Huh News? Georgia prepares "Holbrooke Brigade"

Josh Rogin of The Cable posted this item last Friday, “Georgia prepares to deploy “Holbrooke Brigade” | FP | February 5, 2009): He writes:

Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for the issue formerly known as Af-Pak will visit Georgia “shortly,” with plans to finalize the deployment of Georgian troops to Afghanistan.
So what will Holbrooke be doing there? Well, in addition to possibly discussing Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili‘s offer to allow his country to become a supply route to Afghanistan, which Steinberg reportedly said was a Pentagon matter, Georgian sources tell The Cable that Holbrooke will be putting the final touches on the plan to deploy Georgian troops to Afghanistan in March.
In Georgia, they are calling it the “Holbrooke Brigade,” according to a source close to the Georgian government. The plan is for 750 Georgian troops to be deployed in Helmand province at the personal request of Gen. David Petraeus, the source said, who was impressed with their effectiveness along the Iranian border during operations in Iraq. According to the current plan, they will be under U.S. command and supplementing 350 Georgian troops already in country as part of the International Security Assistance Force.
One for the huh news, certainly. It could have been called any other name like — the “Obama Brigade” but that might encourage “birthers” to include Georgia as one of the places where BHO was born.  The “Clinton Brigade” sounds all right but might confuse people between Hillary and Bill.  “The Petraeus,” certainly, given that its deployment is reportedly at the general’s “personal request,” but it may sound a lot like a Harry Potter magical curse. So that leaves us with the “Holbrooke Brigade.” Somewhere, a personal archivist is smiling.      

Open Season for 55 EFM (EPAP) Jobs, Deadline Feb. 12

I’m a bit late on this but the Department has announced the 2010 Open Season of the Expanded Professional Associates Program (EPAP).  These positions have been created for  Appointment Eligible Family Members and only applies to positions in the same mission where the employee-spouse has been paneled.

The Expanded Professional Associates Program includes the following categories of positions: Political, Economic, Public Diplomacy, Management, General Services, Human Resources, Financial Management, Office Management, Information Management, Physician, and Registered Nurse. All EPAP positions are at the FS-04 to FS-07 grade level. See FS pay schedule here.

The Department plans to fill an additional 55 EPAP positions in FY 2010. A greater number of positions will be advertised, however, in order to give maximum flexibility to both applicants and bureaus in seeking good matches for the positions. Applicants need to be aware that not every position advertised will be staffed. Final decisions will be made by the hiring bureau based on the number and qualifications of applicants, and bureau staffing priorities.
The application deadline is February 12, 2010. Applicants will be vetted by HR/CDA and notified whether they meet the minimum qualifications for a category of position available under the Expanded PA Program. Qualification for a position does not guarantee an offer of employment. Offers of employment may be made thereafter, but only after the sponsoring employee has been paneled to a position at the same mission. As noted above, AEFMs already present at post also may apply, provided that their sponsoring employee’s tour of duty will extend at least one year beyond the EFM’s start date.

Click here to read the full announcement.

Stretch Assignments as Double Edge Swords

Viking longswordsImage via Wikipedia

According to this
2009 GAO report“As of September 2008, about 34 percent of mid-level generalist positions at posts of greatest hardship were filled by officers in upstretch assignments17—15 percentage points higher than the upstretch rate for comparable positions at posts with no or low differentials. Furthermore, as of the same date, 25 of 34 (over 70 percent) of all overseas generalists working two grades above their rank were located at hardship posts.”

Elsewhere in the report, it states that “as of December 2008, State had 85 fewer mid-level generalist officers than positions (see table 2)—an improvement on the deficit of 316 that we previously reported. However, as of the same date, State faced a 28 percent greater deficit at the FS-02 level than it did in 2006, with mid-level positions in the public diplomacy and consular cones continuing to experience the largest shortages of staff overall.”
The GAO reports that “positions filled by officers in upstretch assignments can compromise diplomatic readiness.”  It also says that “Another potentially adverse effect of staffing gaps is that important post-level duties, such as reporting and staff development, may suffer from inexperience when entry-level officers are staffed to mid-level positions. While officials at post said that some officers in stretch positions perform well, others told us that the inexperience of entry-level officers serving in mid-level capacities can have a negative impact. For example, the economic section chief at one post we visited stated that reporting produced by an entry-level officer in a mid-level position lacked the necessary analytical rigor. The political section chief at the same post noted that a mid-level position responsible for reporting on terrorism was staffed by an officer serving two grades above his current grade level with no previous reporting experience.”
A good chunk of the GAO discussion in this report talks about “inexperienced entry-level” officers staffing upstretch mid-level positions or the “no experienced mid-level officers” diverted from key responsibilities by the need to “supervise inexperienced entry-level staff.”

Stretch assignments can work. We have an example of 1-2 stretch assignments that went very well for this entry level officer. What the report did not talk about are mid-level officers stretching up into Senior Foreign Service positions that potentially can have a cascading effect not just on diplomatic readiness but in the “bringing” up of the next generation of leaders and managers in the FS.  

Here is one example from the recently released OIG report on the US Embassy in Guatemala. This is from 2008 but just recently posted online.  The inspection took place in Washington, DC, between April 14 and May 6, 2008, and in Guatemala City, Guatemala, between June 9 and 26, 2008.
Two striking things about this report. One, under consular management: The report says that “The consul general is finishing his tour in the summer of 2008, and the atmosphere should improve under the leadership of the deputy.  Another factor in staff morale is that the consular section does not hold regular staff meetings, American and LE staff almost never have meetings together.” Ooouch!  Two, under the entry–level program: “An Ambassador or DCM sighting in the consular section is a rare event.”  
Ah rare event — must be kind of like Elvis sightings.
A few other details:
  • An FS-01 officer, stretched into the Senior Foreign Service position of consul general, heads the section, which has three other mid-level managers, nine entry-level officers, two eligible family members, and 24 local employees. 
  • The consul general has been the primary interface with the adopting families and their advocates. He invests ample time in monitoring the status of the cases, answering inquiries, and engaging with the Guatemalan Government towards the prompt resolution of cases. […] Absorbed with adoption issues, the consul general has neglected general consular management issues. Ideally, this officer should have delegated some of the casework to others while continuing to be the main interlocutor with the Guatemalan authorities. With the consul general leaving in the summer of 2008, it will fall on the deputy and the incoming consul general to find a better management balance.
  • The consul general mandated that local employees scan the nonimmigrant visa application forms and all supporting documents, such as bank statements and job letters, into the computer system. This was adding minutes of processing to each case. The consul general imposed this procedure and was oblivious to concerns expressed by employees about the workload burden on the staff. 
  • The consul general has made the unit’s work harder by mandating several projects that were unnecessary. For example, he instructed them to reconcile in detail, nonimmigrant visa fees collected by the bank with, nonimmigrant visa adjudications. He required that this cumbersome operation cover all transactions back to 2006. The level of detail, andstaff time involved, greatly exceeded the Department’s accountability requirements. In any case, the consul general should not have required fraud prevention staffers toassume the duties of an accountable consular officer. Almost beyond comprehension,the consul general demanded a detailed analysis involving different exchange rates based on the fact that the bank exchange rate changed periodically. The consul general pursued this over the objections of several employees.
  • Some inefficiencies predate the current consul general. The OIG team found the fraud prevention and nonimmigrant visa units burdened by the “showback” program, an initiative that began innocently, but later turned into the perfect storm. In the 1990s, the consular section started requiring 10 percent of all applicants issued temporary agricultural worker visas (H2B visas) to report back to the embassy to prove their return to Guatemala. This was not a burden in 1997 when only 254 such visas were issued, but became a serious problem in the early 2000s when H2B visa issuances had risen ten-fold. Consular management made matters worse by broadening the “showback” procedure to all H2B applicants.  In 2003, the Department instructed the Embassy to cease this “showback” requirement. Rather than following this guidance, the embassy “suggested” this procedure to the employing agencies, which in effect was the same thing. In 2006, the embassy issued 5,070 H2B visas, and the system was out of control. In 2008, the incoming deputy consular chief put a stop to it. In the OIG team’s view, the consul general should have put a stop to it long ago.
  • The consular section has not been complying with the requirements in 9 FAM 42.83 for terminating inactive immigrant visa files. As a result, there are file cabinets full of cases, some dating from the 1970s. This is exacerbating severe space constraints. The section faces a large burden and probably many years before it will be able to complete the process of terminating these old files, but it has to be done.
  • Entry-level officers do not attend country team meetings save for an initial introduction, and the front office has not ensured that the consul general, the supervisor of most entry-level employees in the Embassy, provides feedback on country team meetings.
The Section does not hold meetings so how would ELOs know about the goings in the country team meetings even if the CG was in attendance?  Management in this case obviously was poorly executed.  Evidence of leadership? Nowhere mentioned.  Makes one wonder what kind of leadership and management lessons the entry level officers actually learned from their tours in Guate during this time. Makes one also wonder how this kind of derailment impacts an officer eying the SFS.       
There was once an FSO on a stretch assignment in Timbuktu … I’m having a hard time trying to pin the tail of this thing … so later…
Related Items:
GAO-09-874 | Department of State | Additional Steps Needed to Address Continuing Staffing and Experience Gaps at Hardship Posts | September 2009 | PDF

2009 Foreign Service National (FSN) of the Year Awards

Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns at the Department Awards Ceremony in November called them “the backbone of every U.S. embassy and consulate” and said that “none of our missions could function without the steadfast dedication, hard work and loyalty of our enormously talented FSN colleagues.”
This FSN award recognizes the high standards of performance and the value to the U.S. Government of the special contributions made by Foreign Service National (FSN) employees and foreign nationals serving under a personal services contract or agreement at our missions abroad.
The primary winner now receives a certificate signed by the Secretary of State, and $10,000 (this used to be $5,000). Each of the other five nominees receives a certificate signed by the assistant secretary of the appropriate regional bureau or International Organization (IO) and $2,500.
Selection for this award is based on:
(1) Significant contributions, which support an understanding of the U.S. foreign policy interest abroad;
(2) Outstanding examples of liaison with host country officials and others that facilitated the work of U.S. officers or the goals of the mission;
(3) Exceptional initiative in the defense of U.S. property or of fellow employees or U.S. citizens;
(4) Performance of assigned duties in a manner that clearly was instrumental in the achievement of major mission goals and objectives, and without which success would have been uncertain or seriously delayed;
(5) Special effectiveness in bridging national differences in a way that enhanced the introduction of U.S. staff members into professional, cultural, or personal relationships with host country nationals and contributed to effective representation and personal morale; and
(6) Personal or professional courage in difficult, demanding, or hardship situations.

2009 FSN of the Year — Nigel Whitehouse
Whitehouse, the management operations coordinator at the U.S. Embassy in N’Djamena, is the 2009 Foreign Service National of the Year. Nominated by the Bureau of African Affairs, he was cited for “30 years of extraordinary contributions to the advancement of U.S. interests in Chad.” Two years after he started working at the embassy, he experienced his first war and first evacuation.  He would play a key role in at least seven
more evacuations including the one in 2008 where he “singlehandedly ensured that embassy facilities were safe, that embassy employees were paid and fed, and that important messages were transmitted, despite the shutdown of the phone system,” the embassy said.
Regional Awardees:
EAP | Hyun Sook Choi – Supervisory Visa Specialist, U.S. Embassy Seoul
SCA| Anil Raj Paulose – Security Investigator, U.S. Consulate General Mumbai
NEA | Rashad Mansour – Security Investigator, U.S. Embassy Damascus
EUR | Mariam “Marika” Kharabadze— American Citizen Services, U.S. Embassy Tbilisi
WHA | Lisette Anda – Human Resources Assistant, U.S. Embassy La Paz

Read more about the 2009 FSN of the Year awardees below:

2009 State Department Awards

The State Department’s awards are typically announced in fall every year via cable with the big do ceremony held in November.  Last year it was held on November 5.  Since we only use publicly available material here, we had to wait until this came out in the in-house magazine – three months after the event (we did a post on Special Agent Fred Ketchem: DS Employee of the Year in November last year since the DS Bureau had a press release about his award).

The annual awards recognize outstanding achievements in functional areas such as reporting and analysis, management, linguistic ability, administration, security, consular services, international economics, trade development, peacekeeping, equal employment opportunity and mentoring. The awards were presented by Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns.
All notable awardees but two that you might find interesting:
The Barbara M. Watson Award for Consular Excellence went to Donald Leroy Moore. Moore is the consul general at the U.S. Embassy in Port au Prince, was cited for exceptional, creative and committed efforts to further U.S. interests in Haiti. His steadfast service to the American community, efforts to provide the best visa service to Haitian visa clients and careful and engaged mentoring of his staff meet the highest standards of consular excellence.
The first Ryan C. Crocker Award for Outstanding Leadership in Expeditionary Diplomacy went to Elizabeth Rood.  Rood, formerly of Provincial Reconstruction Team Paktika, Afghanistan, was cited for her exceptional service to the United States and the people of Afghanistan by helping to extend governance and development to Paktika Province’s most remote and dangerous districts, building the capacity of Paktika’s provincial government and reaching a nationwide audience with positive messages, delivered in Pashto, about the United States.