Letters-to-the-Editor: Fri 12/2/2011 1:37 PM

FW: Notice of violations of federal law and postal service policy

From: nicholasguitar@msn.com
To: dean.j.granholm@usps.gov; pmgceo@usps.gov; nicholasguitar@msn.com; admin@savethepostoffice.com
Subject: Notice of violations of federal law and postal service policy
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:38:28 -0800

Mr Postmaster General,

The following letter was sent to our district discontinuance coordinator.

Thank you
Nick Backman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 From: Nicholas Backman

           P.O. Box 355

            Malden, WA 99149-0355

     To: Doreen Karoly, et al

           District Discontinuance Coordinator, USPS

           P.O. Box 90409

           Seattle, WA 90109-9402

 

RE: DOCKET # 1371535-99149 PROPOSAL TO CLOSE MALDEN, WA POST OFFICE

NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW AND POSTAL SERVICE POLICY PER POM 101 HANDBOOK

 This letter is to serve notice to the United States postal service that the proposal to close the

Malden WA post office was not carried out in accordance with Federal Law and Postal Service policy.

 

Section 121(a): the USPS failed to follow the POM 101 definition of “community” as defined in the glossary of terms. As a result farmers and ranchers, some less than a mile from the Post Office, along with the residents and businesses of Pine City were not notified of the community meeting. Nor did they receive a questionnaire or other associated mailings in violation of section 714(c)+(d).

The fundamental misunderstanding of our “community” leaves the USPS unable to make a proper assessment as to the effect on the community. Therefore, the USPS in not qualified to render the opinion that this closure will have no adverse effect on the community. They do not know our community.

Section 121(b): This proposal fails to clearly state the fate of each and every employee.

Section 121(c):  As outlined in my series of letters, this proposal does not provide “a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where Post Offices are not self-sustaining”.

Section 121(d): The economic savings projections are inflated; does not include walk in revenue, does not include installation and maintenance costs associated with CBUs, and the breakdown does not equal the total projected savings. The savings they project assume all employees are separated from the postal service. The fate of the employees is not known, so it is impossible to calculate any potential savings or loss.

Section 121(e): Other factors not included are a $671,000.00 stimulus grant and the fact Washington is a vote by mail state.

Page 1 of 2

RE: DOCKET # 1371535-99149 PROPOSAL TO CLOSE MALDEN, WA POST OFFICE

NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW AND POSTAL SERVICE POLICY PER POM 101 HANDBOOK

Section 321.6: The summary does not meet the standards set forth in this section

Section 353.4: The pre canned bullet point replies I have received thus far fail to address the core of my complaints and observations. Most answers are off the topic of my letter. The USPS has failed to address each individual concern I raise.

Section 252(c): Cluster box unit handouts were not provided.

Section 715(a) the reason for the discontinuance is not clearly given. Several words and phrases that do not reflect the data given were used, as outlined in my previous letters.

Section 715(c) The tough questions at the community meeting were repeatedly answered with the “provide maximum degree of effective and regular postal services” line.

Section 415.1(d) all these violations leave the USPS with no choice but to find this proposal

NOT WARRANTED. “THE DISCONTINUANCE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND POSTAL SERVICE POLICY”.

Thank you

Nick Backman

---