"The first thing that they said to me was, 'Oh, you're going to have to pay a 30-some-dollar NSF fee for this bill not going through," said Martin.
This is the kind of shit that feeds into the privatization crowd's agenda. The same thing or worse would likely happen if this were a private business, but it will nonetheless work as fine ammo for people shouting about government red tape.
A tiny bit of customer-service training could have turned a negative story into a positive outcome had they immediately reverted that NSF fee and done something else to make the situation right (like a sizable credit on her account for the trouble).
I don't remember where I first read it, but there's a concept in business where a problem can become an opportunity to make a positive impression on a customer. If you consistently shop at the same store and have no issues, you'll be happy but won't think much of it. If one day they screw up your order and then go above and beyond to make the situation right - that's what's going to make a real impression. It's that interaction that you're going to share with your friends or maybe even write a review about. If the business treats you well, you're going to likely leave with a more favorable impression than if they had never made a mistake in the first place. If they don't, you're never going to shop there again.
Obviously in this case the customer is dealing with a monopoly and has no choice in the matter, but government workers should be trained to a better standard about these things. People need to see that a government monopoly for something like this is in their best interests. Stories like this tell a very different tale. I guarantee a private monopoly would be much worse, but since at least the 80s the right has pushed a concentrated agenda that government = inefficient and outliers like this feed into that.