Postal Issues: The Department of State's International Postal
Responsibilities (Testimony, 03/09/2000, GAO/T-GGD-00-63).

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. This
testimony summarized the January 2000 GAO report, GAO/GGD-00-40.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-00-63
     TITLE:  Postal Issues: The Department of State's International
	     Postal Responsibilities
      DATE:  03/09/2000
   SUBJECT:  Interagency relations
	     Human resources utilization
	     International cooperation
	     International agreements
	     Postal service
	     Mail transportation operations
	     Foreign policies
	     International organizations
IDENTIFIER:  Universal Postal Union

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

GAO/T-GGD-00-63

POSTAL ISSUES: The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities (GAO/T-GGD-00-63)
POSTAL ISSUES The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities
Statement of Bernard L. Ungar Director, Government Business Operations Issues General Government Division
United States General Accounting Office
GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Postal Service
House Committee on Government Reform
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a. m., EST on Thursday March 9, 2000

GAO/T-GGD-00-63

Summary The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities
Page 1 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
The Department of State assumed primary responsibility for U. S. policy on Universal Postal Union (UPU) matters in October 1998 from the U. S. Postal Service. State has made progress in implementing its UPU responsibilities by taking steps to consult with the Postal Service, other federal agencies, postal users, private providers of international postal services, and the general public. In addition, State clearly signaled changes in U. S. policy on issues related to UPU reform. This progress was notable because State assumed its expanded responsibilities for the UPU less than a year before the UPU Congress met in August and September 1999 to update binding agreements governing international postal service.
While GAO recognizes the progress made by State in its first year of responsibility for UPU matters, GAO also identified opportunities for the Department to improve its process for developing U. S. policy on these matters and the institutional continuity and expertise of its staff working in this area. GAO identified some shortcomings relating to the timing and notification for public meetings, and the distribution of documents discussed at these meetings, that may have limited the opportunities for stakeholders to provide meaningful input. GAO also found that State's policy development process on UPU matters resulted in little public record of agency or stakeholder positions, which may make it difficult for Congress and others to fully understand the basis for U. S. policy positions. Further, staff turnover made it more difficult for State to develop the institutional continuity and expertise to fulfill its leadership responsibilities. GAO made recommendations to State that addressed these areas.
GAO recommended that State establish a more structured, timely, and open process for developing U. S. policy on UPU matters, with the objective of developing a process that would be conducive to meaningful stakeholder input and the development of a readily accessible public record. GAO also recommended that State provide sufficient staff continuity and expertise to handle its UPU responsibilities. However, it was not clear from State's response what specific actions State has taken or plans to take to address the recommendations.
Statement The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities
Page 2 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be here today to participate in the Subcommittee's hearing on how the Department of State has implemented its responsibilities for U. S. policy regarding U. S. participation in the Universal Postal Union (UPU), a specialized agency of the United Nations that governs international postal service. In my testimony, I will summarize the main findings and the recommendations of our recent report on State's performance since it assumed primary responsibility in October 1998 for U. S. policy on UPU matters from the U. S. Postal Service. 1 Overall, we highlight State's progress in implementing its responsibilities and also identify opportunities for improvement.
The Department of State made progress in implementing its UPU responsibilities by taking steps to consult with the Postal Service, other federal agencies, postal users, private providers of international postal services, and the general public. In addition, State clearly signaled changes in U. S. policy on issues related to UPU reform. This progress was notable because State assumed its expanded responsibilities for the UPU less than a year before the UPU Congress met in August and September 1999 to update binding agreements governing international postal service.
Congress intended that State would develop U. S. policy toward the UPU in a manner that was fair, evenhanded, and open to all interested parties. State took steps to consult with interested parties and to coordinate with the Postal Service, other federal agencies, and private- sector stakeholders. State also made UPU- related documents publicly available. These actions represented progress in providing stakeholders and the public with relevant information and giving them an opportunity to offer input.
Specifically, State held public meetings and interagency meetings to discuss U. S. policy on UPU issues. State also held meetings with individual stakeholders, such as coordination meetings with the Postal Service and other stakeholders in the U. S. delegation to the UPU Congress. Stakeholders said that State was receptive to input and evenhanded in its consideration of views. In addition, State sponsored a 1- day conference to discuss the future of the UPU and of the international mail system.
The Department of State made U. S. proposals to the UPU Congress available to the general public for the first time by posting them on a new
1 Postal Issues: The Department of State's Implementation of Its International Postal Responsibilities (GAO/ GGD- 00- 40, Jan. 31, 2000). Department of State
Progress in Implementing UPU Responsibilities
The Department of State Consulted and Coordinated With Interested Parties
The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities Page 3 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
Department of State Internet home page devoted to international postal policy and the UPU. State also gave interested parties access to UPU documents on the UPU's Internet site for the first time. According to a State official, these actions addressed concerns about access to UPUrelated documents that had been expressed before State was the lead agency responsible for U. S. policy on UPU matters.
Further, State included representatives of two private- sector organizations the Air Courier Conference of America and the Direct Marketing Association in the U. S. delegation to the 1999 UPU Congress. This was reportedly the first time that representatives of private- sector organizations had been included in the U. S. delegation to a UPU Congress.
The Department of State clearly signaled a new direction for U. S. policy on UPU reform issues. In particular, State submitted U. S. proposals to the UPU Congress related to UPU reform. State officials said that the United States raised issues concerning UPU reform that gave impetus to the UPU's decision to establish a process to consider reform issues. Representatives of other organizations in the U. S. delegation to the UPU Congress agreed that State's positions and emphasis on UPU reform represented a new direction for U. S. policy.
The United States made proposals to the UPU Congress that signaled changes in U. S. policies and were intended to promote UPU reform, open the UPU policy formulation process to be more inclusive of interested parties, and change some UPU rules governing international postal operations. A key U. S. proposal called for the UPU to convene an Extraordinary Congress in 2001 to consider reforms to the UPU's mission, role, and policies. The 1999 UPU Congress did not approve this proposal. However, the UPU Congress established a High Level Group to consider the UPU's future mission, structure, constituency, financing, and decisionmaking. The United States is a member of the High Level Group.
At its first meeting in December 1999, the High Level Group established a plan to review proposals for UPU reform, with the objective of reaching conclusions by October 2001. After the High Level Group completes its work, the UPU may convene a special meeting in 2002 to consider specific proposals for UPU reform.
While we recognize the progress made by the Department of State in its first year of responsibilities for UPU matters, we also identified opportunities for the Department to improve its process for developing U. S. policy on these matters and the institutional continuity and expertise The Department of State
Clearly Signaled a New UPU Policy
U. S. Proposals to the 1999 UPU Congress
State Can Improve Its UPU- Related Process and Staffing
The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities Page 4 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
of its staff working in this area. We identified some shortcomings relating to the timing and notification for public meetings, and the distribution of documents discussed at these meetings, that may have limited the opportunities for stakeholders to provide meaningful input. We also found that State's policy development process on UPU matters resulted in little public record of agency or stakeholder positions, which may make it difficult for Congress and others to fully understand the basis for U. S. policy positions. Further, staff turnover made it more difficult for State to develop the institutional continuity and expertise needed to fulfill its leadership responsibilities. We made recommendations to State that addressed these areas. However, it was not clear to us from State's comments on our draft report what specific actions State has taken or plans to take to address our recommendations.
We reported that stakeholders may have had limited opportunities to provide meaningful input on UPU matters for several reasons. State gave only 9 to 17 days of advance notice of the public meetings and conducted limited outreach shortly in advance of some meetings to notify interested parties. State did not distribute some materials that were discussed at the public meetings either in advance of the meetings or after the meetings. Further, the first two public meetings were timed to occur shortly before UPU deadlines for submitting proposals for consideration by the UPU Congress.
In addition, State distributed two important proposals at the public meetings after they had been submitted to the UPU. For example, the main U. S. proposal relating to UPU reform was not made publicly available before it was submitted to the UPU. This U. S. proposal called for the UPU to convene an Extraordinary Congress in 2001 to consider reforms relating to its mission, role, and policies.
We reported that the Department of State had several options available to develop a more structured and open process for obtaining stakeholder input. We found that State could take steps to ensure better and more advance notification of public meetings and more advance distribution of materials prior to these meetings. State has acknowledged that it did not give sufficient advance notice of public meetings on UPU- related matters and that minutes should have been kept at those meetings to build a concrete record.
Specifically, we reported that State could schedule public meetings further in advance of key UPU deadlines, give better and more advance notification of public meetings, and expand advance distribution of Limitations Relating to
Public Meetings
The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities Page 5 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
materials relating to these meetings. We also reported that State could use the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) process to form an advisory committee on UPU- related matters. Such a committee would be governed by requirements intended to ensure that such committees are balanced in terms of the points of view represented, that committee proceedings are documented and as open as possible to the public, and that Congress is kept informed of committee activities.
In its comments on our draft report, State said it could achieve the intended results of FACA without establishing a formal advisory committee through open meetings, adequate public notice, and preservation of meeting minutes. State said that it intends to publish more UPU- related material on the Department's Internet site and to periodically notify stakeholders of important documents that appear on UPU's Internet site.
At the most recent public meeting on February 1, 2000, a State official said that more advance notice of public meetings on UPU matters will be given in the Federal Register and through outreach to notify stakeholders. State gave about 1 month of advance notification for this meeting, which was advertised in the Federal Register, through outreach to selected stakeholders, and on the Internet. State also made some of the materials discussed at the public meeting available in advance on its Internet site.
The Department of State developed policy on UPU matters in a way that resulted in little public record of agency or stakeholder positions in this area. For example, State did not create minutes of the public meetings on UPU issues or solicit written comments on policy proposals that would have been publicly available. The limited public record of agency or stakeholder positions on U. S. policy concerning UPU issues may make it difficult for Congress and other interested parties to fully understand the basis for U. S. policy positions.
We reported that a more complete and readily accessible public record would inform interested parties of matters under consideration as U. S. policy is developed. We said that a more readily accessible public record of stakeholder positions on U. S. policy relating to the UPU could also help interested parties understand the basis for U. S. policy, as well as facilitating input as the Department of State continues to develop policies and positions on UPU matters.
We reported that State had several options available to develop a more complete and accessible public record on UPU policy. These included Limitations Relating to the
Development of a Public Record
The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities Page 6 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
using a notice and comment process to provide a structured process for obtaining public input and creating an FACA advisory committee in this area. We also reported that State could make documents available as part of the public record, such as minutes of public meetings, a transcript of the proceedings, and other input received on international postal policy. We are encouraged that a State official recently said that State plans to start maintaining minutes of its public meetings on UPU matters.
Although the Department of State started an Internet home page in April 1999 called International Postal Policy: Universal Postal Union, 2 this Internet site did not realize its full potential, partly because it was updated only twice before the 1999 UPU Congress. However, State has recently updated and enhanced its UPU- related web site, which now includes summaries of recent UPU meetings and other UPU- related documents. State will continue to post on its Internet site some UPU documents on which policy is based, according to a State official.
We recommended that State establish a more structured, timely, and open process for developing U. S. policy on UPU matters, with the objective of developing a process that would be conducive to meaningful stakeholder input and the development of a readily accessible public record. While State has made some recent improvements to its process, it is not clear to us what process State intends to use to formulate and coordinate U. S. policy on UPU matters. For example, State did not address in its comments on our draft report whether it would distribute materials in advance of public meetings, make key U. S. proposals available before they are submitted to the UPU, and schedule meetings in a manner conducive to meaningful stakeholder input. In addition, State did not make clear what UPU- related documents will be made publicly available so that Congress and other interested parties can understand the basis for U. S. policy positions. For these reasons, it is not clear to us whether State will fully implement our recommendation concerning its process for developing policy on UPU matters.
Turnover among Department of State staff involved in UPU issues occurred repeatedly in the period leading up to the UPU Congress. This turnover made it more difficult for State to develop the institutional continuity and expertise needed to fulfill its leadership responsibilities. Stakeholders told us that staff turnover affected State's ability to fully understand the implications associated with various UPU policy issues.
2 See http:// www. state. gov/ www/ issues/ io_ upu_ hp. html. Recommendation Relating
to State's Policy Development Process
Limitations That Relate to State's Institutional Continuity and Expertise
The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities Page 7 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
Turnover also reportedly affected State's ability to fully understand how to build support for U. S. policies in the UPU.
Turnover is a continuing challenge for the Department because while the UPU operates on a 5- year cycle, State's Foreign Service Officers usually rotate to new responsibilities every 2 or 3 years. State told us last fall that 9 of the 11 officers who had been involved with UPU matters were career Foreign Service Officers subject to normal rotational assignments within the Foreign Service system.
Key stakeholders we interviewed agreed that continuity and expertise are important to understanding complex UPU issues and to working effectively with UPU stakeholders. Specifically, they said that
 policy development for the UPU Congress typically takes place over a multiyear period, and that many UPU issues are complex and longstanding;
 staff with sufficient continuity and expertise can understand and synthesize conflicting stakeholder input, handle day- to- day oversight tasks, and develop an understanding of how to deal with developed and developing countries in the UPU; and
 advocacy of U. S. policy in the UPU is aided by development of personal relationships with representatives of other countries relationships that develop over an extended period through interaction at UPU meetings.
This is a pivotal time for the UPU, which is turning to the issue of whether to fundamentally reform its mission, role, and policies. UPU issues have implications for the Postal Service and the international postal and delivery services sector, which is a critical part of the world's and this nation's infrastructure for international communications and trade. This sector is expected to become even more vital over the next decade with the continued growth of trade and electronic commerce and the globalization of postal and delivery service providers. In this context, it will be critical for State to enhance its institutional continuity and expertise for developing policy on UPU matters.
We reported that the Department of State has several options available to develop institutional continuity and expertise on UPU matters. These include assessing its staffing resources, assigning career staff to work on UPU matters, and assigning a high- level staff member to this area for an extended period.
The Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities Page 8 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
We recommended that State provide sufficient staff continuity and expertise to handle its UPU responsibilities. State officials have told us that they recognize that, if State intends to play a leadership role in the UPU, it will need to provide sufficient institutional continuity and expertise on UPU matters. However, based on State's comments on our draft report, it is not clear how State plans to develop the institutional continuity and expertise to handle its UPU- related responsibilities. In its comments on our draft report, State acknowledged that staff rotation will automatically generate a certain lack of continuity in the handling of UPU matters, but that its career Foreign Service Officers are accustomed to short lead times in developing new expertise. State also said that at least one career staff member not subject to frequent rotation will be involved in UPU activities.
However, State's comments did not indicate whether the Department has conducted or plans to conduct a needs assessment to determine the number and type of staff it will need in the UPU area. Nor did State indicate how it plans to reduce the frequency of staff turnover given the turnover that occurred within the first year. As a result, we do not know whether State will provide sufficient institutional continuity and expertise for State to play a leadership role in handling complex UPU issues and dealing with domestic and international stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Contact and Acknowledgments
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Bernard L. Ungar at (202) 512- 8387. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Teresa Anderson and Kenneth John. Recommendation Relating
to State's Continuity and Expertise
Page 9 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
Page 10 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
Page 11 GAO/ T- GGD- 00- 63
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send e- mail message with info in the body to:
info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http:// www. gao. gov Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs To contact GAO's Fraud Hotline use: Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- Mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Telephone: 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system)
(240363)
POSTAL ISSUES: The Department of State's International Postal
Responsibilities (GAO/T-GGD-00-63) POSTAL ISSUES The Department of
State's International Postal Responsibilities Statement of Bernard
L. Ungar Director, Government Business Operations Issues General
Government Division United States General Accounting Office GAO
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Postal Service House
Committee on Government Reform For Release on Delivery Expected at
10: 00 a. m., EST on Thursday March 9, 2000   GAO/T-GGD-00-63
Summary The Department of State's International Postal
Responsibilities Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-00-63 The Department of State
assumed primary responsibility for U. S. policy on Universal
Postal Union (UPU) matters in October 1998 from the U. S. Postal
Service. State has made progress in implementing its UPU
responsibilities by taking steps to consult with the Postal
Service, other federal agencies, postal users, private providers
of international postal services, and the general public. In
addition, State clearly signaled changes in U. S. policy on issues
related to UPU reform. This progress was notable because State
assumed its expanded responsibilities for the UPU less than a year
before the UPU Congress met in August and September 1999 to update
binding agreements governing international postal service. While
GAO recognizes the progress made by State in its first year of
responsibility for UPU matters, GAO also identified opportunities
for the Department to improve its process for developing U. S.
policy on these matters and the institutional continuity and
expertise of its staff working in this area. GAO identified some
shortcomings relating to the timing and notification for public
meetings, and the distribution of documents discussed at these
meetings, that may have limited the opportunities for stakeholders
to provide meaningful input. GAO also found that State's policy
development process on UPU matters resulted in little public
record of agency or stakeholder positions, which may make it
difficult for Congress and others to fully understand the basis
for U. S. policy positions. Further, staff turnover made it more
difficult for State to develop the institutional continuity and
expertise to fulfill its leadership responsibilities. GAO made
recommendations to State that addressed these areas. GAO
recommended that State establish a more structured, timely, and
open process for developing U. S. policy on UPU matters, with the
objective of developing a process that would be conducive to
meaningful stakeholder input and the development of a readily
accessible public record. GAO also recommended that State provide
sufficient staff continuity and expertise to handle its UPU
responsibilities. However, it was not clear from State's response
what specific actions State has taken or plans to take to address
the recommendations. Statement The Department of State's
International Postal Responsibilities Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-00-63 Mr.
Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be
here today to participate in the Subcommittee's hearing on how the
Department of State has implemented its responsibilities for U. S.
policy regarding U. S. participation in the Universal Postal Union
(UPU), a specialized agency of the United Nations that governs
international postal service. In my testimony, I will summarize
the main findings and the recommendations of our recent report on
State's performance since it assumed primary responsibility in
October 1998 for U. S. policy on UPU matters from the U. S. Postal
Service. 1 Overall, we highlight State's progress in implementing
its responsibilities and also identify opportunities for
improvement. The Department of State made progress in implementing
its UPU responsibilities by taking steps to consult with the
Postal Service, other federal agencies, postal users, private
providers of international postal services, and the general
public. In addition, State clearly signaled changes in U. S.
policy on issues related to UPU reform. This progress was notable
because State assumed its expanded responsibilities for the UPU
less than a year before the UPU Congress met in August and
September 1999 to update binding agreements governing
international postal service. Congress intended that State would
develop U. S. policy toward the UPU in a manner that was fair,
evenhanded, and open to all interested parties. State took steps
to consult with interested parties and to coordinate with the
Postal Service, other federal agencies, and private- sector
stakeholders. State also made UPU- related documents publicly
available. These actions represented progress in providing
stakeholders and the public with relevant information and giving
them an opportunity to offer input. Specifically, State held
public meetings and interagency meetings to discuss U. S. policy
on UPU issues. State also held meetings with individual
stakeholders, such as coordination meetings with the Postal
Service and other stakeholders in the U. S. delegation to the UPU
Congress. Stakeholders said that State was receptive to input and
evenhanded in its consideration of views. In addition, State
sponsored a 1- day conference to discuss the future of the UPU and
of the international mail system. The Department of State made U.
S. proposals to the UPU Congress available to the general public
for the first time by posting them on a new 1 Postal Issues: The
Department of State's Implementation of Its International Postal
Responsibilities (GAO/GGD-00-40, Jan. 31, 2000). Department of
State Progress in Implementing UPU Responsibilities The Department
of State Consulted and Coordinated With Interested Parties The
Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities Page 3
GAO/T-GGD-00-63 Department of State Internet home page devoted to
international postal policy and the UPU. State also gave
interested parties access to UPU documents on the UPU's Internet
site for the first time. According to a State official, these
actions addressed concerns about access to UPUrelated documents
that had been expressed before State was the lead agency
responsible for U. S. policy on UPU matters. Further, State
included representatives of two private- sector organizations the
Air Courier Conference of America and the Direct Marketing
Association in the U. S. delegation to the 1999 UPU Congress. This
was reportedly the first time that representatives of private-
sector organizations had been included in the U. S. delegation to
a UPU Congress. The Department of State clearly signaled a new
direction for U. S. policy on UPU reform issues. In particular,
State submitted U. S. proposals to the UPU Congress related to UPU
reform. State officials said that the United States raised issues
concerning UPU reform that gave impetus to the UPU's decision to
establish a process to consider reform issues. Representatives of
other organizations in the U. S. delegation to the UPU Congress
agreed that State's positions and emphasis on UPU reform
represented a new direction for U. S. policy. The United States
made proposals to the UPU Congress that signaled changes in U. S.
policies and were intended to promote UPU reform, open the UPU
policy formulation process to be more inclusive of interested
parties, and change some UPU rules governing international postal
operations. A key U. S. proposal called for the UPU to convene an
Extraordinary Congress in 2001 to consider reforms to the UPU's
mission, role, and policies. The 1999 UPU Congress did not approve
this proposal. However, the UPU Congress established a High Level
Group to consider the UPU's future mission, structure,
constituency, financing, and decisionmaking. The United States is
a member of the High Level Group. At its first meeting in December
1999, the High Level Group established a plan to review proposals
for UPU reform, with the objective of reaching conclusions by
October 2001. After the High Level Group completes its work, the
UPU may convene a special meeting in 2002 to consider specific
proposals for UPU reform. While we recognize the progress made by
the Department of State in its first year of responsibilities for
UPU matters, we also identified opportunities for the Department
to improve its process for developing U. S. policy on these
matters and the institutional continuity and expertise The
Department of State Clearly Signaled a New UPU Policy U. S.
Proposals to the 1999 UPU Congress State Can Improve Its UPU-
Related Process and Staffing The Department of State's
International Postal Responsibilities Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-00-63 of
its staff working in this area. We identified some shortcomings
relating to the timing and notification for public meetings, and
the distribution of documents discussed at these meetings, that
may have limited the opportunities for stakeholders to provide
meaningful input. We also found that State's policy development
process on UPU matters resulted in little public record of agency
or stakeholder positions, which may make it difficult for Congress
and others to fully understand the basis for U. S. policy
positions. Further, staff turnover made it more difficult for
State to develop the institutional continuity and expertise needed
to fulfill its leadership responsibilities. We made
recommendations to State that addressed these areas. However, it
was not clear to us from State's comments on our draft report what
specific actions State has taken or plans to take to address our
recommendations. We reported that stakeholders may have had
limited opportunities to provide meaningful input on UPU matters
for several reasons. State gave only 9 to 17 days of advance
notice of the public meetings and conducted limited outreach
shortly in advance of some meetings to notify interested parties.
State did not distribute some materials that were discussed at the
public meetings either in advance of the meetings or after the
meetings. Further, the first two public meetings were timed to
occur shortly before UPU deadlines for submitting proposals for
consideration by the UPU Congress. In addition, State distributed
two important proposals at the public meetings after they had been
submitted to the UPU. For example, the main U. S. proposal
relating to UPU reform was not made publicly available before it
was submitted to the UPU. This U. S. proposal called for the UPU
to convene an Extraordinary Congress in 2001 to consider reforms
relating to its mission, role, and policies. We reported that the
Department of State had several options available to develop a
more structured and open process for obtaining stakeholder input.
We found that State could take steps to ensure better and more
advance notification of public meetings and more advance
distribution of materials prior to these meetings. State has
acknowledged that it did not give sufficient advance notice of
public meetings on UPU- related matters and that minutes should
have been kept at those meetings to build a concrete record.
Specifically, we reported that State could schedule public
meetings further in advance of key UPU deadlines, give better and
more advance notification of public meetings, and expand advance
distribution of Limitations Relating to Public Meetings The
Department of State's International Postal Responsibilities Page 5
GAO/T-GGD-00-63 materials relating to these meetings. We also
reported that State could use the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) process to form an advisory committee on UPU- related
matters. Such a committee would be governed by requirements
intended to ensure that such committees are balanced in terms of
the points of view represented, that committee proceedings are
documented and as open as possible to the public, and that
Congress is kept informed of committee activities. In its comments
on our draft report, State said it could achieve the intended
results of FACA without establishing a formal advisory committee
through open meetings, adequate public notice, and preservation of
meeting minutes. State said that it intends to publish more UPU-
related material on the Department's Internet site and to
periodically notify stakeholders of important documents that
appear on UPU's Internet site. At the most recent public meeting
on February 1, 2000, a State official said that more advance
notice of public meetings on UPU matters will be given in the
Federal Register and through outreach to notify stakeholders.
State gave about 1 month of advance notification for this meeting,
which was advertised in the Federal Register, through outreach to
selected stakeholders, and on the Internet. State also made some
of the materials discussed at the public meeting available in
advance on its Internet site. The Department of State developed
policy on UPU matters in a way that resulted in little public
record of agency or stakeholder positions in this area. For
example, State did not create minutes of the public meetings on
UPU issues or solicit written comments on policy proposals that
would have been publicly available. The limited public record of
agency or stakeholder positions on U. S. policy concerning UPU
issues may make it difficult for Congress and other interested
parties to fully understand the basis for U. S. policy positions.
We reported that a more complete and readily accessible public
record would inform interested parties of matters under
consideration as U. S. policy is developed. We said that a more
readily accessible public record of stakeholder positions on U. S.
policy relating to the UPU could also help interested parties
understand the basis for U. S. policy, as well as facilitating
input as the Department of State continues to develop policies and
positions on UPU matters. We reported that State had several
options available to develop a more complete and accessible public
record on UPU policy. These included Limitations Relating to the
Development of a Public Record The Department of State's
International Postal Responsibilities Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-00-63 using
a notice and comment process to provide a structured process for
obtaining public input and creating an FACA advisory committee in
this area. We also reported that State could make documents
available as part of the public record, such as minutes of public
meetings, a transcript of the proceedings, and other input
received on international postal policy. We are encouraged that a
State official recently said that State plans to start maintaining
minutes of its public meetings on UPU matters. Although the
Department of State started an Internet home page in April 1999
called International Postal Policy: Universal Postal Union, 2 this
Internet site did not realize its full potential, partly because
it was updated only twice before the 1999 UPU Congress. However,
State has recently updated and enhanced its UPU- related web site,
which now includes summaries of recent UPU meetings and other UPU-
related documents. State will continue to post on its Internet
site some UPU documents on which policy is based, according to a
State official. We recommended that State establish a more
structured, timely, and open process for developing U. S. policy
on UPU matters, with the objective of developing a process that
would be conducive to meaningful stakeholder input and the
development of a readily accessible public record. While State has
made some recent improvements to its process, it is not clear to
us what process State intends to use to formulate and coordinate
U. S. policy on UPU matters. For example, State did not address in
its comments on our draft report whether it would distribute
materials in advance of public meetings, make key U. S. proposals
available before they are submitted to the UPU, and schedule
meetings in a manner conducive to meaningful stakeholder input. In
addition, State did not make clear what UPU- related documents
will be made publicly available so that Congress and other
interested parties can understand the basis for U. S. policy
positions. For these reasons, it is not clear to us whether State
will fully implement our recommendation concerning its process for
developing policy on UPU matters. Turnover among Department of
State staff involved in UPU issues occurred repeatedly in the
period leading up to the UPU Congress. This turnover made it more
difficult for State to develop the institutional continuity and
expertise needed to fulfill its leadership responsibilities.
Stakeholders told us that staff turnover affected State's ability
to fully understand the implications associated with various UPU
policy issues. 2 See http:// www. state. gov/ www/ issues/ io_
upu_ hp. html. Recommendation Relating to State's Policy
Development Process Limitations That Relate to State's
Institutional Continuity and Expertise The Department of State's
International Postal Responsibilities Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-00-63
Turnover also reportedly affected State's ability to fully
understand how to build support for U. S. policies in the UPU.
Turnover is a continuing challenge for the Department because
while the UPU operates on a 5- year cycle, State's Foreign Service
Officers usually rotate to new responsibilities every 2 or 3
years. State told us last fall that 9 of the 11 officers who had
been involved with UPU matters were career Foreign Service
Officers subject to normal rotational assignments within the
Foreign Service system. Key stakeholders we interviewed agreed
that continuity and expertise are important to understanding
complex UPU issues and to working effectively with UPU
stakeholders. Specifically, they said that  policy development for
the UPU Congress typically takes place over a multiyear period,
and that many UPU issues are complex and longstanding;  staff with
sufficient continuity and expertise can understand and synthesize
conflicting stakeholder input, handle day- to- day oversight
tasks, and develop an understanding of how to deal with developed
and developing countries in the UPU; and  advocacy of U. S. policy
in the UPU is aided by development of personal relationships with
representatives of other countries relationships that develop over
an extended period through interaction at UPU meetings. This is a
pivotal time for the UPU, which is turning to the issue of whether
to fundamentally reform its mission, role, and policies. UPU
issues have implications for the Postal Service and the
international postal and delivery services sector, which is a
critical part of the world's and this nation's infrastructure for
international communications and trade. This sector is expected to
become even more vital over the next decade with the continued
growth of trade and electronic commerce and the globalization of
postal and delivery service providers. In this context, it will be
critical for State to enhance its institutional continuity and
expertise for developing policy on UPU matters. We reported that
the Department of State has several options available to develop
institutional continuity and expertise on UPU matters. These
include assessing its staffing resources, assigning career staff
to work on UPU matters, and assigning a high- level staff member
to this area for an extended period. The Department of State's
International Postal Responsibilities Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-00-63 We
recommended that State provide sufficient staff continuity and
expertise to handle its UPU responsibilities. State officials have
told us that they recognize that, if State intends to play a
leadership role in the UPU, it will need to provide sufficient
institutional continuity and expertise on UPU matters. However,
based on State's comments on our draft report, it is not clear how
State plans to develop the institutional continuity and expertise
to handle its UPU- related responsibilities. In its comments on
our draft report, State acknowledged that staff rotation will
automatically generate a certain lack of continuity in the
handling of UPU matters, but that its career Foreign Service
Officers are accustomed to short lead times in developing new
expertise. State also said that at least one career staff member
not subject to frequent rotation will be involved in UPU
activities. However, State's comments did not indicate whether the
Department has conducted or plans to conduct a needs assessment to
determine the number and type of staff it will need in the UPU
area. Nor did State indicate how it plans to reduce the frequency
of staff turnover given the turnover that occurred within the
first year. As a result, we do not know whether State will provide
sufficient institutional continuity and expertise for State to
play a leadership role in handling complex UPU issues and dealing
with domestic and international stakeholders. Mr. Chairman, that
concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you or the Members of the Subcommittee may have. Contact
and Acknowledgments For further information regarding this
testimony, please contact Bernard L. Ungar at (202) 512- 8387.
Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included
Teresa Anderson and Kenneth John. Recommendation Relating to
State's Continuity and Expertise Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-00-63 Page 10
GAO/T-GGD-00-63 Page 11 GAO/T-GGD-00-63 Viewing GAO Reports on the
Internet For information on how to access GAO reports on the
INTERNET, send e- mail message with info in the body to: info@
www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http://
www. gao. gov Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs To contact GAO's Fraud Hotline use: Web site: http://
www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- Mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
Telephone: 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) (240363)

*** End of document. ***