If you make use of the United States Postal Service for getting medications, as do millions of people including older citizens and most veterans, or even if you recently mailed a Valentine’s Day card, you’ve noticed a change, and not one for the better. Mail is slower these days. On-time first-class delivery fell dramatically to just 64% in late December 2020. Some of the problem is COVID-19. Newly elected Chairman of the Postal Board of Governors, Ron Bloom, reports over 100 postal employee deaths and “thousands” of postal workers sidelined during the pandemic, adding to delays.
However, bad as COVID is, it isn’t the entirety of Postal System problems. Some are historic and some are brand-new.
Bloom was tapped on February 9 to take control of the board in an effort to up the lagging on-time percentage of deliveries. Bloom, a Democrat who was appointed by Donald Trump in 2019, replaces Republican Robert Duncan, who was also appointed by Trump and has been chairman since 2018. Like any new leader, Bloom promises to “revitalize” the Postal Service. It needs it.
One of the loudest calls for change is to replace Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who has been in his position since June 2020. He’s the only person to hold that post in 20 years who had no prior USPS experience.
There is a tangled web of how DeJoy got appointed in the first place. Presidents have not appointed Postmasters General since 1970 when reorganization eliminated Postmaster General as a cabinet position and assigned oversight to a Postal Board of Governors. Mr. Trump appointed five of the six Governors who selected DeJoy, including Bloom and Duncan, four Republicans and two Democrats. As of today, Mr. Trump has selected all six sitting Board of Governors. There can be up to nine Governors with six as a quorum.
When Megan Brennan, the first woman Postmaster General and the first who had been a letter carrier working her way all the way up the ladder, declared her intention to retire in 2020 after five years on the job, the Board of Governors began the process to seek her replacement. The six Governors agreed to use an independent firm to vet and suggest prospects to be considered for the position. They put forth about a dozen names from which to choose. However, Trump and former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin had other ideas. Mnuchin called a secret meeting of the four Republican board members, which was not recorded or reported upon due to the purposeful lack of a quorum. Mnuchin “suggested” DeJoy, a fervent Republican, Trump supporter, and big-check donor. DeJoy’s only experience with package delivery was with companies in competition with the USPS. Both DeJoy and Mnuchin could benefit from a weakened Postal Service because of having financial interests in companies that may receive private sector contracts due to limited USPS capabilities––a conflict of interest. DeJoy was quickly installed by the Governors instead of any of the independent agency’s candidates. DeJoy was, in effect, appointed by Mr. Trump.
The Postal Service has not been without problems over the years, but the difficulties increased exponentially after DeJoy’s appointment and Mr. Trump began voicing unfounded political concerns with mail-in voting.
DeJoy initiated changes to please Mr. Trump, purposefully slowing delivery under the guise of efficiency. He took out automated machines, removed letter drop boxes, and halted over-time work. DeJoy’s actions brought on-time deliveries from over 90% when he took command, to 85% in October 2020 when ballots were being mailed, and now to the 64% we see today––a 26% delivery rate decline in just six months. Between trying to please Donald Trump politically, and the conflict of interest DeJoy’s inexperience and stock holdings create, the Post Office has suffered.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) recently suggested Pres. Joe Biden fire all six Governors and appoint a completely new Board. Pascrell also suggested a more diverse Board of Governors as the current six are all men and five are white with Roman Martinez the lone Hispanic member. The undertone is to appoint a board that would fire Louis DeJoy. It isn’t necessary for Pres. Biden to fire the current six. He could simply appoint (with Senate confirmation) three new members to fill all nine allotted slots––all of whom could be Democrats keeping bipartisanship with a board of five Democrats and four Republicans. The addition of Black members, women, and people with an understanding of USPS functions would also be responsible action.
With the elimination of Louis DeJoy as Postmaster General; the appointment of a more qualified leader, one who would not stand to profit from a weakened and reduced Postal Service; and reinstating the procedures and delivery capabilities in place before DeJoy took over would go a long way to putting the USPS back on track.
Another thornier, must-study problem is finding remedies for the first-class mail decline that started in 2001 when electronic communication came into common citizen use. The USPS uses no tax dollars (although recently receiving a $10 billion government loan), but there is no question that operations are expensive and need to have financial issues rectified. The Postal Service is just that, a long-standing service beloved and relied upon by Americans since 1775. It’s worth another overhaul to keep viable the tradition of public mail delivery to every citizen.
David Zeleniak says
Terry, it’s President Trump, not Mr. Trump. I don’t know if your slight is intentional or accidental, but it has been consistent.
Evelyn anderson says
My vote was never counter. Lost i guess
judy leinberger says
The post office is so much more than delivering the mail. It is also a community meeting place — catching up with the news of neighbors, friends, learning what is happening in town. The post office serves many functions and is vital to us. I am all in for upgrading the post office, returning to what worked and replacing the upper echelon, remove politics from the post office.
Lee Harper says
It’s always the upper Superiors that cost us regular people time and money.
Christina Balek says
“The Postal Service has not been without problems over the years, but the difficulties increased exponentially after DeJoy’s appointment and Mr. Trump began voicing unfounded political concerns with mail-in voting.”
What a biased statement you made. 75 million Americans would disagree with “unfounded”!
Terry Donnelly says
Ms. Balek, I’m not sure you can reach the conclusion that all of Mr. Trump’s voters did so due to having concerns over mail-in ballots. For example, there are five states, Colorado, Utah, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, that have all mail-in voting and, except for Hawaii, have for years. There is no push in any of them to eliminate mail-in ballots, so several million of Mr. Trump’s voters in those states have no issue with mail ballots. I’m sure there are others as well as military personnel and many in Congress vote by mail and likely just under half of those votes were for Trump too.
I agree, “unfounded” is a biased statement, but this is an opinion column. You are free to draw your own conclusions, but it is the factual information that should help you draw those conclusions. It is true that DeJoy’s policies were enacted and Trump’s political railing against mail-in voting both occurred immediately prior to a 26% drop in on-time first-class mail delivery. I drew a through-line for cause and effect.
Nancy Fisher says
A big part of the financial woes with the Post Office goes back to the 2006 law that Congress passed requiring the Postal Service to prefund 75 years worth of retirees health benefits in a 10 year span. No other government agency has this requirement. Of course, the plan was to place the money in trust for this purpose, but the money just rolls into paying the national debt. Then DeJoy tried to play ‘dismantle the post office’ by taking mail equipment off line in August of 2020. This was halted in September, but the equipment was not put back in service The postal employees are more than just employees, they are another set of eyes and ears in the community.
Terry Donnelly says
Ms. Fisher, All you write is true. The 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act is, without doubt, an unnecessary drain on usable Postal Service funds, but by no means the only one. The elimination of the act would be one piece in the puzzle of healing the USPS woes, but not nearly sufficient alone to solve the problems. Hopefully, this new administration will take this seriously and act.
Armin Sutterlin says
How does bulk junk mail fit into this situation?
Terry Donnelly says
Bulk mail is a service of the USPS where individuals or companies mail large quantities of same-size mail. The number varies depending on type of mail service used. For instance, 500 pieces of first-class mail need to be sent at a time and 200 pieces or 50 pounds of standard mail. One gets a permit, which is an allowance to send large amounts of postage from a single facility––you prepay and can add money to your allowance, plus a one-time $245 fee. The person sending the mail has to sort it by zip code and drop-off at a Post Office that is designated Business Mail Acceptance Unit. Each piece has to be the same size and weight. The presorting, bundling, and drop-off all save the USPS money, so they pass the savings on to those who are willing to do the extra work to get their fliers, advertisements, etc. out through the mail. I couldn’t find any information on whether adding to or eliminating bulk mail would help the USPS financial situation. The USPS doesn’t operate for profit, so making sure the cost is equal to the charge is important. Finally, the prepayment is good for the Post Office as they have money ahead of their having to provide service. That is why people are encouraged to buy stamps ahead of needing them. Highly unlikely, but if everyone in the U.S. bought a $55 roll of stamps today, the approximately $18 billion going into the coffers would be a boon. Thanks for a great question. I had to research this.
David Ballweg says
It isn’t easy to take interpret this article with any credibility. Just the tone of the writing is dripping with bias. Mr. Donnelly references President Biden twice with the proper title. But when referencing President Trump ten times in the article, the appropriate title was never used. It was either “Trump”, “Donald Trump”, or “Mr. Trump”. It makes it clear that Mr. Donnelly views the solution as a political approach. That has been the Post Office problem for decades; it has been operated as a political organization. The leaders at the top of the Post Office management decision-making is based on political motives. If the Post Office is ever to properly function, operations and future goals must be based on commercial business standards. Any political solution will only result in the same failures that the minority party can use to attack the current party in power.
David Zeleniak says
Thanks for the follow-up, Dave. What’s interesting is, Mr. Donnelly wrote in his article “The Irony of Pluralism”:
“Take this moment to launch a movement.
A movement of respect and support for the premise of Black Lives Matter AND respect and support for the police”.
You see, Dave, I completely agree with Mr. Donnelly’s suggestion and that’s the way I’d love to see our country heal. I thought about it a lot since first written and I also thought about the way Mr. Donnelly has been addressing President Trump in his past articles & it’s bothered me. Why? I’m seeing quite a hypocrisy here. Do as I say, not as I do. So, I’m calling it out now. Might seem like a small thing, but it’s troubling.
By the way, I’m assuming Mr. Donnelly is intentionally disrespecting President Trump. If not, I profusely apologize. Otherwise, acknowledge and respect that it’s President Trump.
Terry Donnelly says
Mr. Ballweg and Mr. Zeleniak,
Gentlemen, Due to any lack of challenge in your comments, I’m going to assume neither of you have any disagreement with my position or the facts that show Louis DeJoy to be an awful Postmaster General and that it was Donald Trump who effectively got him appointed because of DeJoy’s politics. Mr. Ballweg, we could have a debate that “future goals (of the Post Office) must be based on commercial business standards.” I disagree due to the nature of the Postal Service being not for profit and a public service rather than a corporation. There are arguments to favor your stance and much room for compromise. That would be fun to do.
That said, using the honorific Mr. with a name is a show of respect in the English language. As for my use of first and last name and surname only when referring to Mr. Trump, I refer you to the A.P. style of writing rules. After introducing a name into a written piece, it is stylistically proper to use only the last name in any further references. I know the rule, but as directed by Ernest Hemingway, I often break it by adding the honorific or first name in subsequent personal references for the sake of fluid writing. Ergo, all three, Donald Trump, Mr. Trump, and Trump are stylistically correct and show respect for the subject.
That said, you both are correct I did not ever, not once in four years, use the word President or the abbreviation, Pres., in tandem with Mr. Trump’s name. As you suggest, I did not do so out of disrespect or as a slight. I choses to do so because, although legally elected to the post, my opinion is that Mr. Trump never took on the responsibilities that go with the office. I’ll not go into a laundry-list litany, but for the sake of support for my position, I will mention three disqualifying actions that have come to light in the last couple of weeks: A quote from Dr. Anthony Fauci in a recent interview states that when he challenged or disagreed with Mr. Trump, Fauci said, “[h]e let terrible things happen.” Another, the promotion of two highly deserving women to the rank of general was postponed until after Mr. Trump’s leaving office because he didn’t want “that look” in the highest military ranks. “That look” being no women or people of color at the top levels. And finally, Mr. Trump threatened to withhold relief from California when they were suffering through horrific wild fires because it is a blue state. Conversely, Pres. Joe Biden offered relief and FEMA assistance to Texas during the current freezing weather before anyone even asked for it. The added honorific, President, needs to be earned even after being duly elected––in my opinion.
Teri Nehrenz says
You can say that Joe Biden offered aid to Texas. 1.2 million people without power in 254 counties. Who exactly is getting those 60 generators he sent? If people weren’t going to die “from his help” it would be laughable but quite frankly I don’t see the humor or help in that. If he’d have sent 600 generators, that would have helped. To say he sent 60 and that is “help” is an insult to the intelligence of most Americans.
Terry Donnelly says
Journalism is a first draft to history. It is important to an informed public, but the early information often turns out to be incomplete or simply wrong. Yes, at first look FEMA sending 60 generators and 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel to Texas seemed meager compared to the number of people in need. But, time has shown that the laughable part of this effort isn’t the number of generators, but the fact that when delivered, they sat in the Ft. Worth airport for days without being delivered by state or local government. These generators were sufficient to open 60 hospitals or power up utility centers to get people back on line with power. There was even FEMA discussion about using some of the generators to power-up some of the super-centers to get vaccinations back on line. As it turns out, the 60 generators could have been 600 or 6,000 and it would have made no difference. Texas wasn’t ready to make use of any help sent its way. If Gov. Abbott would have used the firsts 60, there is no indication that 60, or 600 more wouldn’t have followed. The Feds can only do so much without leadership at the state and local level too. I don’t think any Americans were “insulted” by Pres. Biden’s quick action in trying to help Texans.
David Ballweg says
Mr. Donnelly:
If you read my comment in the context of your solution’s discussion, I dismissed any political control of the Post Office by either political party. I did not support either side, thus did not criticize either side. I think every Postmaster General for the last 30 years has failed. These 30 years spanned five Presidental administrations. It is also shocking that you advocate that proven business practices should be discarded because of the Post Office’s organizational structure. This is precisely my point; as long as conventional business practices are rejected for political decisions to advance the current ruling party’s agenda, the Post Office will remain in perpetuity a black hole of losses propped up by taxpayers.
Terry Donnelly says
Sir, I did read your comment in the context of my suggestions. I also agreed that you have a valid argument. It isn’t one I completely support, but do understand what you are saying. I know you are a business person while I tend to lean on political solutions to government, non capitalist issues. The Post Office is an odd hybrid. It does not operate on tax dollars (but for the recent gov’t loan) and is a service to us citizens. I don’t know of any private enterprise that wants to take mail “the last mile” to every address in the country, six days a week. The Postal Service is currently in partnership with UPS, FedEx, and Amazon to get many of those packages that last mile because the for-profit folks don’t or can’t do it. In return, the Post Office uses the jets of FedEx and UPS for a lift into the proper area to facilitate final delivery. The private/public partnership seems to benefit all concerned. I’m not suggesting the problem isn’t extremely difficult, but starting the discussion with “the Post Office is losing money” is a non-starter. The Post Office is a service just like the Armed Forces. They both are expensive, but essential to the public and do not “lose” money. They do however spend it and that is where the debate and partnerships come into play.
David Zeleniak says
Mr. Donnelly, that was the most ridiculous & juvenile defense I’ve ever read and simply shows you have no interest in ever acknowledging or respecting anything not directly & perfectly aligned with your views. Hypocrisy at it’s finest.