Daily Archives: October 8, 2020

Foggy Bottom Blues: Why did the chicken cross the road?

October 8, 2020 By in Funnies, Hotspots, Trends Tags: ,

 

photo via pexels

 

Secretary (speaking in his personal capacity):

To conduct in-chicken campaign on the other side. Nowhere is chicken freedom under assault more than it is inside of Gyyyyyna today; that state works day and night to scratch out and snuff out the lights of chickens everywhere on a horrifying scale.

Special Assistant to the ‘Force Multiplier’:

The chicken is worried about asking others for personal things.

Very Senior Advisor:

To deny accusations of covering-up for a possibly radioactive chicken and avoid a congressional subpoena.

Under Secretary: 

To manage all cluck and scope of all chicken-related investigations.  

Assistant Secretary:

The chicken crossed the road so as not/not to comply with depositions demanded of the gallinaceous tribe.

Staff Assistant:

The chicken crossed the road to find a personal lawyer and comply with deposition requests.

Ambassador to Agonistan:

So the chicken can get confirmed as quickly as possible, get to post with three suitcases, and preen for three months.

Special Envoy: 

The chicken statute allows us to scratch the necessary designations that we need to to protect the fowls’ security interests while at the same time not impeding our crispy diplomacy.

Ethics Officer:

The chicken crossed the road to avoid puking on the FAM which prohibits subjects from implying that a donor will receive any advantage or preference as a result of the donation, including a commitment to invite the donor to official functions, or an assurance that the donor will have preferential access to official facilities or persons.

Legal Officer:

The chicken crossed the road to obtain the necessary experience, then try to circumvent Congress on the sale of billions of American-made weapons in an air war that killed thousands of civilians.

Data Advisor:

To intelligently leverage data as a strategic asset, the chicken crossed the road to transform data into bold insights about chicken agility and flexibility in the field. 

Health Advisor:

So the chicken can use trusted sources for information and updates on COVID-19 and did not have to listen to a $250M propaganda to “defeat despair and inspire hope” about the pandemic.

Inspector General:

To continue the scratch and cluck of all ongoing investigations without interference. 

Acting Inspector General:

The chicken crossed the road to avoid a range of potential conflict of interest issues.

Acting Inspector General #2:

To make way for another acting inspector general who needs scratch and cluck training. 

Also Acting Inspector General:

The chicken crossed the road to inspect who cluck-clucked about the coronavirus town hall to that blog. 

 
Related post:
Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road? The Must-Read Embassy Edition

 

 

 

 

USCG Guangzhou: Gender Disparity in the Awards Nomination Process #FAST

October 8, 2020 By in EEOC, Foreign Service, Functional Bureaus, Realities of the FS, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , , ,
Excerpted from State Department/OCR – FY2019 EEOC Management Directive 715 (MD-715) Part I.1 Report:
PART I, EEO Plan to Eliminate Identified Barrier, requires agencies to report specific plans of action aimed at identifying and removing barriers from their policies, procedures, or practices that limit or restrict free and open competition for groups involving race, ethnicity, and sex groups. To address barriers involving disability status, agencies must establish plans in PART J.
An employee notified S/OCR of an allegation of gender disparity in the awards nomination process for entry level officers in Guangzhou’s consular section. The complaint is that male entry-level officers were nominated for awards but not women. After checking the records, Post HR discovered that this is correct. Of the 21 individual award nominations for entry-level Consular officers, only one was for a female.
The Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR) worked with Human Resources staff in Consulate General (CG) Guangzhou (hereafter referred to as “Post”) to identify possible reasons for the identified trigger. Post has 50 “entry-level officers” (ELOs). The focus of this barrier analysis is first or second tour, tenured or untenured, generalists and specialists as well as Consular Fellows/other limited non-career appointments and Consular Adjudicator-eligible family members employed in the Consular Section of the CG. This pool of employees comprise 35 male employees and 15 female employees. The trigger indicates that 17 out of 35 men (49%) received an award and that 3 out of 15 women (20%) received an award.

S/OCR asked Post whether selection panels are utilized, whether they believe managers know the procedures for nominating employees, whether employees are aware of the awards program, whether panelists receive training, among other questions.

S/OCR also acquired a breakdown of Post by gender and award recipient, grouped by supervisors. The 50 employees were spread across eight supervisors with some sections as large as 12 and some as small as two. The different sections were usually similar in male/ female proportion.

S/OCR is pleased to see that Post has a very involved awards program. Not only do awards seem to be encouraged, but Post follows up with information sessions to help guide the process.

Continue reading →

EEOC: @StateDept Improperly Dismissed Complaint Over EEO Counseling Process

October 8, 2020 By in EEOC, Org Life, State Department, USAID Tags: , , ,
Via EEOC:
Complaint Improperly Dismissed for Raising Matter Not Brought to Attention of EEO Counselor. The Commission reversed the Agency’s dismissal of Complainant’s complaint on grounds that it raised a matter that was not brought to the attention of an EEO Counselor. In dismissing the complaint, the Agency relied on Complainant’s failure to participate in the EEO counseling process, stating that the assigned Counselor attempted to engage Complainant multiple times by email and telephone, but was unable to do so. Complainant stated, however, that he did not receive an initial or final interview or counseling to attempt to informally resolve the matter. The assigned Counselor stated that she could not engage Complainant to conduct counseling, so she issued Complainant a notice of right to file a formal complaint, which he timely did. The Commission found that, contrary to the Agency’s assertions, Complainant raised the instant issues with an EEO Counselor even though no actual counseling sessions occurred, and timely filed a formal complaint when given the opportunity to do so. The Commission noted that it is the Agency’s burden to provide evidence to support its final decisions.

Ian G. v. Dep’t of State, EEOC Appeal No. 2019005132 (Jan. 8, 2020).

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked at the U.S. Agency for International Development. On May 17, 2019, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Department of State (hereinafter referred to as “the Agency”)2 discriminated against him on the bases of race (Asian), sex (male), national origin (Kashmir), religion (Islam), disability (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Fibromyalgia), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

1. in March and April 2019, the Agency denied Complainant reasonable accommodation for the FACT course, and

2. in April 2019, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (BDS) and the Agency subjected Complainant to hostile work environment harassment during the FACT course. Complainant alleged that he was repeatedly subjected to inappropriate “epithets and derogatory stereotypes.”

In his EEO complaint, Complainant stated “Counseling requested but not conducted.”

In a July 9, 2019 final decision, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). The Agency reasoned that, “[Complainant d]id not go through EEO Counseling” because his allegations of discrimination were not first discussed with an EEO Counselor. The Agency stated that the assigned Counselor attempted to engage Complainant multiple times (via email and telephone) but was unable to do so. The Agency noted that the Counselor issued the Notice of Right to File (NORF) on May 15, 2019.

The instant appeal from Complainant followed. On appeal, Complainant stated that although he initiated contact with the Agency’s EEO office on April 10, 2019, no counseling or initial/final interview took place and he informed the EEO Counselor that he would be overseas for an extended period. Also, Complainant stated that he learned that the Counselor issued a counseling report on May 17 and June 12, 2019, and the Agency only provided him the second report initially. Further, Complainant stated that the Agency misapplied the standard for dismissal under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), and failed to conduct EEO counseling as required under federal regulations. Complainant stated that he raised his issues with an EEO Counselor in a timely manner.

The EEOC reversed the Department of State’s final decision dismissing the instant complaint and remanded the matter to the Agency for further processing consistent with the decision it issued. Read more here.