Quote of the Day: “I want it on my desk in one week, or I’m going to the Washington Post”

– Domani Spero

Ambassador Richard E. Hoagland, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (SCA) gave his remarks at the 2014 Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Pride Conference on April 16, 2014.

The following is an excerpt:

On June 5, 1985, on my way to my very first day of training as a newly-minted U.S. diplomat, I glanced across our national Mall and saw the U.S. Capitol and its iconic dome. My heart was bursting with pride in the career I was embarking on to serve my country. At the very same time, I said to myself – and I meant it – “No one will ever hurt me because I am gay.” Yes, that was about 15 years after Stonewall, but it was also only about 30 years after the McCarthy purges of hundreds of gay diplomats and other public servants from the U.S. government. During the very first close-door briefing we newly-minted diplomats had from Diplomatic Security, we heard, “We don’t want homosexuals in the Foreign Service. If you are, we’ll hunt you down and drum you out!” I thought, “Yeah, you just try it.”

Although it was becoming a gray area, by the beginning of the 1990s, it was still possible that one’s security clearance could be jeopardized for being gay. After five years, it was time for my security clearance to be renewed, and – yes – it was held up for months and months. I finally got fed up. I went to the head of Diplomatic Security and said, “You have no reason to deny my security clearance. I want it on my desk in one week, or I’m going to the Washington Post.” It was on my desk in one week. Ten years later, by 2000, it was still nearly a radical act to include material about LGBT rights in the State Department’s annual Country Human Rights Reports. It wasn’t until just a handful of years ago that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared in a major speech at the United Nations in Geneva, “LGBT rights are human rights. Period.”
[…]
In closing, let me add one personal word of caution. There are times and places where I believe we need to temper our idealism with at least a certain degree of realpolitik. In our desire to do good, we should never forget the terribly important maxim, “First do no harm.” There are countries in the world, whether religiously or culturally deeply conservative, that will react to our values and goals with backlash against their own LGBT citizens. We should maintain enough humility to remember that we are terribly new at promoting LGBT human rights as U.S. foreign policy. Of course we want to do good – but we should do it, with patience, in a way that results in the maximum benefit for those we want to help.

Read the full remarks here.

Ambassador Hoagland, a career diplomat was previously U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan (2008-2011), and U.S. Ambassador to Tajikistan (2003-2006).  Life After Jerusalem recently posted about the five current ambassadors who are openly gay (see What’s Wrong With This Picture?). All five are also non-career political appointees.

Not too long ago….

According to David K. Johnson, author of The Lavender Scare: the Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government, a 1952 procedures manual for security officers contained a nine-page section devoted entirely to homosexuality, the only type of security offense singled out for such coverage.  The book describes what took place “inside security interrogation rooms where thousands of Americans were questioned about their sex lives.” It was referred to as “homosexual purges” which “ended promising careers, ruined lives, and pushed many to suicide.” At the British Foreign Office, things were no better, Ambassador Charles Crawford’s 2010 piece, The love that dared not speak its name in the Foreign Office is a must read.

* * *

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sex, Lies, and No Videotapes, Just Cases for the Grievance Board

Sharon Papp, AFSA’s General Counsel in her annual report on labor management issues published in the Foreign Service Journal writes that her office “dealt with a bewildering variety of bread-and butter issues over the course of the year.”  She further reports that the labor management staff received between 400 and 450 requests for assistance each week, and the staff is presently working on approximately 200 active cases that are pending in various agency offices or before the Grievance Board.  She then points to several matters of general importance that stand out including the following which attracted some press attention:

In 2011, the State Department proposed disciplinary action against a handful of employees for off-duty conduct that it had not sought to regulate in the past (i.e., extramarital affairs between consenting adults). The department has never sent out a cable or department notice advising employees that, depending on the number of partners, it views such behavior as “notoriously disgraceful conduct” that may subject the employee to discipline.

AFSA has expressed its concern to the department regarding the lack of notice to employees and the tenuous connection between this off-duty conduct and the employee’s job, and we are assisting a number of employees who are challenging such disciplinary actions.

Peter Van Buren, FSO-non grata at the State Department caught this at first blush and blogged about it. Those with thin eyes/ears may want to skip the blog post, otherwise, feel free to read it here.

The report also caught the attention of WaPo’s In the Loop. Excerpt below, with comments from a State Department official and an AFSA rep.  Read in full here:

The State Department would not elaborate on the proposed disciplinary actions or whether employees are ever specifically instructed not to cheat on their spouses. But a State Department official tells the Loop that the concern over what goes on in its employees’ bedrooms is a practical one. “Where an employee is having an extra-marital affair and the spouse does not know, there is a potential for blackmail,” the official said.

A representative of American Foreign Service Association tells the Loop that workers are just looking for clarity about the rules–and consistency in how they’re enforced. “When the State Department wants to make employee rules, it must clearly communicate and announce them… and it must apply [them] fairly and equally to all personnel,” the AFSA representative says.

The State Department official pointed us to a portion of the Foreign Affairs Manual, which governs employee conduct, stating that Foreign Service workers are expected to behave with “integrity, reliability, and prudence.”

“Given the representational nature of employment in the Service…it is necessary that employees observe such standards during and after working hours,” the manual says.

The manual has a few things to say about the sex lives of Foreign Service workers. It specifically calls out for concern “sexual activity by an individual which reasonably may be expected to hamper the effective fulfillment by the agencies of any of their duties and responsibilities, or which may impair the individual’s position performance by reason of, for example, the possibility of blackmail, coercion, or improper influence.”

On the issue of blackmail — vulnerability to blackmail had been used in the past to persecute gays and lesbians in the Federal Government, including in the State Department.  According to David K. Johnson, author of The Lavender Scare: the Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government, a 1952 procedures manual for security officers contained a nine-page section devoted entirely to homosexuality, the only type of security offense singled out for such coverage.  The book describes what took place “inside security interrogation rooms where thousands of Americans were questioned about their sex lives.” It was referred to as “homosexual purges” which “ended promising careers, ruined lives, and pushed many to suicide.”

In an internal study cited by Dr. Johnson, the Department reportedly articulated several rationales for removing gays and lesbians from the Service, none of which involved the threat of blackmail or any other link to national security. As an aside, the FCO was in a similar boat. Read Ambassador Crawford’s 2010 piece, The love that dared not speak its name in the Foreign Office.

The above is mentioned as a cautionary tale. Concern over what goes on in an employee’s bedroom maybe a “practical one” but it is also a slippery slope. Is the State Department going to have a sex police issuing “tickets” on who slept with whom when?

In any case — back in 2003, a Senior Foreign Service Officer, who was nominated for an ambassadorship (nomination later withdrawn) claimed in a grievance filing that “he has information and beliefs about other senior officers who he alleges had extramarital affairs at overseas posts but were not disciplined by the Department.” Fortunately, he did not list their names in his grievance filing.

There is no publicly available data on how many FS employees were disciplined for extra-marital affairs but if AFSA is paying attention now, it must mean that the “handful of employees” is a large enough pool for the organization to ask for clarity and consistency on how the rules are applied. Is there a correlation in the number of these cases and the surge in war-zone deployments?

I cannot find any mention of extra-marital affairs in the Foreign Affairs Manual but below is what it says on sexual activity; last updated in 1995:

3 FAM 4139.1 Sexual Activity
(TL:PER-303; 11-08-1995)
(Uniform State/USAID/USIA)
(Applies to Foreign Service Employees)

The agencies recognize that, in our society, there are considerable differences of opinion in matters of sexual conduct, and that there are some matters which are of no concern to the U.S. Government. However, serious suitability concerns are raised by sexual activity by an individual which reasonably may be expected to hamper the effective fulfillment by the agencies of any of their duties and responsibilities, or which may impair the individual’s position performance by reason of, for example, the possibility of blackmail, coercion, or improper influence. The standards of conduct enumerated in section 3 FAM 4138 are of particular relevance in determining whether the conduct in question threatens the mission of the employing agency or the individual’s effectiveness.

While there is no publicly available data on disciplinary actions caused by extra-marital affairs, there are several sex-related cases in the Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB) where the records of proceedings are publicly available online with the names redacted.

The Senior Foreign Service Officer mentioned above (FSGB 2003-045) appealed the State Department’s decision to suspend him from duty for three days on charges related to his extra-marital sexual activities with two FSN employees of the American Embassy in {country 2}, and poor judgment, relating to sexual activities with foreign nationals in {country 2} and {country 1}.  He was at that time the Administrative Counselor at the U. S. Embassy in {city 2}, and had a sexual affair with a woman that continued after she was hired by the embassy, even though he was her immediate supervisor. He was also charged with poor judgment for having an affair with {name 1’s} sister, who was the receptionist at the American Language Center in {city 2}, {country 2}. And while he was a DCM in {city 1}, he admitted to a one-time sexual encounter with a {country 1}ian national who was an employee at a local hotel. He was charged two years after these incidents occurred. The FSGB decided that the Department’s decision to suspend grievant for three days was reasonable.

In 2007, an FSO with 20 years in the Foreign Service, with every overseas posting at a hardship post was charged for off-duty misconduct — over a seven-year period he engaged the services of prostitutes 30-40 times in {post 2}, where it is a crime, and 10-20 times in {post 1}.  The Department identified as an aggravating factor that the misconduct could have caused embarrassment and damaged U.S. interests had grievant been arrested.  The FSGB held that a penalty of three-day suspension without pay for improper personal conduct is appropriate under the circumstances (FSGB No. 2007-011).

In 2008, the Department proposed the separation of an FS-02 Diplomatic Security (DS) Officer’s based on a charge that carried four specifications, all related to engaging with prostitutes including one who was allegedly an underage girl. At the time of these encounters, grievant was posted overseas as the Regional Security Officer (RSO) at a U.S. Embassy (FSGB No. 2008-048). In his grievance filing, the employee argues that “His behavior at the time was the result of a treatable medical condition, depression and sexual addition, and it is now under control.  He should not be unfairly singled out because of the sexual nature of his misconduct.  Alcohol or substance abusers receive more compassion than the Department has shown him after 26 years of faithful and outstanding service, numerous awards and no prior discipline.”  The FSGB held that the Department met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that grievant, should be separated from the Service based on a charge of engaging in “notoriously disgraceful conduct.

In 2009, the OIG conducted an investigation of a senior Department manager and a female subordinate who, while engaging in an extra marital affair, engaged in various unauthorized activities including improper personnel practices; improper acceptance of gratuities from contractors to include free tickets to an NFL game and a Broadway show; and contracting irregularities. The case was declined for criminal prosecution. On May 21, 2009, the Bureau of Human Resources issued a proposal to terminate both employees, but later mitigated the action for the subordinate employee to a 14-day suspension. (05-027)

Last year, an FP-03 FSO who served as Deputy Principal Officer in [City, Host Country] (a two-person American Presence Post), was charged with having an extra-marital relationship without his wife’s knowledge; creating the appearance that he had engaged the services of a prostitute while on official in-country travel; denying the extramarital affair when first interviewed by a federal law enforcement officer; and taking the woman with whom he was having the affair back to her place of work in a USG vehicle after restaurant lunches (FSGB Case No. 2011-009).  The FSO filed a grievance where he stated that during the time he was involved with the extra-marital relationship, he experienced “post disaster stress and depression after the earthquake that hit [Host Country].”  He stated that his family was in (Country X) for months, that consequently he was isolated and had no one to turn to, and in “desperation” he allowed his relationship with the woman to develop into something “beyond friendship.”  The FSGB held that “The Department met its burden of proof that grievant engaged in the acts of misconduct underlying the charges […] that there was a clear nexus between his behavior and the efficiency of the Service, and that the proposed penalty of a ten-day suspension is reasonable.”

There are a few things we learned reading through these grievance cases:

1) It appears that from the agency’s view, widespread notoriety is not required to demonstrate an adverse effect on the efficiency of the Service. And the potential for embarrassment and damaged to U.S. interests seems as weighty as actual embarrassment and damage.

2) The Board’s expressed role is to determine whether the [penalty] proposed is a reasonable one, not whether it is the best penalty.

3) Some of these cases run for so long that that employees with suspended clearance can be in a black hole for years.  In one instance, an employee was placed on administrative leave from January [Year #7] until March Year #1], “when DS discovered how much time had passed.” Based on the filing, we conclude that the date is from January 1997 until March 2001.

4) It appears that the FSGB does not consider misconduct that takes place on non-working hours as a mitigating factor for any of these grievances for the following reason: “Because of the uniqueness of the Foreign Service, employees are considered to be on duty 24 hours a day and must observe especially high standards of conduct during and after working hours and when on leave or travel status.”

5) In almost all these cases, the grievants claim that their penalties are “greatly disproportionate and unreasonable” or inconsistent with those of similar offenses.

6) A DS Director [Named Person #8], who testified in one of these cases did state that the Department considers engaging prostitutes a “heinous event.” As in utterly odious or wicked event.

7) In the case of a DS agent dismissed for “notoriously disgraceful conduct,” the Director General at that time testified that:  “I think it’s important to send a message to the entire State Department that. . . you cannot do this.”

8) A  senior FSO who had relations with two FSNs plus, received a three-day suspension, and an midlevel FSO who had an affair with one non-embassy individual received a ten-day suspension.  Trying hard here not to be snarky about the fair and equal application of the rules.

9) The wives were the last to know.

Domani Spero