In a letter posted on the web site of the National Association of Postal Supervisors, USPS Human Resources VP Anthony Vegliante has admitted that the USPS Pay for Performance program will not accurately reflect the contributions of supervisors, postmasters and managers for the fiscal year just ended.

Citing the economic downturn, Vegliante warns that the USPS may end the year with “a corporate NPA score for which the adjective rating would be non-contributor. Employees who worked diligently and contributed to the organizations performance may receive an end of year rating of 3 or less and a personal adjective rating of non-contributor.”

The only solution offered for the program’s failure is the option for evaluators to change the adjective rating of employees receiving a PFP score of 1, 2, or 3 to “contributor”. The score would not change, and the employee would not receive an increase in salary. “This is each evaluator’s decision based solely on the overall performance of the employee throughout the year.”

Special Meeting NPA Issues
NAPS/NAPUS/LEAGUE & USPS
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 – 10:00 a.m.
Held at USPS Headquarters

Representing NAPS:

Ted Keating, National President
Louis Atkins, Executive Vice President
Jay Killackey, Secretary/Treasurer

Representing NAPUS:

Dale Goff, National President
Wayne Orshak, Secretary/Treasurer
Ken Engstrom, Executive Director

Representing the National League of Postmasters

Charley Mapa, National President
Mark Strong, Executive Vice President

Representing the USPS

Tony Vegliante, Chief Human Resource Officer & Executive VP
Doug Tulino, VP Labor Relations
Bill Jones, Manager, Labor Relations, Policy Administration
Mangala Gandi, Manager, Selection, Evaluation, Recognition
Robin McLarney, Manager, Performance Evaluation Programs
Tom Henry, Manager, Field OPS Requirements/Planning
Susan Albro. Operations Performance Analyst
Lee Ann Olohan, Labor Relations Specialist

Doug Tulino requested that the management organizations give an opening statement about the meeting. President Keating responded that the management organizations had provided a comprehensive list of issues to the USPS on Friday, January 9, 2008 and wanted to get responses.

President Mapa stated that this was an important meeting and that the points that we wanted to make related to the compliance of the USPS with Title 39 and our Consultative rights. Mapa read an excerpt from Title 39; the management organizations are entitled to participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs, and other programs relating to supervisory and other managerial employees.

Doug Tulino responded that we weren’t here to discuss the management association’s rights under Title 39 but that the USPS stands ready to meet with the management associations relative to NPA.

Mark Strong stated that there is a lack of understanding in the field relative to NPA and that the leadership of the management association wants the program and the process to work. Last year NAPUS and the LEAGUE submitted numerous recommendations to improve NPA but the recommendations were never discussed with the management associations and summarily were not included in the NPA roll-out for 2009.

Tom Henry responded that the officers of the USPS were given the same opportunities as the management associations to provide feedback and to review the working product of the developers at USPS HQ. The field had approximately 30 days to review and to respond to the proposals.

The management association’s response to this statement was that the process that was outlined did not constitute consultations as per Title 39. Tulino added that the USPS had to meet with the management associations and that he is making a commitment that this will happen in the upcoming NPA development. The management association’s response was that we have heard this before. Tulino responded again that meetings would be held and that they will commence in March and the management associations would be at the table.

At this point, we agreed to get into the agenda that we sent to the Postal Service on January 9, 2009:

2008 NPA Issues – NAPS/NAPUS/LEAGUE

Under the provisions of 39 USC – Section 1004, the management organizations are entitled to participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs, and other programs relating to supervisory and
other managerial employees.

As you are well aware, the management organizations have several long-standing issues with the NPA program that we have attempted to resolve on an annual basis. Unfortunately, to date our recommendations and repeated requests for changes in the NPA program have gone unheeded. As the management associations have done in the past, we have not just identified problems; we also have recommended solutions to the problems.

While it remains our desire to resolve these issues internally, and is the reason why we are meeting with you, we stand ready to use any and all resources at our disposal to resolve these matters through outside intervention if necessary.

Annual Development of the NPA Program for EAS Employees

The Postal Service has failed to comply with Title 39 by not inviting the management organizations to participate at the beginning of the process to jointly develop the criteria for the use of measurement systems, assignment of targets and to develop an NPA system that will benefit the Postal Service and drive performance.

Each year, the management associations have made individual and collective requests for consultative meetings with the NPA developers through our contact with Labor Relations, Policy Administration. Instead of meeting directly with the NPA developers, the management associations were relegated receiving emails concerning NPA development with Labor Relations, Policy Administration staff members.

We were never consulted during the development process and only received final drafts through intermediaries. The management association’s recommendations that were made, not at meetings, but again through emails, were summarily ignored as the decisions on the programs were already made and the interaction with the management associations was only an afterthought.

The USPS has failed to provide the management associations with their Consultative rights under Title 39, with respect to NPA and failed to provide the management organizations opportunities to meet with the NPA developers to provide feedback and recommendations to the plans that eventually become our pay program each year.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution:

That the management associations be invited to participate in Consultative Meetings with the individuals from the Postal Service who are tasked with NPA development at the outset of planning for the next fiscal year.

Postal Service’s Response:

The USPS agreed that they would meet with the management associations at the front of the annual development process to include the management associations in the development of the NPA program for the upcoming year.

Failure of the Field to Comply With Administrative Rules

The field is expected to comply with the Administrative Rules for the establishment of Core goals for EAS employees. This includes having an interactive process in the establishment of Core goals. We have continually brought to the Postal Service’s attention the fact that management is violating one of the key principles of goal development and are, in many cases, having their goals sent to them via email, or are having their goals taped to their computer terminal screens.

In many instances, these tactics are employed at the last minute and our members have less than 24 hours to input the information without recourse to an interactive meeting.

At our last Pay Consultations, NAPS recommended that the PES system be modified to include “question” pages that would query participants whether or not they had an interactive meeting at the stat of the year, that they had a mid-year meeting and that they held an end-of-year meeting with their immediate manager.

The USPS response to our suggestion was that the cost to make these program changes could not be implemented because the recommendation was cost-prohibitive. After continual complaints by NAPS, a letter was issued about this problem, but it was sent to the field following the closing of the input of the 2009 Core goal process.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

Require that the field comply with all provisions of the Administrative Rules. Implement our recommendation of the questions in the PES to provide additional incentive for the compliance with Administrative Rules.

Discussion on the topic:

The USPS admitted that there are problems with the compliance to the administrative rules in the field and also stated that when the management associations bring these violations to management’s attention at HQ’s that the problem is investigated and remedied when necessary.

The management associations also stated that at this point in the maturity of NPA, that we should not be having to go to USPS HQ with some of these problems and that if the field knew that they couldn’t violate the rules and that there would be consequences if they did, that the violations would go down.

The USPS asked how we (management associations would resolve these problems). The management associations recommended the “one box” reductions in the evaluator’s scores for not following the administrative rules. This was rumored to be implemented, but it never was. Management advised that they would look into this recommendation.

Management also agreed that they would improve the communications to the field in making certain that the field is reminded about the requirements for interactive meetings at the goal development phase, the mid-year and the end-of-year processes.

Changes in NPA during the Year

In just one example; in early 2008, the Board of Governors determined that the service standards established for First Class Mail, standards that are the basis for Corporate Goals in NPA, were set too low by the Postal Service.

As a result of the Board of Governor’s opinion on service standards, the Postal Service arbitrarily changed the corporate goals for overnight, two-day and three-day First Class Mail performance that negatively impacted NPA for EAS employees.

In implementing these changes, the Postal service neglected to meet their obligations to consult with the management associations. While the Board of Governor’s should be able to maintain the right to change the performance expectations of the Postal Service, their decision should not have impacted the measurement of Pay-For-Performance for EAS employees which had already been established for FY 2008.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution
That the Postal Service re-calculate the NPA for corporate measurements for FY 2008 based on the established goals set by the Postal Service and input into the PES system for all EAS employees and not use the service standard goals that were set by the Board of Governors that the Postal Service failed to consult with the management associations prior to the changes being implemented.

Discussion on Topic:

The USPS stated that the Board of Governors reviewed the 2008 NPA targets for Corporate and felt that the service standard targets that were set for FY 2008 were not including any continuous improvement as the USPS had already achieved the goals for FY 2007 that were set for FY 2008.

The USPS reminded us that nationally that the company made their service targets for overnight two and three day so the Board of Governors was correct in their assessment and changes that they made in the service standards.

The management associations explained in-depth their objections to the budget flexes that are made during the year and then especially at the end-of-year that severely impact individuals who had otherwise outstanding performance over the entire year.

The management associations recommended that the USPS look at NPA assessment through goals that measure earned hours. Earned hours as a measurement tool would take into consideration volume fluctuations and would take some of the weird science that is employed with the budget flexes that the field is on the receiving end of now.

Management responded that there was merit in the proposal that was made by the management associations and would speak to the specialists to see if something could be done to implement these recommendations for the current FY (2009).

Changes in Goals – Sales

In the spring of 2008, it was brought to NAPS’ attention that members in Sales found that several of their goals were arbitrarily changed without notifying them. NAPS also was not consulted on these changes.

The only reason that our members in Sales found out about these surreptitious changes was that their relative scores were reduced on their monthly evaluations. Once the members went into the system to determine why their coring was lower than they had been expecting during the months (April, May, 2008) where our members found that these arbitrary changes were placed into their portfolio measurements.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

Since Sales did not consult with NAPS or notify the members of these changes that negatively impacted our members’ NPA, that the Postal Service revert the measurement of our members performance back to the former targets (prior to the changes) and that adjustments be implemented to the former measurements.

Discussion on Topic:

Management responded that they would discuss this matter with NAPS at a separate meeting.

Change in Use of Lead Finance Numbers for Unit Goals/Targets

For the first time in FY 2008, stations/branches and other operations started to have their unit goals measured to their individual finance number level. This was a dramatic change from all of the prior years of NPA. It was also dramatic as NAPS, NAPUS and the League were unaware that this change was implemented.

Management failed to consult with the management organizations on this change that drastically alters the evaluations of operations that formerly were grouped together for unit measurement under a “lead” finance number.

In a Consultative Meeting between NAPS and the Postal Service on December 8, 2008, NAPS brought this issue forward as a discussion item. Tom Henry, representing PES for the USPS advised us that shortly after his arrival in the department in early (March) 2008 that he “found” this change in the system and did some research to determine how it occurred. In his research he stated that this is what the officers wanted to do, but he did not relate to NAPS that the organization was ever consulted on this change.

Both NAPUS and the League also had no prior information relative to this change and their members in the field were also surprised when the evaluations came out to the unit finance number level instead of the lead finance number.

The internal research that Tom Henry conducted at USPS HQ was concluded in April, 2008. It was determined by the Postal Service that this was the way that unit goals would be measured. The management associations were not consulted about this change and only became aware of the changes when our members were in the process of completing their end-of-year assessments.

The management associations have two problems with this change. First, we were not consulted and second, it is just a bad idea. If we had been consulted on this change, we would have never agreed to it.

We would have pointed out that resources in the field, especially in a Post Office/Station environment, are shared between offices in order to meet operational needs. This change to measurement down to the finance number level “rewards” offices that needed help and were assisted by lower cost employees, and punishes offices that gave up lower cost employees to other offices and used higher cost overtime to meet operational objectives.

Operations managers in the field were even unaware of this change during the year and they managed their operations as they have done in prior years, moving resources from operation (office) to operation as the needs arose.

On January, 6, 2009, at a meeting at NAPS HQ, Bill Jones advised NAPS that the practice of measuring offices at their finance number would continue and that the remedy to ensure that office who shared resources completed workhour transfers in TACS to re-allocate the workhours to the proper finance number when resources are shared.

The management associations believe that this is a bad idea, for managers and supervisors to arbitrarily transfer hours from their finance number and operations to other finance numbers and operations. The practice of transferring hours is not always accurate, is time consuming and would be unnecessary if the Postal Service simply reverted back to the former system.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

Due to the failure of the Postal Service to consult with the management associations on the change in unit measurement down to the unit finance number level, that the FY 2008 NPA be recomputed back to the lead finance number level and that the Postal service abandon this counterproductive measurement that would cause chaos in daily operations in the field.

Consideration should be given to having Post Office retail revenue calculated at a POOM level rather than to the individual finance number to create more teamwork on revenue generation.

Discussion on Topic:

The management associations brought forward several examples of what measuring performance down to the finance number does, including a postmaster taking transitional carriers from one station and moving them to another station and back-filling the losing office with overtime letter carriers. The office that gave up the lower cost employees suffers while the office with the “loaned” employees benefits with lower cost workhour usage.

Management responded that while they would not go back into the system to bring the tracking of performance that was made to the finance number level back to the lead finance number level they did state that they would consider the management associations recommendation to bring the measurement of unit scores back to the lead finance number in cases where they were changed for 2008. Once the issue is reviewed fully at USPS HQ, they will get back to the management associations to determine the course of action for FY 2009.

End-Of-Year NPA Processes

At the end of the FY 2008 NPA process, NAPS brought to the Postal service’s attention that some of our members were arbitrarily having the Core goal results lowered by reviewing officials. While the Postal Service did take action to correct a few of these cases, there were many instances where the Postal Service did not take the actions we requested or where the member did not file an objection to the arbitrary lowering of their Core goal results.

Some of these arbitrary changes went beyond the normal review process where senior managers are required to review ratings of non-contributor or exceptional contributor and there were cases where individuals who attained high-contributor status had their results arbitrarily lowered by a second-level review.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

More reliance has to be placed on the evaluations that are completed by the immediate manager so that if there are discrepancies in the ratings from the initial level meeting that they will be resolved at the initial level.

We have documented cases where PCES managers who were not even in the same District as our member during the evaluation period, arbitrarily reduced evaluations.
In other instances, PCES managers who left the District during the evaluation period were still reducing evaluations from immediate evaluators in their former Districts.

Second level evaluators should not have the ability to change (reduce) evaluations that are at the high-contributor level to contributor level. It is the function of the immediate manager to review the accomplishments of the employee and make the determination of the scoring. The immediate manager is more knowledgeable of the performance of the employee and is in the best position to evaluate that performance.

Management should maintain the oversight of non-contributor and exceptional contributor, but additional requirements must be placed on the PCES manager to document reductions of scores from exceptional contributor.

Discussion on Topic:

The USPS agreed that additional emphasis has to be placed on following the Administrative Rules for closing out the FY. Management believes that a renewed effort in working with the management associations in the entire NPA process will result in FY 2009.

Management committed to working closer with the management organizations in the adherence to the Administrative Rules and in keeping all of the management organizations involved in the NPA process in the future.

The meeting concluded at 12:10 p.m.

From NAPS:

December 1, 2008 – Through the effort of NAPS in the Consultative Process and the cooperation of The United States Postal Service, a change is being made today to the FY 2009 NPA Core Requirements:

“Reduce Sick Leave Usage” will be removed as an option for employees when selecting Core Requirements. This Core Requirement is being removed at the request of and through the Consultative process with NAPS.

Employees who selected this Core Requirement will be notified via email that their Core Requirements have been returned and they will need to select a different Core Requirement. The Postal Service will provide additional information on how to change your selection of Core Goals due to the removal of Sick Leave as a Core Goal.

In response to a request by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), has suggested changes to the USPS Pay for Performance program, or PFP. PFP determines the annual salary increase for EAS and PCES managers, who do not receive the cost of living and “step” increases added to bargaining unit employees salaries.

The GAO’s key recommendation was that the USPS add new delivery performance indicators to PFP, since the existing delivery indicators (EXFC, etc.), “apply to less than one-fifth of mail volume”.

The GAO found that in the existing PFP program

Corporate and unit indicators related to three strategic goals in USPS’s updated Strategic Transformation Plan3—increasing efficiency, improving service, and generating revenues—collectively account for two-thirds of the average participant’s rating. More specifically, results for efficiency-related indicators, such as USPS’s overall productivity and unit expenses, account for 27 percent of the average participant’s PFP rating; results for service-related indicators, such as the timeliness of delivery for certain types of mail, represent 22 percent of the average rating; and results for revenue-generation indicators, such as national and unit revenues, account for 17 percent of the average rating. However, the weight of PFP indicators varies considerably by participant group, based on the responsibilities and spans of control of various managerial and executive positions.

The report noted that

USPS is in the process of implementing required measurement of delivery performance for market-dominant mail, including new delivery performance measurement systems for mail that is not being measured—such as Standard Mail, bulk First-Class Mail, and Periodicals.4 Together, these three mail types constitute 78 percent of mail volume, including 49 percent for Standard Mail, 25 percent for bulk First-Class Mail, and 4 percent for Periodicals. USPS has recognized that the successful implementation of these new measurement systems will depend, in part, on actions by mailers. USPS expects these actions—including barcoding mail and containers, as well as providing electronic information on mailings—to become more widespread over the next several years. Once the new delivery performance measurement systems are fully implemented and mailers’ participation is sufficient to generate representative data, USPS will have the opportunity to incorporate new delivery performance indicators into its PFP program.

The report also included charts showing the average annual salary increases or lump sum payments earned by participants since the program began in 2003. (Employees whose salary increase would exceed the upper limit of their salary range receive a lump sum payment.) Interestingly, although the goals for executives on the one hand, and managers and supervisors on the other are drawn from the same basket of indicators, executives receive far higher PFP payments. In the first year, 2003, PCES excutives received an average PFP payment (combining increases and lump sums) of 12.7%, while lower level managers and supervisors received 6.5%. Last year, the average PFP for executives was 7.9%, for managers and supervisors 5.2%.

GAO: New Delivery Performance Measures Could Enhance Managers’ Pay for Performance Program

From the NAPS member discussion forum: 

On November 13, 2006, NAPS met with the Postal Service relative to numerous complaints from the field concerning the lack of Core goals that could be chosen for FY 2007. The Postal Service’s stated position is that they narrowed the Core goal selection for FY2007 in order to better drive overall performance in what they stated will be a very difficult year for the Postal Service.

NAPS’ position was that the narrowing of Core goals to a limited number of items did not allow for the proper evaluation of performance for the diverse positions our members hold in the field. This year there is a lack of Core goals within our members “line of sight” compared to those that were available for selection in prior years.

To alleviate the current situation, NAPS offered an alternative to the Postal Service that would allow EAS employees who were not able to agree on the use of the limited Core goals listed for their functional area/position would be able to mutually develop a measurable a Core goal with their evaluator. Once these Core goals were identified and agreed to, they could be entered into the Performance Evaluation System. This suggestion was taken under advisement by the Postal Service.

NAPS will continue to urge the Postal Service to reconsider their current position of maintaining the current narrow listing of Core goals. It is NAPS’ position that some of the FY 2006 Core goals that were eliminated by the Postal Service for the current year were better measurements to employ in evaluating performance in many of the support positions our members hold.

As a result of the inability of the parties to agree to a change in the current Core goals selections available for our members, NAPS is advising our members, who cannot arrive at Core goals from the limited selections for their FY2007 NPA;

Members should enter their objection to the lack of Core goals for their position into the Performance Evaluation System so that the objection can be made part of your individual record for the FY2007 evaluation.

NAPS Headquarters will continue to urge the Postal Service to reconsider their position on this matter and will use the objections of our members as a benchmark of the inadequacy of Core goals for this fiscal year.

Posted in the  Headquarters Announcements section of the NAPS forum:

NAPS has requested a meeting with USPS Headquarters as soon as possible concerning the difficulties that our members are experiencing in the field with respect to selection of Core goals that are appropriate for their positions of record.

The limited offerings in Core goals that have been presented to supervisors this year are making it difficult, if not impossible, to have meaningful discussions in negotiating Core goals.

NAPS HQ will provide updates to the field following our discussion with the Postal Service on this important matter.

“Core goals” are individually assigned targets that, along with performance on corporate and unit goals, determine the level of a manager’s annual salary increase.