January 17, 2006

 

In the Matter of the Petition by

 

BARBARA S. GARDNER

 

P.S. Docket No.  AO 05-144

 

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:

Sheila Hunter

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Robyn M. Funderburg

 

INITIAL DECISION

            Petitioner, Barbara Gardner, filed a Petition for Hearing after receiving an invoice from the Postal Service Accounting Service Center, dated June 27, 2005.  The invoice alleged an indebtedness of $6,890.97, based on a stamp stock audit shortage in the Monroe, Ohio Post Office while Petitioner was postmaster.

            Petitioner elected to have this case decided on written submissions.  Both parties were given time to file additional evidence and argument and both did so.  The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Petitioner was employed by the Postal Service for many years.  Sometime in 2000 she became the postmaster at Monroe, Ohio.  As such, she was the assigned custodian of the main stock at Monroe.  She retired in June 2004.  (Gardner Declaration).

            2.  On May 18, 2004, an audit of the Monroe office was conducted for the purpose of transferring the office accountability from Petitioner to the incoming Officer-in-Charge.  Petitioner and the incoming OIC conducted the audit, along with another postmaster.  (Gardner Declaration; Young Declarations, Nov. 1 and Dec. 12, 2005; Whittington Declaration, Dec. 12, 2005).

            3.  As part of the audit, all the main stock and retail floor stock was counted and compared against the balances on record.  The count of the main stock showed a shortage of $8,715.53.  The count of the retail floor stock showed an overage of $4,401.32.  Petitioner signed documents agreeing to the accuracy of the counts.  (Young Declarations; Whittington Declaration; Answer, Exs. 6 and 7).

            4.  Petitioner did not request that the main stock be recounted, nor did she return to the office prior to her retirement to attempt to locate other documents that might reconcile the apparent discrepancy.  (Young Declarations; Huber Declaration, December 12, 2005).

            5.  On May 28, 2004, Petitioner was issued a letter by her supervisor, stating a demand for restitution of $8,715.53 for the main stock shortage.  (Petitioner’s Ex. I).

            6.  On August 6, 2004, Petitioner was issued a new Letter of Demand for $6,890.97.  This amount was calculated by subtracting the $4,401.32 floor stock overage from the $8,715.53 main stock shortage (net shortage = $4,314.21), then adding $2,521.25 noted as “stock not received,” and then adding a net shortage of $55.51 from a compilation of shortages and overages ($10,822.54 - $10,767.03).  (Answer, Exs. 1 and 4; Petitioner’s Ex. J).

DECISION

            Petitioner makes several arguments.  First, she contends that the proper procedures for transfer of the office on May 18, 2004 were not followed because some of the forms were not completed and signed.  Even if some forms were not completed to perfection, the evidence is sufficient to show a proper audit and transfer of accountability.  Petitioner and the new OIC participated in the counts of the main stock and the retail floor stock, signed a document agreeing on the total accountability of the office and the main stock shortage, and both the new OIC and the other participating postmaster signed sworn declarations stating that the counts and the transfer were properly completed.

            Next, Petitioner contends that not all the stamp stock that should have been considered part of the main stock was counted.  This claim is not supported by the evidence.  In her statement, Petitioner says that she asked during the count whether some “four or five boxes of stamp stock I had received and was not able to input into the computer,” should be counted.  In their sworn statements, the other two participants deny any such discussion and state that they were not aware of any uncounted stamp stock in the office.  Once Petitioner became aware of the large shortage, it seems unlikely that she would have signed off on the audit results if she believed there was uncounted stock that might have erased the shortage.  Further, if the stock she refers to had never been entered into the computer it would not have been part of the main stock accountability on record and would not explain the $8,715.53 shortage.

            Petitioner also argues that the counts on May 18, 2004 may have been affected by the POS computer system going into a “degraded mode” during the transfer audit.  This is disputed by the incoming OIC, who, in her sworn Declaration, denies that it happened.  Even if it did, however, Respondent has presented persuasive evidence that all data can be recovered and that the audit results would not be compromised.[1]

            Petitioner argues that both she and the assisting postmaster were distracted during the audit by personal family emergencies and that they did not have time to verify certain reports.  She also claims that this led to the assisting postmaster directing her to sign the audit result before everything was completed.  Petitioner’s evidence on this point is not persuasive.  Her claim of being pressured and hurried is directly contradicted by both other participants, who state that the counts were properly completed and that Petitioner was fully aware of the $8,715.53 main stock shortage and the $4,401.32 floor stock overage before she signed any forms.

            The standard for determining an employee’s liability in a case such as this provides that employees to whom postal funds and accountable paper are consigned “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, Updated With Postal Bulletin Revisions Through June 9, 2005), §141.

            Respondent’s burden of proof in a case of unexplained shortage is to show that a loss occurred from an account for which the employee is accountable.  When a properly conducted inventory, or audit, shows a stock shortage relative to a previously established balance, this constitutes proof of loss unless other evidence raises sufficient doubt about the accuracy of the inventory or the previously established balance, or otherwise suggests that there may have been no actual loss. 

            Petitioner does not dispute the fact that she was the custodian of the main stock at the Monroe Post Office.  Respondent’s evidence is sufficient to establish that the audit was properly conducted and showed a net loss of $4,314.21 ($8,715.53 - $4,401.32).  Petitioner did not allege, or present evidence to show, that she followed established postal procedures.  Accordingly, Petitioner is liable for $4,314.21.

            Respondent’s evidence on the other two segments of the total alleged debt falls short, however.  The only evidence on the $2,521.25 “stock not received,” (see Finding #6) is in a Declaration from a Financial Systems Coordinator, who says she “learned” that Petitioner had not properly accounted for all the stock she received from the stamp distribution office.  Attached is a cryptic email message, dated June 25, 2004, that makes reference to, among other things, a shipment of $2,521.25 on March 4, 2004.  This is not sufficient to establish a loss of $2,521.25 from Petitioner’s account.

            Likewise, the only evidence on the net shortage of $55.51 is the statement of the Financial Systems Coordinator that, while Petitioner was postmaster, the office had outstanding shortages of $10,822.54 and overages of $10,767.03.  There is an attached spreadsheet containing many figures and notes, but without further explanation this is insufficient to establish a loss or that Petitioner is personally accountable for it.

            The Petition is granted in part and denied in part.  Respondent may collect $4,314.21 from Petitioner.

 

Bruce R. Houston

Chief Administrative Law Judge

 


[1] Whittington Declaration; Craven Declaration, November 1, 2005; Morris Declaration, November 1, 2005; Young Declaration, December 12, 2005; Huber Declaration, December 12, 2005.