Postal Service Falls Short in Attempts To Get Public Input on Consolidations

In testimony submitted to the Postal Rate Commission on behalf of the APWU on Sept. 1, Margaret L. Yao, an expert and senior associate at AmericaSpeaks, sharply criticized the USPS for failing to adequately consult with the public on its network consolidation plan.

Yao concluded that Postal Service’s Public Involvement Plan was “needlessly flawed” and that the “deficiencies of the current adversarial approach have invited scrutiny, delay, frustration, and cynicism.”

Yao provided an in-depth report on the five public meetings organized by the USPS in areas slated for consolidation of local postal facilities. Her analysis included focus-group interviews with business and community leaders, as well as interviews with meeting participants in Sioux City, IA; Rockford, IL; St. Petersburg, FL; Jackson, TN; and Yakima WA.

Yao, whose not-for-profit organization specializes in “strengthening citizens’ voice in public decision-making,” concluded that the Postal Service’s procedure for citizen involvement occurs only as an afterthought. “The current public input process is an add-on process that occurs after all managers in the field have approved the proposal, leaving only approval from top level headquarters outstanding. 

“The strategy is intended to be one way,” she said. “Unfortunately, the process conveys exactly that impression, creating a climate for cynicism and an adversarial response from the public.”

She called the meetings “a lost opportunity to deepen understanding and develop creative and sustainable ways” to accomplish USPS goals. “Indeed, due to its current process, the Service is incurring real costs of cancellations and delays and may be incurring longer-term intangible costs, such as weakened public trust in the Postal Service and in the government in general.”

Yao quoted from interviews after the Sioux City meeting, where an attorney said, “They appeared to be just getting past a public comment meeting as a step in the process, as opposed to listening.” Another business leader agreed, Yao recounted, saying, “I was convinced they had already decided what they were going to do.”

The USPS decision to provide summaries of the data it relied on “irked several questioners” at the St. Petersburg meeting, Yao noted. Michael Connors, a city administrator who attended as a representative of the mayor, “was interrupted by applause when he commented: ‘I respectfully request and feel entitled to such a meeting to review the draft results of this AMP [Area Mail Processing] study… A lot of detailed analysis has been conducted and we would very much like to see that analysis.’”

Proper explanations of the potential impact on mail service were notably lacking from the USPS’ approach, Yao found. “The absence of customer service information at the Postal Service meetings deserves special mention, since customer service is predictably the main concern at the meetings,” she said. “There appears to be no methodology for collecting, analyzing and predicting the impact of service changes on segments of customers impacted in the AMP feasibility study locale,” Yao said, and such information is not solicited.

Commenting on Yao’s analysis, APWU President William Burrus said, “This report is another rebuke to the USPS consolidation plan. The Postal Service has treated the opinions of ordinary Americans as an annoyance. It has shown disdain for the interests of individual customers and, in doing so it violates the Postal Reform Act.

“The Postal Service developed its plans behind closed doors,” he said, “and — with the exception of five hastily arranged and poorly executed meetings — has excluded ordinary citizens from having any voice in its consolidation plan.

“On the other hand, the concerns of big mailers have received careful consideration in USPS policy decisions. This inequity is one of the main faults of the Postal Service’s program.”

In recent weeks, mailing industry spokesmen have ridiculed demands by individual citizens, small business owners and politicians for input in the process. Leo Raymond, editor of Postal Points, the newsletter of the Mailing & Fulfillment Service Association, wrote in the Aug. 25 edition:

“Although postal critics would say the Postal Service’s attempt to do END [Evolutionary Network Development] quietly shows its lack of transparency, many business executives might disagree, instead arguing that an enterprise ought to be allowed to make plans and reorganize its internal operations without the need for public justification. But this is the Postal Service, about which everyone who’s not accountable for it still claims the right to a piece of deciding how it should be run, as if its ‘public service’ status means all Americans get to put in their two-cents’ worth equally with the PMG.”

Burrus asserts that the issue is simple: “Who will decide the future of the USPS? Will postal management listen to the American people, or will they hear only the demands of business and advertising mailers?” 

Yao suggests the Postal Service could adopt a more effective strategy for public participation: “Early and authentic interest in public input changes the tone, substance, and nature of the process, moving it away from an adversarial tone to a more constructive one,” she said. “The Postal Service can make better and more sustainable consolidation decisions by enhancing its own understanding of customer needs.”

The APWU filings before the PRC included videotapes of the USPS town meetings and other supporting documents. They can be viewed at www.prc.gov