After last week’s Congressional hearing, anyone reading the statements and hearing the comments by the Postal Regulatory Commission’s four commissioners has a thorough summary of the PRC’s perspectives about the Postal Service.
Collectively, their observations about USPS finances, operations, and service were not positive, and generally traced the source of their concerns to the 10-Year Plan initiated five years ago by then-postmaster general Louis DeJoy.
Meanwhile, separately and not in a similar venue, the Postal Service submitted its formal request for additional borrowing authority and for reimbursement of previously unclaimed appropriations for public service obligations.
Conflicting views
Circumstances aren’t fair to anyone in this case, neither the Postal Service nor the PRC. In one sense, the juxtaposition of these two events can be seen as illustrating a chronic and intractable behavior of postal management to do whatever it’s decided to do and ignore what others are saying differently. However, it isn’t that simple.
The origin of these agencies’ charters is, of course, Congress, an institution not known for carefully crafted legislation that aligns its directives in one place with those it issued elsewhere. As a result, both the PRC and the USPS can find passages in relevant statutes – from the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act and the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, among others – that support their perspectives on each others’ authorities and obligations.
The Postal Service was set up as an independent federal agency, saddled with vague but significant public service obligations while also being expected to operate in a “business-like” manner. Over the past 56 years, the inherent self-conflict of such a charter has become painfully clear.
Separately, the PRC was established to ensure that the USPS – with its monopoly powers yet operating in a commercial marketplace – did not exercise those powers through excessive prices or unfair business practices.
Inside the Postal Service, behaviors and decisions typically reflect an effort to do what it believes to be its charge – provide service while operating in a “business-like” manner. Accordingly, the PRC is often seen as interference and obstruction, an impediment to the USPS trying to do its job.
Across town, the PRC’s behaviors and decisions reflect its efforts to execute its legal obligations, restraining the Postal Service from monopolistic practices, preventing illegal competition with the private sector, and monitoring the appropriate provision of products and services to the public. Accordingly, the USPS often is seen as an overly ambitious if not predatory monopoly that requires strict controls. Over time, this has fostered a fortress mentality at L’Enfant Plaza. Because of the natural conflict between what it believes it needs to do and what it’s allowed to do, a somewhat myopic perspective has developed in which it sees itself as constantly having to play defense. Institutionally, while it understands the statutes, it still sees the PRC and the mailing industry as opponents and unfair critics; it lacks a capacity, or willingness, to see itself as others see it.
In turn, it cannot or won’t consider the possibility that there might be something worth acknowledging in what “critics” are saying. It’s easier for the USPS executive team to circle the wagons and validate their own thinking than it is to risk the fabric of their policies by pulling on a thread of doubt.
Conversely, and not without reason, this has lead the PRC to see itself as the essential protectors of the ratepaying public against a stubborn and reckless monopoly that cannot be trusted to make decisions in other than its own self-defined interests, such as in prosecuting the 10-Year Plan.
On the one hand, it may be easy for the USPS to write off what industry observers say as parochial criticism by people more focused on advancing their own agendas. However, on the other hand, what the PRC states should not be so easily dismissed. The commission doesn’t issue off-the-cuff rulings or render its opinions without careful thought; it doesn’t take knee-jerk positions just to be adversarial.
Along the way, it’s important to recognize the roles of the lawyers behind the scenes. Never lacking for professional ego, there’s an understandable “shoe-wetting” contest always going on in which the legal teams at the USPS and PRC try to outdo each other in claiming the high ground. The influence these legal shamans exercise over their clients – at the USPS or PRC – should not be underestimated.
Postal executives and PRC commissioners may set policy or issue decisions, respectively, but what is finally published likely will reflect filtration by the associated legal team and, in turn, may be more about establishing or defending positions than trying to reach common ground.
Listening to the messages
At the risk of using an oversimplifying platitude, everyone needs to start not just listening to each other better but hearing the underlying messages being delivered.
For example, aside from the reasons why, the Postal Service is saying it needs financial help if it’s to perform as expected. As PMG David Steiner neatly captured the proposition, “tell me what you want me to do and how to pay for it.” Frustration arises at USPS HQ when there’s more attention to the causes of the situation than to the need for timely action.
At the same time, the PRC and others – in Congress and the industry – are saying that the 10-Year Plan has been disastrous for postal finances and service and needs to be abandoned. Frustration arises when clear indicators of The Plan’s failure are ignored by its zealous advocates at the USPS.
Thankfully, there may be one point of agreement around one very fundamental question: what is the Postal Service’s universal service obligation? If Congress can provide a clear definition, then the appropriate funding mechanisms can be developed. In turn, the USPS would not only have better guidance about what it’s expected to do but the confidence of an appropriate revenue stream and a starting point from which to resolve other financial questions. Regardless, the first step seems to be that the USPS admits the failure of the 10-Year Plan. Lowering that flag from the ramparts may well be the critical signal that it’s time for everyone to stop arguing and collaborate, starting with the USO.