NAPS Legislative Update
October 28, 2003

Last time, in assessing the report of the President’s postal commission, we answered questions from NAPS members about how postal plants – the processing, distribution and bulk mail centers – might be realigned if Congress were to adopt the “base closure commission” approach, as recommended by the President’s panel.  

As everyone knows, the Postal Service is not required under the law – at least as it now exists – to first secure the approval of the President or Congress before it closes a postal plant.  Under a base closure commission approach, it would.  The purpose of a postal plant closure commission, at least as the President’s postal panel sees it, is not to make it more difficult for the Postal Service to close plants and reduce excess capacity.  The President’s postal commission sees the “base closure” approach as the preferred way to reduce the political brushfires that are likely to be started by affected employees and customers in communities affected by plant closures – and better insulate Congress from those protests.  

The President’s commission proposed the creation of a special commission (called a “Postal Network Optimization Commission, or P-NOC”) to identify plants that should be closed and consolidated.  The P-NOC recommendations would be prepared upon review of an initial list compiled by the Postal Service, based upon its structural analysis of the postal network.  The Commission’s recommendations would then go to the President for approval.  Once the President  accepted the Commission’s plan, the plan would automatically become final unless Congress disapproved the entire list.  

Some NAPS members have asked about the future of post offices and whether they might be closed as a result of the Commission’s report.  Here are the answers to those questions:


Q:  Would post office closures be covered through the P-NOC process as well?

A:  No.  Despite widespread agreement that there are far more post offices in the network than are really necessary for the fulfillment of universal service, the President’s commission did not similarly recommend an independent process that vested the P-NOC with the job of independently identifying and closing small post offices that represented excess capacity.


Q:  Didn’t the Commission promote revolutionizing retail access through the expansion of postal retail activities, thereby reducing the need for as many post offices?

A:  One of the foremost recommendations of the President’s postal commission is to expand and improve, not curtail, postal retail access.  The postal commission recommended a significant expansion of postal services at consignment locations (grocery stores, Wal-Mart stores and banks) and postal kiosks, as well as through the mail and over the internet.  The end result, the Commission said, is more convenient, often 24/7, access to basic postal services that offer an equivalent standard of service as a post office at substantially less cost.  


Q:  As painful as post office closures might be, wouldn’t coverage of post offices  through a closure commission like the P-NOC achieve a more rational process?

In historical terms, Congress has handcuffed the Postal Service from closing post offices, due largely to the strong political ties between Congress, postmasters and their respective communities .  (Remember, it wasn’t all that long ago when Members of Congress had a hand in helping the President appoint postmasters!)  Handling the closure of post offices through a base closure commission approach, some observers (including NAPS) have suggested, would introduce independent judgment and better balance the scales to reduce Congressional interference and accomplish what the Postal Service alone has not been permitted to do over the last several decades.  But the President’s commission did not go down that road.  Instead it punted, offering up recommendations that would require Congress to scale back its authority over post offices closures.  That is highly unlikely.  No political body is ever keen on giving up its power.  The probable result is the continued strong hold that Congress has over the Postal Service’s ability to close post offices.  


Q:  Why does Congress resist closing post offices, even if they’re not paying their way or providing service not otherwise available?

A:  Year after year Congress passes legislation prohibiting the Postal Service from closing small rural and other small post offices, irrespective of the post office’s activity or its contribution to the fulfillment of universal service.  As the President’s postal commission noted, “This protective approach to local post offices has been a mainstay of postal legislation going back to the 1970 [Postal Reform] Act, which flatly orders that “no small post office shall be closed solely for operating at a deficit.”  Why has this occurred?  This overly protective approach toward post offices that aren’t paying their way or contributing to universal service has been brought about by Congressional protection of the home turf, with the active encouragement of postmasters and their affected communities.  It’s one more case of parochialism winning out over what’s best for the country.  


Q:  Did the President’s postal commission criticize this protective approach toward post offices?

A:  Technically yes, realistically no.  The Commission said, the Postal Service should have the flexibility to close and dispose of “low-activity” post offices -- facilities with low volume and where universal service is still assured by other means.   The Commission also urged Congress to repeal statutes limiting the Postal Service’s discretion to maintain the most efficient postal network and encouraged Congress to refrain from inserting annual restrictions upon the ability of the Postal Service to close post offices.  


Q:  How likely is Congress to move in this direction?

A:  If the past is any guide, Congress is unlikely to fall in line.  Both the House and Senate versions of the FY 2004 Postal Service appropriations measures currently winding their way through Congress, for example, continue to prohibit the Postal Service from closing or consolidating small rural or other small post offices.   For all the President’s  commission’s talk about rightsizing the nation’s postal network and expanding retail access, its approach toward post offices falls short of addressing the political realities and facing the tough choices.   


Bruce Moyer
Legislative Counsel
National Association of Postal Supervisors