In addition, State clearly signaled changes in U.S. policy on issues related to UPU reform. 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. Several options exist for the Department of 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. 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 UPU policy issues, as well as to fully understand how to build support for U.S. policies in the UPU. Conclusions

The Department of State faced difficult challenges in its first year of implementing its new responsibilities for U.S. policy concerning UPU- related matters—challenges that were posed by the compressed timeframe, the need to learn about many complex international postal issues, and the need to work with diverse stakeholders. State’s performance in implementing its new responsibilities was uneven in that we found strengths in some areas and opportunities for improvement in others. The Department of State made progress in providing stakeholders and the public with relevant information and giving them an opportunity to offer input. State took steps to consult with interested parties and the public and to coordinate with USPS, other federal agencies, and other nongovernmental stakeholders involved in UPU matters through their inclusion in the U.S. delegation to the UPU Congress. Stakeholders said that State was receptive to input and evenhanded in its consideration of views. Some stakeholders raised concerns about the potential burden of a formalized process, such as FACA, as well as whether such a process would be beneficial. In our view, 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed how the Department of State has implemented its new responsibilities for U.S. policy regarding U.S. participation in the Universal Postal Union (UPU).

What GAO Found

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.