United States Postal Service(TM) 


 In the Matter of the Petition by       ) October 6, 1993
                                        )
                                        )
 PATRICIA BARNHART                      )
 P.O. Box 25                            )
                                        )
 at                                     )
                                        )
 Twin Lake, MI 49457-0025               ) P.S. Docket No. DCA-175


 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:             Patricia Barnhart, pro se
 P. O. Box 25
 Twin Lake, MI  49457-0025

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:             Douglas M. Warner
 Labor Relations Specialist
 United States Postal Service
 P.O. Box 999401
 Grand Rapids, MI 49599-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Patricia Barnhart, has filed a petition for a hearing based solely on written submissions as a result of a Notice of Involuntary [Administrative Salary] Offset dated July 16, 1993. The Notice informed Petitioner that the Postal Service intended to take action to collect a debt in the amount of $5978.60 as a result of a shortage detected during an audit of her accountability at the Twin Lake, Michigan Post Office, at which Petitioner is postmaster.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. During the night of October 19-20, 1992, the Twin Lake, Michigan Post Office was burglarized, and cash and stamp stock valued at $5978.60 were taken.1/

2. The burglars gained entry by breaking the glass in one of three windows in the facility that had not been fitted with security bars. Three other windows in the post office had been fitted with such bars, apparently prior to Petitioner's appointment as postmaster. The post office was also equipped with a burglar alarm that was inoperative at the time of the burglary and apparently had been inoperative for a number of years. Through periodic security reports, Petitioner had advised the Postal Inspection Service that the alarm system was inoperative.

3. In the course of the burglary, all of the "counterline drawers" were pried open and stacked on the floor. The office safe was not opened.

4. The postal inspector who investigated the burglary concluded that the safe had sufficient storage space to have held the stamp stock which was taken in the burglary. The inspector concluded that the losses were the result of "security deficiencies."

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

6. In a letter dated December 21, 1992, from the Post Office Operations Manager, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Petitioner was advised that she was liable for the shortages found during the audit on October 20, 1992. No basis was stated for the determination of liability other than the fact that the shortage existed. By letter dated January 6, 1992, Petitioner, through a representative, requested reconsideration of the decision assessing her the amount of the shortage. Petitioner challenged the conclusion of the Inspector that sufficient space in the safe was available for the storage of stamp stock. She also argued that she should not be held responsible for the fact that the building had been constructed with security bars on only three of the windows or for the fact that the alarm system had not been repaired despite her reports of the malfunction.

7. By letter dated January 14, 1993, the Operations Manager reiterated his conclusion that Petitioner was liable for the shortage. He stated that there was sufficient storage space in the safe for the stamp stock and that if there was insufficient space, it was Petitioner's responsibility to secure another or a larger safe. He also stated that Petitioner was responsible for assuring the facility was adequately secured - including submitting work orders to have bars installed on the unprotected windows and to have the alarm system repaired.

8. By letter dated March 12, 1993, Petitioner's representative proposed a settlement of the matter which would require Petitioner to make a partial payment. In an April 6, 1993, letter, a different Post Office Operations Manager reiterated the conclusion that Petitioner was liable for the shortage for the reasons stated in the January 14, 1993, letter and, in addition, because Petitioner's and the clerk's accountabilities had been left in the counterline overnight and not in the safe.

9. Petitioner was issued a Notice of Involuntary [Administrative Salary] Offset dated July 16, 1993, and filed a petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act.

DECISION

In its Answer to the petition, Respondent, United States Postal Service, argues that, as postmaster, Petitioner was responsible for the overall security at the Twin Lake Post Office, citing paragraph 141.1 of Handbook F-1 [Finding of Fact No. 5]. In particular, Respondent maintains that Petitioner was responsible for having the alarm system repaired and ensuring that it was operable. Respondent also argues that although there was adequate storage space in the safe, the cash and stamp drawers had been left in the counterline and had not been properly secured. Further, Respondent maintains that if there was not adequate storage space available in the safe, Petitioner was responsible for obtaining additional secure storage space to remedy the problem.

Petitioner argues that she should not be held responsible for the absence of bars on three of the windows since that was the condition of the building when it was accepted by the Postal Service from the builder. Further, Petitioner argues that she assumed she had fulfilled her responsibility with respect to the alarm system when she reported it as inoperable in periodic security reports to the Inspection Service. She contends that she was given no instructions about how to deal with a deficiency in the alarm system other than to report it as she did. Finally, Petitioner argues that there was inadequate space in the safe to store the stamp stock which was stolen. She disagrees with the opinion offered by the inspector who investigated the burglary that the stock could have been stored in the safe, arguing that the opinion was based on nothing more than an unsupported "eye-ball" estimate. She maintains that the drawers left in the counterline were envelope drawers only and that her cash drawers were in the safe.

Respondent relies on the language of paragraph 141.1 in Handbook F-1 for the proposition that Petitioner was responsible for the overall security of the post office and, therefore, should have ensured that the alarm system was operable and bars were installed on the unprotected windows. Respondent's reading of that language is overbroad. The language requires only that a postmaster utilize the equipment on hand to provide the best security and observe the priorities of protection. While the postmaster is also directed to order protective equipment "according to the criteria in Handbook AS-701, Supply Management, Chapter 2," that Handbook (the 1991 version of which is entitled Materiel Management Handbook) appears to deal only with the mechanics of acquiring and managing materiel, and does not address the postmaster's responsibility for security or give any guidance as to when a postmaster is responsible for ordering additional protective equipment. Respondent has pointed to no Postal Service regulation or internal guideline which would make Petitioner responsible for undertaking a general security review of the facility and addressing such matters as the need for bars on the windows. Respondent has also not identified any regulation or guideline which would make the Petitioner responsible for action with respect to the alarm system beyond reporting to the Inspection Service that it was inoperable. As Respondent has failed to demonstrate that requisitioning the installation of bars on the windows or repair of the alarm system was Petitioner's responsibility, I conclude that Petitioner may not be held responsible for losses solely because of the occurrence of a burglary which might have been prevented by bars on the windows and an operating alarm system.

Petitioner was responsible, however, for utilizing the existing security equipment so as to minimize losses once the burglars gained entry. Under paragraph 142 of Handbook F-1, "Postal funds" are to be given first priority for protection. In this instance, the fact that cash was stolen (see footnote 1) although the safe was not opened leads me to conclude that the cash was not given the highest degree of protection available. Although Petitioner argues that the cash drawers were placed in the safe, the report of the inspector at the time of the burglary and the fact that cash was stolen lead to the conclusion that the cash was not stored in the safe. Although part of the cash was stolen from the clerk's (not Petitioner's) accountability, Petitioner, as postmaster, is to be held responsible for the entire loss of cash since she has not shown that she conscientiously enforced the Postal Service policies with respect to the storage of cash. Handbook F-1, paragraph 131.

As to the stolen stamp stock, Respondent has not provided sufficient evidence to support the inspector's contention, challenged by Petitioner, that there was sufficient storage space in the safe. No further evidence has been offered to explain the basis for the inspector's statement, even in the face of specific statements by Petitioner that she looked at the stamp stock at the time and concluded that there was not enough storage space in the safe. Further, Respondent has not shown that storage of stamp stock in a locked counterline drawer was inappropriate, given the priority for protection assigned to stamps under paragraph 142 of Handbook F-1. Accordingly, I conclude that Petitioner is not liable for the loss of stamp stock stolen during the burglary.

I conclude that Petitioner is indebted to the Postal Service, but that the amount of the indebtedness is to be reduced to $240.00, representing the loss of cash at the Twin Lake Post Office. As to the remainder of the alleged debt, the petition under the Debt Collection Act is granted. 

                                        David I. Brochstein
                                        Administrative Judge

1/ An audit conducted on October 20, 1992, after discovery of the burglary, concluded that shortages totalling $5978.60 existed in the accountabilities of Petitioner ($5811.74) and a clerk ($166.86). The parties to this matter have proceeded on the assumption that the shortages were entirely the result of the burglary, and this Decision adopts that assumption as fact. The parties also agreed initially that the amount of missing cash totalled approximately $240.00, with the bulk of the stolen $5978.60 consisting of stamp stock (see Investigative Memorandum dated November 5, 1992). For the purposes of this Decision, that agreement is also adopted as fact.