Through a Glass Darkly 

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

The page of the calendar has been turned to June. Next week, the management of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) will be placing before the Board of Governors a proposal to file with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) for an exigent increase in all postal prices. The term "exigent" refers to a provision in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA), which states that in the face of "extraordinary and exceptional" conditions a greater than inflation postal price increase may be imposed on all postal customers. When the terms "extraordinary and exceptional" were originally discussed in Congress, it was done with the concept that extraordinary and exceptional would mean in of another attack with biological weapons of mass distruction or some geological "big one" that shakes and devastates the American west coast.

As often is the case, the terms legislators pen often are imprecisely defined. It is not uncommon for lawgivers to convey to some agency, regulator, or court the authority to divine more precisely what such terms actually mean. In the case of PAEA, this job was given to the PRC.

When the Postal Service files its case, there will be many firsts. It will be the first time this provision from the 2006 act has ever been invoked. It will be the first time the Postal Regulatory Commission will have its mettle tested on whether Congress did right by conveying such trust. It also will be the first time the Commission will have the chance to demonstrate that a key provision of the new postal act was not some misguided congressional sop to those who were concerned over potential bureaucratic abuses of long-standing statutory monopolies. This is serious stuff.

Without doubt, Washington is the most political city in the world. Just as nature abhors a vacuum and quickly seeks to fill it, so also do people when faced with an informational vacuum. Whether the vacuum gets filled it with real information or merely idle gossip and rumor often isn't as humanly compelling as the need simply to fill it.

Well, the rumors have been flying throughout the Washington postal community as to how the commissioners at the PRC are likely to respond to this novel and politically laden challenge the Postal Service will lay at their door. We're all keenly aware that everyone of the sitting commissioners comes from some political (big "P" or little "p") background. Several, in fact, have come to the Commission after successful stints on Capitol Hill.

Anyone who ever has taken on the mantle of governmental service understands well the tidal pull of party and electoral politics. At the same time, when a regulatory agency such as the PRC is created, Congress does so with the full expectation that those who will serve understand fully that, first and foremost, their obligation is to serve the public interest and not some personal political need.

No one can really know what goes through the minds of public officials until they actually act. Until that time comes, suspecting how someone may behave is akin to trying to look through a window that only translucent at best. Nonetheless, the rumors have been making the rounds that this commissioner or that is likely to be swayed by something other than the call of public service. Some, it has been conjectured, may act out of a political expedience to make life a little easier for those facing tough elections, to avoid the fearsome squeaky wheels within postal labor who look for a comfortable glide toward collective bargaining, and to win favor with those in Congress who have been painted by one of their most vociferous critics as political swineherders who know only how to dress a "pig in lipstick."

Are the rumors true? If they are, they're not rumors. Rumors are suppositions without the benefit of fact, and it would be unjust to assume that presidentially appointed officials would be inclined to act irresponsibly.