Postal Rate and Fee Changes
Docket No. R2000-1
)
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE OPPOSITION
TO MOTION OF UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE TO
STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE WRITTEN RESPONSE OF
WITNESS SMITH TO NOTICE OF INQUIRY NO. 4.
(August 25, 2000)
To:
Hon. Edward J. Gleiman
Presiding Officer
The Office of the Consumer
Rules of Practice
to Rule 21(b) of the
United States Postal Service (“USPS”) filed August 22, 2000 to strike portions
of the
written
to the
direction
of the Presiding
answers
pursuant
of the
of OCA witness
hereby
(“OCA”),
the motion
response
and Procedure,
Advocate
and opposes
Smith to Notice of Inquiry No. 4.
Officer at oral hearing,
responses
Pursuant
to the motion are due by
August 28,200O.
Written testimony
the Commission’s
Variability
“egregiously
of OCA witness Smith was filed August 21, 2000 pursuant
invitation
Models (“Notice”).
in Notice of Inquiry
No. 4 Concerning
The USPS motion claims that portions
to
Mail Processing
of the response
exceed the scope of the inquiry initiated by the Commission”
as they do
not “directly relate to the family of issues raised by the NOI.” (Motion at 1.) The OCA
respectfully
disagrees
and asks that the motion be denied.
Docket No. R2000-1
2
The Notice specifically
whether
certain statistical
Bozzo “establish
invited written discussion
test results including
by either testimony
those already
or comment
performed
by witness
the validity of any particular model or family of models.” (Notice at 2.)
The Postal Service surprisingly
Smith’s conclusion
claims that the grounds
that the models are defective
Smith’s direct testimony.
have been set forth previously
This logic ignores the breadth of the questions
Notice. The Postal Service overlooks the question
asked to discuss
which form the basis for Dr.
whether...there
in part
may be theoretical
(9 of
in Dr.
posed in the
the Notice: “Parties are
grounds
for concluding
that a
rejected model could provide a better estimate of variability than either model A or B.”
(Notice at 3.) Dr. Smith’s testimony
“no.”
There are no theoretical
better estimate
responds directly to this request with a resounding
grounds
than models A and B.
for concluding
a rejected
model provides
Clearly, a simple “no” is not discussion.
a
Dr.
Smith explains why his answer is no: he explains the reasons the models themselves
are insufficient
Many of the points
contained
context
Dr. Smith makes with respect to Dr. Bozzo’s
in greater detail in his original testimony.
of the models
developed
by witness
hypothesis
denominated
suggested
Bozzo,
His views are presented
in the Notice, which
denominated
as Model
as Model B and other models.
include
model are
here in the
not only the model
A, but also the alternative
The deficiencies
listed by Dr.
Smith are for the first time explained with respect to Model B.
The OCA exercised
testimony
rather
than
its option under the Notice to express its response
comment.
Unfortunately,
the Postal
Service
arrogate for itself the option to select the manner of the OCA response.
would
through
like to
For instance,
3
Docket No. R2000-1
the Postal Service apparently
would have no objection if the OCA filed “a brief response
setting forth Dr. Smith’s limited views.” (Motion at 3.)
option and chose to file testimony sponsored
if the information
by Dr. Smith to set forth his views.
had been filed as comments,
and thus not subject to cross-examination,
However, the OCA exercised
its
In fact,
then it would not have been evidence
presumably
an advantage
for the parties.
The Postal Service further supports its objection to the testimony on the specious
claim that the material filed is “unduly repetitious
contradiction
and cumulative.”
It is clear that in
to the express intent of the Notice to obtain a full discussion
of the validity
of the models, the Postal Service does not wish to see in the record Dr. Smith’s pointed
statements
fundamentally
would allow testimony
conclusions
undermining
containing
their presentation.
The Postal Service
only two pages of conclusive
statements,
motion
including
never before made with reference to Model B. It suggests these pages are
sufficient to make Dr. Smith’s points.
pages of discussion
This is a strained
Service response
are too repetitious
and strange
The Postal Service finds that the remaining
and cumulative
argument,
to be admissible
given the voluminous
to the Notice and rebuttal evidence
five
as evidence.
nature of the Postal
it has filed on this subject, some
of which is a rehash of its own direct case.
Wherefore,
testimony
the motion of the Postal Service to strike portions
should be denied.
of Dr. Smith’s
Docket No. R2000-1
4
Respectfully
submitted,
OFFICE OF THE CONSUMER
Director
Kenneth E. Richardson
Attorney
1333 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20268-0001
(202) 789-6859; Fax (202) 789-6819
ADVOCATE
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this date served the foregoing document
participants
of record in this proceeding
in accordance
upon all
with Section 12 of the Rules of
Practice.
&
STEPHANIE
Washington, D.C. 20268-0001
August 2542000
d-Q+-@--
S. WALLACE