In Search Of....

The following is a perspective by postal commentator Gene Del Polito. The views expressed are solely the author's.

There's no doubt about it. The announcement by Postal Regulatory Commissioner Dawn Tisdale that he would not seek appointment to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) caught many  by surprise. Tisdale, a former Postal Service postmaster, was acknowledged as someone who worked hard in his capacity as a commissioner. Reappointment was considered a piece of cake.

This means, of course, that there now will be a vacancy on the PRC. Unfortunately, that vacancy comes at a crucial time for the PRC, the Postal Service, and mailers, i.e., right in the middle of the work on developing a new rate making system as well as establishing service performance standards and measurements. It's an opening that should not be allowed to remain unfilled for long.

So....how should the vacancy be filled? Yes, the new postal law sets out criteria that should be considered whenever a prospective Postal Regulatory Commissioner is to be nominated by the President, but experience has shown that there are "criteria" and there are "criteria." Nine times out of ten political connections trumps just about any criteria offered.

At a recent meeting of the Continuity Shippers Association, PostCom board member (and DM News postal commentator) Cary Baer chastised business mailers for not doing all they can to encourage the appointment of postal regulators that have the requisite regulatory, let alone political, experience. Baer has long argued that participating in the selection of postal governors and postal regulators is a responsibility (and an opportunity) the business mailing industry no longer can afford to shirk.

Some have criticized the PRC appointment process as a way of recycling former Hill staffers into jobs that provide an easy glide path toward retirement. After years of serving as someone else's lackey, it's now the chance to have lackeys of your own.

While this criticism perhaps does take note of the frequency by which former Hill staff have found their way onto the Commission, implying that former congressional staff are totally unqualified to hold a commissioner's appointment is unduly harsh, and fails to overlook that other than those who have served on postal committees and subcommittees on the Hill, some past appointees came to the Commission with nary a clue about our postal system. Indeed, many consider former Hill staffer Ed Gleiman's service as PRC chairman to have been exemplary, and George Omas certainly deserves credit for his willingness to consider proposals for rate case settlements and negotiated service agreements.

There is, however, a new postal law, and now's the time to let the past be history. The only relevant question is what role we can play in helping to shape what ultimately will become tomorrow's history.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act changed markedly the role that is to be played by the PRC. No longer the Postal Rate Commission (a key rate maker of the past), but now the Postal Regulatory Commission with a clear mandate to serve more as an overseer and auditer of our postal system rather than a hand-to-hand combatant in everyday rate making. The difference between the PRC of yesteryear and the PRC of today should be much more than a name change. In fact, we should be expecting a remarkable difference in the PRC's modus operandi as we go forward.

What the PRC needs most of all are commissioners that have sufficient depth of experience within federal or state capacities that have dealt with the issue of regulatory oversight and public acccountability. Commissioners of tomorrow should be expected to have expertise in the areas of public utility regulation and/or financial auditing and reporting. Finding such individuals in abundance shouldn't be that difficult a task. The U.S. consists of fifty states, all of which perform industrial regulation of one form or another. Further, there are a number of federal commissions that regulate industries, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Surely, one could find candidates for the PRC from the list of former regulators who have served one of these organizations.

While that helps, it still doesn't solve the issue that Cary Baer originally had raised, i.e., the absence of the mailer industry's participation in the nomination and confirmation process. Even here, a model already exists for how this obstacle can be overcome. State and federal bar associations, for instance, play very active roles in the nomination, confirmation, or election of federal, state, and local judges. While there is nothing within the mailing community that is comparable to a federal or state bar, there is the Mailers Council, which has been designed to serve as the forum for addressing those postal issues that transcend class or parochial business politics. Furthermore, if the Mailers Council is deemed unsuited to the task of recommending and reviewing the qualifications of prospective nominees, nothing stops the mailing industry from creating a more appropriate vehicle.

Mail as a medium for communicating and transacting business is at a critical crossroad. If the people who are intended to serve as managers, regulators, and overseers of our nation's postal system are ill-equipped to peform their various duties in an exemplary manner, the fate of mail as a part of our nation's economic infrastructure may be sealed.

The challenge still is and has been there. The means of addressing the challenge are within our reach. Now the only question is whether those whose business interests are tied to the vitality of a universal mail delivery system have the sense and the guts to make the challenge their own.