Questions raised about report justifying mail consolidation in Fayetteville

story by Michael Tilley
[email protected]

Information in a report used to justify the move of a mail processing center in Fort Smith to Fayetteville raises questions about key claims Postal Service officials made before and during the public input process, according to former Postal Service union official Thomas Henry.

USPS officials said Dec. 3 they were studying the consolidation option, and announced April 28 the decision to consolidate mail processing operations in Fayetteville. The Fort Smith processing operation employs about 80.

During a lengthy public hearing held Feb. 24 in Fort Smith, Arkansas USPS District Manager David Camp said moving the operations to Fayetteville would save about $1.7 million a year and cause the relocation of 35 jobs.

In press releases and at the hearing, Camp and other USPS officials said mail service in the Fort Smith region would not suffer as a result of consolidation. Officials also said area residents would not lose their Fort Smith postmark.

Camp asserts in the report that the first year of consolidation will save the USPS $1.478 million, and $1.936 million each year thereafter.

According to the executive summary of Camp’s report, “workhour” (labor) savings total $1.239 million; supervisory labor cost savings are estimated at $265,235; and maintenance savings are $1.031 million. Camp estimates that transportation costs will increase $593,037. However, in a summary of “Transportation Changes,” Camp notes that extra mail transportation to get “Express mail to Fayetteville in a timely fashion” will result in overall increased transportation costs of $799,037.

JOB LOSSES
The 56-page report Camp submitted to USPS officials in Dallas, and ultimately approved by Dallas and Washington officials, indicates a loss of 79 jobs in Fort Smith as a result of the consolidation. Camp’s statement of 35 jobs lost is true if factoring in about 45 jobs expected to be gain in Fayetteville.

“Well, sure, when he said that (35 jobs lost), he wanted us to believe it was just here (Fort Smith),” Henry said. “My impression is that they tried to minimize the negative in that report so they could minimize the negative outcry from the public.”

Henry stopped short several times during the interview from alleging Camp and other USPS officials “lied” about key points of the consolidation report.

“Let’s just say the ‘incorrectly minimized‘ many of negatives,” Henry said.

The City Wire provided USPS officials the same time as Henry to respond to questions about the report. Henry was provided the report from union officials, and he sent the report to Fort Smith area media outlets.

“I do not have a copy of what you are looking at, I have requested information from HQ but have not received it at as of yet. I’m afraid it will be Monday before I am able to respond to all of your questions,” responded Leisa Tolliver-Gay, the USPS spokeswoman in Little Rock.

SERVICE DECLINE
Camp and other USPS officials also said no changes in service would happen. However, the report clearly indicates several changes that limit service in the area, with the overall upgrades and downgrades resulting in a 3.5% decline in service, according to the “Service Standard Impacts” analysis.

“If you mail a letter to Little Rock on Monday, it will get there Wednesday, when it now gets there on Tuesday,” Henry said. “What you have, is that if you now mail a letter to Little Rock, you could get a response by Wednesday. After this, you will get it on Friday.”

Camp’s summary mentions that collection times on mail drop boxes and locations in south and east Fort Smith “will have to be moved back as much as 1 hour from their current times” to meet delivery deadlines in Fayetteville. Express mail deadlines in the entire region will be set at 5 p.m.

POSTMARK
Also in the executive summary is Camp’s recommendation to change the postmark from Fort Smith to Northwest Arkansas. The report indicates a local postmark is available “in accordance with applicable policies in the Postal Operations Manual.”

“I don’t think their will be a Fort Smith postmark, even though they say there will be, because the machine that does that, is not going to be there,” Henry said, adding that he doubts the Fayetteville processing will include a separate system “just to ensure a different postmark.”

It’s not just the jobs, change in service and postmark that Henry finds “incorrectly minimized” in Camp’s report.

First, he takes issue with the chronology of when Camp’s report was signed by Fort Smith and Fayetteville postal officials. According to Henry, USPS officials said prior to a Feb. 24 hearing that details of the report was not available because it wasn’t yet complete. But the signatures on the report were gathered Jan. 22-24 — a full month before the hearing.

“You remember they said they didn’t have it, that it wasn’t ready? Well, welcome to working with the Post Office,” Henry said.

QUESTIONING COST SAVINGS
Henry also argues that labor savings are too high “because future (union) contracts are likely to result in lower salary and benefits, which will make significant changes” to future costs. He said it is likely the union will accept a provision in which employees can get full time benefits but only work 30 hours a week, which will further reduce costs.

Also, Henry says transportation costs were figured in late 2010 or in January 2011, “when the (gas) price was considerably less than what it is now.” Based on figures from the federal Energy Information Administration, fuel prices were anywhere from 75 cents to $1 lower when Camp estimated transportation costs.

Continuing, Henry said the estimated $600,000 savings from using fewer machines is “bogus” because the machines will go elsewhere and will require costs of use and maintenance as if they were in Fort Smith.

Camp’s report also shows $254,488 saving on building and equipment maintenance at the 74th Street location in Fort Smith.

“But the building isn’t going anywhere. They are keeping the building. How can they say they have 100% savings on the building maintenance?” Henry said.

FINAL SAY?
Following the April 28 decision, Tolliver-Gay said the decision is final and there is no appeal process. Henry challenges that assertion.

“Technically, that’s correct, but the bottom line is I think our elected officials, I mean surely, Sen. Pryor and Congressman Womack can have a hearing and ask the Postal Service why they felt it necessary to falsify the documents to justify this. Surely they can bring that kind of pressure on the process,” Henry said.

He also said a mandated review after the consolidation holds promise for reversal of the decision.

Indeed, the USPS requires a “Post-Implementation Review” six months after full implementation and then again 30 days after the first full year of plan implementation.

The USPS policy reads as follows on the first review.
“The first PIR is completed within 30 days after the second full quarter following implementation and will indicate if the gaining facility is on the right track for achieving expected savings. The first PIR determines whether the AMP consolidation achieved necessary training, relocations, transportation, operational changes, and workhour adjustments. The review will alert the responsible parties of the necessity to change or correct any deficiencies, if these things were not accomplished. If needed, an action plan must be developed to ensure targets are met by the gaining facility.”

And USPS policy for the second review notes: “The final PIR is completed within 30 days after the first full year of implementation, and it compares proposed against actual data. The final PIR determines the viability of the consolidation and allows management the opportunity for decision analysis concerning the AMP plan. Within 30 days after receiving a PIR, the SVP Operations notifies the AVP of the final disposition of the PIR.”

Henry is not overly optimistic the reviews — which, like the original report, are also kept from the public until decisions are made — will find problems significant enough to reverse the decision.

“They can falsify, or make these reports say anything they want.  … The only chance we have of stopping this is if the people of Fort Smith get behind their elected leaders and make them do something,” Henry said.

Link here for a copy of the 56-page report and accompanying correspondence.