Summary#
This bill, the "PERFORM Act," would change federal law to limit performance-based pay for the Postmaster General and add new reporting and oversight requirements. The main change is a ban on any bonus, incentive, retention payment, or other performance-based pay for the Postmaster General for a fiscal year if certain negative conditions occurred in the prior fiscal year. The goal is to link senior executive pay to the Postal Service’s financial results, service performance, audit findings, and timely reporting to Congress.
- Who is affected: the Postmaster General (limits on bonuses) and the Postal Service’s senior leadership (new reporting requirements). The Board of Governors and the Postal Service Inspector General gain specific duties.
- Bonuses banned if preceding year had: costs > revenue; failure to meet nationwide service performance targets; a material weakness, adverse opinion, or disclaimer in the financial audit; or failure to submit the required annual report to Congress.
- New report required: within 30 days after each fiscal year ends, the Postmaster General must report to Congress on bonuses paid to senior executives, the performance metrics used, the Postal Service’s financial results, and national and district-level service data.
- Inspector General role: the Postal Service Inspector General must review that report and say whether the Postal Service complied with the new rules.
What it means for you#
- Postmaster General: Could lose eligibility for any performance-based compensation for a whole fiscal year if any of the listed negative conditions happened in the prior fiscal year.
- Board of Governors: Must not award performance-based pay to the Postmaster General for a fiscal year when the prior year met any listed condition. They must follow the ban when applicable.
- Senior executives and employees: No direct pay change is mandated for them, but the Postmaster General must report all performance-based payments and the metrics used to justify them.
- Congress: Will receive an annual report (within 30 days after the fiscal year ends) with financial results, service performance data, and details on senior executive awards and metrics.
- Postal Service Inspector General: Must review the annual report and determine whether the Postal Service followed the new rules.
- Public/service users: This does not change mail delivery rules directly, but it could affect executive incentives tied to service and financial decisions.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The Postal Service would likely incur administrative work to prepare the annual report (national and district-level service data, financials, and metrics).
- The Postal Service Inspector General would need staff time to review the report, which could increase OIG workload.
- If the ban reduces paid bonuses for the Postmaster General, that would lower compensation spending for that position; the bill does not specify dollar amounts.
- No formal fiscal estimate or cost numbers are provided in the bill text supplied.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to hold the Postmaster General accountable by tying performance pay to clear outcomes like financial results and service performance.
- It could increase transparency by forcing public reporting of senior executive awards, the metrics behind them, and district-level service data.
- The Inspector General review could strengthen oversight and verify whether the Postal Service followed the compensation and reporting rules.
- Requiring timely reporting to Congress (within 30 days after year end) could improve congressional oversight of Postal Service management.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the ban applies only to the Postmaster General’s performance-based pay and could reduce flexibility to recruit or retain qualified leaders, especially if pay is a central part of compensation packages.
- The bill does not define “established nationwide service performance targets” in this text; it is unclear which targets would trigger the ban and who sets them.
- The requirement to report district-level service data and payment metrics could create extra administrative burden and costs for the Postal Service and the Inspector General.
- The measure ties bonuses to outcomes that may be driven by broader factors outside an executive’s control (for example, legal constraints, funding rules, or congressional action), which could create perverse incentives or unfairly penalize leaders.
- It is unclear how the ban will interact with existing pay rules, prior-year awards, or awards made before enactment.