August 5, 2005

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between

REBECCA J. INGRAM

and

JUDITH SJOSTEDT

P.S. Docket No.  MD 05-52

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT REBECCA J. INGRAM:

Rebecca J. Ingram

P.O. Box 111
St. Marys, WV  26170-0111

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT JUDITH SJOSTEDT:

Judith Sjostedt
P.O. Box 1762
Parkersburg, WV  26102-1762

INITIAL DECISION

            This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual (POM 9, July 2002) Section 616.21, which requires the Chief Field Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to the Judicial Officer for resolution.  The mail in dispute is that addressed to Pleasants Community Foundation at P.O. Box 420, St. Marys, WV 26170-0420.  The St. Marys Postmaster is currently holding the mail.

Both parties filed sworn written statements, as required by the Rules of Practice, 39 C.F.R. §965.5, accompanied by other supporting documents, and both filed rebuttal, as permitted by 39 C.F.R. §965.6.  Action on the case was suspended for a time while the parties attempted, unsuccessfully, to work out a settlement agreement.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties, including that forwarded by the United States Postal Service Law Department, Mid-Atlantic Office.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  The Parkersburg Area Community Foundation (PACF) is a tax-exempt public charity that manages charitable contributions made by citizens of several counties in West Virginia.  The PACF is run by an elected Board of Governors and managed by a staff headed by Ms. Sjostedt as Executive Director.  (Sjostedt statement; several Annual Reports attached to both parties’ submissions).

            2.  In September 2000, the Pleasants County Community Foundation was formed as an affiliate of PACF.  This was formalized on November 9, 2000, per an Agreement signed by various officials, including Ms. Ingram as Chairman of Pleasants County Community Foundation.  Sometime thereafter, the name was officially shortened to Pleasants Community Foundation (PCF).  There are several similar county affiliates of PACF.  (Sjostedt statement; Attachment B to Sjostedt April 25, 2005 letter; several copies of Agreement in case file; Annual Reports).

            3.  The Agreement described PCF as “an unincorporated division of the PACF,” operating “under the governing instruments and control of the PACF Board of Governors.”  Further, the Agreement stated that, “The Board of Governors of the Parkersburg Area Community Foundation must review and accept any fund to be created as part of the Pleasants County Community Foundation group of funds.”  In reference to PCF ceasing to function, the Agreement stated that PACF would then terminate the Agreement and that “any funds established with the Pleasants County Community Foundation will become regular component funds of the PACF, and PACF will continue to administer such funds for the purposes outlined in the fund agreements.”  (Agreement, ¶¶2, 5, and 9).

            4.  On October 13, 2000, Douglas Hershman, as Secretary of PCF, rented P.O. Box 420 at the St. Marys Post Office in the name Pleasants Community Foundation.  Ms. Ingram was also listed as an authorized representative.  (PS Form 1093, attached to Ingram April 15, 2005 letter).

            5.  In a letter dated January 15, 2004, Ms. Ingram, as President of PCF, informed the PACF Board of Directors that the PCF Directors had voted to form a “separate, independent community foundation.”  (Attached to Ingram April 15, 2005 letter).

            6.  The Affiliate Agreement provided that PCF could request to withdraw from PACF to become independent, and that PACF’s approval would depend on PCF being incorporated and receiving IRS recognition as a tax-exempt organization.  There was also a provision about consulting donors as to whether they wished their funds to remain with PACF or be transferred to PCF.  (Agreement, ¶10).

            7.  PCF was incorporated in West Virginia on November 15, 2004.  The record does not show that PCF has yet obtained tax-exempt status.  (Certificate attached to Ingram April 15, 2005 letter).

            8.  In January 2005, after PCF was incorporated, the PACF Board voted to terminate the affiliate relationship with PCF.  In February 2005, Ms. Sjostedt asked the St. Marys Post Office to forward to PACF any mail addressed to Box 420.  The postmaster declined to do so because the box was in the name of PCF and Ms. Sjostedt’s name was not on the application.  Ms. Ingram also challenged Ms. Sjostedt’s authority and this mail dispute arose.  (Sjostedt statement and attached documents; Law Department forwarding letter).

            9.  Postal Operations Manual (POM) Section 614.1 provides as follows:  

“All mail addressed to a governmental or nongovernmental organization (including but not limited to corporations, firms, sole proprietorships, partnerships, joint ventures, and associations) . . . is delivered to the organization.  This regulation also applies to mail addressed in this manner to former officials, employees, contractors, agents, clients, or others associated with the organization. . . . ”

DECISION

            Ms. Sjostedt’s position is that P.O. Box 420 was opened by PCF officials as agents of PACF because PCF, at that time, had no authority to operate independently and that PACF, being the only entity having tax-exempt status, had financial responsibility for all the funds that it managed.  The “new” PCF, she argues, is not the same organization that opened P.O. Box 420 and cannot claim mail addressed to the box simply because it is using the same name as the former PACF affiliate.

            Ms. Ingram argues that, as everyone agrees that PCF is now independent of PACF, mail addressed to PCF should be received by PCF.  Further, it is her contention that very little of the mail ever addressed to Box 420, since it was opened in 2000, was intended for PACF.  Ms. Sjostedt disputes this latter claim, arguing that PACF is still legally accountable for at least some of the donations addressed to Box 420.

            Both parties’ arguments have some merit, but I find Ms. Sjostedt’s more persuasive.  It may well be that most of the mail addressed to Box 420 is intended for the “new” PCF, but there is nothing in the case file to establish that for certain.  On the other hand, there is no question that the box was opened by PCF officials as agents of PACF and that PCF continued to operate as an agent of PACF until the new independent foundation was incorporated.  Therefore, Box 420 is the parent organization’s address and mail addressed to PCF was, until recently, really the mail of the parent organization.  Those in charge of the parent organization are entitled, under the rule from the POM quoted above, to receive the mail.

            This decision deals only with delivery of the mail.  It does not determine ownership of the contents of the mail.  There is little doubt that some of the mail that has been held is intended for PCF.  It will be Ms. Sjostedt’s responsibility to forward that mail.

            The Judicial Officer should issue an Order to the St. Marys, West Virginia Postmaster that the disputed mail should be delivered as directed by Judith Sjostedt.

                                                                                    Bruce R. Houston

                                                                                    Chief Administrative Law Judge