THE PROPOSED Postal Modernization Act (H.R. 22) calls for a study of universal postal service to be undertaken by a congressional or presidential commission. Among those who support this bill is Gene Del Polito, president of PostCom in Arlington, VA. He writes, “If authorizing a congressional or presidential review of universal service is the only thing that comes from our postal reform work, then the whole endeavor will have been worth it.” (See The Del Polito Letter, DIRECT, June.)
I have agreed for some years that the postal reform bills were fatally flawed, and that a presidential commission represented the best approach. But many such commissions have failed – some by design. A commission whose scope is limited to universal service cannot possibly deal with the critical issues.
Successful commissions have five characteristics:
– Their mandate is to confront a social/economic/political problem which the normal legislative process apparently can’t handle.
– They have real support by the president, by a fair number of affected groups and at least some of the media.
– They are composed of objective, highly respected people who do not have close ties to any of the affected groups; appointing postal union or postal industry leaders, or competitors, would be fatal.
– They are prepared to follow up their recommendations and convince decision-makers to act.
– They are supported by a high-quality professional staff. The notion of 10 wise individuals brainstorming their way to a solution is illusory.
To restrict a commission to a study of universal service, as important as that may be, would be a grave mistake and a missed opportunity. The commission’s animating vision should be to recommend what kind of postal service, if any, will best serve our society in the years ahead. To deal with that complex challenge, the whole range of postal issues should be on the agenda.
For example:
– Should the postal service be privatized?
– Should the postal monopoly be revoked?
– Is universal service at uniform prices in the national interest?
Should prices be set by the Postal Rate Commission, the postal Board of Governors (after hearings by administrative law judges) or some other agency?
– Should the postal service continue to be self-supporting or should it be subsidized by tax revenue?
– Should there be part-time postal governors, no governors or fewer full-timers?
– Should nonprofits pay less than businesses for the same mail? If so, should business mailers or taxpayers bear the added cost?
– Should postal workers’ pay be set by binding arbitration or should wages be determined in the same manner as for other federal employees?
– Should postal wages be comparable to similar private-sector jobs or to wages in highly unionized industries?
– Should postal workers have the right to strike?
The conventional wisdom that a current crisis is necessary to spur action has little basis in history. A crisis may step up the tempo, but major government reforms have taken place simply because they were believed to be good governance. The first Hoover Commission in 1946 generated many reforms. The Ash Council’s reports to President Nixon in 1970 resulted in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and more. The U.S. economy today is vastly different from the economy in 1971, the year of postal reform. Doing nothing will have serious consequences. A study of universal service is necessary but far from sufficient.
Murray Comarow was executive director of the President’s Commission on Postal Organization (1967-68).
Network
