August 22, 2001 In the Matter of the Petition by BARRY BENTE 16 Northwoods Lane at La Crescenta, CA 91214-4307P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-147 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:Jean Clare Keister, Esq. 26501 Golden Bush Way Canyon Country, CA 91351-2312 APPEARANCES FOR RESPONDENT:Gina Morris Teresa L. Fleming Labor Relations Specialists United States Postal Service 28201 Franklin Parkway Santa Clarita, CA 91383-9401
FINAL DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Barry Bente, filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration, under 39 C.F.R. §961.9, of the July 23, 2001 Decision in this case. Respondent sought to collect $50,121.11 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in the unit reserve stock for which Petitioner was accountable. The Decision held Petitioner, who is the postmaster at Duarte, California, liable for $40,003.61. Respondent filed a reply to the motion.
Petitioner reargues the point that Respondent has failed to prove a loss because of uncertainty over the accuracy of the records used to establish the opening balance at the time of the January 25/26, 2001 audit. Petitioner refers to our often-stated rule that proof of loss is established when an audit shows a shortage relative to a previously established balance "unless other evidence raises sufficient doubt about the accuracy of the inventory or the previously established balance." Petitioner argues that there is ample evidence of a "corrupt" computer disk in the IRT system at Duarte that casts doubt on the accuracy of the opening balance on January 25.
Specifically, Petitioner challenges the statement at page 8 in the Decision that, "[T]he only known error that may be attributable to IRT problems, and that may have affected the unit reserve at Duarte is the one found by Mr. Morris, that being the $10,117.50 'mismatch' in the records for December 16, 1996."1 Petitioner submits three other computer tapes, attached to the motion for reconsideration as exhibits "I," "J," and "L," and argues that these demonstate that Mr. Morris found more evidence of IRT errors that corrupted the Duarte records. These tapes are not part of the record, however, and there was no testimony about them from Mr. Morris or anyone else. Neverthess, I have examined those tapes, but cannot draw any conclusions from them.
Petitioner also cites certain testimony from Mr. Morris to counter the statement at pp. 8-9 of the Decision that, "[N]o one, however, offered any explanation for how that error might have grown to over $50,000." Mr. Morris did testify that one cannot tell what a corrupt disk might do (Tr. 98), but that falls far short of an explanation for a $50,000 shortage in the unit reserve four years later. The Decision acknowledged, as did the testimony of Respondent's witnesses at the hearing, that there is some uncertainty about the accuracy of the records in the Duarte computer system. The essence of the Decision is that a postmaster and unit reserve custodian, aware that there may be errors in his record system and aware of what he has been told to do to resolve the problem, cannot sit by and do nothing to correct the errors or even to ascertain the extent of them, and thereby make himself immune forever from liability for losses. This is an essential difference from cases cited by Petitioner in which we have held that "accounting discrepancies do not necessarily equate to losses," and that the Debt Collection Act is not a vehicle to "punish poor job performance." The shortage here is based not on accounting discrepancies, but on an actual count of Petitioner's stamp stock, showing that various quantities of stamps listed on the Duarte inventory were not present. Based on all the evidence, there is not sufficient reason to conclude that the opening balance used on January 25/26, 2001 did not provide a proper basis for determining the amount of loss from Petitioner's account.
Next, Petitioner reargues that he has been treated unfairly compared to his supervisor, Mr. Dillman, who, Petitioner argues, also failed to carry out some of his responsibilities. This matter was discussed in the Decision and need not be re-addressed, as Petitioner has raised no new issues or arguments.
The Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge