In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between

REBECCA J. INGRAM
and
JUDITH SJOSTEDT
P.S. Docket No. MD 05-52

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT REBECCA J. INGRAM:
Rebecca J. Ingram
P.O. Box 111
St. Marys, WV  26170-0111

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT JUDITH SJOSTEDT:
Judith Sjostedt
P.O. Box 1762
Parkersburg, WV  26102-1762

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

            On August 5, 2005, an Initial Decision was issued in which it was concluded  that all mail addressed to Pleasants Community Foundation (PCF) at P.O. Box 420, St. Marys, WV 26170-0420 should be delivered as directed by Disputant Judith Sjostedt, Executive Director of the Parkersburg Area Community Foundation (PACF). 

Although neither party has filed an appeal, the Judicial Officer has determined to exercise his discretion to review the Initial Decision on his own motion as authorized by 39 C.F.R. §965.12.  Upon review, it is concluded that the record does not support the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the mail in dispute should be delivered as directed by Disputant Sjostedt.

            The Administrative Law Judge determined that Disputant Sjostedt was entitled to direct delivery of the mail in dispute because PCF was established as an unincorporated division of PACF and was acting as PACF’s agent when it opened P.O. Box 420.  In reaching this conclusion, the Administrative Law Judge relied on Postal Operations Manual (POM) §614.1, which provides that “[a]ll mail addressed to a governmental or nongovernmental organization…is delivered to the organization…[including] mail addressed in this manner to former officials, employees, contractors, agents, clients, or others associated with the organization….”  However, we are not persuaded that PACF is entitled to obtain delivery of the mail in dispute under this section of the POM.

            The mail in dispute is mail addressed to PCF, not PACF, and the relationship between PCF and PACF ended no later than January 2005, when the PACF Board of Governors voted to terminate its affiliate relationship with PCF.  Subsequent to the termination of the affiliate relationship, PCF began operation as an independent organization under the same name with the same mailing address.   Even though PCF opened P.O. Box 420 while it was an affiliate of PACF, PCF is the only organization listed on the post office box application as eligible to receive mail at that address.  Since the relationship between PCF and PACF has been terminated and PCF is now operating as an independent entity using the same post office box, PCF is the most likely intended recipient[1] of mail addressed to P.O. Box 420 and is entitled to direct delivery of the disputed mail. 

            Accordingly, the Initial Decision is reversed and mail addressed to Pleasants Community Foundation (PCF) at P.O. Box 420, St. Marys, WV 26170-0420 is to be delivered as directed by Disputant Ingram, its authorized representative.

            The parties are reminded that this decision deals only with the right to obtain delivery of the mail in dispute, not the ownership of the mail or the control of a post office box.[2] If either party receives mail intended for the other, that party is responsible for forwarding such mail to the intended recipient.

                                                                                    James A. Cohen
                                                                                    Judicial Officer

[1] See The Pelican Group and Consultis, Inc., P.S. Docket No. MD 00-475 (P.S.D. Feb. 5, 2001); Robert Nicotera and Josephine Nicotera, P.S. Docket No. MD 00-28 (P.S.D. March 28, 2000); Jim Joy and Nicholas A. Pyle, P.S. Docket No. MD 97-281 (P.S.D. Oct. 21, 1997).

[2] See POM §616; Laura Beth Macka and Linda Witt, P.S. Docket No. MD 03-351 (P.S.D. Jan. 13, 2004); Carolyn Goethie and Rev. Dr. Thomas R. Bailey, P.S. Docket No. MD 01-359 (P.S.D. March 21, 2002); John Roberts and Bruce Keslar, P.S. Docket No. MD 96-332 (P.S.D. Nov. 5, 1996).