In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between
HEIDI MUMMAU
and
DUDLEY C. DANFORTH

and

MARLENE HAWKINS
P.S. Docket No.  MD 05-193

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANTS HEIDI MUMMAU AND DUDLEY DANFORTH:
Heidi Mummau
401 Stafford Street
San Antonio, TX  78208-1655

Dudley C. Danforth
703 E. Carson Street
San Antonio, TX  78208-1402

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT MARLENE HAWKINS:
Marlene Hawkins
601 E. Carson Street
San Antonio, TX  78208-1204

INITIAL DECISION

            This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual (POM 9, July 2002) Section 616.21, which requires the Chief Field Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to the Judicial Officer for resolution.  The mail in dispute is that addressed to Government Hill Alliance, or Government Hill Alliance Neighborhood Association, at P.O. Box 8133, San Antonio, TX 78208-0133.  The San Antonio Postmaster is currently holding the mail.

            Both parties filed sworn written statements, as required by the Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. §965.5, and both parties also filed rebuttal, as permitted by 39 C.F.R. §965.6.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties, including that forwarded by the United States Postal Service Law Department, Southwest Office.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  The Government Hill Alliance was created as a non-profit corporation in August 1988.  P.O. Box 8133 has been the organization’s mailing address since September 2001.  (Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws attached to Law Department forwarding letter; Hawkins statement).

            2.  The By-Laws of Government Hill Alliance provide that the organization shall be run by a Board of Directors consisting of nine members, elected at the Annual Meeting of members in May of each year.[1]  The By-Laws further provide that the Board annually elects officers from among Board members.  (By-Laws, Art. VII and Art. IX).

            3.  At an Annual Meeting of the membership on May 25, 2004, Ms. Hawkins, Ms. Mummau, Mr. Danforth and five others were elected to the Board of Directors for one, two, or three-year terms.  Ms. Hawkins and Ms. Mummau were elected for three-year terms, Mr. Danforth for a one-year term.  At a subsequent meeting of the Board a few days later, Ms. Hawkins was elected President.  (Hawkins statement, Exs. 6C, 6D, and 6E).

            4.  At the next Annual Meeting, May 24, 2005, a dispute arose over the use of proxy votes in the election of three (or perhaps four) new Directors.  At some stage in the proceedings, Ms. Hawkins made a statement about resigning from the Board.[2]  She never submitted a written resignation.  (Hawkins statement, Exs. 6B, 7A and 7B; Danforth statement, various documents attached).

            5.  On May 28, 2005, Ms. Hawkins held a meeting of those that she considered to be the Board of Directors.  This group voted to overturn the results of the May 24, 2005 election of Directors.  (Hawkins statement, Ex. 7C; Danforth statement).

            6.  On July 7, 2005, Mr. Danforth held what he called a “Public Recall Election” meeting, at which an “Acting Board of Directors” and “Acting Officers” were elected.  Ms. Mummau was chosen to be the President.  Also at that meeting, Ms. Hawkins’ resignation was accepted by the Acting Board.  (Danforth statement; Danforth August 14, 2005 letter, attached to Law Department forwarding letter; unsigned memo attached to Law Department forwarding letter).

            7.  During June and July 2005, each of the disputing groups held some meetings.  Each group claims that their meetings were legitimate meetings of the Board of Directors and that the opposing group’s meetings were not.  (Various memos and notes attached to Law Department forwarding letter).

            8.  On or about July 11, 2005, either Ms. Mummau, Mr. Danforth, or someone acting on their behalf, presented a written statement, signed by several members of their group, to the post office, stating that Ms. Mummau was now the President and was the authorized representative of Government Hill Alliance.  They completed a new PS Form 1093 and the combination to Post Office Box 8133 was changed.  Ms. Hawkins learned of this shortly thereafter and this mail dispute arose.  (Hawkins statement, Exs. 3A and 3B).

            9.  On August 1, 2005, Mr. Danforth’s group held another meeting, at which the “Acting Board” became the “Formal Board of Directors,” and Ms. Hawkins’ “removal” was approved by the Board.  On August 10, 2005, this new Board elected officers.  Mr. Danforth was elected President and Ms. Mummau was elected Vice-President.  (Danforth statement; Danforth August 14, 2005 letter, attached to Law Department forwarding letter).

            10.  Government Hill Alliance publishes a monthly newsletter for its members, called “Atop The Hill,” that provides information about various programs and activities.  Ms. Hawkins’ group has continued to publish this newsletter throughout this controversy, at least through September 2005.  The newsletter lists six Directors by name and three vacancies, and lists Ms. Hawkins as President.  (Copies attached to Hawkins statement). 

            11.  POM Section 614.1 provides:

All mail addressed to a governmental or nongovernmental organization  . . . at the address of the organization is delivered to the organization. . . .  If disagreement arises about where any such mail should be delivered, it must be delivered according to the order of the organization’s president or equivalent official.[3]

DECISION

            As often happens in disputes of this nature, each side makes several accusations of various false statements and fraudulent activities committed by the other, none of which is very persuasive or helpful in resolving the dispute.  There is also a lot of attention to the history of P.O. Box 8133, who originally opened it, who has been allowed to use it, and who “owns” it.  That is not the issue here.  The Postal Service owns the box.  The issue is who is entitled to direct the delivery of mail addressed to Government Hill Alliance and/or Government Hill Alliance Neighborhood Association.[4]

            Section 614.1 of the POM, quoted above, applies.  There is no dispute over the fact that Ms. Hawkins was elected President in May 2004, in accordance with the organization’s By-Laws.  With that as a starting point, we will continue to recognize her as the President unless the evidence demonstrates that she has lawfully been replaced by Mr. Danforth, as he contends.

            As there is no written resignation from Ms. Hawkins and as she insists, with support from her group of “Directors,” that she did not resign, the evidence is insufficient to establish that she voluntarily gave up her office as President or Board Member.  In fact, Mr. Danforth’s pursuit of actions to “recall” or “remove” her suggests that there was doubt even among his supporters that Ms. Hawkins had actually resigned.  Mr. Danforth also claims, however, that her ouster was based on a petition for her removal signed by a majority of the organization’s members and approved by votes on July 7 and August 1, 2005.  In his letter of rebuttal, he states that copies of this petition and other documents demonstrating that Ms. Hawkins was properly removed from the Board in accordance with Texas Statutes, and that a new Board of Directors and officers were properly elected are “available for review.”  As the only evidence that can be “reviewed” is evidence that the parties submit, this statement is unhelpful.

            Because Mr. Danforth has not demonstrated that either he or Ms. Mummau has been duly elected to the office of President or Vice-President in accordance with the organization’s By-Laws, or any other authority, we revert to the status quo and assume that Ms. Hawkins is still the President of Government Hill Alliance.  As such, she has authority to direct delivery of the mail.

            This decision deals only with delivery of the mail.  It does not attempt to determine who are best suited to be the corporation's Directors or Officers and does not attempt to resolve any other underlying disputes between the parties.  If either party obtains a court order directing delivery of the mail, postal regulations provide that the mail will be delivered according to such an order.  POM §616.3.

            The Judicial Officer should issue an Order to the San Antonio, Texas Postmaster that the disputed mail should be delivered as directed by Marlene Hawkins.

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston
                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1] Terms are three years, but they are staggered so that one-third of the Board is elected each year.  Vacancies occurring between elections are filled by the Board until the next election.

[2] The parties offer different versions of what she said.  She claims that she did not resign, but only stated that she would resign if the results of the election were not overturned.  Mr. Danforth claims that she clearly stated that she was resigning.  As each side offers its own “minutes” of the meeting, and because neither has demonstrated that its “minutes” are official, it is not possible to determine exactly what was said.

[3] Similar language appears at Domestic Mail Manual (DMM300), January 6, 2005, Section 508.1.5.1.

[4] As part of her argument, Ms. Hawkins distinguishes between the two names.  She argues that the true name of the organization is simply Government Hill Alliance, and that the words Neighborhood Association were added by Mr. Danforth’s group.  Because Mr. Danforth’s group has not argued that there are really two separate corporations here, and because there is no evidence that any mailer distinguishes between the two names, the two names are treated as one in resolving this mail dispute.