The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 amended 39 U.S.C and revised the cap on total compensation payable to U.S. Postal Service employees. As a result of this revision, the Postal Service could not pay an employee more than $203,700 for calendar year 2015. There are two exceptions: some employees may have annual compensation of up to $235,300 with a bonus or reward program approved by the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors and employees in critical positions may have annual compensation of up to $282,360.
Compensation includes annual salary, merit lump sum payments, bonuses, awards, and annuity payments.
Our objective was to determine whether the Postal Service complied with applicable provisions of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, Postal Service policies and guidelines, and IRS regulations for calendar year (CY) 2015 executive officer (officer) compensation.
What the OIG Found
The Postal Service complied with the applicable provisions of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, its own policies and guidelines, and IRS regulations for CY 2015 officer compensation.
We identified an insignificant reporting issue that did not affect the disclosure requirements. We noted the Postal Service incorrectly reported total compensation in the annual Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations for two officers. Management reported two officers as exceeding the Executive Level I cap by $4,699 and $9,318 rather than $4,646 and $9,060, respectively. The differences of $53 and $258, respectively, represent financial counselling benefits.
The Postal Service appropriately excluded financial counselling benefits; however, management mistakenly used incorrect amounts because documentation did not disclose detailed benefit information. This error did not impact the disclosure requirements or the personnel included in the Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations.
What the OIG Recommended
We discussed this insignificant observation with management, who acknowledged the mistake and implemented a process to ensure a more comprehensive source document is used for financial counseling benefits in the future. Therefore, we are not making a recommendation.