NAPS’ DDF Is Your Best Defense114 various DDF cases at an average cost of $2,475 per case, paid by...

October 2019

NAPS’ DDF Is Your Best DefenseNAPS’ DDF Is Your Best Defense page 4page 4

page 6

The Postal Supervisor (ISSN 0032-5384) is printedmonthly, with a combined September/Octoberissue, by the National Association of Postal Su-pervisors (NAPS), 1727 King St., Suite 400,Alexandria, VA 22314-2753; 703-836-9660; fax,703-836-9665; website, www.naps.org; generale-mail, [email protected]. ©2019

Periodicals postage paid at Alexandria, VA,and additional mailing offices.

NAPS members receive The Postal Supervisoras part of their membership dues. Members notreceiving the publica-tion on a regular basisshould notify theirbranch secretaries. Non-member subscriptionprice: $25 per year.

Submissions—Articles submitted forpublication should promote the welfare ofNAPS and its membersin accordance with Article II of the NAPSConstitution & Bylaws.The NAPS resident offi-cers reserve the right toedit all articles, as wellas decline to publishsubmitted material.Branch officer articlesmust be not more than350 words. Send all arti-cles to NAPS Secretary/Treasurer Chuck Muli-dore at [email protected].

Reprint requestsand other correspon-dence may be ad-dressed to Karen Young; phone/fax, 540-636-2569; [email protected].

High-resolution photos may be e-mailed to [email protected]. Please includeyour non-USPS e-mail. NAPS neither assumesresponsibility for the contents of the articlespublished herein, nor does it necessarily agreewith the opinions expressed. Moreover, opin-ions expressed by an author do not necessarilyreflect the opinions of the author’s branch.

Advertising—Advertising inquiries shouldbe directed to Karen Young; phone/fax, 540-636-2569; [email protected].

The publication of any advertising hereindoes not necessarily constitute NAPS endorse-ment of the products or services offered.

Postmaster—Please send address labels,clipped from undeliverable copies, along withUSPS Form 3579, to The Postal Supervisor, 1727King St., Suite 400, Alexandria, VA 22314-2753.

October 2019, Volume 110, No. 10

www.naps.org

Objective

The objective of the Asso-

ciation shall be to pro-

mote, through appropriate

and effective action, the

welfare of its members,

and to cooperate with the

USPS and other agencies

of the federal government

in a continuing effort to

improve the service, to

raise the standard of

efficiency, and to widen

the field of opportunity

for its members who make

the Postal Service or the

federal government their

life work.

FEATURES8 July Consultative New Transportation Yard Visibility System,

collapsed EAS-12 positions, confirmed mercury spills among items discussed.

10 August Consultative Postal Pulse survey postcards, excessive heat while performing 3999s, collapsed EAS-12 positions among items discussed.

21 2019 Vince Palladino Scholarship Winners This year’s10 scholarship winners are announced.

22 Legislative Report Card A comprehensive chart lists all Housemembers and which resolutions and legislation they support that are beneficial to NAPS members and the Postal Service.

28 From Legislation to Regulation: Newest PRC Commissioners Discuss Their New Roles NAPS Director of Legislative & Political Affairs Bob Levi interviewed newly appointedPRC Commissioners Ann Fisher and Ashley Poling for his Sept. 12 NAPSChat podcast.

31 2020 NAPS National Convention Committees March31, 2020, is the deadline for receipt of members’ self-nomination forms toserve on a national convention committee.

RESIDENT OFFICERS3 A ‘Law’ Time Coming! Brian J. Wagner

4 NAPS’ DDF Is Your Best Defense Ivan D. Butts

6 Survey Says … Employee Satisfaction? Chuck Mulidore

COLUMNS20 Legislative Update Bob Levi

36 The NAPS Postmaster Joe Bodary

DEPARTMENTS11 NAPS Training Calendar14 NAPS of Note18 Views from the Vice Presidents Marilyn Walton

32 2020 NAPS National Convention Delegate CredentialForm

33 2020 Self-Nomination National Convention Committee Request Form

34 2019 SPAC Contributors35 SPAC Scoreboard37 Louis M. Atkins Presidential Student Scholarships38 Thoughts from the NAPS Branches Reginald Gramblin

Thrift Savings Plan August 2019

39 Notes from the National Auxiliary Skip Corley

October 2019In This Issue

The Postal Supervisor / October 2019 3

Commentaryfrom the Resident Officers

or some, it has been a long time, or law time,coming that the National Association of PostalSupervisors has taken legal action to challengethe Postal Service’s violation of 39 U.S.C. §§

1003 and 1004 (Title 39) in relation to EAS pay andrepresentation of all EAS employees. Here’s the scoop!

On July 26, 2019, NAPS’ Executive Board, by unan-imous vote, authorized our associ-ation to initiate legal proceedingsagainst the USPS in federal courtin Washington, DC, to pursue alldeclaratory and injunctive reliefnecessary on three legal issues re-lated to violations of Title 39: 1)EAS pay; 2) Representation ofUSPS Headquarters and area officeEAS personnel; and 3) Recognitionof NAPS as a postmaster’s organi-zation.

Before the close of business onJuly 26, NAPS filed the respective lawsuit. The follow-ing provides an overview of what precipitated our cur-rent legal action against the USPS:

First, a year earlier in July 2018, NAPS requestedthat the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service(FMCS) hold a fact-finding proceeding regarding theUSPS’ final 2016-2019 pay package for Field EAS em-ployees. The fact-finding hearing took place in Decem-ber 2018. At the hearing, NAPS contended that theUSPS’ final EAS pay decision did not meet the require-ments of Title 39.

The FMCS fact-finding panel concurred with NAPSon nearly all the issues raised. The panel held that thePostal Service’s Pay-for-Performance (PFP) system wasseriously flawed, the supervisor differential was not cal-culated properly, PFP does not attract and retain quali-fied EAS employees and overtime and locality payneed to be addressed.

The panel recommended that NAPS and the USPSform a workgroup with a mediator and a pay-compen-sation expert to help resolve these issues. Despite thesedefinitive findings, the Postal Service disregarded mostof them and issued its final May 15, 2019, pay deci-sion that denied EAS personnel the pay improvements

unanimously recommended by the three-memberfact-finding panel.

Following our legal counsel’s close review of thePostal Service’s decision, NAPS concluded that the de-cision did not adhere to the specific statutory require-ments of Title 39 that require the USPS to: 1) Providefor an EAS pay package comparable to the private sec-tor; 2) Provide a reasonable pay differential to thosesupervised at the craft level; 3) Attract and retain qual-ified EAS employees; and 4) Provide for a well-motivat-ed EAS workforce.

Second, Title 39 clearly states that NAPS may repre-sent all Postal Service supervisory and other manageri-al personnel, except postmasters, when certain criteriaare met. NAPS concluded that the Postal Service, in vi-olation of Title 39, failed to recognize NAPS as the rep-resentative of all USPS EAS Headquarters and area per-sonnel and to consult with NAPS on their pay andbenefits before issuing the final pay decision.

Third, per 39 U.S.C. § 1004(i)(4), when a postalmanagement association represents at least 20% ofpostmasters, the association may petition the USPS tobe recognized as a postmaster’s organization. As ofmid-2018, more than 20% of postmasters were NAPSmembers, leading NAPS to petition the USPS on Oct.1, 2018, to recognize NAPS as a postmaster’s organiza-tion.

The Postal Service denied NAPS’ representation pe-tition in February 2019. This decision prompted NAPS,in its lawsuit against the USPS, to seek a court order di-recting the Postal Service to recognize NAPS as a right-ful representative of postmasters for pay and benefitsconsultation.

The FMCS fact-finding panel agreed with NAPS thatthe USPS pay system for managers and supervisors is se-riously flawed and fails to meet the expectations of thelaw. Given the USPS’ continued resistance to the payadministration requirements of Title 39, its failure torecognize NAPS as the representative of all EAS person-nel (field, area and Headquarters) and its refusal to rec-ognize NAPS as a postmaster’s organization, NAPS hadno choice but to seek the legal relief to which all super-visors, managers and postmasters are entitled.

F

Brian J. WagnerPresident

A ‘Law’ Time Coming!

Continued on page 5

4 October 2019 / The Postal Supervisor

he adage “The best defense is a good offense”has been applied to many fields of endeavor, in-cluding games and military combat. It also isconsidered the strategic offensive principle of

war. Generally, the idea is that proactivity (a robust of-fensive action), instead of a passive attitude, will preoc-cupy the opposition and ultimately hinder its ability to

mount an opposing counterattack,leading to a strategic advantage.

I apply this adage to NAPS’ Dis-ciplinary Defense Fund (DDF) ad-vocacy. On May 30, 2019, NAPScompleted its first full fiscal year ofadvocacy under the leadership ofthe Labor Rela-tions AdminGroup LLC(LRAG). Afterdecades of fee-freeadvocacy for NAPS

membership provided by Scialla Asso-ciates, headed by Charlie Scialla, NAPSmade the transition to LRAG effectiveJan. 1, 2018.

Headed by Al Lum, LRAG has im-plemented a smooth transition in ad-vocating for NAPS members. Our ad-vocacy has been strengthened throughthe addition of several advocates whohave tremendous knowledge, skillsand abilities in USPS policies and pro-cedures and advocacy. Al has madehimself available to NAPS members viaphone calls and emails, as well as atNAPS training seminars throughoutthe country.

This level of advocacy has allowedNAPS to remain proactive in present-ing an affirmative defense for its mem-bers. What also helps in this effort isthe excellent work being done by localNAPS advocates in cases at the initiallevel. You are making my battle cry inadvocacy a reality—that is document,document, document. The better thelevel and quality of documentationyou submit with your cases puts NAPSin the most advantageous position to

have a positive result from the DDF process.So, let’s look at the numbers from NAPS’ FY19 re-

garding DDF. For tracking purposes, NAPS’ fiscal yearruns June 1 through May 31. For FY19, the NAPS DDFprovider represented members in 114 total cases. The“NAPS FY19 Total DDF Cases” graph identifies 75% (85)of those cases were designated for MSPB, 20% (23) caseswere assigned to DCA and 5% (six) cases were assignedto the ELM 650 hearing process.

Yearly, cases heard in the ELM 650 hearing processare the smallest part of NAPS’ DDF effort. However,they are the costliest—career-wise—for those memberswho do not have MSPB appeal process rights. Despitethis, in FY19, NAPS settled 60% (three) of these cases.

T

Ivan D. ButtsExecutive Vice President

NAPS’ DDF Is Your Best Defense


In the MSPB arena in FY19,NAPS brought 75 cases before theadministrative judges overseeing thisprocess. I want to point out this isthe average number of cases quotedto NAPS by Charlie Scialla (see “NAPSFY19 Total MSPB Cases” graph). De-spite NAPS’ overall success in repre-senting members with an 8% (six)loss rate compared to the approxi-mately 82% loss rate across all appel-lants—all agencies going before theMSPB courts—NAPS continues to seea reliable and robust DDF in fightingfor its members.

I have heard comments aboutthe cost of NAPS’ DDF versus otherassociations’ costs doing similarwork. So, for the record, in FY19,NAPS represented EAS members in114 various DDF cases at an averagecost of $2,475 per case, paid byNAPS. So, despite the changingtimes and changing our DDFprovider, NAPS continues to provide

100% free representation to its mem-bers through the NAPS DDF.

The last area of data I would liketo summarize is the types of cases(see “DDF Case Types” chart) being al-leged by the USPS against NAPS

members in the field of MSPB. Thechart speaks for itself regarding thoseallegations.

In solidarity …[email protected]

In its lawsuit against the PostalService, NAPS is urging the court todirect the USPS to: 1) Implement thefact-finding panel’s entire April 30,2019, findings and recommenda-tions; 2) Acknowledge NAPS’ right torepresent all EAS employees—field,area and Headquarters personnel;and 3) Recognize NAPS as an officialpostmaster’s organization, entitledto represent postmasters in pay andbenefits at consultation.

NAPS is not willing to concedeits members’ rights as establishedunder the law. To do otherwise

would be an injustice to our mem-bers by denying them their statutoryconsultation rights to pay, benefitsand appropriate representation.Until the USPS agrees to upholdNAPS’ positions in the three areasaddressed here, we will remain deter-mined to exercise our rights underthe law and seek a final resolutionfor our members through the federalcourt.

I, too, will remain determinedand provide you with my ice-creamflavor-of-the-month recommenda-tion for October: strawberry lemoncheesecake!

[email protected]

A ‘Law’ Time Coming!Continued from page 3


uring my more than 30 years with the U.S.Postal Service—20-plus of those years as anEAS employee at various levels of manage-ment—I have heard about employee satisfac-

tion. From the “voices” we used to hear to today’s con-cept of “engagement,” the USPS claims that customer

satisfaction is the critical piecenecessary for its long-term sur-vival.

While customer satisfaction isimportant, the quality of EAS worklife, or “engagement,” has notbeen a factor senior USPS leader-ship has ever seriously addressed.There is ample evidence that manyvisionary companies promote em-ployee satisfaction as the key totheir survival. The theory is thatwhen employees are well motivat-

ed, they naturally will take care of their customers.“My philosophy is put your employees first, your

customers second and your investors third and, in theend, everyone will be happy.” Such is the business phi-losophy of Sir Richard Branson, entrepreneur and busi-ness leader and CEO of the Virgin Group. Obviously, weknow this is not the business philosophy of the USPS ashas been measured over theyears and is reflected in today’sbottom-dwelling employee sat-isfaction scores in Gallup’s em-ployee engagement surveys.

In the interest of discover-ing what employees seek interms of satisfaction at work, Ireferenced a 2009 survey by theSociety for Human ResourceManagement (SHRM). Thisstudy looked at 24 factors thatregularly are thought to relate toemployee satisfaction. Interest-ingly, the study found that em-ployees identified the followingfive factors as most important:

1. Job security2. Benefits—especially

health care, with the importance of retirement bene-fits rising with the age of employees

3. Compensation/pay4. Opportunities to use skills and abilities, and5. Feeling safe in the work environment.I can’t say that I disagree with any of those top

five. The basis of the lawsuit NAPS has filed against theUSPS deals largely with pay, benefits and job security.And who can argue with the next five most-importantfactors affecting employee satisfaction based on theSHRM survey?

6. The employee’s relationship with their immedi-ate supervisor

7. Management recognition of employee job per-formance

8. Communication between employees and seniormanagement

9. The work itself, and10. Autonomy and independence in the employ-

ee’s job.Thus, we see that employees across the spectrum

seek good pay, job security, clear communication withtheir leaders and recognition of job performance,among others, as critical components of engagementand satisfaction. Perhaps most telling are the factorsthat were not strongly connected to employee satisfac-

D

Chuck MulidoreSecretary/Treasurer

Survey Says … Employee Satisfaction?


tion based on the SHRM survey, yetseem to be of great focus in thePostal Service today:

• The organization’s commit-ment to a green workplace

• Networking opportunities• Career development opportuni-

ties• Paid training and tuition reim-

bursement programs, and• The organization’s commit-

ment to professional development.While I support employees hav-

ing the opportunity to improve theirwork lives through promotion, weknow that, in today’s Postal Service,many employees no longer are seek-ing advancement into management.Perhaps, if senior USPS leadershiptook care of numbers 1 through 10 inthe SHRM survey, there would be

more interest in career and profes-sional development. While NAPScompletely supports the career andnetworking conferences being heldthroughout the Postal Service, it’squite clear that, in general, employeesare not focused on career develop-ment as a measure of job satisfaction.

NAPS reminds the Postal Servicethat it’s the EAS employees who en-sure the mail moves each day bymaking countless decisions in theface of endless telecons, layers of re-dundant reports and reporting re-quirements that hinder—not facili-tate—the movement of America’smail. We do all this, despite whatoften seems like the Postal Service’sefforts to get in our way.

So, here are my recommenda-tions after all the surveys have been

reviewed: Pay EAS employees fairlyby eliminating the PFP system, let usdo our jobs, recognize our work andtalk to us with the respect we de-serve, but so often never receive. Dothese things and the employee satis-faction measurements will take careof themselves and our customers willreap the benefits.

[email protected]

NAPS Member Percentage ReportJuly 2019

The Postal Supervisor2019 Production Schedule

Copy Issue Deadline* Mails

NOV SEPT 26 OCT 22DEC OCT 23 NOV 19JAN 20 NOV 25 DEC 19FEB JAN 2 JAN 28

*Copy must be received by this day; seepage 2 for submission information.


July 15 Consultative

resident Brian Wagner, Ex-ecutive Vice President IvanD. Butts and Secretary/Trea-surer Chuck Mulidore at-

tended the July consultative meet-ing. Executive Board Chair Tim Fordattended via telecon. Representingthe Postal Service were Bruce Nichol-son, Phong Quang and Henry Bear,USPS Labor Relations Policy Admin-istration.

Agenda Item #1NAPS has received numerous

concerns over the new Transporta-tion Yard Visibility System (YV) cur-rently being pilot-tested at the At-lanta NDC. There are concernsregarding the mandate for no late-departing trips.

NAPS has been informed thatEAS employees are being instructedto dispatch these trips empty, de-spite having mail staged for loadingon the trailers. NAPS has been ad-vised this is resulting in extra tripshaving to be called to dispatch mailthat should/could have been loadedon the scheduled transportation.

NAPS asked for a briefing on thepilot and the data on all transporta-tion loads and dispatch informationfor the Atlanta NDC pilot site.

Veronica Hale, manager, VisibilityBusiness Systems, and Jason Tamayo,senior Visibility Program specialist, pro-vided the overview. The current YardManagement System (YMS) is outdated;the new system, the TransportationYard Visibility System (YV), is a compo-nent of IV—integrated visibility. The

current pilot at the Atlanta NDC doesnot affect the Trips on Time indicator.Trips are scheduled to leave at a specifictime in order to arrive before the criticaltime entry at the destination P&DC formail to be processed and delivered in atimely manner.

If trips are held at the origin facility,the risk of failing containers and, possi-bly, full loads of mail is increased sig-nificantly. Many trips also have addi-tional stops en route to their finaldestinations, as well as scheduled tripsto Surface Transfer Centers where con-tainers are transferred to other trailersawaiting transportation to other desti-nations. Employees may believe thatholding a truck to ensure every piece ofmail gets on the truck is the right thingto do. However, this increases thechance of failing every piece of mail onthat truck.

There is limited data available atthis time on this pilot at the AtlantaNDC.

Agenda Item #2NAPS has been made aware of an

issue where the USPS informed anon-veteran, preference-eligible EASemployee in a written proposed re-moval that, because they had beenan EAS employee for less than oneyear, they did not have any appealrights. The EAS employee was notgranted Merit Systems ProtectionBoard (MSPB) rights or rights to anELM 650 hearing.

Local NAPS representatives dis-cussed this lack of appeal rights withthe respective district to no avail.

NAPS escalated this appeal issue tothe respective USPS area office, butreceived no response.

NAPS asked whether the district,in this case, was correct in not grant-ing any appeal rights.

Grievances of individual employeesshall not be matters that may be in-cluded as agenda items for consulta-tion.

Agenda Item #3On May 15, 2019, the USPS is-

sued the “final decision concerningchanges in pay policies, schedulesand fringe benefit programs for FieldEmployee and Administrative Sched-ule (EAS) employees.” Included inthis policy was collapsing EAS-12 po-sitions:

7. Position Upgrade“The salary schedule of EAS-12

will be collapsed, and the position ofAdministrative Assistant (FLD) EAS-12 (OCC Code 0318-0007) will beupgraded to EAS-15. Incumbents inthis position will receive a 2% basicsalary increase. The increase is ad-justed higher, if necessary, to bringthe salary to the minimum of thenew grade. The increase is adjustedlower, if necessary, to keep the salaryfrom exceeding the maximum of thehigher grade.”

Collapsing the EAS-12 positionsimpacted current administrative as-sistants (FLD) EAS-12 (OCC Code0318-0007), resulting in an upgradeto EAS-15. NAPS requested a timeframe for when these administrative

P

New Transportation Yard Visibility System, Collapsed EAS-12 Positions, Confirmed Mercury Spills Among Items Discussed

Continued on page 16


Aug. 14 Consultative

resident Brian Wagner, Ex-ecutive Vice President IvanD. Butts and Secretary/Trea-surer Chuck Mulidore at-

tended the August consultativemeeting. Representing the Postal Ser-vice were Bruce Nicholson, PhongQuang and Henry Bear, USPS LaborRelations Policy Administration.

Agenda Item #1NAPS has received numerous

concerns over the new Transporta-tion Yard Visibility System (YV) cur-rently being pilot-tested at the At-lanta NDC. There are concernsregarding the mandate for no late-departing trips.

NAPS has been informed thatEAS employees are being instructedto dispatch these trips empty, de-spite having mail staged for loadingon the trailers. NAPS has been ad-vised this is resulting in extra tripshaving to be called to dispatch mailthat should/could have been loadedon the scheduled transportation.

While NAPS appreciated theprocess overview presented at theJuly consultative meeting, NAPSasked for a briefing on the opera-tional issues ultimately impactingthe PFP Corporate indicators.

NAPS contends implementingsuch a pilot impacts the benefits ofEAS employees and, therefore, enti-tles NAPS to “participate directly inthe planning and development ofpay policies and schedules, fringebenefit programs and other pro-grams relating to supervisory and

other managerial employees.” NAPSnoted the USPS did not afford the as-sociation direct participation in theinitial development of the YV pro-gram as outlined in 39 U.S. Code §1004(b).

The Postal Service notified NAPS re-garding implementation of the YV piloton March 15; a briefing was providedduring July’s consultative meeting. Dur-ing July’s meeting, the Postal Service re-sponded that this pilot does not affectthe Trips on Time indicator or any otherNPA indicators. Therefore, anotherbriefing on this pilot to reaffirm that itdoes not impact NPA serves no purpose.

The YV system is a replacement/en-hancement to the Yard ManagementSystem (YMS) and provides visibility tothe transportation functions, such as al-lowing users to see what is in the yard,just as Surface Visibility. The systemdoes not make decisions, such as direct-ing drivers to depart to destinations.

As stated during the July consulta-tive meeting, trips are scheduled to leaveat a specific time in order to arrive be-fore the critical time entry at the desti-nation P&DC for mail to be processedand delivered in a timely manner. Iftrips are held at the origin facility, therisk of failing containers and, possibly,full loads of mail is increased signifi-cantly.

Many trips also have additionalstops en route to their final destination,as well as scheduled trips to SurfaceTransfer Centers where containers aretransferred to other trailers awaitingtransportation to other destinations.Employees may believe that holding a

truck to ensure every piece of mail getson the truck is the right thing to do, butthis increases the chance of failing everypiece of mail on that truck.

Agenda Item #2On July 15, 2019, NAPS inquired

about directions received from USPSHeadquarters on the use of personaltime that NAPS believes was in viola-tion of Postal Service policies andprocedures.

On July 26, 2019, the USPS re-sponded with the policy and proce-dure that cover the use of personalleave for nonbargaining employees.However, the USPS did not affirmthis issue was addressed with theUSPS manager whose action violatedUSPS policies and procedures.

NAPS asked if the respectiveUSPS manager was given properguidance to adhere to USPS policiesand procedures.

Grievances of individual employeesshall not be matters that may be in-cluded as agenda items for consulta-tion. The Postal Service, as a courtesy, isopen to discussing this matter outsidethis forum.

Agenda Item #3NAPS members have reported re-

ceiving a postcard from the USPSthanking them for participating inthe Postal Pulse survey. Some em-ployees received the postcard with-out the benefit of completing thesurvey.

NAPS pointed out there are ap-proximately 600,000 USPS employ-

P

Postal Pulse Survey Postcards, Excessive HeatWhile Performing 3999s, Collapsed EAS-12 Positions Among Items Discussed


ees; according to recent Postal Pulseresults, fewer than 40% completedthe latest survey. NAPS asked whythe Postal Service mailed postcardsto more than 300,000 employees,thanking them for taking a surveythey did not take.

NAPS contends that sendingsuch a mailing to approximately225,000 employees who took thesurvey—and thought they weredoing so anonymously—as well asincluding 300,000 employees whodid not complete the survey, servesto devalue the survey and the sincer-ity of the USPS’ thank-you.

NAPS asked what the cost was as-sociated with the Postal Pulse thank-you postcard mailing.

The Postal Pulse postcard mailingcost approximately $20,000. The PostalService sends the postcard to everypostal employee because Gallup controlsthe information regarding the individu-als who completed the survey; it is notshared with the Postal Service. ThePostal Service believes that exhibitingcommon courtesy by saying “thankyou” to all employees, regardless ofwhether one completes the survey, im-proves the level of engagement.

Agenda Item #4NAPS has received concerns

about the excessive heat currently inthe NAPS Southeast Area and theUSPS mandate for EAS employees toperform 3999s. This mandate is re-quiring EAS employees to be in theback of LLVs with no ventilation, noair conditioning and without thebenefit of a fan available for carriersto use in these non-air-conditionedvehicles.

NAPS’ concerns are based ondocumented findings that recordedtemperatures in Florida are record-setting. NAPS has not received a re-sponse from the USPS area on thisissue. The response received fromlocal leadership reflects a lack of

concern for the health and welfareof EAS employees:

“EAS employees should be takingpreventive measures similar to allother employees on staying hydrat-ed and being attentive to signs ofoverheating, whether it’s in the backof an LLV, on a dock or in any otherscenario. Yes, it’s hot, but it’s alsohot for our carriers, mail handlersand custodians cutting lawns.”

NAPS pointed out that it’s notcarriers, mail handlers or custodianssitting in the back of LLVs wheretemperatures can be hot enough tocook a steak. NAPS asked why theseinspections cannot be made regard-ing USPS policies and proceduresfound in “Handbook M-41,” whichreads, in part:

“912—Frequency Counts of mailshall be conducted on one or moreroutes when it is determined to beoperationally necessary. These in-spections will be conducted betweenthe first week of September and May31, excluding December. A physicalinspection of the route shall bemade on one or more days duringthe count week by a route examinerwho accompanies the carrier duringhis or her full tour.”

NAPS asked that the USPS fol-lows the policies and procedures in“Handbook M-41” in regard to phys-ical inspection of the routes.

“Handbook M-41,” City DeliveryCarriers’ Duties and Responsibilities,Section 912, outlines the frequency formail counts and inspections determinedby the Postal Service. This provision isnot applicable to special route inspec-tions that may be requested by a regularcity carrier in accordance with “Hand-book M-39,” Management of DeliveryServices, Section 271.g, which reads:

“If over any 6 consecutive week pe-riod (where work performance is other-wise satisfactory) a route shows over 30minutes of overtime or auxiliary assis-tance on each of 3 days or more in each

NAPS Training Calendar

Central Region TrainingOct. 4-5, 2019Conducted by: Central Region VP CraigJohnson, Illini Area VP Luz Moreno, NorthCentral Area VP Dan Mooney, Michiana AreaVP Kevin Trayer and MINK Area VP BartGreen

Location: Hyatt Regency Bloomington nearMall of America, 3200 East 81st St., Bloom-ington, MN 55425; (952) 922-1234 or (800)233-1234; the hotel offers a free, daily shut-tle to and from the airport; parking at thehotel is free. Room block cutoff is Sept. 1.

Hotel Rate: $109/one king or two queens;$139/Regency Club one king or two queens;$209/one king suite—tax is additional

Registration Fee: $135 until Sept. 1; $175thereafter. Fee includes Friday reception andhospitality room, snack breaks, Saturdaylunch and training materials. Make checkspayable to NAPS Headquarters. Branch andstate presidents are asked to bring a $50gift item for SPAC.

Training Topics: Legislative advocacy, re-tirement, OIG, financial controls, advocacy,NPA, ELM 650, Delivery Management, mem-bership branch officer training, sexual ha-rassment, HERO profile, informed visibility,attendance control and NAPS national offi-cers Q&A

Instructors: Resident officers, Kevin Trayer,Dan Mooney, Glenn Smith, EsmeraldaDominguez, Steve Dillard and others

Eastern Region Cabinet MeetingJan. 16-19, 2020Conducted by: Eastern Region VP RichardGreen, Capitol-Atlantic Area VP Troy Griffin,Pioneer Area VP Tim Needham and MideastArea VP Tony Dallojacono

Location: Tropicana Executive ConferenceCenter, 421 NW Riverside Dr., Evansville, IN47708; (800) 544-0120

Hotel Rate: Tropicana—$129/night plus tax;Le Merigot at Tropicana—$149/night plustax. Use code “NAPS” for room rates.

Registration Fee: $225 before Dec. 1; $250after Dec. 1. Make checks payable to NAPSand mail to NAPS Branch 936, PO Box 478,Newell, NC 28126-0478. Fees for meals for guests without a registration is $25 aday/breakfast, $30 a day/lunch and $50 fora banquet ticket.

Instructors: NAPS resident officers; NAPSnational officers will conduct panel discus-sions and Q&A sessions.


week during this period, the regular car-rier assigned to such route shall, uponrequest, receive a special mail count andinspection to be completed within 4weeks of the request. The month of De-cember must be excluded from consider-ation when determining a 6 consecutiveweek period. However, if a period ofovertime and/or auxiliary assistance be-gins in November and continues intoJanuary, then January is considered as aconsecutive period even though Decem-ber is omitted. A new 6 consecutiveweek period is not begun.”

The instance cited by NAPS and ad-dressed in a July 9 correspondence fromsenior leadership in the Suncoast Districtwas in regards to a special route inspec-tion, not a mail count. Therefore, thePostal Service’s actions are consistentwith its policies and procedures, specifi-cally “Handbook M-39,” Section 271.g.If NAPS has concerns with a responsefrom district leadership, then the mattershould be forwarded to the area HumanResources manager for discussion.

Overseeing carrier activities andconducting route inspections are respon-sibilities of managers and supervisors.District leadership, installation heads,managers and supervisors have a re-sponsibility to ensure that a PS Form3999, Inspection of a Letter CarrierRoute, is performed at least once peryear and should plan to conduct theseinspections throughout the year.

Supervision of carrier activities isexpected to be performed daily. The fol-lowing are provisions from “HandbookM-39” that address street management:

“M-39 134.11—Street Managementis a natural extension of office manage-ment. All carriers are to be notified toexpect daily supervision on the streetjust as they receive daily supervision inthe office.”

“M-39 134.12—Accompanying car-riers on the street is an essential respon-sibility of management and one of themanager’s most important duties.”

“M-39 134.13—Certain criteria

may call attention for individual streetsupervision such as when overtime orauxiliary assistance is used frequentlyon a route.”

NAPS has expressed concerns aboutsupervisors’ exposure to heat duringthese route inspections; the safety of ouremployees is paramount. In keepingwith that priority, all employees are ex-pected to comply with the Heat IllnessPrevention Program (HIPP). The HIPP isdesigned to educate our employeesabout the effects of heat on the body,outline the risk factors for heat-relatedillness, promote recognition of symp-toms associated with heat-related ill-nesses and provide guidance aboutwhen to seek help.

To that end, the HIPP requires an-nual completion of a course on heatstress by all employees, regardless of jobtitle, position duties, facility location orfrequency of exposure to heat. Thiscourse discusses the effects of heat onthe body, outlines the risk factors forheat-related illnesses and describes theassociated treatments.

In addition to the annual trainingcourse, all employees are provided withvisual aids that are affixed to the win-dow of all postal vehicles and attachedas laminated cards to ID badges thatdescribe the various symptoms of andproper first-aid responses to heat-relatedillness and can be used to help guide de-cisions to seek medical attention.

The HIPP also encourages employ-ees to take adequate precautions whenworking in the heat. Potable water isavailable in all facilities and employeesare encouraged to stay hydrated. ThePostal Service also advises employees toerr on the side of caution and call 911immediately if they experience or wit-ness another employee exhibiting signsof heat-related illness.

Agenda Item #5NAPS brought Agenda Item #3

from the July consultative. It wasnoted the USPS affirmed that pay ad-

justments would be processed in payperiods 15 and 16.

On May 15, 2019, the USPS is-sued the “final decision concerningchanges in pay policies, schedulesand fringe benefit programs for FieldEmployee and Administrative Sched-ule (EAS) employees.” Included inthis policy was collapsing EAS-12 po-sitions:

7. Position Upgrade“The salary schedule of EAS-12

will be collapsed, and the position ofAdministrative Assistant (FLD) EAS-12 (OCC Code 0318-0007) will beupgraded to EAS-15. Incumbents inthis position will receive a 2% basicsalary increase. The increase is ad-justed higher, if necessary, to bringthe salary to the minimum of thenew grade. The increase is adjustedlower, if necessary, to keep the salaryfrom exceeding the maximum of thehigher grade.”

Collapsing the EAS-12 positionsimpacted current administrative assis-tants (FLD) EAS-12 (OCC Code 0318-0007), resulting in an upgrade to EAS-15. NAPS requested a time frame forwhen these administrative assistantswill receive their upgrade, salary levelincrease and retroactive pay from theJanuary 5, 2019, effective date.

Field EAS impacted by this up-grade have reported that, as of payperiod 16, the adjustment had notbeen made.

A response to this agenda item wasprovided during the July consultativemeeting; processing those adjustmentshas been consistent with that response.Form 50 actions and payroll adjust-ments have been completed for employ-ees formerly in the EAS-12 administra-tive assistants (FLD) position. If NAPSHeadquarters is contacted by any em-ployee who claims a payroll adjustmentwas not received, please obtain and re-view the most recent earnings statementbefore forwarding to Labor RelationsPolicy Administration for review.


Agenda Item #6NAPS requested copies of the

performance data for the Annandale,VA, Post Office to validate impacts toNPA scores. In addition, NAPS re-quested the following:

• The district ranking of the An-nandale, VA, Post Office before thepilot test of casing multiple carrierroutes in one case.

• The current district ranking ofthe Annandale, VA, Post Office afterthe start of the pilot test of casingmultiple carrier routes in one case.

NAPS noted that it was not af-forded the opportunity to directlyparticipate in developing and imple-menting the multiple carrier route

case program as outlined in 39 U.S.Code § 1004(b).

The initiative to test restructuredcity letter carrier assignments by usingmodified letter carrier case configura-tions—consolidated casing—at the An-nandale, VA, Post Office is related tocity carrier operations. There is no obli-gation for the Postal Service to followthe consultation process with its man-agement associations on pilots relatedto work performed by bargaining-unitemployees, similar to the Postal Servicenot being required to send Article 19 no-tices to our unions for issues such aschanges to supervisory position descrip-tions. However, Labor Relations provid-ed correspondence on April 15 to NAPS

regarding its intent to pilot consolidatedcasing in Annandale, VA, on May 18and has followed up with seven addi-tional correspondences in regard to thatinitiative.

A minimal number of NPA perform-ance indicators for the Annandale PostOffice have achieved lower cell valuessince implementation of the pilot, butthose indicators did not have a direct cor-relation with the pilot. Total OperatingExpense, an indicator that includes allexpenses—not just expenses related tothe pilot—decreased in cell value. How-ever, that decrease did not affect the NPAcomposite performance summary. ThePostal Service’s invitation to a site visitand briefing on this pilot still stands.

New Flexible Withdrawals

Any in-serve withdrawals you make haveno effect on the number of post-separa-tion partial withdrawals you can make.You’ll be able to make partial with-drawals, even if you receive installmentpayments.

You never have to make a full withdrawalelection. When you need to make IRS-mandated required distributions (RMDs)at age 701/2 and after, we’ll automaticallysend you the right amount if you don’twithdraw enough during the year.

You can choose to withdraw traditionalmoney only, Roth money only or a pro-portional amount of both.

You can request withdrawals easily usingfast and secure online tools by logginginto My Account on tsp.gov.

You can customize your installment pay-ments and change your payment fre-quency at any time as your needschange. You can choose among monthly,quarterly and annual installment options.

Former Rules

Only one age-based, in-service with-drawal or post-separation partial with-drawal allowed in a lifetime. Then, a fullwithdrawal election is required.

A full withdrawal election is required theyear you are separated and 701/2 or olderor your account becomes abandoned.

All withdrawals include both traditionaland Roth funds as a pro rata (i.e., propor-tional) distribution.

Paper forms must be submitted by mailor fax to make or change a withdrawalelection.

Requests to change monthly installmentamounts can be made only once eachyear during a designated open season.

Take Stock of Your TSP Investments

When it comes to investing,there’s no such thing as “set itand forget it.” Saving consistent-ly and staying the course haveproven successful for many in-vestors like you. And it’s equallyimportant to review your strategyevery so often to make sure yourchoices still align with yourgoals.

That means you shouldcheck your account distributionand your contribution alloca-tion, both available as conven-ient pie charts in My Account andon your statements. Then makesure those choices still work foryour situation. Even if you don’tneed to make a change, you canrest easy knowing you’re on theright track for you.

And if you do decide to makea change? You’ll find step-by-step instructions on how to com-plete those requests under “On-line Transactions” when you loginto My Account.

Learn about your “time hori-zon,” diversification and how tomeet your retirement needs ontsp.gov.

TSP Flexible Withdrawals BeginSignificant changes to TSP withdrawal rules went into effect Sept. 15, 2019:


NAPS of Note

The Great Lakes Area held its Heroes Career Confer-ence in August. From left: Mike Melendez, GreatLakes Area Operations Support manager; Pam Cun-ningham, Great Lakes Area Human Resources man-ager; Darrel Kordie and Esther Mendoza, GreatLakes Area Employee Engagement Ambassadors;and Luz Moreno, NAPS Illini Area vice president.

NAPS Pioneer Area Vice Presidentand Canton, OH, Post Office OICTim Needham (left) attended thegrand opening of a new USPS Fi-nance Unit in North Canton. Also atthe event was special guest Rep. An-thony Gonzalez, former Ohio StateBuckeye and Indianapolis Colts foot-ball player.

Attending Baltimore, MD, Branch 42’s an-nual crab feast were, from left: NAPSEastern Region Vice President RichardGreen, Executive Vice President Ivan D.Butts, former Eastern Region Vice Presi-dent Dotty Wileman, Secretary/TreasurerChuck Mulidore and former Capitol-Atlantic Area Vice President John Geter.

The Postal Service launched its new Su-pervisor Mentorship Program in NewYork. The New York District was chosento pilot the new eight-month programin which supervisors will be mentoredby members of the Greater Boston Dis-trict. The program aims to promoteprofessional and personal development,reduce learning costs, increase produc-tivity and increase job satisfaction. Su-pervisors will meet and converse weeklywith other mentees and reach out totheir mentors, who will be monitoringtheir progress. From left: Irene Kearney,CX Support Team; Carrie Dittmer, CXimprovement specialist; Imelda Bruce,director of CX & Strategy; ThomasDiefenbach, manager of CX Design &Strategy; Lorraine Castellano, manager,New York District; Jimmy Warden, NAPSNew York Area vice president; ChatikaCopeland, CX Process Improvement an-alyst; Michael Rakes, manager, GreaterBoston District; Margaret Pepe, manag-er, Northeast Area Marketing; and TomHughes, NAPS New York City Branch100 president.

Heart of Illinois Branch 255 President DanRendleman (right) and his wife Linda metwith Rep. Dan Bost (R-IL).

NAPS California State Area VicePresident Mariel Murillo metRep. Mark Takano (D-CA) at histown hall meeting in Riverside,CA. Murillo had an opportunityto discuss postal issues with thecongressman.

Sacramento Branch 77 members and San Francisco Branch 88Auxiliary members represented NAPS at Rep. Mike Thompson’s(D-CA) annual pasta dinner in St. Helena, CA. Thompson (cen-ter) helped serve pasta. The event honored Thompson for his 28years of serving the community. Special guest speakers includedHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Governor Gavin New-son. NAPS, NARFE and the postal unions meet often with Thomp-son to discuss postal legislation.

From left: RepresentingNAPS were Patricia Grisby(Branch 77), Toni Walton,(Branch 77), Yunia Graham(Branch 88) and BarbaraKelly (Branch 77).

Correction: In the September2019 Postal Supervisor maga-zine, page 10, James E. ParkJr. Northern Virginia DistrictBranch 526 was misspelled; itshould be James E. Parks Jr.We apologize for the error.



assistants will receive their upgrade,salary level increase and retroactivepay from the January 5, 2019, effec-tive date.

The Form 50 actions upgrading theEAS-12 administrative assistants (FLD)position to EAS-15 were processed inpay period 13 of FY19. Processing ofthe salary increases and retroactive payas a result of the upgrade was done inpay period 14. Employees should seethese adjustments reflected on theirpaystub in pay periods 15 and 16.

Agenda Item #4Other than the Pittsburgh NDC,

NAPS asked if there have been otherconfirmed mercury spills in PostalService facilities in the United Statesand U.S. Territories (Puerto Rico, Vir-gin Islands, Guam) in FY19.

A spill occurred at the AreciboPueblo, PR, Post Office on Friday, April12, 2019. A parcel containing a blood

pressure monitor that mailed from NewYork to the Arecibo Pueblo Post Officebroke open at Arecibo. The facility wasclosed that Friday afternoon and re-opened Monday, April 15. An Emer-gency Planning, Response and RecoveryServices contractor was brought in to as-sess and remediate the spill. Communi-cation was sent to local employee or-ganization representatives by theNortheast Area Office.

Agenda Item #5On May 21, 2019, the USPS noti-

fied NAPS of changes to various craftpositions. The changes included theaddition of lobby assistant and pass-port duties to six identified craft po-sitions. NAPS acknowledged thischange and contends that EAS em-ployees no longer should be man-dated to complete lobby assistantduties due to the USPS formally des-ignating this as a craft function.

Assisting our customers is an essen-tial function of the Postal Service’s mis-

sion. Post office lobbies are the principalbusiness offices of the Postal Service.While providing lobby assistance wasadded to the duties and responsibilitiesfor certain craft positions, customerservice remains everyone’s responsibility.

When necessary, supervisors shouldconduct lobby sweeps for customers whoare conducting nonrevenue transactionswhen lines are long due to retail associ-ates conducting lengthy transactions.Having frequent contact with the pub-lic, providing information on postalservices and accepting mail at publicwindows remain part of the supervisor’sduties and responsibilities.

Lobby assistance is not a position,but, rather, duties in the lead SSA andSSA job descriptions. These dutiesshould be performed by available SSAs.Prior to a supervisor providing assis-tance in the lobby, all clerks in the of-fice should be used (including usingovertime, as appropriate) at the windowor as lobby assistants.

On behalf of the NAPS MichianaArea, Kevin Trayer presented anaward to Indiana District ManagerTodd Hawkins. From left: NAPS FortWayne Branch 204 President AliceWilliams, Central Region Vice Presi-dent Craig Johnson, Secretary/Trea-surer Chuck Mulidore, Hawkins, Tray-er, Indianapolis Branch 8 PresidentMonique Mosley, Indiana StateBranch 917 President Marcel Webband USPS HRSSC Manager RochelleIsrael.

Attending the Greater IndianaDistrict Career Conferencewere, from left: NAPS CentralRegion Vice President CraigJohnson, Secretary/TreasurerChuck Mulidore and MichianaArea Vice President KevinTrayer.

July 15 ConsultativeContinued from page 8

By Marilyn WaltonWestern Region Vice President

acific Area Vice PresidentChuck Lum, California StateBranch 905 President Marilyn

Jones and Secretary Bridget Evansand I were invited to the USPS Pacif-ic Area Leadership meeting at theUSPS Santa Clarita Pro-cessing Plant. USPS PacificArea Vice President of Op-erations Larry Munoz andhis staff hosted the two-day meeting.

The Pacific Area andthe Eastern Area are vyingfor the number-one posi-tion in the nation. At the meeting,area management shared strategiesdeveloped at their recent three-areameeting in Chicago. Each year, be-fore peak season, the Pacific, West-ern and Great Lakes areas meet toidentify concerns that will impactprocessing, transporting and deliver-ing mail among these crucial areas.

Safety is the number-one issue;reducing motor vehicle accidents ispriority. We were reminded there areseven weeks before the start of FiscalYear 2020, so the Pacific Area goalhas reduced identified goals by 50%during peak season. The Pacific Areacurrently is number one nationwide.

The recent Postal Pulse surveywas discussed. There was an increasein responses in the Pacific Area, butthere needs to be a significant in-crease in participation to add valueto the survey and measure whetherthe employee engagement process isworking.

One of the training highlightswas an awesome motivational speech

by Coach Robert Mendez, JVfootball coach at ProspectHigh School in Gilroy, CA.Mendez was born withoutarms and legs; he gets aroundon a special motorized wheel-chair. He said that, through-out his childhood and intoadult life, his motto has been,

“Who says I can’t!”As a result of

hard work anddetermination, aswell as a love ofpeople and foot-ball, he was hiredas a coach at Gilroy HighSchool. He uses his cell

phone to write plays for the team, aswell as sign autographs. Mendez’presentation started with a briefmovie about his life at home and hiswork on the football field coachinghis team.

The entire presentation was soinspirational. He was given severalstanding ovations and we all werecheering, “Who says I can’t!”

Mendez recently received ESPY’sJimmy V Award for Perseverance andhas been featured on several sportschannels.

The NAPS Pacific Area officersappreciated the invitation to attendthe area meetings. A lot of great in-formation was shared that we cantake back and share with our mem-bers. Munoz gave us time to addressthe managers and continues tothank us for our partnership.


Viewsfrom the Vice Presidents

USPS Pacific Area Leadership Meeting

P

he NAPS Western Region teamhosted a two-day training semi-nar in Henderson, NV, in early

August at the Sunset Station Hotel &Casino. National Secretary/TreasurerChuck Mulidore was our specialguest. National Auxiliary PresidentPatricia Jackson-Kelley also attended.

Day 1 focused on postal training,including new USPS technology andthe USPS Headquarters’ Human Re-

sources HERO program. The pro-gram’s intent is to track employeeswith online technology in all phasesof their training, development, pro-motions and other aspects.

We had a great presentationfrom the Inspection Service. ActingLas Vegas District Manager TracieHill-Sandifer had an outstandingmotivational presentation titled,“Are You Up to the Challenge?” The

Western Region TrainingSeminar

T

From left: NAPS Pacific Area Vice President Chuck Lum, Cali-fornia State Branch 905 Secretary Bridget Evans, motivationalspeaker Coach Rob Mendez, California State Branch 905 Pres-ident Marilyn Jones, Western Region Vice President MarilynWalton and USPS Pacific Area Delivery Program ManagerDoug Smith.


climb to success is hard, the chal-lenges are many, but, in the end, weall yelled back, “We are up to thechallenge!”

The USPS Western Area FinanceDepartment sent a team of expertsto discuss the do’s and don’ts ofUSPS financial accountability. Thefeedback from attendees indicated itwas the best financial training theyhave had. We also had presentationsabout the FMLA and managing mul-tiple generations in the Postal Ser-vice.

Day 2 focused on NAPS represen-tation training. The keynote presen-ter was Jack Barry, a NAPS DDFprovider. He was scheduled for threehours, but his presentation and fol-low-up questions lasted 41/2 hours.We had discussions on ELM 650, me-diation, the Douglas Factors, debtcollection and membership.

Mulidore provided updated in-formation on NAPS’ recently filedlawsuit, which generated a lot ofquestions and comments. He alsopresented two plaques honoringMargarete A. Grant, which were ac-cepted by Glen Gray, vice presidentof the Margarete A. Grant Branch(Oakland).

Mulidore also presented a plaqueto Dorotha Bradley, former NAPS

Western Region vice president, whowas present. The plaques were foundrecently in NAPS Headquarters’archives of former national officers.The plaques are being given to thosehonored or their family members.

Due to time constraints, we pro-vided handouts on bullying in theworkplace and involuntary reassign-ments, as well as my updated NAPSTool Kit. Our team presented asmuch information as possible in thetwo days. Feedback on our surveyswas very positive.

We had a lot of help from Hill-Sandifer and her management team.Thanks to NAPS Las Vegas Branch463 members, who did a fantastic

job hosting two days of hospitalityparties. We also have to recognizeour hard-working volunteers on theRegistration, Sergeants-at-Arms andSPAC committees and the Auxiliaryteam. Over $3,600 was raised forSPAC.

A special thanks goes to RockyMountain Area Vice President MyrnaPashinski whose area hosted thissuccessful event. Her behind-the-scene efforts helped make sure theevent ran smoothly. Thanks to theWestern Region delegates for theirattendance and support. We hopeyou enjoyed your time in Las Vegas!

Las Vegas Branch 463 sponsored this year’s successful Western Region training seminar.From left: Pacific Area Vice President Chuck Lum, Branch 463 members Sherry Patterson,Becky Jones, Evelyn Sjolie, Michell Brown, Jackie Clayton, David James, Cecilla Pelletier, JerryWilfling, George Pixley, Rocky Mountain Area Vice President Myrna Pashinski, National Sec-retary/Treasurer Chuck Mulidore, Northwest Area Vice President Cindy McCracken andWestern Region Vice President Marilyn Walton.

From left: NAPS Western Region Vice President Marilyn Walton, Pacific Area Vice PresidentChuck Lum, Las Vegas Branch 463 President David James, Northwest Area Vice PresidentCindy McCracken, acting Las Vegas District Manager Tracie Hill-Sandifer and acting LasVegas Postmaster Joe Zarate.

National Secretary/Treasurer Chuck Muli-dore presented former Western RegionVice President Dorotha Bradley with aplaque found in the archives at NAPSHeadquarters. From left: Pacific Area VicePresident Chuck Lum, Bradley, Mulidoreand Western Region Vice President MarilynWalton.


Bob LeviDirector of Legislative &Political Affairs

he U.S. Capitol complexresembles a ghost town during

August. Members of Congress arehome in their respective districtsand states, on fact-finding trips

abroad or vacationing with theirfamilies. Most congressional staffersalso are chilling outside Washington,DC.

So, with the Capitol virtuallyempty, I took a much-needed, two-week opportunity to recharge mybatteries—physically and spiritual-ly—during a trip to Israel. I visitedmany archeological and religioussites and took a delightful one-dayexcursion to two vineyards/wineriesin the Upper Galilee region to sam-ple wine and, yes, goat cheese. Be-sides the exotic tourist venues, I tookthe opportunity to visit Jerusalem’smain post office.

In ancient times, Israel was at thecrossroads of the civilized world. An-cient commerce was an importantbyproduct of the area. Roman andPersian roads, which led to and fromIsrael, were the conduits by whichgovernmental and personal corre-spondence transited—from the westto the east and everywhere in-be-tween. There were hard-and-fastrules relating to mail delivery in Is-rael’s walled cities—even in Jesus’lifetime.

For example, in strict observanceof the Sabbath, Friday mail deliveryto a city only could take place if

there was a permanent,staffed post office in thatancient city. This assuredthe recipient got their mailbefore the onset of Sab-bath, which began at sun-

set on Friday evening. Needless tosay, post offices were closed on Sat-urdays; there were no mail deliver-ies.

Now, flip the calendar two mil-lennia. On the surface, the modern-day Israel Postal Company’s menu ofservices is impressive. However, itmasks serious issues that shouldserve as a warning to those in ourcountry who advocatepostal deregulation andprivatization.

About five years ago,Israel Post embarked on itsmarch to corporatizationof the government author-ity. In addition, it author-ized private investment inthe newly establishedpostal system. In fact, lastyear, the government au-thorized the sale of 40% ofthe Israeli postal systemthrough Israel’s stock ex-change.

Before corporatization,Israeli post offices providedbanking services, non-postal government func-tions and utility bill-paying and sold basic of-fice and stationery sup-plies. Those enhanced ser-vices were not reduced as aresult of corporatization;nevertheless, basic postal

services have suffered dramatically.Israel’s Postal Company makes

residential mail deliveries everyother workday, meaning only 21/2

days a week. Only 61% of accumu-lated letter mail is delivered in threework days; it takes almost a week toreach the 95% target. Please note:This is in in a country the size ofNew Jersey.

Moreover, I was told that “fran-chised” post offices have irregularhours, resulting in confusion amongpostal customers. Also, “licensees,”rather than postal employees, areable to deliver mail to residential de-livery points.

These factors have led to a highdegree of public dissatisfaction withthe Israeli postal system. In fact, aJune 2019 report issued by the statecomptroller proclaimed that, in

Lessons To Be LearnedFrom Other Postal Systems

LegislativeUpdate

T

Bob Levi visited Jerusalem’s Central Post Office Building duringhis trip to Israel in August.


2018, Israel’s postal servicetopped the list in the percentageof upheld complaints from mem-bers of the public—a depressing73%. In sum, while the IsraelPostal Company is not identicalto what some American postalprivateers envision, its lessons areinstructive.

Now, back to the UnitedStates. It is important that NAPSmembers continue to provide theessential facts to their membersof Congress and their communi-ties, stressing the importance of auniversal, accessible and afford-able United States Postal Service.It also is important that, throughour elected leaders, we remind in-dividuals tasked with postal gov-ernance that EAS employees guarantee the viability of the in-stitution and the high-qualityservices the agency provides tothe American public.

In this light, members ofCongress and postal policy-mak-ers took note of the stunninglypositive decision the independentFederal Mediation and Concilia-tion Service panel issued on be-half of NAPS only a few shortmonths ago. Indeed, they weredismayed by the Postal Service’ssummary and groundless rejec-tion of the mediators’ valid con-clusions and recommendations.Those findings and proposalswere grounded in legislation en-acted into law 40 years ago—leg-islation championed by NAPS.

NAPS’ ongoing legal actionsin the U.S. federal court system,in concert with our legislativestrategy on Capitol Hill, under-score NAPS’ unwavering commit-ment to fight on behalf of all EASemployees.

[email protected]

NAPS awards Vince Palladino Memorial Scholarship annually inhonor of the late NAPS president to honor his dedication to NAPS and itsmembers. The children and grandchildren of NAPS members are eligibleto participate.

This year, 10 scholarships were randomly drawn and awarded, repre-senting two winners from each NAPS region. The winners have been no-tified; NAPS mailed the $1,000 scholarship checks, payable to the collegeor educational institution each scholarship winner is attending.

Northeast RegionAshlee R. Sarnie, daughter of Deborah, H. Sarnie, Branch 932. She is

attending Rivier University, Nashua, NH, majoring in English.Noah Ackerman, son of Michael Ackerman, Branch 7. He is attend-

ing Brockport College, Brockport, NY, majoring in business management.

Eastern RegionCurtis D. Golson, son of Detva R. Golson, Branch 225. He is attend-

ing South Carolina State University, majoring in biology.Brianna Worthington, daughter of Iris Rivera, Branch 355. She is at-

tending Immaculata University, Malvern, PA, majoring in criminology.

Central RegionMarriah Williams, daughter of Mary McCoy, Branch 493. She is at-

tending Loyola University, Chicago, majoring in psychology.Robert A. Burcar II, son of Robert A. Burcar, Branch 508. He is at-

tending Siena Heights University, Adrian, MI, majoring in business.

Southern RegionCourtney Conners, daughter of Ronda Reister-Conners, Branch 154.

She is attending Olivet College, Olivet, MI, majoring in chemistry.Kameron C. Mack, son of Robert C. Mack, Branch 45. He is attend-

ing the University of North Alabama, majoring in graphic design.

Western RegionKimberley Callo, daughter of Godofredo Callo, Branch 61. She is at-

tending Green River College, Auburn, WA, majoring in nursing.Nihalbir Singh Jammu, son of Siasat Singh, Branch 94. He is attend-

ing Saint Mary College of California, majoring in business administration.

2019 Vince PalladinoScholarship Winners


You—our NAPS members—are among our most effective tools in promoting legislation beneficial to NAPS and thePostal Service. Having personal contact with your representative is so important and makes a difference. Following is alist of legislation NAPS supports and a report card indicating who are sponsors and co-sponsors. If your representative isnot a co-sponsor, please contact them and explain the important role the Postal Service plays in the economy. Let themknow the agency provides service to the American public in every community. Ask for their support by co-sponsoringthis important legislation.

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4

Alabama

Bradley Byrne (R-1st) •

Martha Roby (R-2nd)

Mike Rogers (R-3rd)

Robert Aderholt (R-4th)

Mo Brooks (R-5th)

Gary Palmer (R-6th)

Terri Sewell (D-7th) • • • • •

Alaska

Don Young (R-at-large)

Arkansas

Rick Crawford (R-1st)

French Hill (R-2nd)

Steve Womack (R-3rd)

Bruce Westerman (R-4th)

American Samoa

Amata Coleman Radewagen(R-at-large)

Arizona

Tom O’Halleran (D-1st) • • • • •

Ann Kirkpatrick (D-2nd) • • • • •

Raul Grijalva (D-3rd) • • • • • •

Paul Gosar (R-4th)

Andy Biggs (R-5th) •

David Schweikert (R-6th)

Ruben Gallego (D-7th) • • • •

Debbie Lesko (R-8th)

Greg Stanton (D-9th) • • • •

California

Doug LaMalfa (R-1st)

Jared Huffman (D-2nd) • • • • • •

John Garamendi (D-3rd) • • • • • •

Tom McClintock (R-4th)

Mike Thompson (D-5th)

Doris Matsui (D-6th) • • • •

Ami Bera (D-7th)

Paul Cook (R-8th) • • • • •

Jerry McNerney (D-9th)

Josh Harder (D-10th) • • • • • • •

Mark DeSaulnier (D-11th) • • • • • •

Nancy Pelosi (D-12th)

Barbara Lee (D-13th) • • • • • •

Jackie Speier (D-14th) *Eric Swalwell (D-15th) • • • • •

Jim Costa (D-16th)

Ro Khanna (D-17th)

Anna Eshoo (D-18th) • • • • • • •

Zoe Lofgren (D-19th) • • • • •

Legislative Report Card

H. Res. 23—Nonbinding House resolution to maintain door delivery of mail; 240 co-sponsors.

H. Res. 33—Nonbinding House resolution opposing privatization ofthe U.S. Postal Service; 259 co-sponsors.

H. Res. 54—Nonbinding House resolution to maintain six-day delivery of letter mail; 272 co-sponsors.

H.R. 141—Legislation to eliminate the Social Security Windfall Elim-ination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO); 195 co-sponsors.

H.R. 597—Legislation to provide all EAS-level postal employees the

right to appeal adverse personnel actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board; 27 co-sponsors.

H.R. 1254—Legislation to provide a full COLA to FERS and CSRS annuitants; eight co-sponsors.

H.R. 2382—Legislation to eliminate the requirement that the USPSprefund future retiree health premiums; 213 co-sponsors.

H.R. 2517—Legislation to permit the USPS to accept and deliver alcoholic beverages; 37 co-sponsors.

H.R. 3934—Legislation to replace the WEP with a more equitable formula; 31 co-sponsors.

Legislation

* sponsor • co-sponsor


H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4

Jimmy Panetta (D-20th) • • • • •

TJ Cox (D-21st) • • • • •

Devin Nunes (R-22nd)

Kevin McCarthy (R-23rd)

Salud Carbajal (D-24th) • • • • •

Katie Hill (D-25th) • • • • • • •

Julia Brownley (D-26th) • • • • •

Judy Chu (D-27th) • • • • •

Adam Schiff (D-28th) • • • • •

Tony Cardenas (D-29th)

Brad Sherman (D-30th)

Pete Aguilar (D-31st)

Grace Napolitano (D-32nd) • • • • •

Ted Lieu (D-33rd) • • • • •

Jimmy Gomez (D-34th) • • • • •

Norma Torres (D-35th) • • • • •

Raul Ruiz (D-36th) • •

Karen Bass (D-37th) • • • • •

Linda Sanchez (D-38th) • • • • •

Gil Cisneros (D-39th)

Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-40th) • • • • •

Mark Takano (D-41st) • • • • •

Ken Calvert (R-42nd)

Maxine Waters (D-43rd) • • •

Nanette Barragan (D-44th) • • • •

Katie Porter (D-45th)

Lou Correa (D-46th)

Alan Lowenthal (D-47th) • • • • • •

Harley Rouda (D-48th) • • •

Mike Levin (D-49th) • • • • •

Duncan Hunter (R-50th) • •

Juan Vargas (D-51st) • • • • •

Scott Peters (D-52nd) • • • • •

Susan Davis (D-53rd) * • • • • •

Colorado

Diana DeGette (D-1st) • • • •

Joe Neguse (D-2nd)

Scott Tipton (R-3rd) • • •

Ken Buck (R-4th)

Doug Lamborn (R-5th)

Jason Crow (D-6th) • • • • •

Ed Perlmutter (D-7th)

Connecticut

John Larson (D-1st) • • • •

Joe Courtney (D-2nd)

Rosa DeLauro(D-3rd) • • • • •

Jim Himes (D-4th)

Jahana Hayes (D-5th) • • • • •

District of Columbia

Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-at-large)

Delaware

Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-at-large)

Florida

Matt Gaetz (R-1st)

Neal Dunn (R-2nd)

Ted Yoho (R-3rd)

John Rutherford (R-4th) • •

Al Lawson (D-5th)

Michael Waltz (R-6th)

Stephanie Murphy (D-7th) • • •

Bill Posey (R-8th)

Darren Soto (D-9th) • • • • •

Val Demings (D-10th)

Dan Webster (R-11th)

Gus Bilirakis (R-12th) •

Charlie Crist (D-13th)

Kathy Castor (D-14th) • • • • •

Ross Spano (R-15th)

Vern Buchanan (R-16th) •

Greg Steube (R-17th)

Brian Mast (R-18th) • • • •

Francis Rooney (R-19th)

Alcee Hastings (D-20th) • • • •

Lois Frankel (D-21st) • • •

Ted Deutch (D-22nd)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-23rd)

Frederica Wilson (D-24th) • • •

Mario Diaz-Balart (R-25th) • • •

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-26th) • •

Donna Shalala (D-27th) • • •

Georgia

Buddy Carter (R-1st)

Sanford Bishop (D-2nd) • • • •

Drew Ferguson (R-3rd)

Hank Johnson (D-4th)

John Lewis (D-5th)

Lucy McBath (D-6th)

Rob Woodall (R-7th)

Austin Scott (R-8th) •

Doug Collins (R-9th)

Jody Hice (R-10th)

Barry Loudermilk (R-11th)

Rick Allen (R-12th)

David Scott (D-13th) • • •


Tom Graves (R-14th)

Guam

Michael San Nicolas (D-at-large)

Hawaii

Ed Case (D-1st) • • • •

Tulsi Gabbard (D-2nd) • • • •

Iowa

Abby Finkenauer (D-1st) • • • • •

Dave Loebsack (D-2nd)

Cindy Axne (D-3rd) • • • • • •

Steve King (R-4th)

Idaho

Russ Fulcher (R-1st)

Mike Simpson (R-2nd)

Illinois

Bobby Rush (D-1st) • • • • •

Robin Kelly (D-2nd) • • • •

Dan Lipinski (D-3rd)

Chuy Garcia (D-4th)

Mike Quigley (D-5th)

Sean Casten (D-6th) • • • • •

Danny Davis (D-7th) • • •

Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-8th) • • • • • •

Jan Schakowsky (D-9th)

Brad Schneider (D-10th)

Bill Foster (D-11th) • • • • •

Mike Bost (R-12th) • • • • •

Rodney Davis (R-13th) • • • * •

Lauren Underwood (D-14th) • • •

John Shimkus (R-15th) • • • • •

Adam Kinzinger (R-16th) • • • • •

Cheri Bustos (D-17th) • • • • •

Darin LaHood (R-18th) • • •

Indiana

Pete Visclosky (D-1st)

Jackie Walorski (R-2nd)

Jim Banks (R-3rd)

Jim Baird (R-4th)

Susan Brooks (R-5th) •

Greg Pence (R-6th)

Andre Carson (D-7th) • • • • •

Larry Bucshon (R-8th) •

Trey Hollingsworth (R-9th)

Kansas

Roger Marshall (R-1st) • • •

Steve Watkins (R-2nd) • • •

Sharice Davids (D-3rd) • • •

Ron Estes (R-4th) •

Kentucky

James Comer (R-1st) • •

Brett Guthrie (R-2nd) • • •

John Yarmuth (D-3rd) • • • • •

Thomas Massie (R-4th) • •

Hal Rogers (R-5th)

Andy Barr (R-6th) •

Louisiana

Steve Scalise (R-1st)

Cedric Richmond (D-2nd) • • • •

Clay Higgin (R-3rd) •

Mike Johnson (R-4th) • •

Ralph Abraham (R-5th) •

Garret Graves (R-6th) • •

Maine

Chellie Pingree (D-1st) • • • • •

Jared Golden (D-2nd) • • • • • • •

Maryland

Andy Harris (R-1st)

Dutch Ruppersberger (D-2nd)

John Sarbanes (D-3rd) • • • •

Anthony Brown (D-4th) • • • •

Steny Hoyer (D-5th)

David Trone (D-6th) •

Elijah Cummings (D-7th) • •

Jamie Raskin (D-8th)

Massachusetts

Richard Neal (D-1st) • • • •

Jim McGovern (D-2nd)

Lori Trahan (D-3rd) • • • • •

Joe Kennedy III (D-4th)

Katherine Clark (D-5th) • • •

Seth Moulton (D-6th) • •

Ayanna Pressley (D-7th) • • • • •

Stephen Lynch (D-8th) • * • • • •

Bill Keating (D-9th)

Michigan

Jack Bergman (R-1st)

Bill Huizenga (R-2nd)

Justin Amash (I-3rd)

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4


John Moolenaar (R-4th)

Dan Kildee (D-5th)

Fred Upton (R-6th)

Tim Walberg (R-7th)

Elissa Slotkin (D-8th) • • • •

Andy Levin (D-9th) • • • •

Paul Mitchell (R-10th)

Haley Stevens (D-11th) •

Debbie Dingell (D-12th)

Rashida Tlaib (D-13th) • • •

Brenda Lawrence (D-14th) • •

Minnesota

Jim Hagedorn (R-1st)

Angie Craig (D-2nd)

Dean Phillips (D-3rd) • • • •

Betty McCollum (D-4th) • • • • • •

Ilhan Omar (D-5th) • • •

Tom Emmer (R-6th)

Collin Peterson (D-7th) • • •

Pete Stauber (R-8th) • • • •

Missouri

Lacy Clay (D-1st)

Ann Wagner (R-2nd)

Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3rd) • •

Vicky Hartzler (R-4th) •

Emanuel Cleaver (D-5th) • • • •

Sam Graves (R-6th)

Billy Long (R-7th)

Jason Smith (R-8th) • •

Mariana Islands

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (D-at-large)

Mississippi

Trent Kelly (R-1st)

Bennie Thompson (D-2nd) • • • • •

Michael Guest (R-3rd) • •

Steven Palazzo (R-4th)

Montana

Greg Gianforte (R-at-large) •

Nebraska

Jeff Fortenberry (R-1st) • • •

Don Bacon (R-2nd)

Adrian Smith (R-3rd)

Nevada

Dina Titus (D-1st)

Mark Amodei (R-2nd) • • •

Susie Lee (D-3rd) • • • • •

Steven Horsford (D-4th) • • • •

New Hampshire

Chris Pappas (D-1st)

Ann Kuster (D-2nd) • • • •

New Jersey

Donald Norcross (D-1st) • • •

Jeff Van Drew (D-2nd)

Andy Kim (D-3rd)

Chris Smith (R-4th)

Josh Gottheimer (D-5th) • • • •

Frank Pallone (D-6th) • • • • • •

Tom Malinowski (D-7th) • • • • •

Albio Sires (D-8th) • • • • •

Bill Pascrell (D-9th)

Donald M. Payne Jr. (D-10th)

Mikie Sherrill (D-11th)

Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-12th)

New Mexico

Deb Haaland (D-1st)

Xochitl Torres Small (D-2nd)

Ben Ray Lujan (D-3rd)

New York

Lee Zeldin (R-1st) • • • • •

Pete King (R-2nd)

Thomas Suozzi (D-3rd) • • • • • •

Kathleen Rice (D-4th) • • • • • •

Gregory Meeks (D-5th) • • • • •

Grace Meng (D-6th) • • • • •

Nydia Velazquez (D-7th) • • • •

Hakeem Jeffries (D-8th) • • • •

Yvette Clarke (D-9th) • • • •

Jerry Nadler (D-10th)

Max Rose (D-11th) • • • • •

Carolyn Maloney (D-12th) • • • • •

Adriano Espaillat (D-13th) • • • •

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-14th) • • •

Jose Serrano (D-15th) • • • •

Eliot Engel (D-16th) • • • • •

Nita Lowey (D-17th) • • • • •

Sean Patrick Maloney (D-18th)

Antonio Delgado (D-19th) • • • •

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4


Paul Tonko (D-20th) • • • • • •

Elise Stefanik (R-21st) • • • • •

Anthony Brindisi (D-22nd) • • • • • •

Tom Reed (R-23rd)

John Katko (R-24th) • • • • •

Joe Morelle (D-25th)

Brian Higgins (D-26th) • • • • •

Chris Collins (R-27th)

North Carolina

G.K. Butterfield (D-1st)

George Holding (R-2nd)

Walter Jones (R-3rd)

David Price (D-4th) • • • • •

Virginia Foxx (R-5th)

Mark Walker (R-6th)

David Rouzer (R-7th)

Richard Hudson (R-8th)

Patrick McHenry (R-10th)

Mark Meadows (R-11th)

Alma Adams (D-12th) • • • •

Ted Budd (R-13th)

North Dakota

Kelly Armstrong (R-at-large)

Ohio

Steve Chabot (R-1st)

Brad Wenstrup (R-2nd)

Joyce Beatty (D-3rd) • • • • •

Jim Jordan (R-4th)

Bob Latta (R-5th)

Bill Johnson (R-6th)

Bob Gibbs (R-7th) • •

Warren Davidson (R-8th) •

Marcy Kaptur (D-9th) • • • • •

Mike Turner (R-10th)

Marcia Fudge (D-11th) • • • • •

Troy Balderson (R-12th) •

Tim Ryan (D-13th)

Dave Joyce (R-14th)

Steve Stivers (R-15th)

Anthony Gonzalez (R-16th) • •

Oklahoma

Kevin Hern (R-1st) • •

Markwayne Mullin (R-2nd) •

Frank Lucas (R-3rd) •

Tom Cole (R-4th)

Kendra Horn (D-5th) •

Oregon

Suzanne Bonamici (D-1st) • • • • • •

Greg Walden (R-2nd) •

Earl Blumenauer (D-3rd) • • • •

Peter DeFazio (D-4th) • • • • • * •

Kurt Schrader (D-5th) • • • •

Pennsylvania

Brian Fitzpatrick (R-1st) • • • • •

Brendan Boyle (D-2nd) • • • • •

Dwight Evans (D-3rd) • • • •

Madeleine Dean (D-4th) • • • • •

Mary Gay Scanlon (D-5th)

Chrissy Houlahan (D-6th)

Susan Wild (D-7th) • • • • •

Matt Cartwright (D-8th)

Dan Meuser (R-9th)

Scott Perry (R-10th) •

Lloyd Smucker (R-11th) •

Fred Keller (R-12th)

Tom Marino (R-12th)

John Joyce (R-13th) • • •

Guy Reschenthaler (R-14th) • • • •

Glenn Thompson (R-15th) • • • •

Mike Kelly (R-16th)

Conor Lamb (D-17th) • • • •

Mike Doyle (D-18th)

Puerto Rico

Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (R-at-large)

Rhode Island

David Cicilline (D-1st) • • • •

Jim Langevin (D-2nd)

South Carolina

Joe Cunningham (D-1st)

Joe Wilson (R-2nd)

Jeff Duncan (R-3rd)

William Timmons (R-4th)

Ralph Norman (R-5th)

Jim Clyburn (D-6th)

Tom Rice (R-7th) •

South Dakota

Dusty Johnson (R-at-large)

Tennessee

Phil Roe (R-1st)

Tim Burchett (R-2nd) •

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4


Chuck Fleischmann (R-3rd)

Scott DesJarlais (R-4th)

Jim Cooper (D-5th) •

John Rose (R-6th)

Mark Green (R-7th)

David Kustoff (R-8th)

Steve Cohen (D-9th)

Texas

Louie Gohmert (R-1st) • • •

Dan Crenshaw (R-2nd)

Van Taylor (R-3rd)

John Ratcliffe (R-4th) •

Lance Gooden (R-5th) •

Ron Wright (R-6th) • •

Lizzie Pannill Fletcher (D-7th)

Kevin Brady (R-8th) *Al Green (D-9th) •

Michael McCaul (R-10th) •

Mike Conaway (R-11th)

Kay Granger (R-12th) •

Mac Thornberry (R-13th)

Randy Weber (R-14th) •

Vicente Gonzalez (D-15th) • • • • • •

Veronica Escobar (D-16th) • • • • •

Bill Flores (R-17th)

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-18th)

Jodey Arrington (R-19th) •

Joaquin Castro (D-20th) • • • •

Chip Roy (R-21st)

Pete Olson (R-22nd)

Will Hurd (R-23rd)

Kenny Marchant (R-24th) •

Roger Williams (R-25th)

Mike Burgess (R-26th)

Michael Cloud (R-27th) •

Henry Cuellar (D-28th) • • • • •

Sylvia Garcia (D-29th)

Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-30th)

John Carter (R-31st) •

Colin Allred (D-32nd) • • • • • •

Marc Veasey (D-33rd) • •

Filemon Vela (D-34th) • • • • • •

Lloyd Doggett (D-35th) • • • •

Brian Babin (R-36th) •

Utah

Rob Bishop (R-1st)

Chris Stewart (R-2nd)

John Curtis (R-3rd)

Ben McAdams (D-4th)

Vermont

Peter Welch (D-at-large) • • • • • •

Virginia

Rob Wittman (R-1st) • • •

Elaine Luria (D-2nd) • • • • • •

Bobby Scott (D-3rd)

A. Donald McEachin (D-4th)

Denver Riggleman (R-5th) • • •

Ben Cline (R-6th)

Abigail Spanberger (D-7th) •

Don Beyer (D-8th)

Morgan Griffith (R-9th) • •

Jennifer Wexton (D-10th) • • • • •

Gerry Connolly (D-11th) * * *

Virgin Islands

Stacey Plaskett (D-at-large)

Washington

Suzan DelBene (D-1st) • • • • •

Rick Larsen (D-2nd) • • • • •

Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-3rd)

Dan Newhouse (R-4th)

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-5th)

Derek Kilmer (D-6th) • • • • • • •

Pramila Jayapal (D-7th) • • • • •

Kim Schrier (D-8th) • • •

Adam Smith (D-9th) • • • •

Denny Heck (D-10th)

West Virginia

David McKinley (R-1st) • • • • • •

Alex Mooney (R-2nd)

Carol Miller (R-3rd) •

Wisconsin

Bryan Steil (R-1st)

Mark Pocan (D-2nd) • • • • • • •

Ron Kind (D-3rd)

Gwen Moore (D-4th)

Jim Sensenbrenner (R-5th) •

Glenn Grothman (R-6th) • •

Sean Duffy (R-7th)

Mike Gallagher (R-8th)

Wyoming

Liz Cheney (R-at-large) •

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4

H. Res

. 23

H. Res

. 33

H. Res

. 54

H.R. 141

H.R. 597

H.R. 125

4

H.R. 238

2

H.R. 251

7

H.R. 393

4


arlier this summer,

the Senate con-

firmed the nomina-

tions of Ann Fisher and Ash-

ley Poling to the Postal

Regulatory Commission.

These newest members have

extensive postal and legisla-

tive experience; both served

on the staffs of senators who

sat on the Homeland Security and Governmental

Affairs Committee.

Fisher, a Republican, served on the staff of the

late Thad Cochran (R-MS), former Sen. Larry

Pressler (R-SD) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). She

also worked in the Postal Service’s Government Re-

lations Department and, for the past 12 years, at

the PRC. At the confirmation hearing, Fisher was

introduced by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE).

Poling, a Democrat, worked for Sens. John

Tester (D-MT), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Gary

Peters (D-MI). She was introduced by Rep. Mark

Meadows (R-NC). Poling, with John Kane, Carper’s

senior policy adviser, talked to NAPS delegates at

the 2018 LTS about the challenges of formulating

postal reform legislation.

NAPS Director of Legislative & Political Affairs

Bob Levi interviewed the new commissioners on

Sept. 12 for his weekly NAPS Chat podcast. He asked

the women how it felt to be introduced at their

confirmation hearing by a

member of the opposite party.

Fisher said it was an honor to

have been recommended by

Carper. Poling said it was

unique, but shows that postal

issues are bipartisan issues;

they touch everyone across the

country, no matter the party.

“It’s symbolic of how impor-

tant this issue is for everyone,” she said.

Fisher and Poling were referred to by Carper

and Meadows as experts in the postal field, which

can be considered a rather “boutique” area of legis-

lation. Levi asked how working in the Senate pre-

pared them for their new positions.

Fisher agreed that postal legislation is a niche

area. “There are not very many of us in this area

who develop legislative experience to a great ex-

tent,” she affirmed. Poling said working on the

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Af-

fairs Committee throughout her congressional ca-

reer gave her the opportunity to develop expertise

and specialize in postal issues.

“Having legislative experience is a wonderful

skill to have when you are in the weeds of devel-

oping legislation,” she explained. “Having meet-

ings with postal stakeholders and congressional

members and their staffs, I got to hear what mat-

tered to people across the postal community.”

Newest PRC Commissioners Discuss Their New Roles

Newest PRC Commissioners Discuss Their New Roles

EEBob Levi with new PRC Commissioners Ann Fisherand Ashley Poling

By Karen Young, NAPS editor

From Legislation to Regulation: From Legislation to Regulation:


Levi asked what is unique aboutthe Postal Service that necessitateshaving a regulator. Fisher said Con-gress created the PRC as part of the1970 Postal Reorganization Act toensure the Postal Service was legallysetting rates. “We have an importantrole overseeing the pricing of mar-ket-dominant products in the USPS,”she said.

Levi referred to Poling’s com-ments during her testimony at theconfirmation hearing regarding thePRC’s function of overseeing accessi-bility and service performance of theagency. He asked how she sees thePRC taking an active role in ensuringthe USPS’ performance is up to thestandards the American public ex-pects and deserves.

Poling responded that one of thePRC’s responsibilities is monitoringthe Postal Service’s compliance andability to met service performancetargets. “That’s something I workedon a lot when I was in the Senateand was passionate about,” she said.“Working on that in a legislativecontext made me realize how impor-tant that issue is. I now have a verydifferent role. I’m interested in see-ing if the PRC can make sure there isaccountability and transparency.”

Levi said transparency and ac-countability dominated a lot of theconversations at the confirmationhearing. He pointed out that, histor-ically, the accuracy of data the PostalService has provided has been calledinto question. He asked if the PRChas a role in ensuring accuracy ofdata provided to the legislative body.

Fisher said it’s up to the USPS toensure the data provided to Con-gress is accurate. “What is often thecase,” she explained, “is Congressmay come to the PRC seeking a sec-ond opinion. But when the PRC isrequesting data or when it’s formu-lating the annual compliance deter-mination, then we expect accurate

and complete data.”Levi asked if the PRC has a role

in developing postal legislation.Fisher said the PRC does not play

a role in developing legislation, but isthere to provide analytical informa-tion to legislation being considered.“In general,” she said, “Congress willtake something an interest group orthe USPS has drafted as legislationand ask us for technical advice. Butwe don’t lobby; we’re not allowed tolobby. Our guidance is technical.”

Poling added that one of thestrategic goals of the PRC is to havemore engagement with Congress. “Ithink that’s fantastic,” she added.“Having a postal community in con-tact with each other and collaborat-ing to the extent they can always is agood thing. I agree it’s not our roleto develop legislation. If someonereaches out to us to weigh in techni-cally on something, that’s where thePRC would play a role.”

Levi raised the issue of updatinga survey done in 2008 relating to theuniversal service obligation (USO).At the confirmation hearing, Fishersuggested the PRC may revisit thescope of that obligation. It may betime to find out what Americanswant or need, which would be partof developing a new, comprehensiveapproach to what the USPS is.“There’s no definition in statute,”Levi affirmed. “Rather, it’s opera-tionally defined. How would thePRC approach that exploration?”

“This is overdue,” Fisher declared.“It’s time for a full discussion andthorough examination of all issues re-lated to the USO. I was glad to see thepresident’s task force [on the postalsystem] get into this and start to layout some different ideas. That’s notsaying I agree 100 percent or com-pletely disagree with the recommen-dations, but I appreciate the fact theytackled some of these issues.

“At the time of the 2006 Postal

Accountability and EnhancementAct, Congress asked the PRC to do alarge report on the USO and the twomonopolies and issue their recom-mendations to Congress. That was afascinating undertaking. Unfortu-nately, nothing was done with itonce the report was sent to Con-gress. And, at the time, I didn’t thinklarge-scale changes were needed.

“But now, the time is ripe for adiscussion of those issues. My hopeis, time willing, the commission willbe able to possibly update its 2008report or, if not update, have someother involvement. I would like towork again with the USPS and Con-gress to advance some considera-tions as they relate to the USO. Idon’t know the best way to get atthis, but I suggested, off the top ofmy head, a nationwide survey tofind out what people want. I think ifyou ask the everyday person whatthey need and must have from thePostal Service, the answers will bequite different from what you heardin 2008.”

Levi suggested it’s possible that ifa survey were conducted today, therewould be different needs from differ-ent parts of the country. People wholive in downtown Manhattan havedifferent needs than those who inlive in Yankton, SD—where Fisher isfrom.

Fisher said her father, who is 85and lives in Yankton, watched herconfirmation hearing on his com-puter. “He discussed ideas I broughtup at the hearing with me,” sheshared. “He didn’t think five-daymail delivery was a bad idea and hadno issue with opening up the mailbox to other responsible parties. Myguess is there are a lot of other peo-ple now who might think differentlyabout these issues.”

Poling added that it’s importantto get a sense of what matters to dif-ferent people in different parts of the


country. “And I don’t know if youcan generalize and say one area needssomething another area doesn’t,” shesuggested. “But, from my experiencespending a lot of time in North Dako-ta and Montana, there is real relianceon the mail in those areas because it’saccessible and affordable for every-one. A lot of small businesses are real-ly reliant on the Postal Service.

“It’s something you have to real-ly think about because in some ofthese places, post offices are centralto the community. But I also think alot has changed in the past 10 years.It’s never a bad thing to get a currentsense of what people are using theagency for and what they need. It’simportant to stay in touch.”

Levi referred to a question duringthe confirmation hearing regardingwhy it’s taking so long to enactpostal reform, which Poling attrib-uted to a lack of consensus amongstakeholders. “As we get closer andcloser to meaningful legislation,”Levi pointed out, “the fissures be-come larger.

“One of the third-rail issues isthe USO and six-day mail delivery.The House has a resolution to main-tain six-day and door delivery. Eachresolution has overwhelming sup-port. You have that political pressureon one side as you explore the USOand, as Fisher suggested, if you ask,there may not be as definitive an an-swer as we think. How do youachieve consensus when there aresuch diametrically opposed views?”

Poling explained that, in workingon legislation, people are very pas-sionate about their interests. Withpostal legislation, it takes a lot of iter-ations. “I don’t know if there’s any-one out there who expects to behappy with the final product. You tryto find the best compromise you canand work through issues that arise.

“Often, you might think you’reintroducing a bill on a certain day,

but, at the last minute, somethingcomes up on which you have to en-gage. But, you have to stick with itbecause it’s a service to the Americancustomer and Congress is who repre-sents them. It helped me to thinkabout that as we pushed throughsome marathon sessions, at times, toget bills introduced.”

Levi moved to the subject of thePRC’s 10-year rate review and imple-menting a new rate regime thatwould ensure postal viability. At theconfirmation hearing, Fisher said thereview should have been done muchsooner—perhaps five years out be-cause of the recession, mail diversionand the issue of prefunding. Thecommission is well beyond the 10-year mark now, but one reason fornot being ready to implement wasthe lack of a full complement. Now,the PRC is complete with five com-missioners. “Is there a timeline forimplementation of a new rate

regime?” he asked. “The USPS iswaiting, as well as the mailing com-munity and revenue needs of theagency.”

Fisher said she made clear at thehearing that she thought the PRCneeded to move forward as expedi-tiously as possible. “There is atremendous amount of work thatgoes on by the PRC staff to pull allthis together,” she stressed. “Wewere stalled with four commission-ers. With the addition of a fifth com-missioner, we’re able to move for-ward. I can’t tell you exactly whenthe public will see something, but Ican say we are moving forward. Thestaff’s intention is to get this back inthe hands of the commissioners forreview again as soon as possible.”

Levi thanked Poling and Fisherfor joining him for the NAPS Chat.He said NAPS looks forward to con-tinuing working with them in theirnew capacities.

NAPS is pleased to announce we have a mailbox for members to submitphotos for our social media outlets. We want to hear from you! Memberscan send photos of NAPS activities directly to NAPS Headquarters at [email protected]. We will review the submissions before posting on our so-cial media outlets.

We encourage members to submit photos of branch meetings, socialoutings, meetings with postal leaders, meetings with congressional leadersin their districts, attendance at career awareness conferences and more.

When submitting a photo, please tell us about the event, the names ofthe members in the photo and when the event occurred. Also, please sendhi-resolution photos; we want everyone to look good.

We look forward to increasing our presence on social media with thisinitiative. Like, follow, share!


reparations continue for the 2020 NAPS NationalConvention in Grapevine, TX, Aug. 17-21, at theGaylord Texan. One of the major requirements for

a smooth-running convention is the selection of dele-gates to serve on various national convention commit-tees. All members should be mindful of several importantrules concerning committee assignments:

• NAPS members no longer have to get their branchpresident’s recommendation for a national conventioncommittee assignment.

• Members may self-nominate for their national con-vention committee selections. Self-nominations may bemade through NAPS’ new online committee registrationprocess at www.naps.org or by mail only. No fax or emailrequests will be accepted.

• All committee members must be certified delegates.National convention delegate credential forms (see nextpage) will be mailed to each branch before Dec. 31, 2019.Credentials also will be available for downloading andprinting from the NAPS website at www.naps.org.

• All national convention committee members mustbe registered guests of the Gaylord Texan Resort & Con-vention Center from the date of their first committee assignment until the conclusion of the convention on Friday, Aug. 21. Committee chairs will verify hotelregistrations of their respective committee members.

• Delegates serving on committees will receive lodgingand per diem as follows: Credentials & Registration—twonights’ lodging and two days’ per diem; Audit, Constitu-tion & Bylaws, Postmaster, Resolutions and Rules—onenight’s lodging and one day per diem; Assistant Secretariesand Sergeants-at-Arms—$100 per day, no lodging.

• A national convention committee may have onlyone branch member appointed per committee, unlessgranted an exception by the NAPS national president.Furthermore, committees may have up to 25% of mem-bers who never before have served on a national conven-tion committee.

When expressing an interest in serving, membersmust give careful consideration to the fact that one com-mittee will meet on Saturday, Aug. 15, and the otherson Sunday, Aug. 16, in advance of the convention’sopening day. Some committees will meet throughout thenational convention.

Moreover, members serving on these “advance” com-mittees must attend all meetings of their respective com-

mittees, which generally begin at 9 a.m., although somecould begin earlier. No exceptions will be made to this atten-dance rule.

Members should make their hotel reservations earlyenough so they won’t have a problem getting a room foran extra day or two in advance of the convention. Ifmembers are not selected for advance committee assign-ments, they simply may cancel their room reservationsfor the extra days as soon as possible. Do not cancel yourentire hotel stay—only the extra days. Otherwise, reserveyour hotel room after you have been confirmed to serveon a national convention committee.

If traveling to the national convention via airline andyou purchase your ticket before being selected for a com-mittee, NAPS Headquarters will not reimburse you forany airline change fees. It is suggested you purchase anairline ticket after you have confirmation that you havebeen selected for a national convention committee.

For the 2020 National Convention, self-nominationsmay be made through NAPS’ new online committee regis-tration process at www.naps.org or by mail only. No fax oremail requests will be accepted. The deadline to requestconsideration for a committee is midnight, March 31,2020. No requests will be accepted after the deadline.

Listed here are the national convention committees,including the tentative dates of their first meetings, theminimum number of members on each committee and abrief description of their responsibilities:

Assistant Secretaries (no advance meeting, fourmembers)—Sit at the dais during all business sessionsand keep a record of the actions taken on all resolutions,including amendments; help conduct vote counts andassist the national parliamentarian and resident officers,as needed.

Audit (Sunday, Aug. 16, 10 members)—Audits fourmonths of NAPS financial records chosen by the chairand assistant chair from the previous two fiscal years.Discrepancies or errors, if any, are noted and a written re-port (to the secretary/treasurer) and verbal report (to theentire convention) are made.

Ballot and Election (no advance meeting; 18 mem-bers, includes chair and assistant chair, one member fromeach of the 16 NAPS areas)—Conducts the balloting andelection for national officers and site selection for the na-tional convention that will take place four years hence.

Only the Ballot and Election Committee chair and

2020 NAPS National Convention Committees

P


assistant chair are notified of their selection before theconvention. Members of this committee do not knowthey have been selected until their names are read by thenational president on Tuesday of the convention week.

Committee members will be sequestered from thetime they leave the convention floor with the sealed bal-lot boxes until the committee chair, alone, later an-nounces the election results before the convention body.

Constitution & Bylaws (Sunday, Aug. 16, 16 mem-bers)—Reviews all resolutions having to do with the NAPSConstitution & Bylaws, as well as those directing NAPS totake action on other matters.

Credentials & Registration (very early Saturday, Aug.15, 21 members)—Processes the registrations of all NAPSand Auxiliary delegates and guests. Committee membersverify credentials and hand out name badges, One Books,delegate cards, souvenirs bags and more.

Postmaster (Sunday, Aug. 16, 12 members)—Reviewsmatters of particular interest to postmaster members. Willmeet with members of the NAPS Executive Board Post-master Committee.

Resolutions (Sunday, Aug. 16, 14 members)—Reviewsall resolutions (except those related to the NAPS Constitu-tion & Bylaws) having to do with pay, working conditionsand postal policy.

Rules (Sunday, Aug. 16, six members)—Reviews and

edits the convention rules and ultimately provides eachdelegate with a copy of the rules.

Sergeants-at-Arms (meeting day and time TBD, 18members)—Maintain order during the convention, escortguests to the dais, assist in the vote count and distributematerials, including the convention Daily Newsletter andamended resolutions, to delegates. Members of this com-mittee must attend all business sessions.

Again, the Self-Nomination National ConventionCommittee Request is available online at www.naps.organd in The Postal Supervisor magazine (see next page). Dele-gate credential forms will be mailed to branches beforeDec. 31, 2019. Members also may find credential formson the NAPS website. Final committee assignments willbe made by the NAPS national president.

When self-nominating yourself for a national conven-tion committee, indicate your first, second and third choice(if applicable) committee assignment. All committee re-quests must be received by midnight, March 31, 2020.

Please note: No committee recommendation will beconsidered unless the delegate’s credential has been re-ceived at NAPS Headquarters before the national presi-dent’s selection of committees on April 20. All those re-questing national convention committee considerationwill be notified if selected or not for a committee assign-ment.


2019 SPAC Contributors

Top 2019 SPAC Contributor

Butts, Ivan PA Branch 355

President’s Ultimate SPAC ($1,000+)

Salmon, James AZ Branch 246Boisvert, Michael CA Branch 159Walton, Marilyn CA Branch 77Wong, John CA Branch 497Franz, Kenneth FL Branch 146Gilbert, Belinda FL Branch 425Mullins, Kym FL Branch 81Quinlan, Robert FL Branch 154Sebastian, Gerald FL Branch 386Strickland, Ann FL Branch 146Van Horn, Gail FL Branch 154Wagner, Brian IL Branch 255

Winters, Michael IL Branch 255Foley, Paul MA Branch 120Griffin, Troy MD Branch 42Randall, C. Michele MD Branch 531Shawn, Steve MD Branch 403Wileman, Dotty MD Branch 923Geter, John NC Branch 183Amash, Joseph NY Branch 83Gawron, Steven NY Branch 27Gawron, Dennis NY Branch 27Roma, Thomas NY Branch 68Warden, James NY Branch 100Butts, Ivan PA Branch 355Aaron, Donna TN Branch 947Austin, Jessie TX Branch 122Green Jr., Richard VA Branch 98

SPACContribution

FormAggregate contributions made in acalendar year correspond with thesedonor levels:

$1,000—President’s Ultimate SPAC

$750—VP Elite

$500—Secretary’s Roundtable

$250—Chairman’s Club

$100—Supporter

Current as of February 2019

Federal regulations prohibit SPACcontributions by branch check orbranch credit card.

Mail to:SPAC1727 KING ST STE 400ALEXANDRIA VA 22314-2753

Contribution Amount $___________ Branch #___________

Name________________________________________________________

Home Address/PO Box ___________________________________________

City__________________________________________ State__________

ZIP+4__________________________________ Date _________________

Employee ID Number (EIN) or Civil Service Annuitant (CSA) Number ________________________________

Enclosed is my voluntary contribution to SPAC by one of the following methods:

❏ Check or money order made payable to SPAC; do not send cash

❏ Credit card (circle one): Visa American Express MasterCard Discover

Card number ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Security code (three- or four- digit number on back of card) _______________

Card expiration date: ______ /______

Signature (required for credit card charges) ____________________________________________

❏ In-Kind Donation (e.g., gift card, baseball tickets):

Describe gift _________________________________________ Value ______________

All contributions to the Supervisors’ Political Action Committee (SPAC) are voluntary, have no bear-ing on NAPS membership status and are unrelated to NAPS membership dues. There is no obliga-tion to contribute to SPAC and no penalty for choosing not to contribute. Only NAPS members andfamily members living in their households may contribute to SPAC. Contributions to SPAC are limit-ed to $5,000 per individual in a calendar year. Contributions to SPAC are not tax-deductible.


August Contributors

President’s Ultimate SPAC ($1,000+)

Salmon, James AZ Branch 246Winters, Michael IL Branch 255Griffin, Troy MD Branch 42

VP Elite ($750)

Evans, Bridget CA Branch 159Lum, Chuck HI Branch 214Needham, Timothy OH Branch 133Yut, Rachelle OR Branch 66Green, Shri TN Branch 41Cooper, Karen TX Branch 124

Secretary Roundtable ($500)

Grayson, Yolanda CA Branch 39Sutton, Catherine CA Branch 373Ruckart, Kenneth FL Branch 386Moore, Kevin GA Branch 281Moreno, Richard MA Branch 498Bollinger, Kathreen MO Branch 36Carmody, Russell NJ Branch 74McKiernan, Michael NJ Branch 74Evans, Darius NY Branch 85Holt, Brian RI Branch 105

Chairman’s Club ($250)

Florentin, Diana CA Branch 244Thompson, Carolyn CA Branch 88Roll, Gary CO Branch 65Parker, Laroma HI Branch 214Carter, Tonious LA Branch 421Gramblin, Reginald MD Branch 531Byrum, Jimmy MI Branch 508Jessmer, Spencer NY Branch 11Lehman, Jason PA Branch 554

Supporter ($100)

Johnson, Deborah CA Branch 88Rascati, Wayne CA Branch 244Perkins, Ethel MI Branch 140Edwards, Marilyn MO Branch 928Shumate, Melisande MO Branch 131Warren, Anitra MO Branch 36Gilbert, Jevonda NC Branch 183Schirching, Christy NY Branch 27Richardson, Elizabeth TX Branch 86Patterson, La Tanya WA Branch 61Roberts, Charles WA Branch 31

Region Aggregate:1. Southern ..............$54,801.502. Western ................$38,222.103. Eastern.................$36,533.354. Central .................$26,300.005. Northeastern ........$25,766.00

Area Aggregate:1. Southeast .............$36,732.002. Pacific ..................$22,613.003. Capitol-Atlantic.....$21,701.454. New York ..............$13,636.005. Mideast ................$12,649.006. Texas....................$10,055.007. New England ..........$8,318.008. Illini ........................$8,182.009. Northwest...............$8,023.0010. Rocky Mountain....$7,586.1011. Michiana ..............$7,468.5012. North Central ........$6,393.5013. Pioneer.................$5,994.9014. Cotton Belt ...........$4,483.0015. MINK ....................$4,256.0016. Central Gulf ..........$3,531.50

State Aggregate:1. Florida ..................$34,244.502. California..............$21,048.003. New York ..............$13,133.504. Texas....................$10,055.005. Illinois.....................$8,182.00

Members by Region:1. Central................................652. Southern.............................573. Eastern ...............................534. Western ..............................505. Northeast............................37

Region Per Capita:1. Southern........................$9.292. Western .........................$6.573. Central...........................$5.64 4. Eastern..........................$6.165. Northeast.......................$5.19

Area Per Capita:1. Southeast ....................$16.012. Rocky Mountain...........$11.823. Pacific .........................$11.464. New York .....................$11.135. Michiana .......................$9.026. Capitol-Atlantic..............$9.007. Illini ...............................$8.818. Pioneer..........................$7.839. Texas.............................$6.8310. Mideast .......................$4.5711. New England ...............$4.3412. Northwest....................$4.0313. North Central ...............$3.7114. Cotton Belt...................$3.2615. Central Gulf .................$3.1316. MINK ...........................$2.81

State Per Capita:1. Florida .........................$19.912. Maine ..........................$17.603. Hawaii .........................$12.524. Maryland .....................$11.685. South Dakota...............$11.04

Aggregate by Region:1. Southern ..............$14,953.502. Central .................$14,186.503. Western ................$14,168.004. Eastern.................$13,341.355. Northeast ...............$8,487.00

National Aggregate: National Per Capita:$181,622.95 $6.66

Statistics reflect monies collected from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31, 2019

SPAC Scoreboard

• • • • •

• • • • •

Drive for 5


The NAPS Postmaster

By Joe Bodary

t seems we get new tasks to per-form weekly with the develop-ment of technology that allow us

to focus on details of our operations.As with anything new, it takes sometime to get proficient atpulling reports, analyzingthem and taking action tomake improvements.

I have found thingsare not as complicated asthey appear; they are new,which makes it seem diffi-cult. The best thing to dois break a task down into a simpleprocess that can be repeated everyday, week and month so it becomespart of your everyday routine.

How many times have you re-ceived an email with instructions on

how to get into a program that in-cludes 45 slides with screen shots?The first thing you think is, “I don’thave time for this.”

First, I briefly go over the slides,then go into the program and see if I can navigate without the aids

(slides). If I need to lookback at them, I will, but Iusually find it’s not thatcomplicated, then wonderwhy I had 45 slides. I makea note of what I click on ina list format so it fits on ashort piece of paper, thenuse that to go into the pro-

gram until I’m comfortable withdoing it without any aids.

I break it down into simple steps,easily understandable for anyone.That’s what I share with my staff.When you see a short list of steps, you

are more likely to use that programbecause it doesn’t look time-consum-ing. When you see 45 slides, yourmind automatically dismisses thethought of even trying to go into it.

You, as postmaster, need to breakit down for your staff so they feelcomfortable using the program, thusmaking you a more successful man-ager. With the hand-held scanners,we are able to gather so much infor-mation about what a carrier is doingthat, if we use the data wisely, we allshould have efficient operations.

Yet, most delivery supervisors donot go in to look at the reports be-cause they feel they don’t have time.With more and more of that informa-tion going into the Delivery Manage-ment System (DMS) program, it’s easyto click on it and open the data by

Dashboards Make it Simple

I

Continued on page 38

Louis M. Atkins Presidential Student

Scholarships

National Association of Postal Supervisors

he Louis M. Atkins

Presidential Student

Scholarships are

awarded to honor former Presi-

dent Louis Atkins and other for-

mer NAPS presidents for their

dedication to NAPS members

and their families. These scholar-

ships are sponsored solely by

NAPS.

Applicants for this scholarship must be the

children or grandchildren of a living NAPS mem-

ber, active or associate, at the time of drawing.

Furthermore, the children or grandchildren must

be attending or have been accepted by an accredit-

ed two- or four-year college or university.

NAPS will award five $1,000 Louis M.

Atkins Presidential Student Scholarships. One

winner will be randomly selected from each of the

NAPS regional areas: Northeast, Eastern, Central,

Southern and Western.

Applications must be received

no later than Dec. 27, 2019. On-

line applications only will be ac-

cepted using the NAPS website.

Please go to www.naps.org under

the “Members” tab to apply for

the Louis M. Atkins Presidential

Student Scholarships, or go to

https://naps.org/Members-

Scholarship.

Scholarship winners will be announced in Jan-

uary 2020. In addition, the scholarship winners

will be listed in the March 2020 issue of The

Postal Supervisor.

Members whose child or grandchild have

been awarded a Louis M. Atkins Presidential

Student Scholarship will receive a check, payable

to the college or university listed in the applica-

tion, in January 2020. Scholarships may be used to

pay expenses in the student’s current or following

semester.

Deadline: Dec. 27, 2019

T

Louis M. Atkins Presidential Student

Scholarships

National Association of Postal Supervisors

Deadline: Dec. 27, 2019

T

Online applications only: https://naps.org/Members-Scholarship


Thoughtsfrom the NAPS Branches

By Reginald V. Gramblin

hen I heard the news NAPSfiled a lawsuit against thePostal Service, I blurted out a

resounding, “Say what?!” NAPS final-ly reached its boiling point. Ibegan to wonder about thechallenges that lie ahead ofus as members. It also piquedmy curiosity to wonder howNAPS finally got its swaggerback.

Over the course of time,the world has evolved withsmall changes that continue to trans-form our society. The simplicity of asimple handshake to establish a part-nership has significant impact in his-tory. Examples can easily be identi-fied with these historical moments:John Hancock and the Declaration ofIndependence, Abraham Lincoln andthe Emancipation Proclamation andLyndon Johnson and the Civil RightsAct of 1964. What do these impor-tant moments in history have to do

with the history of NAPS? I’m gladyou asked.

In 2016, former NAPS PresidentLouis Atkins, with little notoriety, in-troduced us to Brown, Goldstein, andLevy, LLP, to represent NAPS in litiga-

tion with the Postal Service.Unbeknownst to all of us, in-cluding President Atkins, didwe envision that this bud-ding partnership wouldchange the history of our or-ganization.

Thank you, Louis, for ig-niting the firepower to pro-

mote the rights of our members.Your willingness to stand tall andcommit to the best interests of ourmembers will not be forgotten. Al-though the battle has just begun,you were the symbol of swagger weneeded to reshape NAPS’ rightfulplace in history.

As NAPS continues on its crusadeto rectify past deficiencies with thePostal Service in regard to the com-pensation of pay and benefits for our

members, I would like to take thisopportunity to also applaud our cur-rent NAPS resident officers and Exec-utive Board for their relentless effortto adjudicate these rights the PostalService has failed to acknowledge.

When you consider the magni-tude of NAPS’ decision to file suitagainst the Postal Service, the ramifi-cations will affect the outcome of allour careers for the foreseeable future.So, as we forge forward as knights inshining armor, with our lances heldhigh, may we proudly continue toslay the dragons that stand in ourway.

[email protected]

Reginald Gramblin is executive vice pres-ident of Maryland-DC State Branch 923and Southern Maryland Branch 531.

NAPS Swagger

W

going into just DMS.The USPS is working on dash-

boards that make data simple andallow field users quick access in an ef-fort to eliminate organizational dragthat ties us down to our desks anddoesn’t allow us to actually be out inour operations. Rather than clickingaway to get to a program, it’s a one-click stop.

With these new dashboards, itshould help eliminate the excessiveemails you receive that includeeveryone in the district, area andcountry, which necessitates you hav-ing to look for your own office info.Instead, you can go to the dash-board and click your office.

We currently have a Financedashboard that includes—with one

Thrift Savings PlanFund G F C S I

Visit the TSP website at www.tsp.gov

Fund L Income L 2020 L 2030 L 2040 L 2050

August 2019 (0.12%) (0.24%) (0.96%) (1.22%) (1.46%)12-month 2.71% 2.29% 1.48% 1.04% 0.57%These returns are net of the effect of accrued administrative expenses and investment expenses/costs. Theperformance data shown represent past performance, which is not a guarantee of future results. Investmentreturns and principal value will fluctuate, so that investors’ shares, when sold, may be worth more or less thantheir original cost. The L 2010 Fund was retired on Dec. 31, 2010.

August 2019 0.18% 2.60% (1.59%) (4.19%) (1.77%)12-month 2.67% 10.23% 2.91% (6.45%) (2.83%)The G, F, C, S, and I Fund returns for the last 12 months assume unchanging balances (time-weighting) frommonth to month, and assume that earnings are compounded on a monthly basis.

The NAPS PostmasterContinued from page 36

By Skip CorleyCapitol-Atlantic Area Vice President

here I was, driving north on I-85,on my way home from the Capi-

tol-Atlantic Area’s convention inGreenville, SC, in early June. I hadjust passed the second vehicle I sawthat day pulled to the sideof the road with its hoodup, steam almost hidingthe front of the vehicle. AsI went by, I saw the driverstanding there, with a lookof exasperation on his face.

I wondered whether ornot the driver had gottenhis vehicle checked before beginninghis trip. For me, this is something Ido each time I’m preparing for a roadtrip. Many of us in the Postal Service,whether working or retired, drive to anumber of conferences and conven-tions across the United States.

Just as we make sure we have theproper clothing and materials neededto have a successful convention, wealso should make sure our vehicle isready for the trip. When it comes tomaintaining your vehicle, first checkand replenish any fluids, if needed.Next, check your tires’ air pressure

and look for any cracks and treadwear. There’s nothing worse thanhaving a flat or blowout on the high-way.

Also, don’t forget to check thespare tire and jack. A jack is some-thing many of us seldom use thesedays, so make sure you have one and

it’s working properly. Re-member the old saying,“It’s better to have and notneed than to need and nothave.”

As winter approaches,it’s smart to prepare early.Make a list of items, suchas gloves, blankets, ice

scrapers and a first-aid kit. Be sure toinspect the heating system andbrakes. Lastly, the battery needs tobe thoroughly inspected for anyfluid leakage or malfunction. Coldweather is hard on weak batteries.

I don’t want to drive by and seeyou stuck on the side of the road onyour way to the next NAPS meetingor convention. Being prepared andkeeping your vehicle in good workingorder ensures your continued in-volvement in NAPS and the Auxil-iary!

[email protected]

from the National Auxiliary

T

Notes

Preparation Is Key

click to open—items such as clockring errors, OT alerts, employee avail-ability, Flash, consecutive daysworked and many more items—allfrom one page. And we rarely see anyemails coming from Finance. Eachdepartment is currently working ontheir individual dashboards.

So, any program that is not on adashboard, break it down into a sim-

ple process. The next time the USPSintroduces you to a new dashboard,embrace it! It will save you a lot oftime and help you be more success-ful in your operation.

[email protected]

Joe Bodary is Michigan State 925 secre-tary and Postmaster of Lincoln Park.

National AuxiliaryExecutive BoardNational Officers

Patricia Jackson-KelleyPresident(323) 752-6252; [email protected]

Laurie D. ButtsExecutive Vice President(484) 988-0933; [email protected]

Bonita R. Atkins Secretary/Treasurer(225) 933-9190; [email protected]

Regional Vice Presidents

Rick HallEastern Region (804) 621-3843; [email protected]

Elly SoukeyCentral Region(612) 715-3559; [email protected]

Beverly AustinSouthern Region(832) 326-1330; [email protected]

May NazarenoWestern Region(415) 312-5813; [email protected]

Area Vice Presidents

Elsie Vazquez New York Area(718) 727-8652; [email protected]

Cathy Towns Mideast Area(732) 247-8811

Skip CorleyCapitol-Atlantic Area(336) 908-1859; [email protected]

Linda RendlemanIllini Area(618) 893-4349; [email protected]

Mary CarusoMINK Area(402) 891-1310; [email protected]

Jane FinleySoutheast Area (404) 403-3969; [email protected]

Willie CarterCentral Gulf Area(205) 919-5645; [email protected]

Felecia HillTexas Area(281) 880-9856; [email protected]

Rebecca TurnerPacific Area(323) 997-5651; [email protected]

Region vacant: NortheastAreas vacant: New England, Pioneer, Michi-ana, North Central, Cotton Belt, Northwest,Rocky Mountain.


NAPS’ DDF Is Your Best Defense114 various DDF cases at an average cost of $2,475 per case, paid by...

Documents

Transcript of NAPS’ DDF Is Your Best Defense114 various DDF cases at an average cost of $2,475 per case, paid by...