In the Matter of the ) May 5, 1994 Petition by ) ) LUANNE E. HANSEN ) P.O. Box 68 ) ) at ) ) Frederika, IA 50631-0068 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA-189 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Dennis Sherfy National Postmaster Representative 1265 N. Main Street Franklin, IN 46131-9998 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: David R. Rash Labor Relations Specialist 615 6th Avenue S.E. Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-9994
Petitioner, Luanne E. Hansen, filed a petition for a hearing based solely on written submissions after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets Under the Debt Collection Act. The February 23, 1994 Notice asserted the Postal Service's intention to make withholdings from Petitioner's salary to collect $307.90 based on the results of an audit of the main stamp stock of the Decorah, Iowa Post Office during the time Petitioner was the acting customer services superintendent.
1. The "main stock" of a post office consists of "all stamps and stamped paper, nonpostal stamps, and philatelic products received by a post office that have not been consigned to the main office window unit, stations, branches, or window clerks." (Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, April, 1991, Glossary).
2. Postmasters are accountable for the main stock, but "may assign responsibility for administering the Main Stock to a supervisory employee who will act as Main Stock custodian." (Handbook F-1, Sections 431.1, 431.21).
3. Accountability is assigned as follows:
"431.221 Accepting Initial Custody. After making a witnessed stock count (recorded in detail on Form 3294) the Main Stock custodian may accept initial custody by signing the form. This indicates agreement with the witnessed stock count.
431.222 Completing Form 3958. The custodian accepts responsibility on Form 3958 by entering:
a. The opening balance (from the previous Form 3958 closing balance);
b. Any overage to line 3;
c. Any shortage to line 12;
d. Closing balance as shown on the Form 3294; and
e. The date and signature.
431.223 Retention. The original signed Forms 3294 and 3958 are retained by the postmaster. The vault combination or lock must be changed to restrict access to the custodian." (Handbook F-1).
4. Handbook F-1 describes the applicable procedure when accountability for the main stock is transferred:
"414.31 Main Stock. The Main Stock must be counted and verified whenever the accountability is transferred to or from someone other than the Main Stock custodian.
414.33 Record. Using a Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Credit Count and Summary, show the names of those involved, the date of the transfer, the accountability figures transferred, and signatures.
5. Petitioner became the acting customer services superintendent of the Decorah Post Office on April 10, 1993. Her duties included serving as the main stamp stock custodian for the post office, and she performed these duties until October 4, 1993. Petitioner changed the combination to the main stock safe and the access code to the main stock IRT disk so that only she had access to them throughout her tenure. (Investigative Interview with LuAnn Hansen; Decorah Postmaster's December 23, 1993 Memorandum).
6. On or about April 15, 1993, Petitioner and the predecessor main stamp stock custodian inventoried the stamp stock at the Decorah Post Office. Petitioner counted the stock and the two compared it against an Integrated Retail Terminal ("IRT") printout of the stock inventory as it was carried in the post office records. After some discrepancies were resolved, the stamp stock on hand was found to be as shown on the IRT printout. No PS Form 3294 was prepared to reflect a transfer of accountability. (Id.).
7. An audit of the main stamp stock was conducted August 30-September 1, 1993, the first such audit since 1991. The stamp stock, as counted by Petitioner as part of the audit, was $307.90 less than shown on the then-current IRT printout of the stock inventory. This shortage was not found to be related to overages in other accounts in the post office except for two adjustments which reduced the shortage in the main stock to $290.00. The amount of Respondent's claim against Petitioner is $290.00. (Audit Report, dated September 2, 1993; Decorah Postmaster's December 23, 1993 Memorandum; Petitioner's April 6, 1994 Additional Argument).
8. In addition to identifying the shortage in the main stock, the auditors noted, "Not all PS Forms 17 Stamp Requisition are signed by the clerk receiving the stamp stock from the main stock. F-1, 444.2." The auditors criticized a number of other financial practices of the Decorah Post Office. (Audit Report, dated September 2, 1993).
9. Employees to whom accountable paper, such as the main stock, has been consigned "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties." (Handbook F-1, Section 132).
Petitioner argues that she never accepted responsibility for the main stock in Decorah because a PS Form 3294 reflecting the stock count and her formal acceptance of responsibility was never prepared as required by Postal Service regulations and she signed no document formally accepting responsibility for the main stock. She asserts that the counts were not done according to postal requirements and therefore could not be the basis for assigning accountability for the stock to her. She contends that she exercised reasonable care in the performance of her duties and that any problem with the main stock resulted from events before she became the custodian.
Respondent argues that the failure to execute a PS Form 3294 does not affect Petitioner's liability because she counted the stock when she began her acting customer services superintendent assignment in Decorah, and she confirmed that the stock on hand at that time agreed with the IRT stock inventory. Furthermore, Respondent argues, Petitioner performed the duties of the main stamp stock custodian from the time of the initial count until the audit at the end of August which disclosed the shortage in the main stamp stock. Respondent argues that Petitioner had served as a main stamp stock custodian before and knew the procedure for accepting responsibility and that she should have seen to it that a formal transfer, including completion of PS Form 3294, was effected. Finally, Respondent argues that certain documents that might help in identifying the cause of the shortage cannot be located and contends that Petitioner is responsible for their absence.
As of September 2, 1993, when the audit was completed, the main stock contained stamps and stock amounting to $290.00 less than shown on the then-current IRT stock inventory list. The cause of the shortage was not identified. Respondent has shown that a loss in the amount of $290.00 occurred between April 15, 1993, when the IRT inventory and stock on hand agreed, and September 2, 1993, due to a shortage in the main stock.
Petitioner assumed the duties of the main stock custodian only after personally counting the stock on hand and confirming that it was accurately reflected on the IRT inventory. There is no dispute as to the accuracy of the stock count when Petitioner assumed management of the main stamp stock or of the accuracy of the count Petitioner did as part of the audit. Petitioner's argument in this proceeding that the counts were not done correctly but that she saw no need to challenge the method of counting the stock at the time because she had not been asked to sign PS Form 3294 is unconvincing, and her belated challenge to the counts she performed is rejected. Petitioner has presented no evidence to support her assertion that the shortage resulted from events preceding her tenure as main stock custodian. Petitioner administered the main stock and had sole access to it for four months before the audit. Under those circumstances, it is difficult to see why Petitioner should be absolved from liability for a loss occurring while she was responsible for the main stock merely because the formal transfer procedures described in the F-1 Handbook were not followed.
Nevertheless, this question need not be resolved in the context of this case, because the evidence, meager though it was regarding Petitioner's performance of her duties, demonstrates that Petitioner exercised reasonable care in the performance of her duties. Petitioner supports her contention that she exercised reasonable care with her unsworn statements made in the course of this proceeding and in earlier correspondence with postal officials which has been included in the record.
Respondent has not offered evidence sufficient to overcome Petitioner's evidence. Respondent alleged that Petitioner handled PS Form 17s, Stamp Requisitions, incorrectly, but did not offer evidence to support the allegation. The audit report mentioned that not all Form 17s were signed by the clerk receiving stock from the main stock, but Respondent did not show that it was Petitioner's responsibility to ensure that the clerks signed the Form 17s or that the clerks' failure to sign the forms was inconsistent with Petitioner's exercise of reasonable care. Additionally, the audit does not identify the time period during which this practice occurred. The last audit of the Decorah Post Office was in 1991, and the time frame covered by the 1993 audit was not stated. Respondent did not show that the failure to sign the Form 17s occurred while Petitioner was the main stock custodian, since she had been in the position for only four months before the audit. The audit report criticized a number of other practices in the Decorah Post Office, but Respondent has pointed to none that were Petitioner's responsibility.
Respondent alleged that Petitioner was responsible for the absence from postal files of certain documents that might shed light on the origin of the loss but did not offer any evidence to support that charge or to show Petitioner was responsible for maintenance of the missing records.
Respondent has shown that a loss occurred in the main stock in the amount of $290.00. However, Respondent has not presented evidence sufficient to overcome Petitioner's statements that she exercised reasonable care in the performance of her duties as main stamp stock custodian at Decorah, and, therefore, Petitioner is not liable for the loss. The Petition is granted.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge