@StateDept “Looking Good” Sausage Gets Made With “Muscular” Assist From Journalists

Posted: 2:43 am EDT
Updated:1:10 pm EDT

 

In October last year, Gawker reported this:

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of State have just notified Gawker Media that the agency is once again upgrading its estimate of the number of emails exchanged between news reporters and Philippe Reines, the former State Department spokesperson and multi-purpose consigliere of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As you may recall: In 2013, in response to our Freedom of Information Act request seeking those emails, State officials asserted, bizarrely, that no such emails existed. In August of this year—five months after Gawker filed a lawsuit against State—that estimate increased to 17,855 emails.

… however, the State Department revealed a much larger number in a scheduled hearing before the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.: The department now has in its possession at least 90,000 documents that pertain to correspondence between Reines and other journalists, and would thus be releasable under the Freedom of Information Act.

Yesterday, Gawker says that emails it received in an FOIA litigation “offer a case study” in how Clinton’s “prodigious and sophisticated press operation manipulates reporters into amplifying her desired message—in this case, down to the very word that The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder used to describe an important policy speech.” Philippe Reines was a senior advisor to HRC and a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the State Department during the Clinton tenure.

 

#

 

 

Bidding Season: An Ambassadorship to 1) Germany, 2) Sri Lanka, or 3) Somewhere in Africa But No French, Please

Posted: 2:43 am EDT

 

via foia.state.gov:

Screen Shot

Anne C. Richard was Vice President, Government Relations & Advocacy, International Rescue Committee in March 2012 when this email was sent. She was appointed State Department Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (State/PRM) in April 2012.

The FOIA released email is available to read here (PDF).

 

#

 

 

Bidding Season: An Ambassadorship to Mexico, Please

Posted: 1:22 am EDT

 

via foia.state.gov

Screen Shot

 

Capricia Marshall was the State Department’s chief of protocol during the Clinton tenure. Heather Samuelson was the White House Liaison at the State Department from January 2009 – March 2013. Politico wrote about Samuelson last year in relation to the Clinton emails. The FOIA released email is available to download here (PDF).

 

#

 

 

From Oslo: Norwegians may now face the scary scenario of Donald Trump sending an ambassador

Posted: 3:37 am EDT

 

Agenda Magasin, an online magazine for political analysis and commentary based in Oslo recently published, “Congress, send Norway an ambassador” by Thor Steinhovden. Below is an excerpt:

Norway has never gone this long without an American ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in Oslo. Norwegians may now face the scary scenario of Donald Trump sending a representative, three years too late.
[…]
In September 2013 the American Ambassador to Norway, Barry White, completed his posting and left the country. 840 days later the United States has yet to send a replacement. That’s more than 120 weeks, or over two years and three months. Now, Norway risks having to wait until spring 2017. In other words, our closest ally will then have neglected to send a presidential representative for over three years.

The story behind this failure is complicated, but illustrates a political situation in the U.S. that is crippling the president’s ability to effectively carry out foreign policy. The story includes a failed nomination, “The Nuclear Option”, the P5+1 Iran deal, and not at least, the race for 2016.
[…]
For many Norwegians it probably seems both odd and incomprehensible that one of the world’s superpowers cannot manage such a simple task as to deploy an ambassador to a close ally like Norway. It becomes more incomprehensible when one considers the fact that the hold-up is not related to neither the candidate, nor the bilateral relationship.

If Donald Trump or Ted Cruz then occupy the White House, Norway may find itself welcoming a completely different character than Sam Heins. I believe most Norwegians agree with me that it is probably best for all of us if we avoid that scenario. It is time: Congress, send Norway an ambassador!

Read in full here.  A Norwegian-language version of this commentary is also available.

The article is a pretty good account of what happened to the nominations dating back to 2013 when the initial nominee melted down on C-SPAN.

We don’t know if the Heins nomination will  make it through the Senate, but even if it does get a full vote, and Mr. Heins gets to Oslo, this is an election year. There will be a new occupant in the White House come January 2017. All ambassadors –including Mr. Heins if he gets confirmed this year — resign their positions following a change in Administration. The resignations of career ambassadors are typically almost always refused, while those of political appointees are almost always accepted.  Which means, unless the nominations of political ambassadorships get confirmed soon, the window of opportunity is winding down. At some point, it becomes a waste of resources to pack and ship an ambassador designate’s household effects if he/she gets to serve as chief of mission for only a few months; that is, only to pack out again after the November 2016 elections.  Of course, it can be done, we just can’t recall an example, but would folks really subject themselves to such a relocation for a short-term ambassadorship? We’ll have to wait and see.

 

#

 

 

 

Senator on Cruz hold over Norway nominee: 836 days since there was last a confirmed Ambassador to Norway

Posted: 1:01 am EDT

 

The Hill reports:

Sen. Ted Cruz blocked a Democratic push to approve a handful of State Department nominees on Wednesday, even though the Texas Republican is far from D.C., campaigning in New Hampshire. […]  Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), however, objected to each of the nominations, noting that he was doing so on behalf of Cruz. The presidential candidate has pledged to block State Department nominees over the Iran nuclear deal. Cardin called Cruz’s objections a “master class in needless partisan obstruction.”

Last month, Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) took to the floor to urge for the confirmation of the nominees for Sweden and Norway, but spoke at length on behalf of Sam Heins, the nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to Norway who hails from her state.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to call on the Senate and all of my colleagues to allow us to move forward on the nomination of Sam Heins of Minnesota to be the U.S. Ambassador to Norway. The U.S. Ambassador for Sweden has also been held up. Coming from the State of Iowa, which I believe is over 10 percent Scandinavian–over 300,000 people–I think the Presiding Officer understands the importance of our country actually having Ambassadors to these incredibly important allies and nations.

It has now been 836 days since there was last a confirmed Ambassador to Norway, one of our most important European allies. Part of this situation was caused by a different nominee who has some issues with the committee and with other Senators. That person has now been replaced, and it has been 166 days since a new nominee went through the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Heins was approved by a voice vote, without any controversy, as was the Ambassador to Sweden. I thank Senators Corker and Cardin and Senators McConnell and Reid for their help in trying to get this through.

Unfortunately, these nominations are now being held up by Senator Cruz. Based on my discussions with him, it is not because of the qualifications of these nominees; it is related to, I suppose, other issues. Yet, I note for those Scandinavians out there, Senator Cruz has allowed votes on Ambassadors to other countries. We have Ambassadors in France, in England, in nearly every European nation, but not these two Scandinavian countries.

Perhaps people don’t understand the importance of these nations because they just think these people wear sweaters all the time. I don’t know what they think of Norway and Sweden, but, in fact, Senator Cruz should understand that they are two of our best allies. Norway is one of our country’s strongest and most dependable allies.
[…]
I am focusing today on Norway. I will focus on Sweden in the future as I continue to give these speeches. I don’t think we can take these countries lightly just because it is cold there and darker in the winter. These are incredibly important allies and trading partners. They deserve to be treated like other European nations. They deserve to have an ambassador from the United States of America.

It is time to end this delay and do the work the Senate is supposed to do. Let’s move ahead and work to confirm these qualified nominees to represent us abroad. One is a country in Europe that just bought 22 fighter planes from Lockheed Martin. If they had bought 22 fighter planes from the Presiding Officer’s State, I believe the Presiding Officer would have looked at the fact that if it is a noncontroversial nominee to a country that invests in the United States of America, that is an ambassador we need to get confirmed, and we would get this done.

Read in full here (PDF) from the Congressional Record.

 

#

 

 

Email of the Day: Rejection Letter For Chief of Mission Aspirant

Posted: 12:05 am EDT

 

An individual whose name is redacted wrote an April 2012 email to State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills saying “Disappointingly EAP was unable to nominate me for a COM position ….” and that he was “running out of option.”   Mills forward the email to HRC saying she advised the individual “given his interest in Slovenia and Iceland to meet w/ Phil.” Phil is most probably Philip Gordon who served as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR) from 2009-13.

The rejection letter/email that the aspiring ambassador received came from Joseph Yun who was then Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP) and currently U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia. The email is part of the latest Clinton email dump.

 

#

OPM Issues Guidelines For Incentive Awards During 2016 Election Period

Posted: 12:55 am EDT

 

On January 11, Acting Director Beth F. Cobert issued the  OPM guidelines for Appointments and Awards During the 2016 Presidential Election Period. Below is an excerpt on the prohibition of awards  from June 1, 2016 – January 20, 2017:

Under 5 U.S.C 4508, an incentive award may not be given during the period beginning June 1, 2016, through January 20, 2017, to a senior politically appointed officer, defined as:

  1. An individual who serves in an SES position and is not a career appointee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(4), or
  2. An individual who serves in a position of a confidential or policy determining character as a Schedule C employee.

Because Limited Term/Limited Emergency appointees are not “career appointees,” they meet this definition of senior politically appointed officer and cannot receive incentive awards during the 2016 election period.

In addition, all political appointees continue to be covered by a freeze on discretionary awards, bonuses, and similar payments.  This freeze was established by Presidential Memorandum on August 3, 2010 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-freeze-discretionary-awards-bonuses-and-similar-payments) and continues to remain in effect until further notice (https://www.chcoc.gov/content/guidance-awards-fiscal-year-2014). Agencies should continue to apply this freeze in accordance with OPM’s guidance at https://www.chcoc.gov/content/guidance-freeze-discretionary-awards-bonuses-and-similar-payments-federal-employees-serving.

For additional guidance regarding appointments of current or former political appointees to competitive service, non-political excepted service, or career SES position, contact Ana A. Mazzi, Deputy Associate Director for Merit System Accountability and Compliance, at (202) 606-4309 or PoliticalConversions@opm.gov.  For guidance on awards during the 2016 Presidential election period, contact Steve Shih, Deputy Associate Director for Senior Executive Services and Performance Management, by calling (202) 606-8046 or Performance-Management@opm.gov.

Read more here.

 

#

 

Presidential Appointees With Senate Confirmation (PAS) and the Hatch Act

Posted: 12:52 am EDT

 

Via U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) | Hatch Act:

 

 

The Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. ​The law’s purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.​ Below is an excerpt from its FAQ on Presidential Appointee With Senate Confirmation (PAS):

I am an employee who was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS). Am I covered by the Hatch Act?

Yes. An employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS), is subject to the provisions of the Hatch Act. However, certain PAS’s are not subject to the Act’s prohibition against engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle. To be exempt from this prohibition, a PAS must meet all of the following criteria:

1) the duties and responsibilities of his position must continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post;

2) his position must be located within the United States; and

3) he must determine policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of federal laws.

If a PAS meets all these criteria, he is not prohibited from engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle, provided the costs associated with the political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States. However, the PAS remains subject to all the other prohibitions of the Hatch Act, and thus, may not: use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election; knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person; be a candidate for public office in a partisan election; or knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has business before the employee’s employing office.​​​

I am an employee who was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS). Does the exemption from the Hatch Act’s prohibition against engaging in political activity while on duty, which applies to me, also apply to my staff?

No. Assuming a Presidential appointee with Senate confirmation (PAS) meets the criteria outlined in the answer to the previous question, he—but only he—may engage in political activity while on duty, in a government room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle, so long as, the costs associated with the political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States. The appointee’s staff, however, is not subject to this exemption. Therefore, the appointee’s staff members are still prohibited from engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle.​​

May an Presidential appointee with Senate confirmation (PAS), ask his chief of staff (or any other subordinate employee) to contact and/or liaise with a political party to find out where, or if, the party needs the PAS’s help?

No. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees, including PAS’s, from soliciting or accepting uncompensated volunteer services for any political purpose from an individual who is a subordinate. 5 C.F.R. §§ 734.302(b)(3)​734.303(d)​​. Thus, the Act prohibits a supervisor from asking subordinate employees to contact a political party to inquire about opportunities for the PAS to assist the party.​​​

Click here for the printable FAQ (PDF). OSC also issues advisory opinions to persons seeking advice about their political activity under the Hatch Act. Individuals or their legal representatives may request an opinion about their own political activity. E-mail: hatchact@osc.gov.

 

#

Related post:

Eight days till election day – do you know your Hatch Act Rules?

About Time For That Washington Ritual: Watch Out For Political Appointees “Burrowing In”

Posted: 12:53 am EDT

 

Late last year, WaPo wrote about the watchdogs being in the lookout for Obama appointees ‘burrowing in’:

As each administration winds down, some political appointees traditionally seek to continue their government service as career employees beyond the administration they served. Also known as “conversions,” the practice has attracted skepticism from government watchdogs and experts but has become known as something of a Washington ritual.
[…]
In 2010, GAO reviewed 26 federal departments and agencies that converted 139 people from political to career positions from May 2005 through May 2009. While the majority of the conversions followed proper procedures, GAO said at least seven might have violated the merit-based system, including a Department of Veterans Affairs appointee who lacked the required experience and a Justice Department employee who received a career position despite unfavorable recommendations from government interviewers.

A separate WaPo report notes that in May 2006, investigators found that 23 agencies hired 144 political appointees from the G.W.Bush administration into career positions from May 2001 to April 2005. “In at least 18 cases the agencies did not follow proper procedures, the GAO found, citing problems such as hiring appointees with limited qualifications, creating positions for specific individuals and disregarding veterans’ preference laws.”

It also cites a report from 2002 where apparently between October 1998 and April 2001, 111 political appointees and congressional aides from the Clinton administration landed career jobs in 45 executive-branch agencies.

On January 11, 2015, OPM also issued guidelines for processing certain appointments during the 2016 presidential election period.

I.  Appointment of Current or Former Political Appointees to Career Civil Service Positions

Agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before appointing a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code.  A former or recent political appointee is someone who held a political appointment covered by OPM’s policy within the previous five-year period.  OPM reviews these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws.  OPM’s memo and instructions regarding political appointees and career civil service positions is available at https://www.chcoc.gov/content/political-appointees-and-career-civil-service-positions.  The memo includes pre-appointment review checklists to assist agencies in preparing their submissions for review.

Note:  Schedule C employees may not be detailed to competitive service positions without prior OPM approval [see 5 CFR 300.301(c)], and no competitive service vacancy should be created for the sole purpose of selecting a Schedule C or Noncareer SES employee. 

OPM prepared a series of questions and answers (Q&As) to respond to agency inquiries about its policy for pre-appointment reviews and to provide additional details that will help agencies meet the policy’s requirements.  These Q&As, which follow, are also available at http://www.opm.gov/FAQs/topic/ppa/index.aspx?page=1

II.  Appointing Employees to the Senior Executive Service

OPM will continue to conduct merit staffing reviews of proposed career SES selections that involve a current or former political, Schedule C, or Noncareer SES appointee before such cases are formally presented to a Qualifications Review Board (QRB).  Agencies should carefully review all actions that would result in the career SES appointment of a political, Schedule C, or Noncareer SES before forwarding such cases to OPM.

Note:  All SES vacancies to be filled by initial career appointment must be publicly announced (5 CFR 317.501).  Only a career SES or career-type non‑SES appointee may be detailed to a Career-Reserved position (5 CFR 317.903(c)).  

In addition, OPM will suspend the processing of QRB cases when an agency head leaves office or announces his or her intention to leave office, or if the President has nominated a new agency head.  OPM imposes a moratorium on QRB cases as a courtesy to a new agency head when it learns of an agency head’s planned departure.  However, OPM will consider requests for exceptions to such a moratorium on a case-by-case basis.  When a presidential transition occurs, OPM will determine the disposition of QRB cases based upon the policy of the new administration.

In the same announcement, OPM released its Do’s and Don’t’s with burrowing employees:

Effective January 1, 2010, OPM conducts on-going pre-appointment reviews of current or former political appointee, Schedule C employee, and Noncareer SES member appointments to the competitive or exceptive service.  OPM seeks to ensure that the merit system principle of fair and open competition is protected.  With this in mind, these are the two most common reasons for OPM not to approve an appointment or a conversion:

  1. the new position appears to have been designed solely for the individual who is being converted, and/or
  2. competition has been limited inappropriately.

Below are “Do’s” that will help agencies with the conversion approval process:

  • Do make a public announcement through OPM’s USAJOBS when filling competitive or excepted service vacancies from candidates outside your own agency’s workforce.
  • Do carefully consider the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan for Displaced Employees regulations (5 CFR 330, Subpart G) before making selections.
  • Do ensure the Chief Human Capital Officer and Human Resources Director closely review all such proposed actions to determine if they meet the test of merit.
  • Do ensure the Chief Human Capital Officer and Human Resources Director gather all necessary internal agency approvals before presenting a case to OPM for review.

And “Don’ts”:

  • Don’t create or announce a competitive or excepted service vacancy for the sole purpose of selecting a current or former political appointee, Schedule C employee, or Noncareer SES member.
  • Don’t remove the Schedule C or Noncareer SES elements of a position solely to appoint the incumbent into the competitive or excepted service.

Read more here.

 

#

Ambassador Stephen Bosworth, 76, Dies; Our Man in Manila During the People Power Revolution

Posted: 4:20 am EDT
Updated: 10:30 pm PDT with SecState statement

 

 

Ambassador Bosworth had an extensive career in the United States Foreign Service, including service as Ambassador to Tunisia from 1979-1981 and Ambassador to the Philippines from 1984-1987. He also served in a number of senior positions in the Department of State, including Director of Policy Planning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs.   Ambassador Bosworth served as the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Korea from November 1997 to February 2001. Most recently, from March 2009 through October 2011, he served as U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy for the Obama Administration.

Ambassador Bosworth entered the Foreign Service in 1961.  He served at S/P from 1983-1984. During the time he was at policy planning, most of that time, according to this ADST oral history, he was no longer in the Foreign Service. He said he retired and came back as a Schedule C employee of the Department of State.

Ambassador Bosworth received his A.B. in 1961 from Dartmouth College. He attended George Washington University from 1965 to 1967. He was born December 4, 1939, in Grand Rapids, MI.

Ambassador Bosworth was interviewed for ADST’s oral history project in 2003. Below is an excerpt of him talking about the late Philippine dictator, Ferdinand Marcos:

Washington was more or less backing us on that. Shultz was backing us very heavily. He saw very clearly that the long term relationship with Marcos had been changed here. Marcos had to change or our relationship had to change, otherwise we were placing our longer term interests in the Philippines at risk because it was not in our interest as having propped Marcos up beyond the time which his own national constituency didn’t any longer want him.
[…]
For the next two days my role consisted primarily of 1) keeping Washington fully informed and 2) warning Marcos directly on the phone that he should not move by force against Enrile and Ramos in a military camp. He should not do anything that would jeopardize the safety of hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians who were out in the streets supporting Mrs. Aquino and demanding Marcos’ resignation. Finally, over the next couple of days the situation played out so that we issued a statement, the U.S. from Washington, which then transmitted, to Marcos and others saying in effect the time has come you should leave.

[…]
His first words to me were I’m terribly disappointed. You don’t understand. Your government doesn’t understand. This is a military coup and I have to resist it. I said, well, we don’t agree that it’s a military coup any longer. We think that it is something bigger than that. Anyway, these are my instructions. I then got back to him the next day. He was in the palace with his family and his grandchildren. We offered him three alternative routes out. Basically by land and by sea and by air. He opted for the air route and he sent some of his minions and his baggage out by boat. We took him out by helicopter. We took him to Clark where he spent a few hours and then we put him on a plane and he went out first to Guam and then to Hawaii. Of course, he died in exile.
[…]
It was very important to us and to President Reagan in particular that we not allow him to be harassed, that we would give him safe haven basically in the United States, but we wouldn’t let him go back to the Philippines.

1024px-Stephen_W._Bosworth_with_Ferdinand_&_Imelda_Marcos_in_Leyte_1984-10-20

Stephen W. Bosworth, left, US Ambassador to the Philippines, talks with President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda during the reenactment of General Douglas MacArthur’s landing at Red Beach on October 20, 1944. Ambassador Bosworth’s wife is on the right. (DOD Photo by SSGT Marvin D. Lynchard, USAF via Wikipedia)

About Corazon Aquino:

Mrs. Aquino comes to power and a great upsurge of national spirit and good feeling. The U.S. for a time at least was, we were heroes, because we had taken him out. I remember going down to call on her the day after Marcos had left. She was not yet living in the palace. She was in her office in her family’s building. As I came out having exchanged statements of good feeling with her and her principal aides, a big crowd of people on the outside all started cheering for the U.S. and me. It was really kind of an extraordinary experience since I previously used to go into my office at the embassy driving through large crowds of demonstrators all saying, Bosworth go home. Some of them had little clips underneath that Bosworth go home saying and take me with you. Filipinos had a sense of humor if nothing else.
[…]
I remember the embassy country team the morning after she had been inaugurated and sworn in as president. I said, you know, we’re all going to look back on yesterday as the end of a fairly easy era in U.S. Philippines relations because one of the positive things about dealing with a dictatorship is that if it is an effective dictatorship it can run the relationship quite effectively. You may not like what it costs, but when we have a problem we can work it out fairly efficiently. Of course, with a sprawling newborn democracy, that was not possible and the relationship was frequently quite messy.

People as more important than an org chart:

In the end foreign policy is made by people coming together and talking and making decisions. I think there is undoubtedly an influence from domestic constituencies. This is particularly visible in the area of economics and finance, but it is true in all areas. I think each administration, every administration that comes into office determined to somehow organize in making the foreign policy better, there’s always the notion that somehow you can fix problems through the organization chart. In the end I’ve become convinced that people are far more important than the organization chart. It’s how people relate to one another to the degree of which individuals have a vision of where they want to go and are willing to be relentless in their pursuit of those goals. Stamina is in many ways a more important requirement for senior policy makers than is intellectual brilliance. You just have to be prepared to wear them down. Now, I think also the ability to articulate particularly in writing, I’m sorry, orally, what it is you’re trying to do. It’s very important in our system because you’ve got to bring a lot of people along. You have to bring the executive branch along and you have to bring the congress along. You influence the congress not just directly, but through various interests groups and constituents and I think this has been a weakness of the State Department over the years that it has not been very effectively engaged with the American public and has not been seen by large elements of the American public as being in U.S. interests. I think that’s a false accusation, an incorrect accusation, but it still holds.

Training a contemporary diplomat:

I think there is still a tendency to put people in stovepipes. Either an economic officer, or political officer or a consular officer and the opportunities for doing work outside those specializations or cones as I guess they’re still called. The opportunities are relatively limited. I think one of the characteristics of my own time in the State Department has been the, I had as you indicated, the benefit of an extraordinary wide range of experiences, not just regionally, but also in terms of function and a lot of negotiating experience, multilateral as well as bilateral. That as I look back on it has been largely a product of serendipity.
[…]
I mean nobody I was never aware of anyone sitting up on the sixth floor of the State Department and say we’re going to put Bosworth here for a couple of years because that means that ten years from now he will have these capabilities. I remember when I was working for George Shultz when I was director of policy planning. He once said to me, I asked him what the differences were between running a company like Bechtel and running the State Department. He said, it’s just a question of how I spend my time. He said, at Bechtel I used to spend probably about half my time on long term strategic planning for the company. About a third of my time making sure that we had senior executives available next year and ten years from now capable of implementing these plans. That means giving them the kinds of experiences they would need over time to become senior executives with the company. The rest of my time I spent dealing with customers in day to day activities. Here in the State Department I spend 95% of my time dealing with the crisis at the moment and very little of my time worrying about personnel policy, almost none and too little worrying about long term planning.

Read his full oral history interview below:

#