U.S. Senate Confirms Adam Namm as Ambassador to Ecuador – Finally!

On April 26, the U.S. Senate finally confirmed Adam Namm as the new Ambassador to Ecuador. Ambassador Namm’s nomination made it out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) in November last year.  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) at that time announced his intent to oppose the nominees for WHA, including Namm’s due to what he called this Administration’s policy towards Latin America defined by “appeasement, weakness and the alienation of our allies.”

PN887 *       Ecuador
Adam E. Namm, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Ecuador.

President Obama announced his nomination of Adam Namm on September 2011. We missed that announcement; below is the brief bio released by the WH:

Adam E. Namm is the Director of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) at the State Department.  A career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister Counselor, Mr. Namm joined the Department of State in 1987.  His most recent overseas assignment was as Management Counselor in Islamabad, with prior tours in Bogota, Dhahran, and Santo Domingo.  His domestic assignments have included Executive Assistant in the Bureau of Administration, Director of the Office of Allowances, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Management, and both Desk Officer and Post Management Officer in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs.

Mr. Namm holds an A.B. magna cum laude in International Relations from Brown University and an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College.

Ambassador Louis Susman (left), Acting Director of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations Adam Namm (right), and architect James Timberlake (middle) examine the new U.S. Embassy London model.
(U.S. Embassy London photo by SJ Mayhew/Via Flickr)

Ambassador Namm will assume charge of the US Embassy in Quito from Timothy Zúñiga-Brown who has served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Quito since July 2011, and is currently acting as Chargé d’Affaires a.i. Mr. Zúñiga-Brown previously he served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Nassau, The Bahamas.

The previous US Ambassador to Quito, career diplomat, Heather M. Hodges was appointed Chief of Mission on October 2, 2008. She departed post in April 2011 after Ecuador asked her to leave the country “as soon as possible” following the wikileaked of a diplomatic cable alleging widespread corruption within the Ecuadorean police force.

Domani Spero

UKFCO: Straight Talk on Consular Work, and Consuls Don’t Do Chicken Coops, All right?

On April 4, 2012, William Hague, UK’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave a speech where he talked about the role of the British consular services:


[…] I want to describe what we are doing in a vital area of the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but one which rarely receives so much attention: strengthening Britain’s consular diplomacy.
[L]ast year in Bangladesh, Foreign Office staff rescued four girls from forced marriage in a single day and returned them safely to Britain, including one girl who had been kept chained to her bed.

As these stories show, consular work is a very personal business.

It touches the lives of British citizens in difficult and sometimes extreme circumstances.

It is the only way most people come into contact with the Foreign Office, and it is one of our main responsibilities as a Department.
Britons make more than 55 million individual trips overseas every year, and at least 6 million of our nationals live abroad for some of or all of the time. In the space of a year, approximately 6,000 Britons get arrested, and at any one time more than 3,250 British nationals are in prison around the world. At least 10% of all the murders of Britons in the last two years took place overseas, and on average more than one hundred British nationals die abroad each week.

As you can imagine, this produces an immense demand for our services. In fact, just under two million people contact the Foreign Office for some form of consular assistance each year: that is more than 37,000 people a week.

When you are aware of these vast numbers, you can understand why it is that Embassies cannot pay your bills, give you money or make travel arrangements for you, and why we cannot arrange funerals or repatriate bodies. We try to look after everybody in the same way, and to be consistent in how we help people whether they are rich or poor, famous or unknown.

We also have to observe the law. That means we cannot help you enter a country if you do not have a valid passport or necessary visa. We cannot get you better treatment in hospital or prison than is given to local people, and we cannot get you out of prison. We cannot resolve your property or other legal disputes for you. We cannot override the local authorities, such as police investigating crimes. And we cannot give you legal advice: consular staff are not lawyers.

There are also cases where members of the public waste time and scarce resources with ludicrous requests.

It is not our job, for example, to book you restaurants while you are on holiday. This is obvious, you may think. But nonetheless it came as a surprise to the caller in Spain who was having difficulty finding somewhere to have Christmas lunch.

If like a man in Florida last year, you find ants in your holiday rental, we are not the people to ask for pest control advice.

If you are having difficulty erecting a new chicken coop in your garden in Greece as someone else was, I am afraid that we cannot help you.

Equally, I have to say that we are not the people to turn to

  • if you can’t find your false teeth,
  • if your sat nav is broken and you need directions,
  • if you are unhappy with your plastic surgery,
  • if your jam won’t set, if you are looking for a dog-minder while you are on holiday,
  • if your livestock need checking on,
  • if you would like advice about the weather,
  • or if you want someone to throw a coin into the Trevi fountain for you because you forgot while you were on holiday and you want your marriage to succeed.
  • And our commitment to good relations with our neighbours does not, I am afraid, extend to translating ‘I love you’ into Hungarian, as we were asked to do by one love-struck British tourist. There are easier ways to find a translation.

These are a just a few examples of bizarre demands that get put to our staff overseas.

Criticism that is sometimes levelled against us should be viewed in that light. An effective consular service does not mean a nanny state.

So we ask British nationals to be responsible, to be self-reliant and to take sensible precautions.

Bullets and italics added above for emphasis.  Read the full text here.

Sounds like a reasonable request, unless you’re the one who has to erect the chicken coop. Tee-hee!

We think Secretary Hague did a good job explaining the consular work of his FCO staff.  That’s important as it helps the public manage their expectations of the Service. We can’t ever remember a U.S. Secretary of State trying to school the American public on what the embassy can/cannot do for them overseas. No wonder, they mostly think our folks are in perpetual happy hour when in fact, a lot of our consular folks around the world do not get home at 5 o’clock. We have over 260 posts overseas, and we can assure you that somewhere in the world, at any given night, a consular officer is awake assisting an American in distress. Sometimes, like clock work, our compatriots overseas need assistance at 4:45 pm on Friday afternoons. Or a few might decide to leave abusive foreign spouses or partners at midnight on a weekend, several weekends a year. Many times, they have to hold the hands of duty officers who have never assisted an American in distress before, or get their ears burn when a duty officer give their home phone numbers to an irate American on the phone. They have to deal not just with visa applicants, but also victims of crimes, death, and notification of next of kin, morgue visit, and things like that.

We think that the consular career track is probably the most under appreciated cone in the Foreign Service.  The members of the American public who have the misfortune to need their assistance are often unhappy about what services are afforded them. “You will hear from my congressman!” is a common enough threat within embassy walls ranging in reasons from bad prison food, crowded jail cell, some gentleman’s inability to take his/her spouse back to the United States asap, etc. Those whose problems overseas are happily resolved, are too happy to leave and be back in the United States that they often times do not bother to tell their congressional representatives how our embassy helped them overseas.

Of course, we often hear high level officials talk about the protection of Americans overseas as one of the most important function of the State Department when they go before Congress for budget hearings. But when we look at the annual promotion statistics of the Foreign Service, we’re still seeing officers who do one of the most important function of the agency being beaten promotion wise and in ambassadorial appointments by the jaw-jaw guys. Which is curious and all given that it is an important function ….

Zero-Tolerance Policy on Prostitution, Read it in the FAM or the Grievance Board

Well, it was not Secretary Panetta’s fault. He was on an official trip, which occasionally means a press conference.  And of all the questions that local reporters could have asked, one has to bring up that one about prostitutes in Brasilia and the U.S. Marines. So the journos got busy and over at the State Department, the official spokesperson got even busier.

Via the State Department Daily Press Briefing, April 25:

QUESTION: I have a question on South America —


QUESTION: — for what Americans might consider the ongoing soap opera involving the Secret Service, except this doesn’t involve the Secret Service. We’re talking about three U.S. Marines who apparently have been punished as well as an employee of the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia who apparently were implicated in tossing a prostitute out of a moving car sometime last year. And I wanted to find out, since we know that the Marines have been punished, who was the employee of the Embassy? Was this person an American? Was this person a local hire? What can you say about a pending lawsuit now, apparently, against the Embassy?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, your report of the incident in question is not accurate in terms of what actually happened. Second, this is something that happened back in December. There was a State Department employee involved. The – we did cooperate fully with the appropriate Brazilian authorities, including with the civil police. None of the Americans involved in the incident are still in Brazil. The civil police, as I understand it, are still working on their case, and no charges have been brought by the Brazilian authorities.

QUESTION: When you say that none of the people involved are still in Brazil, does that imply that the Embassy employee is an American?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And does that person still work for the U.S. Government?

MS. NULAND: I do not have the answer to that. I believe so. But as you know, we don’t talk about our personnel for privacy reasons.

QUESTION: What is the policy? Much has been made about the Secret Service reviewing its standards of behavior for its employees when they’re detailed overseas. What is the standard for the State Department and its employees and how they’re expected to behave, conform to local laws overseas?

MS. NULAND: We have a zero-tolerance policy for any kind of conduct of the kind that was of – that involves prostitution or anything of that nature. I can give you the Foreign Affairs Manual regulations, if that’s helpful to you.


MS. NULAND: Not only for the reasons of morality and local law, but also because any kind of conduct of that kind exposes our employees to blackmail and other things.

QUESTION: Even though that a country like Colombia may have legalized activity in this (inaudible)?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: Just a couple things on that. What about the description that you were read of the incident isn’t correct?

MS. NULAND: Well, Ros talked about somebody being thrown out of a car and this kind of thing. That is not what happened in this case.

QUESTION: What did happen?

QUESTION: Because that’s the description that the Secretary of Defense offered to reporters who were traveling with him. So —

MS. NULAND: Our information is that after four Embassy personnel left the club, the – a woman involved in this incident attempted to open a car door and get into a closed and moving vehicle. She was not able to do so. She fell and she injured herself. All of the Embassy personnel involved in this incident were interviewed by the Brazilian civil police. We have also conducted our own investigation into the incident, and we’ve taken all the appropriate steps regarding the individuals involved consistent with our laws and our regulations.

QUESTION: Did these – did any of these – in particular, the Embassy employee, did they violate any rule?

MS. NULAND: Well, as I said, they haven’t been charged by Brazilian authorities.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean any of the FAM rules.

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into the precise adjudication of the case for reasons of privacy with regard to our employee.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you said that none of the people are still in the country.

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: But someone can be moved without being punished. I mean, you could be transferred just simply because this person – for another reason. So do you know if there was any – was there any reprimand or punishment handed out, and was there any reason to? Did they – did these people do anything wrong?

MS. NULAND: Again, my information is that we conducted our own investigation of this issue, and we took the appropriate steps. What I’m not at liberty to get into is what steps those might have been, given the privacy issues involving the employee. And that’s our policy that we don’t talk about disciplinary steps taken with employees.

QUESTION: Well, the Secret Service didn’t either until just recently.

MS. NULAND: I understand that.

QUESTION: Well, that’s why it’s important to know whether they actually did something wrong or they were just transferred or moved to – or demoted or whatever. I mean, maybe – I mean, the description that you just read, it sounds like it could be perfectly plausible that these people didn’t do anything wrong at all. So that’s —

MS. NULAND: And it may well be. I just don’t have information with regard to the case beyond what I’ve just given you.

QUESTION: Well, I would suggest that the Department might want to come clean on this, considering the interest in the – in that. The other thing is that in the FAM, it talks about – it said “notorious behavior” or something like that. But it only talks about that being a problem if it were to become publicly known.

MS. NULAND: Well, I don’t have the FAM in front of me. I think I should get it for you.

QUESTION: So I’m not sure I – okay. But I’m not – I’m curious as to – you say it’s a zero-tolerance policy, but it’s not clear to me that it is, in fact, zero tolerance if the only way it gets you into trouble is if other people find out about it.

MS. NULAND: But the problem – but this is the problem. This is why you have to have a zero-tolerance policy, because at any given time, if you open yourself up to such behavior, it could become known. And you can’t, as somebody engaged in behavior of that kind, predict when that might happen. And so you’re immediately vulnerable, and so is the U.S. Government. So that’s why we have the regulations that we have.

QUESTION: Okay. Can we —

QUESTION: Is there a lawsuit pending against the U.S. Government?

MS. NULAND: As I said, we have – I have information to indicate that there have been no charges filed by the – in Brazil.

QUESTION: FAM stands for foreign manual?

QUESTION: Wait, wait. I just want to make sure that you understand that – what I’m trying to get. I want – basically, I want to know if the people involved in this violated that FAM regulation.

MS. NULAND: I understand that, and I – my expectation is that we are not going to talk about an individual personnel case from the podium.

QUESTION: I’m just curious as to what FAM stands for.

MS. NULAND: Sorry. Foreign Affairs Manual, which are our published rules and regulations for ourselves. But anybody who’s interested in those, we’ll get them for you. I did have them a couple of days ago. I don’t have them here.

The April 26 DPB is here where Ms. Nuland gave a shout-out to all the Take Your Kids to Work kids and the Columbia University students who attended the Daily Press Briefing before wrestling with more non-G rating questions.

MS. NULAND: I can’t, based on one press article, evaluate what a “business like this” is. I’m not sure what this establishment involves itself with, what else might go on there. But what I can tell you is, as we discussed yesterday, under the Foreign Affairs Manual, members of the Foreign Service are prohibited from engaging in notoriously disgraceful conduct, which includes frequenting prostitutes and engaging in public or promiscuous sexual relations or engaging in sexual activity that could open the employee up to the possibility of blackmail, coercion, or improper influence. So the degree to which any employee requires investigation, that’s the standard that they’re held to. And what a subject to be talking about on Bring Your Kid to Work Day. (Laughter.)

The relevant regs that govern this appears to be 3 FAM 4130 STANDARDS FOR APPOINTMENT AND CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT, the only one we could find that mentions “prostitutes” (moral turpitude issues for visas excluded).  More specifically 3 FAM 4139.14 Notoriously Disgraceful Conduct, which states:

“Notoriously disgraceful conduct is that conduct which, were it to become widely known, would embarrass, discredit, or subject to opprobrium the perpetrator, the Foreign Service, and the United States. Examples of such conduct include but are not limited to the frequenting of prostitutes, engaging in public or promiscuous sexual relations, spousal abuse, neglect or abuse of children, manufacturing or distributing pornography, entering into debts the employee could not pay, or making use of one’s position or immunity to profit or to provide favor to another (see also 5 CFR, Part 2635) or to create the impression of gaining or giving improper favor. Disqualification of a candidate or discipline of an employee, including separation for cause, is warranted when the potential for opprobrium or contempt should the conduct become public knowledge could be reasonably expected to affect adversely the person’s ability to perform his or her own job or the agency’s ability to carry out its responsibilities. Evaluators must be carefully to avoid letting personal disapproval of such conduct influence their decisions.”

On April 23, Reuters reports that–

A 2008 State Department cable to overseas missions said “people who buy sex acts fuel the demand for sex trafficking” and that “irrespective of whether prostitution is legal in the host country, employees should not in any way abet sex trafficking or solicit people in prostitution.”  Using prostitutes is grounds for disciplinary action, which may include firing, the State Department said. Adultery can also be a disciplinary offense if the spouse is unaware, and it exposes the employee to potential blackmail.

Ms. Nuland talks about the Department’s “zero-tolerance policy for any kind of conduct of the kind that was of – that involves prostitution or anything of that nature.”

We are not into lawyering but zero-tolerance indicates the imposition of automatic punishment for infractions of an articulated rule or regulation with the goal of eliminating such infractions.  Our favorite resource says that “zero-tolerance policies forbid persons in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history.” Which to us, means it does not matter if engaging with a prostitute happens once or half a dozen times, the punishment is the same for a little or a whole lot.

And while a Diplomatic Security Director was once quoted saying that the  State Department considers engaging prostitutes a “heinous event, ” the FAM only says one could be subject to discipline including firing.

We have located three prostitution-related cases in the Foreign Service Grievance Board all available publicly online, where the penalties range from a three-day suspension without pay to separation from service.

  • 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 the FSO been arrested.  The Grievance Board (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, officer was posted overseas as the Regional Security Officer (RSO) at a U.S. Embassy (FSGB No. 2008-048). The FSGB held that the Department met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that DS Agent, should be separated from the Service based on a charge of engaging in “notoriously disgraceful conduct.
  • 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 FSGB held that “The Department met its burden of proof that FSO 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.”

So unlike what you’d expect under zero tolerance, the punishments above were not pre-determined but appears to fit the cases and circumstances subjectively. And that’s why we thought this DPB is interesting and all.

When we blogged about these cases last March, we thought out loud that it does not seem as if widespread notoriety is even required to demonstrate adverse effect on the efficiency of the Service. The potential for embarrassment and damage to U.S. interests seems as weighty as actual embarrassment and damage.

So if you engage the services of the prostitute and you self report, you get in trouble; if you don’t report it and you’re found out (because eventually they will find out), you get in trouble; if you don’t report it and you’re found out in the press, you get in trouble; if you don’t report it and there’s no press, you still get in trouble for potential damage to the service.

It also appears that the FSGB does not consider misconduct that takes place on non-working hours as a mitigating factor for any of these grievance cases: “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.”

And so we end up just as confused — does zero tolerance means that every transgression of this type will have a penalty, but not all transgression of this type is a firing offense?  And if that is so, wouldn’t that make this a flexible zero tolerance plus?

Domani Spero

Photo of the Day: Let The Wind Blow Back Your Hair

U.S. Consul Tim Cipullo and Commercial Attaché Cindy Biggs in front of the wind tunnel during a tour of the GE Engine Testing facility at the the Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport on April 16. The facility is used for cold weather certification of new jet engines.

GE Engine Testing Facility Visit via Flickr/US Mission Canada