PostalReporter.com Blog

Post Office: Nutrioso, Arizona 85932

Photos:

From the Federal Register

The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Agency) amends its interfund transfer (IFT) regulations to limit the number of interfund transfer requests to two per calendar month. After a participant has made two interfund transfers in a calendar month, the participant may make additional interfund transfers only into the Government Securities Investment (G) Fund until the first day of the next calendar month.

This rule is effective on May 1, 2008.

WASHINGTON, DC — The Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service will meet in Washington, DC, at Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, on May 6-7, 2008. The public is welcome to observe the Board’s open session, scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. on May 7 in the Ben Franklin Room on the 11th floor. The Board is expected to discuss the following items:

Wednesday, May 7 at 8:30 a.m.

* Minutes of the previous meetings, April 1-2 and April 14, 2008.
* Remarks of the Chairman of the Board (Alan Kessler).
* Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO (John Potter).
* Committee reports.
* Quarterly Report on Service Performance (Delores Killette, Consumer Advocate and Vice President).
* Quarterly Report on Financial Performance (Glen Walker, Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President).
*Capital investments.
Richmond, VA, Processing and Distribution Center (Tom Samra, Vice President, Facilities).
New York, NY, International Service Center/John F. Kennedy Air Mail Center New Lease – Ground and Building (Mr. Samra).
* Tentative agenda for the July 29-30, 2008, meeting in Washington, DC.
 
 

“Matthew B. Lopez, a 30-year postal career employee, has been named District Manager for the U.S. Postal Service’s Albuquerque District.  Lopez formerly served as Postmaster for the City of Albuquerque, since his appointment to that job in August 2006. ”

“In 1978, Lopez started his postal career as a distribution clerk in Houston, TX.  He later served in Houston as a city letter carrier and in 1981 was promoted to a supervisory position. Since that time, Lopez has held increasingly responsible positions and detailed assignments in Postal Service Mail Processing and Customer Services managerial jobs in Texas and New Mexico.

“Lopez is a graduate of the U.S. Postal Service’s Advanced Leadership Program (ALP) and the Processing Distribution Management (PDM) internal training programs for executive development.  He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Management and a Master’s Degree in Business Administration.”

source: USPS

Related Link from 2006: Victor Benavides Named Albuquerque USPS District Manager

“The House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia will hold a hearing entitled “Eliminating Smoke and Mirrors in the Mail.” The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 24, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., in room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing will examine Postal Cooperative Mail and Postal “nonmailable tobacco.”

WITNESS LIST

PANEL 1: Postal Cooperative Mail

John E. Potter
Postmaster General & CEO, U.S. Postal Service

The Honorable Dan Blair
Chairman, Postal Rate Commission

Robert S. Tigner
General Counsel, The Association of Direct Response Fundraising Counsel

Tony W. Conway
Executive Director, Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers

PANEL 2: Postal Tobacco

Mary Anne Gibbons
General Counsel, U.S. Postal Service

William V. Corr
Executive Director, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

Carriers from Florida, Georgia, and Carolinas Take Union’s Message Directly to Congress

Letter carriers from NALC branches throughout Region 9 continued the union’s lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill April 15-17, pressing Congress to keep a close watch on any resurgence of contracting out by the Postal Service and reminding them of key issues on the union’s legislative
agenda.

Hundreds of active and retired members from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina visited the offices of their members in the House of Representatives and Senate, discussing in detail with members and staff the NALC’s position on significant legislation.

NALC Executive Vice President Fred Rolando, acting on behalf of traveling President William H. Young, welcomed the group to NALC Headquarters for a Rap Session on April 16 and gave them a rundown of major topics being handled by the national union.

Rolando said that the 2006-2011 National Agreement is at the printer and will be mailed to local branches by the end of the month now that the list of CDS-protected offices is complete. There are about 3,600 such offices. He said that the Postal Service has begun the process of terminating existing CDS contracts in those offices, and that the NALC is closely monitoring that process.

Rolando also said that the new JCAM reflecting the changes in the 2006-2011 National Agreement is expected to be ready for production about 30 days after the contracts are
shipped.

Also discussed was the progress of the Route Inspection Task Force, including a subcommittee created to address pending Minor Route Adjustment issues. The members were also updated on issues related to the status of the Flat Sequencing System, as well as the ongoing discussions with the Postal Service regarding Transitional Employees.

source: NALC

APWU News

APWU President William Burrus has asked President Bush to appoint a Postal Service Advisory Council, noting that the appointment of the panel is required by federal law. “The Postal Service is required to ‘consult with and receive the advice of the Advisory Council regarding all aspects of postal operations,’” Burrus wrote in an April 11 letter to Bush. [PDF]

“Nevertheless, no appointment has been made to the Advisory Council, and, of course, no meeting of or consultation with the Advisory Council has occurred,” he said.

The purpose and make-up of the Postal Service Advisory Council was outlined in the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (39 U.S.C. § 206), Burrus noted, and was reconfirmed by Congress with the recent passage of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA).

Under the law, the postmaster general serves as chairman of the council, the deputy postmaster general serves as vice-chair, and the president appoints 11 other members, including four nominated by postal labor unions; four representatives of major mail users; and three representing the public at large.

“At this critical juncture in the history of the Postal Service, the APWU insists that the Advisory Council be established and consulted, in accordance with the statute,” Burrus wrote. “Matters of crucial importance to the Postal Service and its employees, including realignment of the postal mail processing network, implementation of a major new flat sorting program, establishment of service standards, and implementation of the new rate-setting provisions enacted by the PAEA, make consultation with the Advisory Council more important now than at any time since the passage of the Postal Reorganization Act.

“I request prompt compliance with the statutory requirement to implement the Postal Service Advisory Council,” the APWU president concluded.

The GAO Report on Misuse of Government credit cards included three cases surrounding USPS:

Multiple merchants
Web-based awards system inconsistent with published agency policy
USPS $15,700

• USPS purchased noncash award items—some costing over $600—including briefcases, music systems, 30 GB iPods, and iPod docking stations.

• The USPS Employment and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) 18, subchapter 470, specifies that noncash awards should not exceed $50.

• USPS officials maintain that their internal Web-based awards system allows for noncash awards up to $3,000, which is inconsistent with the published ELM policy.

• According to USPS officials, a January 2006 memo overrode the ELM and allowed for noncash awards over $50.

• We found that although the internally issued memo addressed income tax consequence of awards, the memo did not specifically state that it was meant to supersede the ELM, address the inconsistency in policy, or establish a noncash awards threshold.

• USPS officials informed us that a correction of its award policy is currently under way to address the inconsistencies described above.

Other cases cited in GAO report

Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse
Excessive cost
USPS 13,500

• The cardholders charged dinner for 81 individuals at more than $13,500

Case 7 relates to the $13,500 that USPS spent on food at the National Postal Forum in Orlando, Florida, in 2006. For this occasion, USPS paid for 81 dinners averaging over $160 per person for customers of the Postal Customer Council 32 at an upscale steak restaurant. Further, USPS paid for over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere, and Johnny Walker Gold.

Postmaster’s Spending on Online Dating Services 

Case 4 involves a USPS postmaster who fraudulently used the government purchase card for personal gain. Specifically, from April 2004, through October 2006, the cardholder made more than 15 unauthorized charges from various online dating services totaling more than $1,100. These were the only purchases made by this cardholder during our audit period, yet the cardholder’s approving official did not detect any of the fraudulent credit card activity. According to USPS officials, this person was also under an internal administrative investigation for viewing pornography on a government computer. Based on the administrative review, the cardholder was removed from his position in November 2006 after working out an agreement with USPS in which he was authorized to remain on sick leave until his retirement date in May 2007. In April the USPS Office of Inspector General issued a demand letter and recovered the fraudulent Internet dating service charges.

GAO Report

Edmond Walker, a Temporary Rural Carrier Relief, filed a class complaint alleging that discriminatory acts had been continuing for a class of disabled permanent rehabilitation employees in the Postal Service. The EEOC Adminitrative Judge certified the class. On appeal, the Postal Service argued that the certified class was poorly defined and the class members were unidentifiable. The EEOC found that the class was sufficiently defined to enable the parties to identify potential class members. The EEOC also determined that the class met all the requirements for certification, and therefore, ordered the Postal Service on Martch 18, 2008 to process the class complaint within 30 days. Walker v. Potter

Background

The lawyers in Glover/Albrecht EEO Class Action complaint sought to include Walker case:

“On March 9, 2002, class counsel filed a motion requesting that the Commission add Edmond Walker as a co-class agent in this case. Mr. Walker’s issues included restricting permanent rehabilitation employees’ work hours; including overtime. In considering this issue, the Administrative Judge noted to the parties that if Mr. Walker and his issues were added to the lawsuit the entire class would have to be renoticed. In light of the possible delay and the additional complexity of adding this issue, class counsel withdrew his request to add Mr. Walker as a co-class agent who raised the overtime issue. Class counsel did not abandon this issue. Instead, Mr. Walker filed a separate class complaint which includes the overtime issue.”

Edmond C. Walker, the class agent in the Walker class action, filed a complaint on August 19, 2002. Walker alleged that, since April 2000, the Postal Service discriminated against individuals with disabilities by:

1.  Placing disabled individuals in permanent rehabilitation positions without engaging in the interactive process as required by law;

2. Restricting disabled individuals who are placed in permanent rehabilitation [sic] to limited work hours without any medical justification and without consulting the individual with a disability;

3. Fail[ing] to allow individuals with a disability, who have been placed in permanent rehabilitation positions, to work the number of hours determined appropriate by the individual and his/her physician and which are available; and

4. Fail[ing] to allow individuals with a disability, who have been placed in permanent rehabilitation positions, to use assistive devices in the workplace to accommodate their disabilities, including but not limited to, electric scooters, notwithstanding that said assistive devices pose no threat to safety or inconvenient [sic] in the workplace.

This claim has been analyzed to include denial of overtime.

On December 12, 2003, an EEOC Administrative Judge  issued a decision concerning the Walker class complaint.  The Administrative Judge  ordered the Postal Service to “identify all those pending complaints that raise the same issue as the Walker class complaint during the time frame encompassed by the Walker class complaint, January 1, 2000, to the present.”  For those complaints that had already been forwarded to an Administrative Judge– AJ ruled that they be placed into abeyance by the Administrative Judge assigned to the case.

The Administrative Judge issued a decision on May 12, 2005, granting certification after finding that the requirements of commonality, typicality, numerosity, and adequacy of representation were satisfied. Additionally, the AJ found there was no basis for dismissal of the class complaint under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107. Accordingly, the AJ certified the following class: “all permanent rehabilitation employees whose duty hours have been restricted, from January 1, 2000, to the present, allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.” The AJ stated that “[f]or purposes of this litigation a permanent rehabilitation employee includes any rehabilitation program employee whose USPS employee records reflect an employee status code of LDC 69 and/or an employee status code of RC and/or RD.”

On September 30, 2005, the agency issued its Notice of Final Action declining to implement the AJ’s decision. On appeal, the agency argues that the certified class is poorly defined and the class members are unidentifiable. The agency notes that the AJ provided no definition for the phrase “duty hour restriction” which it argues makes the class legally untenable. The agency claims that although the AJ identified two specific types of restrictions in his definition - restrictions limiting the number of hours generally worked and duty hour restrictions that allegedly result in the denial of overtime - the types of restrictions are open to all sorts of interpretations. Further, the agency claims it is impossible to identify who had duty hours restricted or who among permanent rehabilitation employees are disabled. The agency stated that although it can determine the number of permanent rehabilitation employees between January 1, 2000, and the present, there is no way to identify which of those employees had their duty hours restricted.

The Postal Service Argued that “the determination of whether a purported class member is disabled, regarded as disabled, or has a record of a disability cannot be made without resort to thousands of mini trials, making class treatment inappropriate. The agency notes that although a person in a permanent rehabilitation job by definition has an injury causing a permanent restriction, this does not mean that every injury necessarily constitutes an impairment under the Rehabilitation Act or that every permanent restriction constitutes a substantial limitation on a major life activity. The agency states that given the varying natures of permanent rehabilitation employees’ injuries, there is only one major life activity which they all have in common: working. However, the agency notes that the permanent rehabilitation employees are all working and argues that therefore, that they cannot be considered substantially limited in working.”

The Postal Service also argued that “complainant’s EEO Counselor contact is untimely since no acts of discrimination occurred within the 45 days prior to his May 29, 2002 EEO Counselor contact on the class issue. Rather, the agency argues that the alleged discriminatory action occurred in May 2000, when complainant first accepted a 14-hour a week permanent rehabilitation position. With regard to the AJ’s finding that complainant moved for class certification at a reasonable point in the process, the agency claims that complainant did not formally move for class certification until December 8, 2003, almost 3 1/2 years after Filing his individual complaint and did not file a class complaint until August 22, 2002, more than two years after filing his individual complaint.”

EEOC’s response in part: “We find that complainant has met the requirements of commonality and typicality. Complainant alleged that the agency has a nationwide practice of restricting the duty hours of permanent rehabilitation employees who are disabled. In support of his allegation, complainant submitted declarations from employees from geographically dispersed agency facilities who each asserted that they were permanent rehabilitation employees and had then-work hours restricted. Thus, we find that the evidence supplied is sufficient to support an inference that there is a class of persons who were harmed by the identified agency policy or practice of restricting work hours and that the class will share common questions of fact.”

“It is the decision of the Commission to certify the class comprised of individuals with disabilities in permanent rehabilitation positions who had their duty hours restricted beginning on March 24, 2000. The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded class complaint in accordance with 29 C.F.R. §1614.204(e) et seq. Within 15 calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall notify all class members of the acceptance of the class complaint in accordance with § 1614.204(e). Within 30 calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, the agency shall provide the appropriate EEOC District Office with a copy of the notice sent to the class members, and shall request the appointment of an AJ, who shall undertake the continued processing of the complaint pursuant to § 1614.204(f) et seq. The agency shall provide a copy of the notice of certification and request for appointment of an EEOC Administrative Judge to the Compliance Officer, as referenced herein.”

USPS Press Release:

Ponemon Institute Asks Consumers to Rank 74 Government Agencies
 
WASHINGTON, DC — The premier privacy trust study in America has named the U.S. Postal Service the “Most Trusted Government Agency” for the fourth year in a row.

More than 86 percent of the 9,000 Americans surveyed by the Ponemon Institute ranked the Postal Service first among 74 agencies as the one that is best able to keep their information safe and secure. The Postal Service has increased its privacy trust score every year since the survey began four years ago.

“We have a 230-year tradition of trust. Americans depend on the security of the mail and they trust the Postal Service to protect their privacy,” said Delores Killette, vice president and consumer advocate. “Our employees work hard to maintain that trust. They earned this honor and recognition for their contribution to the value that trust brings to the organization, and to the country.”

Killette attributed the number one ranking, in part, to the trusted relationship Americans have with letter carriers who deliver mail to every home and business six days a week. They know their letter carrier by name. Carriers are a welcomed and trusted member of the local community, she said.

“Because of this, the Postal Service truly is not a ‘faceless’ agency. Consumer confidence in the mail is a top priority for the Postal Service and its law enforcement agency, the Postal Inspection Service,” Killette said.

The survey asked 9,000 Americans, selected at random, to rank 74 federal agencies based on the agency’s ability to handle and protect personal information. Questions ranged from factors creating trust in the agency and the levels of confidence consumers have in the agency to protect their information, including information provided on websites, to limiting the amount of information collected.

“The government requires citizens provide detailed personal information in order to deliver many services. But this does not absolve public agencies of the responsibility to protect that information,” said Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute.

The survey shows that those agencies with the most public interaction – and demonstrate a healthy respect for maintaining public trust – have always scored well over the years, Dr. Ponemon said.

Survey respondents also listed worries they had about how the federal government uses their personal information. News items continue to influence consumers’ attitudes toward trust. Both Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration are among the five least trusted agencies in a year when political debate surrounding immigration policies made headlines, he said.

But the largest privacy concern, the study shows, is “loss of civil liberties and privacy rights,” with 57 percent of Americans listing this concern first. About 56 percent listed “surveillance into personal life” and almost half (47 percent) said “monitoring of email and Web activities” were their top privacy concerns.

More than 40 percent listed identity theft as their top concern, up from 29 percent in 2007, with most citing concerns with the secure websites and the Internet. According to the Federal Trade Commission, mail accounts for only 2 percent of all identity theft. But for the Postal Service, even 2 percent is too much. In February the Postmaster General sent a letter to every address in America that included a brochure on preventing identity theft.

 “Since we conducted the first privacy trust study in 2004, the results suggest that a large proportion of Americans do not trust the federal government’s privacy commitments,” Dr. Ponemon said. “Yet, the trust Americans have in the Postal Service continues to grow every year.”

Copies of the 2008 Privacy Trust Study of the United States Government are available by contacting the Ponemon Institute at www.ponemon.org.