@StateDept Releases New Strategery For Diplomatic Spouse Professional Employment #Ugh

Posted: 6:01 am ET
Updated: 10:30 am PT (fixed headline)

 

During his town hall with employees on December 12, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced the lifting of the hiring freeze in 2018 for Eligible Family Members (EFM). Actually, it turned out to be a 50% lift but State won that news cycle; no one came back to correct that it was not a full lifting of the hiring freeze (see Tillerson Issues New Personnel Actions, But What’s That About Lifting the EFM Hiring Freeze?).

During that speech, Tillerson also announced the expansion of the Expanded Professional Associates Program (EPAP) for Foreign Service spouses (see Tillerson Announces “Immediate Changes” From Redesign, USAID is Now in the GAL – Yay?). He promised:

To take care of our people, we will:

–Diversify and improve the quality of professional opportunities for Eligible Family Members by increasing the number of EPAP positions, from 250 to 400.

–Support EFMs in EPAP positions by offering increased training opportunities for them at the Foreign Service Institute.

 

The Department’s Family Liaison Office also says that “The Department of State is committed to supporting its employees and their families as they balance their service with the needs of family life.”

Recently, the State Department released its new guidance on Preparing for the 2018 Spring/Summer EPAP Vacancy Announcement. Via state.gov/flo:

The Expanded Professional Associates Program (EPAP) provides U.S. citizen Eligible Family Members (EFMs) serving overseas with 200 professional-level Foreign Service full-time positions in Economics, Financial Management, General Services, Human Resources, Management, Office Management, Political, Public Diplomacy, and Registered Nurse areas. The program also provides up to 50 positions in the Information Management area. These positions are centrally funded. Each regional bureau and the Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM) is authorized a specific number of positions as determined by the Under Secretary for Management. Individual posts may also create post-funded ICASS positions with approval from their regional bureau.

 

New EPAP Qualification Standards

FLO also announced new qualification standards for EPAP applicants:

Previously Qualified EPAP Employees/Applicants Must Must Re-Re-Re-Qualify!

Here’s the howler: everybody starts from scratch. Previously qualified applicants must re-qualify to be eligible under the new standards; they will not be grandfathered into the new program.

Because the qualification standards were revised in 2018, the process of prequalification in one or several EPAP areas has been replaced with the new Qualification Standards. As of January 1, 2018, prior EPAP employees or EPAP prequalified applicants will need to meet the eligibility requirements listed in the new Qualification Standards. To be eligible for each position, applicants must submit an application package with all required documents.
[…]
The application must specifically address both the education and specialized experience requirements listed in the new Qualification Standards. Global Employment Advisors (GEA) can provide tips on preparing a federal resume; email GEI@state.gov.

Refer to the following documents: •    New EPAP Qualification Standards  •    Checklist: How to prepare required documents for the 2018 Spring/Summer Centralized Vacancy Announcement

 

Education Requirements

State/FLO says that EPAP pay grades range from FP-07 to FP-04 as determined by the regional bureaus and IRM. Each advertised position will show the minimum and maximum grades (full performance grade) at which a candidate may be hired.

And yet, the New EPAP Qualification Standards for Financial Management EPAP lists FP-03 as an EPAP grade, with Ph.D. in Business or Public Administration (with a concentration in Accounting or Finance) as an educational requirement, with “none” listed for specialized experience.

Folks, the announcement for a Foreign Service Financial Management Officer (FMO) says that “applicants with finance-related higher education and specific experience in financial management or accounting are preferred” but the education requirement for applicants does not even require a master’s degree, or for that matter, a “Ph.D. in Business or Public Administration with a concentration in Accounting or Finance as an educational requirement”.

Education: Applicants must possess at least a Bachelor’s degree with a minimum of 24 semester hours (36 quarter hours) in accounting or finance earned at the undergraduate or graduate level from an accredited school. Professional certifications such as CPA (certified public accountant) or graduate degrees from an accredited in business, government, or public administration are preferred with concentrations in accounting or finance.

Financial Management Officer

Stitching a Checkered Work Experience to Qualify For Specialized Experience

The Public Diplomacy EPAP with an FP-06 grade requires BA/BS or above in non-related field and 5 years specialized experience in management, oversight and provision of media, marketing, communications, public relations, educational, cultural or journalistic services.

Unless a spouse has that experience already when he/she joined/married into the Foreign Service, it will be a challenge to get that specialized experience after entry.  FS spouses typically take what jobs are available to them at the posts their spouses are assigned to. So they could be working at Public Affairs one tour, at the Consular Section another tour, or as a security escort at yet another post. Which makes it hard to have 5 years specialized experience in specific tracks.

Similarly, Political EPAP requires BA/BS or above in non-related field and 5 years specialized experience in research, monitoring and analysis of political, social, or related conditions and trends, write reports and make recommendations on same. Oh hey, also negotiate policy.

How many folks think this is a new strategery to get to that crucial staffing cuts without a RIF?

Training, Oh, Training – Still on Space A

Selected candidates are encouraged to take related training courses while in Washington, DC during home leave, R&R or personal travel. Financial support for training is not currently available prior to starting a position. However, if a candidate is working and post wishes to fund travel costs and per diem for him/her to take courses at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) or a regional training center, salary will continue to be paid during the training period from central funds. Individuals selected for this program will generally have priority over other EFMs for language and functional training enrollment on a space available basis. Email FLOASKTraining@state.gov for more information.

Is the State Department serious?

It would review its policy of “space available” training for spouses. And it needs to provide internship opportunities for spouses to obtain specialized experience. We know some spouses who went back to school while in the Service but lack the specialized experience due to their inability to find work while posted overseas.

Send us comments if you care. This is a very late night, um morning now for me, and I need to get to bed. Will probably update this later when I am more awake.

#


Advertisements

U.S. Ambassador to Panama John Feeley Resigns From the Foreign Service Over Trump Policies

Posted: 4:59 am ET

 

The Foreign Service Act and appropriate personnel regulations require three (3) commitments from candidates for appointment to the Foreign Service: availability for worldwide assignment, willingness to accept out-of-function assignments, and observance of Foreign Service discipline with respect to public support of established United States policy – is a condition of employment with the Foreign Service.  That third commitment refers to this:

In the official performance of their duties as representatives of the United States Government, Foreign Service members may be called upon to support and defend policies with which they may not be personally in full agreement. On such occasions, normal standards of Foreign Service discipline will apply. Ample opportunity is provided within official channels for discussion and dissent with respect to the development and conduct of United States Foreign policy.

On January 12, the U.S. Ambassador to Panama John Feeley, a 28-year veteran of the Foreign Service did the honorable thing and tendered his resignation over Administration policies he is no longer able to support and defend. The Panama assignment is Ambassador Feeley’s first as chief of mission. He was on the second year of a three-year assignment.

Below is a brief summary of his long career in the diplomatic service:

John Feeley was sworn in as the U.S. Ambassador to Panama on January 15, 2016, and assumed his post in early February. He is a career diplomat who has focused much of his work on Latin American and Caribbean issues, both in Washington and in the region.

Ambassador Feeley most recently served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs from 2012 to 2015, responsible for the daily management of regional policy implementation and the supervision of 50 diplomatic posts across the Americas.

Previously he was the State Department’s Summit of the Americas Coordinator, overseeing the substantive preparation for Secretary Clinton’s engagement in the 2012 Cartagena Summit, a role he reprised for Secretary Kerry during the 2015 Summit in Panama.

From 2009 to 2012, Ambassador Feeley served as deputy chief of mission and chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, where he managed a 37-agency country team that implemented the Merida Initiative. He has also been the Department’s Director for Central American Affairs and Deputy Director for Caribbean Affairs. From 2004 to 2006, Mr. Feeley served as a Deputy Executive Secretary in the Office of the Secretary of State, where he was responsible for managing information flow to Secretaries Powell and Rice, as well as coordinating their overseas travel.

A 2004 Distinguished Graduate of the National War College, Mr. Feeley’s overseas assignments include two tours in Mexico City, Santo Domingo, and Bogota.

Prior to joining the State Department in 1990, Mr. Feeley served on active military duty as a helicopter pilot in the United States Marine Corps. He is a graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and is married to retired career diplomat, Cherie Feeley. The Ambassador and his wife speak Spanish. The couple has two adult sons and one grandson.

#

The Daily Démarche: Reorganization, the Solution in Search of a Prooooblem

A red, white and blue stars and stripes design with the words “Reorganization: the solution in search of a problem.” Available in five colors including fiery red. Apparently, a needed apparel for those subjected to the Feds reorganization from the State Department, Interior, EPA, to … ay caramba, who knows where else?

#

New London Embassy at #33NineElmsLane Is Officially Open!

Posted: 4:02 am ET

 

Related posts

#


Amb. Hoekstra Apologizes For Netherlands Comment: “It Was Wrong”

Posted: 4:42 am ET

 

We previously blogged about the new U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands here:

On January 12, two weeks after he first issued his ‘non-apology’ apology, Ambassador Hoekstra finally admitted during an interview with De Telegraaf that what he said about the Netherlands “was wrong.” The apology came after headlines calling the top American representative in the Netherlands “Lying Pete Hoekstra” and the lying Dutchman, and after the State Department “made clear to the ambassador that – that he must move to get this behind him.”

On January 11, U/S Goldstein told members of the press that they “should turn into that interview tomorrow” in reference to the long-form interview that turned out to be one with De Telegraaf.  As of this writing, we have searched but have not been able to locate a transcript of Ambassador Hoekstra’s interview where he offered his apology.  There also is no mention of this interview nor the transcript of the interview on the website of U.S. Embassy The Hague.

#

‘Very Stable Genius’ Finds Alibi Not to Cut Ribbon at Opening of New Embassy Castle With Moat

Posted: 3:57 am ET

 

The Financial Times calls it London’s first new moated building since the medieval era. After project planning and construction that spanned about a decade, the New London Embassy is set to open shortly.  The new compound is reportedly buffered by an 8 ft-deep, crescent-shaped moat, and set back from surrounding roads by 100 ft per security requirements. The Guardian says its “concrete bulwarks come disguised as earthworks, and its anti-truck bollards are fig-leafed with hedges.”

The New London Embassy project was announced on October 2, 2008 by Bush appointee, Ambassador Robert Tuttle:

Meeting the challenge of providing a modern, open and secure American diplomatic facility in London, the U.S. State Department today signed a conditional agreement with the real estate developer Ballymore to acquire a site in the Nine Elms Opportunity Area in Wandsworth for the construction of a new Embassy.

“This has been a long and careful process,” said Ambassador Robert Tuttle, who has led the search for a new site. “We looked at all our options, including renovation of our current building on Grosvenor Square. In the end, we realized that the goal of a modern, secure and environmentally sustainable Embassy could best be met by constructing a new facility. I’m excited about America playing a role in the regeneration of the South Bank of London.”

On February 23, 2010, Obama Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Louis B. Susman, and Acting Director of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations, Adam Namm, announced that KieranTimberlake of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania won the design competition for the New London Embassy.

The ground breaking for the New London Embassy did not occur until November 2013 under second term Obama Ambassador to the United Kingdom Matthew Barzun.

President Trump’s new political ambassador to London, Ambassador Woody Johnson said that the new embassy represented “a signal to the world that this special relationship that we have is stronger and is going to grow and get better.”  The Telegraph also quoted Ambassador Johnson, who owns the New York Jets, saying that the price tag was a “bargain” compared to the $1.6B stadium built for his team in New Jersey.

President Trump has now tweeted that he will not be doing the ribbon cutting because in his words it’s a “bad deal.” For those curious about the necessity and the funding of this new compound, see  US Embassy London: Don’t Worry, Be Happy — New Digs Not Funded By Appropriated Funds and our related posts below:

New Billion Dollar U.S. Embassy London to Open to the Public on January 16, 2018

New London Embassy: Design Passed the Full Mockup Blast, So Why the “Augmentation Option” For $2 Million?

Photo of the Day: New Embassy London Topping Out Ceremony

Congress to State Dept: We Want All Your Stuff on New London Embassy Except Paperclips (July 2014)

New Embassy Construction Hearing: Witnesses Not Invited, and What About the Blast-Proof Glass? (diplopundit.net)

US Embassy London: Don’t Worry, Be Happy — New Digs Not Funded By Appropriated Funds

A New Embassy for the Future. In London. For $1 Billion

US Embassy London Celebrates 10,750 Visitors to Winfield House With a Time-Lapse Video

State Department’s Embassy “Design Excellence” Initiative: Year in Review (Video)

*

#


The Peter Hoekstra Fall Out Continues, Long-Form Interview With a Dutch Outlet Coming Soon

Posted: 2:47 am ET

 

The last year, we’ve seen the State Department officially distanced itself from public comments made by its official representative in Israel.  On September 11, 2017, the State Department had to distance itself from a comment made by its top representative in Israel (see @StateDept: Ambassador Friedman’s comment “does not represent a shift in U.S. policy”.  And on September 28, State Department spox Heather Nauert, once more from the podium, said that it’s ambassador’s two percent comment “should not be read as a change in U.S. policy (see @StateDept on Amb. Friedman’s comment (again): “should not be read as a change in U.S. policy”).

The latest addition to this disturbing trend is the new U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands Peter Hoekstra.  In December, we blogged about the then Ambassador-Designate’s double whoppers during an interview with a Dutch journalist (see New U.S. Ambassador Peter Hoekstra Makes Splash With Whoppers on Dutch TV). On December 23, the newest representative of the United States Government to the Netherlands issued a non apology-apology (see Amb. Designate Hoekstra Issues an “Apology,” Gets Roasted on Twitter). On January 10, his first day in office as the United States Ambassador to The Hague, social media noted his grilling by the Dutch press over his controversial claims (see Amb. Hoesktra Presents His Credentials to the King, Then Gets Properly Grilled By the Dutch Press).

On January 11, during the State Department’s On-the-Record-Briefing with the new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steve Goldstein, the top official was similarly grilled by the press about the ambassador’s statements.

So for a third time now, two political ambassadors have caused more work for the building because of their public statements. The top State Department public affairs official went on to disavow Ambassador Hoekstra’s statements saying, “The State Department does not agree with those statements. That is not the language that we would use.” U/S Goldstein also told the press corps that there is now a plan for Ambassador Hoekstra to have long-form interview with a Dutch outlet on January 12. Mr. Goldstein said that Ambassador Hoesktra “also plans over the weekend to be available within many of the communities in the capital, including Muslim communities” and that the State Department has “made clear to the ambassador that – that he must move to get this behind him.”

Also FYI, the United States ambassador serve the people of the United States, and not the people of his/her host country. When junior diplomats completing their training at the Foreign Service Institute are asked where is their country, you expect them to point to their country, the United States of America, and not their country of assignment. Both Ambassador Hoekstra and U/S Goldstein appears to seek to endear themselves to the Dutch and make this controversy go away by talking about “loving” the Netherlands, and commitment to “serving the people of the Netherlands.”

Stop that, please. We can see what you’re trying to do.

If Ambassador Hoekstra is interested in putting this behind him, he should own up to his mistake and make a real apology because people watching are not dimwits. A retraction would be a good place to start. And then maybe the local press will allow him to put this behind him.

Via state.gov, Jan 11:

QUESTION: Ambassador Pete Hoekstra in the Netherlands had his debut for the Dutch media. It didn’t go real well. Just to start off, does the State Department agree with his earlier comments that politicians have been burned as a result of Islamist movements and that there are no-go zones in the Netherlands?

UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: No. The State Department does not agree with those statements. That is not the language that we would use.

QUESTION: Would you like the ambassador to maybe retract those given all of the controversy it seems to be causing?

Continue reading

@StateDept to Hold “Harassment in the Workplace” Session But First, Read This FSI Sexual Harassment Case

Posted: 3:40 am ET

 

For those attending the event, here are a few items to read though this is not an exhaustive list. Help us ask these presenters questions that State/PA and State/DS have long ignored:

While we are on the subject, let us revisit a classic case of sexual harassment, where the State Department, specifically one of the presenting offices in the January 11 session had determined that “the alleged acts of sexual harassment did not occur” only to be reversed by the EEOC.

On January 4, 2012, Complainant filed Complaint 24 alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on her national origin (Arabic/Iraqi), sex (female), religion (Christian), color, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII when:

3. Her teaching contract was not renewed after August 5, 2011;

4. She was subjected to a hostile work environment characterized by, but not limited to, name calling and sharing an office.  She specifically asserted that since her conversion to Christianity, she was taunted by her Iraqi colleagues, who called her a “peasant,” a “prostitute,” a “bitch,’ and a “daughter of a dog.” She asserted further that she had been told that she had “sold her religion” and had a shoe thrown at her.  Complainant further asserted that she had been the victim of an unsolicited sexual overture by a colleague; and

5. On September 23, 2011, she was not selected for a full time teaching position.

The Agency completed its initial investigation on Complaint 1 in November 2012.  It did not complete an investigation on Complaint 2.  On Complaint 2, according to the Agency, Complainant did not submit an affidavit for the investigation.  Around that time – on March 14, 2013 – Complainant signed forms withdrawing Complaints 1 and 2.5  The Agency ceased processing Complaint 2, but went ahead and issued a FAD on Complaint 1 on May 13, 2013.

In its FAD, the Agency found no discrimination on Complaint 1.  Complainant filed an appeal.  On appeal, the Agency did not note that Complainant previously withdrew her complaint.

In EEOC Appeal No. 0120132236 (May 16, 2014), we recounted that Complainant was provided the right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge, but there was no evidence she did so.  We reversed the FAD on the ground that the investigation was inadequate.  Unaware that that Complainant withdrew Complaints 1 and 2, we ordered the Agency to do a supplemental investigation and to consolidate Complaint 2 with Complaint 1 if the Agency was still processing Complaint 2 and had not yet issued a final decision thereon.

In its request for reconsider EEOC Appeal No. 0120132236, the Agency argued that it issued its FAD on Complaint 1 in error, and that Complainant previously withdrew Complaints 1 and 2.  It submitted a copy of its letter to the EEOC compliance officer about the withdrawal of Complaint 1, and Complainant’s signed withdrawals.  We denied the request on the ground that it was untimely filed, and repeated our order in EEOC Appeal No. 0120132236.

Following a supplemental investigation on Complaint 1, the Agency issued a new FAD finding no discrimination therein.  The Agency found that Complainant was not denied the opportunity to attend training and to proctor tests, and the alleged acts of sexual harassment did not occur.  The Agency recounted that it ceased processing Complaint 2 after she withdrew it.6

The EEOC’s decision says that the “Complainant was not subjected to discrimination regarding issue 2” but it determined that “Complainant was subjected to discrimination based on her sex regarding issue 1 – sexual harassment.”

This case which was filed in 2010 was decided by the EEOC on July 7, 2016. Six years. The State Department was ordered to take the following remedial actions within 150 days after the decision became final, and was directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission’s Decision.”  The report shall include supporting documentation of the agency’s calculation of back pay and other benefits due complainant, including evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.”

1. The Agency is directed to conduct training at FSI, School of Language Studies for all management and staff in the Arabic Section.  The training shall focus on how to identify and prevent sexual harassment connected with employment.14

2.  If S2 is still employed with the Agency, it shall consider taking disciplinary action against him.  The Agency shall report its decision.  If the Agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken.  If the Agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline.

3.  The Agency shall gather evidence on compensatory damages, including providing Complainant an opportunity to submit evidence of her pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages regarding being sexually harassed.  For guidance on what evidence is necessary to prove pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the parties are directed to EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14, 1992) (available at eeoc.gov.)  Thereafter, the Agency shall calculate damages, pay Complainant any damages awarded, and issue a new FAD on damages appealable to the Commission.

The State Department was also directed to post the EEOC order:

The Agency is ordered to post at its Foreign Service Institute, School of Language Studies copies of the attached notice.  Copies of the notice, after being signed by the Agency’s duly authorized representative, shall be posted both in hard copy and electronic format by the Agency within 30 calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, and shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.  The Agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.  The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer at the address cited in the paragraph entitled “Implementation of the Commission’s Decision,” within 10 calendar days of the expiration of the posting period.

Continue reading

Coming Soon – Accountability Review Board Havana For Mysterious Attacks in Cuba

Posted: 3:34 am ET

 

The State Department’s new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steve Goldstein  did a press gaggle on January 9 and was asked about the convening of an Accountability Review Board for the attacks against American diplomats in Havana. He said that he expects announcements of the chair and the members of the board available for release within the next week. He also told the press “We believe that the Cuban Government knows what occurred, and so what we’d like them to do is to tell us what occurred so we can ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

He told members of the media that the USG “is not considering restoring the staff” at US Embassy Havana, and that the State Department is “providing extensive medical care to people that need it,” and that the agency “have also made it clear that if people do not want to serve in that particular embassy, they do not have to.”

When asked about Senator Marco Rubio’s comments that it’s against the law that it took –rather than 60 or 120 days– almost a year to stand up ARB Havana, U/S Goldstein responded:

UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: Right. Well, I – we have great respect for the senator, and he shares our concern about trying to reach resolution on this matter. It took time to set up the accountability review board because we were hopeful that we would be able to know what occurred. We were – the investigation has taken longer than we anticipated, and – but it is now time to go forward. And again, we would expect the – I would expect the names to be announced over the next several days. I do have the names, I just can’t – I’m not – I want to make sure that the people have been notified.

QUESTION: — by failing to announce or create this review board back in July, that the – that you had confirmed that people were seriously wounded by March or May, that the law requires if you know that a State Department personnel is seriously wounded, that you create a review board within 60 days or tell Congress why you’re not doing so. That is the clear letter of the law. You did not follow it. That’s what he claims. What is your response to that?

UNDER SECRETARY GOLDSTEIN: Right. We don’t agree with that. The assistant secretary today made clear, and we have said too, that it took us time to get the investigation in place. The investigation is continuing, and we believe that we have the – had the authority to determine when the accountability review board should be set in place. I think let’s not lose focus here. There’s 24 people that had injuries, and those people are receiving treatment, and we’ve had over 20 conversations with the people of Cuba. We’ve – the government investigators have been down four times; they’re going down again within the next few weeks. And so our primary goal at the present time is to find out why this occurred, to prevent it from happening again in Cuba and the embassy of Cuba or in any other place where American citizens are located.

When an ARB should be convened is in the rules book once it was determined that the incident was security-related with serious injury.  For folks who want a refresher, per 12 FAM 030, the Accountability Review Board process is a mechanism to foster more effective security of U.S. missions and personnel abroad by ensuring a thorough and independent review of security-related incidents.

Security-related incidents are defined as “A case of serious injury, loss of life, or significant destruction of property at or related to a U.S. government mission abroad, or a case of a serious breach of security involving intelligence activities of a foreign government directed at a U.S. mission abroad (other than a facility or installation subject to the control of a U.S. area combatant commander), and which does not clearly involve only causes unrelated to security.”

(See U.S. Diplomats in Cuba Sonic Attacks: As Serious as Mild TBI/Central Nervous System Damage?)

12 FAM 032.1 updated in October 2017 notes that the ARB/Permanent Coordinating Committee will, “as quickly as possible after an incident occurs, review the available facts and recommend to the Secretary to convene or not convene a Board.  (Due to the 1999 revision of the law requiring the Secretary to convene a Board not later than 60 days after the occurrence of an incident, except that such period may be extended for one additional 60-day period, the ARB/PCC will meet within 30 days of the incident if enough information is available.) In addition, the ARB/PCC will meet yearly to review the ARB process, existing policies and procedures, and all past ARB recommendations, and ensure that any necessary changes are effected.”

So we gotta ask an uncomfortable question for the Tillerson State Department — is it possible that no ARB Havana was convened because the eight positions who are members of the PCC, an entity tasked with making recommendations to the Secretary was not filled or only partially filled?

Did the ARB/PCC meet on the Havana incidents last year? What recommendations were made to the Secretary? Why are they convening an ARB just now?

#

Amb. Hoekstra Presents His Credentials to the King, Then Gets Properly Grilled By the Dutch Press

Posted: 2:44 am ET
 

 

So the new U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands Peter Hoekstra presented his credentials to King Willem-Alexander on January 10. The same day, he also faced a grilling from members of the Dutch press. And if that’s not memorable enough, the Dutch Review has a screaming headline that says “It’s Lying Pete Hoeskta’s first day as the US Ambassador in the Netherlands.”

We are having a brain freeze trying to remember if anything like this ever happened before.  Oh, we can’t remember anything. Just that there was no way the embassy could have avoided this incident. Had Ambassador Hoesktra offered a fuller apology after that meltdown of an interview, he would not have been facing a fiery press on his first official day as representative of the United States to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

NLtimes reported that when asked about his previous controversial comments, he announced, “I won’t comment on the matter anymore”. Apparently, he told the press that “now that he is a representative of the American administration, his personal opinions or comments are no longer what matters.” As if somehow “the matter” would simply go away.  It won’t. And Dutch reporters will not stop asking just because Ambassador Hoekstra refuses to comment. And with every future event, we will get similar video clips.  So we doubt very much if this is the end of it. He will get a reminder about this at his every encounter with the Dutch press.

Also see New U.S. Ambassador Peter Hoekstra Makes Splash With Whoppers on Dutch TVAmb. Designate Hoekstra Issues an “Apology,” Gets Roasted on TwitterNomination: Ex-Congressman Peter Hoekstra to be U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands).

#