Addressing Common Mail Issues

Following are common issues that offices face when trying to manage their constituent mail, along with solutions we have identified through our work. From Chapter 14: “Managing Constituent Communications” in CMF’s Setting Course: A Congressional Management Guide.

Q: What happens when mail volume is so high that we accumulate a backlog?

Establish a backlog alert. It is the responsibility of the Mail Manager to determine when a problem exists. When an LA/LC figures out she will not meet her turnaround deadline, she consults with the Mail Manager who must work with the Chief of Staff and/or the Legislative Director to determine a plan for resolving the backlog.

Options include: assigning it to another LA/LC; delaying the response until the original staffer is free the next week; or asking the entire staff to stay late one night and help. Some offices utilize a "Mail Zero Day," with the goal of having no pending mail at the end of the day. The Mail Zero Day approach can also be used on a regular basis to prevent backlogs and instill a sense of teamwork among the staff. It is important that everyone knows that mail is an office-wide responsibility, and backlogs are not just an individual's problem. It's not the staffer who will be voted out of office by dissatisfied constituents.

The key to the backlog alert is to invest your Mail Manager with enough clout to prevent your LAs and LCs from abusing it as an easy way to avoid mail. The first time an LC's or LA's backlog reaches critical proportions, pinpoint the cause. Was it other priorities, heavier-than-usual mail on a controversial issue, a larger workload than other staffers, or other issues more complex and time-consuming to write about? Were they ill or on vacation? If the staffer was diverted to other higher priorities, or bedridden, the back-up plan is implemented. Otherwise, perhaps the staffer's workload needs to be re-examined and redistributed to less burdened colleagues. If a backlog regularly occurs for more than one staffer, the office should reassess its entire mail process to determine the cause for delay.

Q: How do you prevent the Member from being a mail logjam, carrying the mail around for weeks, or keeping it buried uon their desk before granting approval?

When a Member says, “Mail is the most important thing in my office, and I want one-week turnaround,” he makes a commitment to the staff to review mail quickly. When a Member regularly fails to approve mail in a timely manner, he signals to staff that what he says about mail and what he really means are two different things.

Ways to solve this problem are for the Member to: take seriously the commitment he makes to the staff; allow staff to add mail-review “appointments” to his schedule; rethink the priority of speedy mail turnaround; or gracefully recuse himself from the process to keep the turnaround time reasonable. Since only 15 percent of the mail should require new drafts in a mature office (with the other 85 percent already in the system and approved), the amount of mail requiring approval at any given time should be relatively small.

A final note on this topic: some Mail Managers cut a deal with their Member that says, “If you want the mail to get out in one week, I have the authority to take any responses waiting in your office for approval for more than 48 hours and give them to the Chief of Staff for approval. Unless I have this authority, I can accept no responsibility for anything I don’t get back in 48 hours.” That arrangement keeps many Members current with their mail.

Q: How do we deal with "frequent flyers" or "pen pals" who write us multiple times?

If they are writing on the same issue and there has been no change or legislative action since you responded, either close out the inquiry or resend your message (it is possible they didn't receive it or see it the first time). Calling to let them know there has been no change instead of writing is also an option. If they are responding to your office's answer ("ping-ponging"), it should be closed out unless a clarification needs to be made. If they contact you multiple times but on multiple issues, respond to them every third or fourth time they write, choosing which issues you respond to. Focus on responding to the issues that have pre-approved text ready.

Q: How can we handle VIPs so the Member can personalize their letters?

A list of VIPs should be developed, tracked within the CMS/CSS, and periodically updated. Code VIPs in the database so this information is readily available to any staff member who accesses the constituent record. It is not uncommon for new staff to take many months to learn the VIPs in a district or state and this enables them to learn as they go. Many times District/State Directors or other outreach staff can be invaluable in identifying constituents who should be tracked in some additional way. In fact, when appropriate and useful, you should use your CMS/CSS to "flag" a constituent name with additional affiliation or interest codes (such as occupation, interest group associations, etc.).

Q: How can we keep form letters updated so we don’t send out old information?

The integrity of the mail system suffers if LAs/LCs do not keep an eye on updating pre-approved letters. It is embarrassing if a Member is telling a constituent in a letter that an issue is "under consideration" when it was voted on the week before.

Establish a system for reviewing form letters. The Mail Manager can make inquiries about what changes need to be made to reflect the previous week's floor action or pass around a list questions about currently approved texts for LA/LC review after the weekly staff meeting. Another approach: the Mail Manager could check the date a form letter was first produced and if it was months ago, or if he knows there was action on the bill, he could ask the relevant LA if the letter needs updating before he generates a large volume of outgoing letters. Of course, the bill numbers and references to "this year" in all form letters must be changed every year and at the beginning of a new Congress. One approach is to inactivate all form letters at the end of each Congress, reactivating each one only after it has been revised and verified as up-to-date.

Q: Are there additional strategies to save time and/or improve constituent satisfaction?

Through our research with staff and constituents, CMF has identified ways to both lighten the workload and improve constituent satisfaction. Consider:

• Eliminating pro/con letters. Many offices write two separate letters for each issue: one for those who oppose and one for those who support their view. Doing so creates additional work for staff and risks sending someone the wrong letter. If your boss has taken a position, simply state it and their reasoning in a matter-of-fact tone. No need to persuade or be defensive. If your boss has not taken a position, simply connect to the issue and constituents in a different way.
• Creating higher value, but fewer, responses. Instead of creating a separate message for each individual campaign, group them together by broad policy areas (e.g., changes to the tax code, protecting natural resources, regulatory reform). Then craft a high-quality response on that topic with links to the Representative's/Senator's position and action taken to support it.
• Answering difficult mail with a phone call. Some messages might be on obscure or particularly complex issues. Others are "one-offs" — mail that isn't part of a larger campaign or tied to specific legislation. Instead of drafting a written reply, authorize and train staff to respond with phone calls. It will save time in the mail process and also make constituents feel that their issue or opinion really matters since you are taking the time to call them and personally interact with them.