Via Burn Bag:
“So, the Consular Section’s locally engaged employees are publicly identifying themselves as such on LinkedIn? Not a good idea.”
LES – Locally Employed Staff
FSNs – Foreign Service National employees
Via Burn Bag:
LES – Locally Employed Staff
FSNs – Foreign Service National employees
Posted: 12:30 am ET
Via The Irish Times:
A former US embassy security guard has been told he cannot take an employment appeals case over his dismissal as his former employer, the US government, has diplomatic immunity in Ireland.
John Greene had argued that he was unfairly dismissed from the security guard role in September 2013 following an investigation into what his superiors termed a “security breach” at the embassy in Ballsbridge, Dublin.
In hearings that touched on several Supreme Court rulings, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, counsel for the US government successfully argued that sovereign immunity applies due to the important nature of Mr Greene’s duties.
Posted: 12:13 am ET
The State Department says that it employs a workforce of over 80,000 employees. The figure below shows the composition of the 2016 workforce by employment category. Total number of agency employees excluding contractors: 74,721 (FS: 13,948 includes Generalist – 8,196; Specialist – 5,752; Civil Service at 11,037) and Locally Employed Staff at 49,736 (includes Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs)and Personal Services Agreements/Contracts). We have not been able to locate a good number for contractors.
In April 2016, there were 11,861 adult family members overseas, of which 29% or 3,436 FS family members were employed by the USG at missions overseas.
Posted: 2:43 am ET
Updated: 10:17 am PT
William R. Rivkin Award for Constructive Dissent by a Mid-Career Officer – Jefferson Smith, U.S. Embassy Kuwait
Jefferson Smith receives this year’s William R. Rivkin Award for Constructive Dissent by a Mid-Career Officer for his commitment to combatting unfair labor practices and his push for compensation reform for locally employed (LE) staff at posts in the Persian Gulf.
While posted to Kuwait, Management Counselor Smith observed that the nine embassies and consulates in the Persian Gulf region are staffed almost exclusively by third-country nationals (TCNs) who did not enjoy the rights of citizens and earned wages and benefits so low that they could not support their families. U.S. Embassy Kuwait employs more than 200 TCN men and women from 27 different nationalities—and employs no Kuwaitis because the U.S. government does not pay enough to attract them.
Mr. Smith gathered data, framed his arguments and then brought his views to a regional management officers’ conference, where he found allies and organized a regionwide approach. He then wrote a detailed, thoughtful cable to Washington, signed by the six regional ambassadors, proposing that the department should define a new standard for compensating its LE staff at posts employing a majority of TCNs in unfair labor markets.
In short, Mr. Smith challenged the department to lead—not just follow—local practice in these markets. All of his preparation and action had an effect: The under secretary for management approved a Public Interest Determination (a policy exception) to create housing and education allowances for LE staff, and moved U.S. Embassy Kuwait to the top of the list for the next tranche of wage increases. The result was an average 22-percent salary increase in addition to the new allowances.
Mr. Smith’s success in winning a more just compensation package for the LE staff of U.S. Embassy Kuwait was an important milestone that will serve as a model as he and others continue to fight for a more equitable way to compensate employees under these conditions.
Mr. Smith has served in Kuwait since 2014. As a management-coned Foreign Service officer, Mr. Smith has had opportunities to serve in consular, economic, political and management functions in four regional bureaus and six overseas assignments, including Kingston, Dar es Salaam (twice), Yaoundé, Dublin and Kuwait.
The annual award is named after Ambassador William R. Rivkin (1919–1967) who served as ambassador to Luxembourg, Senegal, and Gambia in the 1960s. He is the father of Charles Rivkin, the current U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, and the former U.S. Ambassador to France (2009-2013). Read A/S Rivkin’s Honoring Constructive Dissent: The William R. Rivkin Award on DipNote.
We should note that this is one of AFSA’s three dissent awards and is separate from the State Department “Dissent Channel.” The FAM precludes the use of the official Channel to address “non-policy issues (e.g., management or personnel issues that are not significantly related to substantive matters of policy).”
Posted: 5:07 pm ET
Updated: 6:20 pm ET
Updated: 6:37 pm ET
Updated: 10:04 pm ET
According to media reports, Xulhaz Mannan, an employee of the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka (USAID) and the editor of Roopbaan, Bangladesh’s first ever LGBT magazine launched in 2014 was killed in his apartment along with another LGBT activist, Tanay Fahim, in a latest of the brutal machete attacks targeting academics and writers. Local news says that the assailants posed as courier service staff.
Xulhaz’s colleagues regarded him with special affection. He first joined the U.S. Embassy as a Protocol Specialist, serving for eight years in that capacity before joining USAID last September. In his role as a Project Management Assistant in the Democracy and Governance office, he worked tirelessly to support organizations focused on broadening and deepening political understanding throughout Bangladesh. Unsurprisingly, he also devoted extra time to building a more open and welcoming workplace, serving as a founding member of the U.S. Embassy Diversity Committee.
The US Embassy in Dhaka released the following statement via FB from Ambassador Bernicat:
I am devastated by the brutal murder of Xulhaz Mannan and another young Bangladeshi this evening in Dhaka. Xulhaz was more than a colleague to those of us fortunate to work with him at the U.S. Embassy. He was a dear friend. Our prayers are with Xulhaz, the other victim, and those injured in the attack. We abhor this senseless act of violence and urge the Government of Bangladesh in the strongest terms to apprehend the criminals behind these murders.
Posted: 4:03 am ET
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit. Discrimination types includes:
Last year, State/OIG did an inspection (PDF) of the State Department’s Office of Civil Rights, an office that reports directly to the secretary of state and is tasked with the following:
… charged with propagating fairness, equity, and inclusion throughout the Department’s workforce. S/OCR answers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and is charged with ensuring a nondiscriminatory workplace environment, investigating Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints and harassment inquiries, and working with the Bureau of Human Resources to implement federally mandated requirements in the Department’s diversity and disability hiring process. S/OCR is answerable to the EEOC, Congress, and other executive branch agencies in reporting on the Department’s standing in complaint and diversity statistics and recruitment planning.
The report includes a section labeled: EEO Liaisons for Locally Employed Staff Overseas
S/OCR has stepped up efforts to improve counseling and training for locally employed (LE) staff overseas. Providing EEO counseling to LE employees complies with Department policy in 3 FAM 1514.2 (a) and (d) rather than a regulatory mandate and is not included in S/OCR’s external reporting requirements. Nevertheless, in 2013 S/OCR began tracking counseling for these employees; the initial intake is recorded in the EEO counselor SharePoint site. The Intake and Resolution Section is also in the process of revamping LE counselor training; for example, having post EEO counselors train the LE liaisons and improving written training materials for LE staff. S/OCR believes these efforts have increased awareness among LE staff members and led to an increase in the number of complaints from them, although these numbers are not available, since the section only recently began tracking them.
The most recent OIG inspection of the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan (PDF) includes the following item on Equal Employment Opportunity:
The names and contact information of the EEO counselor and the EEO liaisons for the locally employed staff members were not publicized, as required by 3 FAM 1514.2a. OIG suggested that this information be added to mission bulletin boards. Also, OIG suggested EEO refresher training for the mission-wide locally employed staff and their EEO liaisons.
The OIG inspection report of the U.S. Embassy Japan (PDF) in 2015 include the following details:
In interviews, the OIG team learned that the embassy did not report three complaints of sexual harassment to the Office of Civil Rights as required. Although embassy officials had taken actions to address these complaints, they were unaware of this reporting requirement and told the OIG team they would report these allegations to the Office of Civil Rights. According to 3 FAM 1525. 2-1 c, supervisors and other responsible Department officials who observe, are informed of, or reasonably suspect incidents of possible sexual harassment must report such incidents immediately to the Office of Civil Rights, which will initiate or oversee a prompt investigation. Without adherence to this requirement, sexual harassment complaints could go unreported to the Department.
According to 13 FAM 312 c, EEO and diversity training is mandatory for all managers and supervisors, and all employees are strongly encouraged to participate in EEO and diversity awareness training or training containing an EEO and diversity module, on average, every 5 years. EEO and sexual harrassment complaints lower office morale and employee productivity. These compaints/cases are also time consuming and can be costly to settle.
These EEO and diversity trainings — do they include a part where non-U.S. citizen employees of U.S. embassies and agencies operating overseas are told they are not covered by EEO regulations?
So there are trainings and appointed EEOC liaisons but if a local employee file a case, post and the EEOC goes through the motion of investigating; and then sorry, non-U.S. citizens are not covered by these EEOC regulations? Isn’t this just a game of pretense? Below is an EEOC ruling extracted from publicly available court records:
Earlier this year, Dalibor Baloun, the former FSN of US Embassy Prague in this EEOC noncase filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Secretary Kerry in the District Court for the District of Columbia with the notion — as indicated by the EEOC letter under the “right to request counsel” — that he could ask the court for an appointment of an attorney and waiver of other court costs.
Federal civil rights statutes expressly permit aliens to bring claims of civil rights violations in federal court. And the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for the right of counsel in criminal prosecutions but it does not say anything about civil litigations. Has there ever been an instance when a U.S. court granted a a court appointed attorney for a foreign employee of a U.S. Government who is residing overseas? Or is that EEOC letter just template language?
We should note that while we do not have an exhaustive list of all discrimination claims filed against the State Department, we have only been aware of one case filed by a locally hired employee that prevailed in U.S. courts. That locally hired employee is also a U.S. citizen hired overseas. See Miller v. Clinton: Amcit FSN takes State Dept to Court for Age Discrimination and Miller v. Clinton: Court Says State Dept Not/Not Exempt from Age Discrimination Law.
Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens (Georgetown Law, 2003)
Posted: 4:03 am EDT
Last December, the Justice Department announced that the former State Department/US Embassy London employee, Michael C. Ford pleaded guilty to perpetrating a widespread, international e-mail phishing, computer hacking and cyberstalking scheme against hundreds of victims in the United States and abroad.
In a court filing submitted to aid in the sentencing, the USG recommended a sentence of 96 months of incarceration, followed by three years of supervised release. It also notes the following:
The sheer number of phishing e-mails that Ford sent is astounding. For example, on one day alone, April 8, 2015, Ford sent phishing e-mails to approximately 800 unique e-mail addresses. On the same date, Ford then sent 180 follow-up e-mails to potential victims who had not yet responded to his original phishing e-mail, as well as approximately 15 e-mails to victims who had provided incorrect passwords. Considering Ford’s daily volume, repeated over the course of several months, the number of Ford’s potential phishing victims is staggering.
Ford’s conduct was relentless and strikingly callous. He harassed his victims on almost a daily basis. He was particularly motivated by their reactions of fear, anger, and defiance. He was unmoved by their pleas to leave them alone. He laughed in the face of their fear, and he escalated his threats when they threatened to involve the police. He showed no remorse and thrived on his power over his victims.
Ford’s conduct was persistent and compulsive. He sometimes spent the majority of his work day, at taxpayer expense, engaged in his criminal scheme. This speaks powerfully about Ford’s dedication to his crime. In addition, his conduct was incredibly brazen. He used his U.S. Embassy work computer (which was positioned in a common, shared work area) to commit his crimes and at one point, filed a complaint with his employer, requesting more privacy in his workspace.
Today, U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross sentenced the 36-year-old Michael C. Ford to serve four years and nine months (59 months) in prison followed by three years of supervised release. The case is USA v. Michael C. Ford, Case No. 1:15-CR-319-ELR.
Posted: 12:17 am EDT
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1986 and 1987 (P.L. 99-93) amended the IG Act to include the Department of State and the Foreign Service. The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, (P.L. 99-399) required the establishment of an independent OIG at State by October 1, 1986. The OIG was established on August 27, 1986. Sherman M. Funk was the State Department Inspector General from 1987–1994 . He served under four secretaries of state (Schultz, Baker, Eagleburger and Christopher).
Below is an excerpt from Mr. Funk’s oral history via ADST.
There’s a story which nobody believes that is absolutely true and people are still in jail as a result of it, the Japanese. This story sounds incredible, but it is absolutely true. When they built the new embassy in Tokyo, and a compound, the specifications called for two manholes on access points in the rear courtyard where the oil tank was buried. Nobody thought of asking why you needed two. And the embassy opened, and shortly after it opened the truck appeared, a big oil tank truck, guys wearing uniforms driving it. And the night before the security called in and said that they were getting oil, and they went through and opened up one of the manholes, put a hose down and they filled the tank. A couple days later another truck appeared in the morning, also a call to come through saying we were getting a delivery. Nobody thought of asking why deliveries so close. The truck came in, opened up the other manhole and put a thing down and it was true half of the oil had been pumped in a couple days before.
This went on for sixteen years, and in the sixteen years only one person, a young assistant GSO, ever inquired why we were buying so much oil. One person. And the admin counselor called in the senior FSN, the GSO type, and said make a study of why we’re spending so much money. The guy came back with the report that the weather is so volatile here, we have equipment which needs the oil. The person who did that report was the guy in charge of the scam. Toward the end one of the workers got disgruntled, that he wasn’t getting enough money on the scam, and went to the assistant security officer, our assistant regional officer, and said that, “You’re being robbed.” The assistant legal security officer went to the same FSN and asked him to look at it. The guy came back and said no problem. That went on for another year.
Now people who listen to that story say it’s not possible. Sixteen years we used enormous volumes of oil. In fact, we prosecuted. One of my lawyers and two of my investigators went out, we went to Tokyo, worked with the courts. It was hideously embarrassing for the Japanese by the way, and they were very tough on these people involved. We’re getting back most of the money, we’re suing the companies because they should have had controls to prevent that. But one of their biggest arguments, and if that were argued in the States, they would win, was you guys are so stupid why didn’t you guys know something was wrong. We just deliver for your requirements. To me, I find that so incredible, and it went on for sixteen damn years, but we’re getting millions of dollars back now. But we had to sue for it.
What kind of naiveté is it to ask somebody who would benefit from it? And if the thing was going on, he would certainly know what was going on. How much management moxie does it take? How much common sense does it take? Twice they went back to the same person who was the contact point in the embassy, who would make the telephone calls to have the deliveries come in the next morning. Incredible.
Read the full oral history interview here (PDF) conducted by Charles Stuart Kennedy on July 14, 1994.
Posted: 3:07 am EDT
We previously posted about the Syria Cessation of Hostilities (COH) Team reportedly run by the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) (see Syria Cessation of Hostilities (COH) Hotline Fail: Ceasefire Violations in the Land of Pepsi (Updated)).
On March 7, US Embassy Damascus/FB posted an updated announcement noting the addition of native Arabic speakers at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait and a third contact number to received calls with reports of incidents and possible violations. The new announcement also says it encourage conveying reports via text options “as it promotes clarity and assist in our record keeping.”
Posted: 3: 48 pm EDT
Via state.gov, March 1, 2016:
QUESTION: Right. Excuse me. Can I just start on the Pakistan attack for a second? You mentioned just now and then in your statement earlier that these – the people who were killed were employees of the U.S. mission in Pakistan. The Secretary in his comments had said that they worked for the consulate in Peshawar. Is that not correct?
MR KIRBY: My – well, both are true, as you know.
QUESTION: Right. I understand that, but —
MR KIRBY: I mean, the U.S. mission engages many consuls.
QUESTION: — that was a little bit more specific than —
MR KIRBY: Yeah, the Secretary was accurate, certainly, that —
QUESTION: Okay. So they – it’s not that they were working for the embassy in Islamabad or in Karachi?
MR KIRBY: As I understand it, they were working locally there at the consulate.
QUESTION: And do you – I realize it’s early on and you still don’t know all the details, but do you have any indication if – were they the targets of this IED, or was it just the convoy itself that was the —
MR KIRBY: Yeah, it’s unclear. And we’ve seen reports of an IED. I’m not able to actually confirm that that was the tool that caused the deaths. Could very well be. Again, we’re going to be looking into this with our Pakistani counterparts. I don’t know. Nobody has claimed responsibility at this point. We don’t know how premeditated or planned this was, and we certainly don’t have additional information about specific targets. We’re going to have to just keep working at this.
The U.S. mission engages many consuls? We’re a tad OCD so pardon us if we have a problem with basic stuff incorrectly explained. We expect the official podium, at a minimum, to understand the basic blocks under the State Department.
A consul is an official agent sent by a state to reside in a foreign territory to assist and see to the general protection of its nationals. In the Foreign Service, appointment and assignment commissions may be granted by the President (subsequent to appointment as consular officer) for (1) Consul General; (2) Consul; and (3) Vice Consul. Those members whose assignments abroad do not involve consular activities will not normally be given a consular title and, consequently, they do not have authority to perform those consular functions which require consular recognition by the receiving government or which are recognized by domestic law of the states in the United States (see 3 FAH-1 H-2432.2-2).
So not all embassy or consulate employees are consuls, period. These Peshawar employees were known in the old days as FSNs or Foreign Service Nationals. The name was later changed to LES or locally employed staff (whose bright idea was that to call your employees less?). Locally Employed Staff (LE Staff) are foreign nationals and legally resident U.S. citizens employed at a Foreign Service post abroad by a U.S. Government agency that is under Chief of Mission authority. U.S. embassies do not have local employees working as U.S. consuls.
The U.S. Mission in Pakistan includes the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad and its consular offices, also called “constituent posts.” They are located in Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar and are all designated as U.S. Consulates General.
Somebody please help the official spox get the details right because …. what Steve Jobs said about the details and it’s the spokesman’s first duty not to be taken by surprise.