B-141570, AUG. 24, 1961
Highlights
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER OF JUNE 16. SINCE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE MATTER ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION THEY NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. IN REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THIS EARLIER DECISION IT IS POINTED OUT THAT MR. WOOLNER NOW HAS REPAID THE NET SHORTAGE OF $399.75 AND IT IS STATED THAT THE SHORTAGE APPARENTLY WAS THE RESULT OF MR. IT IS STATED THAT DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS WHO HAVE INVESTIGATED THE MATTER NOW FEEL THAT THE SHORTAGE IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE OVERAGE. WOOLNER AND WE KNOW OF NO LEGAL BASIS ON WHICH WE MIGHT GRANT HIM RELIEF EVEN THOUGH THESE SHORTAGES MAY HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTABLE IN PART TO HIS LACK OF EXPERIENCE IN THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE.
B-141570, AUG. 24, 1961
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER OF JUNE 16, 1961, FROM YOUR ASSISTANT SECRETARY, WILLIAM J. CROCKETT, ASKING THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 3, 1960, B-141570, IN WHICH WE DENIED A REQUEST THAT AN AVERAGE OF $804.73 IN THE ACCOUNTS OF BRUCE E. WOOLNER, A DISBURSING OFFICER AT TEL AVIV, ISRAEL, BE APPLIED TO REDUCE A SHORTAGE IN HIS ACCOUNTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,204.48.
SINCE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE MATTER ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN THAT DECISION THEY NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. IN REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THIS EARLIER DECISION IT IS POINTED OUT THAT MR. WOOLNER NOW HAS REPAID THE NET SHORTAGE OF $399.75 AND IT IS STATED THAT THE SHORTAGE APPARENTLY WAS THE RESULT OF MR. WOOLNER'S LACK OF SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE AT THE TIME OF HIS ASSIGNMENT TO TEL AVIV TO COPE WITH LOCAL CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES IN THAT OFFICE. FURTHERMORE, IT IS STATED THAT DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS WHO HAVE INVESTIGATED THE MATTER NOW FEEL THAT THE SHORTAGE IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE OVERAGE.
THE RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE EXISTENCE OF CARELESSNESS AND NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF MR. WOOLNER AND WE KNOW OF NO LEGAL BASIS ON WHICH WE MIGHT GRANT HIM RELIEF EVEN THOUGH THESE SHORTAGES MAY HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTABLE IN PART TO HIS LACK OF EXPERIENCE IN THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE. LACK OF EXPERIENCE IS NO EXCUSE FOR CARELESSNESS OR NEGLIGENCE NOR CAN IT BE RECOGNISED AS A BASIS FOR GRANTING RELIEF TO ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED IN OUR EARLIER DECISION YOUR OWN DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE OF LOOSE PRACTICES BY THE OFFICER IN HANDLING GOVERNMENT FUNDS, WAS UNABLE TO PLACE SUFFICIENT RELIANCE ON THE OFFICER'S RECORDS TO JUSTIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE OVERAGE AGAINST THE SHORTAGE AND THUS REPORT ONLY THE NET SHORTAGE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. THE RECORD BEFORE US DISCLOSES NOTHING HAVING TRANSPIRED IN THE MEANTIME WHICH WOULD NOW JUSTIFY A CONCLUSION THAT THE SHORTAGE IS IN ANYWAY RELATED TO THE OVERAGES. NEITHER DOES IT DISCLOSE WHAT SPECIFIC FACTS, IF ANY, NOW ARE RELIED ON BY CERTAIN OFFICIALS OF YOUR DEPARTMENT WHO, IT IS REPORTED, NOW APPARENTLY AGREE THAT THE OVERAGE IS LINKED WITH THE SHORTAGE.
ACCORDINGLY, WE MUST SUSTAIN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 3 FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN AND DENY RELIEF TO MR. WOOLNER FOR ANY PORTION OF THE SHORTAGE.