Clearing Up The Rumors And Misinformation
On Wednesday, August 19, the Postmaster of the Oxford Post Office, Stephanie Lewis, posted this on social media:
Knee jerk reactions, misinformation and angst:
"That's ridiculous. Good way to get the post office to close for good."
"This makes no sense! It's one trash barrel a week and the trash truck goes past the office. What is the issue?"
"And the town owns the land which the PO leases. Weird!"
"Absolute ridiculous to exclude the Oxford Post Office from oxford trash services, especially when they picked it up before. How does this even make sense? Unfortunately, yet again, I am not surprised about the not well thought out plans that come from the town office these days. Very disappointed and I am sorry you are experiencing this. I will come get your trash and put it out with my trash in front of my house, since the town is being so childish, not sure why the town office is choosing the battles they have been lately, but it is not wise on their part! People have good memories come town election time!"
Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter
FACT check and actual facts:
FACT CHECK #1- First comment: The town spent the better part of a year cleaning up the post office after a fire. Oxford repaired and renovated the building. This cost the town money and time. If they wanted the post office to close it would have been after the fire! The main thing that kept the post office closed so long after it was fully refurbished? The U.S. Postal Service who presented hoop after hoop for the town to jump through.
FACT CHECK #2- Second comment: A small post office creates 50 to 150 lbs of trash a week. Probably more than a barrel. As far at the trash truck going right past the office so it can pick up the trash, that's like expecting an airplane at an airport to pick you up and take you somewhere simply because you are in the terminal. That's not how it works. These are paid services. The U.S. Postal Service contracts these services themselves.
FACT CHECK #3 - Third Comment: Yes, the town does own the land the Post Office leases. This lease was written by the Postal Service. It says they will arrange for trash pickup, not the town. It's not weird. The Post Office does this all the time.
FACT CHECK #4- Fourth Comment: (From a third party contributor) The Town has not told our trash provider not to pick up at the Post Office. We learned about this issue when the Post Office called the Town Office to ask why their trash had not been picked up. The Town Office did not know the answer and so looked at the lease.
The Town's lease with the Post Office states that the Post Office is responsible for removing its own trash. (Not really surprising.) This is what the lease has always stated. So the United States Post Office's contract with the Town (whose terms are pretty much dictated by the USPS) answers the question. There is nothing weird or surprising or unusual in this arrangement, and the Town has certainly done nothing to change anything about the way the trash at the Post Office has been collected.
(I would guess -- and this is just a guess -- that whomever picked up the trash before the fire stopped doing that when the PO closed after the fire. (Whether that was a contractor the USPO hired or the Town's trash collector is unknown to me.)
It should not surprise anyone that something would need to be done to re-start trash pickup after a year in which the PO was closed due to the fire. And since the PO's lease says that is the responsibility of the PO, it should also not be a surprise that it is the responsibility of the U.S. Post Office to arrange for service again.
Stephanie's question about alternatives is a reasonable one. I am sure this will get worked out.
Lewis's question may be reasonable, but it could have been answered by officials above her in the Postal Service rather than putting it out in a social media post. So, why did she do it that way?
After all her years at the Oxford Post Office, why didn't Lewis understand the lease with the town and the details about trash collection? If she didn't know, why didn't she call her bosses and supervisors? Why go immediately to social media?
Why did she post a message she knew might embarrass the town and town staff, the town staff that facilitated the repairs, renovation and the re-opening of the Oxford Post Office?
Why would she do all of this via social media? As a federal employee with influence over a community, shouldn't business be conducted via proper channels and not social media?
While we respect and are appreciative of the work of postal service staff, this incident in troubling. Public officials, especially one as important as a Post Office employee in a local post office, should follow proper channels in addressing problems. We respect that Postmaster Lewis, when fire broke out in the Post Office building over a year ago, took measures to stop it so the building wasn't totally consumed.
We also understand the frustration that Ms. Lewis might have felt over the past year as the Oxford Post Office was closed. Certainly, those in town who had to go pick up mail in Easton were frustrated. But, why not capitalize on the positive feelings of having the office open again instead of making this post?
Ms. Lewis is welcome to contact us and tell us if we got anything wrong in this story.
We also encourage people on social media to think before they post on an issue like this and perhaps find out what the facts are. When emotions get high on a social media page, the truth is often obscured.
From our research:
USPS is not funded by local governments. It is an independent federal entity that pays for its own operating costs—including trash collection, recycling, and waste disposal—from:
- Postal revenue (stamps, shipping fees)
- Federal appropriations for specific programs (very limited)
USPS’s waste‑management costs are part of its internal operating budget, including programs like the National Recycling Program, which explicitly covers trash‑disposal expenses.
