WASHINGTON
–
Sen. Chuck Grassley, along with Sen. Tom Harkin and Rep. Steve King, today followed up on a recent meeting with the Postmaster General and said that a decision about downsizing the Mail Processing Center in Sioux City should be put on hold until both an analysis of the decision is completed by a postal Service watchdog and the Postal Service can define a rational Postal Service process for making such decisions.
“The U.S. Postal Service has provided the Siouxland leaders with a flawed analysis because it leaves out several important considerations in making a business case for the consolidation. This is why we are asking the Inspector General to review the business case,” Grassley said. “I am glad the U.S. Postal Service has been more forthcoming since our meeting with the Postmaster General, and I hope they’ll go back and look at our request to reconsider the consolidation.”
Grassley, Harkin and King met with the Postmaster General on May 4. The text of the letters they sent today to the Postmaster General and the Inspector General for the Postal Service follows here.
May 30, 2006
Mr. John Potter
Postmaster General
United States
Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW
Washington
, D.C. 20260-0010
Dear Mr. Potter,
The May 19 meeting held in Sioux City was substantive and professional, and for this we are very appreciative. It helped Sioux City leaders to develop a more fully-informed opinion on the matter. We hope that the Postal Service will continue to be forthcoming in a similar manner on all future proposed consolidations across the country.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Sioux City leaders expressed serious concerns about both the analysis supporting the proposed consolidation and the anticipated decision to consolidate. They also stated that the business case for consolidation was not convincing and that the decision to consolidate does not take into account many legitimate factors, factors that would directly affect both the costs to the Postal Service and the quality of service to the community. We completely support their position.
It is clear that the Postal Service has not considered important factors that are crucial to making a sound business judgment about whether or not to consolidate. Such critical factors as potential additional facility and land costs in Sioux Falls, costs related to employee relocations, and financial impact to the Postal Service of the disposal of the current Sioux City facility did not appear to either be seriously considered or integrated into the Postal Service’s analysis. We join the business and community leaders of Sioux City in expressing grave concerns about the fact that little or no consideration was given to these important cost factors.
We are now concerned that before the community has been satisfied, you will make a final decision within the next 30 days to begin implementation of the consolidation. This point was mentioned at the meeting, and we would find such an action regrettable. We also have some concerns about the extent to which the Postal Service has integrated the feedback that it has been receiving from the community. Despite its recent interactions with the leaders of Sioux City, the members of this community have developed the impression that the Postal Service has not actually integrated any of their feedback into its consolidation planning. This is also regrettable.
As a result, we have sent a request to the Postal Service’s Inspector General, asking that it thoroughly review the proposed Sioux City consolidation and that it present its findings upon completion of this survey. In the interim, we strongly believe that the proposed consolidation should be put on-hold until the Postal Service develops a rational methodology for making judgments concerning the consolidation, until a solid business analysis is both conducted and fully vetted with the community, and until, at a minimum, the Postal Service’s Inspector General completes its review and presents its findings of the methodology, analysis, and business case used to justify this proposed consolidation.
Thank you in advance. We look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Senator Chuck Grassley
Senator Tom Harkin
Congressman Steve King
May 30, 2006
Mr. David Williams
Inspector General
United States Postal Service
1735 N. Lynn St
10th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209-2020
Dear Mr. Williams;
In November 2005, the Postal Service announced that it would begin conducting an Area Mail Processing (AMP) study at the Sioux City, Iowa, mail processing center to determine whether cost savings, process efficiencies, and increased service standards could be achieved by consolidating Sioux City’s mail processing operations into those of the mail processing center located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Throughout this AMP process, the community and business leaders of Sioux City have raised concerns about the nature of the analysis that the Postal Service has undertaken to determine whether a consolidation should be implemented. We also have been engaged in this dialogue with the community and Postal Service leadership throughout this process.
We understand that you have important experience in this area and have recently published a report on Area Mail Processing Guidelines. In this report, you conducted reviews of pending AMPs and studied the business cases being made by the Postal Service for several specific locations. We are interested in having a similar review conducted by your office regarding the Sioux City case.
Therefore, we respectfully request that you direct your staff to undertake a comprehensive review of the proposed Sioux City consolidation. The review would examine the methodology, analysis, and business case being used to justify this proposed consolidation. We further request that, before beginning this review, your staff meet with our aides so that they can assist you in defining the scope of the review.
We are asking for this review because we believe that the business and community leaders of Sioux City have voiced reasonable, business-minded concerns about the validity of the proposed Sioux City to Sioux Falls consolidation. Specifically, Sioux City’s leaders have pointed out that the AMP does not require the Postal Service to consider important cost factors related to, among additional concerns, (1) the relocation of employees; (2) the disposal and/or re-allocation of physical plant assets and infrastructure that have been acquired by the Postal Service in Sioux City; (3) the increased costs that would be placed on the Postal Service’s transportation resources and infrastructure; and (4) the unspecified but anticipated additional costs for land and construction at the Sioux Falls facility. Therefore, we believe that a decision to move Sioux City’s mail processing operations to Sioux Falls without such information would be unjustifiable from a business prespective. In addiction the community and we are also concerned that such a move would neither improve the Postal Service’s efficiency nor mail delivery quality of service.
We have notified the Postmaster General about our request and have asked that the Postal Service refrain from issuing any final decision on the Sioux City AMP until you and your staff have completed the requested review and presented your findings upon its completion.
We look forward to your prompt response to this request and to your timely completion of this investigation.
Sincerely,
Senator Chuck Grassley
Senator Tom Harkin
Congressman Steve King