Internal USPS documents link changes behind mail
slowdowns to top executives
Newly obtained records appear in conflict with
months of Postal Service assertions that blamed lower-level managers for
strategies tied to delivery delays
By
September 24, 2020 at 8:15 a.m. CDT
A
senior executive at the U.S. Postal Service delivered a PowerPoint presentation
in July that pressed officials across the organization to make the operational
changes that led to mail backups across the country, seemingly contradicting
months of official statements about the origin of the plans, according to
internal documents obtained by The Washington Post.
David
E. Williams, the agency’s chief of logistics and processing operations, listed
the elimination of late and extra mail trips by postal workers as a primary
agency goal during the July 10 teleconference. He also told the group that he
wanted daily counts on such trips, which had become common practice to ensure
the timely delivery of mail.
Several
top-tier executives — including Robert Cintron, vice president of logistics;
Angela Curtis, vice president of retail and post office operations; and vice
presidents from the agency’s seven geographic areas — sat in.
The
presentation stands in contrast with agency accounts that lower-tier leaders
outside USPS headquarters were mainly responsible for the controversial
protocols, which tightened dispatch schedules on
transport trucks and forced postal workers to leave mail behind.
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy told a House panel last month that he pressed
his team to meet dispatch and mail-handling schedules but did not issue a
blanket ban on such trips.
In a
statement to The Post, Williams said the slide show was meant to be
“motivational” and encourage greater efficiency and accountability — not set
new policy.
Yet the
mail-handling tactics were among several operational changes — including the removal of hundreds of
mail-sorting machines and a crackdown on overtime — that took
effect that month and were later blamed for widespread delivery slowdowns. By
one estimate, nearly 350 million pieces, or 7 percent, of the country’s
first-class mail were affected over a five-week span, according to an analysis
of USPS and Postal Regulatory Commission data by the office of Sen. Gary Peters
(D-Mich.).
The
changes caused an uproar, drawing public and congressional scrutiny. Critics
contend they were political motivated due to DeJoy’s history as a GOP
fundraiser and Trump ally — which the postal chief has denied — ahead of an
election that is expected to see a surge in mail-in ballots due to the
pandemic. The president has repeatedly warned without evidence that vote by
mail leads to massive fraud, and has also suggested it will hurt Republicans’
chances by leading more Democrats to cast ballots.
Williams’s
presentation was among the documents turned over to the office of Pennsylvania
Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D) as part of a lawsuit involving six other
jurisdictions against DeJoy and USPS. The suit, filed in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, argues the initiatives amount to an unlawful change in
delivery service standards, which would require approval from the agency’s
board of governors and an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory
Commission before implementation.
The
documents are key evidence in a case that may determine how USPS handles mail-in ballots and
other mail before the November election, according to Shapiro.
Democrats
and voting rights advocates worry the operational changes could prevent ballots
from reaching voters and election officials. Two federal courts have temporarily barred the Postal
Service from adhering to the changes.
The
presentation also is a tangible link between USPS leadership and the tactics
that led to mail backlogs through the summer, ensnaring prescription medications,
bills, benefits checks and election mail — including primary ballots, according
to the lawsuit. DeJoy said he would suspend much of the agency’s cost-cutting
agenda — including the mothballing of mail sorting machines and public
collection boxes, but not his controversial transportation directive — until
after the presidential election.
Top
agency officials had blamed staffing problems related to the coronavirus pandemic
for the delays. They also said lower-tier managers issued instructions that did
not accurately represent directives from DeJoy.
But
Williams’ message reverberated quickly through the agency’s ranks. One of his
slides dubbed the plan, “OUR FIRST TEST.” Another said, “NO EXTRA
TRANSPORTATION,” and, “NO LATE TRANSPORTATION.”
The
presentation said late or additional mail trips would be designated
“unauthorized contractual commitments” within days. It also encouraged leaders
to “surrender our resistance” to new operational plans and overcome their “fear
of failure,” “fear of repercussions and personal impacts,” “fear of making the
wrong decision,” “fear of the unknown,” and “fear that the new way may not be
better.”
“These
documents clearly show USPS leadership actions interrupted and delayed the flow
of mail by requiring Postal Service employees to stop extra and late trips to
deliver the mail back in July,” Shapiro said. “While Postmaster DeJoy has
created confusion, it’s clear this mandate came from the top — in black and
white. We’re in court right now to protect the Postal Service from this illegal
attack on a critical public service.”
Williams
in a statement said the presentation was “not a communication of official
policy.”
“This
was my opportunity to challenge our leaders to think differently and to inspire
greater belief in the direction we are taking to run our operations with
greater efficiency and accountability,” he said. “As a result we’ve improved
our on-time performance of our truck operations.”
Since
taking office in mid-June, DeJoy has “reemphasized the need to ensure that the
Postal Service’s trucks run on time and on schedule, with the goal of
mitigating unnecessary late and extra trips,” according to Postal Service
spokesman David Partenheimer.
“This
effort does not mean that mail should be left behind, but rather that
processing schedules should align with transportation schedules,” Partenheimer
said in a statement to The Post. “Moreover, the postmaster general has not
banned the use of late or extra trips; when operationally required, late or
extra trips are permitted.”
He said
previous noncompliance with transportation schedules was a “chronic problem.”
But at
least one area vice president appears to have interpreted the presentation’s
content as a directive. Shaun Mossman, vice president of the agency’s southern
area, which includes parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Georgia, notified staff on July 10 — the same
day of the presentation — about the prohibitions on late and extra trips.
Mossman’s
instructions were delivered in a “stand-up talk,” a
USPS announcement read aloud to employees on workroom floors.
“All
trips will depart on time (Network, Plant and Delivery); late trips are no
longer authorized or accepted,” according to Mossman’s memo, mimicking language
used in the slide show. “Extra trips are no longer authorized or accepted.”
Similar
directions began flowing to workers in other areas. On July 13, rural carriers
in Buckeye, Ariz., part of USPS’s western region, were required to sign an
“Individual Training Record,” that said, “We cannot have ANY late trips or
extras from delivery into the plant.” It also said trucks could not be held
back and that extra trips could not be requested “under any circumstances.”
By July
20, the Postal Service had received inquiries from lawmakers about the origin
and impact of the changes, but USPS leaders downplayed their significance and
denied that the agency had made any wholesale changes.
“The
documents should not be treated as official statements of Postal Service
policy,” Thomas J. Marshall, USPS’s general counsel, wrote to Reps. Carolyn B.
Maloney (D-N.Y.), Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.) and
Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.). Marshall said neither the stand-up talk nor another
presentation that described cuts to overtime hours “originated from Postal
Service headquarters.”
DeJoy
made similar comments in sworn testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on
Aug. 24, and the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee on Aug. 21. He told the House
panel that he did not issue a blanket ban on late or extra trips, only asked
his team to mitigate them and stick to delivery schedules.
DeJoy
told lawmakers that he based those strategies on a report by the
Postal Service’s Inspector General, published shortly before he took office.
He told
the Senate committee that the study found $4 billion in extra costs due to late
and additional deliveries, and late dispatch times. He told the House panel
that he saw “several billion dollars in potential savings in getting this
system to connect properly.”
“And
that’s why we ran out and put a plan together to really get this fundamental
basic principle,” DeJoy said. “Run your trucks on time.”
“This
was not a hard direct, ‘Everything must leave on time.’ We still have thousands
of trucks a day that leave late within a certain time frame, and there are
still hundreds of extra trips,” DeJoy said earlier in the hearing. “The
intention was to put the mail on the trucks and have the trucks leave on time.
That should not have impacted anybody.”
But
Cintron, the logistics vice president, testified in U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of New York that his department had spent the previous two
years emphasizing the need to adhere to transportation schedules, and that he
issued guidance to area vice presidents on July 14 about when late and
additional trips were acceptable.
“Postmaster
General DeJoy was not involved with the development, planning, or implementation
of these guidelines,” Cintron stated in written testimony.
