Washington Post – by Joe Davidson
“Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.”
Mail carriers do their best in all kinds of weather, no question.
But the unofficial Postal Service motto promise of “swift completion” can be derailed by in-house human factors. And in some cases, those delays have been covered up, an investigation found, by intentional employee manipulation.
The number of late deliveries is staggering.
In a letter last week to Postmaster General Megan J. Brennan, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) expressed his “great concern about the U.S. Postal Service Inspector General (OIG) audit report finding that the US Postal Service has been inaccurately reporting delayed mail across a number of facilities, directly impacting mail service for millions of customers.”
The OIG estimated that during the year ended Feb. 28, “mail processing facilities underreported late arriving mail by about 2 billion mailpieces” — that’s billion with a “b.”
Furthermore, another OIG investigation substantiated allegations of “time manipulation and inaccurate reporting of delayed mail.”
The Postal Service took strong exception to both reports, saying late arriving mail to facilities does not mean delayed delivery to customers and noting the time manipulation allegations involved only four people.
During the investigation that followed an inquiry from Tester, Christopher P. Cherry, a deputy assistant inspector general, said in a letter to the senator: “Four employees admitted to failing to report delayed mail. We learned that parcels were scanned as undeliverable to stop the clock. One of the four employees admitted to swiping employees’ time cards and manipulating … data at the direction of Postal Service management. Postal Service management denied directing clerks to scan the PO Box section barcode early.”
Tester was emphatic that those who engaged in manipulation or false reports should be sacked.
“To be clear,” he told Brennan, “any employee who deliberately delayed mail delivery or who knowingly misreported mail delivery should be terminated for violating the trust of America’s hardworking taxpayers and postal ratepayers.”
A Postal Service statement was critical of “the flawed inference that Postal Service employees deliberately delayed or knowingly misreported delivery. There is no support for this conclusion contained in this OIG report.”
Cherry’s letter said one of the four employees decided to leave the Postal Service. Agency officials would not comment on personnel matters.
In addition to Tester’s letter, one to Brennan from Democratic Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) said the Postal Service should “take immediate action to develop and implement formal training requirements for managers at Processing Distribution Centers.”
Citing an OIG estimate, the McCaskill and Heitkamp letter said that “these delays cost customers and businesses valuable time and put an estimated $85.1 million of Postal Service revenue at risk. This comes at a time when the Postal Service is suffering severe financial difficulties due to declines in mail volume even after a decrease in the price of its products.”
In a written response included in the report, Robert Cintron, a Postal Service vice president for network operations, agreed with OIG recommendations on required training for staffers involved in mail counts and for managers to validate the accuracy of reports.
But Cintron also had a serious disagreement with the inspector general.
“The Postal Service disagrees entirely with the OIG’s suggested monetary impacts of $85.1M,” Cintron wrote. “It is not clear from the audit how the late arriving mail data from eight judgmentally selected (targeted) plants is a statistically valid representation of all plants in the Postal Service network. In addition, although the target is to have zero late arriving mail, this is not an indicator of delayed mail. In many instances, late arriving mail is processed and delivered within the service standard.”
The OIG report said that at five of eight centers visited by investigators “did not accurately count on-hand delayed mail.” Over two days of observation, the centers did not report more than one-third of the late mail.
“This occurred,” the report said, “because employees were not properly supervised and trained in counting and reporting delayed mail.”
“When mail condition reports are not accurate, management uses incorrect information to make decisions on staffing, mail processing equipment use, preventative maintenance, and the transportation of mail,” the OIG concluded. “These decisions affect the Postal Service’s ability to meet its mail service commitments.”
Rather than overstating the issue as Cintron’s response implied, Tester’s letter said the OIG report indicates the late delivery problem “is not only a clear oversight of management at the Postal Service, but it also implies the Postal Service may be overlooking other essential tasks at across the country.”
N.B. Common law mailbox rule.
ORS 40.135(q) (A letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail);
Probes estimate billions of delayed mail to facilities and point to Postal Service ‘manipulation’ by a few employees; Washington Post (09/26/2017) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/09/26/probe-estimates-billions-of-delayed-mail-pieces-postal-service-acknowledges-some-coverups/
Douglas v. Noelle, No. 06-35195 (9th Cir. 06/05/2009) (In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for impeding a prisoner’s exercise of religion, the dismissal of the complaint is reversed where the mailbox rule of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), applies to a pro se prisoner’s Section 1983 complaint.); http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0635195p.pdf
Singh v. Gonzales, No. 04-72701 (9th Cir. 07/19/2007) (Although we have previously held that a properly addressed cover letter creates a presumption of mailing on the date of the cover letter, see Haroutunian v. INS, 87 F.3d 374, 375 (9th Cir. 1996), we have never held that such a presumption cannot be rebutted by affidavits of nonreceipt by both a petitioner and his counsel of record. Indeed, in Haroutunian, we specifically noted that “[a]lthough Haroutunian had ample opportunity to present evidence” to support his assertions of nonmailing, he had failed to do so and that the sole evidence before us then was the properly addressed cover letter. Id.; see also Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS, 997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir. 1993) (applying a presumption of mailing based on a cover letter but noting that “petitioners have not asserted that they did not receive a copy of the BIA decision”). Because the only evidence regarding mailing petitioners would have is information about their own receipt or nonreceipt of the decision, Haroutunian does not foreclose a petitioner’s sworn affidavit — particularly if reinforced by an affidavit from counsel, as here — being sufficient to rebut the presumption of mailing and requiring the BIA to look beyond the cover letter. We decline to resolve this issue on the record before us, however.); http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0472701pv2.pdf
U.S. v. Johnson, No. 03-30101 (9th Cir. 02/05/2004) (Defendant is accountable for all the methamphetamine originally placed in the package and shipped to him, even though he never received most of it. His relevant conduct was ordering a controlled substance, checking on the package, and receiving it when it was delivered.); http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0330101p.pdf
Busquets-Ivars v. Ashcroft, No. 02-70643 (9th Cir. 06/24/2003) (Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, (1884), establishes the standards for mailings, “The rule is well settled that if a letter properly directed is proved to have been either put into the post-office or delivered to the postman, it is presumed, from the known course of business in the post-office department, that it reached its destination at the regular time, and was received by the person to whom it was addressed.” While it is presumed that a properly-addressed piece of mail placed in the care of the Postal Service has been delivered, no such presumption of delivery exists for certified mail when the requested return receipt is not received by the sender.”) (emphasis added). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0270643p.pdf accord Mulder v. Commissioner, 855 F.2d 208, 212 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Moya v. U.S., 35 F.3d 501, 504 (10th Cir. 1994).
Busquets-Ivars v. Ashcroft, No. 02-70643 (9th Cir. 06/24/2003) (A zip code is an operative part of a properly directed piece of mail. 39 C.F.R. § 111.1 (2003) incorporates the contents of the Domestic Mail Manual (“DMM”). Section A010.1.2, of the DMM explains “ZIP Codes (5-digit or ZIP + 4) are required on . . . penalty mail.” Penalty mail is defined as “official mail sent by U.S. government agencies, relating solely to the business of the U.S. government.” DMM-57 § E060.1.0. For this standard, “agencies are departments, agencies, corporations, establishments, commissions, committees . . . authorized to use penalty mail.” Id. Postal Service Handbook DM-103 lists “Immigration and Naturalization – Justice” as an authorized agency. Properly directed INS notice requires inclusion of a proper zip code.); http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0270643p.pdf
Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Retirement Plan, Nos. 99-16952 99-17017 (9th Cir. 10/16/2001) (The mailbox rule provides that the proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that the document has been received by the addressee in the usual time. It is a settled feature of the federal common law. Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 430 (1932); Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, 193 (1884); Lewis v. United States, 144 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998)); http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9916952p.pdf
United States v. Johnson, No. 99-15467 (9th Cir. 06/05/2000) (In accord with our sister circuits, we apply the prison mailroom filing rule of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S, 266, 270-72 (1988), and hold that a pro se prisoner’s habeas petition is deemed filed when the prisoner delivers the petition to prison authorities for mailing. See Adeline v. Stinson, 206 F.3d 249, 251 n.1 (2nd Cir. 2000) (per curiam); Towns v. United States, 190 F.3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999); Morales- Rivera v. United States, 184 F.3d 109, 110 (1st Cir. 1999) (per curiam); Adams v. United States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); Moore v. United States , 173 F.3d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir. 1999); Jones v. Bertrand , 171 F.3d 499, 502 (7th Cir. 1999); Hoggro v. Boone, 150 F.3d 1223, 1226 n.3 (10th Cir. 1998); Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998); see also Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1106 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999). http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9915467o.html
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (Under Rule 4(a)(1), pro se prisoners’ notices of appeal are “filed” at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court. Cf. Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139 (Stewart, J., concurring). Unskilled in law, unaided by counsel, and unable to leave the prison, a pro se prisoner’s control over the processing of his notice necessarily ceases as soon as he hands it over to the only public officials to whom he has access — the prison authorities — and the only information he will likely have is the date he delivered the notice to those authorities and the date ultimately stamped upon it. The 30-day deadline for filing notices of appeal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2107, which applies to civil actions including habeas proceedings, does not preclude relief for petitioner, since that statute does not define when a notice has been “filed” nor in any way suggests that, in the unique circumstances of a pro se prisoner, it would be inappropriate to conclude that such filing occurs at the moment of delivery to prison officials. Such conclusion is not negated by the fact that Rules 3(a) and 4(a)(1) specify that the notice should be “filed with the clerk of the District Court,” since the relevant question is one of timing, not destination, and neither Rule sets forth criteria for determining the moment at which the filing has occurred.); http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/266/case.html
Mulder v. Commissioner, 855 F.2d 208, 212 (5th Cir. 1988) (explaining that “the IRS file does not contain either the original letter or the executed return receipt. While it is presumed that a properly-addressed piece of mail placed in the care of the Postal Service has been delivered, no such presumption of delivery exists for certified mail when the requested return receipt is not received by the sender.”) (emphasis added); see also Moya v. U.S., 35 F.3d 501, 504 (10th Cir. 1994).
Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1878) (Letters and sealed packages subject to letter postage in the mail can be opened and examined only under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one’s own household. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be.); http://supreme.justia.com/us/96/727/case.html
I know, I know…blame the local post offices… Or is all this “”lost mail” happening precisely so bill payers will soon feel forced to do “automatic bill pay,” which leaves them open to even more hacking attacks? And so we can have a nice cutie wittle cashless society? Because other than bills and packages, I couldn’t care less about lost mail, and other than bills and packages and the occasional B-day cards, it’s all junk mail to me.