INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES OF THE
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Y 4. P 84/10:103-43
Investigative Procedures of the U.S...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 12, 1994
Serial No. 103-43
Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
AUG 1 6 1994
iOSTOMPabai;ubHAHv .
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1994
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044558-2
/03
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES OF THE
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Y 4. P 84/10:103-43
Investigative Procedures of the U.S...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 12, 1994
Serial No. 103-43
Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
AU6 1 6 199*
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1994
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044558-2
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
WILLIAM L. CLAY,
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado
FRANK McCLOSKEY, Indiana
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Columbia
BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan
LESLIE L. BYRNE, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North CaroUna
ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland
GREG LAUGHLIN, Texas
SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
Missouri, Chairman
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
BENJAMIN A. OILMAN, New York
DON YOUNG, Alaska
DAN BURTON, Indiana
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
THOMAS J. RIDGE, Pennsylvania
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
(Vacancy)
Gail E. Weiss, Staff Director
Robert E. Lockhart, General Counsel
Doris Moore-Glenn, Deputy Staff Director
Joseph A. Fisher, Minority Staff Director
(II)
CONTENTS
May 12, 1994
Page
Hearing held in Washington, DC, May 12, 1994 1
Statement of:
de la Forest, Mary, Postal Service employee 36
Dom, George, former Postal Service employee 32
Hunter, Kenneth J., Chief Postal Inspector, U.S. Postal Service, accom-
panied by Jeff DuPilka, Deputy Chief Inspector — Criminal Investiga-
tions; Andrew Clemmons, Inspector, Internal Affairs Division; and Ira
Carle, Inspector-in-Charge, Cleveland Division 40
McDonald, Frank A., former Postal Service employee 6
Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera:
Clay, Hon. William L., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Missouri, prepared statement of 3
de la Forest, Mary, Postal Service employee, prepared statement of 38
Dom, George, former Postal Service employee, prepared statement of 34
Hunter, Kenneth J., Chief Postal Inspector, U.S. Postal Service:
Prepared statement of 42
Letter to Hon. William L. Clay, dated June 8, 1994 45
McDonald, Frank A., former Postal Service employee, prepared statement
of 10
Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland, prepared statement of 5
Sawyer, Hon. Thomas C, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, prepared statement of 40
(III)
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES OF THE U.S.
POSTAL SERVICE
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1994
House of Representatives,
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in room 311,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. William Clay (chairman of the
committee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Clay, McCloskey, Sawyer,
Norton, Collins, Bishop, Hastings, and Morella.
Mr. Clay. The committee will come to order.
This is the last of a series of three hearings on the blatant
abuses of power by the Postal Inspection Service against the em-
ployees of the U.S. Postal Service. As the committee learned at its
hearings in Cleveland, OH and West Palm Beach, FL, Inspection
Service narcotic enforcement operations wreaked irreparable harm
on innocent postal employees. They lost their jobs. Their reputa-
tions were smeared. Their credit ratings were ruined. They have
been emotionally harmed. They and their families have suffered
greatly. One victim was attempting suicide only to be stopped by
his daughter. Imagine the emotional harm to that child who was
forced to convince her father to put down the gun and not kill him-
self.
These occurred because the Inspection Service believed its own
hired convicted felons that it placed on the workroom floors of post-
al facilities rather than the postal employees themselves. These
dope dealing felons were not properly supervised. The inspectors
supervising them were not properly trained. Postal inspectors were
more interested in arrest statistics than the well-being of postal
employees.
Today we will hear from victims from two more cities, Los Ange-
les and Minneapolis. Just like Cleveland and West Palm Beach,
confidential informants hired by the Inspection Service were given
carte blanche control over a narcotic enforcement operation. Proper
police procedures were thrown out the window and innocent postal
workers suffered as a result. The informants were paid more and
more money. The Inspection Service continued business as usual.
Only the innocent workers lost their jobs.
The committee is not aware of any program by any other Federal
law enforcement entities that infiltrates the agency's workplace
using felons as paid informants as the Inspection Service has been
doing for over 10 years. The list of charges against some of these
paid informants is frightening. These informants are handling our
(1)
mail — credit cards, grandma's birthday cards and gifts to her
grandchildren, Christmas presents, bills, and payments.
Following the testimony of these victims, we will hear from Chief
Postal Inspector Hunter. He can explain why the Inspection Serv-
ice ruined the lives of innocent postal employees; why the Inspec-
tion Service allows convicted felons to infiltrate postal facilities;
and what the Inspection Service is doing to right the wrongs it
wreaked on these postal workers.
At a time when the Postal Service is facing an uncertain future,
when it has a potential $2.3 billion loss this year, when mail serv-
ice is poor and becoming worse, when its productivity is falling,
when mail fraud is increasing, when there are numerous reports of
mail theft, when postal drivers and letter carriers are attacked in
the streets, many times at the beginning of the month when checks
are delivered, and when the Postmaster General reports that post-
age meter fraud may exceed $100 million per year, the Inspection
Service is busy hiring informants with criminal records. The future
of the Postal Service depends on delivering the mail on time and
efficiently.
The Chief Inspector's statement leaves the impression that there
is a pervasive drug problem in the Postal Service but statistics,
however, do not support that contention. For the past five and one-
quarter years, the Inspection Service has 1,731 cases concerning
narcotics trafficking by postal employees. Compared to the over
700,000 postal employees, that is less than three-tenths of 1 per-
cent of all these workers. In addition, there was employee turnover
during the last 5 years which makes the narcotic problem even
smaller. According to their own statistics, there is no pervasive
drug problem in the Postal Service. The focus and tactics of the In-
spection Service must be reordered and realigned.
Mr. Hunter states that racial bias will not be tolerated. The ac-
tions of the Inspection Service speak louder than his words. Postal
Service data indicate that black male postal employees were the
targets of almost one-half of the Inspection Service's narcotic cases
over the last 5 years when black males comprised only 13 percent
of the work force.
The figures are far worse in the Chicago division of the Inspec-
tion Service. There, black males are only 6 percent of postal em-
ployees but, were the targets of 78 percent of all the narcotic cases.
In St. Louis, black males comprise 18 percent of the work force but
were targets in 70 percent of the cases. In New Orleans, there were
no Inspection Service narcotic cases against any white, either male
or female, even though white comprise 81 percent of the employees.
These numbers are a disgrace. Not only does the Inspection Serv-
ice set felons loose on the workroom floor, but those felons target
black males. In the eyes of the Inspection Service, the Postal Serv-
ice's drug problem is a black male employee problem. It is time for
the Inspection Service to get off the backs of postal employees, es-
pecially black male employees.
Due to the number of witnesses, the committee asks each witness
to limit his or her oral testimony to 10 minutes. The written testi-
mony of each witness will be included in the record.
Finally, in her testimony, Ms. de la Forest expresses fear that
the Postal Service may take retaliatory action against her for testi-
fying here today. This committee will immediately take action
against anyone who takes any retaliatory action against any wit-
ness coming before this committee.
Are there any other opening statements?
Mr. Sawyer.
[The prepared statement of Hon. William L. Clay follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Wiluam L. Clay, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Missouri
This is the last of a series of three hearings on the blatant abuses of power by
the Postal Inspection Service against the employees of the United States Postal
Service. As the Committee learned at its hearings in Cleveland, Ohio, and West
Palm Beach, Florida, Inspection Service narcotic enforcement operations wreaked ir-
reparable harm on innocent postal employees. They lost their jobs. Their reputations
were smeared. Their credit ratings were ruined. They have been emotionally
harmed. They and their families have suffered greatly. One victim was attempting
suicide only to be stopped by his daughter. Imagine the emotional harm to that
child who was forced to convince her father to put down the gun and not kill him-
self.
These occurred because the Inspection Service believed its own hired convicted fel-
ons that it place on the workroom floors of postal facilities rather than postal em-
ployees. These dope dealing felons were not properly supervised. The Inspectors su-
pervising them were not properly trained. Postal Inspectors were more interested
in arrest statistics than the well being of postal workers.
Today we will hear from victims from two more cities, Los Angeles and Minneapo-
hs. Just like Cleveland and West Palm Beach, confidential informants hired by the
Inspection Service were given carte blanche control over a narcotic enforcement op-
eration. Proper police procedures were thrown out the window, and innocent postal
workers sunerea. The informants were paid more and more money. The Inspection
Service continued business as usual. Only the innocent workers lost their jobs.
The Committee is not aware of any program by any other federal law enforcement
entity that infiltrates the agency's workplace using felons as paid informants as the
Inspection Service has been doing for over ten years. The list of charges against
some of these paid informants is frightening. These informants are handling our
mail credit cards, Grandma's birthday cares and gifts to her grandchildren, Christ-
mas presents, biUs and payments.
Following the testimony of these victims, we will hear from Chief Postal Inspector
Hunter. He can explain why the Inspection Service ruined the lives of innocent post-
al employees; why the Inspection Service allow convicted felons to infiltrate postal
facihties; and what the Inspection Service is doing to right the wrongs it wreaked
on these postal workers.
At a time when the Postal Service is facing an uncertain future, when it is facing
a potential $2.3 biUion loss this year, when mail service is poor and becoming worse,
when its productivity is falling, when mail fraud is increasing, when there are nu-
merous reports of mail theft, when postal drivers and letter carriers are attacked
in the streets, many times at the beginning of the month when checks are delivered,
and when the Postmaster General reports that postal meter fraud may exceed $100
million per year, the Inspection Service is busy hiring informants with criminal
records. The future of the Postal Service depends on delivering the mail on time and
efficiently.
The Chief Inspector's statement leaves the impression that there is a pervasive
drug problem in the Postal Service. Inspection Service statistics, however, do not
support that. For the past five and one-quarter years the Inspection Service has
1731 cases concerning narcotics trafficking by postal employees. Compared to the
over 700,000 postal employees, that is less than 0.3 percent of all postal employees.
In addition, there was employee turn over during the last five years which makes
the "narcotic problem" even smaller. According to their own statistics there is no
pervasive drug problem. The focus and tactics of the Inspection Service must be re-
ordered and realigned.
Mr. Hunter states that racial bias will not be tolerated. The actions of the inspec-
tion Service speak louder than his words. Postal Service data indicate that black
male postal employees were the targets of almost one-half of the inspection Service's
narcotic cases over the last five years when black males comprised only 13 percent
of the postal workforce. The figures are far worse in the Chicago Division of the In-
spection Service. There black males are only 6 percent of postal employees but were
the target of 78 percent of all the narcotics cases. In St. Louis black males comprise
18 percent of the workforce but were targets in 70 percent of the cases. In New Or-
leans there were no Inspection Service narcotic cases against any white, either male
or female, even though whites comprised 81 percent of employees. These numbers
are a disgrace. Not only does the Inspection Service set felons loose on the work-
room floor, but those felons target black males. In the eyes of the Inspection Service,
the Postal Service's drug problem is a black male employee problem. It's time for
the Inspection Service to get off the backs of postal employees, especially black male
employees.
Due to the number of witnesses, the Committee asks each witness to limit his or
her oral testimony to ten minutes. The written testimony of each witness will be
included in the record.
Finally, in her testimony, Ms. de la Forest expresses fear that the Postal Service
may take retaliatory action against her for testifying here today. This Committee
will immediately take action against anyone who takes any retaliatory action
against you Ms. de la Forest.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to take a
moment to thank you for your continuing leadership in this area.
It is a matter of concern to all of us who serve on this committee
and to countless others in this Congress and beyond who share
your concern.
As you know, I participated in the committee hearing last year
in Cleveland. We heard how the actions of the Inspection Service
had disrupted the lives of a number of innocent postal employees.
The real tragedy is that we can't erase what has already taken
place.
The Inspection Service's handling of that case was inexcusable.
The tragedy will be, though, if we don't learn from it. We can learn
that those mistakes, the safety and well-being of postal employees
has to be a top priority. It is a simple fact that a secure workplace
should not be a fringe benefit. The truth is that postal employees
deserve a workplace that is safe and productive and offers dignity
and respect at all times.
Clearly a drug free work place is something that we all devoutly
seek to achieve. However, I am concerned about the role that the
Inspection Service has undertaken in eliminating substance abuse
in the workplace. These hearings provide us an opportunity to ad-
dress questions about the most appropriate use of those Inspection
Service resources and the establishment of meaningful priorities.
I am committed to continue to work with the chairman and with
the Inspection Service and with the chief to develop an appropriate
framework and responsible protocols to ensure the safety and pro-
ductivity of the postal workers in the postal workplace.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas C. Sawyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas C. Sawyer, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Ohio
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continued leadership on this most important
issue.
As you know, I participated in the committee's heairing lat year in Cleveland. At
that time, we heard how the actions of the Postal Inspection Service disrupted the
lives of several innocent postal employees. The Inspection Service's handling of that
case was inexcusable. Unfortunately, we cannot erase what has already taken place.
But we can learn from those mistakes, in an effort to ensure an appropriate func-
tion for the Inspection Service. The safety and well-being of postal employees must
be a top priority. A secure work environment is not a fringe benefit. Postal employ-
ees deserve a workplace that is safe and productive, and offers dignity and respect
at all times.
Clearly, a drug-free workplace is an admirable and necessay goal in terms of safe-
ty. However, I am concerned about the role of the Inspection Service in eliminating
substance abuse in the workplace. These hearings provide us with an opportunity
to address questions about the most appropriate use of Inspection Service resources
and establishment of meaningful priorities.
I remain committed to working with Chief Inspector Hunter as we seek to develop
an appropriate infrastructure to ensure the safety and productivity of postal work-
ers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clay. Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make a few comments regarding the testimony
that I have had an opportunity to peruse. I am troubled that some
postal employees have been falsely accused, harassed, lost their
jobs, lost their homes, their good names, because of overzealous
postal inspectors and unscrupulous hired informants.
Indeed this is a travesty of justice. There is legitimacy to try the
control the workplace against the use and abuse of alcohol and
drugs; most employees agree to that. However, when innocent em-
ployees are rounded up and handcuffed, it is easy to see why there
is a problem with morale and productivity.
This type of abhorrent behavior is reminiscent of the gulag. I
think we all learned that sorry doesn't make a person come alive
again, and I do note that chief postal inspector, Mr. Hunter, does
apologize for the behavior of the Postal Inspection Service and the
bizarre methods used to entrap postal employees. However, this is
not going to make whole the lives of individuals who strove to
make a career in the postal system and were falsely accused of sell-
ing drugs. The zealous behavior of the inspection system doesn't
justify the irreparable harm that was done to innocent individuals.
Like you, Mr. Chairman, I am also troubled by the racial over-
tones against minorities in these postal drug stings. I have said
many times during our hearings in our committee that the Federal
Government must set the standards for equality and fair play.
Though I am saddened at the outcome of some of the investiga-
tions, it is of some consolation to note that the Postal Service is
looking at its procedures and that it is getting help from GAO and
other law enforcement entities, yet much more must be done to
guarantee that this debacle doesn't happen again.
I am reminded in terms of the abuse of power of a line from
Shakespeare. Though it is wondrous to have the strength of a
giant, it is tyrannous to use it as a giant. I think that is the abuse
of power that we have seen here that we are here to help remedy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Constance A. Morella follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Constance A. Morella, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make a few comments regarding the testi-
mony which I have had the opportunity to scan. I am deeply troubled that sorne
postal employees have been falsely accused, harassed, lost their jobs and lost their
homes, and their good name because of over-zealous postal inspectors and unscrupu-
lous hired informants.
This is a travesty of justice. Indeed, there is legitimacy to try to control the work
place against the use and abuse of alcohol and drugs — most employees will agree
to that. However, when innocent employees are rounded up and hand-cuffed, it is
easy to see why there is a problem with moral and productivity. This type of abhor-
rent behavior is reminiscent of the Gulag.
6
I am sure that many of us were taught as children that "Sorry doesn't make a
dead man (or woman) alive." I noted that Chief Postal Inspector, Mr. Hunter does
apologize for the behavior of the Postal Inspection Service and the bizarre methods
used to entrap postal employees. However, this will not make whole the lives of in-
dividuals who strove to make a career in the postal system and were falsely accused
of selling drugs. The zealous behavior of the inspection system does not justify the
irreparable harm done to innocent individuals.
Like you, Mr. Chairman, I am also troubled at the racial overtones against mi-
norities in these postal drug stings. I have said many times during our hearings in
oiu- committee — the federal government must set the standard for equality and fair
play. Though I am saddened at the outcome of some of the investigations, it is of
some consolation to note that the postal service is looking at its procedures and that
it is getting help from the Government Accounting Office and other law enforcement
entities. Yet, must more must be done to guarantee that this debacle does not ever
happen again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clay. The first witness is Frank A. McDonald, a former post-
al employee. Your entire statement will be put in the record at this
point and you may proceed as you like.
STATEMENT OF FRANK A. McDONALD, FORMER POSTAL
SERVICE EMPLOYEE
Mr. McDonald. My name is Frank A. McDonald. I am a veteran
of the U.S. Marine Corps, and until June 26, 1986, I was employed
by the U.S. Postal Service for 9 years.
The date June 26, 1986 will always haunt me as it was one of
the worst days of my life, only to find out later that it would only
be one of many to come. On this date as I was just about to clock
into my job at the Post Office, I was approached by two postal in-
spectors. They asked my name. I informed them and they in turn
informed me that I was under arrest for violation of Health and
Safety Code 11352-11355.
My first instinct was they thought I had some kind of disease,
as they used the words "health" and "safety." I even thought this
was a joke, but by the looks on their faces, I knew it wasn't. I was
immediately handcuffed and taken to my locker so it could be
searched. The inspectors did not find what they were looking for,
so I was taken to an ofiice, where I was interrogated for hours. It
was only then that I found out it was really drug charges I was
arrested on.
I told them they were crazy and they had the wrong person. The
inspectors claimed to have caught me red-handed, so that I had
better confess to this crime. I kept telling them they had the wrong
person, and they could not have caught me red-handed with any-
thing, as I was innocent. They threatened me with everything they
could think of, but nothing they could say would ever make me
admit to something I didn't do or even knew anything about.
After hours of going back and forth, they finally got tired of me
telling them they had the wrong person and that I was innocent.
So the inspectors advised me that I was now going to the county
jail. My only hold on sanity at this point was that I was sure they
were going to find out they really had the wrong person, and this
mess would all be over with. Unfortunately, this never happened,
and my nightmare had only just begun.
As postal inspectors escorted me out of the Post Ofiice, they very
cleverly used the front doors, where it was no surprise to them that
we were met by mass media. I can remember looking at the faces
of the inspectors; in fact, I can still see the glow of pride they radi-
ated. They were so sure they had caught the big, bad criminal. The
inspectors thinking they were so smart were nothing more than ig-
norant as they were carting off an innocent man to jail and leaving
the real criminal behind to watch the show. The inspectors enjoyed
every bit of their 15 minutes of fame.
I was booked into the county jail and spent three days in jail be-
fore my family and friends could raise my bail money. Needless to
say, those three days were horrifying, as I have never been incar-
cerated before. In fact, I have never even had a traffic ticket. I
have always distanced myself from trouble, and before this dis-
grace, I had the clean record to prove it.
After my release from jail, I spent months locked up in my apart-
ment, as I was afraid someone would recognize me from all the tel-
evision coverage. I was afraid to show my face, even though I was
innocent.
Apparently, this whole mess started when a man by the name
of Gilbert Salinas contacted postal inspectors, stating that he knew
drugs were being sold on postal grounds. Mr. Salinas volunteered
to go undercover to try and identify the drug dealers. Of course,
this was a pajdng job for this unemployed so-called construction
worker.
Postal inspectors planted Salinas in our department at the termi-
nal annex. It amazes me that postal inspectors felt this was a
qualified informant. I would think some type of experience or train-
ing should be required.
I acquainted myself with Salinas the same way I acquainted my-
self to any other employee I worked with. We were never good
friends — just the usual friendship you acquire when working with
someone eight hours a day. I remember him having a good sense
of humor, as he was always trjdng to make us laugh.
Mr. Salinas almost every day volunteered to go out and pick up
everyone's lunch, so if this makes me guilty, so is everyone else in
my department. I never found it odd that he always wanted to be
the one to go out and pick up lunch, as I noticed on several occa-
sions Salinas leaving the building and he looked for any excuse to
get away. I didn't concern myself with this, as it was none of my
business, but I did figure he would get caught sooner or later.
Other than everyday chitchat, we spoke of nothing else, especially
drugs.
After this so-called sting was over, Salinas named me along with
10 other employees. Salinas accused me of selling him approxi-
mately $5,000 worth of cocaine. This is a blatant lie, as I have
never sold him or anyone else any drugs. I didn't sell drugs then,
I don't sell them now, and I never will.
To this day, I wonder why Salinas chose me to destroy. How did
he make his decision to frame me? I know I will never know the
answer, but what I do know for sure is, he would do or say any-
thing to protect himself, as he was a criminal that should have
been arrested, and not me.
I was taken to trial in Superior Court. As Federal prosecutors
were the only ones with any smarts — they refused to press charges
against me due to lack of evidence. Salinas testified under oath
that I in fact did sell him cocaine. Yet Salinas got away with lying
8
under oath, as I have never sold him or anyone else anything. I'm
sorry, but I was never able to get a copy of the trial transcript due
to lack of funds.
The most disgusting part of this whole disgrace is there was
never one single shred of evidence against me. You would think
there would have to be some kind of proof, anything that would
link me to this crime. The fact of the matter is, there was never
anything. There was no kind of surveillance of any kind, no cam-
eras, no pictures, no wires, no tapes, nothing at all; just the good
work of a lying, unemployed criminal with the record to prove it.
I will never understand why inspectors felt this man could possibly
be so honest; why in the world did they think this man was so close
to God? The only evidence against me was the word of Salinas, and
nothing else.
The drugs that Salinas turned over to Inspector Chavez never
came from me, as he claims. I am sure they came from Salinas
himself, as the first batch was tested and proven to have 3.1 per-
cent cocaine. The second batch had no cocaine. I honestly feel Sali-
nas made these batches himself and kept the $5,000 Inspector Cha-
vez gave him so freely.
Through my whole trial, the testimony between Inspector Chavez
and informant Salinas almost never corroborated. The words, "I'm
not sure" and "I don't remember" were often used by these two pro-
fessionals, who claim to be smart enough to conduct a major drug
sting. The real truth is they really had no idea what they were
doing. It was nothing more than a three-ring circus and the crimi-
nals were running the show.
The evidence submitted in court were two bags of so-called drugs.
These bags had been tested for fingerprints and it is documented
that my fingerprints were not on either of the bags. Now wouldn't
this give inspectors and prosecutors the slightest clue? Salinas
never testified that I wore gloves. The truth is, I never touched
those bags and he knew it. He knew I was innocent.
On each of the transactions that Salinas informed Inspector Cha-
vez of, Salinas was given instructions from Chavez as to where the
buys were to go down. Each buy Salinas made was supposed to be
witnessed by Chavez. Salinas advised Chavez as to the time and
locations of said buys. Each buy was done alone by Salinas, as he
always had an excuse as to why the time and location was
changed. So of course Chavez never witnessed anything. He
couldn't see that Salinas was merely pocketing the money.
Inspector Chavez testified that he nor anyone else ever searched
Salinas for money or drugs at any time. Mr. Salinas informed Cha-
vez that the second buy was going to be a split deal. Inspector Cha-
vez states this in his investigative memorandum dated June 26,
1986.
Also stated in Chavez investigative memorandum, he states that
he spoke with Salinas on February 27, 1986, at which time the in-
formant told him that on February 14, 1986, I supposedly ap-
proached Salinas and offered to sell him cocaine. Why would it take
Salinas 13 days to give Chavez such damaging evidence against
me? Neither had a reason why. I can tell you why; it is because
this conversation never took place. It was only another lie.
I know for a fact that Salinas is a criminal that stole thousands
of dollars from the Postal Service. As God is my witness, I have
never sold drugs of any kind to anyone, so the money Salinas
claimed to have given me only went to himself and anyone else in-
volved in this sham. I have my doubts about Inspector Chavez,
also. His testimony was often also vague. His information he said
came from his informant never matched what his informant testi-
fied to.
Example, at my preliminary hearing, Chavez testifies that he
gave Salinas $4,000 to make a buy. Chavez testifies that he and
Salinas were in the vehicle when they exchanged money. Yet at my
jury trial, Chavez testifies that at that time of the exchange of the
$4,000, there in fact was another inspector present in the vehicle
to witness the exchange; yet Inspector Chavez cannot remember
the name of the inspector present.
Both these statements were made under oath. Which one is the
truth? Also, in Chavez' Investigative Memorandum dated June 26,
1986, he states that he drove himself to diesignated locations to ob-
serve buys going down. Yet at jury trial he testified, under oath
again, that someone else always drove him to these locations, as he
didn't want to be recognized. Again, Chavez cannot remember the
name of this driver.
When is Chavez telling the truth and when is he lying? I assume
Chavez must rank pretty high up in the Post Office to be allowed
to conduct a drug sting. It scares me that someone so incompetent
carries a job of distinction.
On October 18, 1987, we were informed that the jury had
reached a verdict. I remember the jury verdict came in so fast —
this definitely scared me. Along with word the verdict had come in,
there was a request from the jury that they be able to read a state-
ment with their verdict. Approval came from both sides and the
judge. The judge ordered that we wait and read the verdict the
next day.
On October 19, 1987, I was acquitted of all charges against me.
After reading the verdict, the jury foreman also read a statement
which stated the jury felt the case against me should have never
come to trial, based on the evidence given. To my surprise, Judge
Jones joined in and stated, "I agree with you wholeheartedly." He
went on to say that he thought this was one of the lousiest jobs
of investigations he had ever heard of. He was most upset that
there was no corroboration between inspector and informant.
Judge Jones also urged jurors to write to the Postmaster Gen-
eral. Another quote from Judge Jones was, "Frankly, the idea of
them throwing our money around so loosely, supposedly to buy
drugs with no hope of getting it back, that deeply offends me."
I felt sure this was the end of the road. I was free and clear, only
to learn I still had to go through another trial to try and get my
job back. I was advised to go through the Merit System Protection
Board, and boy, do I feel this was a great mistake. The trial was
held on postal grounds. They still controlled this whole mess. I was
found guilty by this single judge; yet I was found innocent by a Su-
perior Court judge and jury of 12. I will never understand this in-
justice. At this trial, there was still not a single shred of evidence;
only the word of informant Salinas and Inspector Chavez.
10
Unfortunately, I had to accept this decision, as I had no money
to appeal it, as lawyer fees had already cost $5,000, which my
brother borrowed on my behalf. We just couldn't come up with any
more money, which is a shame, because I know if I was able to
take this matter to a higher court, I would have easily got my job
back and all compensation due me.
I had no income whatsoever for almost 2 years. In fact, the Post
Office also took me through an unemployment hearing, where I
was denied any unemployment benefits. The Post Office made sure
they did everything and anything to make my life hell. The worst
part is, they got away with it. I have been with my present em-
ployer for almost 6 years, and I again have a good record, with no
disciplinary action whatsoever, same as I did with the Post Office.
In fact, back in December 1993, I was given a Special Achievement
Award in recognition of notable performance along with a check for
$400 by the Postal Service.
I know I was done a great injustice. I know Salinas is a crook
for sure, and I have serious concerns that people higher up in the
Post Office such as Chavez could have also been involved. You have
to see that this investigation was nothing more than a sham. There
was no investigation, no professional people who knew what they
were doing; just a group of inadequate people. The sad part about
this whole thing is they got away with it. Salinas made a lot of
money, and I wouldn't doubt that this criminal is still employed by
the Post Office.
I am the first one to say if somebody is jeopardizing their job to
sell drugs, then sure — get rid of them. I have kids of my own, and
I certainly don't appreciate the criminals that make it all too easy
for kids to get involved with that poison. I appreciate the fact that
the Post Office is sending a strong message to drug dealers, as I
have come to hate them more than anyone, but the message was
sent to me and I paid for somebody else's crime.
I don't feel this disgrace should be allowed to happen to one more
innocent person. There has got to be a way to control these stings
with professional, adequate, and most of all, honest people running
them.
If I was given my job back like I should have been eight years
ago, I would have had 17 years with the Postal Service. I would
be making a good living like I deserved, and I wouldn't just be get-
ting by financially, as I am with my present employer.
I feel Congress should send a strong message to the Postal Serv-
ice and advise them that these inadequate stings are just not ac-
ceptable and will not be tolerated, as innocent people like myself
are the only ones getting hurt.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank A. McDonald, Former Postal Service
Employee
My name is Frank A. McDonald, I am a veteran of the U.S.M.C. and up until
June 26, 1986, I was employed by the United States Post Office for nine years.
The date June 26, 1986 will always haunt me as it was one of the worst days
of my life. Only to find out later it would only be one of many to come. On this
date as I was just about to clock into my job at the Post Office I was approached
by two Postal Inspectors. They asked me my name, I informed them and they in
turn informed me that I was under arrest for violation of Health and Safety Code
11
11352-11355. My first instinct was they thought I had some kind of disease as they
used the words Health and Safety. I even thought this was a joke but by the looks
on their faces I knew it wasn't. I was immediately handcuffed and taken to my lock-
er so it could be searched. Inspectors did not find what they were looking for so 1
was taken to an office where I was interrogated for hours. It was only then that
I found out it was really Drug charges I was arrested on. I told them they were
crazy and they had the wrong person. Inspectors claimed to have caught me ' red-
handed", so that I had better confess to this crime. I kept telling them they had
the wrong person, and they could not have caught me "red-handed" with anything
as I was innocent. They threaten me with everything they could think of, but noth-
ing they could say would ever make me admit to something I didn't do or even knew
anything about. After hours of going back and forth they finally got tired of me tell-
ing them they had the wrong person and that I was innocent. So inspectors advised
me that I was now going to the County Jail. My only hold on sanity at this point
was that I was sure they were going to find out they really had the wrong person
and this mess would all be over with. Unfortunately this never happened and my
nightmare had only just begun. ^ , , , j
As Postal Inspectors escorted me out of the Post Office they very cleverly used
the front doors, where it was no surprise to them that we were met by mass media.
I can remember looking at the faces of Inspectors, in fact, I can still see the glow
of pride they radiated. They were so sure they had caught the big bad criminal. In-
spectors thinking they were to smart were nothing more than ignorant, as they were
carting off an innocent man to jail and leaving the real criminal behind to watch
the show. Inspectors enjoyed every bit of their fifteen minutes of fame.
I was booked into the County Jail and spent three days in jail before my family
and friends could raise my bail money. Needless to say those three days were horri-
fying, as I have never been incarcerated before, in fact, I have never even had a
traffic ticket. I have always distanced myself from trouble and before this disgrace
I had the clean record to prove it.
Afl^r my release from jail, I spent months locked up in my apartment as I was
afraid someone would recognize me from all the television coverage. I was afraid to
show my face even though I was innocent. ^ r^■^^. o i-
Apparently this whole mess started when a man by the name of Gilbert bahnas
contacted Postal Inspectors stating that he knew drugs were being sold on Postal
grounds. Mr. Salinas volunteered to go under cover to try to identify the drug deal-
ers. Of course this was a paying job for this unemployed so-called construction work-
er. Postal Inspectors planted Salinas in our Department at the Terminal Annex. It
amazes me that Postal Inspectors felt this was an qualified informant. I would think
some type of experience or training should be required.
I acquainted myself vdth Salinas the same way I acquainted myself to any other
employee I worked with. We were never good friends just the usual friendship you
acquire when working with someone eight hours a day. I remember him having a
good sense of humor as he was always trying to make us laugh. The only money
that ever exchanged between myself and Mr. Salinas was for food. Mr. Salinas al-
most every day volunteered to go out and pick up everyone's lunch, so if this makes
me guilty so is everyone else in my department. I never found it odd that he always
wanted to be the one to go out and pick up lunch as I noticed on several occasions
Salinas leaving the building and looked for any excuse to get away. I didn't concern
myself with this as it was none of my business, but I did figure he would get caught
sooner or later. Other than everyday chit-chat we spoke of nothing else, especially
drugs.
After this so called sting was over Salinas named me along with ten other employ-
ees. SaUnas accused me of selling him approximately five thousand dollars worth
of cocaine. This is a blaten he as I have never sold him or anyone else any drugs.
I didn't sell drugs, then, I don't sell them now, and I never will. To this say I won-
der why Salinas chose me to destroy how did he make his decision to frame me?
I know I will never know the answer, but what I do know for sure is he would do
or say anything to protect himself as he was a criminal that should have been ar-
rested and not me. , , .
I was taken to trial in Superior Court, as Federal Prosecutors were they only one s
with any smarts, they refused to press charges against me due to lack of evidence.
Salinas testified under oath that I in fact did sell him cocaine. Yet Salinas got away
with lying under oath and I have never sold him or anyone else anything. I'm sorry
but I was never able to get a copy of the trial transcript due to lack of funds. The
most disgusting part of this whole disgrace is there was never one single shread of
evidence against me. You would think there would have to be some kind of proof,
anything that would Unk me to this crime. The fact of the matter is there was never
anything. There was no kind of surveillance of any kind, no cameras, no picture no
12
wires, no tapes nothing at all; just the good word of an lying, unemployed criminal
with the record to prove it. I will never understand why inspectors felt this man
could possibly be so honest, why in the world did they think this man was so close
to God???? The only evidence against me was the word of Salinas and nothing else.
The drugs that Salinas turned over to the Inspector Chavez never came from me
as he claims. I'm sure they came from Salinas himself as the first batch was tested
and proven to have 3.1 percent cocaine. The second batch had no cocaine. I honestly
feel Salinas made these batches himself and kept the five thousand dollars Inspec-
tor Chevez gave him so freely. Through my whole trial the testimony between In-
spector Chavez and informant Salinas almost never corroborated. The words "I'm
not sure" and "I don't remember" were often used by these two professionals whom
claim to be smart enough to conduct a major drug sting. The real truth is they real-
ly had no idea what they were doing, it was nothing more and a three ringed circus
and the criminals were running the show. The evidence submitted in court were to
two bags of so-called drugs. These bags had been tested for fingerprints and it is
documented that my fingerprints were not on either of the bags. Now wouldn't this
give Inspectors and Prosecutors the slightest clue? SaUnas never testified that I
wore gloves. The truth is I never touched those bags and he knew it, he knew I
was innocent. /- o i-
On each of the transaction's that Salinas informed Inspector Chavez of, Salinas
was given instructions from Chavez as to where the "buy's" were to go down. Each
"buy" Sahnas made was supposed to be witnessed by Chavez. Salinas advised Cha-
vez as to the time and locations of said "buy's." Each "buy" was done alone by Sali-
nas, as he always had an excuse as to why the time and location was changed, so
of course Chavez never witnessed anything, he couldn't see that Salinas was merely
pocketing the money. Inspector Chavez testified that he nor anyone else ever
searched Salinas for money or drugs at any time. Mr. SaUnas informed Chavez that
the second "buy" was going to be a split-deal (Inspector Chavez, states this in his
Investigation Memorandum dated 6/26/86). Yet under oath and at trial Salinas
states that he has never heard the term "spht-deal." Also stated in Chavez' Inves-
tigative Memorandum he states that he spoke with Salinas on February 27, 1986,
at which time informant told him that on February 14, 1986, I supposedly ap-
proached Salinas and offered to sell him cocaine. Why would it take Sahnas thirteen
days to give Chavez such damaging evidence against me? Neither had a reason why.
I can tell you why, it's because this conversation never took place. It was only an-
I know for fact that Salinas is a criminal that stole thousand of dollars from the
Postal Service. As God is my witness I have never sold drugs of any kind to anyone,
so the money Sahnas claimed to have given me only went to himself and anyone
else involved in this sham. I have my doubts about Inspector Chavez also. His testi-
mony was ofi«n also vague. His information he said came from his informant never
matched what his informant testified to. Example, at my Preliminary hearing Cha-
vez testifies that he gave Salinas four thousand dollars to make a "buy." Chavez
testifies that just he and Salinas were in the vehicle when they exchanged money.
Yet at my jury trial Chavez testifies that at that time of the exchange of the four
thousand dollars there in fact was another Inspector present in the vehicle to wit-
ness the exchange, yet Inspector Chavez cannot remember the name of the Inspec-
tor present. Both these statement's were made under oath, which one is the truth?
Also, in Chavez' Investigative Memorandum dated June 26, 1986, he states he drove
himself to designated locations to observe "buy's" going down. Yet at Jury Trial he
testifies under oath again, the someone else always drove him to these locations as
he didn't want to be recognized. Again, Chavez cannot remember the name of the
driver. When is Chavez telling the truth, and when is he lying? I assume Chavez
must rank pretty high up in the Post Office to be allowed to conduct a drug stmg.
It scares me that someone so incompetent carries a job of distinction.
On October 18, 1987 we were informed that the Jury had reached a verdict. I re-
member the Jury's verdict came in so fast, this definitely scared me. Along with
word the verdict had come in there was a request from the Jury that they be able
to read a statement with their verdict. Approval came from both sides and the
Judge. The Judge ordered that we wait and read the verdict the next day.
On October 19, 1987, I was acquitted of all charges against me. After reading the
verdict the Jury Foreman also read a statement which stated the Jury felt the case
against me should have never came to trial based on the evidence given. To my sur-
prise Judge Jones joined in and stated "I agree with you wholeheartedly" he went
on to say he thought this was one of the lousiest jobs of investigations he had ever
heard of. He was most upset that there was no corroboration between Inspector and
Informant. Judge Jones also urged Jurors to write to the Post Master General. An-
other quote from Judge Jones was "frankly the Idea of them throwing our money
13
around so loosely, supposedly to buy drugs, with no hope of getting it back, that
deeply offends me."
I felt sure this was the end of the road. I was free and clear, only to learn I still
had to go through another trial to try and get my job back. I was advised to go
through the Merit System Protection Board, and boy do I feel this was a great mis-
take. The trial was held on Postal grounds, they still controlled this whole mess.
I was found guilty by this single Judge, yet I was found innocent by a Superior
Court Judge and a Jury of twelve. I will never understand this injustice. At this
trial there was still not a single shred of evidence, only the word of informant Sali-
nas and Inspector Chavez.
Unfortunately I had to accept this decision as I had no money to appeal it, as
Lawyer fee's had already cost five thousand dollars, which my brother borrowed on
my behalf. We just couldn't come up with anymore money, which is a shame be-
cause I know if I was able to take this matter to a higher court I would have easily
got my job back and all compensation due me.
I had no income whatsoever for almost two years. In fact the Post Office also took
me through an unemployment hearing where I was denied any unemployment bene-
fits. The Post Office made sure they did everything and anything to make my life
hell. The worst part is they got away with it. I have been with my present employer
for almost six year and I again have a good record with no disciplinary action what-
soever, same as I did with the Post Office. In fact back in December of 1983 I was
given a Special Achievement Award in recognition of notable performance, along
with a check for four hundred dollars, by the Post Office.
I know I was done a great injustice. I know Salinas is a crook for sure and I have
serious concerns that people higher up in the Post Office such as Chavez could have
also been involved. You have to see that this investigation was nothing more than
a sham. There was no investigation, no professional people who knew what they
were doing, just a group of inadequate people. The sad part about this whole thing
is they got away with it. Salinas made a lot of money and I wouldn't doubt that
this criminal is still employed by the Post Office.
I'm the first one to say if somebody is jeopardizing their job to sell drugs, then
sure get rid of them. I have kid's of my own and I certainly don't appreciate the
criminal's that make it all too easy for kid's to get involved with that poison. I ap-
preciate the fact that the Post Office is sending a strong message to drug dealers
as I've come to hate them more than anyone, but the message was sent to me and
I paid for somebody else's crime.
I don't feel this disgrace should be allowed to happen to one more innocent person.
There has got to be a way to control these stings with professional, adequate, and
most of all honest people running them.
If I was given my job back like I should have been eight years ago. I would have
had seventeen years with the Postal Service. I would be making a good living Uke
I deserved, and I just wouldn't be getting by financially as I am with my present
employer.
I feel Congress should send a strong message to the Postal Service and advise
them that these inadequate stings are just not acceptable and will not be tolerated,
as innocent people Uke myself are the only one's getting hurt.
Mr. Clay. Mr. McDonald, it is no consolation, but I will say to
you that you were not the only victim that suffered from these
kinds of what I consider to be criminal acts on the part of the em-
ployees of the U.S. Postal Service. But I want you to know that this
committee will do all in its power to see that you are made whole.
I personally think that they ought to put you back to work and
pay you for all of the years that you were off.
Let me ask you, you talked about the hours of interrogation ini-
tially when they came to the floor of the workroom and handcuffed
you, took you somewhere. Did they read you your Miranda rights?
Mr. McDonald. Not until we went to the— their office upstairs
in the terminal annex.
Mr. Clay. How long was that before they read you your rights?
Mr. McDonald. Maybe one-half hour, 20 minutes after I was ar-
rested.
Mr. Clay. What happened — did they interrogate you?
80-287 0-94
14
Mr. McDonald. No; I was escorted to my locker, which they con-
fiscated everything in my locker and I was escorted to their office
upstairs, which was in a different building from where I work.
Mr. Clay. Before they started interrogation, they read you your
Miranda rights?
Mr. McDonald. No.
Mr. Clay. How long did they interrogate you before they read
you your rights or did they ever read you your rights?
Mr. McDonald. They did upstairs before they started interrogat-
ing me.
Mr. Clay. What impact did that July drug sting arrest have on
you and your family? You lost your job?
Mr. McDonald. Yes.
Mr. Clay. Were you buying a home or car?
Mr. McDonald. No; I was renting at the time. I wasn't married
at the time. And I lost that. I had to move in with my mother and
brother. lEverything fell apart. I couldn't get a job, attorneys fees,
took a lot out of me.
Mr. Clay. You borrowed $5,000 to pay the attorney initially?
Mr. McDonald. My brother borrowed it from his work to pay for
attorney fees.
Mr. Clay. Prior to this incident and your arrest, did you have
any work-related problems at the Postal Service?
Mr. McDonald. No; I had no problems there at all. I got along
with everybody. I did my job. I had a good time working there.
Mr. Clay. Did you have any problems when you were in the Ma-
rine Corps?
Mr. McDonald. Oh, no. I got honorably discharged from there.
I had no problems there.
Mr. Clay. Were you in battle?
Mr. McDonald. No. I was stationed at Camp Pendleton for 3
years.
Mr. Clay. How long did it take you to go to trial and be acquit-
ted?
Mr. McDonald. It was about 1 year.
Mr. Clay. You were unemployed during the whole period?
Mr. McDonald. Yes. I tried to get unemployment benefits. I
think I connected a few weeks and the Post Office appealed, and
I had to go through another hearing which they denied me any
more unemployment benefits. It was hard getting a job, putting the
Postal Service down. They see that and why were you fired from
there and they see that and they want no part of you. It was hard
to get a job.
Mr. Clay. I assume that of your friends and relatives, some
thought you were actually involved?
Mr. McDonald. No; they supported me. If it weren't for my fam-
ily and friends supporting me, I could have went off the deep edge.
It was really hard on me.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. Sawyer. Mr. McDonald, you were never able to reclaim your
job at the Post Office?
Mr. McDonald. No.
Mr. Sawyer. That is just beyond belief.
15
Mr. Clay. But there are several hundred others in the same situ-
ation.
Mr. Sawyer. This is the same kind of story that we heard in
Cleveland.
Mr. McDonald. I went through all the steps and was denied on
the Merit System Protection Board. He was acquitted
Mr. Sawyer. You were found innocent, there were no other
charges against you, and no violations of the rules of the Postal
Service. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is a problem
here. Not only with the Inspection Service and the way this entire
operation was carried out, but with the process of adjudication and
the assurance of employment rights within the Postal Service itself.
Ms. Norton. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sawyer. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Was there a decision written by the MSPB indicat-
ing its grounds?
Mr. McDonald. They just found that they believed the inform-
ant over me.
Ms. Norton. There is a lower standard of proof at an adminis-
trative hearing than in a criminal proceeding, so it is not unusual
to have a different decision rendered even though it is
counterintuitive and contradicts our notion of justice.
I believe it would be useful if Mr. McDonald would submit for the
record a copy of the MSPB decision so we can see if these are deep-
seated problems that go further.
[The information referred to follows:]
16
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE
FRANK A. MCDONALD,
Appellant,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Agency.
DOCKET NUMBER
SF07528810073
DATE: February 24, 198 8
Richard P. Fox. Esquire, Los Angeles, California, for the
appellant.
Excel Hunter. Los Angeles, California, for the agency.
F. Lament Liggett
Administrative Judge
INITIAL DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Appellant timely appealed an agency decision removing him
from employment. The Board has jurisdiction over such
appeals. -See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-7513.
For the reasons "setT forth below, the agency's decision is
AFFIRMED.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The agency removed appellant based on the following
charges: possession and sale of a narcotic (cocaine) on postal
property, and conduct unbecoming a postal employee. The
17
-2-
specif ications underlying the charges allege that during
February and March of 1987, appellant while on postal property
offered to sell and ultimately sold cocaine, on two separate
occasions, to a coworker, Gilbert Salinas. Some background
is necessary.
During 1985 and 1986, Robert Chavez, a U.S. Postal
Inspector in the Los Angeles Division was assigned as a task
force leader for narcotics investigations in the Los Angeles
area. The task force received information that employees
assigned to the Los Angeles Post Office Vehicle Maintenance
Facility (VMF) were sell ing_ controlled — aufestajicds — while — oji
duty. Inspector Chavez conducted his investigation at the VMF
with the aid of a 'Confidential informant, Gilbert _^S a l^inas.
Throughout the agency's investigation at the VMF, Salinas
comported himself as a normal postal worker, while allegedly
agreeing to purchase illegal drugs from his coworkers.
At the Board hearing, Salinas testified that he bought a
substance purported to be cocaine from appellant while on
postal property on two separate occasions during March 1986.
Specifically, the witness testified that on February 14, 1986,
appellant approached him and stated that he knew that *he
(Salinas) had been purchasing cocaine' and that "he (the
appellant) could get Salinas a good deal.* Thereafter,
Salinas testified that appellant approached him on February
27, 1986, and offered to sell him either one-half pound or
one-quarter pound of cocaine, suggesting a price of $6,400.00
for the one-quarter pound. Salinas testified that the next
18
-3-
day appellant approached him and offered to sell him 2 ounces
of cocaine for $4,000.00. At this point Salinas, testified
that Inspector Chavez instructed him to make arrangements to
buy the 2 ounces of cocaine from appellant. Salinas
testified that on (^larch 3, 1986- he gaye_appellant^$4^00. 00
in the tool and parts room of the VMF at approximately 2:00
p.m., and was told that the cocaine would be de^i vered^ _the
following day in the post office parking lot at approximately
2:00 p.m.
Salinas testified further that on March 4, 1986, at
approximately 2:00 p.m., while he was clocking in to work,
appellant signaled him and pointed to a work__order located on
a desk next to where appellant was standing. According to
Salinas, under the work order he found a plastic bag, and
inside the plastic bag was another plastic bag containing a
white chunky powder. The witness testified that heturned the
plastic bag and its contents over to Jnsgector Chavez.
On March 12 and 13, 1987, Salinas testified that
appellant approached him, and again offered to sell him
cocaine. According to Salinas, on March 12, 1987, appellant
offered to sell him 2 ounces of cocaine for a price of $3,
500.00. The witness testified further that on March 13, 1987,
appellant offered to sell him one-half ounce of cocaine for a
price of $1,000.00. Salinas testified that he conveyed the
latter offer to Inspector Chavez, he was authorized by Chavez
to accept it. He testified further that he gave appellant
$1,000.00, on March 13, 1987^ at approximately 4:15 p.m., and
19
-4-
was told by appellant that he would receive the cocaine the
following day in the agency parking lot. Finally, Salinas
testified that the cocaine was not delivered on the 14th of
March, but rather, at approximately 2:03 p.m., on M^gch 17 ,
1987.
zlispector Robert Chave^, corroborated SaJAftas^ testimony
that two drug transactions occurred between him and
appellant on March 3-4, and March 13-17, 1987. The witness
also testified that the metal structure of the VMF building
prevented him from wiring Salinas with a hidden tape recorder,
and that he did not persflPaXty-have-an— opportunity to observe
the drug transactions. Nonetheless, Inspector Chavez
confirmed giving Salinas a total of $5,000.00 of the
agency's funds in cash to make the two drug buys from
appellant. Inspector Cha^vez also confirmed Salinas' testimony
that he (Salinas) kept him fully_ apprised . of the ongoing
status of each drug transaction with appellant. On this
issue. Inspector Chavez testified that Salinas signaled him
after each transaction was completed and that he personally
spoke with Salinas after each drug transaction. Further,
Inspector Chavez testified that Salinas was administered a
polygraph examination after each drug transaction with the
appellant, and that Salinas passed both examinations with
20
respect to the pertinent questions regarding his drug
transactions with appellant. ^
With respect to the contents of the alleged drugs sold to
Salinas, both Salinas and Inspector Chavez testified that they
were subsequently informed by the agency's laboratory analysis
that the substance allegedly received from appellant on March
4, 1987, contained 3.1% cocaine hydrochloride and weighed
70.17 grams, while the substance allegedly received from
appellant on March 17, 1987, contained no controlled
substance . See Appeals File, Tab 2C.
Finally, Inspector Chavez testified that he had used
Salinas as an undercover informant to buy illegal drugs from
eleven other employees at the VMF. Additionally, Inspector
Chavez testified that Salinas had assisted him as an
undercover informant in eighteen similar drug buys at the
Santa Ana, California postal facility, and two drug buys at
the Glendora, California postal facility. According to
Inspector Chavez, throughout all of his numerous undercover
investigations with Salinas, he found him to be a very
trustworthy and reliable informant. . __^
The agency also relied on an investigative memorandum
prepared by Inspector Chavez. The investigative memorandum
essentially memorializes the alleged negotiations between
Salinas and appellant regarding the two drug transactions;
^ I have accorded little weight to the results of the
polygraph examinations, since the agency failed to lay a
proper foundation for its submission. See Heir v. Department
of the Interior, 3 M.S.P.R. 247 (1980).
21
details the results of each transaction (i.e., time, place,
and amount of drug/money involved) ; and documents the
laboratory analyses of the substances allegedly received from
appellant.
In response to the evidence presented by the agency,
appellant steadfastly denies either offering to sell or
selling drugs to Salinas. Further, appellant testified that
he never discussed the buying or selling of drugs with Salinas
at any time. Appellant conceded that Salinas was an
acquaintance of his and further acknowledged that he
considered Salinas a friend^^ Further, the parties stipulated
that appellant was ^ound not guiltyy in Los Angeles Superior
Court of a two-count felony violation of the California Health
and Safety Code §§ 11352 and 11355 (sale of a controlled
substance (cocaine) - one count) and (unlawful sale,
transportation, etc., of a controlled substance, pursuant to
agreement - one count) .
Because the only direct evidence on the essential
elements of the charges consists of the testimonies of Salinas
and the appellant, this case turns_on the credibility of those -*
two^ witnesses. In brief, the issue is whether to credit the
III IW II
testimony of Salinas or the absolute denials of the appellant.
In deciding to credit Salinas' testimony over
appellant's, I have considered the following factors. First,
although InspectorChavez did not personally witness the
transactions between appellant and Salinas, he did confirm and
22
cprrofeorate Salinas'.^L_test^ony regarding specific details of
the two transactions ( i.e., times, places, amounts).
Further, I find appellant's testimony regarding the
agency's recoupment of $5,000.00 from his retirement annuity
as an offset for the money paid to him by Salinas inconsistent
with the documentary evidence of record, and wholly improbable
in view of all the circvimstances of this case. On this
matter, the evidence shows that on August 25, 1987, appellant
received a certified letter from Inspector Chavez. The letter
clearly advised appellant that as a result of the agency's
losses in the purchase of controlled substances from him, he
was indebted to the agency for the sum of $5,000.00. The
letter also clearly advised appellant that unless he
reimbursed the agency within 30 days or requested a
reconsideration of its decision, the amount would be set-off
from contributions in his retirement annuity. Appellant was
also advised that if the agency's reconsideration decision was
unfavorable, he could request a de novo evidentiary hearing.
See Agency Ex. Q.
It is undisputed that appellant failed to request either
reconsideration of the agency's decision or an evidentiary
hearing. Moreover, at the Board hearing, and despite
acknowledging having received and read the letter, appellant
testified that he was unaware that the agency had recouped
$5,000.00 from his retirement annuity. In view of the clear
and unambiguous statements in the letter regarding the
agency's intended course of action, including the dates, time
23
■8-
limits and consequences of inaction, I find appellant's
testimony on this issue less than credible. Indeed,
appellant's testimony that he knew he did not justly owe the
money and, therefore, based on the advice of his
representatives, he simply chose to do nothing, strains
credulity.
I also find the evidence attesting to the background,
Bi6tivation> and jirior conduct xaf Salinas sufficient to enhance
his overall credibility. On this issue, both Salinas and
Inspector Chavez gave the following consistent testimony.
Salinas, an unemployed construction worker was recruited by
the agency in 1984, after a postal carrier, while on duty,
attempted to sell him drugs. This incident disturbed Salinas
and he subsequently reported it to the Postal Inspectors
hotline. After some conversations, the Inspectors offered to
employ Salinas in regular postal jobs, where he would function
as an undercover agent.
It is undisputed that Salinas functioned in such a
capacity for about 3,^ears, working on a variety of undercover
drug assignments throughout Southern California. During his
tenure with the postal service, Salinas received a regular
salary for his actual postal duties, plus bonuses from the
Inspectors. He was employed at the Los Angeles VMF from
October 1985 to June 1986. During this period, he developed
evidence which led to the removal of twelve postal employees
for illegal drug-related activities. Prior to his assignment
at the VMF, Salinas participated in a total of twenty similar
24
undercover drug buys at postal facilities in Santa Ana and
Glendora, California,
Though appellant could proffer no reason why Salinas
would falsely accuse him of selling cocaine, it is argualsle
that Saljnas was motivated to f abrjLca te the_jeyldfince— irn— erde r
to receive additional bonuses. And, although favorable, the
record of the other cases against employees at the VMF is not
not conclusive as to Salinas' credibility. Of the eight cases
adjudicated to date, there have been three guilty pleas, one
conviction, and four acquittals (including the appellant's).
*lone' of theempl^ees j{hp have _spught administrative, review of
their removals have prevailed^. See Agency Exs. M, N, O.
I have also considered that any fabrication discovered in
Salinas' testimony would have led to his immediate termination
and possible prosecution. This is especially noteworthy since
the evidence involved criminal prosecutions, and Salinas faced
the requirement of passing a polygraph examination after each
transaction, as well as cross examinations by professionals in
court. Additionally, the record contains sworn affidavits
from two at^torneys attesting to Salinas' demeanor and
credibility while testifying in the various criminal
prosecutions which preceded this hearing. See Agency Exs. Tabs
K and L. Finally, because Salinas developed such a
significant number of cases at the VMF, he would have had to
engage in substantial fabrications in order to appreciably
affect his case production.
25
-10-
With regard to the evidence supporting appellant's
credibility, the record contains several letters from
coworkers and friends attesting to his honesty and integrity.
Further, I note that he has no prior criminal record.
However, after carefully reviewing all of the collateral
evidence presented regarding the credibility of both
appellant concerning the agency's recoupement action, and the
corroborative testimony of Inspector Chavez, I credit Salinas'
testimony over the appellant's. Further, the record is devoid
of any evidence that Inspector Chavez had any motive to
fabricate his testimony. In short, considering the totality
of evidence presented, I f^nd appellant's absolute denials
less wpxthy of belief. Indeed, I find it improbable that a
fabricated story would have contained the number, manner, and
specificity of details provided in this matter. Accordingly,
I find that the agency has proved the charged conduct by
preponderant evidence. The charges are sustained.
Efficiency of the Service and Penalty Determination
The sustained charges establishe that appellant made
contact and sold illegal drugs to a coworker while on duty.
Such on-duty misconduct obviously impacts upon service
efficiency and warrants discipline. See Dietz v. Department of
the Army, 29 M.S.P.R. 13, 14 (1985).
A final issue concerns the reasonableness of the removal
penalty. The Board has the authority to mitigate such a
penalty. See Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R.
26
■11-
280 (1981). However, an agency has significant discretion to
act within the bounds of reasonableness, and the Board will
not disturb the penalty if it is the maximum reasonable
penalty imposed considering all relevant factors. See Beard v.
General Sejrvices Administration, 801 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir.
1986) .
The record shows that appellant has been employed by the
agency for approximately 10 year^ and has an unblemished work
record. However, the sustained charge was serious, and the
resulting arrests brought extensive adverse media coverage to
the agency. See Agency Ex. F. Further, the misconduct was
repetitive and appellant was clearly on notice that such
conduct constituted a violation of state and federal laws, as
well as agency regulations. See Agency Ex. J. Moreover, the
fact that the second transaction did not involve the sell of
any controlled substances, does not vitiate the seriousness of
appellant's misconduct. Finally, I find that appellant's
fabricated testimony before the Board ef fectiyely_midermines^
any potential for rehabilitation. Thus, despite appellant's
length of service and work record, I find no reason in
mitigation sufficient to disturb the agency's decision in this
matter.
In sum, considering the seriousness of the sustained
charges, I find that appellant's removal does not exceed the
limits of reasonableness. See Douglas at 306.
DECISION
The agency's action ^is AFFIRMED.
27
Jj C^.^ f^,^
FOR THE BOARD: —^ J V--^' "^ ^ J)
F. Lament Liggett '/
Administrative Judge
NOTICE TO APPELLANT
This initial decision will become final on March 30,
1988, unless a petition for review is filed by that date or
the Board reopens the case on its own motion. This is an
important date because it is the last day on which you can
file a petition for review with the Board. The date on which
the initial decision becomes final also controls when you can
file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit. The paragraphs that follow tell you how and
when to file with the Board or the federal court. These
instructions are important because if you wish to file a
petition, you must file it within the proper time period.
BOARD REVIEW
You may request Board review of this initial decision by
filing a petition for review. Your petition for review must
state your objections to the initial decision, supported by
references to applicable laws, regulations, and the record.
You must file your petition with:
The Clerk of the Board
Merit Systems Protection Board
1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 802
Washington, D.C. 20419
Your petition must be postmarked or hand-delivered no later
than the date this initial decision becomes final. If you fail
to provide a statement with your petition that you have either
28
mailed or hand-delivered a copy of your petition to the
agency, your petition will be rejected and returned to you.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
If you are dissatisfied with the Board's final decision,
you may file a petition with:
The United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439
You may not file your petition with the court before this
decision becomes final. To be timely, your petition must be
received by the court no later than 30 calendar days after the
date this initial decision becomes final.
NOTICE TO AGENCY/INTERVENOR
The agency or intervener may file a petition for review
of this initial decision in accordance with the Board's
regulations.
29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the attached document (s) was (were) sent
by regular mail today to:
Appellant
Frank A. McDonald
1181 S. Garfield
Monterey Park, CA 9174 5
Appellant^s Representative
Richard P. Fox, Esq.
9911 W. Pico Blvd., Suite 1030
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Agency Representative
Excel Hunter
U.S. Postal Service
900 E. Gage Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90052
Other
Timothy M. Dirks
Office of Personnel Management
Employee Relations Division
1900 "E" Street, N.W., Room 7635
Washington, DC 20415
Date: February 24, 1988 — ^;;^_y__[_^^^i__--;^2L__Z_h_L
F. Lambnt Liggett /y
. Administrative Judge
80-287 0-94
30
Mr. Sawyer. I appreciate the gentlelady's comments. It seems to
me that the injustice that has been done here is ongoing. Mr.
Chairman, I would be pleased to be of whatever help, not only in
this case, but in some of the others that we have heard about
where there is a continuing injustice.
Mr. Clay. We had similar testimony in West Palm Beach where
the individuals that went before the Merit System Protection Board
also lost, after they were exonerated in court, and it is — their testi-
mony was that there was kind of a friendly relationship between
the Postal Service people and the judge that was adjudicating
Mr. McDonald. That is how it was in my case. It was like they
knew each other and were long lost friends when they met, the
judge and people on the Postal Service side talking about what
they were going to do later on.
Mr. Clay. They went to lunch together?
Mr. McDonald. Yes.
Mr. Clay. At West Palm Beach, the judge went to lunch with the
Postal Inspector and was picked up by the inspectors at the airport
and transported to and from the hearing. In one case, postal man-
agement refused to let a witness off— they made him work overtime
so he would miss the hearing of the individual that had been exon-
erated in court.
These are things that have been taking place across the country
in the name of postal inspectors who think that they are above the
laws of this country. We are going to do something about it if I
have my way.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clay. Mrs. Morella.
Mrs. Morella. I agree with what my colleagues have said. It
seems as though the MSPB rendered a ruling, you went to court,
were found innocent, you went back to MSPB to look at the appeal,
and they refused to do it, and on those grounds, and you were not
allowed to go back to your position.
Mr. McDonald. Yes.
Mrs. Morella. That doesn't make sense in terms of justice.
What happened to Mr. Salinas?
Mr. McDonald. I don't know where he is at. I wish I could get
hold of him though.
Mrs. Morella. Did he go to court?
Mr. McDonald. I don't know where he is at right now. I think
he just disappeared.
Mrs. Morella. It might be an interesting follow-up to find out
what happens to those informers who are paid to do that.
Mr. Clay. I don't know how we could get the information. The
Postal Service has been very uncooperative in submitting requested
information to this committee.
Mrs. Morella. Well, we can ask again, specifically request it.
What about the unions? Tell me how the union has helped or not
helped you.
Mr. McDonald. They helped me a lot. They recommended I go
to the Merit Protection Board.
Mrs. Morella. Did you have to pay for the attorney yourself?
31
Mr. McDonald. Yes. I started with one attorney and he wanted
additional money which I couldn't afford, so I had to get another
attorney.
Mrs. MORELLA. You were pretty much on your own?
Mr. McDonald. Yes. I had help from my family and friends, but
I still owe people money that helped me out, my sister-in-law.
Mrs. MORELLA. So even though ultimately in court you won the
case, there was never any payment back for any of the damages
or legal fees?
Mr. McDonald. No.
Mrs. Morella. What would you like to see this committee do?
Mr. McDonald. Straighten out the way the Inspection Service
works and get people there that know what they are doing and do
the job right, so innocent people like myself don't get fired from
their job and hurt like I was. There are some criminals out there
and there are some innocent people like ourselves
Mrs. Morella. If there are any other internal steps that we
should take or look at, would you let us know? This might be a sug-
gestion that the committee would want to look at?
Mr. McDonald. Yes.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you for coming before us.
Mr. Clay. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McDonald, have you or do you know if any of the others who
have been discharged from the Postal Service as a result of these
renegade sting operations have brought civil action?
Mr. McDonald. No; I don't know.
Ms. Norton. Do you recall if the statements of the trial judge
and the jury foreman in your case indicating that — indeed admon-
ishing the Postal Service for bringing such weak cases to court —
do you recall whether that evidence was presented or allowed dur-
ing the MSPB hearing?
Mr. McDonald. Yes; it was. But still they took the word of the
informant over me.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I must say, if the Postal Service is
as indicated in your earlier statement refusing to provide informa-
tion, normally there is an inference when somebody refuses to be
forthcoming of wrongdoing, and I think that in the absence of infor-
mation from the Postal Service, we should embrace that inference
and see what further action, including statutory action, needs to be
taken to control these operations that clearly are outside of the
law.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. I would be very brief. Thank you and all of the
Members, and thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. McDonald, was there a court reporter like the lady here at
your MSPB hearing?
Mr. McDonald. Yes; there was.
Mr. Hastings. Did you ever get a copy of the transcript?
Mr. McDonald. Yes.
Mr. Hastings. How long was the hearing in actual time?
Mr. McDonald. A couple of hours, not more or less.
Mr. Hastings. How long was your trial?
32
Mr. McDonald. One day.
Mr. Hastings. Did you have a lawyer at the merit hearing?
Mr. McDonald. Yes; I did. He was speciaUzed in merit system
protection.
Mr. Hastings. Did he cross-examine SaUnas?
Mr. McDonald. Yes, he did.
Mr. Hastings. Was he the same lawyer that cross-examined Sa-
linas at your trial in Federal court?
Mr. McDonald. No.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions or
comments at this time. I agree with all our colleagues, that it is
an abomination to have conducted this kind of proceeding.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. McDonald.
Mr. McDonald. Thank you for having me.
Mr. Clay. Next witness is George Dom. Mr. Dorn, your entire
statement will be put into the record and you may proceed as you
so desire.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE DORN, FORMER POSTAL SERVICE
EMPLOYEE
Mr. DORN. Thank you. My name is George Dorn. I am 37 years
old.
I was a mail handler at the Minneapolis Postal Service from May
1988 to May 1992. I was fired from my job for getting a person
named James Frye small amounts of marijuana.
I first met James Frye at the post office shortly after my wife
died of brain cancer in October 1989. I was very depressed and
emotionally upset when I met him, for my wife had died a slow,
painful death and I had cared for her in our home for about 1 year
while she underwent unsuccessful radiation and chemotherapy
treatments.
At that time, she required 24-hour care and became totally bed-
ridden. I refused to put her in a nursing home. Throughout the
year before I met James Frye, all my time had been devoted to my
wife's care. I had to carry her to the bathroom, administer medica-
tion, and when she passed away, she only weighed 78 pounds.
Most of my coworkers at the post office left me alone when I
came back from her funeral because they knew how depressed I
was. James Frye, however, approached me when I had gotten back.
He had just started as a casual worker and he worked the same
shift I did. The first day I met James Frye, he asked me for a ride
home and said he would pay me $5. I agreed to give him a ride.
The next night he asked again and I agreed. That night he pulled
out a joint of marijuana and asked if I had smoked pot. I said occa-
sionally, and we smoked it.
The next night, I gave him a ride again. He pulled out another
joint and we smoked it. He told me it was his last joint, and want-
ed to know if I could get him some. I told him I would check
around, but I had no intention of getting him any.
As the weeks went on, he kept asking me out to go drinking with
him. One night, he took me to a local bar and bought me drinks
all night. That night, he said he had heard a rumor that my wife
died of brain cancer and he wanted to know if that was true. I said
it was. This was also the same night I met his girlfriend Erika.
33
As our so-called friendship developed, I told him that my wife
had smoked pot during chemotherapy. He then told me he had
glaucoma and used pot like medicine. He continued to smoke his
pot with me after work and always kept bugging me to get him
some. He called it medicine. In fact, he did have an eye condition.
He had called me almost daily asking if I could get him some pot.
I would like to tell you about the first time I got him a small
amount of pot. It was around April 1990. Jimmy had told me his
birthday was coming up and he was going to a concert and would
buy me a concert ticket if I drove. He regularly told me I had to
get out and have some fun to get over my wife's death. A few days
later, he brought the tickets for the concert to work and said, now
all we need is some pot; can you get some?
At that point, I felt obligated to do so and did get him one-quar-
ter ounce of marijuana. A day or two before the concert, he said
he needed more pot. He said his girlfriend's car was going to be re-
possessed and she needed some pot to sell to make money to keep
from losing her car. He had also told me his girlfriend, Erika, who
later I found out was an undercover police officer, was going to set
me up with a girlfriend of hers if I got her the pot. Jimmy had been
insisting I needed to find a woman to have sex with to overcome
my grief.
Unfortunately, I did get him a couple more ounces. I hated doing
this. I was not a drug dealer and did not want to be involved in
these deals, but over the months, it seemed like Jimmy really cared
about my emotional well-being and I had begun to view him as my
best friend. I continued to hang out with Jimmy. I even took him
fishing, drove him to and from work, often confided with him about
the emotional difficulties I had about my wife, even telling him
when I went to visit her grave.
When we went out, he tried to get me to use cocaine and crack
on several different occasions. I refused. He tried to get me to give
money to prostitutes he knew in exchange for sex so they could buy
crack. Again, I refused. He always bought all my drinks and paid
my way for everything.
The times I did get pot for Jimmy, I never made any nioney on
it. I merely thought I was doing a friend a favor. I did it out of
a misguided sense of friendship.
When I was arrested April 3, 1991, while at work, I had learned
that 12 other mail handlers had also been arrested. When we left
the post office in handcuffs all in a group, the Postal Service had
apparently notified all the television and media, who were waiting
to photograph us for the 10 p.m. news.
The next day, the local paper ran nearly a one-half page photo
on the front page. The only connection among those arrested was
James Frye, yet the way the Inspection Service stated the arrest,
the public was left with the impression that a large scale drug ring
had been busted. In fact, in the iy2 years that Frye harassed post-
al employees for drugs, the Inspection Service netted only about 2.5
pounds of marijuana and one-half gram of cocaine.
After my arrest, I hired an attorney for $10,000. He had told me
to plead guilty to the felony charge in Federal court and he would
get it reduced to a misdemeanor by a rule 35 motion and I would
save my job. The motion was denied. Later, I had learned rule 35
34
had been repealed several years earlier and even if it had not, such
a motion could not reduce a felony to a misdemeanor.
After I lost my job and became a felon for life, I was forced to
go on welfare for 11 months. That was quite humiliating, since I
had been working my whole life. It took me 22 months to find a
job, and now because of my felony conviction, my chances of getting
decent employment have been destroyed. I was a hard worker at
the post office and liked my job.
I feel workers should not be encouraged to do wrong by secret
Government informants in the name of friendship. I knew many of
the people who were fired as a result of James Frye. Some of them
lost their homes, all lost their livelihood and chances for good fu-
ture employment. I hope that you see Frye's actions devastated the
lives of many good people.
There are a couple of things I don't have in my statement I
would like to say. On three different occasions, James Frye had
gotten me some marijuana, sold me marijuana and also, Jimmy
Frye had been scamming the postal inspectors for the times he did
get them marijuana, the amounts were always short and he was
always overcharging the Postal Inspection Service, so he was
scamming them also.
That is all I have to say. Thank you for your time and for allow-
ing me to come here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dom follows:]
Prepared Statement of George Dorn, Former Postal Service Employee
My name is George Dom. I am 37 years old. I grew up and have lived my whole
life in Minnesota. I am a high school graduate.
I was a mail handler for the Postal Service from May, 1988 to November 1992.
I was fired from my job for getting a person named James Frye small amounts of
marihuana
I met James Frye at the post office shortly after my wife died of brain cancer in
October of 1989 after my leave for her funeral. I was very depressed and emotion-
ally upset when I met him. My wife died a slow painfiil death, and I had cared for
her in our home for about one year while she underwent unsuccessful radiation and
chemotherapy treatment. She became totally bedridden, but I refused to put her in
a nursing home. Throughout the year before I met James Frye, all my time had
been devoted to my wife's care. I had to carry her to the bathroom, administer medi-
cation. When she died, she only weighed 78 pounds.
Most of my co-workers at the post office left me alone when I came back because
they knew how depressed I was.
James Frye, however, approached me right when I got back. He had just started
as a casual worker, and I worked the same shift as him. The first day I met him,
he asked me for a ride home and said he would pay me $5.00. I agreed to give him
a ride. The next night he asked again, and I agreed. That night, he pulled out a
joint and asked if I smoked pot. I said occasionally. The next night I gave him a
ride. He pulled out another joint, and we smoked it. He said it was his last pot and
wanted to know if I could get some. I told him I would check around but did not
have any intention of getting him any.
As the weeks went on, Jimmy kept asking me out. He took me to a local bar and
bought me drinks all night. That night he said he heard my wife had died of brain
cancer and he wanted to know if that was true. I said it was.
As our so-called friendship developed, I told him that my wife had smoked pot
diuing chemotherapy. He told me he had glaucoma and he used pot like medicine.
He continued to smoke his pot with me after work and always kept bugging me to
get him some. He called it "medicine," and he did in fact have an eye problem. He
called me admost daily asking if I could get him pot.
The first time I got him a small amount of pot, around April of 1990. He had told
me it was his birthday coming up and he was going to a concert and would buy
me a ticket if I drove. He also, as he began to do on a regular basis, told me I had
to get out and have some fiin to get over my wife's death.
35
A few days later, he brought the tickets for the concert to work and said, "Now
all we need is some pot. Can you get any?" I felt obligated to do so and did get one-
quarter of an ounce.
Before the concert, he said he needed more pot. He said his girlfriend's car was
going to be repossessed and she needed some pot to sell to make money to keep from
losing it. He had also told me his girlfriend "Erika" (who later I learned was an un-
dercover police officer) was going to set me up with a girlfriend of hers. Jimmy had
been insisting I needed to find a woman to have sex with to overcome my grief
Unfortunately, I did get him a couple more ounces. I hated doing this. I was not
a dealer and did not want to be involved in these deals, but over the months it
seemed like Jimmy really cared about my emotional well-being and I had begun to
view him as a best friend. I was lonely and very sad.
I continued to hang out with Jimmy. I took him fishing, drove him around and
confided with him about the emotional difficulties I had about my wife, even telling
him when I visited her grave.
When we went out, he tried to get me to use cocaine and crack. I refused both.
He tried to get me to give money to prostitutes he knew in exchange for sex so they
could buy crack. He always bought the drinks.
The times I got pot for Jimmy I never made any money on it. I did it out of a
misguided sense of finendship.
When I was arrested, the postal inspectors brought me to the post office. I learned
that 12 other mail handlers had also been arrested and brought there.
We lefl; the post office in handcuffs in a group. The postal service had apparently
notified all the television and print media who were waiting to photograph us for
the 10 p.m. news. The inspectors even opened the door of the paddy wagon so a pho-
tographer who came late could get his shot. The next day the local newspaper ran
a nearly half page photo on the front page.
The only connection amongst those arrested was James Frye. Yet the way the in-
spection service staged the arrest, the public was left; with the impression a large
scale drug ring had been busted. In fact, in the year and a half that Frye worked
on people, the inspection service netted only about two and one-half pounds of mari-
juana and one-half gram of cocaine.
I hired a lawyer for $10,000. He told me to plead guilty to the felony in federal
court and he would get it reduced to a misdemeanor by a Rule 35 motion, and I
would save my job. The motion was denied. Later, I learned Rule 35, in most part,
had been repealed years earlier and even if it had not such a motion could not re-
duce a felony to a misdemeanor.
After I lost my job and became a felon, I was forced to go on welfare for 11
months. I was humiUated. I worked my whole Ufe since I was 15 years old. It took
me 22 months to find a job and now, because of my felony conviction, my chances
of getting a job similar to the post office has been destroyed.
I was a hard worker and liked my job at the post office. I feel workers should
not be encouraged to do wrong by secret government informants in the name of
friendship. I know many of the people who were fired as a result of Frye. Some lost
their homes, and all lost Uvelihoods and chances for good future employment. I hope
you see that Frye's actions devastated the lives of many good people.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Dom, how long did you work for the Post Office?
Mr. DORN. Four years.
Mr. Clay. Had you ever been in trouble prior to the drug sting?
Mr. DORN. No, sir.
Mr. Clay. When Mr. Frye was encouraging you to purchase
marijuana for him, were you seeing a doctor, under a doctor's care?
Mr. DORN. Yes, I was. At the time of my arrest, I was seeing a
psychiatrist for grief and depression counseling. He knew about it.
Mr. Clay. You discussed that with him?
Mr. DORN. Right.
Mr. Clay. And he continued to pressure you into purchasing nar-
cotics for him?
Mr. DoRN. That is correct.
Mr. Clay. You say that 12 of you were handcuffed at the same
time?
Mr. DORN. Thirteen.
36
Mr. Clay. Thirteen — ^you and 12 others. Do you know what hap-
pened to the other 12?
Mr. DORN. One, I think, was acquitted and got his job back and
the rest, I am sure, never got their jobs back. I think most people
received probation. I received 1 year probation.
Mr. Clay. About half of them were exonerated in court?
Mr. DORN. I think so, if I am not mistaken.
Mr. Clay. What type of job do you have today?
Mr. DORN. Currently, I am working construction, just kind of on
and off. I might work 6 weeks and then I might be off for 1 week
or 2 weeks at a time before they have another job.
Mr. Clay. Do you know if Mr. Frye still is working for the Postal
Service?
Mr. DORN. I am not sure of that.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Dom, I don't have any questions for you. The
kind of thing that we have all expressed with regard to the kind
of testimony that Mr. McDonald offered and that you offer now con-
tinue to apply. The way you were taken advantage of at a time
when you were perhaps most fragile, as fragile a moment as a man
can face in life, it is very difficult to reconcile with any sense of jus-
tice.
I am sure that all of us express a sense of regret and apology.
Thank you.
Mr. DORN. Thank you.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I echo the sentiments of my col-
league, Mr. Sawyer, and I have no questions at this time.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. Getting back to the court case, some of
those individuals were not convicted in court. Others possibly
would not have been convicted, but it is the understanding of this
committee from information that we have received, evidence we
have received, that a witness possibly would have played a major
role in exonerating those who were convicted had the Postal Serv-
ice not pressured that witness and intimidated that witness into
not showing up to testify.
These are the kinds of activities, illegal as hell, that the Inspec-
tion Service has been involved in for the last 10 years in their so-
called professional sting operations.
Mr. Dom, we want to thank you for your testimony and we are
going to do all we can to see that you are made whole.
Mr. DORN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
The next witness is Mary de la Forest. Welcome to the commit-
tee. Your entire statement will be put in the record.
STATEMENT OF MARY de la FOREST, POSTAL SERVICE
EMPLOYEE
Ms. DE LA Forest. Thank you. Chairman DeLay, Members of the
committee, thank you for providing me with this opportunity to tes-
tify at this oversight hearing.
For the record, I wish to state that I am here today not as a rep-
resentative of the U.S. Postal Service but as a citizen who has been
victimized by the Postal Service and the Postal Inspection Service.
37
I have been employed by the Postal Service since 1987 as a mail
handler at the Minneapolis Main Post Office in Minneapolis, MN.
The Postal Service and Inspection Service hired James Frye in
1990 for the purpose of encouraging other postal employees to deal
in illegal drugs and use and possess drugs on postal property. The
Postal Service and Inspection Service knew Mr. Frye had an arrest
record, and a history of selling and using illicit drugs yet falsified
employment records to justify Mr. Frye's employment.
I worked on Saturday as a group leader at the main post office.
Mr. Frye worked the same shift with me. Mr. Frye new I was in
recovery for alcohol abuse and nevertheless tried to involve me in
drinking and drugging. It was known among the other workers
that Frye smoked marijuana in and about the facility and was al-
ways talking to people trying to get them to smoke with him.
On one occasion, Mr. Frye offered to pay me for a ride home. Mr.
Frye's driver's license was suspended and he was living in a work
house and he was on the Hubert law. When I dropped him off, he
gave me some money and dropped a pill in my hands. Later, I
called my sister who was a nurse and found that the pill was
Darvon. I got really mad that Mr. Frye tried to mess up my sobri-
ety in giving me a controlled substance.
On April 3, 1991, 13 postal workers were arrested by postal in-
spectors on drug charges. When I learned that the arrests were
based on the informant work of Mr. Frye, I was shocked that the
Postal Service would use the likes of James Frye to investigate
postal employees. I wrote a note to the local mail handlers union
and told them about the time Mr. Frye had tried to give me drugs.
This man posed a threat to my health and my postal job.
The union told postal management of my complaint about Frye.
Mr. Frye took great exception to my complaint about him. On June
10, 1991, Mr. Frye twice accosted me at the main post office, hurl-
ing loud, vulgar language at me. Although I had a witness to this
incident, postal inspectors refuted my allegations. Later I was
called to testify in several of the criminal trials of arrested postal
workers. I testified in the trial of Jeffery Larson and he was acquit-
ted on an entrapment defense.
Further, after I filed criminal assault charges against Mr. Frye,
Postal Inspector Callinan wrote to the assistant city attorney, Karl
Van D'Elden, and mischaracterized the incident by saying I
precipitated the confrontation and also told Mr. Van D'Elden how
important it would be to drop the charges before Frye testifies in
any drug sting trials.
Also, Frye once more harassed me in June 1991 by following me
home. Neither postal managers or inspectors took any action to dis-
cipline Mr. Frye or protect me.
On September 9, 1991, I attended a court appearance made by
Mr. Frye in connection with his misdemeanor prosecution by the
City of Minneapolis. While there, I was watched and followed by
a U.S. postal inspector. Thereafter, Postal Service inspection agents
summoned me to a meeting at their offiice. I brought along a mail
handler, Johnny Rodriguez, as a witness.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Bebel and Inspector Jerome Smith
questioned about my knowledge of James Frye and arrested postal
workers. I was questioned about my presence in court that day and
38
about any future testimony I may be called to give. Mr. Bebel and
Inspector Smith used this meeting to intimidate me and they tried
to make me sign an agreement not to testify in future trials. I re-
fused to sign anjrthing and left the meeting.
On September 30, 1991, the charges I had filed against Mr. Frye
were dismissed by the city of Minneapolis. Inspector Callinan had
been successful in undermining my case against Frye. During July
and August of 1992, the U.S. Postal Service management and post-
al inspectors without justification watched, spied, and photo-
graphed me at work and elsewhere.
All this has caused me great harm. I have suffered lost wages,
benefits, physical and emotional stress and sickness, fear, humilia-
tion and mental anguish. In fact, I fear that my testimony here
today will cause further harm and retaliation. I truly believe that
the Postal Service and the Inspection Service will find some way
to get me. I have done nothing wrong and only wish to work my
postal job without fear and harassment, reprisals and retaliation
from Postal Service or nefarious characters like James Frye
brought in to prey upon postal workers under the guise of law en-
forcement.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. de la Forest follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary de la Forest, Postal Service Employer
Chairman Clay, members of the Committee, thank you for providing me this op-
portunity to testify at this oversight hearing. For the record I wish to state that I
am here today not as a representative of the United States Postal Service but as
a citizen who has been victimized by the Postal Service and the Postal Inspection
Service. I have been employed by the Postal Service since 1985 as a mail handler
at the Minneapolis main post office in Minneapohs, Minnesota.
The Postal Service and Inspection Service hired James Frye in 1990 for the pur-
pose of encouraging other postal employees to deal in illegal drugs and use and pos-
sess drugs on postal property. The Postal Service and Inspection Service knew Mr.
Frye had an arrest record and a history of selling and using illicit drugs yet falsified
employment records to justify Mr. Frye's employment.
I worked on Saturdays as an acting supervisor at the main post office. Mr. Frye
worked the same shift with me. Mr. Frye knew I was in recovery for alcohol abuse
and never-the-less tried to involve me in drinking and druging. It was known among
the other workers that Frye smoked marijuana in and about the facility and was
always talking to people trying to get them to smoke with him. On one occasion Mr.
Frye offered to pay me for a ride home. Mr. Frye's driving license was suspended
and he was living in a halfway house. When I dropped him off he gave me some
money and dropped a pill in my hand. Later, I called my sister who is a nurse and
found that the pill was Darvon. I got really made that Mr. Frye tried to mess up
my sobriety by giving me a controlled substance.
On April 3, 1991 thirteen postal workers were arrested by Postal Inspectors on
drug charges. When I learned that the arrests were based on the informant work
of Mr. Frye I was shocked that the Postal Service would use the likes of James Frye
to investigate postal employees. I wrote a note to the local mail handler's union and
told them about the time Mr. Frye had tried to give me drugs. This man posed a
threat to my health and my postal job. The union told Postal management of my
complaint about Frye. Mr. Frye took great exception to my complaint about him.
On June 10, 1991 Mr. Frye twice accosted me at the main post office hurling loud,
vulgar language at me. Although I had witnesses to this incident, Postal Inspectors
refuted my allegations. Later, I was called to testify in several of the criminal trials
of arrested postal workers. I testified in the trial of Jeffiey Larson and he was ac-
quitted on an entrapment defense.
Further, after I filed criminal assault charges against Mr. Frye, Postal Inspector
CalUnan wrote to assistant City Attorney Karl Van D'Elden and mis-characterized
the incident by saying I precipitated the confrontation and also told Mr. Van
D'Elden how important it would be to drop the charges before Mr. Frye testifies in
any drug sting trials. Also, Frye once more harassed me in June, 1991 by following
39
me home. Neither Postal managers or inspectors took any action to discipline Mr.
Frye, or protect me.
On September 9, 1991 I attended a court appearance made by Mr. Frye in connec-
tion with his misdemeanor prosecution by the City of Minneapolis. While there I
was watched and followed by a U.S. Postal Inspector. Thereafter, Postal inspection
service agents summoned me to a meeting at their office. I brought along a mail
handler, Johnny Rodriguez, as a witness. Assistant United States Attorney Chris
Bebel and Inspector Jerome Smith questioned about my knowledge of James Frye
and arrested postal workers. I was questioned about my presence in court that day
and about any futvire testimony I may be called to give. Mr. Bebel and Inspector
Smith used this meeting to intimidate me and they tried to make me sign an agree-
ment not to testify in futiire trials. I refused to sign anything and left the meeting.
On September 30, 1991 the charges I had filed against Mr. Frye, were dismissed
by the City of MinneapoUs. Inspector CalUnan had been successful in undermining
my case against Frye.
During July and August, 1992 USPS management and postal inspectors, without
justification, watched, spied on and photographed me at work and elsewhere. All of
this has caused me great harm. I have suffered lost wages and benefits, physical
and emotional stress and sickness, fear, humiUation, and mental anguish. In fact,
I fear that my testimony here today will cause further harm and retaliation. I truly
believe that the Postal Service and the Inspection service will find some way to get
me. I have done nothing wrong and only wish to work my postal job without fear
of harassment, reprisals and retaliation from the Postal Service or nefarious char-
acters like James Frye brought in to prey upon postal workers under the guise of
law enforcement.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. I would hope that the Postal Service lead-
ership has enough sense not to try and harm you for testifying be-
fore this committee today. In fact, I would advise them not to try
and harm you.
Let me ask you this: Did you testify at any trial other than JefF-
ery Larson's trial involving James Frye?
Ms. DE LA Forest. I did. I testified at one other trial.
Mr. Clay. Which one was that?
Ms. DE la Forest. Paul van Slike.
Mr. Clay. Was he exonerated?
Ms. DE LA Forest. He was found guilty.
Mr. Clay. Why didn't you testify at the other trials?
Ms. DE LA Forest. I guess I really couldn't take it anymore. It
was very nerve-wracking and I feared retaliation.
Mr. Clay. You mentioned that Frye used illicit drugs on postal
property and he attempted to sell drugs to other employees?
Ms. DE LA Forest. Yes; he did.
Mr. Clay. Did anybody ever report this to supervisors?
Ms. DE LA Forest. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know.
I don't think so.
Mr. Clay. But it was common knowledge among the employees
that he was attempting to sell?
Ms. DE LA Forest. Yes.
Mr. Clay. And you stated that he solicited other workers into
using drugs?
Ms. DE LA Forest. Yes, he did.
Mr. Clay. That was common knowledge, which means that his
supervisor should have known?
Ms. DE LA Forest. Yes.
Mr. Clay. This is another frightening, disheartening case.
Mr. Hastings.
40
Mr. Hastings. The U.S. attorney and the postal inspector that
queried you, did you or anyone on your behalf file any kind of com-
plaint against the U.S. attorney that intimidated you?
Ms. DE LA Forest. Will you say that again?
Mr. Hastings. My understanding from your testimony is that
you felt intimidated by the U.S. attorney who sought to have you
sign a statement that you would not testify in the future trials. Did
you ever file any kind of complaint against him?
Ms. DE LA Forest. Against the postal inspector?
Mr. Hastings. No, the U.S. attorney.
Ms. DE LA Forest. I don't believe I did, no.
Mr. Hastings. When you were in that questioning by he and the
postal inspector, did you have an attorney?
Ms. DE LA Forest. No, I didn't.
Mr. Hastings. Did they say anything to you about your right to
have one?
Ms. DE LA Forest. No; they didn't. They made fun of the witness
that I had brought with me. They asked me if I was afraid of them
and what did I think they were going to do to hurt me.
Mr. Hastings. From her testimony, the thing that I find most of-
fensive, Mr. Chairman, is anyone in a prosecutorial posture taking
advantage of a witness who may well be beneficial to those who are
being prosecuted by that individual. I appreciate Ms. de la Forest
for coming forward and join you in suggesting that it would be un-
wise for anyone to intimidate her further with regard to her testify-
ing before this committee.
Thank you.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for testifying. It has been very helpful to
us.
The next witness is Mr. Kenneth Hunter, the chief postal inspec-
tor. Good morning and welcome to the committee. Your entire
statement, Mr. Hunter, will be included in the record at this point
and you may proceed as you so desire.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. HUNTER, CHIEF POSTAL INSPEC-
TOR, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY JEFF
DuPILKA, DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR— CRIMINAL INVES-
TIGATIONS; ANDREW CLEMMONS, INSPECTOR, INTERNAL
AFFAIRS DIVISION; AND IRA CARLE, INSPECTOR-IN-CHARGE,
CLEVELAND DIVISION
Mr. Hunter. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am Ken Hunter, chief postal inspector. With me are
inspector-in-charge Ira Carle of the Cleveland division; Andy
Clemmons, postal inspector, internal affairs division; and Jeff
DuPilka, deputy chief inspector, criminal investigations.
With your permission, I would like to briefly summarize my
statement for the record.
Late in January 1993, shortly after becoming chief postal inspec-
tor, I learned that improper handling of a series of employee nar-
cotics trafficking investigations in Cleveland, OH, had led to inno-
cent people being accused of crimes they did not commit. Today, I
again want to apologize to all the victims. This was wrong. It never
should have happened.
41
The internal investigations which followed found that two inspec-
tors had not followed prescribed procedures and that their super-
visors had failed to adequately oversee their operations. We have
taken disciplinary action internally and the informants have been
prosecuted.
First among our immediate concerns was to assist those who had
been wronged. Many groups worked with us to respond to their
needs. With the help of local officers of the National Association of
Letter Carriers, affected employees were reinstated and received
back pay. Unfortunately, this process took too long.
We also took steps to expunge the related criminal records of
those victims who wanted this done. Twelve of the falsely charged
individuals have filed tort claims against the Postal Service and a
committee of senior postal managers has been established to en-
sure prompt equitable review of their claims. Clearly, this episode
has injured innocent individuals and tarnished the reputation of
the Postal Inspection Service. We cannot undo what was done, but
we are working hard to respond to the needs of those who were
wronged and learn more from our mistakes.
Today I hope we may start the process of rebuilding your con-
fidence in our organization of dedicated men and women. The Post-
al Inspection Service has overhauled its narcotics investigation pro-
cedures as a result of the unfortunate incidents which have come
to light. As outlined in more detail in my statement, with the help
of a task force of law enforcement and legal experts, we have put
in place a thorough review system for these investigations, includ-
ing quality control procedures, restrictions on individuals who may
be used as informants, and tightened controls over financial ex-
penditures.
We have added specialized training and also taken steps to ad-
dress the concerns of many of us and this committee about the ra-
cial overtones of this failed operation in Cleveland and our em-
ployee drug investigations in general.
In addition to the GAO investigation requested by this commit-
tee, I have asked for an external assessment of our arrests in all
internal cases. Deputy Chief Inspector Recie Springfield will lead
a team to further examine ways to avoid bias in our work. I want
to assure you that racial bias will not be tolerated in the Postal In-
spection Service in its investigations or its hiring or its promotion
procedures.
To this end, last June we started an extensive training program
for all of our employees that encourages valuing diversity. We have
also focused our recruitment efforts to ensure that our work force
mirrors the customers we serve. Mr. Chairman, we are working
hard to learn from our mistakes and make changes to prevent
them in the future. Your staff has devoted substantial time and ef-
fort to this matter and has often pointed the way to possible solu-
tions.
At this point, I would like to deviate to say that after hearing
the concerns today, I am concerned that we need to go beyond the
steps outlined in my statement. I am therefore declaring a morato-
rium on the use of outside confidential informants on future em-
ployee narcotics investigations until we work out a more acceptable
solution.
42
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth J. Hunter, Chief Postal Inspectors, U.S.
Postal Service
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am here to dis-
cuss the narcotic enforcement operations of the Postal Inspection Service. With me
at the table are Ira Carle, the Inspector in Charge of our Cleveland Division, An-
drew Clemmons, an inspector from our Internal Affairs Division, and Jeff DuPilka,
Deputy Chief Inspector—Criminal Investigations.
In January 1993, shortly after becoming Chief Postal Inspector, I learned that a
series of employee narcotics trafficking investigations in Cleveland had not been
properly handled. The result was that innocent postal employees and private citi-
zens were wrongly accused.
Immediately upon learning of these problems, I ordered an internal investigation.
The investigation disclosed that two inspectors had failed to follow our prescribed
procedures and that their supervisors had failed to adequately oversee the investiga-
tions and that we need to revise our procedures and strengthen our controls.
Throughout this unfortunate episode, one of our major concerns has been the im-
pact these events had on innocent people. I traveled to Cleveland in an attempt to
meet with the employees who had been wrongly accused as a result of our investiga-
tions. Understandably, the employees were incensed over these events and refused
then and on other occasions to meet with me. As an alternative, I met with local
officers of the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) which represents most
of the affected employees. These officials were very helpful on behalf of the victims.
Subsequently, I sent letters of apology to the employees who had been unjustly re-
moved from their positions and set up a process to reimburse them for their legal
expenses. Reimbursement of the legal expenses incurred by those who had been
falsely accused was provided on an expedited basis through Ira Carle, our new In-
spector in Charge in Cleveland, again with assistance from the NALC. All of the
employees who requested reimbiu"sement of legal expenses have received it.
Today, I would like to again extend apologies to all those who were wrongly ac-
cused.
Postal managers and officers of the NALC also worked together to reinstate the
affected employees and see that they received back-pay. Two of the twenty-two em-
ployees who had been removed as a result of these investigations were not rein-
stated because they had been convicted of other, unrelated charges.
We have initiated action to expunge the related criminal records of the victims.
Consent to take this action was not received from one individual, and three individ-
uals objected and requests on their behalf were withdrawn.
Twelve individuals who were charged during these narcotics investigations (eleven
employees and one non-employee) have filed administrative tort claims against the
Postal Service. Documentation has been requested of the individuals. In order to en-
sure prompt, equitable, and efficient review of the claims when documentation is re-
ceived, a committee of senior postal managers has been established.
We recognize that this episode has not only hurt innocent individuals but also tar-
nished the reputation of our organization and lessened the high regard in which this
Committee long held our Service. My hope is that today we may start the process
of rebuilding the Committee's confidence in our work.
To this end, I would like to discuss the efforts we have made to learn from our
mistakes in Cleveland and explain the revised procedures and increased controls we
have put into place to prevent the recurrence of a situation like this and to enhance
the overall quality of our efforts to prevent drug trafficking in the Postal Service.
The Department of Justice has noted that the workplace has become a major
source of illegal drugs. A publication entitled "Combating Workplace Drug Crimes"
produced by Qie Bureau of Justice Assistance noted on page 1:
"How many employers realize that the workplace has become one of the safest
places in America to buy and sell drugs? Do employers recognize that drug sales
and use by employees result in lost productivity, higher overhead costs, and em-
ployee theft and embezzlement? And do law enforcement agencies realize that
targeting workplace drug trafficking can be an effective component in their overall
antidrug efforts?"
"With millions of U.S. workers being drug users, where do they get those drugs —
from street dealers? No! According to drug enforcement experts, most workers ob-
tain illicit drugs at or around their workplace from coworkers.
43
"Illegal drug use by workers has a negative impact on job performance and com-
pany profits. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that the typical drug-
abusing worker was five times more likely to file a claim for workers' compensation,
involved in accidents almost four times more often than other workers, and on sick
leave twice the normal level and late to work three times more often than
nonabusing employees."
The Postal Service sponsored a Symposium on Workplace Violence, here in Wash-
ington, D.C. last December. In the course of the seminar. Dr. Dale Masi, an inter-
national authority in the employee assistance field, noted the correlation between
violent acts and the use of alcohol and other drugs:
"Whether they are an alcohol or drug addict is not the question. It is the violent
actions caused by the use of tdcohol and drugs that is the problem. No employer
today can afford not to look at this situation."
The 1992 Postal Service Employee Opinion Survey confirmed that drug abuse in
the workplace is perceived to be a problem by postal employees, and that perception
was reaffirmed by them in 1993 survey data. We share the concern of postal em-
ployees that drug dealing and use in the postal work environment should not be tol-
erated.
Investigation is one of the ways used by the Postal Service to combat employee
drug trafTicking. The authority to conduct such investigations carries with it a re-
sponsibility to do so correctly. That responsibility, coupled with the expectation of
the. employees of the Postal Service that theirs will be a safer and more crime-free
work environment in the future, requires that we provide diligent and professional
attention to this problem. This is particularly true since other law enforcement
agencies could not assign these cases high priority because of their already heavy
workloads. Moreover, the illegal transactions primarily occur on postal property and
involve quantities of drugs normally associated with "street-level trafficking."
One of the most effective ways of investigating workplace drug violations is also
one of the most controversial — the use of informants. This technique is widely used
by law enforcement agencies to conduct drug investigations. If not properly con-
trolled, it can have unacceptable consequences such as occurred in our Cleveland
employee drug investigations.
In the early 1980s when we first conducted these types of investigations, we did
so by placing undercover postal inspectors in the workplace. This effort was not par-
ticularly successful because inspectors were not readily accepted into the drug scene
by those possessing or selling drugs. We then turned to the use of informants who
were able to more quickly assimilate into the day-to-day drug activity at the facility
where they were placed. In many cases, we recruited as informants individuals who
had been successfully used by other law enforcement agencies. Given appropriate
training in the postal work environment, informants were generally able to identify
postal employees engaged in illegal drug transactions much more promptly than un-
dercover postal inspectors. In many instances, inspectors are then introduced to the
dealer for the purpose of conducting "hand-to-hand" buys.
While it is true that the Cleveland employee drug investigations failed because
our confidential informants established an elaborate scheme of fictional drug "buys"
and falsely identified persons from whom they reportedly obtained drugs, the
scheme could not have succeeded if we had done our job properly.
Based upon our internal investigations, administrative action was initiated to re-
move the two inspectors responsible for the investigation, and disciplinary actions
were initiated against a team leader and two Inspection Service managers. Since
the inspectors' appeals are pending, I would prefer not to comment on the record
concerning the specific charges. In addition, the investigative findings were pre-
sented to the Department of Justice and the United States Attorney in Ohio for a
determination of whether federal prosecution of the inspectors was appropriate. The
facts were also supplied to state prosecutors in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, for their
consideration as to whether state laws had been violated. No prospective action has
been initiated as of this time.
Prosecution was initiated against the informants who were responsible for con-
cocting the elaborate scheme to deceive inspectors and prosecutors and victiniize in-
nocent people. Four were convicted. A fifth informant as granted immunity in con-
sideration for his cooperation with the prosecutors. Charges are pending against a
sixth.
Our assessment after the internal Affairs Division investigation of the Cleveland
cases was that our procedures needed expert review and modification. In order to
identify ways in which our employee drug investigation procedures might be im-
proved, we formed a taskforce comprised of two inspectors in Charge, a number of
subject matter experts, attorneys, crime laboratory personnel and an outside con-
sultant, Mark Schlein, an experienced Narcotics Division commanding officer from
44
the Broward County, Florida, Sheriff's Office. The task force met with federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies to benchmark our instructions, training, and in-
vestigative focus against theirs and make certain that we are using the most up-
to-date techniques in our employee drug investigations and in our procedures for
handUng confidential informants. The task force also met with representatives of
private sector companies to determine how other large employers handle drug prob-
lems involving their workforce.
Based upon the initial efforts of the taskforce, in June 1993, interim instructions
were issued which required our field divisions to establish the following controls:
Each division established a committee of senior inspectors to review all em-
ployee narcotics cases to ensure the quahty of those investigations.
No case will be presented for criminal or administrative action until reviewed
by the committee. Cases which fail to meet guidelines are returned for further
work and resubmitted for review.
We've instructed all of or field divisions to update the background information
on informants. The names of those who are not to be used in the future are
entered into an automated database, along with an explanation of the reason
the informant is not to be used.
All suspected controlled substances purchased during investigations are to be
submitted to the National Forensic Laboratory for analysis.
Lab personnel are notifying the field division manager when substances submitted
fall outside established norms. In these instances, managers are reviewing the case
with the appropriate inspector.
The revised instructions concerning the handling of substances purchased will
help prevent the mistakes which occurred in Cleveland from happening elsewhere.
In these investigations, the informants were buying and turning in a very low-grade
drugs. The quality of the drugs should have raised questions in the minds of the
inspectors and their supervisors. Instructions now require field testing of all pur-
chased substances (unless the entire suspect sample would be destroyed in the test)
and the submission of suspect substances to the National Forensic Laboratory. Noti-
fication to field divisions and the follow-up attention by division management pro-
vides needed safeguards.
Our investigative instructions have been expanded and compiled into a "Confiden-
tial Informant and internal Crimes Handbook." These instructions now contain ex-
tensive investigative techniques and program requirements. The handbook also con-
tains a set of checklists for the Inspector in Charge, team leader, and investigating
inspector regarding the control and supervision of informants and investigative re-
quirements.
The new instructions also focus attention upon oversight by Inspection Service
managers, training of inspectors, accounting and control of funds paid to informants
and/or funds used for the purchase of controlled substances. Drafts of these publica-
tions have been referred to the drug Enforcement Administration and the General
Accounting Office — Office of Special Investigations for review and comment. Copies
have also been ftimished to the Committee's staff.
An important part of these instructions covers the procedures to be apphed before
an individual can be used as an informant. We are requiring a more thorough back-
ground review, including fingerprinting, to conduct the best possible criminal his-
tory check. Supervisors and field division manages must review and approve the en-
rollment of an individual in the informant program. Once accepted, Inspectors in
Charge approve all significant changes in the status of informants.
The Committee's review of ovu- employee drug investigations raised concerns
about the character of informants. I, too, am concerned about the people we intro-
duce into the postal workplace. To address this, we have improved the process to
be followed when evaluating informants.
Inspectors must verify the reliability and credibility of informants before
using information gained fi-om them in any criminal or administrative proceed-
ing.
Independent corroboration of information provided by informants is required.
Informants must be polygraphed when no other verification is possible.
Informants must be polygraphed when questions arise about their credibility.
Expenditures exceeding the set spending authority of the Inspectors in
Charge must be approved at Headquarters by the Deputy Chief Inspector for
Criminal Investigations.
Supervisors must formally evaluate informant performance quarterly.
Inspectors in Charge must assess the effectiveness of the entire division in-
formant program quarterly.
Headquarters review of the national program is performed quarterly.
45
The Deputy Chief Inspector for Criminal Investigations is responsible for na-
tional oversight of the program.
All Inspection Service managers responsible for supervising employee drug inves-
tigations have received newly-developed specialized training in the supervision of
these kinds of investigations. In addition, we are piloting a two-week joint training
program with the Drug Enforcement Administration which, if successful, will be
provided to all inspectors receiving employee narcotics investigation assignments.
Moreover, inspectors assigned to conduct employee drug investigations will attend
annual seminars which will provide them with continuing professionad education in
narcotics investigations.
Simultaneously with the internal investigation of the Cleveland case and the im-
provement of our procedures, the Postal Service enhanced the Employee Assistance
Program to help drug-abusing employees obtain counseling to overcome their prob-
lems. In addition, the Inspection Service is working with postal managers to help
employees handle personal problems of all types in an effort to prevent criminal be-
havior. This two-pronged attack of assistance and enforcement is the most sensible
approach to the problem, for without removing dealers, other employees will still be
potential victims.
Another step taken to preclude the recurrence of this type of situation is the im-
plementation of a Quality Assurance Review function. This concept resulted from a
review of the Inspector General operations of the Inspection Service and from
benchmarking we performed of the internal review procedures of the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation and the Secret Service. An intensive review of the operations
of each of our field divisions and Headquarters units will be conducted at least every
three years at each site. The field divisions are also required to conduct self-assess-
ments of their operations on an annual basis and to advise me of their findings. Two
field division reviews have already been conducted. Our Quality Assurance Review
function, among other things, assures that the procedures the divisions are to follow
in employee drug investigations are being followed. In addition, we have an Internal
Affairs Division which will continue to investigate allegations of impropriety on the
part of Inspection Service employees.
I would also like to address a concern you have ejcpressed, Mr. Chairman, about
the racial overtones of our employee drug investigations. This is a concern for me,
too.
The Committee has asked the General Accounting Office to investigate this. We
are cooperating with them fully. I also asked for an independent assessment. I look
forward to learning the results of the both inquiries.
I want to assure the Committee that racial bias will not be tolerated in the Postal
Inspection Service. To that end, in June 1993 we started an extensive training pro-
gram which all of our managers and supervisors are attending to encourage the val-
uing of diversity. To date, 618 individuals have received this training, including all
of our managers and 429 of our supervisory level inspectors. Our goal is to provide
this training to all of our employees; and, to that end, we have added Valuing Diver-
sity training to our basic training curriculum for new inspectors.
Mr. Chairman, we have worked to leam from the mistakes we made in Cleveland.
We've adopted controls, changed procedures, trained employees, and worked to raise
the overadl quality of our efforts in this most difficult area. The time and attention
your staff has devoted to this effort have been substantial and have often pointed
the way to possible solutions. Thank you for that input.
For over 200 years, the women and men of the Postal Inspection Service have
proudly served the people of this country. Their work has earned a reputation for
professionalism and excellence. Cleveland has been a setback for the Inspection
Service, but we are working to reestablish the confidence of this Committee and
postal customers nationwide. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
United States Postal Service,
Washington, DC, June 8, 1994.
Hon. William Clay,
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representa-
tives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: During the Committee's May 12, 1994 hearing on the Inves-
tigative Procedures of the U.S. Postal Service, the Committee asked the Inspection
Service to review our employee drug investigations in West Palm Beach, Los Ange-
les and Minneapolis to determine the quality of the investigations and whether any
postal employees removed from duty as a result of those investigations should be
46
returned to duty. Congressman Hastings asked that he receive a report on the re-
view of the West Palm Beach cases within 30 days. The Committee also asked that
we review the procedures of other law enforcement agencies regarding payment for
confidential information and monetary recognition of outstanding performance on
the part of agents and that we determine whether two confidential informants once
used by the Inspection Service continue to be employees of the Postal Service.
Since the hearing, we have initiated efforts to develop the information the Com-
mittee sought. At this point, a conclusion has not been reached with respect to many
of these inquiries. However, this memorandum wiU serve as an interim report to
advise the Committee of the progress which has been made.
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA
The Postal Service is in the process of reviewing the dismissals of three employ-
ees: Jose Rodriguez, Charles O'Neal, and Anthony Fields. We have encountered dif-
ficulty obtaining necessary transcripts of the administrative proceedings relating to
the removal of these individuals. This problem arose since the storage retention pe-
riod for the records expired. Despite this difficulty, transcripts relating to two of the
individuals have recently been located, efforts are continuing to locate the third
transcript.
LOS ANGELES, CA
A team of postal inspectors currently is completing a review of the Los Angeles
employee narcotics investigation. The investigation initially focused upon the allega-
tions made by Mr. Frank McDonald at the hearing. It has been expanded to cover
all cases in which the informant, Mr. Gilbert Salinas, was involved.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Since Ms. de la Forest has both a pending suit and a $1 million tort claim against
the United States arising out of this investigation, a senior Law Department attor-
ney has reviewed the allegations made at the hearing by Ms. de la Forest and Mr.
George Dom. The attorney interviewed the inspectors involved in the investigation
and also discussed the allegations with representatives of the Department of Jus-
tice.
In addition to the investigations identified above, the Inspection Service will dis-
cuss at a mid-June meeting of our senior managers procedures to identify and then
review any other employee narcotics investigations that may be in doubt. The inves-
tigations in cities which have been identified as a concern to the Committee will
continue to receive particular attention.
The results of all reviews will be presented to the committee of senior postal man-
agers which has been established specifically to review claims arising out of the em-
ployee narcotics investigations. The committee's next scheduled meeting is on June
10, 1994.
As conclusions are reached in each of these reviews, the Committee will promptly
be notified of the results.
The Committee asked that we determine whether the informants, Gilbert Salinas
and Robert Gilbert continue to be employed by the Postal Service. We have deter-
mined that they are not.
The Committee also questioned the propriety of our inspectors obtaining informa-
tion from the Employee Assistance Program. We have met with the Employee Rela-
tions Department of the Postal Service and agreed to issue instructions to all postal
employees, including inspectors, to ensure that confidential information relating to
postal employees who have sought EAP counseling is not used to initiate drug inves-
tigations. The instructions will limit inspectors to obtaining general information con-
cerning drug problems occurring in a facility as distinguished from information con-
cerning a specific employee.
At the request of the Committee, the Inspection Service representatives have met
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire-
arms; and the U.S. Park Police concerning their respective policies regarding pay-
ment for confidential information and for awarding agents for exceptional perform-
ance. The Inspection Service is evaluating the information received and will, by July
1, 1994, make any appropriate changes in procedures to make sure that our proce-
dures are consistent with those generally accepted by other law enforcement agen-
cies.
Sincerely,
K.J. Hunter.
47
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. It is one thing to declare a
moratorium, but the basic question is: Why are you involved in
narcotics investigations in the beginning? No other agency of gov-
ernment investigates narcotics within its jurisdiction. They turn it
over to DEA.
Why is the Postal Service any different?
Mr. Hunter. The Postal Service is extremely large and we have
a memorandum of understanding, as you are probably aware, with
regard to the investigation by the Inspection Service. I think at the
time that memorandum was established, and it precedes me, there
was probably a concern that the DEA did not have the resources
to devote to these types of cases.
Mr. Clay. It may be extremely large. Is it as large as the De-
fense Department?
Mr. Hu^fTER. I believe the Defense Department, including people
in uniform, is larger.
Mr. Clay. Without the people in uniform, it is not as large as
the Defense Department, and why do they not have their own nar-
cotics investigators? Large is not the reason. There is another rea-
son. First of all, you are not equipped to do it, you are not trained,
you don't know how to process these cases. That is why we have
specialists; DEA is our speciaUst in the Government. So it is not
a question of placing a moratorium; it is a fundamental question
of whether or not you ought to be in the business of investigating
narcotics.
You were established to protect the sanctity of the mail and the
employees, to protect the employees. Bringing in paid informants
and trying to entrap those employees is not, in my opinion, a way
of protecting the mails or the employees.
Mr. McDonald testified on page 4 of his testimony that a jury
foreman and a judge had reprimanded the process, the procedure
used in some pretty critical and harsh terms. And specifically, they
were very critical of Inspector Chavez.
Is Inspector Chavez still employed by the Postal Service?
Mr. DuPiLKA. Mr. Chairman, yes, he still works for us. Not at
the Los Angeles Division.
Mr. Clay. Is he still an inspector?
Mr. DuPlLKA. Yes, he is.
Mr. Clay. Was anything ever done to him? Was he disciplined,
was he transferred, was he retrained?
Mr. DuPiLKA. The cases he was involved in were reviewed by
senior management. The procedures used were criticized. He is no
longer working in a narcotics assignment and he was counseled
about conducting investigations in a more professional fashion.
Mr. Clay. You mean a jury of 12 people and a judge listened to
testimony under oath and they found this man to be lacking in in-
tegrity and training and professionalism, and senior management
then reviewed the case and found absolutely nothing wrong, and he
is still employed after these other people have lost their jobs, have
suffered greatly financially and physically and emotionally, and
this individual who did all these things is still working as an in-
spector?
Mr. Hunter, would you think something is wrong with a system
that permits that?
48
Mr. Hunter. Much of the information that I heard today from
the witness was new information to me and I do think that it re-
quires a thorough internal review. I am not prepared at this point
to draw a conclusion because, again, my first exposure to that in-
formation, to that statement was this morning.
I would like to comment on one thing you said as regards the
military. They do have internal investigative units because when
we encountered this difficulty, one of the individuals I went to for
advice was retired Maj. G^n. Eugene Cromartie because of his in-
vestigative experience and because of the fact that he is African-
American.
I asked for his advice with regard to investigations and the racial
issues and he provided advice, including the offer of suggestions
with regard to training in the military with regard to drug pro-
grams, which we took advantage of.
Mr. Clay. I think the gentleman misheard what I said. I did not
mention the military. I said the Defense Department civilian com-
ponent.
Mr. Hunter. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Clay. Also, Mr. McDonald was very critical, and should have
been, rightly so, of this paid informant Salinas. Is he still working
for the Postal Service?
Mr. Hunter. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. DuPlLKA. Mr. Salinas is no longer employed by us.
Mr. Clay. When was his service terminated?
Mr. DuPilka. It was after this event, I believe, in the late 1980s.
I don't have the exact date, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Hunter, my letter requesting your appearance
today asked for an explanation of your narcotic enforcement oper-
ations from 1984 to 1992 including oversight. Your statement, your
prepared statement, does not address this at all.
Did you bring the information that we had requested, or are you
prepared to explain these operations for those years and your over-
sight of them?
Mr. Hunter. Yes; we are. Obviously, I didn't personally exercise
oversight at that time, but when the Cleveland incident came to
light, we took significant steps to change the procedures. But it is
one of the things that I asked that we be prepared to share with
you and Jeff DuPilka will do that.
Mr. Clay. If you have reviewed your program, why didn't you
supply this committee with the results of your statistical review?
Mr. Hunter. I am not sure I understand
Mr. Clay. We asked for specific information about the statistics
of the cases, the individuals who had been arrested, conviction rate.
If you have reviewed them in your oversight capacity, why was this
committee not given that information?
Mr. Hunter. My response was in terms of the procedures. I
know that you have asked for statistics before the period that they
were computerized and that there has been a series of meetings
and exchanges with regard to providing additional information be-
yond all the information provided.
Mr. DuPilka. I believe that we have furnished the GAO with a
computer down-loaded version of all our statistical information on
49
the narcotics program from 1989, which is the point where we
automated, forward. We furnished that to them several weeks ago.
Mr. Clay. Have you reviewed those cases?
Mr. Hu^^^ER. Not each case personally, no, sir. There are thou-
sands.
Mr. Clay. Then what do you view as your responsibility in re-
gard to these obnoxious, outrageous events that took place during
these drug stings? You don't think that you have a responsibility
to go back and review and if possible make some recommendations
that can make these people whole again?
Mr. Hunter. I certainly do, and I have spent a significant
amount of time trying to assure that this doesn't happen in the fu-
ture and to work with the victims as I become aware of it. I have
spent a significant amount of time with regard to the Cleveland
victims. I have recommended that the three individuals identified
at the hearing at West Palm Beach who lost their MSPB hearing,
that their situation be considered by postal management, and today
I have indicated to you that we will look into the situations that
have been raised here.
Mr. Clay. You mentioned Cleveland. Have your inspectors been
keeping you abreast of all these tragic incidents? Because when
this committee asked about the narcotic enforcement operations in
Cleveland, we were told that it was an aberration. You did not tell
us that the same kind of thing had happened in West Palm Beach,
in Los Angeles, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Boston, and Toledo.
Were you withholding information from this committee?
Mr. Hunter. I was not withholding information from you. As you
know, I was not happy that I first learned of the situation in Cleve-
land by reading it in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Upon learning
that, I took swift action to initiate an internal investigation.
I wasn't happy with the initial results of that. I am not happy
with the information that has come to light. I am working hard to
react to adverse information when I learn of it to correct the situa-
tion.
Mr. Clay. In your statement just a second ago, you said that ra-
cial bias would not be tolerated in the Postal Inspection Service.
Nationwide, almost one-half of the 1,731 controlled substances
cases against postal employees involve black males, who only rep-
resent 13 percent of the postal work force.
I might say to you, in this area, that better than 50 percent of
the convictions nationally for narcotic abuse are white folk, not the
black folks that you read about all the time. Why is it that 50 per-
cent of all of these people who represent only 13 percent of the
work force are black males if you don't tolerate any kind of racial
bias?
Are you saying to me that they were not targeted? In some cities,
100 percent of the targeted people were black males. In New Orle-
ans, for example, 100 percent. In San Francisco — let's take some
others here — in Chicago, of 238 targeted people, 78 percent of them
were black males. In Washington, DC, of 119 targeted people, 76
percent of them were black males, and this goes all through — Pitts-
burgh, St. Louis — 70 percent of those targeted were black males.
50
If you don't tolerate any racial bias, tell me what is happening
with these targeted individuals? Does race have anything to do
with the target?
Mr. Hunter. I share your concern. Obviously, it does. Obviously,
race was an element in Cleveland. And one of the questions I asked
early on was, if we have five or six informants who are black and
the victims are black, did we have a proportionate effort focused
upon whites; because the use of narcotics does not discriminate by
race.
The answer, as you know, is "no". That is not acceptable. That
is one of the things that I want Recie Springfield to get to the bot-
tom of and develop a solution for us, not just on employees narcot-
ics investigations, but all internal investigations. And I hope for
him to not only be able to use the data that we have asked to be
gathered and analyzed externally, but the data that you have
asked to be gathered by GAO.
Mr. Clay. How much has your narcotics program cost the Postal
Service over the last 5 years?
Mr. Hunter. I don't have that figure. I am not sure whether Jeff
does or not. I can tell you the percent of manpower, work hours,
if you will.
Mr. Clay. What is the percent of manpower?
Mr. Hunter. Currently, this year, through the first half of the
year, it is 2.4 percent of our work hours.
Mr. Clay. But money-wise, you don't know?
Mr. DuPlLKA. We have a figure for fiscal year 1993 which in-
volves all of our controlled substance purchases and our informant
distributions for not only internal crimes, narcotics cases, but other
cases like mail fraud and mail theft. I can give you that figure if
you would like it, sir.
Mr. Clay. It seems to me that whatever you spent has been
wasted money. In 5 years, you have a total of 1,731 cases, that is
an average of 300 cases a year. You have over 700,000 employees.
To me, there doesn't seem to be a pervasive problem with narcotics,
as you have said on more than one occasion, within the Postal
Service. 1,731 cases in a year where 700,000 people are involved
is no evidence that you ought to be showing great concern about
entrapping people in this area of narcotics.
Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just shift gears
for a second.
Last year the Postal Service contracted with a private firm to
conduct background checks for new hires. I have heard that these
have taken an inordinate amount of time, and that the hiring proc-
ess has been held up.
Can you comment on that process and about those delays? Do
you have any sense of that?
Mr. Hunter. I have heard the same thing. I don't have any sta-
tistics or any firsthand knowledge. That process was a response by
the Postmaster General and his key officers to our findings as we
investigated the problem of violence in the workplace, that the
proper preemployment screening steps were not being taken in a
number of instances.
51
Some offices were not doing police records checks, prior employer
checks or proper review of military records. So it was an effort to
contract it out to assure that it was done properly.
It is difficult with the peaks and valleys in the hiring process for
the postal offices to meet those demands on a site-by-site basis. But
I am sorry, I don't have firsthand knowledge as to the difficulties,
other than I have heard complaints of delays by the contractor dur-
ing the start-up period.
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you. Among the kinds of stories that we
have heard have been those that have surrounded threats of vio-
lence against postal employees. Have you been able to make any
progress with regard to the whole range of threats that postal em-
ployees face? Particularly, with regard to retaliation for cir-
cumstances like we have seen today, or in the more generalized
case of processing and delivering the mail. What kind of risks are
employees under and what kind of protection do they receive?
Mr. Hunter. Yes. As you are aware from prior testimony, we
have made a significant number of changes. In fact, from 1992, we
have increased the hours that we devote to the problem by 152 per-
cent. It is now over 6 percent of our work hours, and last fiscal
year, we investigated over 6,000 cases. As the chairman pointed
out, a lot of those threats are external. In fact, there are more
threats and acts of violence on employees by nonemployees. It is
our top priority, any threat or injury to an employee or a customer.
An example of a customer injury or a threat would be a mail
bomb. We have automated our complaint system as was rec-
ommended by this committee so that all investigative attention
goes into one common database, as was recommended. We have
also taken all the knowledge from the prior incidents that we stud-
ied and made that into a required element of the investigation,
that all those things be considered.
We have a 24-hour hotline. The calls to that hotline in 1992 re-
porting threats or assaults was 1,780; in 1993, it was 593. The In-
spection Service is just a part of the solution, but the aggressive
attention that Mr. Runyan and other managers have given have in-
cluded things such as the addition of the 85 psychologists, because
a lot of the solutions are not law enforcement, they are people that
need assistance emotionally or labor management problems that
need attention.
The Joint Committee on Violence in the Work Place has trained
a team, the symposium that was held, the doctors that have been
retained by the Postmaster General to review the correspondence
and to help assess the potential for violence — so there is a much
fuller, more robust effort at reducing the threat of violence in the
workplace than there was previously.
Mr. Sawyer. Mr. Chairman, if I could be permitted an observa-
tion. One of the things that you mentioned was that at least the
popularly understood role of the Postal Inspection Service has been
aimed fundamentally at ensuring the integrity of the mails and the
work of the Postal Service overall.
If I could be permitted an observation, your confidence, your
clear grip on the difficulties and the solutions with regard to those
kinds of things seems to be strong. It is when we get into these
52
other areas that the discomfort seems to apply. I hope that we can
learn from this.
The one final point I want to ask about was the reports I have
heard that at least a couple of inspectors who participated in the
Cleveland sting operation targeted employees on the basis of their
involvement in the Employee Assistance Program. It seems to me
that EAPs really represent the first line of defense in dealing with
internal substance abuse and other kinds of particular problems
that employees have. It really runs the risk of deeply undermining
the one strong tool that we have in dealing with troubled employ-
ees if those kinds of records are used.
Can you comment about whether or not inspectors actually did
provide informants with lists derived from
Mr. Hunter. I can. I will address it generally and Andy
Clemmons will address it in more detail because he was a key ele-
ment in the Cleveland investigation.
I appreciate your general recognition of the contribution of the
Inspection Service, and of course I am not dwelling on them here
because that is not the issue here, and what we are discussing here
is inexcusable, but there are 2,100 people out there doing very good
work in a number of other areas.
But the issue here is narcotics investigations and there are too
many errors and I do not condone entrapment or the things that
have happened. There are very limited conditions under which the
EAP program can divulge information to the Inspection Service.
There are limited criteria under which they are expected to. One
is if the individual may represent serious threat to others, and that
happens on occasion, that information is shared there, we are
called in and they are found to be a threat, and a law enforcement
approach is appropriate. Another is if they divulge information that
they are engaged in child abuse. So there are some very limited sit-
uations like that. Other than that, it is not appropriate; that is not
a place to go to gather information to target employees.
I would like Andy to respond specifically with regard to the gen-
esis of the cases in Cleveland.
Mr. Clay. Will the gentleman yield?
Your manual, the Inspection Service Manual, directs inspectors
to find potential suspects and gather information on those suspects
from Employee Assistance Program counselors, true or false? It
specifically directs them to gather information from these coun-
selors. Is it true or false?
Mr. DuPlLKA. Mr. Chairman, if I may answer that question. The
Inspection Service Manual, as it exists, has a section which directs
the inspector to employ assistance program counselors, not to iden-
tify people who are involved in the use of drugs or who are seeking
treatment. The Employee Assistance Program counselors often
come into possession of information concerning people who are
dealing drugs in the workplace and that is the intent of that sec-
tion, to get information on people who are dealing and creating vic-
tims, not to go after the people that are using.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Mr. Clemmons. As far as the Cleveland case is concerned, the
information that we uncovered when we investigated that case is
that 60 of the 68 people that were targeted there in Cleveland, the
53
initial information came from the informants themselves. Only
eight of the people who were targeted, the information came from
other sources and I don't believe those sources included EAP.
Mr. Sawyer. So, newspaper reports to that effect and some of
those involved in the process who said that they used the EAP Pro-
gram were incorrect?
Mr. Clemmons. No, sir; I didn't say that. What I said is, the ini-
tial tips that were received by inspectors did not come from that
program. Some of the people involved were involved with EAP and
they were attending that program.
Mr. Sawyer. Let me share with you a report. I will read it to
you as it was offered. It wasn't a matter of sharing tips; it was a
matter of sharing sources. I don't mean to browbeat this, but I am
not sure that your answer is responsive to the question.
I will read it from the beginning.
The Postal Inspector who ran a botched drug sting here testified yesterday about
his role in the scandal saying higher-ups were more interested in racking up statis-
tics than in supporting thorough investigation. Tim Marshall has declined inter-
views since the sting blew up a year ago, but took the stand in an administration
hearing to appeal the Inspection Service's decision to fire him and his colleague
Daniel Kuak.
The two men supervised the undercover operation which resulted in charges
against as many as 30 innocent people. The informants lied about buying drugs
from postal workers so they could keep the $250,000 they were given for drug pur-
chases.
Kuak, who also has remained silent until now, testified yesterday that one of the
ways the inspectors developed suspects for narcotics investigations was from coun-
selors in the Employees Assistance Program. A spokesman for the Postal Service in
Washington said he found that hard to believe, but in fact that was the testimony.
I am not sure that suggesting that there may have been other
sources for finding suspects responds to that particular and very
specific testimony.
Mr. Clemmons. When I reviewed the files of Mr. Kuak and Mr.
Marshall, there was nothing in the file that suggested that they got
any of the targeted people from the EAP rolls.
Mr. Sawyer. Except for their spoken testimony.
Mr. Clemmons. That is correct.
Mr. Sawyer. The point of my raising the question, and I hope
the point of the concern that we have all expressed, is that while
there may have been nothing in their files, and they may have
been smart enough certainly to make sure that there was nothing
there — that regardless of that absence of evidence in the files, this
raises very real concern.
The integrity of the Employee Assistance Program and the con-
fidence that it generates among employees is fundamental to its
success. My sense is that we deal a lot better with internal sub-
stance abuse to the degree that it may exist in the Postal Service
or any other workplace based on the strength of that confidence
and we have had better success with that program than with any
other; certainly better than with these kinds of stings.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hunter, I am 31 years a lawyer and 13 of those years as a
judge in some form or another either in State or Federal court. I
only use that as a reference point to highlight what happened in
54
Mr. McDonald's case. A jury, a trial jury made a request to make
a statement and a judge agreed that that should occur.
Just for your purposes, that is extremely unusual and it height-
ens the notion that something was radically wrong during the trial,
and I base that on my experiences. In all of my career, I have not
had a single jury — and I have been involved literally in more than
a thousand trials over the course of 31 years in some form or an-
other— and I have never heard a jury make such a request. So in
that light, you need to read the testimony of the jury and the judge
as you proceed in reviewing Mr. McDonald's case.
Turning from that, in the West Palm Beach testimony it came
out in a hearing that was held there that Chairman Clay was gra-
cious enough to come down and hold the hearing in West Palm,
that a convicted felon was taken out of prison and put on the
streets as a postal employee to investigate what appeared to be the
goings-on in West Palm. This investigator, it turns out, literally en-
trapped innocent workers and consequently innocent people were
fired.
I recognize you inherited this problem and recognize that during
the course of your prepared testimony and your summarized testi-
mony, that the only reference that was made to West Palm Beach
dealt with the fact that three of the persons who had gone through
the merit system and lost their jobs, that matter was being re-
viewed.
As you might expect, coming from that district, I am vitally con-
cerned about it, so I want to hear from you regarding the specifics
of what has taken place since the February hearing in West Palm
Beach. Can you give me the specifics at this time?
Mr. Hunter. Subsequent to the hearing?
Mr. Hastings. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter. I have decided, and although it is not within my
authority to reinstate them, I have asked that they be reviewed by
senior management because of the dichotomy that you are talking
about, the seeming disparate treatment by an administrative ap-
peal process versus what the outcome could have been judicially.
Of course, the U.S. attorney made the decision not to proceed on
further cases after the initial case.
Mr. Hastings. All the more reason why the merit system should
have been able to assist these people. Let me tell you, it was devel-
oped at that hearing by Chairman Clay's queries that the adminis-
trative proceeding was lacking, and that is putting it mildly. I do
not wish to consume a great deal more time.
It has been since February. I am troubled by any bureaucracy
that takes a substantial amount of time to correct its mistakes. I
sense from you and I appreciate the fact that I believe that you are
genuinely sincere about correcting those problems. As a member of
this oversight committee, and I have not learned all of the jurisdic-
tion I as a rookie member have, but I want to see something in 30
days regarding those people in West Palm Beach, please.
Mr. Hunter. That is fair.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:!
55
United States Postal Service,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1994.
Hon. Alcee Hastings,
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, Washing-
ton, DC.
Dear Congressman Hastings:
This is in response to your correspondence of May 13, 1994, concerning narcotics
investigations conducted in West Palm Beach, Florida. At your request, a committee
of senior postal managers thoroughly reviewed the cases of Messrs. Anthony Fields,
Charlie O'Neal, and Jose Rodriquez, which arose as the result of drug investigations
in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Included in their review were the investigative files of the Inspection Service, the
initial and petition review decisions of the MSPB for all three individuals, and the
hearing transcript of Mr. O'Neal and Mr. Rodriquez before the MSPB. The testi-
mony presented at the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee field hearing
in West Palm Beach was also evaluated.
The review committee noted inconsistencies in testimony presented at the House
Committee hearings and in information provided at the MSPB hearings, as well as
at the arbitration hearings. The committee's review disclosed that the hearing offi-
cer had aU of the relevant information available at the time of the proceeding. Evi-
dence presented was weighed along with the credibility of the witnesses. The char-
acter of the informant was explored. Based upon his analysis, the hearing officer
reached the conclusion that the Postal Service established by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the appellants had committed the acts which led to their removal.
The hearing officer's decision was later reviewed by the full Merit Systems Board
and was upheld.
The House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service expressed concerns that
the multi-track appeals system now available to Postal Service employees could sub-
ject similarly-charged employees to dissimilar results. The dispute-resolution proce-
dures available to Postal Service employees have their bases in Federal statutes.
Title 39, United States Code, requires the Postal Service and it unions to establish
and maintain a grievance-arbitration procedure. Title 5 established the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board for preference eligible and certain other employees to appeal
adverse actions. In providing these procedures to resolve employer-employee dis-
putes, we believe the law also created a reasonable expectation that decisions
reached through these procedures would be final and binding on the parties.
The three West Palm Beach employees in question were unsuccessful in their ap-
peals before MSPB, which upheld the Postal Service's decision to remove them.
Other employees appealed through the contractual grievance procedure; they pre-
vailed and, where appropriate, were reinstated. While each forum has arguable ad-
vantages and disadvantages, each can provide different judgments in cases arising
from the same incident. Like the members of the House Committee, the Postal Serv-
ice recognizes the anomaly which can result fi-om similar appeals in different fo-
rums. However, we can take no action which would guarantee uniformity of results.
After careful consideration, the review committee is satisfied that the MSPB had
sufficient information in rendering its decision. They do not believe that there is
reason to disturb the findings of the MSPB. We regret that we cannot offer a more
favorable resolution, although I appreciate having the opportunity to explain our po-
sition. We would be glad to meet with you and answer any other questions you may
have on this matter.
Sincerely,
KJ. Hunter.
Mr. Clay. Mr. McCloskey.
Mr. McCloskey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for
this hearing. In all candor, I don't know all of the aspects about
the work you have done, but is it true, Mr. Hunter, that inspectors
receive bonuses based on their arrests and convictions in this and
other areas? If that is true, is there thought being given to whether
this is good policy?
Mr. Hunter. That was a major concern I had when I became
chief inspector and I examined how the Inspection Service should
be restructured and the cultural changes that need to be made. I
asked employees for input and a number of inspectors complained
56
about what is characterized as collars for dollars. It is a common
term apparently in law enforcement. I don't condone that.
I dropped the emphasis, the primary emphasis upon arrests. The
cases need to be investigated in a priority sequence that is deter-
mined by the nature of the case and the severity, not how easy ar-
rests might be to obtain. In the hearing that was held in Flor-
ida
Mr. McCloskey. Is there any thought being given to the idea
that you don't have bonuses for numbers of arrests? Frankly, I am
increasingly skeptical, Mr. Chairman, about Federal bonuses in
general. What is the policy as far as abolishing the bonus concept
from this type of work?
The most simplistic concept is so-called speeders and speed traps
and what that does, arbitrary arrests and enforcement. Where are
you on this, without a lot of anecdotal background?
Mr. Hunter. That is where I was going. The retired inspector
who testified at the hearing raised it and referred to the system
under which that was done; the merit system. That system is abol-
ished so the system in which inspectors established goals that in-
cluded numerical goals regarding arrests and subsequently re-
ceived merit increases is abolished.
Mr. McCloskey. But numbers of arrests are not a factor in bo-
nuses and so-called merit increases now?
Mr. Hunter. They are no longer a factor. Arrests are important,
but they are not a factor in terms of collars for dollars. The factor
is, and I am not trying to engage in doublespeak — the factor is the
significance of the case. The significance could be the harm that
was done by the perpetrator, things like that. It is not the number
of arrests. In fact, the number of arrests have fallen.
Mr. McCloskey. This obviously merits further discussion and at-
tention. I missed Mr. McDonald's testimony and I don't know if
this was brought up previously, but is that the way you normally
handle someone professionally in any aspect of law enforcement
these days, the idea of gotcha, several hours of interrogation and
threats, when was he advised his rights?
Mr. Hunter. You are correct that that was covered earlier, and
I said that we would review that thoroughly.
Mr. McCloskey. What do you mean by reviewing that thor-
oughly? Mr. Chairman, this is on the record. This is an outrage.
You are overdue now, sir, with all due respect. Have you or have
you not put an order out that all instances like this presently and
in the future will not be dealt with that way? I mean, what kind
of professional outfiit do you have?
Mr. Hunter. I fiirst learned of Mr. McDonald's testimony this
morning and made a decision this morning that his situation will
be looked into thoroughly, and I am not trying to hide behind any-
thing. I don't condone the actions as characterized
Mr. McCloskey. Do you have standard procedures? Are any of
these people going to be reprimanded or punished in any way? The
FBI has standard procedures as far as reading people their rights
and a legal — a due process standard. Do you loiow if this is a rare
case or is this the way that your operatives operate?
Mr. Hunter. I do not know yet what will be done in the Los An-
geles case. When I have the results of the investigation, which will
57
be done promptly, then I will know. In the Cleveland case, it is ob-
vious that I don't condone that kind of behavior.
Mr. McCloskey. I understand you are not condoning that behav-
ior. I believe you. But, again, what is the status of your directives,
your training, your standards? Do you know?
Mr. Hunter. The status is outlined in some detail in my state-
ment in terms of the changes made in the requirements for inter-
nal narcotics investigations and the training. The situations that
we are dealing with here also need to be dealt with. They predate
those changes. Those changes are made in an effort to avoid these
situations, which I absolutely do not condone, and once I get the
information on the Los Angeles situation, appropriate action will be
taken as it was in Cleveland in terms of discipline.
Mr. McCloskey. I think you see what I am getting at. We could
go on and on, but particularly as to what we all learn in first year
law school and everybody knows from TV, Miranda warnings, right
to due process, strictures against arbitrary incarceration — this is
bizarre.
Mr. DuPlLKA. If I might answer on the criminal portion of that,
we have instructions that inspectors are to Mirandize people who
are in custody. That is in compliance with all the Federal stand-
ards, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
As far as representation during hearings
Mr. McCloskey. What happened here, then; do you know?
Mr. DuPlLKA. Mr. McDonald acknowledged that he was advised
of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination upon the be-
ginning of the interrogation.
Mr. McCloskey. So he was voluntarily — in this back room for x
number of hours getting in essence psychologically worked over
Mr. Clay. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCloskey. Of course I yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. Clay. I think Mr. McDonald testified that he was handcuffed
and taken up to a room for interrogation. When does custody take
place, when they handcuff him, is he in custody?
Mr. DuPlLKA. That is correct.
Mr. Clay. Then they did not read him his Miranda rights.
Mr. DuPlLKA. If I may, sir, the prohibition is that you cannot ask
questions until you advise them of their rights, and at the point
where he was taken into custody at his job site, I don't believe
there was any questioning according to Mr. McDonald's testimony.
The questioning began when he was seated in the office of the in-
spectors.
Mr. Clay. According to his testimony, he went to his locker first
and you searched his locker, the inspector searched his locker while
he was handcuffed. Tell me if that is a violation of the Miranda
rules?
Mr. DuPlLKA. I believe the Miranda rules deal with self-incrimi-
nation by the defendant and the locker in the Postal Service is not
part of that.
Mr. Clay. Self-incrimination deals with his right to have a law-
yer, doesn't it?
Mr. DuPlLKA. That is correct, before he answers any questions.
Mr. McCloskey. So did he refuse a lawyer?
58
Mr. DuPiLKA. I believe that based on his testimony, he didn't ask
for representation at the time.
Mr. McCloskey. We have perhaps discussed this enough. I un-
derstand one informant got $108,000 in Cleveland, Mr. Willy
Kemp — how long a period did it take to rack up $108,000?
Mr. Clemmons. I don't believe that figure. It is pretty close, but
it took him from October 1991, I believe, until January 1993.
Mr. Clay. Will the gentleman yield? Is this the same individual
that you sent on the honeymoon down to Mexico and paid for, and
according to his testimony, paid for his wedding, a party, and then
he had enough money left over to go on a hone3rmoon in Mexico
somewhere; is this the same individual?
Mr. Clemmons. I don't believe the Inspection Service personally
sent him to Mexico.
Mr. Clay. They just gave him the money?
Mr. Clemmons. He received the money, yes.
Mr. McCloskey. Besides $108,000, I guess he was on payroll too,
probably as far as the formal Postal Service payroll?
Mr. Clemmons. No, sir, he was not on the roll. He only worked
as a casual employee for a couple of months and he was fired from
the Postal Service. This occurred in Toledo.
Mr. McCloskey. His work wasn't done as a Postal Service em-
ployee, then?
Mr. Clemmons. That is correct.
Mr. McCloskey. Are there cases where they are getting cash
from you and they are also on the postal clock?
Mr. Clemmons. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCloskey. So while they are doing this, they are building
up a Federal pension — that is a hell of a deal if you can get it.
Mr. Clemmons. I need to make a clarification, though. The mon-
eys that you were talking about, all that money was not informant
money. What happened, Mr. Kemp embezzled the controlled sub-
stance funds.
Mr. McCloskey. This was someone you placed your trust in in
order to nail other people?
Mr. Clemmons. He is being prosecuted, sir.
Mr. McCloskey. I thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. Clay. Miss Collins, and then we are going to break. We have
to vote.
Miss Collins.
Miss Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You and I have
worked together a lot on the mail fraud and violence in the work-
place and now I have some very specific questions I want to ask
you.
I want to ask you what happened to Mr. Salinas?
Mr. Hunter. That is one of the things that we are going to find
out in the investigation.
Miss Collins. What happened to Mr. Chavez?
Mr. Hunter. Well, again, through the investigation, we are going
to determine what should be done.
Miss Collins. Is he still on the payroll?
Mr. Hunter. The inspector is still working for the Postal Service.
The informant is not.
Miss Collins. Is the informant in jail?
59
Mr. Hunter. I don't know.
Miss Collins. What happened to Mr. Frye?
Mr. Hunter. He is no longer with the Postal Service.
Miss Collins. What happened to him? I understand that he ac-
costed Ms. de la Forest and the Postal Service asked them not to
prosecute him before he was to testify.
What happened to him? Where is he?
Mr. Hunter. I don't know where he is today.
Miss Collins. What are you doing for Mr. McDonald? Is he back
working for the Post Office?
Mr. Hunter. No; he is not.
Miss Collins. Has he received his back pay?
Mr. Hunter. He has not.
Miss Collins. Has he received a public apology? He was arrested
with television cameras. He was afraid to leave his home for three
months, that people would recognize him. Those are the kinds of
things law abiding people are devastated by when something like
this happens.
What public restitution has been made to Mr. McDonald?
Mr. Hunter. None. That is one of the things we have agreed to
look at this morning, because this morning was the first exposure
to his testimony. I do not condone the publicizing of employee situ-
ations like that. This is one of the changes I have made. In the
past, it was regarded as a preventive measure. I don't think that
these kinds of things, be it for narcotics or theft or anything,
should be publicized. It reflects poorly on the individual and the
service.
Miss Collins. Inspector Hunter, in the testimonies that I have
read, in two of them, they had television, the media exposure and
the people were publicly humiliated. In Mr. McDonald's case, a
judge reprimanded the Postal Service and the jury to speak be-
cause they were horrified about what happened, and then in a kan-
garoo court, the Postal Service reconvicted him.
I want to know what is going to happen? Are we going to have
the Postmaster General here who can tell us what is going to hap-
pen?
Mr. Chairman, with all the power of this committee, I think we
need to be told what is going to happen to rectify these people not
only monetarily, but you have destroyed their reputations. He is
working at a job that he can barely get by and if this had not hap-
pened to him, he would have 17 years seniority. I want to know
what is going to happen.
I think the Chairman should call another hearing in 2 weeks or
something. The President solves international crises faster than
this, and I want to see what will be rectified and how it will be
rectified.
I don't think that we need to be collegial in this, Mr. Chairman.
You know how everybody is honorable this and honorable that — I
think the hammer needs to come down and needs to come down
hard. I want to know what happened to the convicted felons who
took American taxpayer money and put it in their pockets and then
falsely accused innocent law abiding people and, through the tele-
vision cameras and everjrthing, destroyed their lives. I want to
know what is going to happen.
60
I want to know if this will ever — are we going to have to pass
a law to tell them to get back to the business of inspecting postal
fraud and postal occurrences and not just set up African-American
males — what is going to happen?
Mr. Clay. I think we are going to reach some kind of resolution,
but we have 6 minutes to vote.
Miss Collins. Will we call another hearing, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Clay. I think we might. We will discuss it afterwards. We
might have the Postmaster General in.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the chairman if we
have another hearing, I have continuing concerns about collars for
dollars, even given that it is now only for significant arrests and
convictions.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, if you could, to have some advice
and counsel from the Justice Department to know whether the
FBI, whether police departments, who have never heard of this be-
fore— it is one thing to use goals
Mr. Clay. Can you come back in 15 minutes? We are going to
break for 15 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Clay. The committee will come to order.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hunter, I want to first make it clear that especially as a
Member who represents the District of Columbia, the activities of
the Postal Service in going after the bad guys is, of course, what
society has encouraged you to do and here where we are drowning
in drugs and where the use of the mails, even private mail services,
has become an art form for these drug thugs, make no mistake, the
Members here overwhelmingly support ferreting out these people.
As you can see, we bring a strong sense of due process and belief
that the great genius of our country is that somehow we collar
them without collaring ourselves. I want to first ask about this col-
lars for dollars, and I appreciate that you have reined it in.
I believe that goals for work which hold people accountable are
very important if those goals are based on actual experience. In the
Federal system, we have had very uneven success with bonuses.
You will have your employee organizations very agitated about
them. It is very hard to award bonuses fairly, and yet the notion
of rewarding people monetarily for excellent work is a goal and a
practice that should not be limited to the private sector. It is much
harder to do in a civil service system where everybody gets com-
pared very strictly to everybody else and we still don't do it right
in the civil service system.
I would like more of an explanation of collars for dollars because,
it seems to me, if there was a place where I was going to draw the
line on monetary incentives for work produced, it would probably
be at the point where in order to get one's bonus, one had to de-
prive somebody of a fundamental right — at that point, it seenis to
me we may have precisely competing goals of society, and it is
there that I would be most careful.
My first question is: Do you know of any other law enforcement
agency that uses monetary incentives as you have used them for
arrests or for investigative work or for — of any kind?
61
Mr. DuPlLKA. If I may answer that, the Postal Service was
unique in the Federal community in that we had a merit program
where we had potential for people receiving merit bonuses based on
performance once they had reached the top of their pay scale. So
in that regard, we are unlike the FBI or the Secret Service. I am
aware that there are monetary awards given to agents in other
agencies for exceptional performance.
Ms. Norton. You are unlike the FBI and police departments of
this country because, again
Mr. DuPiLKA. Under the GS system, the steps in grade depend
on successful performance and people receive monetary increases in
their salary based on that. In the Postal Service, we move along
through a merit system, and once a postal employee is at the top
of their grade, they receive a percentage of a merit bonus based
upon their performance for the year, and that was based upon ob-
jective setting processes.
Ms. Norton. What does that have to do with how we get to col-
lars for dollars?
Mr. DuPlLKA. In the objective-setting process, I believe in the
past, the practice was that there are people trying to achieve cer-
tain numbers and goals based on arrest statistics that weren't
based as much as we do now on solving our problems.
Mr. Hunter. I think that is inappropriate for two reasons. First,
is what you talked about. It can sure risk the rights of individuals
by causing people to be overzealous and not conduct themselves
properly. Second, it can also cause them to direct their work in an
area that should not be a top priority, in an area where perhaps
even if they were legitimate, arrests would be easier, and that is
wrong.
One of the fundamental changes we are making is to adopt com-
mon goals with the customers, if you will, be they postal employees
or externally that emphasize prevention. An example is theft of
credit cards from the mail. Instead of measuring success on ar-
rests— arrests happen when it is too late; something has been sto-
len. We are now placing emphasis on prevention. The common goal
is to reduce the losses attributable to credit cards that were stolen
from the mail.
Ms. Norton. By doing what?
Mr. Hunter. By a number of preventive efforts. For example, we
formed a group with the airline industry, the credit card compa-
nies, the plastic manufacturers, banks, et cetera, saying what can
we do to prevent it. An example is an idea of an inspector that re-
sulted in — now when you receive a credit card, you often have to
dial a 1-800 number before you can use it. It is called card activa-
tion, and you have to share personal information like your mother's
maiden name so if a card were stolen in transit, it would not be
good.
Ms. Norton. But that has nothing to do with collars for dollars.
Mr. Hunter. But it does. The point being, we are no longer
ineasuring success on arrests, period, in the agency or by the indi-
vidual. So the kind of things that people could get an exceptional
award could be prevention, it could be that things didn't happen
because of the effort that they put in, which I think is more appro-
priate.
62
Ms. Norton. Can you get an award for any kind of arrest — say
it is a very significant bust. Can you get an award for that under
present procedures?
Mr. Hunter. It would not be an award for the arrest. It would
be an award for successful investigation
Ms. Norton. Mr. McDonald got off in court. Say Mr. McDonald
was a major trafficker. The fact that he ultimately was exonerated
would mean that there was no dollar for that collar; is that what
you are telling me under the new system?
I am trying to find out under what circumstances a person can
get a payment because of either an arrest and/or a conviction for
something he has informed upon.
Mr. Hunter. They do not get bonuses now based upon numbers
of arrests.
Ms. Norton. Let me zero you in on my concern. I heard that in
the earlier testimony. I thought you said that dollars now were tied
to the significance of the matter.
Mr. Hunter. Of their contribution.
Ms. Norton. The significance of the matter could be a matter
which ended in conviction?
Mr. Hunter. It sure could.
Ms. Norton. My concern about that is, we may, and an uninten-
tional effect there would be to direct people toward stings or false
accusations that are even worse than they are now because, since
the significance of the bust is what matters, your information and
your direction has to be toward really framing somebody big or
framing them with a big lie; because you are not going to get paid
for it unless the matter is significant. In other words, I am raising
a question about the use of collars for dollars at all.
Mr. Hunter. I do not condone that at all. If you do what you
characterized in the example, you get fired. That is what I
think
Ms. Norton. You are telling me you cannot be paid then for an
arrest and a conviction, no matter what happens?
Mr. Hunter. It is not for that. It is for what you did
Ms. Norton. What you did was to inform.
Mr. Hunter. For example, a case like McDonald's would not
warrant a bonus.
Ms. Norton. That is why my hypothetical had him as a big traf-
ficker, they framed him saying he is a big one. In that case, what
would happen to the informer? He is somebody that handles mil-
lions of dollars, you are informed, a year. What would be the result
for the informer?
Mr. Hunter. I expect the changes in procedures we have put in
place would catch something like that if it is entirely a fraud.
Ms. Norton. No, it is not a fraud; it is a frame.
Mr. Hunter. If it is a frame, then the new procedures should
catch that.
Ms. Norton. Does the FBI, does any Police Department that you
know of pay for arrests and convictions of any size and dimension?
Do you know of any precedent or any practice
Mr. Hunter. I do not know. I know they all place emphasis on
arrests, but
63
Mr. Clay. Would the gentlelady yield? Do you know of any Police
Department or FBI or investigative agencies that pay for tips, if
they get a tip? Our committee has learned that inspectors, if a de-
partment store detective calls and says we have a guy, we stopped
a guy with phony credit cards — you mentioned credit cards — they
give the guy who places the call a $25 incentive to call again I
guess, and the same thing with check cashing facilities — if they call
and say we think this guy stole a check out of the mail, is it true
that they give them $25 when they get there?
Mr. DuPlLKA. I don't know the exact amounts that are paid to
any confidential source as you have characterized it, but I know
that other enforcement agencies do pay people that provide infor-
mation for that information.
Mr. Clay. An automatic amount of money just for placing a call?
Mr. DuPlLKA. I couldn't say that that occurs. I don't know how
they operate in those areas, but I know they pay sources for infor-
mation.
Ms. Norton. There are potential uses in criminal law enforce-
ment for payments. ATF, for example, a citizen may call in, for ex-
ample, and get a reward. That is encouraging citizens who are
often reluctant to come forward because they fear for their safety.
There are appropriate ways to do it and there is a lot of experience
in what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, and our law
enforcement agencies, including our police departments who are
overwhelmed, generally do it very well.
My concern is that the Postal Service conform to accepted profes-
sional practice in the law enforcement profession, and I would like
to request that you, Mr. Hunter, and others whom you deem appro-
priate have appropriate meetings with especially the FBI and the
ATF.
I would also suggest the park police. I know these law enforce-
ment agencies to be professional and to not be often accused in
their work, with precisely the kinds of people you work with, of
going beyond professionally accepted practice. That is one thing I
would like you to do.
I want to simply say for the record that to the extent that you
are using money in a way that is unique to you and not used by
other law enforcement agencies, I would, and I ask you to exercise
a large presumption against that and in favor of getting rid of that.
You have to restore your reputation, and one way to do it quickly
would be to say we are using the same procedures and practices
that are used by the FBI or the ATF, and I ask you to have those
meetings.
Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one or two more questions. I won-
der, for example, in the Cleveland sting operation, what criteria the
Inspection Service used in deciding which postal employees it
would target for investigation?
Mr. Clemmons. I will answer that. You want to know what pro-
cedure they used. The two inspectors involved or what procedures
normally we use?
Ms. Norton. Both.
Mr. Clemmons. In the Cleveland investigation, I don't believe
they had any tips other than the eight that I mentioned earlier.
They placed CIs in those facilities and attempted to gather Intel-
64
ligence from these CIs and that is how that operation started. Nor-
mally what happens or the correct procedure, the way it should be
done, is that we will receive tips from postal supervisors, law en-
forcement agencies in the community, postal employees, et cetera.
As a result of that, we will take that information and try to place
an informant in that facility.
Ms. Norton. Are they paid for those tips?
Mr. Clemmons. No.
Ms. Norton. You do not pay for tips from employees from within
the organization who pass on tips?
Mr. Clemmons. We do not.
Ms. Norton. Who in the chain of command is charged with ap-
proving investigations after tips are received?
Mr. Clemmons. Normally, a team leader would go to the inspec-
tor in charge and get approval.
Ms. Norton. Normally that would happen — that is how it always
happens?
Mr. Clemmons. Yes.
Ms. Norton. So supervision is deeply implicated in these prac-
tices.
Mr. DuPlLKA. We have revised our procedures to strengthen that
more. We now have mandatory approval by the team leader of any
placement of an informant and that has to be approved by the in-
spector-in-charge of the operation. It is not optional at all. It is not
a normal procedure that can be violated. It is a regulation that has
to happen under our revised rules.
Mrs. Norton. And those rules have been in effect since when?
Mr. DuPlLKA. We revised them as a result of the incident that
we investigated in Cleveland.
Ms. Norton. Must the employees exhibit behavior over any pe-
riod of time in order to be targeted or does the Inspection Service
simply place an agent or an informant in the workplace as kind of
bait to see which employees will bite?
Mr. DuPlLKA. Our normal procedure was to put all of our intel-
ligence sources together, not just tips, but information we have
from police departments, criminal history checks, management in-
formation, checking with supervisors and, on some occasions, we
have the responsibility to arrest employees in facilities who are re-
sponsible for other misconduct.
We use all that information to attempt to identify individuals in
facilities who may be dealing. Once we identify those types of indi-
viduals, we place a source into the facility and their instructions
are not to initiate conversations concerning narcotics but to make
associations with those people in an effort to determine if they are
offering up narcotics themselves. That is our procedure.
Ms. Norton. I would like you to clarify something for me. Is the
Postal Service in all instances requiring that wrongfully discharged
employees seeking reemployment go before the MSPB first?
Mr. DuPlLKA. Employees that are discharged as a result of inves-
tigations, if they are craft employees, have two options. They can
go through the grievance process which results in an arbitration,
and if they are veterans, they can go to the Merit System Protec-
tion Board. That is the option of the employee.
65
Ms. Norton. This is after being vindicated by a court. Then the
employee may do either of those two, take either of those two
steps?
Mr. DuPlLKA. The processes are generally parallel. The criminal
proceedings will be proceeding along on one track and then the ad-
ministrative proceeding proceeds along at the same time. The time
at which events are finalized depends on the court where they are
in and the grievance process as it moves along. They are independ-
ent processes.
Many times the court process will finish beforehand or in some
cases the prosecutor will offer the defendant an opportunity to not
be prosecuted based on the outcome of the administrative proceed-
ing. It depends on the attitude of the local prosecutor. In many
cases, that is the U.S. Attorney.
Ms. Norton. Under law, must there be some administrative pro-
ceeding before you can reinstate an employee who has been wrong-
fully discharged?
Mr. DuPlLKA. It is not a legal requirement as far as grievance
and arbitration proceedings go. The ability to reinstate a postal em-
ployee is something that is a subject of collective bargaining for the
craft employees and that is up to the discretion of the deciding offi-
cial. That could be settled at any time up to and including the
hearing.
Ms. Norton. Can you cite me any instance where, on your own
motion, you have decided to reinstate an employee who has been
wrongfully discharged because of these sting instances?
Mr. DuPlLKA. Well, the Inspection Service doesn't — we are only
witnesses in those proceedings. It is management
Ms. Norton. I am talking about the Postal Service.
Mr. DuPlLKA. I am not familiar with any of those cases. I
couldn't cite you an exact example, no.
Ms. Norton. I ask that because it does seem to me that when
you hear a story like Mr. McDonald's, which I understand you are
going to take under advisement, getting the credibility of the Postal
Service by its employees, the notion it would move on its own mo-
tion without being whipped into it, would, it seems to me, send a
message there is inherent fairness in the way you independently
regard what your responsibilities are.
I believe you are courting a class action and I don't believe you
are protected from a class action lawsuit by either the MSPB find-
ing and certainly not by the court findings. I am talking about a
class action by people who have been found in courts of law to be
wrongfully discharged and still have not been put in by the MSPB,
and I am going to ask the chairman to check on the MSPB because
the notion that they are not a check on this, I think, means we
ought to ask the MSPB questions quite apart from you.
I believe that if one could show a pattern and practice of using
procedures outside normal professional law enforcement procedures
and not reinstating or systematically not reinstating these people,
that you could be up a creek.
Mr. DuPlLKA. I believe you are correct. I think earlier you cited
that there are two standards of proof in those proceedings and we
shouldn't be presenting cases that don't meet our internal stand-
ards.
66
Ms. Norton. Here I am going to use your sting procedures.
Mr. Clay. Would you yield?
Let me tell you what happened, a case that Mr. Hastings is so
concerned about, and he asked you to do something within 30 days
about it. Here was an individual, a highly decorated war veteran,
won the Bronze Star, had a Purple Heart, had a perfect record with
the Postal Service. He was advised by his union representative to
go to the Merit System Protection Board, but then he was
counteradvised to wait until after the court proceedings.
He asked for a postponement of the MSPB and the Postal Service
objected to the postponement. They found him guilty. Subse-
quently, the courts found him innocent. What happened at the
MSPB hearing was that he had a witness that would testify for
him. The Postal Service would not let the witness off. They worked
him past his normal hours of work. They worked him several hours
longer so he would miss the hearing.
You can't tell me that something should not be done to rectify
and to make this person whole without going through a whole lot
of bureaucratic red tape. If the MSPB went to that length, and the
Postal Service, of denying this man a proper hearing by keeping his
witness, made him work overtime so that he couldn't show up for
the hearing, I don't think we need to go through a lot of red tape
to put that person back to work, and I think that is what you are
saying.
Ms. Norton. It absolutely is, and I think you are really on the
edge now, and you are pla3dng with the taxpayers' money, because
if you ever were to get such a suit, it wouldn't be a cheap one.
I have one more question. You indicated changes and we are
pleased to hear that changes have been made. Are there written
procedures and guidelines at the Inspection Service now regarding
entrapment and procedures for pursuing these and similar mat-
ters?
Mr. DuPlLKA. We have always had written instructions concern-
ing entrapment. We strengthened the responsibility for people
overseeing those investigations to ensure that is not happening.
Ms. Norton. Do you have written guidelines on how to conduct
these matters in these stings?
Mr. DuPlLKA. We do. In fact, we furnished the committee a copy
of those instructions along with a couple of other agencies including
the drug enforcement administration for their advice and to make
sure they are complete.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I have concerns that relate to the remedial steps
that are taken after someone has been wrongfully discharged as
evidenced by being cleared in the criminal proceeding and then
they come again in the administrative proceedings and, because of
the difference in the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
in the criminal proceedings and for purposes of review, the admin-
istrative process, any evidence is a standard of review in adminis-
trative proceedings, the employee still gets the shaft.
I am concerned about having within your internal affairs division
some regulations promulgated that would make an employee
whole. When you have this difference in standards of proof, it lends
67
itself to what I have seen many times, the collusion between the
administrative law judge and the agency, and nine times out of ten,
the administrative law judge upholds the actions of the agency, in
which case there is a terrible burden on the poor employee to try
to overturn that ruling, particularly with any evident standard of
review for overturning it in administrative proceedings.
It seems to me that when an employee is subjected to criminal
proceedings, all the unfortunate consequences that result from
that, that there ought to be something in place to make that em-
ployee whole. Even if the employee is not given the job back, there
ought to be some monetary contribution that is made or remedial
steps that are taken so that — restitution, I suppose, is a closer
word — to really make the employee whole, and that bothers me.
I would like to see coming out of internal affairs, particularly
since you wear so many hats there — ^you assist the other law en-
forcement agencies in dealing with crimes committed through the
mails, particularly interdiction of drugs sent through the mail, but
you also investigate yourselves. And with that kind of self-inves-
tigation, it lends itself to abuse, and it seems to me that the em-
ployee in this instance needs some kind of mechanism to be made
whole.
I would like to see some proposals for regulations to ameliorate
this situation for the employee who has to suffer this disgrace
when they are cleared in court, never can make their reputation
whole again.
Can you offer me any suggestions on that?
Mr. DuPlLKA. In the discussion you are having, I think that we
have a shared responsibility there with postal management who
are responsible for the disciplinary process, and when we furnish
them investigative material, you are right; that should withstand
any standards of proof, whether it is the highest standard: beyond
a reasonable doubt, or a preponderance of evidence like we have in
administrative cases.
We are hoping by the reforms that we have made to do our part
to make sure that employees are not wrongfully accused of any-
thing. Your concern about those cases where that may happen,
management has to work through that process
Mr. Bishop. Let me interrupt just to make sure that I am not
mistaken. Normally, the administrative law judge will judge it by
a preponderance of the evidence, but if that decision is to be re-
viewed by a higher level, then it is the any evidence rule, is it not?
Mr. DuPlLKA. I believe it remains preponderance of the evidence
for any of those proceedings in an administrative. There is an alter-
nate level of review in those cases also. The employee has ability
to go to the full board and proceed in Federal court on those things.
Mr. Hunter. The point is well taken. It troubles me that some-
one, if the offense is the same offense that they are punished for
in the administrative process and exonerated in the judicial proc-
ess, that bothers me. That doesn't seem fair, as we have heard
today in the Los Angeles case. Sometimes they are not the same
offense, but where they are, that does not seem to be rational.
Mr. Bishop. I have seen it happen as a practicing attorney of
some 22 years where the management officials, unsuccessful in
being able to root out an employee that they wanted to get rid of
68
and they wanted to do it in the worst possible way by putting that
employee in jail, when they are unsuccessful at that, they still pull
out their trump card of administrative dismissal and, in that in-
stance, the employee almost has no recourse.
Mr. Clay. Has the gentleman concluded? I thank the gentleman.
Without objection, at this point in the record, we will enter a
summary of the committee's investigation on Postal Inspection
Service narcotic enforcement operations.
[The information referred to follows:]
Summary of Committee's Investigation of Postal Inspection Service
Narcotic Enforcement Operations
In January, 1993, the Committee learned that innocent postal workers were vic-
tims in a narcotic enforcement operation conducted by the Internal Crimes Narcotics
(ICN) division of the Postal Inspection Service in Cleveland, Ohio. These employees
were entrapped by convicted felons employed by Postal Inspectors as confidential in-
formants. These employees were falsely arrested for drug trafficking, handcuffed, in-
carcerated and fired from their jobs. Some were even falsely convicted. Upon learn-
ing of these circumstances, the Committee immediately requested a briefing from
the Inspection Service and requested a copy of the Inspection Service's investigative
memorandum on the drug enforcement operation.
The Inspection Service response failed to provide the Committee complete and ac-
curate information. In fact, the Committee learned from press reports that the same
Inspectors using the same paid informants had conducted a similar drug enforce-
ment operation in Toledo, Ohio. Fortunately, postal employees in Toledo were
spared the suffering of their Cleveland colleagues because of the scrutiny of a local
prosecutor in Toledo who refused to prosecute those cases.
After the Committee learned that, despite Inspection Service assurances to the
contrary, the Cleveland operation was not an isolated incident run by two renegade
Inspectors, the scope of the Committee's inquiry expanded. Although the Committee
did not conduct a systematic investigation of Inspection Service narcotic enforce-
ment operations, it uncovered similar problems with operations in West Palm
Beach, Los Angeles, MinneapoUs, Toledo, Indianapolis and Boston where postal em-
ployees also were falsely arrested for narcotics trafficking and terminated by the
Postal Service. Each of these narcotic enforcement operations involved convicted fel-
ons employed by the Inspector Service as confidential informants. The Committee
conducted field hearings in Cleveland and West Palm Beach to obtain first-hand in-
formation about the Inspection Service narcotics trafficking stings.
The Committee findings are:
In Cleveland
19 postal employees and one private citizen were arrested for narcotics trafficking
as a result of a narcotic enforcement operation conducted by the Postal Inspection
Service. The Inspection Service hired convicted felons as confidential informants and
placed them on the workroom floor to ferret out postal employees who were narcotic
tr3.ffi.ckG rs
The confidential informants concocted a scheme to defraud the Postal Service and
implicate innocent postal employees. The informants hired imposters to pose as
postal employees, obtained "buy money" from Postal Inspectors, purchased ' di^gs
from the imposter, turned over the "drugs", which in reality were baking soda with
some cocaine, to the Inspectors, implicated postal employees as the sellers and then
recovered the drug "buy money" from the imposters.
The Inspectors did not control the informants. The informants arranged to pur-
chase "drugs" from the impostors in locations where the Inspectors were unable to
view the transaction. Thus, the Inspectors never saw any transaction.
The victims in Cleveland included a barber. Art McKoy, who did not work for the
Postal Service and was not alleged to have sold drugs on Postal property. Another
victim, Willie Moore, was misidentified by two informants prior to his arrest but
was subsequently convicted. , . , , u u • j
The Inspection Service ignored several warning signs which should have raised
questions about the Cleveland enforcement operation. The Cleveland "drug" samples
which were sent to the Inspection Service lab were the lowest quality (most below
25% cocaine and some 100% baking soda) in the nation. Allegedly, the same postal
employee sold baking soda as cocaine at inflated prices to the same informant nu-
merous times. No one asked why a drug purchaser would continue to buy baking
69
soda from a drug dealer. Inspectors knew that one of the Cleveland informants was
using drugs during the operation. In fact, the informant was arrested by Cleveland
police in a cocaine bust during the operation. Certain postal employees provided
iron-clad alibis for times when drug transactions allegedly occurred. Despite these
"red flags" and the significant amount of funds used, in excess of $250,000, to pur-
chase drugs, neither Inspector not their supervisors questioned or stopped the pros-
ecution of these postal employees.
Only after the intervention of the Committee did the Postal Service rehire the vic-
tims of the Cleveland sting. The Postal Service was very slow in providing back pay
for these employees.
The Cleveland victims suffered loss of credit and reputation. Some victim's chil-
dren quit college. Some lost their spouses and their houses. One victim attempted
suicide only to be stopped by his daughter. All are scared by the experience and may
have had to require counselling or medical care. It is too early to tell how perma-
nent these scars are.
In West Palm Beach
In 1985 the Inspection Service placed a paid confidential informant who was a
convicted felon on the workroom floor to determine if postal employees were traffick-
ing in narcotics. The informant continued to use drugs himself during the operation.
As with Cleveland, drug transactions were conducted out of the view of the Inspec-
tors.
A Postal Inspector, Robert McDarby, learned that the informant was entrapping
postal employees to purchase drugs for him. Inspector McDarby notified Inspection
Service internal affairs of this problem. Inspector McDarby was reprimanded by su-
pervisors in regional headquarters and told that the prosecutors found no fault with
the cases. The supervisors took no further action on Mr. McDarby's statement.
19 postal employees were arrested in this ICN enforcement operation. Eventually,
all charges were dismissed after the conduct of the informant and the procedures
of the operation were known.
The Postal Service terminated all employees and, even though all charges were
dismissed, fought any attempts to rehire the employees. All but three of the employ-
ees were rehired after prevailing in grievance arbitration against the Postal Service.
The three employees who were not rehired were veterans who appealed to the Merit
Systems Protection Board. Before charges were dismissed in the criminal cases,
these veterans lost their appeals. The Board believed the paid informant. The Postal
Service has refused to reinstate these veterans.
The Inspector in Charge of the West Palm Beach operation was placed in charge
of the operation only three months after he become an Inspector. He had only two
days of training in the handling of paid confidential informants and the operation
of undercover narcotic enforcement operations.
At the West Palm Beach field hearing then former Inspector McDarby testified
that the Inspection Service had created an incentive to increase the number of ar-
rests by Inspectors. The plan was known as "collars for dollars". Inspectors were
creative in finding ways to increase the number of arrests similar to a sales force
looking for new markets. The undercover narcotic enforcement operations evolved
from this effort.
In Los Angeles
In 1986 the Inspection Service placed a paid confidential informant, an unem-
ployed construction worker who claimed his nephew became involved with drugs be-
cause of a postal letter carrier, at the Main Post Office.
12 postal employees were arrested as a result of the work of this informant. The
alleged drug transactions occurred out of the view of Postal Inspectors. In fact, in
some instances, the informant was told to bring the drugs he purchased to the In-
spector the next day.
The employees were never rehired by the Postal Service even after the employees
were acquitted or the charges were dropped.
In the case of one employee the jury foreman at his trial read a statement con-
demning the poor investigation by the Inspection Service. The judge agreed and
urged everyone to write to the Postmaster General about the poor investigation. The
Postal Service refused to take any corrective action. That employee was not rehired.
In Minneapolis
In 1991, Postal Inspectors in MinneapoUs hired a confidential informant as part
of a narcotic enforcement operation and placed on the Postal Service rolls. As a re-
sult of his work 13 postal employees were arrested for narcotics trafficking. Ten pled
guilty, one lost his case on appeal and two were acquitted.
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
lllllllliilllillliillililllli
'70 3 9999 05982 773 1
The paid informant used drugs himself during the operation. In fact, he tested
positive for cocaine use. Inspectors arranged for another drug test but delayed it for
30 days so that no traces of cocaine would remain in his system and he would not
test positive for cocaine use.
The paid informant befriended postal employees and eventually asked them to
purchase drugs for him as a favor.
Postal employee Mary de la Forest, who was not arrested in the sting, testified
for the defense at the trial of postal worker Jeffrey Larson. Ms. de la Forest testified
on the actions of the paid informant. Mr. Larson was acquitted based on his entrap-
ment defense which Ms. de la Forest's testimony supported. Ms. de la Forest subse-
quently met with a Postal Inspector and an Assistant U.S. Attorney who intimi-
dated her so that she did not testify at any more trials about the informant's ac-
tions.
In other cities
In Boston a Postal Inspector and an informant moved into an apartment next
door to a couple who were postal employees whom the Inspection Service was inves-
tigating. The Inspector purported to the male employee to be a recovering drug ad-
dict. That employee asked the undercover Inspector to be his "sponsor" in a drug
rehabilitation program. In the meantime, the informant befriended the couple and
continually asked them to purchase cocaine for her. The husband plead guilty, but
the charges against his spouse were dismissed. Both employees, however, lost their
postal jobs.
In Indianapolis in 1985 the Postal Service began a narcotic enforcement operation
using confidential informants. 25 cases were brought to the U.S. Attorney for pros-
ecution. The U.S. Attorney rejected all the cases because of actions taken by the in-
formants. The Inspection Service then transferred one of the informants to Louis-
ville, Kentucky. WTiile working there, Inspectors found that he had sold drugs to a
postal employee but allowed him to continue as a paid confidential informant. Even-
tually, the informant was arrested on federal drug charges, and the Committee
learned that Inspectors in Chicago were interested in using this informant if his
sentence was probation. The Committee does not know whether or not this inform-
ant continued his employment with the Inspection Service.
CONCLUSIONS
The Committee's investigation traced Inspection Service narcotic enforcement op-
erations from 1985 to 1992. Around 1984 or 1985 the Inspection Service shifted its
narcotic enforcement operations fi:^m using undercover Inspectors to paid inform-
ants.
Inspectors are not adequately trained to manage undercover narcotic enforcement
operations and confidential informants.
The same problems from one enforcement operation appeared in subsequent oper-
ations. The Inspection Service failed to establish any critical nationwide review of
drug enforcement operations even when faced with numerous warning signs. Inspec-
tors continued to press for arrest statistics. There was no internal Inspection Service
review program to correct the errors of past undercover operations. The problems
of the past were repeated and the warning signals continued to be ignored.
Even when employees were acquitted or charges dropped, postal management re-
fused to rehire these employees and only relented after arbitration rulings or this
Committee's investigation.
Postal Inspectors continue to use paid informants who are convicted felons in
postal facilities to find drug traffickers. The Committee is not aware of any program
by any other federal law enforcement entity that infiltrates the agency's workplace
using felons as paid informants as the Inspection Service has been doing for over
ten years.
Re-employment and back pay are inadequate to compensate innocent victims of
a renegade Inspection Service who disregard the lives of postal employees for arrest
statistics.
Mr. Clay. May I say to the witnesses that, as the testimony of
this hearing bears out, it is apparent that the narcotic enforcement
operations of the Inspection Service are quite troubhng. There were
no internal controls to prevent repetition of errors which caused
suffering and harm to innocent postal workers.
Today, I will introduce legislation to establish an independent in-
spector general for the Postal Service who will oversee the pro-
71
grams of the Inspection Service. This legislation will also prevent
the Postal Service from hiring paid confidential informants in most
narcotic operations. The Inspection Service efforts should be fo-
cused elsewhere.
I will also be introducing legislation to establish a mechanism for
these innocent victims to seek compensation from the Postal Serv-
ice for all the harm they and their families have suffered.
Are there any further questions to be asked? If not, that con-
cludes the hearing.
Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter. I would like to close with a few remarks.
First and foremost, I apologize for what has happened. I accept
responsibility to continue to work to correct these wrongs. It is ex-
tremely regrettable that the handling of these narcotics cases has
reflected poorly upon a organization that is doing so many things
right, but that does not excuse the issue at hand.
In response to the issues that have been raised here, I will con-
tinue to work aggressively with regard to the race issues that were
raised. We will not pay and do not pay for collars for dollars. We
will meet with the FBI, the ATF, and Park Police regarding the
concerns that were raised of collars for dollars, payment for infor-
mation and bonus systems.
We will work aggressively to resolve the issues that were raised
with regard to West Palm Beach and Los Angeles even ahead of
the deadline and we will adhere to the moratorium now with re-
gard to the introduction of any new external confidential inform-
ants in narcotics investigations.
I share the concern and I pledge to continue to work diligently
to resolve these issues and to reach a resolution that is fair and
acceptable to everyone.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Clay. I thank each of you for your contribution to the hear-
ing today.
That concludes the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
ISBN 0-16-044558-2
780160"445583
90000
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11