. STOKES
100 Edgewood Drive

at

Sarver, PA 16055-9260

P.S. Docket No. DCA 95-437

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
William M. Brady
Chairman, NAPUS
Postmaster Representative Committee
300 South Main Street
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701-9998

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Anthony J. Bernat
Labor Relations Specialist
717 State Street
Erie, PA 16515-9995

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

            Petitioner, Colleen Stokes, filed a petition for hearing on written submissions after receiving a November 9, 1995 Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from the Manager, Post Office Operations for the Erie, Pennsylvania District Office.  This Notice stated the Postal Service’s intention to make withholdings from Petitioner’s salary to collect $4,890.00, to cover a shortage in her accountability at the Sarver, PA Post Office, at which Petitioner is the Postmaster.  The shortage was the result of a burglary, and the basis of alleged liability is that Petitioner violated Postal Service policy and procedure by allowing cash and stamp stock to be stored overnight in counterline drawers.  The record includes Ms. Stokes’ Petition and accompanying documents, received on November 24, 1995; Respondent’s Answer and accompanying documents, received on December 12, 1995; four sworn statements of witnesses, received from Respondent on January 11, 1996; two sworn statements, with accompanying documents, received from Petitioner on January 16, 1996; and a copy of a Postal Inspector’s June 19, 1995 letter and notes, along with some comments from Petitioner’s representative, submitted per my request on January 29, 1996.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  During the nightime of March 8/9, 1995 the Sarver Post Office was burglarized, via forced entry.  Petitioner had properly secured the building at the close of business on March 8.  The Sarver Post Office had no burglar alarm at that time.

            2.  The burglar(s) attempted to open a Model 295 Security Container, but were unsuccessful.  This safe contained most of the main stock and clerk credits.  The burglars did gain access to a Model 279 Fireproof Safe by tipping it over and prying open the bottom.  Rural Carrier credits totaling $200 in cash and stamp stock were stolen from this safe.  All counterline drawers were locked, but all were forced open.  These drawers contained stamp stock, stamped envelopes and postcards, and a small amount of cash, all of which was stolen.

            3.  An audit conducted on March 9, 1995, after discovery of the burglary, showed shortages totaling $7,893.78 in the accounts of Petitioner and the window clerks.  It has been assumed that this entire amount is attributable to the burglary.  The Manager, Post Office Operations, concluded that $3,003.78 of this total consisted of items, such as stamped envelopes and postcards, that were properly stored, either in the safe that was broken open or in the counterline.  The remainder consisted of cash and stamps assigned to Petitioner and two window clerks, which he concluded were not properly stored in the counterline drawers.  This is the $4,890 for which Petitioner is charged.

            4.  The figure $4,890 is based on the Postal Inspector’s interviews with Petitioner and two clerks after the burglary, and their recollection of what stock was in their counterline drawers, as shown by the inspector’s notes attached to his June 19, 1995 letter.  There were a few rolls of coins, totaling $26, and the rest consisted of coils and books of stamps.  Petitioner does not dispute the $4,890 figure, except to argue that some of the stamps stolen from the counterline were 29 cent stamps that had been redeemed after the January 1995 rate increase.^[1]

            5.  Petitioner told the investigating Postal Inspector that stamp stock was kept in the counterline drawers because there was inadequate space in the security container.  Petitioner had never made a request for additional secure storage equipment.

            6.  Since the burglary no stamp stock has been stored in the counterline overnight.  No additional equipment has been obtained, but Petitioner states that she has “further customized the safe to have two lockable compartments for excess stock which I did not have before.”  (Petitioner’s Declaration, January 8, 1996.)

            7.  Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, contains the following relevant provisions:

Chapter 1.  General Information

130 Liability

131 Postmasters

When an accountable financial loss occurs and evidence
shows the postmaster conscientiously enforced USPS
policies and procedures in managing the post office, the
Postal Service grants relief for the full amount of the
loss.  When evidence fails to show the postmaster met
those conditions, the Postal Service charges the
postmaster with the full amount of the loss.

*           *           *

140 Protection

141 Equipment

141.1 Acquisition.  Postmasters must ensure that
equipment on hand is used to provide the best security
and that the priorities of protection are observed.  Order
protective equipment according to the criteria in Handbook
AS-701, Supply Management, Chapter 2.

*           *           *

142 Priorities

The following priorities for postal items have been
established for protecting funds and accountable paper:

Priority            Item
1                      Postal funds and blank Treasury checks
2                      Federal food coupons
3                      Postage stamps, ...
4                      Blank money order forms
5                      Stamped envelopes and postal cards,
                        money order imprinters, and nonsalable
                        stamp stock

The descending levels of security in an installation are:

Level               Equipment
1                      Burglar-resistant chests in fireproof
                        safes or security chests located in
                        walk-in vaults
2                      USPS standard vaults
3                      Security chests or burglar-resistant
                        chest portion of fireproof safes
4                      Security containers
5                      Fireproof safes or vaults not built to
                        USPS standards
6                      Lockable metal cabinets and file drawers 

*           *           *

Chapter 4.  Accountable Paper

430 Stamp Stock Control

*           *           *

433 Stamp Credits

*           *           *

433.2 Protection

433.21 Stamp credits must be placed in a locked container
and stored in a security container, safe, or vault following
an employee’s tour of duty.

            8.  By a Notice of Debt Determination, dated August 29, 1995, the Manager, Post Office Operations, notified Petitioner that she owed $4,890.00, “due to your failure to conscientiously enforce USPS policies and procedures in that you allowed stamp stock credits to be stored overnight in the counterline rather than in a security container, safe, or vault.”  In a separate letter, also dated August 29, 1995, the Manager told Petitioner that the remainder of the stolen items had been properly stored, and that she should file a “claim for loss” in the amount of $3,003.78.

            9.  Ms. Stokes requested reconsideration of the debt in a written memorandum to the Finance Manager, Erie District, arguing that neither she, nor her employees, should be held liable for losses caused by “extreme measures on the part of the Burglar,” i.e., forcibly prying open locked drawers.  She also pointed out that the Sarver Post Office did not have an alarm system until one was installed shortly after the burglary. 

            10.  The request for reconsideration was denied on October 26, 1995.  The Finance Manager acknowledged that the counterline drawers were locked and that access was gained only through “extreme measures,” but reiterated that Postal Service policy requires stamp stock to be stored overnight in a security container or safe, not in a locked counterline.  The Manager’s letter states, “[h]ad this stamp stock been stored properly in a security container or safe, you would not be held accountable for the associated loss.” (emphasis added).

DECISION

            The matter of there being no burglar alarm can be disposed of quickly.  Petitioner argues that installation of an alarm immediately after the burglary demonstrates a failure of higher level management in not having done so sooner.  This is a non-issue.  Even assuming that someone else should have installed alarms, this does not relieve a postmaster from liability if her failure to follow rules for securing stock made that stock accessible to burglars.

            There is no question that storing cash and stamp stock in a counterline overnight is contrary to Postal Service policy.  Petitioner’s claim that stock was kept in the counterline because there was not room for all of it in the security container or safe is not supported by the evidence.  Respondent presented evidence that, since the burglary, cash and stock have no longer been kept in the counterline.  The damaged safe was repaired and sufficient space was found in the two containers, without a need to acquire additional equipment.  Petitioner does not contradict this evidence.  That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as there are some unusual circumstances here.

            Petitioner would have been in compliance with policy had she stored all the stock in either the Model 295 Security Container or the Model 279 Fireproof Safe.  This is shown not only by the provisions of the F-1 Handbook quoted in paragraph 7 above, but also by the decision of the Finance Manager, quoted in paragraph 10, above.  Had the stock been in the Model 279 safe, however, it would have been no more secure than in the counterline, because that safe was also broken open.  Should Petitioner be held liable, based on her violation of policy, without regard to what would have happened even if she had followed the policy?  I think not.  To establish liability, the evidence must not only show a failure to enforce Postal Service policies, but also that the failure caused the loss.  Leroy Henry, P.S. Docket No. DCA-149 (November 3, 1992); Rita M. Ballard, P.S. Docket No. DCA-134 (June 2, 1992).

            The Model 295 Security Container provided a higher level of security, both in fact and according to the priority list in Handbook F-1.  (See paragraph 7, above.)  The evidence does not show, however, that there was room in this container alone for all the stock.  To the contrary, the sworn statement of the Operations Manager says, “[A]fter the burglary, Ms. Stokes immediately began using both safes at the office, and had adequate space to store clerks’ accountable items.”  I conclude, therefore, that there was no requirement to store the stock in the security container, rather than in the safe, and that it was the breaking of the safe as well as the counterline - not Ms. Stokes’ dereliction - that caused the loss.

            One other matter requires comment.  The Operations Manager, and the Finance Manager, based their decisions in part on a statement purportedly made by Petitioner to the Operations Manager that the clerks had previously complained about security violations.  (See sworn statement of Marie Ritenour, Finance Manager, January 9, 1996.)  Ms. Stokes denies making such a statement, and offers another explanation of the discussion reported by the Operations Manager.  (See Petitioner’s Declaration, January 8, 1996.)  As the file contains no statements from the clerks to support either version, I gave this evidence no weight.

CONCLUSION

            Petitioner is not liable for the loss of $4,890.00.  The Petition is sustained.

Bruce R. Houston
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  Although not fully articulated, presumably the argument here is that 29 cent stamps were “nonsalable stamp stock,” and would have a low priority under the rules for protection of accountable items.  If so, it would not have been a violation of policy to store them in a locked counterline.