Pompeo: “I wanted, too, to reaffirm the value of diplomatic expertise” … #batsignal

Help Fund the Blog | Diplopundit 2019 — 60-Day Campaign from June 5, 2019 – August 5, 2019

______________________________________

 

“I wanted, too, to reaffirm the value of diplomatic expertise. So at my recommendation, President Trump and the Senate recognized four individuals Career Ambassadors: David Hale, Phil Goldberg, Michele Sison, and Dan Smith, who is now running FSI. The rest of our team now knows these are senior leaders that they can truly look up to.” – Secretary Mike Pompeo

Remarks at the Department of State Foreign Affairs Day

The class of Career Ambassador was first established by an Act of Congress on Aug 5, 1955, as an amendment to the Foreign Service act of 1946 (P.L. 84-250; 69 Stat. 537). Under the 1980 Foreign Service Act (P.L. 96-465; 94 Stat. 2084), which repealed the 1946 Act as amended, the President is empowered with the advice and consent of the Senate to confer the personal rank of Career Ambassador upon a career member of the Senior Foreign Service in recognition of especially distinguished service over a sustained period. It is the equivalent of Four-star rank (O-10) in the military.

Ambassador David Hale , former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Lebanon and Jordan is Under Secretary for Political Affairs. He is the highest ranking career appointee in the State Department.  He reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of State and the Secretary of State.

[Holy guacamole, why is the State Department’s biographies of senior officials alphabetized by first names?]

Ambassador Philip S. Goldberg previously U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines, Bolivia, and Chief of Mission in Kosovo, and most recently, Cuba, was also a former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR). He is now Resident Senior Fellow at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University.  Until these four nominations, there was Ambassador Steve Mull, the one remaining career ambassador in active service in mid 2018 prior to being brought back briefly as Acting P before his retirement. By coincidence, Ambassador Goldberg is now a Resident Senior Fellow at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Ambassador Mull’s assignment shortly before his brief appointment as Acting P and retirement.

Ambassador Michele Sison was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to Haiti on February 12, 2018. She previously served as U.S. Deputy Representative to the United Nations (2014-2018), U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Maldives (2012-2014), U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon (2008-2010), and U.S. Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates (2004-2008).

Ambassador Daniel B. Smith, previously Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) and former U.S. Ambassador to Greece is now the Director of the Foreign Service Institute.  They gave him a nice title of “Chief Learning Officer for the Department of State and the federal foreign affairs community.” According to the FAM, the Director of FSI is equivalent in rank to an Assistant Secretary and serves as the Department’s Chief Training Officer.  This is not a Senate confirmed position. FSI is one of 14 bureaus and offices under the Under Secretary for Management umbrella. Ambassador Smith does not report directly to the Secretary of State.  One could argue that training is crucial and that this assignment is similar to United States Army Training and Doctrine Command which is headed by one of the Army’s twelve four-star generals. Okay. Fine. Except that TRADOC is one of the four Army Commands, and  oversees 32 Army schools organized under eight Centers of Excellence, each focused on a separate area of expertise within the Army (such as Maneuver and Signal). These centers train over 500,000 soldiers and service members each year. The Foreign Service on the other hand has 13,770 officers and specialists. Even if FSI trains all Foreign Service, Civil Service (10,023), EFMs (2,302) and local staff (51,148) every year (it doesn’t), the number of trainees would only amount to 77,243 (PDF). 

Of the four career ambassadors, one is in Foggy Bottom, one handles training (away from Foggy Bottom), one is a resident fellow at a university (away from Foggy Bottom), and one is overseas (away from Foggy Bottom). Perhaps, that’s where they all want to be?

We’re also curious — how many career diplomats have been appointed to lead the geographic bureaus or the functional bureaus of the State Department?

According to AFSA, among senior official appointments in the State Department, only 5 or 9.1% appointees are career folks. Political appointees make up 90.9% or 50 appointments in real numbers.

Of the 151 ambassador appointments, 80 or 53.0% are career appointees, and 71 or 47.0% are political appointees.

Holy swagger guacamole! Is this what reaffirmation of diplomatic expertise looks like?

#

 

Advertisements

State/OIG Substantiates Allegation of Whistleblower Retaliation, @StateDept Says Nah, WhatYaTalkingAbout?

Help Fund the Blog Diplopundit 2019 — 60-Day Campaign from June 5, 2019 – August 5, 2019

______________________________________

 

Via State/OIG Semi-Annual Report to Congress: October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019:

The whistleblower protection coordinator, OIG’s Assistant Inspector General for Evaluations and Special Projects, educates Department and USAGM employees, as well as contractor and grantee employees, on the rights and protections available to whistleblowers. As required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (41 U.S.C. § 4712), the coordinator oversees investigations of allegations of retaliation filed by employees of contractors, subcontractors, grantees, and subgrantees, as well as personal services contractors.
[…]
[T]he coordinator investigates complaints under Presidential Policy Directive 19, which prohibits whistleblower retaliation in the form of actions that affect an employee’s eligibility for access to classified information. During this reporting period, OIG’s whistleblower protection coordinator completed one report under 41 U.S.C. § 4712, which substantiated allegations of whistleblower retaliation.

Department of State:

“OIG substantiated one allegation of whistleblower retaliation related to a Department personal services contractor. This case was referred to the Department, which is responsible for making a determination as to whether to grant or deny relief to the whistleblower. On March 25, 2019, the Department denied relief to the whistleblower because it believed that there was a lack of direct evidence of retaliation.”

 

@StateDept to Establish a “Commission on Unalienable Rights”

 

#

GRACE- Religious Affinity Group Launches at State Department

 

 

 

Via careers.state.gov:

“GRACE is an affiliation of Civil and Foreign Service professionals working to promote a culture at the State Department that embraces the ability of employees to manifest religious belief generally, and Christianity specifically, in the workplace. GRACE seeks to connect Department employees that share this vision; to advocate for religious freedom and religious expression for everyone within the Department; and to highlight the value added by the perspective of people of faith in general, and Christians in particular, to the Department and its mission. In doing so, GRACE aspires to emulate Jesus’ love and respect for all people, regardless of their background or religion. Accordingly, GRACE’s membership is open to all Department employees and contractors, whether stateside or deployed overseas. For more information, please contact GRACE@state.gov.”

State/T to SFRC in Full Swagger and Smirk, “You’ll have to ask Russia”

 

 

 

 

#

Grievant Prevails Over Diplomatic Security’s Duplicative Disciplinary Actions

 

Via FSGB Case No. 2018-027

HELD – The Board held that the Department failed to meet its burden of proving that it did not violate agency policy when it imposed a second round of discipline (a two-day suspension without pay) after grievant had previously received several oral admonishments) for the same act of misconduct.

… Grievant accessed the CCD and reviewed the female friend’s visa records. He then sent an email on May 24, 2013 to the Consular Officer who had adjudicated the visa application, asking why the visa had not been approved and whether there was anything the applicant could do to “overcome” the disapproval.

The email read in part:

I explained to [the inquiring REDACTED Official] that the visa issuance process is an independent process done by the consular section at the respective embassy [sic] and that I have no involvement in the process or adjudication of the application, but that I would check with the embassy to see if there was anything that she could do or provide to overcome the refusal. Is there anything the applicant could do or provide to overcome the 214(B) refusal? Or is it pretty solid given no local employment and only having recently started her studies in business admin?

Grievant did not receive a response to his inquiry and he took no further action

CASE SUMMARY – In May 2013, grievant, a Diplomatic Security (DS) Special Agent, received a request from a professional colleague inquiring about a visa denial of a female friend of another colleague. Grievant accessed the Consular Consolidated Database (CCD) to determine who the Consular Officer was for the visa denial and drafted an email to that officer inquiring whether there was anything his contact could do regarding the denial. Within a few days, the Visa Chief at the post that made the visa decision, wrote to the Consular Integrity Division of DS (DS/CID) advising that grievant had apparently accessed the CCD without a work related need to do so. DS/CID passed the matter to the Chief of the Office of Investigations and Counterintelligence, Criminal Division (DS/ICI/CR). The Chief of DS/ICI/CR consulted with the Supervisory Special Agent of DS/CID and with the Chief of the Criminal Fraud Investigations Branch (CFI) before deciding to refer the matter to grievant’s immediate supervisors for whatever action they deemed appropriate.

Two of grievant’s supervisors opened administrative inquiries in June 2013, contacted grievant, learned from him that he immediately acknowledged the improper access of the CCD and each decided to give grievant an oral admonishment. One additional supervisor also admonished grievant orally. All management officials concluded that no further action was necessary. Grievant was so informed by at least two of these officials.

In the fall of 2014, the DS Office of Special Investigations (DS/OSI) informed grievant that it was opening an investigation into the same matter. During an interview with grievant and his counsel, grievant advised that he had already been counseled for this act of misconduct. He provided proof that he had been admonished; however, he was proposed for a three-day suspension that was later mitigated to two days. The suspension proposal was sustained by the Department and grievant served the two-day suspension.

A grievance regarding duplicative discipline was denied by the agency. On appeal, the Board concluded that all regulatory steps had been followed by grievant’s supervisor who initially determined that he was the appropriate official, in consultation with others at DS, to determine what discipline should be imposed. The Board further concluded that administrative inquiries were properly conducted by additional supervisors after evidence was gathered, grievant was consulted, and all appropriate factors were considered. The Board found that specific agency policy precluded grievant from being subjected to a second disciplinary process. Accordingly, the Board held that the Department was obligated to refund grievant’s pay and benefits lost during the suspension; his Official Performance Folder should have all references to the suspension proposal and decision removed; and that grievant’s OPF should be reviewed by reconstituted Selection Boards for each year (2017 and possibly 2018) in which the suspension letter was in the file.

#

Pompeo swaggers into the bright light: “We lied, we cheated, we stole.” (Laughter.)

 

Via: state.gov: https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2019/04/291144.htm

QUESTION: Hi, Mr. Secretary. My name is Ben Allen (ph), and I’m a civil engineering student. My question for you is: How do you balance condemnations with concessions in diplomacy with a controversial government such as Saudi Arabia? Thank you.

SECRETARY POMPEO: So I always begin with a deep understanding that no secretary of state gets through their first day without recognizing it’s a tough world out there. We don’t appreciate how glorious it is to be here in the United States of America on a consistent enough basis and with enough fervor. Maybe you do here at Texas A&M, but I think too many Americans don’t understand how blessed we are. These are – are many, many tough places out there.

28:35 mark: Having said that, not all tough places are the same. They each present a different set of challenges. I – it reminds me, you would know this as – it’s a bit of an aside. But in terms of how you think about problem sets, I – when I was a cadet, what’s the first – what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. (Laughter.) It’s – it was like – we had entire training courses. (Applause.) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.

And so when you deal with these countries, you have to just recognize they’re not all the same. Some of these difficult, nasty places want to partner with the United States and just haven’t gotten to the right place yet, just haven’t been able to move their own institutions. And some of them may only be trying half as much as they ought to be trying, but they’re trying to move in the right direction. That presents a very different way of thinking about how the United States ought to address them. In those cases, we ought to assist them.

We should never shy away from calling them out. We have to be consistent. The State Department puts out every year a Human Rights Report. It’s just a compendium of bad acts around the world during the last 12 months. It’s way too long a book. But you should look at it. We call out friends, we call out adversaries, we call out everyone in between. But we have to find places where some of these countries that aren’t living up to our human rights standards – we address it, we work to fix it, we hold them accountable as best we can, and then we work to make sure those things don’t happen again.

There are another set of bad actors who’d just as soon see you all perish from this planet. That calls out for a different American response. And so sorting those through, figuring out exactly the right mix of American tools – diplomatic tools, economic tools, political tools, military tools, figuring out precisely what the right mix is the task that we engage in at the State Department, but we do it with all of our partners in the national security apparatus as well. So the leadership in the White House, the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, the Department of Treasury – we were talking about sanctions – all of those have an important piece of figuring out what exactly the right mix is.

And so just two things. One, we need to constantly evaluate if we have that right with respect to every one of those actors. Have we got the right balance? Are they still in the same place? Are they still making progress? Are they still serious about addressing the shortcomings that we identify? And then second, we have to be relentless, whether they are friends or adversaries, in making sure when a nation falls short that America will never shy away from calling them out for that behavior that didn’t rise to the level that we hope every nation can achieve.

#

 

Is this how you keep a potentially embarrassing case away from public eyes?

 

Via FSGB 2018 Annual Report:

In FSGB Case No. 2018-001, an FS-01 appealed a 3-day suspension on a charge of Conduct Unbecoming. The charge arose from allegations that he facilitated the inappropriate hiring of a former political appointee. Grievant contends that, although he was the hiring official, all of his actions were at the direction of senior bureau staff and in consultation with the bureau’s administrative staff. The case was settled and withdrawn.

*

FSGB Case No. 2018-001: On March 1, 2018, the Foreign Service Grievance Board received a Notice of Withdrawal from grievant’s attorney, {Attorney’s Name}, stating as follows: “Grievant, {Grievant’s Name}, through counsel, {Attorney’s Name}, hereby withdraws his grievance appeal filed on January 3, 2018, with prejudice. The parties have settled their dispute.”  The Notice of Withdrawal has been entered in the record of proceedings, and the record is now closed.

We understand that because this case was settled and withdrawn there is no actual FSGB decision in the case; thus, there is no publicly available record of the case. Presumably State/HR/Grievance has the paper trail and the finer details, but for now, because the case was settled we won’t know who is the ex-political appointee, which bureau was involved, which senior bureau … er staffers were responsible, or the terms of the settlement.  One wonders if the State Department settled this case because it did not want the details in public view, or if grievant has the “receipts” that could get higher ups in a specific bureau in trouble?

via tumblr.com

#