Personal Musings on a Personally Known and Different Kind of Disgruntled Postal Employee

The headline read: “Postal manager sentenced on fraud charges.” As I retired from the Postal Service a little over a year ago, I know or know of most of the local supervisors and managers. While many if not most are fine people, there are a few I don’t trust as far as I could throw them and some have ethical standards that are not exactly pristine. Therefore I kind of wondered whose name I might find as I clicked on the link.

I was not prepared for the name I saw. I actually gasped out loud as my hand flew to cover my mouth. I felt like I could throw up. Here was someone who, 25 years ago, trained me in postal accounting. I trusted his guidance all these years. His ethics were not questionable. There were times that I actually spent extra time to make sure that what I did was totally accurate and “by the book” because I did not want to have to explain to him why I didn’t think it was important to do so when we both knew that I knew better.

So how could this have happened? Let’s look at “Bob” the accused and admittedly guilty, and “Mike” the Postal Service spokesman. As I left before any of this became known, I am drawing my information about this incident strictly from what I read in the newspaper, which we all know can be notoriously incomplete and inaccurate. Nevertheless that’s what I have. Other comments are drawn from personal experience and knowledge. Details will be left out to protect whatever integrity is left in postal accounting. Also, I believe the accused and admittedly guilty party has suffered enough humiliation and I do not wish to make it any worse.

A few years ago, the Postal Service decided to centralize and consolidate its accounting procedures. Local accounting technicians had to find other positions or retire, which many opted to do. There was a very noticeable loss in local control. Mistakes that were once routinely caught and corrected went by unnoticed, lost forever. The work submitted by some people could best be described as “sloppy” or “slip-shod.“ After the prescribed paperwork retention period, documents were shredded. According to the newspaper account, “Bob” felt as if all the internal controls he had initiated to prevent fraud had been wiped out. Speaking from experience, he was not the only one who felt that way. The sentiment was virtually universal. One technician told me before she retired that she had believed for many years that what she had been doing mattered. That it was important. That it benefited the Postal Service. It didn’t feel very good to be told that she was no longer needed, and the meticulous work she had done so well for so long was no longer needed, either. Others echoed much the same sentiment.

According to the newspaper account, “Bob” stated that “ tolerance for financial mistakes, mismanagement by fellow managers and willful intent to falsify report data was now being accepted by top management and I could not condone this.” You might be asking why this behavior was accepted by top management. Pressure from above to look good on paper probably was the biggest reason. I really don’t know.

Again according to the newspaper account, “Bob” decided to test the system when he was given a money order that was not accounted for. Technically, he should have corrected the situation right then and there, but he did not. He decided to test the system by holding on to the money order to see how long it would take before anyone discovered the error. No one ever did. Not locally, and not in the Postal Data Center in St. Louis. Once that particular time frame has been reconciled, the chances of the error being discovered are almost “0.” Given the mind-set and the aura of resentment of the time, it is understandable (to me, anyway) that “Bob” chose this course of action up to this point.

However here is where “Bob” went down the wrong path. What he should have done was march down the hall (yes, literally down the hall) to the Office of the Postal Inspectors, close the door, and said, “There is a great big gaping hole in fraud prevention and accountability. Here is what happened. If it happened once, it will happen again and again. Work with me to fix it.”

What he actually did was embezzle over $430,000 using money orders. I won’t go into details. “Bob” will spend the next 2½ years in prison for his poor decision.

According to the newspaper account, postal officials say they have not relaxed accounting procedures. Are you kidding me? Once upon a time, what “Bob” did would not have been possible. When local involvement went away, it was all too easy for something like this to fall between the cracks. Those who have the power to do so would be wise to plug up this and any other holes ASAP.

According to the newspaper account, no one suspected anything until “Bob” got so bold that he took a sheet of stamps from the Postal Store without paying for it and someone reported that. Only then did an investigation begin. If “Bob” had not taken the stamps, his misdeeds may never have been uncovered.

What did “Bob” do with the money? I have no idea, but he apparently did not squander it. He paid it all back after pleading guilty. There is no way a postal employee had almost half a million dollars just laying around ready to pay back, so he must have stashed it away somewhere.

“Bob” said he figured nobody would miss it because there was nobody local left. He was partially right. Nobody realized it was missing. Even the judge asked “How can the Postal Service not miss $400,000?” I would like to interject here that just because nobody realized it was missing does not mean it wasn’t missed. We could have used it. Big time. I had employees under me who were not able to get database printouts because there was no money to fix the necessary machine, and no money to buy paper to print it on, anyway. Other printed information came on the back of already used and recycled paper. Would the $430,000 have been used for that? Who knows? I would like to think so!

“How can the Postal Service not miss $400,000?” According to the newspaper account, a postal spokesman, probably “Mike” stated that on paper the money did not appear to be missing. On paper, the money was accounted for. According to the newspaper account, postal officials say that layoffs have not relaxed accounting procedures. Changes in how the Postal service had nothing to do with what “Bob” did. Does anybody besides me see anything inconsistent here? I do not believe what “Bob” did would have been possible before the changes. According to “Mike” the internal controls were defeated by a trusted employee who know how the system works. My personal opinion is that the internal controls are no longer strong enough to prevent such behavior.

I'm having trouble accepting that "Bob" was hypocritical enough to actually councel me regarding procedures to follow when other employees were potentially being investigated for "being bad" along the same lines that "Bob" was, only a couple of orders of magnitude less!!! It is just so hard to believe. The Postal Inspectors always said that they never ruled anyone out when beginning an investigation because "you just never know." The premise was that anyone had the potential. I always know they were right, but I sort of blew it off. It has a much deeper meaning now.

I once heard someone convicted of an entirely different type of crime say that once you give yourself permission to do something that was once forbidden, you give your self permission to do it again and again. Once you cross over that once forbidden line, it is easier to cross it again and again. What made “Bob” give himself permission to do what he did? I probably will never know. But it has cost him his job and his self-respect and 2½ years of his life with his family. He has paid and will continue to pay a terrible price for his incredibly poor decision.

I will pray for “Bob.” May the Lord set him up with a prison chaplain, to explain the gospel of Christ and forgiveness and salvation.