U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–442 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. Hrg. 115–352 

THE POSTAL SERVICE’S ACTIONS DURING THE 

2016 CAMPAIGN SEASON: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE 

HATCH ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 19, 2017 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER I. SCHEAFFER, Professional Staff Member 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

DONALD SHERMAN, Minority Senior Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BONNI E. DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 2 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 15 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 18 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 23 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 24 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2017 

Timm Kopp, Letter Carrier, U.S. Postal Service .................................................. 3 

William Siemer, Acting Deputy Inspector General, Office of the Inspector 

General, U.S. Postal Service ............................................................................... 5 

Adams Miles, Acting Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel ........................ 7 

Hon. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer, 

U.S. Postal Service ............................................................................................... 9 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Brennan. Hon. Megan J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Kopp, Timm: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Miles, Adam: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Siemer, William: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

APPENDIX 

United States Postal Service Audit Report ........................................................... 42 

Office of Special Counsel Redacted Report ............................................................ 65 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record 

Mr. Miles ........................................................................................................... 88 

Ms. Brennan ..................................................................................................... 91 

(1) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 23. 

THE POSTAL SERVICE’S ACTIONS DURING 

THE 2016 CAMPAIGN SEASON: IMPLICATIONS 

FOR THE HATCH ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:22 a.m., 

in room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Hoeven, Daines, 

McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Now I will call to order our hearing. I want 

to welcome our witnesses. In particular, I want to thank my home 

State Wisconsinite for, first of all, having the courage of bringing 

this issue to light. I truly appreciate that. I know it takes some 

courage. And, you certainly have demonstrated that throughout the 

process. In meeting with you, I know you never, ever felt this was 

going to rise to this level. 

I have said enough. I really believe my written statement—I will 

put that in the record.1

I do want to say, though, because this issue did affect my State, 

potentially could have affected it when I was in the election cycle, 

I just want to get it on the record. I never made an issue of this. 

This was brought to light before the election. This has nothing to 

do from my standpoint personally. This is all about responding to 

a whistleblower. It is under our Committee’s jurisdiction. We 

turned it over to the Inspector General (IG) and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). They have issued their reports. And, we have 

the Postmaster General here who will respond to those reports. I 

think this is completely cooperative, and I appreciate that fact. 

But, we are just trying to highlight this because there were some 

systemic problems here that people were basically unaware of, and 

this is appearing to highlight that for other departments and other 

agencies so they do not have to deal with the same issue. 

So, again, I just appreciate Mr. Kopp from Wisconsin and our 

witnesses in terms of your testimony and your cooperative effort in 

terms of solving this particular problem. 

With that, I will turn it over to our Ranking Member. 
2 

1The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 24. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL1

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Committee is the principal body in the Senate responsible 

for rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. 

One of the more important functions we also serve is promoting the 

effective enforcement of the Federal Hatch Act, which ensures that 

the Federal Government operates in a manner free from partisan 

political pressure, while also protecting the rights of Federal workers to engage in private political activity. 

The Hatch Act is essential to guaranteeing that Federal employees and all American citizens have confidence in our electoral process. Unfortunately, today’s hearing reveals that the United States 

Postal Service (USPS) has failed to implement sufficient controls to 

ensure compliance with the Hatch Act. Exhaustive investigations 

by both the United States Postal Service Inspector General and the 

Office of Special Counsel have uncovered that the Postal Service’s 

practice of approving leave without pay (LWOP) applications specifically requested by one of its seven unions violated agency policy 

and constituted an institutional and systemic violation of the Hatch 

Act. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing today so that all 

Federal Agencies can benefit from OSC and the IG’s findings so 

that the USPS can chart a path forward. Both the OSC and the 

USPS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted comprehensive reviews and identified findings and recommendations for 

bringing the Postal Service leave policy in compliance with the law. 

I want to thank Mr. Kopp for coming forward with the information that led to these investigations. It is possible these concerns 

would never have been brought to light without him coming forward. 

According to OSC’s findings, the Postal Service problematic leave 

without pay practice for political activity has persisted for more 

than 20 years, a period spanning at least three Administrations, 

several different parties, and five Postmasters General. During 

that time frame, the National Association of Letter Carriers 

(NALC) has endorsed candidates of both parties and donated millions to both Republican and Democratic political campaigns and 

political action committees (PACs). 

As OSC’s report noted, the Postal Service practice is emblematic 

of a systemic problem, not limited to one individual or one election 

cycle. The findings reached by OSC and the Inspector General demand immediate remedial action. While I find it shocking that the 

USPS practice has persisted for as long as it has, I am really encouraged that the United States Postal Service is now focused on 

charting a path forward under Postmaster General Brennan’s leadership. 

United States Postal Service management has pledged to take 

corrective action to ensure the agency maintains a leave without 

pay policy that is compliant with the Hatch Act and addresses the 

concerns raised by these investigations. 

I look forward to working with OSC to ensure that other Federal 

Agencies throughout the Executive Branch abide by the lessons 
3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kopp appears in the Appendix on page 28. 

learned from this investigation and fully comply with the Hatch 

Act. I welcome any recommendations that OSC may have for Congress to improve enforcement of the Hatch Act across the government. 

This is the first hearing we have had in this Committee on our 

electoral process in the election of 2016. Protecting the integrity of 

our electoral process is critical to promoting confidence and participation in our democracy. 

In February, every Democratic Member of this Committee wrote 

to Chairman Johnson requesting that the Committee investigate 

and hold hearings on Russia’s attempts to infiltrate and influence 

the U.S. Presidential election on November 8, 2016, by attacking 

the Nation’s election infrastructure. The election infrastructure is 

part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and lies 

squarely within the jurisdiction of this Committee. I will renew 

today the request of the Democrats on this Committee to have a 

public hearing on Russia’s attempt to infiltrate and influence the 

U.S. Presidential election by attacking our Nation’s election infrastructure and look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

Our tradition of this Committee is to swear in witnesses, so if 

you will all stand and raise your right hand? Do you swear that 

the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, 

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. KOPP. I do. 

Mr. SIEMER. I do. 

Mr. MILES. I do. 

Ms. BRENNAN. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Our first witness is Timm Kopp. Mr. Timm Kopp is a Postal 

Service letter carrier in Marshfield, Wisconsin, a particularly beautiful area of the State that has pretty good health care, as a matter 

of fact. I think it is safe to say that the Marshfield Clinic is a 

world-renowned health care center. Mr. Kopp first raised concerns 

about the Postal Service’s leave practices surrounding the 2016 

election. Mr. Kopp. 

TESTIMONY OF TIMM KOPP,1 LETTER CARRIER, U.S. POSTAL 

SERVICE 

Mr. KOPP. Good morning, everybody. First of all, I guess thank 

you for inviting me here. Like Senator Johnson said earlier, I never 

expected it to get to this point. Basically all I did is I wanted to 

raise concerns about things that I thought were not being done correctly. 

I do not want to go back and go over all the things that I have 

submitted in my written testimony. That is kind of redundant to 

me. 

Looking back, I knew from the previous elections, while I was 

hired at the post office, that the union is always involved highly 

in political activities, and I did not want this to be a partisan thing 

by no regards. I wanted it to be a thing where the general public 
4 

does not lose trust with the integrity of the post office. That is 

where I started with this, and that is where I am going to end with 

it. It is something that the general public needs to have the faith 

and trust in, and if somebody does not want to speak up on things, 

it is just not going to work that way. 

We were always given floor talks on the Hatch Act, and we were 

told, you cannot do things while you are working, using government resources for any type of political activities. 

The problem is in 2016 things seemed to be a little bit different. 

I had more experience carrying mail. I have been there for 10 years 

plus. And, I have also had 6 months as a supervisor, so that time 

to me was kind of valuable, because as a new employee you kind 

of see how things are done, but you do not want to step on toes. 

You do not want to be the one to come in and cause waves. 

As a city carrier, on that viewpoint, you are constantly under 

pressure for meeting times, getting back for schedules, keeping 

within the budget. So, they are always looking at keeping the overtime down, keeping labor costs down, and it is totally understandable. And, as a supervisor, looking at it from that standpoint, you 

are always getting emails; you are always getting phone calls on 

the performances of the people in your office. Things that could totally be unrelated to that cause overtime, that you always have to 

explain via emails, texts, or whatever to people explaining why this 

person was late, why this person did not make it, which is to some 

point understandable, but to some point it gets a little bit nitpicky, 

in my opinion. 

So, to see this happening when an employee comes in with a notice saying that he is to be off work for up to 5 weeks, giving 2 

days’ notice, not allowing the supervisor time to figure out how to 

fill those vacancies, there was no leeway at all. The supervisor 

wanted to say maybe, if we could let you off 3 days next week, a 

couple days off the week after, he was fine with that. It was that 

certain days we are short-staffed. We have people on vacation, 

other things come up. He even wanted to extend the Thursday 

leave and just give him 2 more days to try to cover things and put 

that employee off on Saturday, and that was per our local union 

contract. Once the schedule is up for that week, there is supposed 

to be no more changes unless for emergency reasons. And, that was 

shot down also. It was, ‘‘This person needs to be off. He will be off 

in 2 days regardless. The scheduling issues are of no concern to 

us.’’ And, that is where it went. 

I also know the other local post office was already short-staffed 

to begin with. I had dealt with them consistently as a supervisor, 

responding to emails, things on that order, phone calls that they 

need help, ‘‘We need anybody that you can send us. It does not 

matter if they are a new person. If they do not know the city, it 

does not matter. We need help.’’ 

So, from that standpoint, I know that office was a lot worse off 

than the Marshfield office. And, from what I read in some of the 

reports, it is exactly what I kind of knew what was going on by 

talking to my supervisor. They were sometimes having late trucks, 

running penalty overtime, which is double time, things on that 

order. 
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Siemer appears in the Appendix on page 31. 

So, I had to work personally a few of my days off, which to me 

I am not really that thrilled about, but I also had to work many 

days late, and so did a lot of the other employees. And, that caused 

a lot of—not animosity but a few grumblings, just because of the 

reasons that these people were off, because the post office is not 

supposed to be politically biased, and people did not like the reasons that it was causing all this overtime. 

I thought I went through all the proper channels. I definitely did 

not expect to end up here. I started with my union officials, got nowhere. I went to the State union officials, basically got nowhere 

with them. I went to the national over in Minneapolis, that district 

office, and all I was told was basically, ‘‘This is how it has been 

done for years. You do not need to question this. We are just trying 

to help preserve your job.’’ 

To me, I just want things done fairly. I do not want it done on 

a partisan issue. I want the post office to succeed for the long term 

and not just look to this election or a year down the road. I want 

it to be sustainable because there are a lot of employees that work 

there, and there are a lot of good employees there. But, the way 

that this was done, and from reading the other reports, it was just 

a nightmare. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Kopp. We really do appreciate your willingness to come forward. I think you did exactly the 

right thing. You followed the right channels. 

I would say one of the good news stories about this is that, from 

what we have heard, there was no retaliation, and we have seen 

in so many instances retaliation against people like Mr. Kopp. So, 

there is the good news story. 

Now I guess we will turn to our next witnesses, and we will see 

the bad news story of this, but then hopefully end up with the 

Postmaster General and talk about how cooperatively they are 

going to fix the problem. 

Our next witness is William Siemer. Mr. Siemer is the Acting 

Deputy Inspector General for the Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General. Mr. Siemer joined the Office of Inspector General in 

2003 and previously served in both the Secret Service and Air 

Force Office of Special Investigations. Mr. Siemer. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM SIEMER,1 ACTING DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Mr. SIEMER. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, 

Ranking Member McCaskill, and Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for inviting me to discuss our work on Postal employees’ 

use of leave without pay for election campaigning. 

During last year’s election season, Mr. Kopp expressed concerns 

that certain mail carriers in Wisconsin were taking leave without 

pay to work for union political campaigns. He was concerned that 

the Postal Service was behaving in a partisan manner. He also 

complained the absences were causing operational problems, including additional overtime and an unfair distribution of work 

among employees who remained. 
6 

As a result of that complaint, we investigated and provided our 

findings to the Office of Special Counsel to evaluate for potential 

Hatch Act violations. We also conducted an audit on the nationwide 

use of leave without pay for union campaign activities. 

We determined that, from September through November 2016, 

97 carriers took leave without pay to participate in partisan political campaigns for periods ranging from 4 to 50 days. In total, the 

employees took more than 2,700 days off. Eighty-two percent of 

this time was taken in six States: Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The carriers were associated 

with a single Postal union, the National Association of Letter Carriers. 

Our work found that local managers felt compelled to release the 

carriers for extended periods of time. Several managers initially attempted to deny the requests because of the impact on local operations, but higher-level labor relations or operations managers in 

the field directed them to release the carriers. All 97 carriers were 

ultimately released. 

The releases occurred because a Headquarters Labor Relations 

executive used his position and authority to send emails to local 

Labor Relations managers in the field announcing the release and 

requesting explanations for any carriers that were not released. Because of these and other communications, and the longstanding 

practice of allowing employees to participate in union political campaigns, field Labor Relations and Operations managers believed 

that releasing the employees was mandatory. This circumvented 

Postal Service policy and the ability of Operations supervisors to 

manage work at their local offices. Postal Service policy gives local 

installation heads the administrative discretion to approve leave 

without pay requests of less than a year. Employees make requests 

using a leave form, which supervisors approve or deny. Decisions 

are to be made based on the needs of the employee, the needs of 

the Postal Service, and the cost to the Postal Service. 

Local managers said the leave without pay caused operational 

problems such as increased overtime and delayed delivery of mail. 

In at least one office, the remaining carriers were required to work 

6 days per week, including their normal scheduled days off. Some 

managers and employees also believed the releases were politically 

motivated. 

For our audit, we analyzed the absences of 22 of the 97 carriers 

who took leave without pay across the country. In each instance, 

we examined the assignments that could have been covered if the 

carrier was working. According to our analysis, the use of leave 

without pay resulted in combined net overtime costs of more than 

$90,000 at the 22 facilities we reviewed. 

Throughout our work, we found that Postal Service management 

generally viewed allowing employees to take leave without pay for 

union campaign activities as a customary practice. They saw it as 

a necessary part of cultivating a good relationship with the union, 

even though releasing employees for union campaign activities is 

not required by the collective bargaining agreement. 

In our audit report issued on July 5, 2017, we recommended that 

the Postal Service follow its policy of assessing operational needs 

prior to granting leave without pay requests. We also recommended 
7 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Miles appears in the Appendix on page 36. 

that Labor Relations and Operations improve communications to 

bring up any operational problems caused by employees taking 

time off for union activities. Postal Service management disagreed 

with the premise of our first recommendation and do not intend to 

implement it. They believe they followed their policy. We consider 

management’s comments on this recommendation nonresponsive 

and will work to coordinate a resolution. The Postal Service plans 

to address the second recommendation by improving communications and undertaking an educational campaign about the collective 

bargaining agreement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work, and I am 

happy to answer any questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Siemer. 

I want to apologize to the witnesses. We have a vote called. I 

know we have already had you delay for our business meeting, but 

I think we are going to do this, quick call a recess, and then we 

will come back and continue with the testimony. Right now the 

Committee is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

The hearing will be recalled to order. 

Our next witness will be Adam Miles. Mr. Miles is the Acting 

Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel. Mr. Miles joined 

the Office of Special Counsel in 2011 and previously served as a 

staff member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Mr. Miles. 

TESTIMONY OF ADAM MILES,1 ACTING SPECIAL COUNSEL, 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 

Mr. MILES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and our report regarding Hatch Act violations at the United States Postal Service. My testimony today will 

be relatively brief, but our full report on the Hatch Act issues is 

in the hearing record. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, by the way, everybody’s full written 

testimony is included in the record. 

Mr. MILES. So, at the outset, I just want to thank Mr. Kopp. My 

Dad was a Postal worker for 32 years, and as a whistleblower protection agency, I know that you did not start out to be here, and 

I can promise you that my Dad would have never seen himself sitting in that chair. But you did the right thing, and I really appreciate that and just want to express gratitude for that. 

I also want to thank the OIG for the partnership throughout the 

investigative process and also the OSC staff who did such a bangup job on this report—Carolyn Martorana, Louis Lopez, and Ana 

Galindo-Marrone—for their work. I think a lot of the factual information will mirror what the OIG said, and I think the consistency 

between these investigative findings sort of lays out a story that 

you all can understand and work to improve the situation. 

In 2016, Mr. Kopp submitted to Chairman Johnson information 

that he was concerned about, that the USPS incurred unnecessary 

overtime costs and improperly coordinated with the NALC when it 
8 

released members for several weeks of union official leave without 

pay. So, after receiving a complaint from Chairman Johnson, OSC 

initiated an investigation to determine if these activities violated 

the Hatch Act, and we found that NALC identified certain letter 

carriers to participate in its campaign activities. NALC then sent 

the names of these carriers to a senior headquarters labor relations 

official, and this official then emailed the list of carriers to USPS 

officials at lower levels of management. And, these officials at the 

lower levels of the Postal Service interpreted the communications 

from headquarters as a directive to release the union members on 

union official leave without pay. 

So local supervisors, like you heard from Mr. Kopp, raised concerns about the impact that these releases would have on their operations in terms of overtime costs and mail delivery delays. But 

despite their objections, USPS managers instructed the local supervisors to release the carriers anyway. 

We concluded that the USPS practice of facilitating and directing 

carrier releases for the union’s political activity and the use of 

union official leave without pay for such activity resulted in an institutional bias in favor of NALC’s endorsed political candidates 

and that this violated the Hatch Act. 

To correct these systemic violations, we made two recommendations to USPS. 

First, we recommended that USPS management not require, direct, or suggest that local supervisors release union members to engage in political activity. We are asking them to take a hands-off 

approach to the political activity. 

The Postal unions and individual employees are permitted—I 

want to be clear about this, and the law, in fact, encourages 

them—to maintain PACs, endorse candidates, and enlist union 

members to support their electoral agendas on their own time. But 

USPS headquarters and labor relations managers should not enable a union’s lawful political activity through official practices and 

directives that create institutional biases for certain candidates. 

Our second recommendation is, to ensure that it is administering 

its programs in a politically neutral manner, USPS should exclude 

political activity, as defined by the Hatch Act, from the acceptable 

uses of union official leave without pay. Our concern is that officially characterizing NALC’s partisan political activity as ‘‘union 

business’’ affords this activity official advantages and benefits that 

should be reserved for other traditional union business, such as 

training and conferences. 

We have communicated these recommendations to the USPS, 

and the Postmaster General appears ready to take the steps necessary to comply with the Hatch Act, and that is very encouraging. 

A few important points as I conclude. While we determined that 

the USPS engaged in systemic violations of the Hatch Act, we did 

not determine that any USPS management officials helped NALC 

to identify or select carriers to participate in the campaign program. And, the evidence does not support a finding that USPS officials sought to assist NALC’s favored candidates in achieving electoral success. Rather, the evidence suggests that USPS engaged in 

this practice to engender goodwill with the union. And, while that 

is a laudable goal, as a Federal entity, the USPS must remain po-
9 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Brennan appears in the Appendix on page 38. 

litically neutral. Although the USPS is exempt from many other 

civil service laws, Congress chose specifically to ensure that USPS 

employees are covered by the Hatch Act’s restrictions. And, a primary purpose of the Hatch Act is to promote public confidence in 

the nonpartisan administration of the laws by the Federal Government. 

In many localities, the Postal Service is a citizen’s primary point 

of contact with the government, and this reinforces the need for the 

Postal Service to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the 

Hatch Act. 

Given these considerations, again, we are encouraged by the 

USPS’ initial response to our recommendations. We believe the 

USPS is committed to ensuring full compliance with the Hatch Act, 

while also allowing its employees to participate fully in the political 

process to the extent permitted by law. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward to 

your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Miles. 

Our final witness is the Honorable Megan J. Brennan. Ms. Brennan is the 74th Postmaster General and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the United States Postal Service. Postmaster General 

Brennan began her career as a letter carrier in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Madam Postmaster. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MEGAN J. BRENNAN,1 POSTMASTER GENERAL AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Ms. BRENNAN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, 

Ranking Member McCaskill, and Members of the Committee. I am 

pleased to represent the 640,000 hardworking and dedicated men 

and women of the United States Postal Service, individuals like 

Mr. Kopp, and I would like to thank him for his service and thank 

him for his testimony here today. These men and women play a 

vital role in every American community every day. 

Last Friday, the Postal Service received the Office of Special 

Counsel report concerning a Hatch Act investigation. The OSC determined that a longstanding practice of the Postal Service violates 

the Hatch Act by enabling union political activity. 

In order to prevent any future violations of the Hatch Act, I want 

to give this Committee my complete and unconditional commitment 

that the United States Postal Service fully accepts and will fully 

implement all of the recommendations and directions of the OSC. 

In response to the initial allegations that prompted the OSC’s investigation, I can say without any reservation or qualification that 

senior postal leadership, including myself, did not in any way guide 

union leadership in selecting the candidates for whom Postal union 

employees could campaign, did not approve or choose candidates 

for the unions to support, and did not ask the union to advocate 

for political candidates on behalf of the Postal Service. Neither the 

United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General nor the 

OSC found any evidence to the contrary. 
10 

Furthermore, with respect to the leave without pay practice that 

violated the Hatch Act, the OSC found that the violation was not 

intentional and that it was not motivated by any desire to support 

or oppose a particular party or candidate. 

In its report, the OSC recommends that the Postal Service take 

certain affirmative steps to prevent future Hatch Act violations. 

First, to ensure that we are administering our programs in a politically neutral manner, the OSC directs that the Postal Service 

exclude political activity, as defined by the Hatch Act, from the acceptable uses of leave without pay for official union leave. The 

Postal Service accepts this direction, and we will implement this 

change to ensure that we do not put our people in harm’s way and 

they do not unintentionally run afoul of the Hatch Act. 

Second, the OSC recommends that the Postal Service should implement a hands-off approach to a union’s political activity. The 

Postal Service likewise accepts this recommendation, and we will 

implement this change. The Postal Service will work with the OSC 

to design corrective measures by its August 31, 2017, deadline. 

Further, in light of the concerns that have been raised and in 

view of the OSC’s determinations here, the Postal Service will expand its communications efforts on the Hatch Act. We will also 

educate our employees about the changes that we make to our current leave without pay practices. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States Postal Service delivers for the 

American public—both literally and figuratively. We will continue 

to safeguard America’s trust in the Postal Service. We take these 

responsibilities seriously, and we will fully comply with the OSC’s 

recommendations and directions. 

Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and 

Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today. I 

welcome any questions that you may have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Madam Postmaster General. 

As I am preparing for this hearing here and reading through all 

the testimony and reading something that the systemic violation of 

the Hatch Act covering multiple elections, and then you get further 

down into the reports, but it was nobody’s fault. There is nobody 

that needs to be disciplined. I mean, you kind of have to scratch 

your head, going, ‘‘How can you have such a longstanding systemic 

violation of the Hatch Act and yet nobody is really held accountable?’’ 

Why was it systemic? Why did it go on for so long? I will just 

ask Mr. Siemer first. 

Mr. SIEMER. During our investigation it seemed that it was 

adopted just as a practice where nobody was really looking at it 

through the lens of is this appropriate or not. So, I do not believe 

anybody questioned in the labor relations headquarters office 

whether or not what they were doing was wrong. And then, once 

the communications went down to the field, the culture and the 

practice is that it is mandatory, it is directive. 

So, I am not sure there was any analysis given to whether or not 

what they were doing should be done based on our investigation. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Miles, what is your kind of explanation 

for that? 
11 

Mr. MILES. So, one answer is that nobody was as brave as Mr. 

Kopp was over the years. I mean, I think that people did raise 

operational concerns, but nobody sort of stood up and spoke out in 

the way that he did, brought it to the attention to you, gave us the 

opportunity to take a look at it. 

And, again, there was a senior labor relations official at headquarters that sent an email directing the lower-level officials to 

enable the union political activity. But, the followup, everybody got 

in line down the chain to sort of implement that directive, and that 

is why we were looking at it more as an institutional violation 

versus pinning the blame on one individual or another. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It was also very obvious which candidates 

the union supported, correct? There was no secret there. It was not 

like this was unknown to the Postal Service management. 

Mr. MILES. That is correct. And, that is part of analysis, too, that 

even if the managers were not to help or hurt a particular candidate, they knew that their intent was to enable the political activity by NALC, and their chosen candidates were public. 

Chairman JOHNSON. And, they knew there was pushback from 

supervisors because Mr. Kopp testified that they were really hampering their ability to design their schedules, and it was going to 

cost overtime, and it was going to inconvenience other Postal employees who may have been for the other candidate. Those individuals were going to have to work the overtime. They were going to 

have to cancel their vacation because these individuals who were 

going to go to work for known candidates of one political party that 

was pretty well being imposed upon them by Postal Service management? 

Mr. MILES. That is correct. And, sort of the disparate impact of 

this is what bothered us in large part. Again, if NALC, sort of the 

institutional advantages that come with a union official request for 

leave without pay, that one is going to get approved. But, if somebody else just wants to go to their boss and ask for permission to 

go on leave, now the slots are already taken. So if I am a Green 

Party supporter, if I am a Republican Party supporter, I do not get 

to go do this work. And, that creates the disparate impact that we 

were concerned about. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, that was very obvious, that if you 

wanted to go to work for a different—a non-endorsed candidate, 

you were not going to get the time off. 

Mr. MILES. That is right. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You were certainly not going to be supported by Postal Service management to make sure that, no, give 

that Postal worker time off without pay. 

Madam Postmaster General, in your written testimony, I will 

quote, ‘‘the evidence simply does not support any allegation that 

any Postal Service officials sought to assist the NALC’s favored 

candidates.’’ But on page 20 of the OSC, to quote their report, ‘‘only 

carriers who wanted to campaign for NALC’s endorsed candidates 

were given the opportunity to take several weeks of leave on short 

notice, over the objections of local supervisors who raised concerns 

about potential operational impact.’’ 

Again, it was no secret what the Postal union was trying to accomplish, who they were endorsing, and as Mr. Miles stated, if you 
12 

were going to leave to campaign for somebody else, you were not 

going to get that leave. I am kind of scratching my head on the fact 

that you are saying that there was no Postal Service official sought 

to assist NALC. It seems like you people in the Postal Service fully 

supported and assisted the NALC in their effort. 

Ms. BRENNAN. Mr. Chairman, some context. Ninety-two percent 

of our employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements 

by law. We are a human organization. It is in our interest to maintain and foster good working relationships with the union. 

What transpired here was a longstanding practice that was accepted, that expanded the definition of ‘‘union leave’’ to ‘‘union 

leave for political activity.’’ As noted, this was a case of first impression for the OSC. We fully accept and will fully implement 

their recommendations and directions, and we will no longer permit leave without pay for union political activity. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Obviously, one of the reasons we are holding this hearing is to make sure that we highlight this so that 

other Agencies, other departments, have not followed—if they have 

followed the same track, they can also take corrective action. I will 

just ask both Mr. Siemer and Mr. Miles, are you aware of any 

other Agencies? Just in your work now that this has been publicized, has anybody come to you, any other Offices of Inspector 

General? Obviously, with the Special Counsel, you might have access to oversight of other agencies. Are you aware of this occurring 

anyplace else throughout the Federal Government? 

Mr. SIEMER. I am not aware of that, sir. 

Mr. MILES. No, we have not heard any similar allegations. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Well, again, I appreciate all your testimony, and I will turn it over to Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is terrific that we have uncovered this problem. I think 

it is even better—as a former auditor, I can tell you that one of the 

most pleasant experiences you have as an auditor is when the organization that is being investigated and looked at, they can do one 

of two things: they can circle the wagons and argue with you, or 

they can say, ‘‘Hey, thank you. You have pointed out a problem, 

and we are going to fix it.’’ I am really pleased, Ms. Brennan, that 

you fall in the latter category, that you have looked at this issue 

and said, ‘‘We are going to fix this.’’ And, I assume that both you, 

Mr. Siemer, and you, Mr. Miles, have no criticism about how they 

have handled your recommendations or their commitment for going 

forward with your recommendations. 

Mr. MILES. No, we have none and are really encouraged by it as 

well. 

Mr. SIEMER. We have not had a chance to follow up with the 

Postal Service yet based on the findings in our report. Initially, 

they did not agree with one of our recommendations or the financial impact. But, since they have received the OSC’s information, 

we would like to talk to them about what they are going to do to 

address OSC’s findings. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, when you are speaking of financial impact, I am not aware—and maybe there is information that we 

have not had a chance to look at, but was there any final analysis 
13 

as to what the set-off was in—because these people took leave 

without pay. Correct? 

Mr. SIEMER. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, the Postal Service did not pay them 

while they were gone. 

Mr. SIEMER. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Was there any attempt to set off what the 

overtime costs versus what the pay was that the agency saved by 

them taking these days of unpaid leave? 

Mr. SIEMER. Our auditors evaluated the days where those carriers were not present in the office to calculate how much overtime 

and additional costs were expended to cover the activities those 

carriers would have covered. So, that is where the financial impact 

that we estimated came from. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, but you did not do a set-off? 

Mr. SIEMER. No, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. A business analysis would require—this is 

the auditor in me coming out. A business analysis would require 

that you would set off the overtime cost against the saved salaries 

that were not paid for those days. That did not occur, correct? 

Mr. SIEMER. Let me clarify. I do not know if a set-off occurred. 

I am not aware of that. I can get that information for you afterwards. I just know how we calculated the additional overtime costs 

that were incurred as a result of their departure, but—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, but you did not calculate the money 

saved by these people leaving without pay. 

Mr. SIEMER. I do not know the answer to that, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. That would be important for us to 

know whether or not this was a net loss to USPS or whether it was 

a net gain to USPS. 

Mr. SIEMER. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It would depend on how much the overtime 

was compared to the level of salaries that the people had that left 

and whether or not there was temporary work. I think the temporary work is like $10 an hour. So, I do not know that I need you 

to spend a lot of time doing that. I just think it is important to 

point out that we do not know at this point in time whether it was 

a gain or a loss. 

Mr. Kopp, I want to thank you. I know the Chairman mentioned 

it, but this is really important to us—that you state on the record 

today whether or not you believe you have been retaliated against 

for you coming forward. 

Mr. KOPP. Yes. No, nobody has said anything, done anything. 

That was absolutely a concern because I still need to work at this 

organization, and I did not want to have to deal with that. But, I 

have had no issues at all. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is terrific news. Will you make sure 

that you let Chairman Johnson or my office know if that changes 

in any regard? 

Mr. KOPP. Absolutely. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Because we are anxious to protect you. 

Mr. KOPP. Yes. 
14 

Senator MCCASKILL. In this Committee we depend on people 

coming forward and telling us about problems, and so we want to 

make sure that they are fully protected. 

I know this is on the Hatch Act, but I am really worried 

about Postal reform. And, I think that in the grand scheme of 

things—while I certainly agree that this hearing is important and 

enforcing the Hatch Act is important, in the grand scheme of 

things getting the Postal reform across the finish line is much more 

important, Mr. Kopp, to the future of your job than this hearing. 

And, I want to make sure that I ask at least one question on that. 

Ms. Brennan, are you feeling optimistic about the progress that 

is being made in the House? We have not had a bill introduced 

over here yet. I know that Senator Carper is still working on it. 

But, I know the Medicare integration has proved a little thorny 

over there. I have been trying to follow it closely. I care very much 

about it. 

What is your assessment of where we stand right now? And, are 

you optimistic or pessimistic that we can find the political will 

around here to do the basics when it comes to Postal reform in 

terms of putting it on a more sound financial path going forward? 

Ms. BRENNAN. Senator McCaskill, I am optimistic. Three months 

into the new session, we had a bill with bipartisan support voted 

out of Committee, H.R. 756. However, given some of the other public policy issues and the change in Chair, there has been some 

transition in the House. 

We do recognize that the Medicare integration issue, which is a 

cornerstone and key to our legislative ask, is an issue that is yet 

to be resolved. We are looking to meet with Chairman Brady to address that issue, but the need for Postal reform is urgent. Our financial condition is worsening. We will end this fiscal year (FY) 

with a projected $3.2 billion net loss. The volume declines are continuing. We will see roughly a 4-billion-piece decline this year. 

So, we are in a position that we need this reform, we need to stable our finances. The Postal Service is committed to taking the appropriate actions to respond to the latent capacity in our system, 

the change in the mail mix to drive operating efficiency, but we 

need legislative support. 

And, if I may just for a moment, to your comment and question 

to Mr. Kopp, you have our assurances. There will be no recriminatory action. In fact, as noted, we appreciate him coming forward. 

I spoke with him at the recess and actually am trying to recruit 

him into management. [Laughter.] 

Senator MCCASKILL. There you go. And, I do know that Senator 

Carper, to his great credit, has found a way to pay for the hit to 

Medicare, but his idea seems to be struggling for momentum. If 

you have any ideas on how we can do more on this side to push 

our House colleagues—I know if they get a bill out over there, I am 

confident that the Chairman will want to move forward because it 

is time to get Postal reform done. I should not speak for him. He 

can probably speak for himself much better than I could speak for 

him. But, I thought I would give it a shot, anyway. 

Ms. BRENNAN. Well, thank you. And, I look forward to meeting 

with both of you and to advancing Postal reform. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you very much. 
15 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

So, let me run through a series of questions to try to be able to 

set the context. We have 97 Postal employees that took time off, 

unpaid leave for them to be able to do political activities, but that 

caused other Postal employees to have to do additional overtime, 

some of them involuntarily, at greater cost to the Postal Service because of that, and so the appearance is it is an offset. The Postal 

Service was assisting in some ways the political activities. Though 

those individuals were not receiving compensation, the Postal Service was having to pay more for those individuals to be able to take 

on political activities. Is that correct or not correct? 

Mr. SIEMER. That is correct. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, let me ask this question then: According 

to the OIG’s report when it came out, a Postal Service labor 

relations manager sent an email out, and the email says it limits— 

well, let me just say it this way: The names, it says, of the individuals, the names were approved at the highest level of USPS management. The endorsed candidates have proven themselves to be in 

agreement with the objectives to the NALC to hold and strengthen 

and protect USPS. That really is the nature of what we are doing. 

Since the USPS cannot advocate for themselves, they are allowing 

us to do it. 

So, through that email—let me ask a couple of questions on that. 

Where did that email take you in the investigation to be able to 

have an email like that? 

Mr. SIEMER. So, we talked to the author of that email, and he 

backed off on the assertion that the Postal Service senior management was involved in selecting the candidates or directly being involved in the political activities. He meant that the Postal Service 

had, he believed, some common interests in having friendly politicians involved in being in place to support Postal Service priorities. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, was there any other investigation or any 

other tracking of what he meant by the statement, ‘‘the highest levels of USPS approved this’’? 

Mr. SIEMER. He was not aware of anybody in the highest levels 

of management being involved in this initiative. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, that was just a lie? 

Mr. SIEMER. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, was there any way to be able to validate 

that, whether it is a lie or whether it was true? 

To be able to back up—obviously, he has already put one lie out 

there then. Is there any way to be able to substantiate that or not 

substantiate that, any investigation on other email chains or any 

other conversations over there? 

Mr. SIEMER. So, we evaluated all the emails between senior Postal management, and we did interviews. There was no evidence to 

suggest that senior Postal officials were involved in this election or 

identification of either carriers or candidates. 

Senator LANKFORD. Where would he get the impression, ‘‘Since 

the USPS cannot advocate for themselves, they are allowing us to 

do it’’? 
16 

Mr. SIEMER. I have no idea. 

Mr. MILES. So, we talked to that gentleman, too, and he did the 

same; he backed off of sort of the core allegations in that email. 

But, to put it in a context, how we would look at it is that what 

he said is he was not in a position to know what USPS senior management knew or did not know. But, I think I would go back to Mr. 

Kopp’s statement. What that email did was it sort of reinforced the 

perception that existed—right?—because of this leave without pay 

program, that folks sort of in the field and folks at a local level 

thought that USPS management was supporting and enabling this 

activity. 

So, we have sort of an actual technical violation with the emails 

that are being sent from headquarters, but then we have this perception that goes against what Mr. Kopp was saying. We want the 

USPS to be operating in an independent, nonpartisan manner. But, 

when you have folks sort of up and down the chain believing that 

there is this institutional bias in favor of certain candidates, then 

we should recommend and take steps backward to avoid that perception. And, that is why I think that we are encouraged with the 

USPS reaction to our recommendations. It will alleviate that perception and that perceived bias and the actual bias that we found. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes, there is no question, any individual can 

vote however they choose to vote. They can engage in those conversations. They are American citizens. These are great Federal 

employees and members and workers of the USPS. There is no 

angst there. 

What I am trying to figure out is this has every appearance that 

not only this is longstanding but that it was the assumption: ‘‘Of 

course, we are going to go take down Senate candidates. We do not 

have a voice, and we do not like what they are doing, so why we 

would not try to flip the Senate to be able to change the reality of 

what is happening there?’’ 

When they put out a word like this, that is a pretty clear statement, and it looks like a pretty clear perception of what was happening. When you can read even the materials that came out from 

the union as well, it was pretty clear it was constantly reinforcing 

this. And, when supervisors get the message, ‘‘No, you have to let 

these people off because they are working for us,’’ or, ‘‘We are doing 

what we are doing because the management cannot do it, and so 

we are going to do it for them,’’ that is a pretty clear political operation, quite frankly. 

Mr. MILES. Yes, we agree. 

Mr. SIEMER. The only thing I would just follow up on, sir, is the 

author of that email was not the only Postal manager that believed 

the decision was partisan. There were four other managers in our 

investigation that told us that they believed the decision to release 

these carriers, they believed from their perspective that it had to 

be politically motivated. But, again, we found no evidence that that 

was actually the case. It was just their belief from where they were 

sitting. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, the statement has been made by OIG and 

by Office of Special Counsel that this was not an individual violation of the Hatch Act, though there have been Postal employees in 

the past that have run for office and have been found in violation 
17 

of the Hatch Act, but this was not a Hatch Act violation, but institutionally there was an issue with that. How do I deal with institutionally there is a problem other than statements? Then who do we 

interact with as a Committee to say is this fixed, is this not fixed? 

I understand the Office of Special Counsel, the IG’s office. Where 

do I go? 

Ms. BRENNAN. If I may, Senator Lankford, the OSC’s determination, we are bound by that. So, we have a work group of our General Counsel, our lawyers. We will work with them to ensure the 

countermeasures we put in place, including ending the practice of 

approving leave without pay for union political activity, ends and 

we are consistent with their recommendations and direction. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So, who would be to be able to come 

back to you to be able to help confirm, be able to track this through 

as far as processing in the days ahead? 

Ms. BRENNAN. I would take responsibility for that, and certainly 

with the OSC’s recommendation and concurrence that we did follow 

the letter of their intent. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. Were there any individuals in the investigation that were determined—they asked for leave but they wanted to help the wrong party or the wrong task and so they were not 

given leave? 

Mr. SIEMER. No, not that I am aware of. 

Mr. MILES. We did not hear from anyone. 

Senator LANKFORD. Good. Because, again, if individuals were 

taking off to get a chance to participate, they should be able to participate. The challenge is here it was clear that there was a direction here that cost the USPS, which is obviously struggling financially. That is one of the things that we talk about here consistently on what to be able to do, that we have to be able to resolve 

that and not have additional burden. 

So, Mr. Kopp, in stepping up as a whistleblower, an exceptionally 

difficult thing to do around your peers and in the task. I appreciate 

you stepping up to do it. We try to be able to encourage every individual to be able to work through the right process, as you did 

through this. Your response was not to call Members of Congress 

and find ways to be able to expose all this. You tried to work 

through the chain and to be able to do it appropriately, and I appreciate anyone who wants to be able to do that. And, quite frankly, not just about political activities but about whatever it may be. 

We all are taxpayers as well as people that serve for the Federal 

Government. Just about everybody in this room serves for the taxpayer. But we are also taxpayers, and so we are all trying to be 

attentive to that. So, I appreciate any Federal employee stepping 

up, anyone trying to do that. So, thanks for that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Heitkamp. 
18 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kopp, let me echo the sentiments of almost everyone here. 

It is not easy to be plopped in the middle of Washington, D.C., in 

a big hearing room and tell your story. But, I bet you it was not 

easy to step up and do the right thing, and so I want to tell you 

how much we appreciate that. I want to appreciate the professionalism of the investigation and the professionalism of the response from the United States Postal Service. 

This is a can-do story, and hopefully this hearing will provide 

and illuminate this kind of issue going forward for other agencies. 

And so, I appreciate the way the Chairman has handled it and the 

way the Ranking Member has handled it. 

But, I want to build on Senator McCaskill’s line of reasoning. I 

continue to be deeply concerned about the lack of systemic reform 

within the Postal Service. I think it has had a very negative effect 

on service, and ultimately, we sit here as a board of directors, almost, but yet you are not getting the direction and you are not getting the reforms that you need to continue to make the post office 

viable into the future. And so, as somebody who represents a rural 

community that is deeply dependent, as you see in the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) reports, on mail service delivery, we 

continue to be concerned. 

I want to raise another issue, which I think actually adds to the 

concern that I have about oversight and the ability to do hearings 

like this, and that is that we do not have a Board of Governors 

(BOG). Right? 

Ms. BRENNAN. That is correct. 

Senator HEITKAMP. This should concern all of us. And, since 

there is no confirmed Governors, none at this time, they could not 

be part of this investigation. So, for you, probably, Megan, how 

might a fully functioning or at least partially functioning Board of 

Governors have been helpful through this process from an accountability perspective? 

Ms. BRENNAN. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. Clearly, we are 

best served having a fully constituted board comprised of individuals with different perspectives, different backgrounds to provide 

oversight, strategic direction. It would be helpful to have a sounding board, and I would respectfully ask, in addition to Postal reform, that as the Administration nominates Postal Governors that 

we move apace to confirm them. That would go a long way in positioning the organization. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Where are we? Have you heard anything 

from the White House in terms of nominees? 

Ms. BRENNAN. Yes. The information we have is that there are a 

number of individuals that are currently being vetted and that the 

process is moving forward. So, we are optimistic that potentially as 

early as the fall we may have a number of seated Governors. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I do not think there is any doubt that we 

have failed in our oversight responsibility and our management responsibility of the post office. 

I want to make the point that there are 650,000 Federal employees, employees who we have trust and faith in, especially people in 

rural areas who build relationships with the people they serve. 
19 

When several employees, including supervisors and area operation 

managers, realized that allowing this number of letter carriers to 

take leave would have a sizable impact, obviously, on the day-today operations, that is—I mean, we can all see how this could get 

completely out of hand if we were not taking a look at it. And so, 

I want to applaud you, Megan, for all the work that you are attempting to do. 

When you look at your testimony, you note the importance of ensuring that Postal employees are further educated about the Hatch 

Act, and as a way to prevent future violations, how do you plan on 

communicating that as a preventive method? The post office has 

led the way on some of the follow up to the IG reports. I think you 

could also be an example of what other Agencies could do. So, tell 

us about that heightened education that you plan on undertaking. 

Ms. BRENNAN. Yes, Senator Heitkamp. A number of different mediums that we use. We utilize oral, written, digital communications 

to employees in the workplace, to their home. We utilize scrolls on 

our advanced computing systems to educate them. We use what we 

call ‘‘smart business moments,’’ which is really just common sense 

to protect employees and ensure that we abide by all Postal policies 

and procedures. 

So, there will be a number of venues we will do. I will do videos. 

We will do stand-up talks in the workplace environment. And, I 

think we were effective in expanding that information prior to the 

2016 election. We need to do that and ensure that cascades down 

throughout the workforce. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I get what you are saying about the methods. 

What about the message? That is what I am saying. 

Ms. BRENNAN. Oh, the message. I apologize. 

Senator HEITKAMP. No. That is OK. 

Ms. BRENNAN. And it was interesting because Mr. Kopp mentioned that right at the outset. As Postal employees, we pride ourselves on being the most trusted Government Agency. And, we are 

nonpartisan; we are independent; we are apolitical. We need to 

maintain that trust that the American public has in us. That is a 

competitive advantage. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, maybe I am just not making myself all 

that clear, because a lot of times when you have a lot of this message, it is like, ‘‘Here we go again.’’ It does not sink in. And, obviously, as I understand this situation, this is not a new problem. 

This has been going on. This has been something that has happened year to year and just been accepted until Mr. Kopp came forward and raised the awareness, which led to all this investigation 

and all this follow-through. 

So, what part of the messaging are you delivering, what kind of 

message are you delivering to say there has been a change, that 

attitude that we have had in the past is not what we are doing 

now? 

Ms. BRENNAN. Well, we will certainly communicate that that 

longstanding practice of expanding the definition of ‘‘union business’’ to include union political activity cannot continue, will not 

continue, that we will abide by the OSC’s recommendations and directions. And, we need to be clear that, again, it goes back to the 

trust that the American people have in the Postal Service. While 
20 

we are a microcosm of society with 640,000 employees, we are a 

trusted Federal agency. 

And so, I will emphasize the importance of this, that this was a 

Hatch Act violation and, frankly, to be labeled as ‘‘institutional 

bias’’ and a ‘‘systemic violation’’ to me is pretty damning. And so, 

I will ensure that that is communicated and that is heard throughout this organization. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Again, just to reiterate, we need to get Postal 

reform done because these things, they all land in your lap, and 

you are there alone. And, this needs to be fixed, and we need to 

have better opportunities for oversight and accountability on service standards, on a whole host of issues. And, I want to thank you 

and your staff. You have been extraordinarily gracious to my staff 

and to me personally in responding to our concerns. But, we have 

to get this done. And, it is a bit of business that should be easy, 

but it is not. And so, thank you, and I thank all of you, especially 

you, Mr. Kopp, for your courage and for your commitment to the 

institution that you work for, which is really by extension the taxpayers of this country. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. 

One of the reasons it is difficult is because we are talking tens, 

hundreds of billions of dollars, and I appreciate your line of questioning because, as it is in the report, ‘‘systemic violations,’’ and, 

Madam Postmaster General, you just said ‘‘institutional bias.’’ In 

my mind, I was kind of thinking ‘‘cultural bias,’’ and I think that 

is an institutional problem. I think that is one of the things that 

this hearing has certainly brought to the fore and that is something that I think really does need to be corrected. 

I am completely on board and I think this Committee has done 

a good job under the previous Administration and this one, when 

we have nominees before us, we will do our work and report those 

to the Senate. The Senate is going to have to do its work. News 

reports said that at the same point in time in the Obama administration, 69 percent of nominees had been confirmed. The Trump administration is 23. So, if you would help us in terms of working 

with your colleagues to not make us burn the full clock on all these 

nominations so we can actually staff the Administration, we can 

work together on that. And, Senator McCaskill, I think you would 

like to say something. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, I think we are moving to that point because I think we are really more protesting the fact that there had 

been no hearings or no regular order—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. I am offering you hearings. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I know. No regular order on the health care 

issue, and we were struggling with a way to communicate how 

frustrated we were that we were being shut out of a really important process. But, I can tell you I think that there is a lot of discussion ongoing now that that is going to stop. But, we cannot confirm 

until we have nominees. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I understand. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, that is another problem we have had. 

Chairman JOHNSON. There is a pretty good backlog. Let us really 

end it on a bipartisan note. We are going to work together—— 
21 

Senator MCCASKILL. We agree that we need to have more nominees confirmed and more nominees. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We will. And, we will work together on this, 

health care, hearings and laying out reality. 

So, again, I want to thank Mr. Kopp, you possibly have an opportunity. That will be interesting if we see some promotional opportunities come out of this hearing as well to reward your courage but 

just your managerial skill as well. 

I want to thank all the witnesses. In the end, again, this was 

highlighting a problem, but in many respects a real good news 

story: no retaliation, total cooperation between the Postal Service 

and the Inspector General and the Office of Special Counsel. This 

is the way this process should work. I just want to thank all the 

witnesses. 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until August 

3rd at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for 

the record. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(23) 

A P P E N D I X 
24 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Full Committee Hearing: "The Postal Service's Actions During the 2016 Campaign Season: 

Implications for the Hatch Act" 

July 19, 2017 

Senator Claire McCaskill 

Opening Statement 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

This Committee is the principal body in the Senate responsible for rooting 

out waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. One of the most important 

functions we serve is promoting the effective enforcement of the federal Hatch 

Act, which ensures that the federal government operates in a manner free from 

partisan political pressure, while also protecting the rights of federal workers to 

engage in private political activity. The Hatch Act is essential to guaranteeing that 

federal employees and all American citizens have confidence in our electoral 

process. 

Unfortunately, today's hearing reveals that the United States Postal Service 

has failed to implement sufficient controls to ensure compliance with the Hatch 

Act. Exhaustive investigations by both the USPS Inspector General and the Office 

of Special Counsel have uncovered that the Postal Service's practice of approving 

leave without pay applications specifically requested by one of its seven unions -

the National Association of Letter Carriers for union political activity -violated 
25 

agency policy and constituted an "institutional" and "systemic" violation of the 

Hatch Act. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing today so that all federal agencies 

can benefit from OSC and the IG's findings and so that USPS can chart a path 

forward. Both OSC and the USPS Office of the Inspector General conducted 

comprehensive reviews of this matter to identify findings and recommendations for 

bringing the Postal Service's leave policy in compliance with the Jaw. 

And I want to especially thank Mr. Kopp for coming forward with the 

information that led to these investigations. Without his courage and persistence, 

it's possible that these concerns would have never been brought to light. 

According to OSC's findings, the Postal Service's problematic leave without 

pay practice for political activity has persisted for more than twenty years, a period 

spanning at least three Administrations and five Postmasters General. During that 

time frame, NALC has endorsed candidates of both parties and donated millions to 

both Republican and Democratic political campaigns and political action 

committees. As OSC's report noted, the Postal Service's practice is emblematic of 

a systemic problem, not limited to one individual or one election cycle. 

The findings reached by OSC and the Inspector General demand immediate 

remedial action. While I find it shocking that this USPS practice has persisted for 
26 

as long as it has, I am encouraged that USPS is now focused on charting a path 

forward under Postmaster General Brennan's leadership. 

USPS management has pledged to take corrective action to ensure that the 

agency maintains a leave without pay policy that is compliant with the Hatch Act 

and addresses the concerns raised by these investigations. I look forward to 

regular updates from the Postal Service about its ongoing progress in making these 

necessary changes. 

I also look forward to working with OSC to ensure that other federal 

agencies throughout the executive branch abide by the lessons learned from this 

investigation and fully comply with the Hatch Act. I welcome any 

recommendations that OSC may have for Congress to improve enforcement of the 

Hatch Act across the government. 

Protecting the integrity of our electoral process is critical to promoting 

confidence and participation in our democracy. As such, on February 17, 2017, 

every Democratic Member of this Committee wrote to Chairman Johnson 

requesting that the "Committee investigate and hold hearings on Russia's attempts 

to infiltrate and influence the U.S. presidential election on November 8, 2016, by 

attacking the nation's election infrastructure." 
27 

To date, the Chairman has not responded to this letter from his colleagues or 

scheduled any hearings examining Russia's confirmed and ongoing interference 

with our election infrastructure. At my request, DHS officials briefed the 

Committee last week in a classified setting regarding the infiltration attempts into 

State voter registration systems. That briefing left me more convinced than ever of 

the need to have an open, public discussion regarding this threat and what is 

necessary to ensure that future elections are free and fair. These matters are of 

grave national importance and squarely fall within the Committee's jurisdictional 

prerogative. 

While today is the Committee's first hearing examining violations of federal 

law arising from the 2016 election cycle, my hope is that Chairman Johnson will 

agree to my request to examine the impact that Russian interference has had on our 

election infrastructure as well as what steps DHS and other federal agencies need 

to take to ensure that it never happens again. Thank you. 
28 

Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs 

Hearing regarding the Postal Service's Actions During the 2016 Campaign Season. 

Wednesday July 19, 2017 

Good morning, my name is Timm Kopp. I am letter carrier of 10 years in Marshfield Wisconsin. I am also 

a member of the National Association of letter Carriers (NALC) Branch 978. I am the person who 

reported the actions that I thought were illegal during the 2016 election period. I would like to be very 

clear on this. I am not in my opinion trying to hurt the Postal Service in any way. It has provided me with 

a very demanding and challenging place to work and a love for the job. I want it to be a profitable, 

sustainable place of employment. That is what all the employees deserve and the general public 

deserves. I am looking at this action through todays political divide across the country on basically any 

issue. I would have preferred that this matter didn't have to make it to the public scene rather it just be 

stopped and things done fairly and in a non-partisan way. I know it's true that historically the democrat 

party has been the party to help the postal service, but these partisan acts will not help only hinder it's 

efforts. The divide this could cause if continued would more than outweigh any efforts to help by getting 

certain people elected. The Postal Service always says it's rated one of the most trusted government 

agencies and it needs to uphold those claims. That is what will help it survive in the long term. 

1 will try to give as much background as possible into the actions that have prompted this hearing. At 

the time I made my complaint I had no idea it was going to result in any type of hearing or testimony 

that I would need specific dates and times so notes were not kept. I will try to be as accurate as possible 

and keep to the topic at hand. 

When new employees are going through orientation one of the things they are told about is the Hatch 

Act. The Postal Service wants to be seen as a government agency that can trusted, upholds values and is 

viewed by the public as non- partisan. Employees are also given brief follow up service talks about the 

Hatch Act especially during fall election periods. All of this is to not only uphold the law but to keep the 

Postal Service out of the mud of partisan politics. By doing this the Postal Service claims it is one of the 

highest rated government agencies when it comes to trust. The job itself is very demanding and 

employees are held to a higher level of work standards than I have seen in my previous jobs. 

In early fall2016 State NALC President Scott Van-Derven attended one of our local union meetings. He 

gave a brief talk about the status of bills in congress that the union is trying to gain support for. This is a 

practice commonly done to keep members updated on where things currently stand and where they are 

likely to go in the future. It was also mentioned that volunteers were needed to help campaign for the 

2016 upcoming election. I don't recall if names were specifically mentioned at that meeting of who they 

were campaigning for but the union had previously let it be known who they were going to back to try 

to get more support for postal reform. 

A few weeks after the meeting a carrier in my office let it be known he was going to volunteer to help 

with the campaigning. To my knowledge a letter was given to the supervisor from the State Union 

President stating that employee was to be released for union duties starting on Thursday, only two days 

later. The employee was going to be gone for up to 5 weeks and therefore management had to find a 

way to fill the vacancy. When I talked further to my supervisor John he also informed me that 2 people 

were being taken out of another office in a nearby town Wisconsin Rapids. That office was already short 

2 people and possibly 3 some days, and taking 2 more would leave them 5 people short on a daily basis. 
29 

According to John both him and the other supervisor said they were going to deny the request because 

of staffing issues. When John later talked to me he said he was told by people higher up the chain that 

he must let the employee go. He also said he at very least tried to get that employee to stay until 

Saturday which would give him more time to cover the shortage but that was denied. He had to let him 

go on Thursday. 1 don't know how much notice the Wisconsin Rapids office was given but I do know by 

talking to John the managers there weren't happy and were really put in a bind. 

1 was an acting supervisor for approximately 6 months from the Fall of 2015 to the spring of 2016 in 

Stevens Point WI. During that time the neighboring office Wisconsin Rapids was constantly sending out 

emails for help. They were short staffed for a variety of reasons and any office that could lend help was 

greatly appreciated. Leading into the fall they were still very short on help and they were going to lose 2 

more people due to the union releasing them. Vacancies in any office are usually covered with City 

Carrier Assistants, (part time help) when possible. When that is not possible those routes are split and 

divided among the employees and overtime is paid out. Exhausting all other options carriers are forced 

to work their days off to help cover, all on overtime. I personally had to work at least one if not two of 

my days off, and work longer days to help cover the absence. Other employees also had to do the same, 

some didn't mind the extra work while others complained that the reason they were having to work 

extra was for political reasons. This caused some minor disagreements among employees in our office. 

Just from a staffing issue along it should not have been allowed. Carriers and Supervisors are constantly 

scrutinized from people in higher positions to keep costs down and even a few extra minutes here and 

there are closely monitored. Many reports must be filled out daily on the performance of not only the 

office but the individual carrier. It is not uncommon for a supervisor to get multiple emails or phone calls 

daily asking about performance numbers and issues. For me seeing how this was being handled happen 

was nothing short of hypocritical. 

I made phone calls to the State Union President and the District office of the NALC in Minneapolis. I had 

also gotten a call from a person with the NALC from out of state, his name I don't recall. My name was 

relayed to him by our State President to try to address my issues with what was going on. I stated my 

concerns about what was going on and the answer was pretty much the same no matter who I talked to. 

I was told that this was how it's always been done and we are trying to get people in office who will help 

the Postal Service get favorable legislation passed. When questioned about the legality of this I was also 

told that the union's political action fund was paying the wages of the employees taken out on leave. I 

further pressed that this was causing a lot of overtime that was not due to normal operations of the 

business. The response to that was that there's always overtime this is no big deal and it is for the 

betterment of the company. 

After more correspondence with Scott wanting more clarification on this matter He stated in an email 

that all the names of the people that the union was out campaigning for were approved by the highest 

levels of management in the Postal Service. To me that statement if true showed this was illegal and 

morally this needed to be looked into. 

I also thought back to previous election and started to look in to this a bit further. I do remember being 

told that our previous union steward did campaigning in 2008 for the Obama campaign. That person 

was one of the first ones to try to persuade me as a newer employee to vote certain ways, to help 

protect my job and future at the Postal Service. I stated to him at that time I would vote the way I 

wanted and not the way someone tells me to. I also said that when hired here there was no question 

relating to what party I was politically aligned with. I would later go along with things just to avoid any 
30 

constant confrontations at work. That lasted a couple of years and I finally made up my mind to not be 

intimidated. 

1 did do some work for the NALC as a Congressional District Liaison. I volunteered to make calls 

regarding postal issues to my Representative Sean Duffy as well as write letters. This was all done off the 

clock and I was paid minimally for my extra time. This is where I initially established a relationship with 

Scott Van-Derven. About a year later I resigned from this position. I kept myself up to date in the doings 

of the political side of the union and noticed during the 2012 campaign that Scott was doing more 

campaigning but this time out of state. I think in Kentucky. This to me was the realization of where my 

bi-weekly PAC contributions were going and I and a few others in the office stopped our contributions. 

I decided to see if I could get a better answer how this could be legal and called both Senator Johnson's 

office and Senator Baldwins office. I stated my concerns and said that at the very least I would like some 

sort of reply to this and would not like this thrown aside. A few days later after no response I also called 

my district representative Sean Duffy's office and stated my concerns. It took about a week and I finally 

got a reply from senator Johnson's office that they were going to look into this matter for me and would 

keep in touch. Sean Duffy's office called as a follow up to see if I was getting help. I got no reply at all 

from Senator Baldwins office. 

Weeks later I was contacted by an Investigator from the Office of Inspector General (OIG). He was going 

to look further into my complaint and wanted to interview me. Upon meeting with him I stated my 

complaint and said this all could be done in a fair way to not cause staffing shortages. When known 

ahead of time those weeks could be blocked off to not incur people above and beyond the normal 

vacation load to be absent. That way it could be covered easier. Those wishing to volunteer could also 

put in for annual leave as per the local office's policy when yearly vacation leave is picked. Both 

situations would not leave the office in any worse situation than it normally would be due to normal 

operations. 

Over the course of the next 8 months I was occasionally called and checked up on to make sure 1 was 

not receiving any sort of retaliation and to let me know the status ofthe investigation. Short of a few 

comments from some co-workers no one in management has made any attempt to influence me or 

discipline me. 
31 

Hearing before the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Oral Statement 

The Postal Service's Actions During the 2016 

Campaign Season: Implications for the Hatch Act 

July 19, 2017 

William Siemer 

Acting Deputy Inspector General 

United States Postal Service 
32 

Good morning. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and members of 

the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss our work on postal 

employees' use of leave without pay for election campaigning. 

During last year's election season, a Postal Service employee expressed 

concerns that certain mail carriers in Wisconsin were taking leave without pay to 

work for union political campaigns. The employee was concerned that the Postal 

Service was behaving in a partisan manner. The employee also complained the 

absences were causing operational problems, including additional overtime and 

an unfair distribution of work among employees who remained. 

As a result of that complaint, we investigated and provided our findings to the 

Office of Special Counsel to evaluate for potential Hatch Act violations. We also 

conducted an audit on the nationwide use of leave without pay for union 

campaign activities. 

We determined that, from September through November 2016, 97 carriers took 

leave without pay to participate in partisan political campaigns for periods ranging 

from four to 50 days. In total, the employees took more than 2, 700 days off. 

Eighty-two percent of this time was taken in six states: Florida, Nevada, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The carriers were 

associated with a single postal union, the National Association of Letter Carriers. 
33 

Our work found that local managers felt compelled to release the carriers for 

extended periods of time. Several managers initially attempted to deny the 

requests because of the impact on local operations, but higher-level Labor 

Relations or Operations managers in the field directed them to release the 

carriers. All 97 carriers were ultimately released. 

The releases occurred because a Headquarters Labor Relations executive used 

his position and authority to send emails to local Labor Relations managers in the 

field announcing the release and requesting explanations for any carriers that 

were not released. Because of these and other communications, and the 

long-standing practice of allowing employees to participate in union political 

campaigns, field Labor Relations and Operations managers believed releasing 

the employees to be mandatory. This circumvented Postal Service policy and the 

ability of Operations supervisors to manage work at their local offices. Postal 

Service policy gives local installation heads the administrative discretion to 

approve leave without pay requests of less than a year. Employees make 

requests using a leave form, which supervisors approve or deny. Decisions are 

to be made based on the needs of the employee, the needs of the Postal 

Service, and the cost to the Postal Service. 

Local managers said the leave without pay caused operational problems such as 

increased overtime and delayed delivery of mail. In at least one office, the 

remaining carriers were required to work six days per week, including their 

2 
34 

normal scheduled days off. Some managers and employees also believed the 

releases were politically motivated. 

For our audit, we analyzed the absences of 22 of the 97 carriers who took leave 

without pay across the country. In each instance, we examined the assignments 

that could have been covered if the carrier was working. According to our 

analysis, the use of leave without pay resulted in combined net overtime costs of 

more than $90,000 at the 22 facilities we reviewed. 

Throughout our work, we found that Postal Service management generally 

viewed allowing employees to take leave without pay for union campaign 

activities as a customary practice. They saw it as a necessary part of cultivating a 

good relationship with the union, even though releasing employees for union 

campaign activities is not required by the collective bargaining agreement. 

In our audit report issued on July 5, 2017, we recommended that the Postal 

Service follow its policy of assessing operational needs prior to granting leave 

without pay requests. We also recommended that Labor Relations and 

Operations improve communications to bring up any operational problems 

caused by employees taking time off for union activities. Postal Service 

management disagreed with the premise of our first recommendation and do not 

intend to implement it. They believe they followed their policy. We consider 

management's comments on this recommendation nonresponsive and will work 

3 
35 

to coordinate a resolution. The Postal Service plans to address the second 

recommendation by improving communications and undertaking an educational 

campaign about the collective bargaining agreement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work. I am happy to answer any 

questions. 

4 
36 

Testimony of Acting Special Counsel Adam Miles 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

"The Postal Service's Actions During the 2016 Campaign Season: Implications for the 

Hatch Act" 

July 19, 2017, 10:00 AM 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testifY about the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), and our 

recent report regarding Hatch Act violations at the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). 1 My testimony 

summarizes OSC's findings and recommendations. Our full report is attached to this statement. 

At the outset, I want to thank the USPS Office oflnspector General for their partnership 

throughout this investigative process. 

In October 2016, Chairman Johnson submitted to OSC information he received from a postal 

employee and constituent. The constituent was concerned that the USPS incurred unnecessary 

overtime costs and improperly coordinated with the National Association of Letter Carriers 

(NALC) when it released NALC members for several weeks of"union official" leave without 

pay (L WOP) to participate in partisan campaign work. 

OSC initiated an investigation to determine if these actions violated the Hatch Act. Summarized 

briefly, we found that NALC provided lists of letter carriers to participate in campaign activity to 

a senior headquarters USPS labor relations official. This official then emailed the lists to USPS 

officials at lower levels of management throughout the country. These officials interpreted the 

communications from headquarters as directives to release the carriers on union official L WOP. 

As described in detail in our report, local supervisors raised concerns about the impact these 

releases had on postal operations and objected to the release of some carriers. Despite their 

objections, USPS managers instructed the local supervisors to release all listed carriers so they 

could participate in NALC's political activity. 

We concluded that the USPS practice of facilitating and directing carrier releases for the union's 

political activity resulted in an institutional bias in favor ofNALC's endorsed political 

candidates, which the Hatch Act prohibits. To correct these systemic violations, we made two 

recommendations to USPS. 

' OSC is an independent investigative and prosecutorial federal agency that protects the merit system for 

approximately 2.1 million federal civilian employees. We fulfill this good government role with a staff of 

approximately 140 employees-and one of the smallest budgets of any federal law enforcement agency. OSC 

protects whistleblowers in the federal government, and provides a safe and secure channel for disclosures of waste, 

fraud, and abuse. OSC also enforces the Hatch Act, which keeps the federal workplace free from improper partisan 

politics. 
37 

First, we recommend that USPS management not require, direct, or suggest that local supervisors 

release union members to engage in political activity. Rather, USPS should implement a "hands 

off' approach to a union's political activity. The postal unions and individual employees are 

permitted, and the law in fact encourages them, to maintain PACs, endorse candidates, and enlist 

union members to support their electoral agendas on their own time. However, USPS 

headquarters and labor relations managers should not enable a union's lawful political activity 

through official practices and directives that create institutional biases for certain candidates. 

Second, to ensure that it is administering its programs in a politically neutral manner, USPS 

should exclude political activity, as defined by the Hatch Act, from the acceptable uses of union 

official LWOP. Officially characterizing NALC's partisan political activity as "union business" 

affords this activity official advantages and benefits that should be reserved for other traditional 

union business, such as training and conferences. 

OSC has communicated these recommendations to USPS, and agency representatives appear 

ready to take the steps necessary to comply with the Hatch Act. 

While OSC determined that the USPS engaged in systemic violations of the Hatch Act, it is 

necessary to clarify a few important points. We did not determine that any USPS management 

officials helped NALC to identify or select carriers to participate in the campaign program. And, 

the evidence does not support a finding that USPS officials sought to assist NALC's favored 

candidates in achieving electoral success. Rather, the evidence suggests that USPS engaged in 

this practice to engender goodwill with the union. The record also reflects that the NALC-USPS 

practice is long-standing, going back many election cycles, and perhaps started in the 1990s. 

USPS management is not aware of complaints or concerns about the propriety of the practice 

prior to 2016. For these reasons, we do not believe individual disciplinary action is appropriate 

in this case. 

However, as a federal entity, the USPS must remain politically neutral. Although the USPS is 

exempt from many other civil service laws, Congress chose to ensure that USPS employees are 

covered by the Hatch Act's restrictions. A primary purpose of the Hatch Act is to promote 

public confidence in the non-partisan administration of the laws by the federal government, 

"without bias or favoritism for or against any political party or group or members thereof." Civ. 

Serv. Comm'n v. Nat'! Assoc. of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 557 (1973). 

In many localities, the Postal Service is a citizen's primary point of contact with the federal 

government, reinforcing the need for strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the Hatch Act. 

Given these considerations, we are encouraged by the USPS's initial response to our 

recommendations. We believe the USPS is committed to ensuring full compliance with the 

Hatch Act, while also allowing its employees to participate fully in the political process to the 

extent permitted by law. I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and look forward to your 

questions. 
38 

;;;;:::!f!!!!1 UNITED STIJTES l!.iiiif POSTIJL SERVICE 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Hearing 

"The Postal Service's Actions During the 2016 Campaign Season: 

Implication for the Hatch Act" 

Wednesday, July 19, 2017 

Written Testimony 

Good Morning Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill and Members of the Committee. 

I am pleased to represent the 640,000 hard-working and dedicated men and women of the United States 

Postal Service. These men and women play an integral role in every region, community and 

neighborhood of our nation, every day. In many localities, the Postal Service is a citizen's primary point 

of contact with the federal government. The vital role we play in this respect reinforces the need for strict 

adherence to the letter and spirit of the Hatch Act. 

Last Friday, the Postal Service received the Office of Special Counsel (OSC} report concerning a Hatch 

Act investigation. The OSC determined that a long-standing practice of the Postal Service violates the 

Hatch Act by enabling union political activity. I want to give this Committee my complete and 

unconditional commitment that the United States Postal Service fully accepts and will fully implement all 

of the recommendations and directions of the OSC, in order to prevent any future violations of the Hatch 

Act. 

The OSC noted that as a part of our effort to foster and maintain our working relationship with the 

National Association of Letter Carriers ("NALC"), the Postal Service has a long-standing practice to 

generally grant requests by the NALC for Leave Without Pay (LWOP} for some of their union members to 

engage in the political activities of the union. The Postal Service has a heavily unionized workforce by 

law, and by necessity the Postal Service is required to foster and maintain good working relationships 

with our unions in order for us to operate efficiently and to continue to provide the high quality service that 

our customers expect. However, the granting of such LWOP requests to engage in union political activity 

is not absolute, and such decisions are made in conformity with our general LWOP policy as set forth in 

our Employee and Labor Relations Manual ("ELM"), and in consideration of the applicable collective 

bargaining agreement as we have applied it. 

The ELM policy states that "Each request for LWOP is examined closely, and a decision is made based 

on the needs of the employee, the needs of the Postal Service. and the cost to the Postal Service. The 
39 

granting of LWOP is a matter of administrative discretion and is not granted on the employee's demand 

except as provided in collective bargaining agreements." The Postal Service has defined the "needs of 

the Postal Service" in this context broadly, and as such our Labor Relations professionals undertake 

some efforts to ensure that the people making LWOP decisions under these circumstances at the local 

level properly consider all of the relevant facts so an appropriate decision can be made. In this regard. 

the language in the collective bargaining agreement concerning leave requests for union business is 

instructive, as it suggests that such leave "will" be granted "provided that approval of such leave does not 

seriously adversely affect the service needs of the installation." 

Put in this context, I would like to address several issues raised as part of this hearing regarding Postal 

Service actions during the 2016 campaign, and to discuss our plans to revise our practice of approving 

LWOP applications specifically requested for the NALC's political activity so that we ensure that our 

employees do not run afoul of the Hatch Act in implementing our collective bargaining agreements. 

Finally, I would also like to describe the efforts we will undertake to enhance our prior efforts, (which are 

outlined below), to further educate our employees about their Hatch Act obligations, and to ensure that 

our Labor Relations employees understand the changes we will make to keep them out of harm's way. 

The Postal Service practice to grant LWOP for NALC political activity has been in place for approximately 

20 years. In that regard, and as the OSC determined, the Postal Service Labor Relations Manager and 

others acted consistent with our long-standing past practice during the 2016 campaign. 

With regard to the initial allegations that prompted the OSC's investigation, I can say without any 

reservation or qualification that senior postal leadership, including myself, did not in any way guide union 

leadership in selecting the candidates for whom NALC employees could campaign; did not approve or 

choose candidates for the unions to support, and did not ask the union to advocate for political candidates 

on behalf of the Postal Service. Neither the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General, nor 

the OSC, found any evidence to the contrary. 

I also note that our postal unions do not speak for the Postal Service, and the Postal Service does not 

speak for our unions. This especially applies in a political context, but it is inherent in any collective 

bargaining relationship. The OSC found that the evidence simply does not support any allegation that 

any Postal Service officials sought to assist the NALC's favored candidates. 

That said, the OSC ultimately concluded that application of our long-standing practice by Labor Relations 

and other managers enabled the NALC's political activity and constituted a violation of the Hatch Act, but 

OSC also acknowledged that this was a case of first impression. The OSC determined that no discipline 

was warranted because the manager was simply implementing a long-standing practice, and because the 

2 
40 

evidence demonstrated that the manager was not motivated by any desire to engage in partisan political 

activity on behalf of himself, the Postal Service, or our senior leadership. 

This violation of the Hatch Act, according to the OSC, was unintentional, and our Hatch Act awareness 

efforts last year demonstrate that we take our obligations under the Hatch Act very seriously. During my 

tenure as Postmaster General we have provided extensive training and written, oral, and digital 

communications to ensure that all our employees are aware of the prohibitions of the Hatch Act. In 2016, 

in addition to the training made available to new employees on the Hatch Act, we issued a mandatory 

stand-up talk, which was required to be certified as delivered in all facilities. We published five articles on 

the Hatch Act in Link, our national employee newsletter, and articles in the quarterly Area Update 

magazine, which is shared with all employees at their homes. Hatch Act reminders ran our intranet 

channels, Postal Vision and the Advanced Computer Environment scrolling banner throughout the year. 

Several of the Link articles also were featured in weekly newsletters produced by field communications 

and emailed to all field supervisory and administrative staff in those areas. There were also articles 

regarding the Hatch Act in four issues of Talk, a weekly newsletter for Postmasters, Managers and 

Supervisors. 

Additionally, the Hatch Act was the topic of nineteen "Your Smart Business Moments," which are short 

messages reminding employees of a postal policy, rule, practice, business goal or law that are included in 

business meetings. Our Ethics Office additionally provided Hatch Act advice and guidance to postal 

managers and employees more than 150 times in 2016. 

As a result of the OSC's report, we will change our practice in consultation with the OSC and based upon 

OSC's guidance. This will ensure that we do not put our people in harm's way and they do not 

unintentionally run afoul of the Hatch Act. As we have previously communicated to both this Committee 

and to the OSC, and as the OSC has acknowledged, the Postal Service has always been ready, willing, 

and able to end or modify our practice as appropriate, consistent with OSC's recommendations. 

In its report, OSC recommends that the Postal Service take certain affirmative steps to prevent future 

Hatch Act violations. First, to ensure that we are administering our programs in a politically neutral 

manner, OSC directs that the Postal Service exclude political activity, as defined by the Hatch Act, from 

the acceptable uses of LWOP for official union leave. The Postal Service accepts this direction, and we 

will implement this change. 

Second, OSC recommends that the Postal Service should not require or suggest that union members be 

released to engage in political activity. Rather the Postal Service should implement a "hands off' 

approach to a union's political activity. The Postal Service likewise accepts this recommendation, and we 

3 
41 

will implement this change. The Postal Service will work with the OSC to design corrective measures by 

the OSC's August 31, 2017 deadline, in order to prevent any future violations of the Hatch Act. 

Further, in light of the concerns that have been raised and in view of OSC's determinations here, the 

Postal Service will expand its communications efforts on the Hatch Act. Information about the Hatch Act 

will be posted on employee bulletin boards across the country. At least monthly, information will be 

disseminated through stand-up talks, Postal Vision, the ACE scrolling banner, Your Smart Business 

Moments, articles in the Link, the Postal Bulletin, Area Update Employee Magazine, and Talk, and other 

outlets. Our Ethics Office will continue to provide advice and guidance regarding Hatch Act issues as 

they arise. We will also educate our employees concerning the changes that we make to our current 

LWOP practices based upon the recommendations and guidance that is provided to us by OSC. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States Postal Service delivers for the American public- both literally and 

figuratively. We will continue to safeguard America's trust in the Postal Service. We take these 

responsibilities seriously, and we will fully comply with the recommendations and directions in OSC's 

report. 

Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill and Members of the Committee, for the 

opportunity to submit this testimony. I welcome any questions that you may have. 

### 

4 
42 
by these 

carriers was about 2,176 days during this period. These carriers 

were located in 92 facinties nationwide. 

for LWOP that are not In excess of one year. 

are to be on leave without pay for union official reasons 

initiate a PS Form 3971, Request for NotifiCation for Abs

for supervisor approval." However, in relation to these sp

requests, supervisors received correspondence to grant 

to employees even though concerns were ralsed regard

operational impact 

In some cases supervisors initially denied the leave, but 

level managers in the district overruled them. In other ca

supervisors contacted Labor Relations officials who told 

to approve the !eave. Finally. other managers granted th

requests when provided emai!s or texts from union lead

postal management validating thls as a union actlvity or 

on their prior knowledge of similar union activities. 
Severa! factors contributed to supervisors approving LWOP 

even though operational concerns were raised: 

« Headquarters Labor Reiaf!ons officials did not communicate 

or coordinate requests for carriers to participate in the 

union activity with senior Operations personnel, including 

the chief operating officer or area vice presidents. Also, 

the Chief Human Resources Officer and Vice President of 

Labor Relations were aware of the releases, but did not 

communicate the requests to senior Operations personnel 

since these requests had been accommodated in the past 

M National Association of Letter Carriers officials provided 

The Postal Service has historically allowed its emplo

participate in such campaigns on behalf of the union, 

has an organizational culture of supporting relationsh

between the union and management 

Whlle on LWOP. carriers were paid by the National Asso

of Letter Carriers, which was !>ubsequently reimbursed b

Letter Carrier Political Fund, in accordance with federal 

Commission regulations. 

As a result. at the 22 postal facilities we reviewed, the 

Postal Service incurred net overtime costs of $90.682 d

carriers taking extended LWOP. ln some instances, assi

city carrier assistants who are paid at a !ower rate to cov

carriers who took LWOP resulted in a savings; however, 

city carrier assistants were not available to cover other o

ass1gnments at these 22 facilities" 

We recommended management adhere to the Postal Se

in union initiatives. 
Transmittal letter 

., 

f ~ l 

July 5, 2017 

MEMORANDUM FOR: DOUGLAS A TULINO 

VICE PRESIDENT, LABOR RELATIONS 

KEVIN L MCADAMS 

VICE PRESIDENT, DELIVERY OPERATIONS 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: Audit Report- Carrier Leave \Mthout Pay for Union Activities 

{Report Number HR~AR~ 17 -008} 

We appreciate the cooperation and courtesies provided by your staff. 

Attachment 

cc: PoS1m.aster Genera! 

Chief Human Resources Officer and Executive Vice President 

have any 

Director, 
Cover 

Postal Service Coordination and Communication.. ..9 

,,10 
This report presents the results of our aud1t of carrier leave wrthout pay (LWOP) for union activities {Project Number 

17SMG010HRDOO}. The report responds to a 

cover U.R Postal unlon political Our objectives 

were to determine the impact on the local delivery routes and applicable f.aciHties of carriers who took LWOP for union activities 

and how employees were paid for union activities. 

conducted a separate investigation of potential 

The National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC} is the sole union representative of Postal Service city delivery carriers. NALC 

also has a political action committee (PAC) known as the Letter Carrier Political Fund, which is a non~partisan PAC established -to 

elect qualified candidates who support letter carriers and are committed to maintaining a strong and innovative Postal Service. 
"' f 

"' 

] ~ Postal Service policy states, '·the granting of LWOP is a matter of administrative discretion. Each request tor LWOP is examined closely, and a decision is made based on the needs of the employee, the needs of the Postal SeMce, and the cost to the Posta! Service. Installation heads mav approve requests for LWOP that are not in excess of one year. Service (PS) Form 3971, we detetmined that supervisors and postmasters felt compelled to Service policy to consider not only the needs of the employee, but operational 8 for analysis of carrier LWOP. 
Specifically, supervisors for 1he 22 carriers were mterviewed and indicated the fo!towing; 

"' f 

u;; 

3 "' 

l <( 
The headquarters Labor 

Relations manager of policies 

and programs circumvented the 

LWOP policy by issuing emai/s 

to all area Labor Relations 

managers communicating the 

release of 97 carriers 

to participate in this union 

1it political activity. 

u: 

i 

Pacific Area: A supervisor received an email from the California Assoc1ation of Letter C.arriers7 president The emal! stated the 

carrier was officia!!y released and instructed the carrier to request LWOP from October 6 to November 11,2016, 

1li Western Area: An acting Cus1omer Service manager receJVed an ema1! from the local NALC branch president stating that 

several carriers were to report for union activities . 

.w Eastern Area· A postmaster received an email from a NALC headquarters organizer statmg the carrier should be granted 

LWOP for the period September 8 through November 9, 

postmaster contacted the MPOO, who contacted the 

and was Instructed to release the carrier. 
f 

"0 -~ li 

li: 

<( 

Postmasters, managers, and 

supervisors at the facility level 

viewed the communications 

from NALC as a requirement to 

approve carriers' LWOP requests 

to work on the campaign. 

m Great Lakes Area: A postmaster received an email from a NALC 

LWOP. In another office, a Customer Service supervisor received 

the carrier. 

Southern Area: Based on a carrier's request for LWOP, a Customer Service manager requested guidance and approval from 

their postmaster. The postmaster stated that the LWOP request for un1on activities was an official request and should 

be approved. 

Labor Relations management did not coordinate or communicate wlth Operations personnel regarding the release of carriers for 

Labor Relations management ! the campaign. For example: 

did not coordinate or 

communicate with Operations 

personnel regarding the release 

of carriers for the campaign. 

M The Postal Service chief operating officer (COO) stated that he was not aware of or involved in the release of the carriers. The 

COO also stated that, at a minimum, he should have been informed of the release of the carriers. 

Fortywthree percent (three of seven) of area vice presidents stated they were not aware of the requests to grant carriers LWOP 

iff The headquarters Labor Relations manager of policy and programs did not include or copy any Operations personnel on the 

release of carries for union activity, In addition, the Chief Human Resources Officer 

but dld not think it was an issue since the requests had 

enhance 
We recommend the Vice President, Labor Relations, in coordination with the Vice President, OeHvery Operations 

Adhere to the Posta! Service policy to assess operational needs prior to granting or denying !eave without pay for union 

activities and communicate deviations to appropriate Operations and Labor Relations personnel. 

2. Establish communication protocols between Labor Relations and Delivery Operations to coordinate employee participation in 

Management disagreed with the report's findings, fT',onetary impact, and recommendatron 1: however, they agreed with 

recommendatlon 2 with modifications. 

The Postal Servfce genera!!y agrees WJth the report's description of its !ongHstanding practice to, in accordance with the terms 

of a collective bargaining agreement, generally 

polltical activities of the union. However, 

interpretation th~t the LWOP policy is, in 

been Implementing the policy in this context 

management does not believe there is any factual basis 

Service's LWOP policy by directly communicating the 

union's request to -eperat!ons managers fn the fteh Management's position is thai: these communications advised field personnel 

to anticipate LWOP requests and advised 

employees the union identified. Manag~ broader interests of the Postal Service, 

Secondly, management disagreed with the conclusion that the Postal Service incurred net overtime costs of $90,£82 to cover 

union members who took LWOP to engage in the unlon's political aclivrtles, since they find t1. to be unsubstantiated and, therefore, 

potentially Inaccurate and misleading, Management stated the audit falled to establish the causa! connection between overtime 

and granted LWOP and the report dtd not consider the broader interests of the Postal Service and any costs it might have incurred 

had it denied LWOP requests. 

implementation of the collective bargaining agreement concerning union activity. The target implementation date is 

December 31, 2017, 

C: for management's comments in their entirety. 

10 
~ 

'5 "'

i1: 

., 

! 

J 

11 
I 

AU recommendations require OJG concurrence before closure. Consequently, the OlG requests wntten confirmation when 

correctJve actions are completed. Recommendation 2 should not be dosed in the USPS tracking system until the O!G 

provides written confirmatiOn that the recommendation can be closed. Recommendation 1 wif! remain open as we coordinate 

resolution wlth management 

12 
2 Appendices a 

a: 

"' "' I 

I 

Click on the app<>ndix title 

to the right to navigate 

to the section content. 

13 
Appendix A: 

Additional Information 

"' f 

ft 

l ·~ !n !ate November 2010, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin requested the O!G review the use of overtime to cover several carriers at the Marshfield and \!Vlsoonsln Rapids, Wl Post Offices, who particlpated in the union political campaign. These post offices are in the Lakeland District of the Great Lakes Area. Specifically, a constituent at the Marshfield Posl Office alleged that postal carriers took LWOP to work for a political campwgn which required the Postal Service to pay other employees overtime to cover their workloads. Our Office of Investigations investigated these concerns and identified about 97 carriers !o participate in the campaign from September to November 2016. The 97 carriers included 68 city carriers, 17 carrier technicians. and 12 CCAs assiuoed to 92 facilities nationwide located in Our objectives were to determine the impact on toea! delivery routes and the faci!rties of carriers who took LWOP for union activities and how employees were paid for union activities. The scope of our audit is the 97 carriers who took LWOP to participate in the Labor 2016 Campaign. We conducted an in~depth analysis of 22 of the $7 carriers. To accomplish our objective we: Judgmentat!y" selected 10 city carriers,? six carrier technicians, rn and six CCAs't and evaluated the impact on the assigned carriers' dellvery route, m Reviewed policies and procedures in Posta! Service manuals and other sources relevant to granting LWOP for union at.iivities. routes, asslgnments. ,; Analyzed overtime and penalty overtlme metrics to determine LWOP impact on local delivery routes. 9 iO jj i2 " Jnterviewed responsible officials at Postal Serve Headquarters and area and district Installations to gain an understanding of their role in approving or denying LWOP. Specifically we spoke wi-th: Slx area vice presidents. Two area Labor Relations managers from the Pacific and Western areas. *' One area Human Resources manager from Western Pennsylvania, One area Labor Relations specialist from the Eastern Area. 

14 
~~ 

:g 

;:;: 

"' .2 

l 

Eight distnct managers from the San 

Philadelphia, Northern New England, 

Sierra Coastal, Nevada S!erra, Santa Ana, Western Pennsylvania, 

Mic:J:..Carohnas districts, 

four Human Resources managers from the Santa Ana, Northland, Western Pennsylvania, and Phi!ade!ph:a d1stricts. 

fo-ur Labor Relations w.anagers from the San Diego, Nevada S1erra, Northland, and Philadelphia districts. 

One d1sttict Finance manager from Philadelphia. 

One Labor Re!a1ions specialist from the Nevada Sierra Distnct 

One post office Operations manager from the Sierra Coastal Oistnct 

One California Association of Letter Carriers president. 

-lf Twenty-two postmasters, O!Cs, managers, and supervisors of Customer Service: and the manager of Delivery Operations, 

purposes of this report 

The OlG has not conducted prior audits related to this issue. 

15 
i 

.. 

It 

.r: 

AppendixB: 

Analysis of Carrier Leave 

WithoJJtPay 

Northern Ohio 

.~~:::;~----~~-~hilad.:':~~!2i~~~~~-

Bristot 18 

16 
ii: 

"' l:l 

l 

17 
I 

f 

Area Carriers on lWOP Days on LWOP14 District Facility 

Pacific Sierra Costal Main Poot Office 1 22 

42 

Ui 

.g> 

£ 

Nevada-Sierra 

Nevada-. Sierra 

""'"'"''"' .,, 

Northland 

Northland 

Colorado 

Colorado 

i 

.,. 

·< 

18 
61 

sllun>ut:l 
62 
63 
64 
65 

U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 

Report of Hatch Act Investigation: 

Facilitating Labor Union's Political Activity 

Through Use of "Union Official" Leave Without Pay 

OSC File No. HA-17-0610 (U.S. Postal Service) 

Carolyn Martorana 

Attorney 

Ana Galindo-Marrone 

Chief. Hatch Act Unit 

Louis Lopez 

Associate Special Counsel 

Adam Miles 

Acting Special Counsel 

July 14,2017 
66 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This report by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) reflects the investigative 

findings in File No. HA-17-0610, a complaint of possible Hatch Act violations by the U.S. Postal 

Service (USPS). The complaint was submitted to OSC by Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Chairman Johnson 

initially received the allegations from a constituent and U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employee. 

The employee was concerned that USPS incurred unnecessary overtime costs and improperly 

coordinated with the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) when it released NALC 

members for several weeks of"union official" leave without pay (LWOP) to participate in the 

AFL-CIO's Labor 2016 program. The Labor 2016 program sought to "elect Hillary Clinton and 

pro-worker candidates across the country" through door-to-door canvassing, phone banks, slate 

card mailings, and other get out the vote efforts. 1 NALC compensated released carriers using the 

Letter Carrier Political Fund (LCPF), the union's political action committee (PAC). 

OSC initiated an investigation to dctennine if USPS's actions violated the Hatch Act. 

While the Labor 2016 program targeted multiple races across the country, OSC primarily 

reviewed the union official LWOP requests for the Lakeland District in Wisconsin, and the 

Philadelphia Metropolitan District in Pennsylvania. OSC found that NALC provided lists of 

letter carriers to participate in the Labor 2016 program to Wili:Jffiill§IJ the manager of Labor 

Relations (LR) for Policy and Programs and USPS's primary liaison with NALC. !:11llliJ then 

emailed the lists to USPS officials at lower echelons of management. These officials interpreted 

~communications as directives to release the canicrs on union official LWOP. Local 

supervisors raised concerns about the impact on postal operations and objected to the release of 

some carriers. 2 Despite their objections, mid-level USPS managers, guided by~ 

communications. instructed the local supervisors to release all listed carriers on union official 

LWOP so they could participate in NALC's political activity. 

OSC's investigation did not determine that !:11llliJ or other USPS officials helped NALC 

identify or select carriers to participate in the Labor 2016 program. The evidence also does not 

support a finding that !:11llliJ or other USPS officials sought to assist NALC's favored candidates 

in achieving electoral success. Rather, the evidence suggests that USPS's practice was intended 

to engender goodwill in its working relationship with the union. The record also reflects that the 

NALC-USPS practice is long-standing, going back many election cycles, and perhaps started in 

the 1990s. USPS management is not aware of complaints or concerns about the propriety of the 

practice prior to 2016. 

OSC concludes that USPS management took official actions to enable NALC's political 

activity. These efforts constitute a systemic violation of the Hatch Act. Specifically, USPS's 

practice of facilitating carrier releases for the union's political activity resulted in an institutional 

bias in favor of NALC's endorsed political candidates, which the Hatch Act prohibits. For the 

reasons stated above, OSC will not seek individual disciplinary action in this case. However, 

agency-wide corrective action is necessary. 

1 Press Rdcasc, •· i\FL-CJO Plans Final Ground Game tor Labor 2016 Campaign," Oct. 18, 2016, available at: 

~'h},-pJ:~n-~:fi_nal J,;round:g_a_n_l~_-Jai_ml_"_~~pL(}-_qg_iH~-~~-ign (last vic\VC-U June 14, 2017). 

of Inspector General investigated the financial impact the releases had on the USPS, 

2 
67 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

A. The Collective Bargaining Agreement allows carriers to take leave or L WOP 

to conduct "union business." 

NALC represents approximately 215,000 city carriers employed by USPS. The national 

collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between USPS and NALC contemplates the need for 

union members to take time away from their official duties at USPS to work for NALC. 

Specifically, in Article 24 of the CBA, titled "Employees on Leave with Regard to Union 

Business," Section I provides that "any employee on leave without pay to devote full or parttime service to the Union" shall continue to be credited with step increases and accrue retirement 

benefits. Section 2 states that "[ f]ull and part-time employees will be granted annual leave or 

leave without pay at the election of the employee to attend National, State and Regional Union 

Conventions," as long as the employee submits a leave request "as soon as practicable and 

provided that approval of such leave docs not seriously adversely affect the service needs of the 

installation." USPS has a separate LWOP category for union official business, identified by code 

084:' NALC compensates members who take LWOP from USPS to perform union business, 

contributes to the members' retirement and other benefit plans where necessary, and reimburses 

carriers for leave forfeited while on LWOP status. 

OSC sought a definition or a list of what kinds of activities constitute "union business" 

for purposes of Article 24. The Joint Contract Administration Mmmal (JCAM), prepared by 

USPS and NALC as a resource for interpreting the CBA, explains that "[tlypes of leave for 

union business include: (I) leave for union employment, (2) leave for union conventions, and (3) 

leave for other union activities." ''Union employment" means a "full- or part-time job with the 

NALC-typically with a local union or the national union." For example, some local branch 

presidents, so-called national business agents (NBAs), 4 and union executives are on extended 

LWOP from their can·ier positions and remain on USPS rolls. The JCAM further notes that 

requests for L WOP to attend union conventions fall into an "exception to the general rule that the 

granting of LWOP is at the discretion of management." The general rule, found in Section 514.2 

of the USPS Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM), states, "The granting of LWOP is a 

matter of administrative discretion and is not granted on the employee's demand except as 

provided in collective bargaining agreements.''' 

Of the third category of union business, the JCAM states "other union activities" may 

include a wide variety of union programs such as "legislative rallies or training seminars." 

Witnesses provided examples of other union activities that are not identified in the JCAM. They 

discussed charity events, holiday party setup. arbitration preparation, work for internal union 

elections, and get out the vote activities, to include Labor 2016. 

·'Other cate~ories of LWOP include maternity, military. personal. family/medical leave, and others. 

' NAl.C's 15 NBAs are national elected ot1icers responsible for one of 15 geographic regions of the country. 5 USPS recognizes several other unions. including the American Postal Workers Union. the National Postal Mail 

llandlcrs Union. the National Rural Letter Carriers· Association, and the Postal Police Officers Association. OSC 

has no evidence suggesting that any other postal union participated in Labor 2016 and did not investigate their usc of 

union official LWOP to engage in political activity. 

3 
68 

Eastern Area LR specialist ffiii]ICblC6Hbl I said that generally speaking, the definition of 

"union activities" is construed "liberally" and means "pretty much what the union defines it to 

be." Further, if a notice comes down the LR chain about a union activity, llbli6Hbl I "do[es]n't 

spend a second second-guessing Will]~ Great Lakes Area LR manager ~l(b)(6); I 

said that managers tend to take requests for union LWOP at face value and debated, "How much 

can 1 question? I don't want to violate ... their union rights and get a National Labor Relations 

Board charge against me." 

Notably, the JCAM treats "other union activities" differently from union conventions in 

that "[r]cquests for leave to attend other sorts of NALC activities are handled under the usual 

leave rules.'' Under Article 30 of the CBA, leave procedures are negotiated at the local level and 

memorialized in local memoranda of understanding (LMOUs) between USPS management and 

local NALC branches. For example. each local branch agrees on the timing and order in which 

carriers bid on vacation periods; bidding typically occurs toward the beginning of the calendar 

year. Further, the parties agree on the percentage of the carrier workforce, or "complement," who 

can be on leave on any given day, as well as parameters for requesting unplanned, "incidental 

leave.~' 

Under Section B.20 of Article 30, LMOUs also outline whether carriers on leave for 

union activities are counted in that percentage if a carrier submits the leave request before the 

station has established its vacation schedule. Article 30, and consequently the LMOUs, are silent 

conceming how a request for LWOP to engage in union activities affects the percentage if 

requested after the vacation schedule is made. A post office operations manager (POOM) in the 

Lakeland District.l(b)(6);(b)(7)(C) I explained: "Post offices have the latitude to make local 

decisions and exceed that at any time .... That's at their discretion.'' By the same token, a 

manager would not violate the LMOU or the CBA by denying the request. 

When requesting union official LWOP, a catTier typically presents a PS Form3971 toiTiil 

supervisor. For periods exceeding 30 days, ELM Section 5l4.5l requires the carrier to provide a 

"written justification and statement of reason for the desired absence." Witnesses testified that, 

with the exception of full-time union officers, c<m-iers usually request to take union official 

LWOP for either a few days at a time or a few hours per day over several days.llbli6Hbl I told 

OSC that "ft]he vast majority of that type of leave without pay comes in small chunks, like a day, 

two days, three days." WillJI(b)(6);(blcl LR manager for the Lakeland District, said, "We don't 

normally get requests for like a week at a time, unless I'm talking about extended LWOP for a 

union officer position.'' 

If the union official L WOP request interferes with business operations, local managers 

try to work with union officials to address those concerns by delaying the start of the LWOP 

period or alternating days of LWOP with regular time rather than releasing the carrier for several 

consecutive days.llblC6Hbl I told OSC that situations where management denies a request for 

union ofticial LWOP are "few and far between." But many witnesses testified that they had 

never seen a request for union official LWOP wholly denied.l(b)(6); I~ a supervisor in the 

Wisconsin Rapids post office, stated that "my general understanding is that union LWOP is 

generally approved."~ said, "1 don't recall seeing or hearing about anybody denying a 

4 
69 

union LWOP [request]." Likewise, illiJI(b)(6);( I NALC's legislative and political director, 

testified that "I have never heard of anybody not being ... granted [union official] LWOP." 

Generally, in cases where local management initially denies a request for union official LWOP, 

NALC contacts LR officials at higher echelons of USPS management-first district, then area, 

and finally headquarters--until the LWOP is approved. at least in part.~ told OSC that [lE] 

office typically only gets involved with requests for union official LWOP where they have gone 

"through a protocol," meaning that lower echelons of USPS and union management have failed 

to "work it out." 

Witnesses described a general attitude towards accommodating requests for union oftlcial 

LWOP in order to build goodwill. ~l(b)(6);( I an LR specialist at USPS headquarters, 

explained that "we bargain with them," and in evaluating requests for union LWOP, ffiil 

reasoned: "We're not going to pay them .... So if it's not costing us anything and ... we're 

getting some goodwill out of it, why not do it?" [Ziilliil] called the relationship between USPS and 

NALC "critical to the success of the Postal Service." Similarly, USPS's Vice President for Labor 

(b)(6);(b) b 6 ~told OSC that its employees arc its greatest commodity, so "we try to 

ace' Uate them to the degree we can" because "we need a good working relationship with 

them." In other words, while the decision whether to grant or deny LWOP for union activities is 

within management's discretion, USPS tries to exercise its discretion in the union's favor where, 

as Philadelphia District LR manager~~ described, no "insurmountable operational 

condition" or "cataclysmic operational concern" exists. 

The same "protocol" of petitioning higher levels of LR officials would not apply to an 

employee requesting a month of annual leave or personal LWOP to volunteer for a political 

campaign. When asked how likely it would be for !Ziill to intervene if such a request were denied, 

[Ziilliil] replied ''about zero percent chance." All other things being equal,~ surmised that 

an employee requesting union official LWOP to campaign is much more likely to be released 

than an employee requesting individual leave for the same purpose, because for the latter, "It's 

never going to get elevated that high." And while the employee could file a grievance, "the 

grievance is going to be denied. That employee is not going to be released." 

Notwithstanding the typical deference given to union official LWOP requests, OSC 

learned of one instance where USPS management declined to accommodate requests for union 

official LWOP due to operational concerns. Five can·iers from the Des Plaines, Illinois post 

office paid for a three-day union training course and submitted requests for union official LWOP 

approximately four days in advance. Local management denied two of the requests because of 

the short notice and because the required percentage of carriers were already on leave. Union 

oftlcials elevated the issue to~ who also noted the potential for incurring ovetiime costs if 

all five carriers were released. Ultimately.\(b)(6); I convinced the union that because of the late 

notice, losing all five carriers was not feasible; instead, three were released. 

B. Roughly 97 NALC members requested union official LWOP to participate in 

the Labor 2016 program. 

According to NALC Executive Vice PresidentiT:iilliil~ NALC collaborated with 

the AFL-CIO's Labor 2016 program to determine which candidates to support, and "our release 
70 

program was to help get them our endorsed candidates elected."6 NALC has participated in 

similar programs prior to 2016. [ijillft(] testified that "[w]e've done this for a very long time 

every two years'' since "at least 2006." l(b)(6);( I who worked full time for NALC from !994 to 

2009, recalled that NALC began organizing election release programs in or around the year 

2000, and WiJ personally dealt with both l1iill6IJ and l1ill predecessor, lb)l :lbll7ll in 

communicating lists of carriers to USPS.~ who encumbered · position from 1999 

to 2005. testitied that NALC requested union official LWOP for this furpose during WiJ tenure, 

and probably during the tenure of[(@ predecessor as well.7 llbli6Hbl told OSC that carriers have 

been released for election work since at least the Clinton administration8 11iill6IJ does not recall 

anyone questioning the releases before 2016, and[!] was not aware of USPS ever having done a 

legal or ethical review of the practice. 

In a June 9, 2016 press release, NALC endorsed Hillary Clinton for President of the 

United States and further noted: "There is a lot a stake on Tuesday, Nov. 8-for our country, our 

jobs and our families. Starting in the key battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, 

Wisconsin, and Nevada, NALC and America's letter carriers arc ready to unite behind Hillary 

Clinton to make this great country even greater." 

NALC described its political efforts in greater detail in the September/October issue of its 

newsletter. "The Postal Record," which NALC distributes to its membership as well as LR 

executives at USPS headquarters. The article, titled "Trump vs. Clinton," praised Clinton's 

record and announced NALC's support for the following candidates for U.S, Senate races in six 

priority "battleground states": (I) Russ Feingold in Wisconsin: (2) Patrick Murphy in Florida; (3) 

Catherine Cortez Mastro in Nevada; (4) Deborah Ross in North Carolina; (5) Ted Strickland in 

Ohio; and (6) Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania. These candidates, the article went on to say, "need 

help from NALC's ground game-and we're going all in." Specilkally, "Nearly 50 letter 

carriers went to work in September and another 50 will be released by Election Day ... to 

unleash one of the most comprehensive electoral programs in the labor movement's history" in 

coordination with the Working America Coalition (WAC), the AFL-CIO's PAC. The article 

describes how "letter carriers will be going door-to-door and making calls to ensure voters 

support our endorsed candidates, ... hosting telephone town halls with candidates, and 

communicating with fellow members about the importance of this election." In addition, "we're 

working alongside the Clinton campaign in its II targeted states with NALC leaders there to 

ensure that we help send a champion for working families to the Oval Office." 

A carrier in Wisconsin who participated in Labor 2016 told OSC that during WiJ release 

period, WiJ "did a lot of door canvassing, phone calls for volunteers, postcards, all sorts of 

political campaigning." While canvassing, WiJ identified which candidates the union supported, 

~;During the reh:vant timcti,amc.lib.iZ63J was NALC's Director of City Delivery and was the main liaison with 

USPS regarding the Lahor 2016 pnJ7h~~1~l 

'~predecessor is deceased. assumed [[]current position in 2006 or 2007, and has worked for USPS 

since 197X. USPS informed OSC that w:ilifJ has no disciplinary record. 

'!ln\lnHn !has worked in LR since 19~6. liliJ estimate concerning the timing is likely accurate in light of the Hatch 

Act Rt:fonn Amendments of 1993. Before then. federal and USPS employees were prohibited from taking an active 

parl in partisan political management or partisan political campaigns. even ,,_~hen otT duty. And NALC's website 

rcfCrs to the !993 amendments' cffCct on carriers' ability to volunteer fbr campaigns. See 

g_11\ t'rHlllnH ·a fLtiPJpulitiL'~!l-.. tl'tiyJl) !lt:I~Cf-}··arrin._, .. and-thv.-h;ttcjl<tcl (last viewed June 23. 
71 

how they stood on certain issues, and asked "if we could count on their vote." WiiJalso 

distributed literature showing "bow each candidate stood on bot labor topics" as well as which 

candidate the union supported. WiiJ recalled advocating for Clinton and "three or four different 

candidates." Another Wisconsin carrier explained that[(] would share "talking points" about the 

candidates the union had endorsed to voters who indicated they were still undecided. 

Specifically,[(] would tell them why Clinton. Feingold, and Julie Lassa, a Democratic candidate 

for state legislature, were "better for working and middle class families" and also passed out 

flyers outlining those candidates' campaign platforms. 

NALC President lliiiZ61:IHiiillillJJ ultimately decided "bow large" the release program 

would be. Specifically,~ who also serves as treasurer of the LCPF, told OSC that the 

release program is "funded by our political action committee. So one factor is definitely the 

cost." The NALC website explains that the LCPF was "established for the purpose of electing 

qualified candidates who support letter catTiers," and because "union dues can't be used to 

support candidates for political office, NALC relies 100 percent on member contributions to 

the LCPF, which in turn helps us support those on Capitol Hill who defend the issues that matter 

most to us."9 

1. NALC recruited politically actil'e carriers to participate in Labor 2016. 

NALC chose members who~ described as "activists" who were "capable of doing 

this work" to participate in the release ~~oR~~ in each "battleground" state.~ contacted 

"our state chairs of our association and b 6 ; for names in those areas" where the AFL-CIO 

"needed positions filled." In Wisconsin, for example, [(li)Jiliillill] was responsible for finding 20 

''politically active" members to participate and submitting the list of names to~ who was 

WliJ~ main contact at NALC headquarters. NALC finalized the list of carriers at the 

headquarters level, and then Wli]lliillill] instructed the carriers to submit leave forms 

designating the purpose of the leave as "union official" LWOP. [(li)Jiliillill] described the use of 

this code for political releases as "standard operating procedure." Each carrier also received an 

email from l(b)(6); I and a letter from I:IIilliil1J regarding their release.l(b)(6);(b I email directed 

carriers to write "Union L WOP 084" on their leave forms, and[(] also instructed them to let Will 

and their respective NBAs know if there were any problems getting management to approve the 

leave.lliiJ concluded the email by thanking members for their "hard work and dedication" and for 

being a "crucial part in getting letter carrier friendly candidates elected in your state." 

Likewise, ICblC6l'lbl I letter confirmed that the carriers had been selected for the Labor 

2016 program and thanked them for their "tireless work to help elect letter carrier-friendly 

candidates this election season," because "(w)itb members like you devoted full-time to our 

political mission, I am confident this election will produce favorable results tor letter carriers." 

Of the labor movement generally, I:IIilliil1J wrote, "NALC is fortunate to have the ability to 

release members like you with the skills. experience and commitment to influence elections," 

and "[ w ]e have led these etTorts not only in the number of members we release, but in the quality 

of work produced."~ who "probably did the majority of the work" preparing this letter. 

')"Government Affairs,~· available at l~J~p"://\\ \\-'\v.n:th:.orglgt~.\ cpl_lll~'I!!-_arfiilr~!poli1ic:_abu:t!~.i_ty (last viewed June 

20. 2017) (boldface in original). 
72 

told OSC that "We release, per capita, more people than any other union" in the AFL-CIO, and 

sometimes "we've had the most people regardless of size of union." 

NALC members in California who were selected to ~articTI!e in Labor 2016 received 

notification from their stute association president, IIii.iiJICbl(f;(b)( via text message. After 

announcing: "Well things are finally movin~. It is now l 00% official that you are all officially 

released from 10/6/16 to ll/9/16,"l<blf6):1_ linstmcted carriers to "[pjlcase submit your 3971s 

to management today (or tomorrow at the latest). On the 3971 please request LWOP and put 

'Union Release 084' on them." ~1;:;(!6);( I the area LR manager responsible for California. 

forwarde (b)(6);(b)( s notice to on October 3, noting, "You might want to tell the union 

it isn't automatJe an they should not be telling the employees they arc officially released." 

When asked whether[[] had any doubt that the carriers' requests for union official LWOP 

would ultimately be granted, ITiiSJ ITii.lliiiJ responded, "1 would go in with the assumption that I 

shouldn't have any problems with that." In response to the same question,~ said, "No. I 

mean, I knew that with the sheer numbers, [it is] reasonable to expect that you'll have issues in 

some places .... I just expected through communication whenever issues come up that we'd be 

able to address them. much like we always do." ICb)(6);(1 told OSC that any cmTiers recruited for 

Labor 2016 who ultimately were not released had decided they did not want to panicipate. 

2. After receiving lists of carriers designated to participate in Lc1hor 2016 

from NALC. Will.i[]passed the lists to area LR managers. 

USPS released pal1icipating carriers on a rolling basis between early September and the 

2016 elections. In addition to carriers requesting union official LWOP at the local level, national 

NALC officials provided lists of participuting carriers to Will.i[J at USPS headquarters.lZi:iilliiJJ 

sent the first such list on August 31, saying, "Attached are the tirst round ofNALC labor 

releases. I appreciate your usual assistance regarding notification and release." The list included 

the names of35 carriers and their duty stations, as well as the "authorized dates" of their release: 

September 8 through November 9. 2016. With one exception (New Jersey), the home states of 

the carriers correspond with the "battleground states" NALC identified in its press release 

endorsing Clinton. When asked what "usual assistance"[[] provided, Will.i[J responded: "! send 

notification out" saying '"these people are going to request leave. Let me know if you can't do 

it.' That's the extent of what ['ve done." 

Will.i[J explained that "the only purpose in doing that" is to have "better coordination and 

awareness of if' but "there's nothing magical about going through" liEiJ WlJ believes [ili] sending 

notification creates "no assumption that [the releases] are guaranteed" and that no interactions [[I 

has had with NALC officials could have led them to reasonably believe so. For example, in 

response to ICblf6l'lb I October 3 email, Will.i[J wrote: "The National NALC understands the 

difference between authorization from President lZi:iilliiJJ and our releasing ~~l~~;mJyee from 

duty. The messages are confusing at best."Will.i[J recalls then telling either · orlZi:iilliiJJ 

"you got to tell ... your guys that this isn't guaranteed, you know, basically that you don't 

approve leave. We have to approve it." 
73 

~told OSC that NALC provided the lists to~ "as a courtesy" so USPS can 

"make their people aware of it just for communicatio~C~~a;o;Js and then try to avoid any issues 

that will come up." If[[] did not give~ the lists, · speculated: "The next thing you 

know I've got 100 grievances because people wouldn't be allowed off. It clogs our system ... 

[and! ... our entire dispute resolution process and our labor-management relationship's about 

avoiding issues before they happen." When asked whether giving the Jist to USPS makes it less 

likely that there will be issues releasing people, [(iillii] responded, "Yes, no question." [(iillii] 

could recall only one other event, unrelated to election cycle releases, for which NALC also 

provided a list of participating cariiers to USPS headquarters. 

IT:iili6SJ emailed llbli6Hbl I Jist to LR managers in the affected areas on September 2, 

writing: 

The national NALC has designated the city letter carriers on the attached list 

to work on the NALC Labor 2016 Program. We should anticipate that the 

named employees will submit requests for union L WOP for the identified 

period. Please let me know ASAP if there is any problem with releasing these 

employees. 

Updates to this list will be forwarded when received. 

Thank you, 

~ 

Manager, Labor Relations 

Policy and Programs 

~relayed subsequent lists in a similar fashion, Another eight carriers in North Carolina 

requested to be released in mid-September. The next wave of releases started in early October, 

for which [(iillii] emailed a list of 46 additional caniers, located in several of the "battleground'' 

states, to IT:iili6ll on September 30. [(iillii] wrote: 

Attached is a list of additional names we would like to release to work on 

political campaigns for NALC from October 6, 2016 throu~h November 9, 

2016. Each individual will be provided a letter from IIiillJI}lC6);(b)l stating 

that they arc approved for release for these dates, a copy of which may be 

given to their manager when requesting union official LWOP. Any assistance 

you can provide will be appreciated. 

When asked what ·'assistance"[[] expected IT:iili6SJ to provide, [(iillii] answered, "Just the 

communication, you know, as I mentioned earlier. to avoid those issues, you know, that 

inevitably come up if done without any communication." IT:iili6SJ passed the list on to relevant 

area LR managers. writing: "The attached list indicates additional employees the union has 

designated to work on the NALC Labor 2016 program. Please let me know if there are any issues 

with granting leave.'' 

9 
74 

On October 6, ~sent !ili.iillJ a list of nine more carriers "we would like to release 

in Ohio starting October 13." Apparently, !ili.iillJ overlooked ICblC6Hbl I email and did not 

immediately forward the list to the area LR manager. Some of the carriers' LWOP requests were 

not approved right away, and [fhl][ilil[] the NBA for Ohio. contacted the area human resources 

manager, asking for assistance and pointing out that" II of the above j/~TIIoyees [sic] names 

have been submitted to USPS Headquarters j(b)(6j ( for release." also contacted 

lCblC6Hbl I for assistance, and ICbl(6l'lbl I suggested that ask NALC officials to contact 

~ On the day the release period was to start,~ told !ili.iillJ that NALC was "having a 

lot of difficulty getting these people released. The district and area say they didn't hear anything 

about it. They asked [fhlJ to ask me to ask you to send them the list." 

~cited the confusion in Ohio described above as "a really good example of the 

reason why" NALC sent the lists to !ili.iillJ for dissemination. Specifically, when the carriers 

submitted their union official LWOP requests, local managers "were just questioning it, you 

know, saying 'I don't know anything about this."' But "once the communication from (USPS] 

headquarters said, 'hey, these arc, you know, the national union gave us this list just as a 

courtesy and these are who they'd like to release,' then they said 'okay,' ... they were all 

approved." 

!ili.iillJ denied knowing specifically what the carriers did while on union official LWOP 

for Labor 2016 or that they were being paid from the LCPF. [ili] stated that[] knew generally 

that it had something to do with the election, and believed the carriers "were doing voter 

n:~istration and get out the vote, and tak[ingj people to the polls." [ili] also denied ever seeing 

lrb 16Hbl I letter to carriers, and~ confirmed that[] never shared it with~ While 

!ili.iillJ was aware that NALC had publicly endorsed Clinton for President, and usually supports 

Democrats,[] reads NALC's newsletter only "occasionally" and denied having read the 'Trump 

vs. Clinton" article describing "NALC's ground game." After reading it during[ili] OSC 

interview. however, !ili.iillJacknowlcdgcd that "this is, you know, somewhat consistent with ... 

what I thought they were doing." 

C. Carriers in USPS's Lakeland and Philadelphia Metro Districts were released 

for Labor 2016 over their local managers' objections. 

Various local managers in the Lakeland District pushed back when carriers requested 

union official LWOP for both the first and second waves of Labor 2016 releases. Philadelphia 

Metro managers also protested, but ultimately, e-very carrier was released. 

I. In the .first wave t~f'releases under Labor 20I6, USPS released two 

carriers in the Lakeland District despite a "huge stC!ffing issue." 

Shortly after receiving~ September 2 email, j(b)(6); I forwarded the list of carriers 

to !IiiilliCb)(6);(b){l LR manager for the Lakeland District, writing, "Please make sure the requests 

are honored." Two of the caniers worked at the Wisconsin Rapids post oftlce. They submitted 

their PS Form 3971 s on September 3 requesting union official LWOP from September 8 through 

November 9, 20!6. PostmasterWill!ili.iillJ initially asked j(b)(6); I~ the installation's 

customer service supervisor, not to approve the requests due to the short notice and the impact 

10 
75 

the releases would have on operations. One of the can-iers notified lZiiiJ ~and Will] 

ICb)(6);(b)(71 the NBA for Wisconsin, that WlJ request was denied, and theh~~/~ ~that they 

would try to resolve it with USPS management.l(b)(6);(b)( I then advised · of the issue, 

and~ contacted~ on September 7: 

My understanding is Will] ICb)(6);(b) I provided a list toM [lliilii] (or you) 

of city carriers who were to be released for our fall campaign. We have an 

issue with two carriers being granted union leave. Both were scheduled to 

begin their release work tomorrow .... Any assistance you can provide will 

be appreciated." 

~communicated to USPS's local management. Specifically,~ wrote to ICb)(6);( I "The 

NALC has re orted that the two carriers from Wisconsin Rapids have not been released. Please 

advise." (b)(6); forwarded~ email to WiJ LR specialist, [liili6]~ telling WlJ to "Give 

Will] b 6 ; b a call and see why the two from Wisconsin Rapids have not been released. Let 

me know when they will so I can respond back to ~Willi~ then instructed llbli6Hbl17l LR 

specialist, lZiiiJI(b)(6) I "Please read below and respond to me ASAP." 

~and Willi~ called illill:§Ill who wanted to negotiate the requests by possiblr__ 

releasing only one of the carriers, but Willi~ told WlJ that both catTiers must be released.lib.lliU;J 

then informed the post office operations manager (POOM) ICb)( Jl(b)(6);(b) 1"1 received another 

call from lZiiiJ ~and lliil][liili6] stating that it is coming down from Headquarters that they 

must be released starting tomorrow. Will said WlJ was going to send an email and include you on 

it. No options." Meanwhile, I:Ziill:6J sent an email to llbll6)·1b I and local management in 

Wisconsin Rapids, instructing them: "On behalf ofj(b)(6);(b)(7)( I A/Manager Labor Relations, 

Great Lakes Area: The carriers on the attached list from Wisconsin Rapids are to have their 

requests honored and be released." ICb)(6 I explained, "The boss may not always be right, but the 

boss is always the boss. And if I've got a headquarters manager of labor relations sending 

instructions through the proper channels down to me ... to implement, then, in my mind, I'm 

going to implement those procedures." 

lCbl(6)-(b I continued to protest after receiving~ email, responding: "This creates a 

huge staffing issue at the WI Rapids Post Oftice. This office is alread~ under withholding and is 

short staffed. 10 Is there any other recourse?"~ told OSC that lib l6hbll I persistence made 

1IiiiJ think that "yes, they are having problems." But at the same time, (b)(6); knew frmU ~~s;, I 

experience that "we need to honor" the requests. WiJ forwarded concerns to b 6 · 

writing, "As you can see below the of1ice/POOM decided to push back. How would you like me 

to respond') I can tell them they need to backfill with CCAs during this time period."~ 

replied that[] would "talk to the union here" and noted that "[ t ]ypically. if there is a legitimate 

operational problem the NBA will offer some type of accommodation." WiJ also noted that "it 

seems odd that we arc withholding carrier positions."~ told b)(5); to contact the NBA 

and then report back to t:ili:ilill but ~did not call b 6 ; b 7 and b 6 ; and~ both 

testified that they had no further communications. followed up with (b 6); on 

'"To be "under withholding" means that the oi1Jcc cunnot till vacancies because another USPS facility within a 50-

mik radius of \Visconsin Rapids \VUS either dosing or downsizing, and affected employees arc entitled to "landing 

spots" within that radius. 

II 
76 

September 12 asking if they had any options. but j(b)(6); I responded that[] was still waiting to 

hear back from~ 

IIiillfriJ noted that the Wisconsin Rapids post office was under withholding because 

"there's an underlying problem here that has nothing to do with the union's labor [2016 

program]. It was kind of exposed." IIiillfriJ explained that withholding in Wausau "was supposed 

to have been taken care of about six months before'' the Labor 2016 releases and constituted a 

"violation of the contract" with NALC. Upon receiving ICblC6hblC I forwarded message from 

ICb)(6);( I!IiillfriJ contacted USPS's manager of contract compliance, asking, "Is Wausau still 

under withholding? It appears so from this message. Please advise." 

Meanwhile, postmastcrffiill!IiillfriJ made a list of problems that the releases would likely 

cause for the Wisconsin Rapids post office.~ explained to ICbl(6l· Cb I that[] had instructed 

r:z:iili:hlJ to deny the carriers' union official LWOP requests for ten enumerated reasons, 

including: "We were never notified by management ... until 16:25 yesterday"; "The union ... 

sti II has not provided any documentation tor this absence"; "This will place us over complement 

for prime time vacation picks per our LMOU"; and the absences would cause overtime, penalty 

overtime, late trips to the plant, and safety issues. Will]~ another postmaster in the 

Lakeland District who acted as POOM while flblC6hb I was on leave, continued to make the case 

for Wisconsin Rapids to the district human resources director and !Cb)(6);(b)(7)(C) I the District 

manager of operations program support.!(b)(6) I wrote, "Wisconsin Rapids is currently at -1 to 

complement," and "this will leave them a total of -3 carders to complement." WiJ predicted 

incuJTing penalty overtime as a result of releasing the carriers, and argued that it was not 

operationally feasible to grant both requests. 

[llil@2] did not elevate [ililliill concerns in light ofUiill:W email directing l!blf6Hb I to 

release the carriers: "That's the instruction we were given." And ICbll6l'!bl I believed that 

Wisconsin Rapids managers had a legitimate reason to deny the requests, at least in part, but 

complied because "this is a little bit different because now you've got area and headquarters 

involved and they're pushing to have these people released." Similar! , when asked why the 

Wisconsin Rapids carriers' requests were granted in full, whereas (b)(6); denied two of the 

caJTiers who requested three days of L WOP to attend a union training event on short notice, 

j(b)(6); I responded:''! personally was dealing with this with a local union official. And it was 

something locally. This wasn't a national thing from Headquarters that was being dealt with, 

with a national NALC representative." 

...,.,,_,._..:.:ll.:.:li.:.;tially, the carriers were released on a "day to day basis," pending a response to 

l!bli6HblC !concerns. None came, however, and the carriers remained on union official LWOP 

until after the election.~ and ICblC6l·lb I testified that no accommodations were made to 

cover for the carriers' absence, even though "the office was already short-staffed. We did not 

have enough hclp."ICblC6l'Cb I reported that as a result of releasing the carriers, "Wisconsin 

Rapids went into both high overtime and penalty overtime rates of massive amounts for this 

period of time, which had significant total operating expense impact on the office.'' And r:z:iili:hlJ 

told OSC that the "office was under some scrutiny because of our ... overtime percentages." 

12 
77 

2. USPS's locclf managers in the Lakeland District also pushed hack during 

the second waw (~f carrier releasesfrn- Labor 2016. 

A few additional issues arose in the Lakeland District during the second round of Labor 

2016 releases, b~nd ICblC6Hb I handled them without involving district or area LR staff 

"because of the li.blJ email.' ... [E]vcry time we push back, we get told, 'no."' For the 

second round, l:llil®J received a list of participants from (b)(6 ; b (7 the NBA, who wrote, 

"Here is the list NALC HQ gave to USPS HQ about a week ago." (b)(6); then forwarded the list 

to the affected POOMs on October 3, instructing them, "We need to do everythin we can to 

ensure that the folks below are allowed to be off for this duty." Upon receiving (b) 6);{b email, 

l!bl(6hb I sent the list to the postmasters under!IW supervision, telling them that the named 

carriers "will need to be allowed otT for NALC campaign work." llbll6l'Cb I explained that. 

because "we had no option" when the first list came out, "we pretty much knew we were going 

to be releasing them." 

Nonetheless, ICb){6);{b){ I reported to l(b)(6); I that a carrier in Waukesha was "having 

trouble ;er;i~~ jhe leave approved."~ contacted the postmaster, who asked ffil] POOM, 

llbll6l'C I b 6 ''There [sic] requesting this CCA for 30 days are you ok with that?" IItiliJ 

responded, "Explain to me why we arc releasing people for 30 days," and~ answered, 

"NALC political campaign."IItiliJthcn told the Waukesha postmaster, "Yes we have to release." 

)(b)(6);(b)( I also told l(b)(6); I on October 4 that a carrier in Delafield was having "trouble 

with LWOP ap rovaL" Acknowledging that Delafield "is very small and we have been having a 

CCA issue," (b)(6); agreed to work with the POOM. The POOM responded that "I will see what 

we can do but please understand the situation." Specifically, the office only had two carriers, one 

of whom was already on light duty. The carrier from Delafield was ultimately released, but 

l:llil®] had to intervene again because the postmaster asked the can·ier to work on Sundays 

delivering Amazon packages. Two hours after l(b)(6);(b)( I brought the issue to )(b)(6);(bl 

attention, ~responded, "Taken care of." 

l\~((6);(b)(7) plso alerted l:llil®J to issues with carriers in Neenah, Green Bay, and 

Marshfield who "are not being released for campaign duty." l:llil®J wrote an email with the 

subject line "A MUST READ!!!!!" to the Lakeland POOMs on October 6, ordering them to 

"have these folks released by tomorrow. This is not an issue that we want to go outside of the 

district." Based on previous occasions in which pushing back had proven futile, l:llil®J knew 

that[] would be expected to accommodate the requests and decided not to elevate any issues. WlJ 

then instructed the POOMs to notify fill) and the district manager that "these folks are released 

for campaign duty." 11 The POOM over Neenah responded, saying that ''[i]t will probably cause 

POT [penalty overtime] in Neenah but we will release them." And like the Delafield carrier, the 

postmaster in Green Bay asked the released carrier to work weekends, but )(b)(6); I stepped in and 

ensured the carrier was excused. 

11 The district manager did not instruct liiii(§J to obtain confirmation of the carriers' release. Rather.~ "'put 

that sentence in there of my own doing to prompt a response from those POOMs." 
78 

In Marshfield, supervisor [l];S!]IIbll6l·Cbl I requested to delay the release of a carrier by 

two days to October 8, because the weekly schedule already had been posted. Marshfield's 

LMOU provides that CaJTiers must submit requests for incidental Jeave 12 before the schedule is 

posted for the following week. 13 The c<mier submitted [ili] PS Form 3971 to lcbll6l-!bl I on 

Monday, October 3, requesting to be released Thursday, October 6.lcblC6Hbl I consulted the 

shop steward and local branch president about delaying the start date, who "both thought that to 

be fair because of the short notice." Even though the carrier was scheduled to work on Friday, 

October 7, llbll6)'(b I ordered ICbll6hbl I at 6:53a.m. that day to "[r]elcase Will immediately." 

The day before,lrbll6l-lb I had participated in a weekly "performance telecon" with district 

management, during which someone said "if anybody was not released, make sure that we get 

these people released immediately." 14 

The Marshfield incident ultimately led to the contact with Senator Johnson's office. 

Initially, the constituent wrote to Will ribSZ6:iJ about the overtime the releases would generate, 

asking, "Who's reimbursing the company that? [T)o me if the company isn't being reimbursed 

it's illegal." Will [(iiliill responded: 

The names were approved at the highest level of USPS management. 

The endorsed candidates have proven themselves to be in agreement with the 

objectives that the NALC hold[sj to strengthen and protect the USPS. That 

really is the nature of what we're doing and since the USPS can't advocate for 

themselves they m·c allowing use to do it. 

WliJ[IbSl6:iJ "figured that the names were given to [USPS) Headquarters ... [and] that was 

something that we would do as a courtesy," but[] neither had knowledge of NALC giving 

USPS a list of names "nor that the names were actually approved." [ili] nonetheless made the 

claim to assure the constituent that the program "was nothing out of the orditul!i' and NALC 

was operating "in the light of day." To [ili] second claim, WliJ[IbSl6:iJ testified LU was trying "to 

get across to Will that, you know, the union can do things certainly that ... the Postal Service 

couldn't do. So I mean, they're not standing in our way." When asked if[] had any basis on 

which to believe that USPS or any employee thereof supported NALC's effo11s in Labor 2016, 

[[]admitted: "No."; "I wouldn't be at anywhere near that level to make that kind of 

detem1ination." ICb)(6);CI and~ both emphatically denied that USPS had any involvement 

in choosing carriers to participate or candidates to cndorse.liiiiL5SJ asserted, "I didn't select 

anybody." 

12 "Incidental leave" refers to unplanned leave requested in addition to planned weekly vacation blocks. 

"Marshfield's LMOU also states that LWOP to attend "Union functions ... counts toward total complement 

allowed off during that period." 

t.t ~cannot recall who gave the instruction. Participants included the Lakeland district manager, all the 

Lakeland POOI'vls. the plant manager, and~ 

14 
79 

3. Ot·er objections by local managers in the Philadelphia Metro District, 

USPS released carriers to participate in Labor 20/6. 

Managers from three post offices in USPS's Philadelphia Metropolitan District pushed 

back during the second round of Labor 2016 releases, but ultimate!R:l~:;·} jarrier was released. 

WhenmliJI(b)(6);(b)( I LR specialist for the Eastern Area, received · October 2 email with 

the list of participating carriers.[(] sent it on to~~ LR manager for the Philadelphia 

Metropolitan District.~ forwarded it to the affected local managers, instructing them to code 

the absences as union official LWOP and to advise WiiJ of any issues thefr ~~d tth releasing the 

carriers. The officer in charge of the Langhorne post ofnce responded to b 6 asking: "Is this 

an all or nothing detail with the NALC'? Meaning can I release for some of the weeks and not all 

of them clue to staffing issues'?"~ answered: "All or nothing deal. Sorry, Article 24 and the 

NLRA kind of tie our hands on this one." The officer in charge persisted, writing back: "I 

understand Article 24, but by releasing this employee I will be going over authorized 

compliment [sic] for the time period covered.'' 

Another manager from the Levittown post office was concerned with the effect likely 

overtime would have on !IilJ total operating expense if[(] released the carrier. 15 ~replied, ''I 

completely appreciate that. However, Article 24 and the National Labor Relations Act dictate 

they be released." The manager disagreed, writing: "I do not read and understand Article 24 the 

way you interpret it. Our Local drives leave for union activities and it states that it counts against 

the percentage off and we already have maximum off for that time period. My understanding is 

that I do not have to go above the compliment [sic] to let an employee offfor union activities." 

The manager then offered to release the employee for the weeks during which leave slots were 

available. A third manager, from the Bristol post office, told l:ili5I§J that[(] had "serious 

operational concerns," because releasing the carrier would be "one above my compliment [sic)" 

per the LMOU. 

Upon receiving the third complaint,~ forwarded the managers' concerns, along with 

their respective LMOUs, to llbli6Hbll lllbli6Hbl I in turn presented [(ii}(fiil with the issues "as 

requested in your [October 2] message."~ response did not address local managers' 

specific concerns, but rather pointed out to~ and llbli6Hbl I that "the Philadelphia District is 

131 CCAs over the cap" and informed WiiJ that "at this point this is the only District having 

problems releasing employees." [(ii}(fiil instructed llbli6Hbl I to work with the NBA to cover any 

absences where "there is a legitimate problem with releasing someone." 

When asked how[(] expected [(ii}(fiil to respond to !Iillmessage, l1b)C6l·Cbl I told OSC: "I 

don't know why I even wrote that to [lliill to be honest. ... l certainly knew[(] wasn't going to 

help me out.''llblC6Hbl I went on to say that "I knew the whole time that most likely they were 

going to get every single person released that they wanted released," because "l don't remember 

ever in my 271/2, 2Rl/2 years of labor relations where we didn't do that, not when it came from the 

headquarters level." And even though llbli6Hbl I normally would try to negotiate with the union 

to break up the release time by, for example, giving a steward LWOP for three days per week for 

'~ Generally speaking. a higher total operating expense translates into a lower national performance assessment for a 

manager. [n USPS's pay system, salary increases arc m~..+ardcd based on performance. 

15 
80 

three weeks instead of two consecutive weeks, IIJ did not attempt to do so here because "this 

agreement was made at the headquarters level to release these folks." 

~responded to ICblC6l'lbl I as IIJ did, because "the decision point there to me is not 

debatable" for two reasons. First, and seemingly most important to~ was that "we don't 

necessarily have a right to have" any CCAs in excess of the cap established in the CBA. 16 !lliJ 

speculated that if USPS had denied the union official L WOP requests in those circumstances, 

NALC could have enforced the CCA cap, thereby jeopardizing USPS's access to a cheaper 

workforce. 17 Second, the excess number of CCAs in the district indicated that substitute c<miers 

were readily available. 

liJiliiiJ forwarded Wi:R6:iJJ response to Philadelphia Metro District Manager (b)(6);(b) 

!Cb)(6) leeking WiJ intervention. Citing Wi:R6:iJJ rationale concerning exceeding the ca , 

liJiliiiJopined that the offices "can compensate for the absences of these employees.' (b)(6);(b)(7 

then wrote to the affected local managers, "Please ensure you're releasing the carriers."~ 

llli2I]old OSC that WiJ gave this directive because the district was over the CCA cap, and 

because headquarters was involved, WJ "didn't question it." Will also was reacting to Wi:R6:iJJ 

accusation that hers was "the only District having problems releasing employees." Local 

managers ceased pushing back, and the carriers were released. 

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

Congress established USPS as "an independent establishment of the executive branch of 

the Government of the United States." 39 U.S.C. § 201. Although USPS employees are not 

considered "federal" employees in every respect, they are subject to the restrictions of the Hatch 

Act. See 39 U.S.C. § 410(b)(l). In pertinent part, the Hatch Act prohibits covered employees 

from "using [their] official authority or inl1uence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting 

the result of an election" and engaging in political activity while on duty or in the federal 

workplace. 5 U.S. C.§§ 7321 (a)( l ); 7324(a). 

Congress has called the use of official authority prohibition the "heart" of the Hatch Act, 

S. Rep. No. 103-57 at 3 (1993), and its purpose is twofold. The first goal is ensuring that 

employees advance as a result of their own meritorious service and not because of their political 

loyalties. See Civ. Serv. Comm 'n v. Nat'/ Assoc. ofLetter Carriers. 413 U.S. 548,557 (1973). 

Second, and more relevant to this case, is that federal agencies "arc expected to enforce the law 

and execute the programs of the Government without bias or favoritism for or against any 

political party or group or the members thereof." /d. at 565. Moreover, the Com1 stressed that "it 

is not only important that the Govemment and its employees in fact avoid practicing political 

justice, but it is also critical that they appear to the public to be avoiding it, if confidence in the 

system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.'' Id. 

16 rzw:L6J explained thai in or around 20 II, NALC agreed to lei USPS hire a limited number of supplemental, noncareer Jetter carriers (CCAs.) at a lower cost than not only career city letter carriers hut also the pre-20 11 class of 

mm-carcer carriers. 17 rzw:L6J poinled out that an LMOU dated before 2011 would nol have taken into account the availability of CCA>. 

The Levinown and Langhorne LMOlJs thaJWiliJscnJto !Iii:lliii1Jwcrc signed in 2007. The Bristol LMOU is 

undated. 

16 
81 

Congress adopted the political activity on duty restriction in 1993 to strengthen the law 

against political activity "on the clock," while expanding federal and postal employees' rights to 

be politically active as private citizens. S. Rep. No. 103-57 at l-2 (1993). "Political activity" 

means "an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for 

partisan political office, or partisan political group." 5 C.F.R. § 734.101. The term "partisan 

political group" means "any committee, club, or other organization which is ... organized for a 

partisan purpose, or which engages in partisan political activity." !d. 

OSC found no evidence that individual NALC members engaged in any prohibited 

political activity by participating in the Labor 2016 program. Most federal and USPS employees 

arc permitted to take an active part in partisan political management and partisan political 

campaigns, to include working with a PAC, as long as they do so in their personal capacities 

while off duty, out of uniform, and outside of the workplace. See 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a). ~ 

Instead, OSC analyzed the extent to which USPS, through its practices, officially 

approved and supported NALC's political activity, in violation of the Hatch Act. 

A. USPS facilitated NALC's political activity by favoring union official LWOP 

over other types ofleave. 

The Labor 2016 program was "political activity" for Hatch Act purposes. In NALC's 

own words, Labor 2016 was "one of the most comprehensive electoral programs in the labor 

movement's history" directed toward "ensur[ing] voters support our endorsed candidates" and 

"send[ing] a champion for working families to the Oval Ollice." Released carriers canvassed 

voters in "battleground" states, promoting NALC's endorsed candidates and asking "if we could 

count on their vote." Further, carriers who participated in Labor 2016 were paid out of the LCPF, 

a PAC the purpose of which is to "elect[] qualified candidates who support letter carriers." To 

reach as many voters as possible in 2016, NALC also partnered with WAC, the AFL-CIO's 

PAC. The candidates NALC endorsed were all "candidates for partisan political oflice," that is, 

they were seeking an "office for which any candidate is nominated or elected as representing" a 

political party a representative of which received votes for the office of U.S. President in 2012. 

See 5 C.F.R. § 734.101 (definitions of"political activity" and"partisan political office"). And 

the LCPF and WAC are "partisan political groups" because of their efforts to elect partisan 

political candidates in the 2016 elections, so working in furtherance of those PACs' goals 

likewise constitutes "political activity" under the Hatch Act. 

USPS, through~ and others in the LR workforce, facilitated NALC's political 

activity by directing local supervisors to approve union oftlcial L WOP requests to participate in 

Labor 2016. Characterizing this political activity as union business conferred a special status on 

carriers' leave requests. As discussed, USPS generally defers to union official LWOP requests 

anJ USPS management is far more likely to approve a union official LWOP request than a leave 

request from an individual carrier. The combination of headquarters notitkation regarding Labor 

"Sec also H.R. Rep. No. 103-16 at IS (1993) (explaining that the actions of employees on LWOP to work full time 

fOr the union "do not raise concerns about the misuse of oflicial authority" even though they continue to accrue 

federal retirement and other benefits). 

17 
82 

2016 requests, and the depiction of these requests as official union business, created an 

environment in which USPS--as an institution-facilitated NALC's political activity, in 

violation of the Hatch Act 

I. By communicating lists of Labor 2016 participants to local managers, 

USPS headquarters assured that requests./(Jr union official LWOP to 

engage in political activity would be favored. 

By disseminating lists of Labor 2016 participants to local managers, USPS headquarters 

essentially guaranteed that can·iers would be released to engage in political activity, without 

consideration of operational needs or concerns. ~understood this as well, recognizing 

there was "no question" getting the carriers released would be easier if[] communicated the list 

to R:iillillln USPS's hierarchical structure, LR officials in the field interpreted l1:iili:GIIJ 

communication as a directive to release the carriers without asking questions. As [ill@] 

described it: "The boss may not always be right, but the boss is always the boss. And if I've got a 

headquarters manager of labor relations sending instructions through the proper channels clown 

to me ... to implement, then, in my mind, I'm going to implement those procedures." ICblC6l'!bl I 

evinced the same attitude when[] said, "I don't spend a second second-guessing !IiillJWilliiiJJ 

Indeed, although man ~g~r\:r Ohio initially questioned the requests, once they received 

communication from b 6 · "they said 'okay,' ... [and] they were all approved." Even ICb)(6);( I ~an operations manager not in the LR hierarchy, did not want to be seen as "the only 

D1strict" having trouble implementing a program that was on headquarters' radar. 

Local managers had less discretion to negotiate with the union and reach a mutually 

acceptable solution regarding the Labor 2016 releases, even though the requests came on short 

notice, and the release period was much longer than a typical tour on union business. WiSiiii.:J 

tried to mitigate the impact the releases would have on the Wisconsin Rapids post office, but 

Will§] invoking USPS headquarters, conveyed that WiSiiii.:J had no option but to release both 

carriers for two months. ~explained that while[] could negotiate with the local union 

concerning live carriers' requests to attend a three-day training course because the requests came 

on shon notice, []did not have the same latitude with respect to Labor 2016, because the latter 

was "a national thing from headquarters that was being dealt with, with a national NALC 

representative." And even though ICb)C6Hb) I believed that Wisconsin Rapids had a legitimate 

basis for denying the requests, at least in part,[] complied, because "this is a little bit different 

because now you've got area and headquarters involved and they're pushing to have these people 

released." 

Similarly, in Marshfield, post office managers and the local NALC branch had agreed to 

delay the carrier's release by two days to October 8, in accordance with the office's incidental 

leave policy, because the weekly schedule had been posted. But because notification of the 

requests had come down from USPS headquarters, and because hcaclqual1ers had not helped the 

Wisconsin Rapids post office, Lakeland District management ordered "that we get these people 

released immediately," even though doing so did not comport with the LMOU provision 

regarding incidental leave. And in the Philadelphia Metro District, local managers asked to 

release carriers for Labor 2016 only during weeks in which they had not yet reached the 

maximum percentage of carriers off work per their LMOUs. Even though the LMOUs did not 

IX 
83 

require the carriers' release, ICblC6l:Cbl I knew those requests were not negotiable because "this 

agreement was made at the headquarters level to release these folks." Indeed,[] "knew the 

whole time that most likely they were going to get every single person released that they wanted 

released" because ''it came from headquarters level." And in fact, every carrier was released 

except those who decided they did not want to participate. 

2. USPS's local managers favored NALC members' requests for leave to 

mgage in political activity during Labor 2016 because the requests \Vere 

characterized as union official LWOP. 

USPS managers described an institutional mindset in favor of granting requests for union 

official LWOP-·-including those involving political activity--wherever possible to foster a good 

working relationship with the union and, in some cases, to avoid grievances. Local managers 

''generally approve(]" requests for union official LWOP, or at least work with union officials to 

lessen the impact and satisfy both parties. This mentality appears to be so ingrained that at least 

one LR official claimed that granting union official LWOP for Labor 2016 was required not only 

by the CBA but also by federal law, unless the release would cause "cataclysmic" operational 

concerns. Another tried to grant union official L WOP requests in order to avoid being charged 

with an unfair labor practice. lZiilCKiJ believed that USPS should have ICb)(6);(b) I as many people 

off as possible" to build goodwill during negotiations to renew the CBA and massage two 

contractual issues that the Labor 2016 releases had exposed. Indeed,[] described the USPSNALC relationship as "critical to the success of the Postal Service." 

Even when local managers challenge requests for union official LWOP, higher echelons 

intervene to accommodate the requests.~ described a "protocol" whereby union officials 

raise the issue up the USPS hierarchy until the pm·ties work it out. In tum, the pattern of granting 

union official LWOP discourages local managers from pushing back in the first place. Hence 

j(b)(6);( I plea to keep concerns over releasing the carriers during the second wave of Labor 2016 

from "go[ ing] outside of the district." ICbl(6l-Cb I agreed that, because Wi] concerns over releasing 

the Wisconsin Rapids carriers fell on deaf ears, "we pretty much knew we were going to be 

releasing them" for the second wave of Labor 2016. 

In turn, union officials expected the requests to be approved. Even though the JCAM 

distinguishes requests for union activities---which fall under the nonnal leave rules-from 

requests to attend conventions, which must be granted,~~ and WilJ ~ 

assumed the carriers would be released for Labor 2016. And the California state association 

president told participating carriers it was "l 00% official that you are all officially released" 

before they even submitted their PS Form397ls. In WilJWliZiiiJi:i) words, "they're not standing 

in our way." 

Non-union members, or union members who support candidates other than those the 

union has endorsed, do not have the benefit of these considerations. An employee who, with only 

a few days' notice, requests one or two months of annual leave or personal LWOP to campaign 

forWilorlillcandidate or party of choice "is not going to be released." And although the 

employee could file a grievance, Wi] likelihood of success is low compared to that of a union 

member following the "protocol" lZiilCfuJ described, because there is "about a zero percent 

19 
84 

chance"~ would weigh in. Thus, the same operational concerns that a postmaster raised to 

(unsuccessfully) challenge a request for union official LWOP for Labor 2016 would probably be 

enough to justify denying another employee's request, because "it's never going to get elevated 

[to headquarters!." To have a chance of getting the time off work, the employee probably would 

have to request it six to nine months in advance, when the post office establishes its vacation 

schedule for the year. 

B. USPS's practice of favoring NALC's political activity violated the Hatch Act. 

USPS's practice of favoring union official LWOP to engage in political activity, as 

implemented by~ and WiJ predecessors, created an institutional bias that the Hatch Act 

prohibits. As a federal entity, USPS must remain politically neutral. See 5 U.S.C. § 7321 (a)( 1 ); 

Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. at 565. Specifically, the Hatch Act dictates that USPS official policies 

and practices must not favor one employee's or group's political activity over another's. For 

example, the Hatch Act regulations contemplate that an agency may permit employees to 

contribute to a PAC (whether associated with a union or not) through a voluntary payroll 

allotment. See 5 C .F.R. § 734.208(c); see also 5 C.F.R. § 550.311 (b) (providing for discretionary 

allotments). But an agency must afford that benefit to every employt:e equally, irrespective of 

which PAC an employee chooses to support. Similarly, agency heads have discretion to grant 

administrative leave to employees so they can vote in primary and general elections. See 

5 C.F.R. §§ 30 1-302; CPM 2012-0719 All employees, regardless of party affiliation or candidate 

preference, should be able to take advantage of that opportunity. 

Here, only carriers who wanted to campaign for NALC's endorsed candidates were given 

the opportunity to take several weeks of leave on short noti<.:e, over the objections of local 

supervisors who raised concerns about potential operational impact. 2

° Characterizing Labor 2016 

as union business created this advantage, given the institutional mindset in favor of granting 

union official LWOP. Thus, USPS, through~ and its longstanding practice of honoring 

these kinds of requests, failed to administer its programs in a politically neutral manner in 

violation of the Hatch Act. 

The dissemination of lists of Labor 2016 participants down the LR chain of command, 

and the follow up directives from LR officials to approve leave requests for listed carriers, 

implicate the Hatch Act's prohibition against engaging in political activity while on duty or in 

the federal workplace. See 5 U.S.C. § 7324(a)(l)-(2). The term "political activity" is construed 

broadly to include a "vast range" of activities. Burrus\'. Vegliante, 336 F.3d 82. 87-88 (2003). 

~and other LR officials knew generally what the Labor 2016 program entailed;[[] 

acknowledged that the "ground game" described in "The Postal Record" article was "somewhat 

consistent with ... what l thought they were doing." [lilJ also knew that NALC had endorsed 

Clinton for President in 2016 and that the union historically has supported Democratic 

candidates. In addition, union officials referred to Labor 2016 as a "campaign" and a "political 

1

" CPM 2012-07 is a memorandum from then-director of the Office of Personnel Management, John Berry, outlining 

the government's of excusing employees from work so they can vote. It is available online at 

ah•c:ncT \utin~ (last visit<'d July 6, 2017). 

analysis here would h\: th~ same if NALC endorsed a bipartisan list of candidates. USPS cannot provide 

institutional support for any partisan candidates, rcgan.lkss of their political party. 

20 
85 

campaign" in email communications with liWIJ [(hllill acknowledged that sending the lists 

ensured "better coordination and awareness" of the release program, and given USPS's 

hierarchical culture, doing so amounted to assisting the union's political activity while at work. 

Thus, USPS violated the Hatch Act when LR ofticials directed local to approve union ofticial 

LWOP requests for political activity. 

USPS also violated the Hatch Act's prohibition against "us[ingJ ... official authority or 

influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election." 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7323(a)( 1 ). USPS institutional practices were put in motion by l!hliill and other USPS officials 

to support NALC's efforts to elect certain candidates. As explained above, LR officials at the 

area and district levels interpreted l1:iiiillJJ emails as directives. Violations of the usc of official 

authority provision most often occur in the supervisor-subordinate context, but such a 

relationship is not required. Special Counsel v. Ware, 114 M.S.P.R. 128 (2010). Here, because of 

USPS's hierarchical culture, local of1icials understood the communications from a headquarters 

official to be mandates. and immediately took action to enforce the directives. 

To be clear, OSC did not find evidence that [(hllill sent the lists of Labor 2016 participants 

to local managers with the specific intent of inf1uencing the outcome of the 2016 elections; 

rather, maintaining a good relationship with the union seems to have been illiJ primary 

motivation. However. OSC concludes that USPS management took official actions with the 

intent of enabling NALC's political activity, and with a clear understanding of what that activity 

involved. The collective involvement of USPS management in the Labor 2016 program 

constitutes a systemic violation of the Hatch Act. 

C. Disciplinary action is not warranted in this case, but OSC recommends that 

USPS take institutional corrective action. 

When OSC determines that a Hatch Act violation has occurred, OSC may seek 

disciplinary action and corrective action. See 5 U.S.C. ~ 1216(c). Penalties for Hatch Act 

violations include "removal, reduction in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a 

period not to exceed 5 years. suspension, reprimand, or an assessment of a civil penalty not to 

exceed $1.000.'' 5 U.S. C. § 7326. If OSC determines that disciplinary action is wammted, it 

generally brings a written complaint to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). See 

5 U .S.C. ~ l215ta)( I). When determining the appropriate penalty for a Hatch Act violation, the 

MSPB looks to the factors outlined in Douglas v. Veterans Admininstration. 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 

305-06 (1981). See Special Counsel\'. Lewis, 121 M.S.P.R. 109, 'I'll 21-23 (2014). A review of 

the relevant Douglas factors indicates that disciplinary action is not warranted in this case. but 

OSC recommends that USPS take corrective action to prevent more Hatch Act violations from 

occurring in the future. 

I. Disciplinary action against IIli:ii5l] is not war milled because significant 

mitigating circumstances exist. 

Notwithstanding OSC's conclusion that~as well as other USPS officialsviolated the Hatch Act, a number of facts weigh against taking disciplinary action against~ 

Significantly, USPS has a long history of allowing NALC to use union official LWOP to engage 

21 
86 

in political activity. Indeed, this "standard operating procedure" has been in place since at least 

the 1990s, long before~ assumed W2J position in 2006 or 2007. ~testified that[] 

received lists of participants from N ALC and passed them on to LR managers in the field during 

W2J tenure in~ role, and (b) 6);( recalls working with~ immediate predecessor, 

l!hllfiHh)(71! I about the program when worked for NALC. This was a practice~ 

inherited, and OSC found no evidence that anyone questioned or evaluated its propriety until 

2016. And OSC acknowledges that the custom under scmtiny here was a matter of first 

impression for our office. Under Douglas, the MSPB will consider the clarity with which~ 

had been warned about the conduct in question or any mles []might be violating by engaging in 

it. 5 M.S.P.R. at 305. Given these circumstances, it would be unreasonable to discipline~ 

for continuing the practice simply because[] encumbered the position when someone happened 

to question it. 

Of equal significance is~ motivation for disseminating the lists of Labor 2016 

participants to local managers-engendering goodwill with the union. OSC found~ 

testimony regarding W2J reasons for facilitating the requests for union official LWOP to be 

credible, and other witnesses echoed this sentiment. While~ knew the purpose of Labor 

2016, OSC found no evidence that political considerations informed W2l actions. Rather. 

maintaining a good relationship with NALC during contract negotiations, as well as bolstering 

USPS's bargaining position concerning exceeding the CCA cap and the Wausau withholding 

issue, seem to have been W2J primary concerns. The first Douglas factor indicates that an 

employee's reasons for engaging the activity at issue should be considered when detennining the 

appropriate penalty for a violation. See Douf?/as, 5 M.S.P.R. at 305 (placing signiticancc on 

whether the employee acted maliciously or for personal gain, and whether the violation was 

inadvertent).~ motivation, coupled with the precedence upon which[] acted, further 

suggest that disciplinary action is not warranted. 

Other Douglas factors address an employee's capacity for rehabilitation. See 5 M.S.P.R. 

at 305. Relevant considerations include the extent to which[] was on notice of the rules[] 

violated when engaging in the activity at issue, as well as the employee's disciplinary history. 

See Lewis v. Dep 't of the Air Force, 28 M.S.P.R. 483, 487 (1985) (a good work record indicates 

possibility of rehabilitation); Tallis v. Dep 't ofthe Navy, 20 M.S.P.R. 108, Ill (1984) (lack of 

prior notice suggests potential for rehabilitation).~ has been a USPS employee for almost 

40 years, and in that time[] has not been subject to disciplinary action. And in both W2l OSC 

interview and the USPS Office of Inspector General interview, Wi:lliilJ stated that if OSC told 

USPS that the practice violated the Hatch Act, the practice would change. [liiJ long, unblemished 

career and [ili] willingness to comply with OSC's recommendations indicate that additional 

violations are unlikely. 

All things considered, disciplinary action is not wammtcd in this case. Thus, OSC will 

issue~ a warning letter advising m:iiJ not to repeat the conduct described in this report. With 

regard to the other managers and the institutional violation of the Hatch Act, USPS indicates that 

it will consider OSC's recommendations and modify its practices to ensure compliance with the 

Hatch Act. 

22 
87 

2. USPS must reevaluate irs practices to neutralize the advantage NALC 's 

political ejforts received in 2016 and in pasr election years. 

USPS must take artlrmative steps to prevent future Hatch Act violations. First, to ensure 

that it is administering its programs in a politically neutral manner. USPS should exclude 

political activity, as defined by the Hatch Act, from the acceptable uses of union official LWOP. 

As discussed in this report, USPS's practice of facilitating union official LWOP for NALC's 

Labor 2016 program--even when it conflicted with operational needs-gave the appearance that 

USPS favored or supported the union's endorsed candidates. As discussed, Labor 2016 was not 

an activity paid for out of the union's general fund. Instead, NALC was required to usc the 

LCPF·-.. a distinct incorporated entity organized for a political purpose-to compensate the 

carriers who participated. Officially characterizing NALC's political activity as "union business" 

affords this distinct, partisan activity with official advantages and benefits that should be 

reserved for other union business, such as training and conferences. 

Second, USPS management should not require or suggest that union members be released 

to engage in political activity. Rather, USPS should implement a "hands off' approach to a 

union's political activity. The postal unions and individual employees and members are 

permitted, and should be encouraged, to maintain PACs, endorse candidates, and enlist union 

members to support their electoral agendas on their own time. But USPS headquarters, area LR 

managers, and disnict LR managers should not enable a union's political activity through 

practices that create institutional biases for certain candidates. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

OSC identified institutional Hatch Act issues not exclusively attributable to any one 

employee. so disciplinary action is not appropriate in this case. But USPS must prevent future 

violations through changes in its practices regarding union official LWOP. OSC already has 

communicated the need to take corrective action to USPS, and agency representatives appear 

ready to take the steps necessary to comply with the Hatch Act. OSC asks USPS to notify OSC 

of its corrective action plan no later than August 31,2017. OSC attorneys are available to assist 

USPS in its efforts to take cmTective measures. 

23 
88 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Adam Miles, Acting Special Counsel, 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel 

From Ranking Member Thomas R. Carper 

"The Postal Service's Actions During the 2016 Campaign Season: 

Implications for the Hatch Act." 

July 19, 2017 

1. In April 2017, the Ofllce of Special Counsel (OSC) determined that a tweet from Dan 

Scavino,Jr., White House Director of Social Media, calling for the defeat of 

Representative Justin Amash in a primary election, violated the Hatch Act. What 

was the analysis underlying the determination that Mr. Scavino's conduct violated 

the Hatch Act? 

The Hatch Act restricts certain political activities of federal executive branch employees, 

except for the president and the vice president. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326. Accordingly, White 

House employees, including the White House social media director, are covered by the Hatch Act. 

As such, Mr. Scavino is prohibited from, among other things, using his official authority or influence 

for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. See 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1). 

For example, under this provision, he may not use his official tide while engaging in political activity 

or his official position to advance or oppose candidates for partisan office. Political activity is 

defined as activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for a partisan 

political office, or partisan political group. See 5 C.F.R. § 734.101. 

During our investigation of Mr. Scavino's tweet concerning the defeat of Representative 

Amash in a primary election, we reviewed his personal Twitter account, @DanScavino, and 

confirmed that on April1, 2017, he posted a political tweet to this account. The tweet at issue stated, 

"@realDonaldTrump is bringing auto plants & jobs back to Michigan. @justinamash is a big 

liability. #Trump Train, defeat him in primary." At the time of the tweet, his 'I\vitter account profile 

photograph showed him standing in the Oval Office and his header photograph was an image of 

President Trump giving a speech behind a dais displaying the official presidential seaL We 

understand that @DanScavino is his personal Twitter account and on Aprill, 2017, his account 

profile read, "Personal Twitter Handle. 6/2015-11/2016, Director of #SociallYfedia & Senior 

Advisor @rea!DonaldTrump. Official White House Twitter Handle: @Scavino45." In addition, at 

or around the time of the tweet, we reviewed his official White House Twitter account, @Scavino45, 

and observed that the images displayed and tweets posted on both his personal and official Twitter 

accounts were very similar and in some instances identical. 

As stated above, the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using their official position 

to advance or oppose candidates for partisan office. Here, because Mr. Scavino's personal Twitter 

account almost exclusively contained tweets and photographs about the official activities of the 

president and the vice president, it gave the impression that he was acting in his official capacity 

when he used this account to post the tweet at issue. Mr. Scavino's tweet about Representative 

Amash, which called for his defeat in a primary, is political activity under the Hatch Act. Thus, OSC 

concluded that he violated the Hatch Act when he posted his tweet about Representative Amash on 

a social media account that repeatedly invoked his official position at the White House. 
89 

2. Is OSC satisfied with the efforts of the Office of the White House Counsel to 

educate Mr. Scavino and other senior Trump Administtation officials of their 

Hatch Act responsibilities? 

Since January 2017, the Office of White House Counsel (OWHC) has shown significant 

interest in educating White House employees about their Hatch Act responsibilities. First, on 

February 8, 2017, OSC's Hatch Act Unit chief and deputy chief, among others, met with the 

OWHC to discuss the Hatch Act and some of its more complex issues. In advance of this meeting, 

OSC provided several Hatch Act-related documents, including two reports to the president 

regarding the prohibited use of official authority to influence an election by former Secretaries Julian 

Castro and Kathleen Sebelius. During the meeting, the parties discussed several issues, including 

participation in fundraisers, interaction between White House personnel and the Republican Party, 

and potential issues related to the press secretary's role. Since that time, OSC has continued to build 

a good working relationship with the OWHC and has provided advice on Hatch Act-related 

questions as issues have arisen. 

Next, in the Scavino matter specifically, the OWHC quickly responded and informed OSC 

that on or about April 5, 2017, it counseled Mr. Scavino about the Hatch Act's political activity 

restrictions, including that he should not tweet about official matters on his personal Twitter 

account. The OWHC also advised him to remove the pictures that created the impression that his 

personal account was an official social media account. Mr. Scavino promptly removed the pictures, 

and OSC has not observed any further violations to date. In response to the Scavino matter and 

other social media concerns, the OWHC asked for additional social media guidance, which OSC 

provided on August 30, 2017. 

Finally, in May 2017, a Trump White House attorney contacted OSC seeking guidance on 

the Hatch Act's application to White House Office of Political },ffairs (OPA) staff. OSC initially 

directed him to OSC's 2011 report en titled ''Inve.rtigation of Po!itiw! ActtintieJ by White Hou.re and 

Federal Agency OJ!icia!J during the 2006 Midterm E!ection.r" and suggested that he compile a list of all 

activities the OPA staff would be performing. Once he compiled that list, OSC could assist him in 

determining whether the activities at issue arc political for Hatch Act purposes. OSC also indicated 

that there would be different Hatch Act concerns depending on the appointment status of OP A 

staff (e.g., commissioned officers versus Schedule C employees). We all agreed that once he had the 

list of OPA activities he would contact OSC for further guidance. Therefore, we anticipate further 

conversations with White House officials regarding this issue. 

Based on these communications, OSC believes that Hatch Act compliance is a priority for 

the Trump White House. 

3. What efforts can Congress take to support OSC's efforts to improve compliance with 

the Hatch Act at all levels of the federal government? 

OSC is responsible for Hatch Act enforcement, which includes investigating alleged 

violations, seeking disciplinary action when warranted, and issuing thousands of advisory opinions. 

In addition, OSC devotes a significant amount of time to its outreach efforts to educate the federal 

workforce about their rights and responsibilities under the Hatch Act. The 2016 presidential 

election-like many before-resulted in numerous Hatch Act complaints, an increase in the number 

of advisot-y opinion requests, and a heightened public interest in this law. 

2 
90 

Additionally, unlike his predecessors, President Trump fLied paperwork with the Pederal 

Election Commission in January 2017 establishing that he is a candidate in the 2020 presidential 

election. Although OSC issued guidance on President Trump's status as a candidate in February 

2017, this unprecedented move has nevertheless generated many questions from federal employees 

regarding the president's candidacy and, in particular, its impact on the Hatch Act's prohibition 

against engaging in political activity while on duty or in the workplace. It also has resulted in an 

increase in agency ethics officials seeking guidance from OSC about their respective officials' 

participation in presidential campaign rallies. These types of issues, which are often complex and 

time-sensitive, are usually limited to the months leading up to a presidential election. However, given 

the president's premature candidacy, OSC continues to operate with the increased scrutiny and 

demands of a presidential election season. 

For these reasons, OSC needs more resources to timely and effectively respond to the 

increased exigencies in Hatch Act matters. 
91 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable Megan J. Brennan 

From Senator Thomas R. Carper 

"The Postal Service's Actions During the 2016 Campaign Season: 

Implications for the Hatch Act" 

July 19, 2017 

I. How has the absence of comprehensive Postal Reform legislation impacted the ability of the U.S. 

Postal Service to function? 

Securing legislative reform is essential to ensuring that the Postal Service can continue 

to provide the high-quality universal service that the American people deserve. Over the 

ten years ending in 2016, the Postal Service reported losses of $62.4 billion, and we 

have responded aggressively to the challenges that confronted us. For example, in 

response to the sharp decline in mail volume, we right-sized our operations, increased 

workforce flexibility, and established a more affordable, two-tiered wage system. These 

efforts have resulted in cost savings of approximately $14 billion annually. We also are 

proud of our achievements in growing our package business, and implementing 

innovations that have enhanced the value of the mail to better serve our customers. 

Despite these achievements, our efforts have not been enough -and cannot be 

enough -to restore the Postal Service to financial health, absent legislative and 

regulatory reform. Our debt is at an unsustainable level and while we continue to pursue 

available management actions to reduce our costs even further, there are limited 

remaining initiatives within our control that will result in substantial cost savings without 

threatening our ability to continue to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient postal 

services. The $5.6 billion net loss for 2016 represented the 10th consecutive annual net 

loss the Postal Service has incurred. We have reached our borrowing limit and have a 

cash reserve that is wholly inadequate for an organization of our size and insufficient to 

meet our future financial obligations. 

Our ability to continually change and improve to meet the changing needs of the 

American economy and society depends upon our ability to operate with a financially 

sustainable business model. There is an urgent need for legislation reform, whether it is 

the House-introduced bill (H.R. 756) or a similar bill in the Senate, that would provide the 

Postal Service with the financial stability to invest in our future and continue to be an 
92 

Æ 

engine of growth, to be a strong business partner, to compete for customers with 

compelling new services and offerings, and to meet the expectations of the American 

public. 

2. What operational limitations has the U.S. Postal Service experienced from the absence of a Board 

of Governors? 

The Postal Service is currently operating without any Governors. The final outside 

Governor vacated his seat in December 2016, after serving a one-year hold-over term 

past the expiration of his original term. The Senate has not confirmed a single Governor 

nominee since 2010. 

The Governors select the Postmaster General and the Deputy Postmaster General and 

provide strategic oversight by approving overall expenditures (including our capital 

investment plan), reviewing practices, conducting long-range planning, and setting price 

and product policy, in accordance with postal statutes. These are essential oversight and 

decision-making functions that are best performed as the result of informed discussions 

among well-qualified Governors with diverse perspectives who can represent the public 

interest. The presence of the Governors, and their ultimate control and authority over the 

Postal Service, also ensures that the Postal Service's governance structure adheres to 

constitutional requirements. 

The Postal Service continues day-to-day operations and will do so for the immediate 

future, but our long-term success would be significantly enhanced in all respects with a 

fully constituted Board of Governors. The absence of Governors also raises significant 

legal questions that could materially impede the Postal Service's continued ability to 

operate, and heightens the need to shore up our financial condition through legislation 

until Governors can be nominated and confirmed.