FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Bruce G. Davey, the postmaster at Carthage, New York, filed this Petition on February 20, 1997, after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from David Lightfoot, Manager of Post Office Operations, dated January 24, 1997. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $8,926.35 from Petitioner's salary to recover for the loss of a Registered Mail™ package containing that amount of cash and checks.

A hearing was held in Syracuse, New York on May 15, 1997. The Postal Service presented testimony from Postal Inspector Thomas Avalone, and John Phelan, the current Manager of Post Office Operations. In addition to presenting his own testimony, Petitioner called Warren Johnson, the Watertown, New York Postmaster, and three clerks from the Carthage Post Office. Both parties also submitted documentary evidence, and made oral arguments at the close of the hearing. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record, including observation of the witnesses and their demeanor.⁽¹⁾

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Bruce Davey, has been a Postal Service employee since 1982. He has been a postmaster since 1989, and has served at Carthage, New York since 1993. (Tr. 99-100).

2. The Carthage Post Office is small, and is an associate office of the Watertown Post Office. Carthage sends cash and checks at the close of business each day to the Watertown Post Office for deposit. The cash and checks are dispatched as a Registered Mail package, by being sealed in a "register jacket," then placed in a pouch with other mail. This pouch is locked, and delivered with all other mail to a contract carrier for highway transportation to Watertown. (Tr. 8, 19-20, 62-63).

3. On July 3, 1995, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Petitioner received the day's cash and checks from his two window clerks. From Ms. Brenon, he received $5,500.00 in cash and $101.78 in checks. From Ms. Faul, he received $3,345.00 in cash and $499.16 in checks. He ran an adding machine tape showing the amounts. (See Atch. to Answer, Ex. 1, pp. 14 and 15.) The two clerks' deposits were segregated and assigned separate Registered Mail numbers, with separate receipts, PS Form 3806. A Registered Mail "control card," PS Form 3830-A, Registry Dispatch Record, was signed by Mr. Davey, showing the two register numbers, and date stamped July 3, 1995. (See Atch. to Answer, Ex. 1, p. 16.)

4. Mr. Davey left the post office at approximately 3:30 p.m. on July 3, 1995. Ms. Brenon left at approximately the same time. Mr. Davey did not lock the Registered Mail package in any container, nor did he transfer accountability for it to anyone else before leaving. (See Atch. to Answer, Ex. 1, pp. 12-13; Tr. 74, 105.) This was in accordance with the normal procedure followed at Carthage at that time. (Tr. 57, 71-72, 83, 101-02). The post office was closed that day by Ms. Faul. As part of the duties of the closing clerk, she locked the mail pouch and placed it on the container of mail to be picked up by the highway contract carrier. At some time, she put a note, date stamped July 3, 1995 and stating, "couldn't find outgoing register," in her window drawer. She moved the container of mail into a vestibule which is outside the locked door of the post office, but inside a locked door to the outside world. (Tr. 90-96). The contract carrier has a key to the outside door, but not to the inside door.⁽²⁾

5. The procedure at Carthage was changed after the July 3, 1995 incident. The employee who is going to close the office now signs for the registered package and remains accountable until it leaves the office, and the pouch is now locked when the registered package is put in, rather than remaining open until the office is closed. (Tr. 57, 71-73).

6. The Carthage Registered Mail jacket for July 3, 1995 did not arrive at the Watertown Post Office.⁽³⁾ The control card, Form 3830-A, which is used to track Registered Mail, works as follows: The Form 3830-A has three copies. One stays with the sending office and two are included in the package. The receiving office then returns one of the two to the sender, to confirm that the package arrived, and retains the other for its records. (Tr. 21, 105, 131-32). No copy was returned from Watertown to Carthage. On July 5, 1995, an accounting technician in Watertown called Postmaster Davey and told him Watertown did not receive a July 3 registered package from Carthage. After efforts by Watertown personnel and Postmaster Davey to find the missing package, including physically searching the Carthage office, Mr. Davey called the Postal Inspection Service. The case was investigated by Inspector Avalone, whose report was submitted as an attachment to Respondent's Answer (Ex. 1, pp. 2-5).

7. Mr. Davey gave Inspector Avalone a typed statement, dated July 6, 1995, in which he described the procedure he followed in preparing the register for dispatch. After counting the clerks' deposits and preparing the register receipts described in paragraph 3, he stated that he sealed the register jacket and placed the jacket in a first-class mail pouch that hangs on the wall behind the window clerks. He then said it was possible that he put the register jacket into a "priority mail" pouch that hangs next to the first-class pouch, or that the register may have fallen behind the pouch rack into the "cage," the general container of mail that was shipped to Watertown. (See Atch. to Answer, Ex. 1, pp. 12-13.) In a second statement, provided to Inspector Avalone on July 8, 1995, Petitioner listed four more employees (mail carriers) who, in addition to the two clerks, may have been in the office after the registered package was put into the pouch on July 3. (See Atch. to Answer, Ex. 1, p. 18).

8. Ms. Faul was also interviewed by Inspector Avalone. She stated that, before locking the pouch, she looked to see if the registered package was in it and noticed that it was not. She looked in the accounting room and saw the paperwork indicating that Postmaster Davey had prepared the registered package, but did not see the package. She said she then assumed he must have dispatched it some other way. She put the note in her drawer, noting that she had not seen the register, and then locked the pouch and moved the mail container into the vestibule for the contract carrier. (See Atch. to Answer, Ex. 1, pp. 20-22.)

Contentions of the Parties

Respondent argues that Petitioner, because he failed to follow prescribed procedures, and was negligent in handling the registered package on July 3, 1995, is liable for the loss. Specifically, they point out that postal regulations require that registered articles be kept in a locked container until they are dispatched, and that a chain of accountability be maintained by having someone else sign a receipt each time a person relinquishes control of a registered package.

Petitioner argues that he did not take the money, and that he followed established procedures on July 3, 1995. He also argues that he is sure he put the package in the pouch, and that Ms. Faul had the last opportunity to take it. He faults the postal inspectors for taking the easy out, by concluding that he failed to follow regulations, rather than attempting to discover what actually happened to the package. He also argues that holding the last person to sign for a registered package liable is a defective system, because the truck drivers are not required to sign, and anything could happen to a package once they pick it up, because they may make several stops before their final destination. In support of this final argument, Petitioner submitted a letter of October 16, 1996, signed by the Chief Postal Inspector and the Vice President, Operations Support, which discusses the implementation of a new program for handling Registered Mail, including a requirement that contract truck drivers sign an accountability document. (Pet. Ex. 1).

DECISION

The standard of liability for postal employees who handle Registered Mail is found in Handbook DM-901, Registered Mail:

733 Postal Employees' Responsibility

Postmasters and other postal employees will be held
personally responsible for the wrong delivery, depredation,
or loss of any Registered Mail due to negligence or disregard
of instructions.

Handbook DM-901 also contains the following relevant provisions:

335 Securing Registered Articles

At stations and branches that do not have a separate registry
cage, keep registered articles in a locked drawer or cabinet
until dispatch time. Employees who accept Registered Mail
must keep this mail in a secure place until billing it to the
dispatch employee.

731.2 Responsibility

Handle Registered Mail so that individual responsibility can
be fixed, consistent with instructions in this handbook.⁽⁴⁾

It is clear that the procedure used by Petitioner on July 3, 1995 did not comply with these rules. Assuming that Petitioner did put the registered package in the mail pouch before departing the office, he left it unsecured in an open pouch and did not transfer accountability for it to anyone else. The postal inspectors have been unable to determine what happened to the money, and on the evidence of record I make no attempt to do so. If some other employee did take the package, Mr. Davey's carelessness in leaving it unsecured where several other people had access to it facilitated such a theft, and constitutes negligence. I conclude, therefore, that Petitioner failed to follow instructions, and was negligent, in his handling of these funds, and that this was the proximate cause of the loss.

The subsequent implementation of new Postal Service procedures for handling of Registered Mail by contract carriers does not help Petitioner. The fact that overall procedures may have been improved does not excuse his negligence, or his failure to follow rules that were already in effect.

CONCLUSION

The Petition is denied. The Postal Service may collect $8,926.35 from Petitioner's salary. The Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets stated an intention to withhold $243.10 each pay period. In his Petition, Mr. Davey stated that this would be a financial hardship. Other than the fact that he is paying some college tuition for his daughter, little financial evidence was presented at the hearing. However, I find it appropriate to reduce the maximum withholding to $200.00 per pay period.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

1. Because of delays in scheduling the hearing, the parties waived the requirement for a decision within sixty days of the petition being filed.

2. This arrangement is used because the contract carrier does not always arrive to pick up the mail before closing time.

3. The total amount in the package was $9,445.94. Because most of the checks were replaced, the amount charged in this case is $8,926.35.

4. This section discusses exceptions to this rule, where "area responsibility," i.e., responsibility assigned to a group of people rather than an individual, may be appropriate. Such circumstances are not present in this case.