When Congress created the bill that ultimately became the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, it granted oversight of the new U.S. Postal Service to an 11-member Board of Governors. Nine members were to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate in addition to a governor-appointed postmaster general and deputy postmaster general. In doing so, Congress clearly intended this governing body to be a driving force that would help shape the direction and behavior of the nation’s postal system.
Unfortunately, however, the governors sometimes serve more as a brake on the postal service’s momentum. Here’s a simple case in point.
For the past five years, some of us have been struggling with legislative proposals to reshape the postal service in a way that might enhance its competitive position. Yet over the five years when the USPS’ future was being debated, the postal governors have said and done nothing to contribute to any discussion or debate. Instead, postal management has been forced to sally forth on its own, skating on the thinnest of ice.
Now, I could possibly be wrong. Perhaps the governors have been providing postal management with specific input and direction. If they have, though, it certainly is not discernible to anyone who has been following the USPS.
In fact, even the most knowledgeable postal insiders would be hard-pressed to recall any vision the governors may have articulated on the nation’s future postal needs or the USPS’ role in satisfying them.
For instance, do the governors have a clear notion of what the postal service’s role should be in the electronic arena? If they do, have the governors ever made any attempt to determine whether their vision is consistent with that held by Congress or even the Clinton administration?
For once, I won’t answer these questions.
But I do believe the governors should.
Network
