Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
FEBRUARY 11, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1331 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY BY
VINCENT
PALLADINO
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL
SUPERVISORS
BEFORE THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT
REFORM COMMITTEE
POSTAL SERVICE
SUBCOMMITTEE
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee, my name is Vincent Palladino. I am President of the National
Association of Postal Supervisors. NAPS is privileged to represent some 37,000
active and retired postal supervisors, managers and postmasters, who,
understandably, have a vested interest in helping shape a competitive,
affordable and, above all perhaps, universal Postal Service of the future.
I
appreciate the opportunity today to once again offer our views on H.R. 22, the
"Postal Modernization Act of 1999." I believe this is my third appearance before
the Subcommittee on this matter, which is so fundamentally central to our
nation's continued prosperity in the commerce and communications marketplaces.
I believe you are deserving of some kind of perseverance award, Mr.
Chairman, for continuing the valiant struggle to rally such diverse interests
toward responsibly addressing the difficult question of how best to restructure
the nation's postal system. Postal reform has,
indeed, proven to be a "work in progress," and NAPS certainly is appreciative of
the opportunity not only to be heard in this great debate, but to help shape the
legislation before us today.
In deference to the Subcommittee's busy
schedule, and perhaps to avoid repeating the main gist of the testimony of my
postal management association colleagues, I will be brief.
I am pleased to
note, Mr. Chairman, that most of our respectful objections to the original and
subsequent versions of postal reform legislation have been
addressed to our satisfaction.
We had objected during two previous hearings
to the proposed makeup of an unidentified presidentially appointed Postal
Management Commission that would be named to wrestle with the labor-management
difficulties the Postal Service continues to face. We were especially concerned,
Mr. Chairman, about the fact that, as envisioned, no member representing Postal
Service management would sit on the commission.
We are pleased the revised
legislation would provide for such a study to and I quote from the
legislation--"involve the labor, supervisory and managerial associations of the
Postal Service in developing the design and specific objectives of the study."
End quote. That said, however, NAPS is left to wonder whether such a study
really is necessary, given the notable success record of the past several postal
Summits in helping foster an improved labor-management environment on the
workroom floor.
I believe it was at your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that
these Summits be conducted with the cooperation of representatives of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. I will be the first to say the
Summits got off to a shaky start. Since those initial forays into addressing
this vexing problem, however, I have found that--together-- we are learning to
put the Postal Service's labor-management relations house in order. The Summit
process is working so well, in fact, that NAPS recommends an independent study
by the National Academy of Public Administration, as outlined in H.R. 22, be
authorized only if the Summit process now under way should fail.
As you will
recall, Mr. Chairman, NAPS also had objected to a provision of the original bill
that would have allowed the Postal Service to petition for judicial review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of--quote--"certain decisions"
of the Merit Systems Protection Board. If--quote--"certain decisions" referred
to granting the Postal Service the right to defend, federal court appeals of
MSPB decisions against the agency in the matter of employee adverse actions,
then, we stated, we were in firm opposition. We are pleased that you and fellow
Subcommittee members have seen the wisdom and fairness in removing from the
legislation references to Postal Service appeal of MSPB decisions against the
agency. We thank you for that action.
We had strongly opposed, Mr. Chairman,
provisions of the original bill that would have permitted non-Postal Service
access to citizens' private mailboxes and authorized a mailbox demonstration
project. We are delighted that reason, common sense and good judgment prevailed
here, too, and those provisions have been removed from the legislation.
NAPS
formerly opposed--and still must--the provision of H.R. 22 that would permit
commercial mail receiving agencies to forward the mail of a CMRA customer
without paying an appropriate fee to the Postal Service for that consideration.
We believe the key word here is "commercial." When the customer of a commercial
mail receiving agency--and I emphasize the word "commercial"--elects to conduct
his or her postal business with a CMRA, instead of the U.S. Postal Service--and
assuming a CMRA receives box rent or other fees for doing so--the Postal
Service, in our view, should not be required to forward such mail without an
additional fee being paid to the Postal Service. This is a basic service issue,
Mr. Chairman, and service is what the Postal Service is--or should be--all
about.
We have noted the inclusion of a new Section 307, titled "Suits," in
the language of the legislation. Specifically, at Section 307(f)(1), the Postal
Service would be required to comply with all zoning, planning and land use
regulations and building codes applicable to state and local public entities.
While we can appreciate the public- interest representation of such a provision,
Mr. Chairman, we are concerned that overly stringent interpretations and
applications of such regulations and codes could serve to thwart a community's
access to modem and efficient postal facilities, products and services. Rather
than requiring the agency to, without contest or appeal rights, comply with all
such regulations and codes, we would offer the following amendment: Before the
phrase "comply with all...," insert the words "shall make every reasonable
effort to faithfully..."
Because postal supervisors and other first-line
managers are willing partners of the Postal Service's management team, NAPS
respectfully defers to the Postal Service with respect to further amendments to
H.R. 22 the agency deems well-advised. It is our expectation, Mr. Chairman, that
your Subcommittee will give the same thoughtful and serious consideration to
these proposed amendments as you have to the many others presented to you since
H.R. 22's predecessor bill was introduced in the 104th Congress.
Having said
that, NAPS respectfully asks to reserve the right to review and submit comments
on the final language of H.R. 22 that is reported by the Subcommittee.
In
closing, Mr. Chairman, I caution that, as we focus on the details of H.R. 22, as
clearly we must, we do not at the same time lose sight of what we're putting
together here. Accordingly, I must respectfully pose to you and your
distinguished colleagues a question of overriding concern to me. You can call it
"food for thought."
I'll state it as simply as I can. As we rush headlong
into creating a Postal Service that walks, talks and otherwise operates like a
public corporation, are we truly crafting an entity that has a genuine chance of
survival? More to the point, Mr. Chairman, what commercial enterprise in this
country would remain in business long if its officers had to operate under a
host of federal statutes governing the types of products and services it could
offer and at what price, and under the watchful eye of--all at the same time--a
Board of Governors or Directors, a Postal Rate or Regulatory Commission, an
Inspector General and, with all due respect, a congressional oversight committee
or two? I pray you know the answer to that question.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. It is always a privilege for me to
represent the first-line managers of the Postal Service whose unwavering belief
in the future of postal service in this great country may be summed up with
three words: affordable, competitive and universal.
I'll be happy to take
your questions.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 12,
1999 
