Postal Issues

The State Department assumed primary responsibility for U.S. policy on Universal Postal Union (UPU) matters in 1998. State has made progress in implementing its new responsibilities by consulting with the Postal Service, other federal agencies, postal users, private providers of international postal services, and the public. Also, State clearly signaled changes in U.S. policy on UPU reform. Despite this progress, opportunities exist for State to improve its process for developing U.S. policy on these matters and the institutional continuity and expertise of its staff. For example, GAO found shortcomings in the timing and notifications for public meetings and the distribution of documents discussed at those meeting that may have limited opportunities for stakeholders to provide meaningful input. GAO recommends that State establish a more structured, timely, and open process for developing U.S. policy on UPU matters. Also, State should provide sufficient staff continuity and expertise to handle its UPU responsibilities. It is unclear, however, how State plans to address GAO's recommendations. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see: Postal Issues: The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities, by Bernard L. Ungar, Director of Government Business Operations Issues, before the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, House Committee on Government Reform. GAO/T-GGD-00-63, Mar. 9 (eight pages).

GAO noted that: (1) State faced difficult challenges in assuming its new UPU-related responsibilities less than a year before the UPU Congress met in August and September 1999 to update binding agreements governing international postal service; (2) State's performance in implementing these new responsibilities was uneven in that GAO found strengths in some areas and opportunities for improvement in other areas; (3) State made progress in its first year in providing stakeholders and the general public with relevant information on UPU matters and giving them an opportunity to offer input into U.S. policy concerning the UPU; (4) State coordinated with the United States Postal Service, other federal agencies, and other nongovernmental stakeholders that were involved in UPU matters and included some of these stakeholders in the U.S. delegation to the UPU Congress; (5) stakeholders said that State was receptive to input and evenhanded in its consideration of views; (6) in addition, State clearly signaled changes to U.S. policy on issues related to UPU reform; (7) State officials said that the United States presented a different view and approach to the UPU with respect to raising issues of UPU reform that gave impetus to the UPU's decision to establish a process to consider reform issues; (8) several options exist for State to develop a more structured and open process for obtaining stakeholder input including ensuring better and more advance notification of public meetings and more advance distribution of materials prior to these meetings; (9) some stakeholders have raised concerns about the potential burden on State of using a formalized process to handle UPU-related responsibilities as well as whether such a process would be beneficial; (10) in this regard, 10 of 19 federal agencies that accounted for 90 percent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committees have reported that FACA requirements are more useful than burdensome; (11) representatives of federal and nonfederal organizations in the U.S. delegation to the UPU Congress said that staff turnover, combined with the limited time available before the UPU Congress, affected State's ability to fully understand the implications associated with various complex UPU policy issues; and (12) providing sufficient institutional continuity and expertise will be essential if State intends to play a leadership role in handling complex UPU issues and dealing with domestic and international stakeholders.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: