In the Matter of the Petition by ) July 23, 1997 ) ANNA MARIA ROSSMAN ) 110 Brook Lane ) ) at ) ) Seneca, SC 29672-4880 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-143 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Anna Maria Rossman 110 Brook Lane Seneca, SC 29672-4880 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Carl J. Kelly Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 600 W. Washington Street Greenville, SC 29602-9401
Petitioner, Anna Maria Rossman, filed a Petition requesting a hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from Respondent, United States Postal Service. The Notice informed Petitioner that Respondent intended to deduct a total of $141.14 from her salary to make up a shortage discovered in Petitioner's accountability.
Petitioner elected a hearing based solely on written submissions. The parties were afforded an opportunity to add to the material they filed with the Petition and Answer, and both did so.
1. Petitioner is a window clerk at the Westminster, South Carolina Post Office. On January 9, 1997, a count of Petitioner's accountability of stamp stock and cash disclosed a shortage of $141.14. The postmaster and Petitioner independently counted her stock and cash and compared their figures to reach agreement on the total value of each denomination of stamps. They recorded their results on PS Form 3294, Cash and Stamp Stock Count and Summary, which Petitioner signed. The printed text immediately above her signature in the signature block states, "I agree to the count."
2. The previous count of her accountability, on October 22, 1996, revealed an overage of $1.62, and four of the previous five counts had been within tolerance. The only past out-of-tolerance count, on July 9, 1996, showed an overage of $72.88, which was placed in trust.
3. Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures, effective November 1996, provides that employees to whom postal funds and accountable paper are consigned (such as Petitioner) "are held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes that they followed the postal procedures established when performing their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), Section 141.
4. The preceding version of the F-1 Handbook, that of April 1991, addressed an employee's liability for a shortage differently, providing that employees would be "held strictly accountable for any loss unless evidence establishes they exercised reasonable care in the performance of their duties." Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (April 1991), Section 132. The "reasonable care" standard also appears in Respondent's Financial Management Manual (June 1983), Sections 341.2 and 842.2, which sections remain unchanged.
5. Respondent issued Petitioner a Letter of Demand on January 10, 1997, and a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on April 9, 1997. Petitioner filed her Petition for Hearing in response to the latter.
Respondent argues that it has shown that a shortage of $141.14 existed in Petitioner's credit and that, therefore, Petitioner is responsible for repayment of that amount. Petitioner argues that she is not liable, because any shortage likely resulted from what she deems improper practices of the post office in issuing stamps to window clerks while they are working at the window, making clerks work alone and requiring clerks to prepare the nightly bank deposit without a witness. She also argues that she should have been allowed a second count of the stock on January 9 after the shortage was discovered.
Respondent has demonstrated that there was a shortage of $141.14 in the stock for which Petitioner was accountable. The count was properly conducted, and Petitioner concurred in the count (Finding 1). Petitioner has not shown that she specifically requested a second count or that there were any irregularities in the count. Therefore, the shortage has been proven, and it represents a loss to Respondent.
Under the April 1991 version of the F-1 Handbook, as well as the current formulation of the standard in the Financial Management Manual, Petitioner will be strictly accountable for the loss unless evidence establishes that she exercised reasonable care in the performance of her duties (Finding 3). The November 1996 version of the F-1 Handbook gives no indication when the newer standard--whether Petitioner "followed the postal procedures established when performing [her] duties" (Finding 2)--is to be applicable. However, as the shortage could have accrued before November 1996 (Finding 1), Petitioner will not be liable for the loss if she can demonstrate that she met either standard; i.e. that when managing her accountability she exercised reasonable care or that she followed the postal procedures established.(1)
Petitioner has stated, under penalty of perjury, that she exercised reasonable care in the performance of her duties as a window clerk and offers the history of counts within tolerance (Finding 2) as evidence that she did so. Two other clerks in the post office confirmed, under penalty of perjury, Petitioner's statement that she exercised reasonable care as a window clerk, and Respondent has not offered any contrary evidence. Accordingly, the evidence establishes that Petitioner exercised reasonable care, and, therefore, she is not liable for the shortage discovered on January 9, 1997.
The Petition is granted.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge