In the Matter of the Petition by		)  March 11, 1994
						)
						)
BEVERLY VINSON					)
P.O. Box 614					)
						)
	at					)
						)
Millbrook, AL 36054-0614			)  P.S. Docket No. DCA-186

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:			Beverly Vinson, pro se
						P. O. Box 614
						Millbrook, AL 36054-0614

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:			Wayne Baggett
						Labor Relations Specialist
						United States Postal Service
						6701 Winton Blount Boulevard
						Montgomery, AL 36119-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Beverly Vinson, has filed a petition for a hearing based solely on written submissions as a result of a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated December 29, 1993. The Notice informed Petitioner that the Postal Service intended to take action to collect a debt in the amount of $2,165.69 as a result of shortages detected in clerks' accountabilities and Petitioner's alleged failure to provide adequate security at the Millbrook, Alabama Post Office, at which she is postmaster.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On January 13, 1993, Petitioner conducted an audit of the accountability of clerk Vivian Wright, an employee at the Millbrook Post Office. As a result of the audit, Petitioner concluded that a shortage in the amount of $1,745.49 existed in the clerk's accountability.⁽¹⁾

2. On February 19, 1993, Petitioner conducted an audit of clerk James Meeks' accountability. Petitioner concluded, and Mr. Meeks agreed, that the audit showed a shortage in Mr. Meeks' accountability in the amount of $420.20.

3. In letters of demand dated February 22, 1993, and February 23, 1993, Petitioner requested that Ms. Wright and Mr. Meeks remit funds to the Postal Service to cover the amounts of their respective shortages.

4. Both clerks instead filed grievances under the applicable union contract procedures, alleging, among other things, that Petitioner, as postmaster, had failed in her duty to provide proper security for their funds and stamp stock. Specifically, the clerks argued that the cash and stamp drawers in the counterline belonging to each clerk could be opened without the use of keys even when the locks were in the locked position. The clerks related that sometime before the shortages where discovered, Postal Service maintenance personnel had added supplemental security to the drawers in the form of a hinge or other device mounted both to the frame of the counter and to the drawer, which required the use of individual padlocks for each drawer. The clerks alleged that Petitioner had refused to issue padlocks to each clerk, contending that they were not necessary. Accordingly, the clerks argued that the letters of demand should be withdrawn. Petitioner took the position that she had offered locks to the clerks but that the clerks had declined to accept or use them.

5. The grievances were denied by Petitioner in Step 1 but were sustained by management and union participants in a Step 2 meeting. The participants issued a decision on April 8, 1993, rescinding the letters of demand, but reached no conclusion as to the cause of the shortages. Their decision noted the difference of opinion as to whether security [apparently referring to providing individual padlocks] had been offered and refused or had not been offered at all. They concluded that there may have been a failure to provide adequate security but also that someone within the office must have "violated security" in some way. They concluded that shortages are caused by "mistakes, negligence, embezzlement, or inadequate security, etc." but did not attribute the shortages to any particular cause.

6. In a letter of demand issued on April 14, 1993, Petitioner was notified that she was indebted to the Postal Service in the amount of $2,165.69 [the sum of the clerks' shortages] based on her failure to provide adequate security for the clerks' stamp stocks. Petitioner requested reconsideration of the decision by letter dated April 22, 1993. In response, a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets dated December 29, 1993, was issued to Petitioner.

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

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."

Petitioner argues that she fulfilled her obligations with respect to security by filing a work order to have the counterline repaired. She argues that the repairs which were done [presumably the installation of the supplemental security measures described in Finding 4, above] were shoddy and impractical for window functions. Further, Petitioner argues that she asked to have the counterline replaced, but that her request had not been honored. Finally, Petitioner argues that the clerks whose shortages led to the assessment against her "were offered the use of a padlock but they declined. I did not tell them not to use it." Petitioner states that "I asked each clerk did they want to use a padlock and they declined because it was impractical."

Respondent argues that Petitioner failed to provide adequate security as she was required to do. Specifically, Respondent argues that Petitioner is liable for "failing to issue locks as required for adequate security of postal funds." Respondent asserts that Petitioner is liable for failing to conscientiously enforce Postal Service policies and procedures.

Having considered the record in this matter, I conclude that Petitioner is liable. Petitioner has not challenged either the assertion that a loss occurred or the amount of the loss. Further, I conclude that Petitioner did not "conscientiously enforce USPS policies and procedures in managing the post office."

As quoted above, the F-1 Handbook requires that "[p]ostmasters must ensure that equipment on hand is used to provide the best security..." In this instance, Petitioner failed to take advantage of the supplemental locking device which had been installed by Postal Service maintenance personnel. Even accepting Petitioner's version of the factual dispute concerning the use of padlocks - that the clerks were offered the padlocks but declined - does not provide a basis for granting her petition. As postmaster, Petitioner was responsible for ensuring that the equipment available was used, and she was, therefore, obligated to insist that the clerks accept and use the proffered padlocks. Merely offering the padlocks to the clerks was insufficient. Although Petitioner has described the use of padlocks as "impractical" she has provided no factual basis to support such a finding. There is also no evidence that use of the padlocks would not have provided increased security.

Accordingly, I conclude that an accountable financial loss occurred, that Petitioner did not conscientiously enforce USPS policies in managing the post office, and that, therefore, Petitioner may be charged with the amount of the loss. The petition is denied.

						David I. Brochstein
						Administrative Judge