Postal Regulatory Commission Issues Order Denying Motion for Renewal of Complaint and Alternative Request for a Stay of the Effective Date.
The Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) issued a decision to deny a complaint by NAPUS and the League of Postmasters to renew an expedited complaint or a request a stay to prevent the Postal Service’s Final Rule from going into effect on December 1, 2011. The PRC did grant the Postmaster associations the right to re-file a complaint.
A chronology of events surrounding the Postal Service’s plans to change the rules and the joint NAPUS and League response is listed below;
March 31, 2011 The Postal Service filed proposed changes to CFR 241
April 1, NAPUS and The League of Postmasters met jointly to establish strategies
April 6, Bob Levi held a telecom with legislative chairs to discuss legislative strategies.
April 7, Executive Board Telecom updating the Board and put grass root plan into action. Funds appropriated to pursue legal action jointly with the League.
April 8, Scheduled meeting with the League. They agreed to pursue litigation jointly.
April 14, League and NAPUS retained a Law Firm..
April 26, Received letter from attorney with Legal Opinion that the Postal Service proposed rules are in significant conflict with applicable law.
April 27, Mark Strong and Bob Rapoza signed off on letter addressed to PRC Chair Ruth Goldway conveying their views to the commission on the proposed changes and the affects it would have on universal service and citizen mailers in small towns and rural communities.
May 2, NAPUS and the League filed joint comments were with the Postal Service.
May 23, A formal complaint was filed jointly to the PRC on behalf of Postmasters
June 13, The Postal Service filed a 40 page brief with the PRC requesting that our complaint be dismissed.
June 15, NAPUS and League filed motion with the PRC for an extension to reply to the Postal Service Brief.
July 5, NAPUS & the League filed response to Postal Service brief.
July 14, The Postal Service implements all proposals to the CFR 241 with the exception of those applying to our 3 complaints.
August 11, PRC issued an order dismissing our complaint citing that complaints one and two are based on Postal Services rules that have been proposed but not yet implemented and therefore are premature and not ripe for adjudication. They stated that “if, in the futures, the Postal Service implements a final rule that implicates Complainants interest, they may renew complaint”. The PRC dismissed complaint 3 as being moot since the Postal Service file for an Advisory opinion on Changes on July 27 in its proposal to review the discontinuance of over 3500 postal facilities.
August 18, Joint letter sent to our Attorneys notifying them that our plan is to remain in a wait and see mode until the Postal Service determines any future actions.
October 26, The Postal Service issued the remaining proposed changes to take affect December 1, 2011. changed 241.1 Definition of a Postmaster and 241.3 Conversion of a Post Office to another type of Postal operated retail facility is not a discontinuance.
October 27, 2011
USPS Publishes “Final Rule” with the Federal Register to Change Post Office Staffing Policy and the Definition of “Consolidation.” NAPUS and League Leaders Consult with Attorneys.
The Postal Service has filed a “final rule” with the Federal Register which would redefine consolidation and make it possible to arbitrarily change a main post office to a station or branch, which could conceivably make it easier to close the facility. This change would allow the Postal Service to convert a Post Office into, or replace it with, another type of USPS-operated retail facility, without following the discontinuance process, effective on December 1, 2011. The change would also make it possible to change the staffing of a Post Office such that it is staffed only part-time by a Postmaster, or not staffed by a Postmaster at all, but rather by another type of USPS employee, and it would not be a discontinuance action.
The other “final rule” change would also allow a Post Office to be operated or managed by a Postmaster or by another type of postal employee at the direction of a Postmaster, including when the Postmaster is not physically present.
The Postal Service filed the original proposed changes with the Federal Register on March 31, 2011. As previously reported on the NAPUS website, NAPUS and the League jointly sought legal counsel and pursued legal action and filed a formal complaint before the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) to stop the proposed CFR changes. After months of back and forth comments with the PRC and a request by the USPS to dismiss the NAPUS/League joint complaint, the PRC issued a ruling on the complaint on August 11, 2011.
The PRC ruled that the Postal Service’s actions to review the possible discontinuance of more than 3,600 retail postal facilities was consistent with the relief that the League and NAPUS sought and was therefore moot. The remaining two claims about consolidating Post Offices and staffing of a Post Office were dismissed as premature, since the Postal Service had not yet implemented either change. Yesterday, the Postal Service filed plans to implement changes, which are listed in the final rule.
November 1, 2011
Telecom with Attorneys
November 7, 2011
NAPUS and League Attorneys filed for a motion to renew the complaint with the PRC.
November30, 2011
The Postal Regulatory Commission Issues Order Denying Motion for Renewal and Alternative Request for a Stay of the Effective Date.
Effective December 1, 2011, this change will allow the Postal Service to convert a Post Office into, or replace it with, another type of USPS-operated retail facility (including changing it to a station or branch) without following the discontinuance process. The change would also make it possible to change the staffing of a Post Office such that it is staffed only part-time by a Postmaster, or not staffed by a Postmaster at all, but rather by another type of USPS employee, and it would not be a discontinuance action.
The other “final rule” change would also allow a Post Office to be operated or managed by a Postmaster or by another type of postal employee at the direction of a Postmaster, including when the Postmaster is not physically present.
Leaders of both Postmaster organizations will confer with legal counsel next week to consider their options. Additional information on this very important issue will be provided as it becomes available.
Charlie Moser
December 2, 2011