TITLE:  ï¿½Request for Relief from Financial Liability for Mick Barrus, B-288166, March 11, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-288166
DATE:  March 11, 2003
**********************************************************************
 Request for Relief from Financial Liability for Mick Barrus, B-288166, March
11, 2003

    
B-288166
    
    
    
March 11, 2003
    
Mr. Dale Bosworth
Chief, Forest Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Sidney R. Yates Federal Building
201 14th Street, SW
Washington, DC  20250
    
Subject:  Request for Relief from Financial Liability for Mick Barrus

   Dear Mr. Bosworth:

   This responds to a letter from the Director of Financial Policy and
Analysis for the Forest Service seeking relief from this Office, pursuant
to 31 U.S.C. S: 3527(a), for Mr. Mick Barrus, a Forest Service Collection
Officer.  As explained below, we grant relief in this case.
    
Mr. Barrus works in the Shoshone National Forest in Cody, Wyoming.  In
July 1999, he was responsible for collecting fees from campground users. 
On July 21, 1999, Mr. Barrus placed a *Bill for Collection* and some fees
that he had collected in a Forest Service business envelope that he sent
to Bank of America, the Forest Service's Lockbox, using the U.S. Postal
Service.  The collections included numerous personal checks written to the
Forest Service that amounted to $6,433.00, and a cashier's check for an
additional $7,919.58.  He included the cashier's check in place of cash
collections that he had received.  The envelope was neither received by
the Lockbox staff nor returned to Mr. Barrus by the Postal Service as
undeliverable. 
    
In mid-August, when it became clear that the Lockbox staff had not
received the collection, the Forest Service placed a tracer on the missing
remittance through the U.S. Postal Service.  Efforts to trace and recover
the envelope and its contents proved fruitless.  Mr. Barrus contacted the
issuing bank to stop payment on the original cashier's check and replaced
it with a new cashier's check.  However, he had not kept photocopies of,
or otherwise recorded specific information about, the personal checks he
had enclosed in the envelope and so the Forest Service is unable to
reconstruct the collection of personal checks.
Under 31 U.S.C. S: 3527(a), our Office is authorized to relieve
accountable officers of responsibility for a physical loss of government
funds if we concur in the determination by the head of an agency that: 
(a) the loss occurred while the officer or agent was acting in the
discharge of his or her official duties and (b) that there was no fault or
negligence on the part of the officer or agent which contributed to the
loss.  B-241820, Jan. 2, 1991; B-230796, April 8, 1988.  Generally, the
standard we have applied for determining negligence is what the reasonably
prudent and careful person would have done to take care of his or her own
property of like description under like circumstances.  54 Comp. Gen. 112,
115-116 (1974). 
    
The Forest Service recommends that we relieve Mr. Barrus of his liability
for the amount of the personal checks ($6,433.00) since all indications
show that the loss of the checks was a result of the deposit envelope
being lost in the U.S. mail and the procedures followed by Mr. Barrus at
the time were acceptable under Forest Service policy.  Letter from
Christopher S. Osborne, Director, Financial Reports and Analysis, Forest
Service, to Office of the General Counsel, GAO, May 22, 2001.  At that
time, Forest Service had no requirement that such collections be sent to
the Lockbox by certified or registered mail nor did it require that
collection officers photocopy or otherwise record information concerning
the personal checks included in a remittance.[1]
    
Accountable officers are required to acquaint themselves and comply with
Treasury rules and regulations concerning the proper procedures for
handling funds in their custody, as well as the applicable rules and
regulations of their own agency.  See, e.g., B-229207, July 11, 1988;
B-193380, Sept. 25, 1979.  In this regard, we note that the Treasury
Department's Treasury Financial Manual (T.F.M.) applicable at the time of
this loss required that records of deposited checks be kept in sufficient
detail to process a stop payment and obtain a duplicate check in the event
the check is lost or destroyed.[2]  See I T.F.M. S: 5-2020 (T.L. No. 530,
Sept. 10, 1993).  These requirements were not mirrored in the Forest
Service procedures under which Mr. Barrus was operating.
    
This situation is similar to one we considered in B‑169848-O.M.,
Dec. 8, 1971, where we relieved an accountable officer of liability when
the employing agency's regulations were demonstrably ambiguous and led the
officer to act in a way which complied with the agency regulations, but
not with the Treasury regulations.  There, a collection officer of the
Veterans Administration (VA) had sent official collections, including a
money order, to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.  As in the
present case, the VA collections were apparently lost in the mail.  The VA
collection officer had not retained a description sufficient to allow her
to secure a replacement money order.  Then, as now, Treasury Department
Regulations required the collection officer to retain information
sufficient to allow replacements to be obtained for collections shipped
through the mail.  Money orders were specifically included in the list of
collection items covered by that regulation.  However, the VA regulations,
while generally consistent with those of the Treasury Department, did not
list money orders within the class of items for which such information
should be retained.  B-169848-O.M., Dec. 8, 1971.
    
The VA concluded that there was no fault or negligence on the part of the
collection officer because she had complied with the applicable VA
regulations and requested relief for her.  Since there was some ambiguity
as to whether the VA manual included money orders, we concurred with the
findings of the VA that the collection officer's actions did not
constitute fault or negligence since she complied with the applicable VA
manual procedures.  Id.  VA, like the Forest Service here, revised its
manual after learning of the ambiguities as a result of these
circumstances.  We granted relief.  See also B-142058, Mar. 18, 1960
(accountable officer in American Consulate in Turkey relieved of liability
for loss of replenishment vouchers where it did not appear he was required
to retain duplicate records).
    
As in the VA case, the Forest Service regulations in effect at the time of
the present loss differed from those prescribed by the Treasury
Department, a situation that the Forest Service has since corrected to
avoid future losses of this kind.  We expect all accountable officers to
become familiar with and to adhere to Treasury Department regulations,
notwithstanding the possibility that the accountable officer's own agency
regulations or guidance might be less stringent.  See, e.g., B-229207,
July 11, 1988; B‑193380, Sept. 25, 1979.  Nevertheless, in Mr.
Barrus' circumstances, applying a standard of reasonableness, we will
grant relief.  In our experience, many reasonably prudent and careful
persons, handling their own collections of this sort, do not record the
details of checks that they have collected from others before depositing
them in the U.S. mail.  Because this is not the common practice for many
reasonably prudent persons, we would not have expected Mr. Barrus to refer
to Treasury regulations for particular guidance in this instance,
especially when Forest Service regulations did not require this of him.
    
The Forest Service should transmit copies of this decision, Treasury's
regulations, and the Forest Service's revised regulations to all of its
accountable officers to inform them of the specific requirements imposed
on them in circumstances like this.  In the future, we will expect Forest
Service officers to adhere to Treasury Department regulations, as well as
the new rules adopted by the Forest Service. 
    
In conclusion, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. S: 3527(a), we relieve Mr. Barrus
from liability for this loss.
    
Sincerely yours,

   /signed/
    
    
Susan A. Poling
Managing Associate General Counsel

   cc:  Mr. Mick Barrus
          Director, Financial Policy and Analysis, Forest Service
B-288166
    
    
DIGEST
    
    
    
GAO grants relief to a Forest Service collection officer for loss of
personal checks sent for deposit by regular U.S. mail, despite the
officer's failure to comply with a Treasury requirement to retain
sufficient information about checks sent for deposit to enable
reconstruction and recollection of the checks in the event of a loss. 
Because the Treasury requirement is not a common practice for many
reasonably prudent and careful people handling their own collections of
this sort, and because Forest service rules did not then (but now do)
mirror the Treasury requirement, relief is granted based on a standard of
reasonableness.  In the future, GAO will expect Forest Service officers to
adhere to Treasury Department regulations, as well as the rules adopted by
the Forest Service. 
    
    

   ------------------------

   [1] To preclude similar losses in the future, the Forest Service has
issued a new policy requiring the collection officers to send all
remittances to the Lockbox by certified mail and to photocopy personal
checks that are included in the remittance.
[2] In October 2001, Treasury expanded this provision by endorsing the
practice of retaining duplicate documentation.  See I T.F.M. S: 5-2020
(T.L. No.  603, Oct. 4, 2001) (*while not required, the depositing agency
should make copies of check deposits before dispatch to allow for
replacement if . . . lost or destroyed in transit*).