WILMINGTON – Today, Sen. Tom Carper, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee that oversees the U.S. Postal Service, along with Gov. Jack Markell, Sen. Chris Coons and Rep. John Carney (all D-Del.) wrote to United States Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe urging him to review the U.S. Postal Service’s proposal that would revamp Delaware’s only mail processing facility, causing a significant negative impact on Delaware. Specifically, the Postal Service has proposed transferring the mail processing functions from the Delaware Processing and Distribution facility at Hare’s Corner in New Castle, Del., to another facility in Bellmawr, N.J.

The letter highlights several concerns with the proposal and the process the Postal Service has employed when considering revamping the Hare’s Corner facility. It includes statements from businesses and state and federal agencies noting that this proposal would negatively impact their operations. It also urges the Postmaster General to reconsider the Area Mail Processing study that led to the current proposal, explore the concerns raised regarding the proposal, and consider the possibility of consolidating other operations into the Delaware Processing and Distribution facility.

A copy of the letter follows:

February 3, 2012

The Honorable Patrick R. Donahoe
Postmaster General of the United States
475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20260-0010

Dear Postmaster General Donahoe:

We are writing to express our concerns about the Postal Service’s proposal to transfer mail processing functions from the Delaware Processing and Distribution facility at Hares Corner to another facility in Bellmawr, New Jersey. While we appreciate the need on the part of the Postal Service to find efficiencies and to adjust to the changing ways in which Americans communicate, we fear that the loss of mail processing at Hares Corner could have a significant negative impact on Delaware and represent a missed opportunity to improve mail service in our region.

On September 15, 2011, we were notified by the Postal Service of its intent to begin an Area Mail Processing (AMP) study on Hares Corner. On December 20, 2011 while the AMP study was still evolving, we received a summary of the study with a letter notifying us of a public meeting on the future of Hares Corner on January 4, 2012. Due to concerns we raised that the amount of notice was not sufficient to inform the public and fully understand what was being proposed, the Postal Service agreed to postpone this meeting and move it to January 12, 2012, and then to January 19, 2012.

While we thank you for accommodating our request to delay the public meeting and appreciate the work of the members of your staff who were in attendance, we still do not understand how we or the public can be expected to articulate informed comments on a study we have not seen and which, according to Postal Service staff, has not been completed. We believe it would be in the best interest of postal customers, postal employees, and community leaders – and also of the Postal Service itself – if all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to review the final completed study, understand its potential implications for Delaware and the surrounding region, and then engage in a dialogue and exchange of ideas based on the known merits and demerits of what is being proposed.

Despite our inability to obtain the details of the Postal Service’s plans for Hares Corner and for mail processing in our region generally, we have a number of points to raise about this decision that we think illustrate the flaws in those plans. We hope that the Postal Service will reconsider its proposal in light of a number of factors that were, to the best of our knowledge, overlooked or possibly misstated during the course of the work that has been completed in the AMP study to date.

According to the Postal Service’s AMP Processing Guidelines, Handbook PO-408, the four objectives of an AMP feasibility study are: (1) evaluation of the impacts on the service standards for all classes of mail; (2) consideration of the issues important to local customers; (3) identification of impacts on Postal Service staffing; and (4) analysis of the savings and costs associated with moving mail processing operations. We will identify concerns in all four areas that have been brought to our attention and that we believe will demonstrate to the Postal Service that removing mail processing functions from Hares Corner fails to meet the Postal Service’s four core objectives of an AMP feasibility study.

Impacts on Service Standards

We recognize that the Postal Service has an obligation to use every authority available to it to find the operational savings necessary to preserve universal mail service during these challenging times. We are also aware that the proposed service changes that would allow for the consolidation of Hares Corner’s mail processing functions into Bellmawr are national in scope and would impact all postal customers, not just those in Delaware. That said, we believe it is important to share with you some of the concerns that have been brought to our attention by major postal customers in our state. These comments raise concerns that we believe the Postal Service should consider.

We heard the following from local officials from the Internal Revenue Service:

“Proposed closing of the only United States Postal Service distribution facility in Delaware would definitely impact our ability to provide timely services to the public. The proposed closing of the only United States Postal Service distribution facility would delay the IRS’s ability to process incoming correspondence and payments. It would also delay the delivery of time sensitive correspondence to taxpayers where information concerning adjustments to taxes owed, audits, and payments are being requested to satisfy accounts.

The IRS is the one federal agency most Americans interact with every year, meaning that to a significant extent, their perception about the federal government “is shaped by their experience in dealing with the IRS.” Nearly half of all taxpayers who now write the IRS on tax adjustment issues “must wait more than 6½ weeks for a reply.” In 2004, 11.5 percent of writers waited that long for replies. If taxpayers experience unnecessary hassles in trying to do their civic duty, their cynicism about the competence and fairness of the government will increase. Greater workload plus fewer resources may also damage tax agency efforts to catch tax scofflaws. The most recent IRS estimate of the tax gap, based on figures from 2001, posits that at least $290 billion goes uncollected annually.”

The State of Delaware Office of Management and Budget made the following comments:

“Should Hare’s Corner close, Delaware addressed mail originating from State Agencies will be transported to the South Jersey USPS processing plant to be sorted, processed and returned to Delaware local post offices or a USPS center for delivery within Delaware. This creates an expected 2-3 day delivery timeframe for First class mail from the current 1-3 days delivery, effectively adding a delay to First class mailing that will not be avoidable.

State of Delaware Agencies generate approximately 3.2MM pieces of presort mail annually. Heavily impacted State Agencies will be Corporations (standing policy is all Division of Corporations mail goes First Class to shorten mailing time) and the Courts collectively (impacts to timelines of hearings, Court Dates and notices). The State uses a Pre-Sort vendor in processing mail. Currently Pre-Sort mail generated by State Agencies is processed by the contract vendor and delivered to Hares Corner for delivery. The presort process service has mail delivered in a 2-3 day timeframe. Presort mail achieves a 6.5¢ per piece savings. Presort mail possessing a Delaware address would be affected by the closure of Hares Corner that would move the presort delivery time standards to 4-6 days (2-3 for the presort process plus the USPS delivery standards of 2-3). State Agency customers will likely raise concerns over timeliness of using the presort process should this occur.”

A local bank, Wilmington Savings Fund Society (WSFS), indicated the following:

“WSFS uses a mail presort house to consolidate and process the majority of outgoing mail. Our current presort provider is locally based in New Castle, less than one mile from Hares Corner. The advantages that we have with this relationship is a liberal daily cut off time for us to render and ready our statements/notices for delivery to the presort house. The vendor in turn is able to process our mail and deliver it to the Hares Corner USPS processing site before the 8:00 PM cutoff that same day. This results in a large percentage of our outgoing mail being delivered to the end customer the following day. Likely impact of the closing of the Hares Corner USPS processing site would be:

Cutoff time for WSFS to deliver mail to the presort house would be moved to an earlier time during the day. This may result in carry-over of processing until the following day. Estimate is an average of 10% – 15% of daily volume on statement cycle days. Potential for added expense if the presort provider levies a fuel surcharge for delivering mail to a site outside of Delaware. Potential for extended delivery time of mailings to customers if the USPS out-of-market mail processor is unable to provide next day delivery.

This impact is not factoring the proposed increase in postal rates or the reduction in mail delivery days, as these are likely to occur regardless of the outcome for the Hares Corner USPS processing site closure.”

J.P. Morgan Chase, a national bank with significant operations in Delaware has indicated that the elimination of the Hares Corner mail processing facility could:

“[I]mpact our ability to process customer’s payments in the quickest fashion. Redirecting mail to New Jersey creates transportation and processing delays. The estimated impact of delays could be approximately 700,000 pieces of mail per month. These payments will be posted upon their receipt utilizing backdating which is not a good experience for the customer.”

Another bank with significant operations in Delaware, and a customer of the Postal Service that sends tens of millions of pieces of mail each year and hopes to have a mail processing center nearby its Wilmington location, made this comment:

“For redundancy purposes we would like to have a mail processing facility nearby in case of terrorist issues or natural disasters. Closing Hares Corner would not provide a nearby facility.”

As you may recall, mail processing facilities in New Jersey and Washington, DC were closed for an extended period of time a number of years ago after the postal anthrax attacks. If something of this nature happened again at a facility this or other banks currently use, consolidating Hares Corner’s mail processing function into Bellmawr would not provide the backup facility they would need in Delaware.

As reflected in the comments above, some of Delaware’s largest postal customers have stated on the record that moving the Hares Corner processing facility could double delivery times, not to mention increase costs. As a result, we believe removing mail processing functions from Hares Corner facility would have a profound impact on service for both public and private enterprise in Delaware.

Impacts on Postal Service Staffing

It is our understanding that, if the Postal Service’s proposal for Hares Corner is implemented, there will be approximately 173 positions at Bellmawr available for the 494 individuals currently working at Hares Corner, including 31 management positions. However, before those eligible Hares Corner personnel can bid on any of those positions, the personnel currently working in Bellmawr may have an opportunity to bid for them first. This could eliminate the seniority advantage any Hares Corner personnel might have and may require them to take less desirable and ultimately lower-paying jobs. We have also heard that approximately 101 employees will continue to work at the Hares Corner facility to handle various jobs, leaving approximately 220 employees– almost 50% of the current workforce – without identified positions. Given the information that we have been provided to date, then, up to 50 percent of the Hares Corner workforce could be without a job or put in a situation in which they have no choice but to give up their careers. Such a potential outcome is very difficult to accept, as it would have a significant and detrimental impact on the dedicated men and women who have worked at Hares Corner. Before the Postal Service moves forward with finalizing the AMP study, the Postal Service must make clear what the staffing plan is and provide those who will be most affected an opportunity to comment on such a plan.

Potential Savings

Based on the limited information we have been provided, it seems the total projected savings from the Postal Service’s Hares Corner proposal are estimated to be as high as $19,667,703. However, we have seen other data that point to $17,505,255 in savings. The fact that these savings totals are still in flux at this late date when the Postal Service could be making a final decision on Hares Corner within a matter of weeks is troubling.

Our staff has found other problems with the savings projections related to the Hares Corner proposal:

• The Postal Service is apparently expected to generate $9,028,965 in savings due to the elimination of 194 craft positions at Hares Corner. Meanwhile, we have been told that the consolidation of mail processing functions from a similar facility in southeastern Pennsylvania into Philadelphia would generate $6,962,011 due to the elimination of 252 craft positions. If one were to compare the average cost savings per employee at these two facilities there is a significant and unexplained difference. The Hares Corner proposal would achieve $46,541 in savings per craft employee while the southeastern Pennsylvania proposal would only achieve $27,627 in savings per craft employee, a difference on average of $18,914 per craft employee. We do not understand why there would be such a difference.
• We have seen two numbers related to transportation cost savings. The potential move of mail processing functions from Hares Corner to Bellmawr will either save $1,708,076 annually or cost $193,148. Again, we have no idea how these numbers were calculated and which one is correct. Hopefully, you can shed some light on the process for determining these cost savings estimates.

These questionable savings estimates presented in summary form call into serious question the basis for the Postal Service’s plans for mail processing consolidation in our region.

Discriminatory Impact on Delaware

If the Postal Service’s Hares Corner proposal is implemented, Delaware would be the only state in the nation without a Postal Service mail processing facility. This situation could potentially make it significantly more difficult to attract jobs that rely on convenient access to the Postal Service, giving all of our neighbors a Postal Service-created economic development advantage. Our concerns in this regard were confirmed by Alan Levin, the Director of the Delaware Economic Development Office. At the January 19 public meeting, he stated that:

“Providing good service to businesses in Delaware is tremendously important and if you take away the Hares Corner mail processing facility Delaware will not be on an even playing field to compete among states for economic development. Also, one of the factors the financial services industry evaluates when making location decisions is mail service. The loss of this facility could have drastic implications for Delaware, a financial industry hub for credit card banks.”

Furthermore, some small businesses and charities that currently receive discounts for having their mail presorted are concerned that they may lose those discounts if they are unable to get their mail to Bellmawr. If those discounts were lost, it would give charities in other states an advantage over those located in Delaware. It would also give businesses and charities an incentive to relocate their operations – and the jobs that those operations create – to another state. This is a real concern and something which needs to be considered by the Postal Service before any final decision is made.

Better Serving the Region at Hares Corner

We believe that there is a better way for the Postal Service to cut costs in our region without losing the valuable work that occurs daily at Hares Corner.

When the Postal Service first proposed changing the manner in which mail in the Philadelphia area is processed, the initial plan was to consolidate mail processing functions currently performed in Hares Corner, Bellmawr, and southeastern Pennsylvania into a much larger facility near the Philadelphia International Airport. On December 20th, however, we learned that that the proposal had been changed and that, due to concern that the Philadelphia facility could not handle all of the region’s mail, the Postal Service was proposing that Philadelphia absorb the mail processing work performed in southeastern Pennsylvania but that the Bellmawr facility remain open to absorb the mail processing work performed at Hares Corner. Based on conversations that members of our staff have had with Postal Service staff, we understand that no analysis was done that involved Hares Corner remaining open.

We understand that Hares Corner, due to its size and to transportation challenges in the region, would not be able to absorb the mail processing work performed in southeastern Pennsylvania or in Bellmawr. However, we have been told by Postal Service officials that a processing center could process three times as much mail with less equipment if the service change the Postal Service is proposing is implemented. Furthermore, as the southernmost plant in the Philadelphia area, we believe that Hares Corner could play a key role in more efficiently processing mail coming out of communities on the Delmarva Peninsula, nearby communities in northern Maryland, and even communities west of Philadelphia along Delaware’s northern border. Preserving processing functions at Hares Corner could be even more important if you consider the fact that Delaware has had significant population growth, is the fastest growing state in the northeast according to Census data, and is expected to continue to experience growth well into the future.

In addition to the proposal related to Hares Corner, the Postal Service is considering consolidating work performed at a mail processing facility in Easton, Maryland into a processing facility in Baltimore. Members of our staffs have visited both facilities. They have heard that after Baltimore began accepting mail processing work from Frederick, Maryland, the facility experienced a number of difficulties and delays. With the planned consolidation of a Martinsburg, West Virginia and the Easton facility, Baltimore could have some issues absorbing the additional mail.

Transportation could present another challenge that argues for the preservation of mail processing at Hares Corner. Travel between the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Baltimore involves driving over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. We believe that Hares Corner could easily absorb Easton’s mail and avoid the problems associated with traffic and weather situations that could make travel across the Bay Bridge challenging. In addition, mail from Cecil County, Maryland that currently travels to Baltimore for processing may be more efficiently handled at Hares Corner. For example, the largest population center in Cecil County – Elkton, Maryland – is about 17 miles from Hares Corner. Elkton is more than 50 miles from Baltimore. Finally, if the Philadelphia facility truly cannot handle all of the mail from surrounding communities, Hares Corner may be able to more efficiently process mail from communities in Pennsylvania such as Chadds Ford, Kennett Square, and Oxford that are close to the Delaware border and have strong transportation links to Hares Corner.

In conclusion, with the number of questions we have raised concerning this potential consolidation and the serious proposal we have set forth above, we ask that the Postal Service take the time it needs to fully vet its proposal and our own to be certain that whatever is ultimately decided is the right decision. Based on the summary of the ongoing AMP feasibility study that has been provided to date, it is clear to us that consolidation of Hares Corner’s mail processing functions into Bellmawr does not meet the Postal Service’s very own core objectives of an AMP feasibility study. Conversely, for the reasons mentioned above, we believe preserving processing functions at Hares Corner – a facility that has received internal Postal Service quality scores higher than most other mail processing facilities, including Bellmawr – would actually make Hares Corner an even more important part of the Postal Service’s logistics network in our region. It would prevent the unfortunate and discriminatory possibility of Delaware being the only state without a mail processing facility and enable the Postal Service to better serve growing communities in our state and the region that would likely not be well served if their mail were sent to far-off facilities for processing.

We sincerely believe that the Postal Service must act to solve its financial issues, but doing it in ways that do not improve service and are not cost effective are not the answer. Given the number of serious questions we have regarding the merits of this proposal and without being able to evaluate the final AMP study in a thorough, fair, and transparent way, we will be unable to support the Postal Service decision to consolidate the Hares Corner Mail Processing Center to the Bellmawr, NJ facility at this time.

Please explore the issues we have raised and consider the possibility of consolidating other operations into Hares Corner.

With best personal regards, we are

Sincerely yours,

Thomas R. Carper – U.S. Senator

Christopher A. Coons – U.S. Senator

John C. Carney – U.S. Representative

Jack A. Markell – Governor

cc:

Thurgood Marshall, Jr., Chairman, USPS Board of Governors
Cheralyn D. Morton, Manager, Consumer & Industry Contact, U.S. Postal Service South Jersey District

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Postal Service today announced the new Love Ribbons Forever Stamp is on sale today at usps.com and by phone at 800-782-6724. Stamps are arriving in Post Offices over the next few days and will be sold as soon as they are available.

“We are excited to bring this colorful new stamp to our customers in time for them to mail their Valentine’s Day greeting cards and letters,” said Stamp Services Manager, Stephen Kearney. “We will continue selling the Garden of Love stamps too.” The official dedication ceremony for Love Ribbons will be held Feb. 14 in Colorado Springs, CO.

Evoking images of romance and elegance, this year’s Love stamp features a graphic design of satin ribbons that spell out the word “Love” in a graceful, cursive script.

Like stamps, ribbons often adorn special packages to friends and family. Attached to floral arrangements, boxes of candy, and gifts of all kinds, ribbons beautify and embellish gestures of romance, friendship and caring. Silk, satin, taffeta and organdy ribbons often are used to enhance the beauty of bridal bouquets and invitations for weddings and other special celebrations for friends and loved ones.

Graphic designer Louise Fili worked with art director Derry Noyes on this stamp.

The Love Ribbons stamp is being issued as a Forever Stamp in self-adhesive sheets of 20. Forever stamps are always equal in value to the current First-Class Mail 1-ounce price. At the time of issuance, the Love Ribbons stamps are being sold at a price of 45 cents each, or $9 per sheet.

Customers may view the Love Ribbons Forever Stamp, as well as many of this year’s other stamps, on Facebook at facebook.com/USPSStamps, through http://www.twitter.com/uspsstamps or on the website Beyond the Perf at beyondtheperf.com/stamp-releases/2012. Beyond the Perf is the Postal Service’s online site for background on upcoming stamp subjects, first-day-of-issue events and other philatelic news.

How to Order the First-Day-of-Issue Postmark, Love Ribbons Forever Stamp

Customers have 60 days to obtain the first-day-of-issue postmark by mail. They may purchase new stamps at a local Post Office, at The Postal Store website at usps.com/shop or by calling 800-STAMP-24. They should affix the stamps to envelopes of their choice, address the envelopes (to themselves or others) and place them in larger envelopes addressed to:

Love Ribbons Stamp
Postmaster
201 E. Pikes Peak Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903-9998

After applying the first-day-of-issue postmark, the Postal Service will return the envelopes by mail. There is no charge for the postmark.

All orders must be postmarked by April 14, 2012.

How to Order First-Day Covers

The Postal Service also offers first-day covers for new stamp issues and Postal Service stationery items postmarked with the official first-day-of-issue cancellation. Each item has an individual catalog number and is offered in the quarterly USA Philatelic catalog. Customers may request a free catalog by calling 800-782-6724 or writing to:

Information Fulfillment
Dept. 6270
U.S. Postal Service
P.O. Box 219014
Kansas City, MO 64121-9014

Philatelic Products
There are four philatelic products available for this stamp issue:

• 577261, First-Day Cover, $.89.
• 577265, Digital Color Postmark, $1.60.
• 577291, Ceremony Program, $6.95
• 577299, Cancellation Keepsake (Digital Color Postmark w/Pane), $10.95.

Progress Has Been Hindered by Longstanding Information Technology Management Weaknesses
GAO-12-430T, Feb 1, 2012

What GAO Found

In a series of reviews, GAO found that OPM’s retirement modernization efforts were hindered by weaknesses in key management practices that are essential to successful IT modernization projects. For example, in 2005, GAO made recommendations to address weaknesses in the following areas:

• Project management: While OPM had defined major components of its retirement modernization effort, it had not identified the dependencies among them, increasing the risk that delays in one activity could have unforeseen impacts on the progress of others.
• Risk management: OPM did not have a process for identifying and tracking project risks and mitigation strategies on a regular basis. Thus, OPM lacked a mechanism to address potential problems that could adversely impact the cost, schedule, and quality of the modernization effort.
• Organizational change management: OPM had not adequately prepared its staff for changes to job responsibilities resulting from the modernization by developing a detailed transition plan. This could lead to confusion about roles and responsibilities and hinder effective system implementation.

In 2008, as OPM was on the verge of deploying an automated retirement processing system, GAO reported deficiencies in and made recommendations to address additional management capabilities:

• Testing: The results of tests 1 month prior to the deployment of a major system component revealed that it had not performed as intended. These defects, along with a compressed testing schedule, increased the risk that the system would not work as intended upon deployment.
• Cost estimating: The cost estimate OPM developed was not fully reliable. This meant that the agency did not have a sound basis for formulating budgets or developing a program baseline.
• Progress reporting: The baseline against which OPM was measuring the progress of the program did not reflect the full scope of the project; this increased the risk that variances from planned performance would not be detected.

In 2009, GAO reported that OPM continued to have deficiencies in its cost estimating, progress reporting, and testing practices and made recommendations to address these deficiencies, as well as additional weaknesses in the planning and oversight of the modernization effort. OPM agreed with these recommendations and began to address them, but the agency terminated the modernization effort in February 2011.

More recently, in January 2012, OPM released a new plan to improve retirement processing that aims at targeted, incremental improvements rather than a largescale modernization. Specifically, OPM plans to hire new claims-processing staff, take steps to identify potential process improvements, and work with other agencies to improve data quality. Further, OPM intends to make IT improvements that allow retirees to access and update their accounts and automate the retirement application process. However, the plan reflects a less ambitious retirement processing timeliness goal and does not address improving or eliminating the legacy systems that support retirement processing.

Why GAO Did This Study

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is the central human resources agency for the federal government and, as such, is responsible for ensuring that the government has an effective civilian workforce. As part of its mission, OPM defines recruiting and hiring processes and procedures; provides federal employees with various benefits, such as health benefits; and administers the retirement program for federal employees. OPM’s use of information technology (IT) is critical in carrying out its responsibilities; in fiscal year 2011 the agency invested $79 million in IT systems and services. For over 2 decades, OPM has been attempting to modernize its federal employeeretirement process by automating paper-based processes and replacing antiquated information systems. However, these efforts have been unsuccessful, and OPM canceled its most recent large-scale retirement modernization effort in February 2011.

GAO was asked to summarize its work on challenges OPM has faced in attempting to modernize the federal employee retirement process. To do this, GAO relied on previously published work in addition to reviewing OPM’s recent plan for retirement services.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making new recommendations at this time. GAO has previously made numerous recommendations to address IT management challenges OPM has faced in carrying out its retirement modernization efforts. Fully addressing these challenges remains key to the success of OPM’s efforts.

View Full Report (PDF)

WASHINGTON — The United States Postal Service wants to make sending your Valentine some love as quick and easy as a stop at your local Post Office, where the new “In the Mailbox Love Bear” and other lovely gifts await.

The limited edition “In the Mailbox Love Bear” comes ready to ship — the furry guy is already in a box. He’s holding a red heart, has the 2012 Love Stamp in his right paw and comes with a greeting card for your personal sentiments. Use Express Mail, Priority Mail or Parcel Post to ship your present to that special someone.

The “In the Mailbox Love Bear” is available for just $11.99 at select Post Offices and online at usps.com while supplies last.

“One-stop shopping at the Post Office makes sending some love a little easier to ‘bear’ this Valentine’s Day,” said Kelly Sigmon, vice president, Channel Access.

The Postal Service also offers additional products perfect for Valentine’s Day giving. American Express Gift Cards are available in denominations of $25, $50, and variable dollar amounts between $25 and $100 at nearly 5,000 Post Offices. Place your gift card in one of the Valentine’s Day cards offered for sale at select Post Offices and you’re ready to mail some first-class love.

Also making its debut this year is the Love Tote Bag, featuring an image of the beautifully designed 2012 Love stamp. This eco-friendly item is made using 80 percent recycled materials and sells for just $2. It’s a great gift on its own or it can be used as an economical (and sustainable) gift bag.

Customers also may select from various ReadyPost boxes and bubble mailers featuring Valentine’s Day colors and designs. These items are priced from $1.79 to $4.29 and are ready to use as gift wrap or to ship anywhere.

Source: USPS

Finally, we have some movement in the Maintenance Craft on implementation of key provisions the 2010-2015 Collective Bargaining Agreement! On Feb. 1, 2012, President Cliff Guffey and postal management signed a Questions-and-Answers document [PDF] regarding specific sections of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Maintenance Craft Jobs [PDF]. The document does not address all outstanding items, but resolves items 1a, 1b, 1c, 2 and 3 of the Jobs Memo.

Under the terms of the Q-and-A document, the Postal Service must return custodial duties to stations, branches and other facilities of an independent installation no later than May 23, 2012.

The changes in the 2010 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) regarding contracting custodial duties were significant. Now, in order to contract out our custodial work, the USPS must add together all interior square and exterior square footage of the separate facilities and then apply the 18,000 square-foot formula. Put another way, if your main office is not contracted out, then none of the other facilities within your installation can be contracted out. Unfortunately, there will be no liability for the Postal Service’s delay in returning our work.

Regarding the return of 1,500 additional post offices where custodial work is contracted out, the Q-and-A document stipulates that these “duty assignments will be identified by March 31, 2012.” This is separate and apart from the return of work to the stations.

Furthermore, the terms of the Jobs MOU regarding the use of PSEs will be followed. After posting for the craft, if the Postal Service gets to the point where it must hire from the street, a PSE can be employed. This is also where the Preference Eligible Veteran rules will kick in.

Note: The additional duty assignment(s) and/or (depending on the amount of work returned) the manner in which existing duty assignments will cover the required scheduling and performance of custodial work is to be addressed by locals. Locals should start by obtaining the separate custodial staffing packages for each facility in the installation. The MS-47 must be adhered to.

The Help Desk at the Maintenance Technical Support Center (MTSC) in Norman, OK (not the training center) is also addressed. A minimum of 10 new duty assignments will be posted for ET-11s and ET-10s will also have an opportunity to volunteer for these jobs.

The document also stipulates that an Integrated Voice Recognition (IVR) system will be designed and installed. Discussion of implementation of the IVR will continue. The additional work for the ET-11 occupational group is certainly welcome.

The document also defines the use of the 5 percent of PSEs in Maintenance-capable offices.

While frustrations continue, this represents some long-awaited progress. I extend sincere thanks to President Guffey on behalf of the Maintenance Craft members for his efforts in finalizing this step forward.

February 01, 2012

Today, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on H.R. 3835, a bill introduced by Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) to extend for another year the freeze on federal employees’ pay. This legislation would freeze federal pay for federal employees and members of Congress for a third consecutive year. President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget includes a small increase for federal employees, a modest 0.5 percent.

The legislation takes advantage of members of Congress who support federal employees. Member of Congress who vote to increase the pay of federal workers will be forced to vote simultaneously for a pay increase for themselves.

On Tuesday, a “Dear Colleague” letter was circulated by Democrats in the House. It calls out the political pandering of the GOP, as H.R. 3835 “inappropriately groups Members of Congress who earn $174,000 per year with the men and women of our federal service. While we are not opposed to a freeze on Members’ pay for fiscal year 2013, we will not support a pay freeze for federal employees for a third consecutive year.” And in its closing, the letter suggests what the GOP should do to reduce the deficit, raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and not freeze the wages of middle-class workers.

Source: NALC Activist Alert

CONTRACT UPDATE #11
January 31, 2012
Mail Handlers Union

IMPASSE DECLARED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES FORTHCOMING

As previously announced, National negotiations between the National Postal Mail Handlers Union and the U.S. Postal Service over the terms of the 2011 National Agreement stalled late last week, on January 20, 2012. At that point, representatives of the Postal Service made clear that they would not agree to extend the expiration date for the current National Agreement for a fourth time, and thus the parties had no choice but to declare impasse in the negotiations.

Although progress was made during bargaining on certain issues, including Articles 12 on seniority and reassignments and Article 15 governing the grievance-arbitration procedure, the parties remain at loggerheads on issues concerning wages under Article 9, health insurance under Article 21, employee complement under Article 7, and subcontracting under Article 32. The Postal Service also has been working in Congress to undermine the bargaining process, seeking legislative changes in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, as well as changes in the binding arbitration provisions that ultimately control collective bargaining.

At this writing, the parties at the National level are still discussing how they will proceed from this point forward, pursuant to their joint authority to establish dispute resolution procedures. In the meantime, the terms of the 2006 National Agreement will remain in effect until the completion of those procedures.

The statute that governs postal negotiations sets out a flexible process for ultimately determining the terms and conditions that will become part of the 2011 National Agreement. Under that statute, if the “parties fail to reach agreement,” they are authorized “to adopt a procedure providing for a binding resolution” of the dispute. This is the step in the process that is currently applicable.

If the parties are ultimately unable to reach agreement on a dispute resolution process, then the statute sets out a default procedure. First, the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service appoints a mediator of nationwide reputation and professional stature, who is also a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators. The parties are required to cooperate with the mediator in an effort to reach an agreement, and are required to meet and negotiate in good faith at such times and places that the mediator, in consultation with the parties, directs.

Thereafter, if no agreement is reached with the assistance of the mediator, an arbitration board is established “consisting of 3 members, 1 of whom shall be selected by the Postal Service, 1 by the bargaining representative of the employees, and the third by the 2 thus selected.” If the members chosen by the parties fail to agree on the third person, the selection of the third person shall be made from a list of names provided by FMCS. This list would consist of at least nine names of arbitrators of nationwide reputation, who also are members of the National Academy of Arbitrators, and whom the Director has determined are available and willing to serve.

The arbitration board must give the parties a full and fair hearing, including an opportunity to present evidence in support of their claims. Decisions of the arbitration panel are conclusive and binding upon the parties.

As dispute resolution procedures are developed by the National parties, they will be announced. Please be sure to check the NPMHU website and your bulletin boards for the latest information.

Carter Calls for Post Office Closings Review

(Washington, DC) – Congressman John Carter is asking the U.S. Post Office for a review of the considerations used in determining which post offices to close in the agency’s cost-cutting decisions this month.

“We fully recognize that bringing federal spending under control requires difficult decisions and sacrifice,” says Carter. “But we also need to know that the tough decisions were made for the right reasons, and that any closings are based on what is least damaging for the postal customer, rather than the bureaucracy and unions.”

Carter has received numerous complaints over the closing of the South Temple Post Office, which residents say is one of the favorite and most efficient locations in the area. Post Office customers have informed Carter that they agree post office locations could be closed to lower costs, but other locations would be better choices based on the superior customer service offered by the South Temple location.

The former Texas state judge is calling for the U.S. Postal Service to provide information on the criteria used to determine which locations should be closed, and what processes are available to challenge those decisions.

NPMHU Responds to USPS City Letter Carrier Position Job Posting

The Postal Service recently solicited all Mail Handlers with a message to consider transfering to a city letter carrier position. The message outlined how you could transfer to carrier and enumerated the advantages. USPS letter and NPMHU response can be read HERE (PDF),

Former Federal Agent Convicted of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice

Jan. 27, 2012 – BOSTON – A former federal postal inspector was convicted yesterday in federal court of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Joseph M. McGonagle, III, 38, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton to perjury and obstruction of justice. Had the case proceeded to trial the Government’s evidence would have proven that McGonagle knowingly and wilfully falsely testified under oath at a May 19, 2010, court hearing held in U.S. District Court in Boston. At the time the offenses were committed, McGonagle was an inspector with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. He had been assigned to the prosecution team in United States v. Eric L. Levine, et al. Levine was tried and convicted by a jury in 2010.

On the evening of May 18, 2010, during the Levine, et al. trial, Levine’s lead defense counsel at Denner Pelligrino learned that McGonagle had a phone conversation that evening with Melanie Abbruzzese, a paralegal employed at Denner Pelligrino. Defense counsel learned that during that conversation, Inspector McGonagle told Abbruzzese that an Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case had just sent an email to his staff at the U.S. Postal Service indicating the names of the defense witnesses which listed defendant Levine as a possible witness. The following morning, defense counsel alerted the government and the Court of the conversation between Abbruzzese and McGonagle.

Judge O’Toole held a hearing to determine whether there was any breach of confidentiality. McGonagle and Abbruzzese both testified at the hearing under oath.

McGonagle was questioned about the May 18 phone call to Abbruzzese, and more broadly, about his other interactions with Abbruzzese to include contact by email, phone or in person. McGonagle testified that he had no social out-of-office meetings with Abbruzzese, that his email contacts with her were of a professional nature, and that there were no calls during the Levine trial.

Contrary to his testimony, McGonagle had numerous social, out-of-office meetings with Abbruzzese during the Levine trial, including drinks on three occasions all within the10 days prior to his May 19, 2010 testimony. Further, on the evening of May 13, 2010, following their visit to the Bell and Hand restaurant in Boston, McGonagle and Abbruzzese were observed by a co-worker in McGonagle’s car while parked in front of Denner Pelligrino’s office. In addition, documentary evidence, to include cell tower information from Abbruzzese’s cell phone, showed that Abbruzzese had overnight visits at McGonagle’s apartment in Danvers the evenings of May 14 and May 16, 2010.

Furthermore, contrary to McGonagle’s testimony that emails between them were all of a professional nature, there were actually 41 emails between the two work email accounts from March 29 and May 18, 2010. The first three of those emails, dated Mar. 29 through Mar. 30, related to official business. The remaining 38 emails, dated April 12 through May 18, 2010, were all of a personal nature. Finally, although McGonagle testified that “I don’t think there were any phone calls,” cell phone records showed approximately 40 calls between the two between May 5 and May 19, 2010. The prosecutor told the court yesterday that four of those calls actually exceeded one hour, and on the day of their testimony alone, they exchanged seven phone calls.

The evidence would have further shown that McGonagle’s false testimony concerned a matter material to the court’s inquiry. The Judge ruled that McGonagle’s false statements hindered the court’s inquiry into the nature of the relationship between he and Abbruzzese. McGonagle’s false testimony was intended to, and did, conceal the existence of his ongoing relationship with Abbruzzese and thus deprived the court of a fulsome inquiry into whether anything inappropriate, in terms of confidentiality, was passed from one party to the other.

Judge Gorton scheduled sentencing for May 3, 2012. McGonagle faces up to five years in prison on the perjury charge and 10 years in prison for obstruction of justice. He also faces three years of supervised release following incarceration and a $250,000 fine on each charge.

United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz and Curtis Lembke, Area Special Agent in Charge, Special Inquiries Division, U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General made the announcement today. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane C. Freniere of Ortiz’s Public Corruption and Special Prosecutions Unit.