June 20, 2000 In the Matter of the Petition by KAREN HIGUERA-RICHARD 476 Amherst Avenue at Moon Twp, PA 15108-2654 P. S. Docket No. DCA 00-104 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Sheila Hagerich East Building, Room 4400 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20260-6807 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Ray C. Perret Labor Relations Specialist United States Postal Service 1001 California Ave., Room 2250 Pittsburgh, PA 15290-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Karen Higuera-Richard, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on March 17, 2000, from her supervisor. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $629.64 from her salary to recover for a shortage in the unit accountability at the Monaca, Pennsylvania Post Office.
Petitioner elected a hearing on written submissions. Both parties filed additional evidence and argument, beyond what was included with the Petition and the Answer. Respondent's submission included sworn statements from several witnesses. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner was the postmaster at Monaca, Pennsylvania from May 1998 until November 9, 1999. On that date, she was reassigned to another office by her supervisor. (Cafaro statement).
2. In January 1999, Mr. Badgett became the Customer Services Supervisor in Petitioner's office and was the custodian of the main stock. (Petition Supplement, May 7; Badgett statement).
3. In early November 1999, in preparation for turning the office over from Petitioner to Mr. Holiday, Mr. Vollmer, a Postal Systems Coordinator, spent two days performing a financial audit of the Monaca office. Petitioner and Mr. Holiday participated, but Petitioner was not present for the entire time. The main stock, for which Mr. Badgett was responsible, had an overage of $19.13.(1)
4. There was a discrepancy, however, in the documents that recorded the overall unit accountability of the post office. The "Unit 1412" is a computer form generated daily that shows the opening and closing stamp stock balances and total office accountability for that day. Another form, titled "Clerk Balances," includes the total stamp stock in all clerk accounts and the main stock. That total is supposed to match the closing balance on the Unit 1412. One of the ways a postmaster carries out the responsibility of managing an office's finances is to check these two entries each day to be sure that they match. (Vollmer statement, Holiday statement).
5. When Mr. Vollmer examined the records in the Monaca office, he found that the unit accountability on the Unit 1412 had been out of balance with the Clerk Balances since May 24, 1999. The amounts varied from day to day. On November 3, 1999, the Unit 1412 showed a total of $136,442.84 and the Clerk Balances showed $133,281.47, a difference of $3,161.37. Mr. Vollmer concluded that this represented a shortage in the unit accountability, and issued a letter of demand for that amount to Petitioner on November 10, 1999. Thereafter, Mr. Vollmer did further research and found one or more amounts that could be offset to reduce the alleged debt to $629.64. The record does not show the source of the offset. (Vollmer statement).
6. Mr. Badgett occasionally made errors in recording stock transactions in the computer system. These errors were not detected in a timely manner because Petitioner did not check the account balances discussed above on a daily basis. Mr. Vollmer describes this as follows:
"From what I could determine of Monaca's shortages, it appears that Theo Badgett made some input errors putting stock into the Integrated Retail Terminal. On July 19, 1999, for example, he received stamp stock for $330, and input it as $3300. These kinds of mistakes are made a lot, but without the Postmaster checking the Unit 1412 accountability against the individual clerk accountabilities on a daily basis, they are very hard to find and correct at a later date."
DECISION
The sole issue in this case is whether Respondent has proved a loss of $629.64. Respondent's position is simply that the discrepancies between the Unit 1412 and the "Clerk Balances" prove a loss, and that a postmaster is ultimately responsible for all financial matters in the office.
As often happens in cases such as this, involving postmasters or supervisors, Respondent presents substantial evidence that the Petitioner did a poor job in monitoring the office's financial transactions and insuring that accurate records of all office accounts were maintained. However, accounting discrepancies and poor job performance do not equate to a financial loss. Eulalia Anne S. Lee, P.S. Docket No. DCA 97-38 (June 13, 1997); Edward Sheehan, Jr., P.S. Docket No. DCA 98-391 (December 11, 1998); Gertrude S. Campbell, P.S. Docket No. DCA 99-70 (June 3, 1999). Respondent has not proved that the differences in the figures on the Unit 1412s and the clerk balances reflect an actual loss of stamp stock or money, as opposed to accounting errors. Part of the argument submitted by Respondent's representative says as much: "Had she [Petitioner] monitored her accounts closely, she could have determined when actual or 'paper' losses occurred and acted to correct them immediately." That is an accurate statement, but it illustrates the problem with Respondent's proof in this case.
The evidence is clear that the alleged loss was not in the main stock. Therefore, if there is a loss it must be in some other account, but there is no evidence as to what account that might be. There is no evidence in the record that actual counts were done of anything but the main stock. Merely showing that there is a difference between two figures that are supposed to balance does not prove a loss when neither of those figures is based on an actual count of stamp stock, and when there is also evidence that accounting errors may have caused the figures to be different.
The Debt Collection Act is only a vehicle for recovering losses, not a means to punish poor job performance. Because Respondent has not proved a loss by a preponderance of evidence, the Petition is sustained. Respondent may not collect $629.64 from Petitioner's salary.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge