"In less than two years my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country,” President Trump told the #UNGA.
The crowd burst into laughter. pic.twitter.com/hexkmFqqM6
— VICE News (@vicenews) September 25, 2018
Trump draws laughter at UN with claim that 'in less than 2 years my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.' President chuckles at response, says 'didn't expect that reaction, but that's OK.' https://t.co/F5nhS0e8th
— CBC News Alerts (@CBCAlerts) September 25, 2018
— DAILY SABAH (@DailySabah) September 25, 2018
— The Globe and Mail (@globeandmail) September 25, 2018
— The Ankara Times (@TheAnkaraTimes) September 26, 2018
— Chronicle NG (@chronicle_ng) September 26, 2018
We need a President who isn't a laughing stock to the entire World. We need a truly great leader, a genius at strategy and winning. Respect!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 9, 2014
— Larry the Cat (@Number10cat) September 25, 2018
— TicToc by Bloomberg (@tictoc) September 25, 2018
Posted: 4:42 am ET
We previously blogged about the new U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands here:
- The Peter Hoekstra Fall Out Continues, Long-Form Interview With a Dutch Outlet Coming Soon;
- Amb. Hoekstra Presents His Credentials to the King, Then Gets Properly Grilled By the Dutch Press;
- Amb. Designate Hoekstra Issues an “Apology,” Gets Roasted on Twitter;
- New U.S. Ambassador Peter Hoekstra Makes Splash With Whoppers on Dutch TV;
- Nomination: Ex-Congressman Peter Hoekstra to be U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands
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.
Reporters in the Netherlands just showed the world how to deal with Trump officials who make false claims pic.twitter.com/KJf35dh7CB
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) January 12, 2018
— Diplopundit (@Diplopundit) January 12, 2018
— peter vandermeersch (@pvdmeersch) January 12, 2018
According to De Telegraaf, he thinks he had already apologized enough: "How often does a person have to say that something regrets him?" The full conversation with the diplomat appears in the newspaper on Saturday. via Google Translate
— Diplopundit (@Diplopundit) January 12, 2018
— Roel Geeraedts (@RGjournalist) January 12, 2018
Yesterday @usambnl visited @Politie and others in Schilderswijk to learn about the community. He toured @DeHaagseMarkt, met w/ community police, shopkeepers, citizens, & others. pic.twitter.com/5a0liCce8T
— US Embassy The Hague (@usembthehague) January 13, 2018
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?
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 TV; Amb. Designate Hoekstra Issues an “Apology,” Gets Roasted on Twitter; Nomination: Ex-Congressman Peter Hoekstra to be U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands).
— US Embassy The Hague (@usembthehague) January 10, 2018
Today Dutch press welcomed @petehoekstra as new ambassador to the Netherlands. In 2015 Hoekstra said Dutch"politicians are being burned" (not true). The only one who did get burned today is… Hoekstra himself. By refusing to answer our questions. pic.twitter.com/Dv2aalbhDP
— Roel Geeraedts (@RGjournalist) January 10, 2018
One Dutch reporter asked @petehoekstra to look a John Adams quote on the fireplace about being “honest and wise” and if he was truly honest/wise he would take back his comments. Brutal video https://t.co/gpz7wAOTX7
— andrew kaczynski🤔 (@KFILE) January 10, 2018
— Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) January 10, 2018
Goodmorning America! It is Pete Hoekstra's first day as US ambassador to the Netherlands and that first press moment was going far from 'smooth' (video inside!) https://t.co/nVrEb2CbXL
@AmandaWaPo @washingtonpost #donaldtrump
— DutchReview (@Dutchreviewing) January 10, 2018
The new American ambassador to the Netherlands, Peter Hoekstra, refused to comment at his inaugural press conference in Den Haag about his past allegations claiming politicians were set on fire in the Netherlands.
"I won't comment on the matter anymore", Hoekstra announced. pic.twitter.com/8AqzU11LbS
— Agent Smith (@anonycraig) January 11, 2018
I did a deep dive on US ambassador to the Netherlands @petehoekstra who apologized for "no-go zone" claims in December. Turns out he made the comments regularly and more! https://t.co/krUaNbRCiK pic.twitter.com/Iw3H5CviOC
— andrew kaczynski🤔 (@KFILE) January 9, 2018
Posted: 1:16 am ET
Last week, we blogged about Ambassador-Designate Peter Hoekstra’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. It is not exactly clear what it is he is apologizing for — he “regret the exchange” but did not apologize for the remarks he made in 2015, or for lying about it? He regret participating in an interview that went off the rails on video? In any case, he did issue an apology for something, but Twitter folks were not at all happy about it.
Please see my comments regarding recent interview. Thank you. Pete pic.twitter.com/gxQOcZ8Duk
— Pete Hoekstra (@petehoekstra) December 23, 2017
— Matt Murphy (@Matt__Murphy) December 23, 2017
Sir, "I regret the exchange" is what one says when one speaks more harshly than intends. What you did was lie. Hard. And got caught. What you should have said is that you regret lying.
— Mike Richardson (@MBRichardson) December 23, 2017
You lied, got caught, then doubled-down by lying again. Saying you "regret the exchange" is NOT an apology. You have made America a laughingstock. Do the honorable thing and resign.
— Eric Schoenfeld (@ChiefAgitator) December 23, 2017
You seem to have misspelled "I was wrong. I'm sorry."
— Max Goldman (@MacsGoldman) December 23, 2017
Can we get a new ambassador from the US already? I'll settle on no ambassador as well if that works better.
— AE DAEDROTH (@GasInTheHole) December 23, 2017
— Bobby Portman (@BobbytheRed) December 23, 2017
Wat is erger dan geen excuses aanbieden? Halfbakken excuses aanbieden. Hij kan nog voorbeeld nemen aan AD-hoofdredakteur. Die noemt zijn optreden een Afgang. #CamielEurlings #PeteHoekstra US in moral decline.https://t.co/3XtaUaZioQ
— Blik op Nosjournaal (@BlikopNOS) December 23, 2017
AND THE WINNER IS –TA-DA! Our eyes are leaking badly, help ….
When the US sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing prejudice. They're bringing ignorance. They're idiots. And some, I assume, are good people #fakenews https://t.co/PDLCIkha1r
— Pedro Miguel Silva (@pedrosilvapt) December 22, 2017
Posted: 2:59 pm PT
We got an odd feeling that they’re laughing at us. Nah? You mean that’s just people’s imagination? Did the new ambassador to the Netherlands think so poorly of the Dutch that he could do this without a second thought? The host country nationals will remember this every time he opens his mouth during his tenure in the Netherlands. Brown paper bags for face gears are on discount for the rest of the year, folks. Go get.
Morning America! Merry Christmas and let's hope Trump doesn't fire Mueller. Here's a nice video of the new ambassador from the US to the Netherlands lying through his teeth. #petehoekstra https://t.co/kJeTJ4EBur
— DutchReview (@Dutchreviewing) December 22, 2017
Pete Hoekstra – Trump's new ambassador to the Netherlands – was caught with his pants on fire today. Who's this guy anyway?https://t.co/eGvWAJssRh
— DutchReview (@Dutchreviewing) December 22, 2017
Then Amb. Hoekstra gets caught live on Dutch TV trying to deny what he falsely said about ‘no go’ zones in the Netherlands. https://t.co/QuBOuvgJQN
— Jeff Stein (@SpyTalker) December 22, 2017
Dutch journalist to new US Ambassador: you said there were 'no go zones' in Netherlands, where are they?
Ambassador: That's fake news, I didn't say that
Journalist: We can show you that clip now.
Ambassador: Err 😳🤥 pic.twitter.com/8ohIOzmYAc
— Sunny Hundal (@sunny_hundal) December 22, 2017
Pete Hoekstra is vanaf januari de nieuwe Amerikaanse #ambassadeur in Nederland. Hij staat bekend om zijn conservatieve standpunten. Zo verzette hij zich actief tegen homorechten. Het lijkt dus geen vanzelfsprekende match. pic.twitter.com/dZnetBJvnD
— Nieuwsuur (@Nieuwsuur) December 21, 2017
Congratulations, Ambassador @petehoekstra! I know from serving together in the Congress and as @POTUS has seen, there’s no better man to be Ambassador to the Netherlands than Pete Hoekstra. pic.twitter.com/LkQor0UEWn
— Vice President Mike Pence (@VP) December 11, 2017
Confirmed by Voice Vote: Cal. #412, Peter Hoekstra, of Michigan, to be Ambassador of the U.S. to the Kingdom of the Netherlands @petehoekstra
— Senate Cloakroom (@SenateCloakroom) November 9, 2017
— Aki Peritz (@AkiPeritz) December 22, 2017
Posted: 3:01 am ET
This is an EEOC case about a complainant who was the Consul General at the U.S. Consulate General in Naples, Italy. The name used here is a pseudonym as in eeoc practice but the details are similar to the ugly, nasty case a few years back that made the news. Most notable lesson here about the Privacy Act, and the limits of Diplomatic Security’s willingness to clear somebody’s name when needed.
Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant filed an equal employment opportunity (EEO) claim with the Agency. On November 26, 2013, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. This decision on the breached settlement was issued in November 2016. Excerpt below:
The record reflects that a subordinate of Complainant (Subordinate 1), who resigned in May 2012, and to a lesser extent her spouse made highly charged allegations against Complainant, i.e., entertaining prostitutes, escorts, and married women in his residence during work hours, engaging in fraud or mismanagement of funds, permitting his driver to be fired so his job could go to someone else and as a form of retaliation, throwing metal umbrella pots from his sixth floor residence down to the parking lot below and then jumping on and crushing them, and this was captured on CCTV and in front of the security guards, and so forth. By April 2013, the U.S. Embassy Rome, in consultation with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Special Investigation Division initiated an investigation. The investigation was conducted by two Special Agents with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and involved 20 individual interviews with Consulate Staff. It concluded that the accusation that Complainant threw metal pots was “false,” and the three other allegations specified above were completely false. The investigation found that the remaining allegations were variously false, completely false, unsubstantiated, not supported by evidence, and one, in essence, grossly exaggerated.
On June 16, 2013, the New York Post and Fox News published highly negative stories about Complainant, writing for example that Subordinate 1, a whistleblower, said Complainant had trysts with hookers, and this was the latest black eye for the scandal-ridden State Department. On June 17, 2013, Complainant was copied on an Agency email chain regarding the New York Post reporting Subordinate 1’s allegation that Complainant insisted a staffer have an abortion and the staffer said she got her “tubes tied” at his instruction. It was indicated in the email chain that the staffer said the article was “all lies” and felt strongly that she should respond to the article by saying something. The above DCM advised that it would be much better for the staffer not to say anything for now – that this could all blow over quickly.
In his EEO claim, according to Complainant, he alleged discrimination when he was denied assignments in line with his experience, ability, and professional background, the DCM knew that allegations against him by Subordinate 1, her spouse and two others were false and failed to take appropriate action, and management held him accountable for the false accusations and denied him support.
By letters to the Agency dated February 1, 2016 and May 10, 2016, Complainant alleged that the Agency misled him into entering into the settlement agreement and breached it. Specifically, he alleged that when he signed the settlement agreement, the Agency knew Subordinate 1’s EEO complaint had been investigated with a finding of no wrongdoing on his part, that she would likely continue to litigate in federal court, and he could have used the EEO decision to exonerate himself. Complainant wrote that after the settlement agreement, Subordinate 1 continued to attack him in the press, with articles appearing in prominent news outlets such as Newsweek and the New York Post. He pointed to a proposed June 2013 Agency press release recounting that the Diplomatic Security Service investigated the allegations and found no violations of U.S. or Italian law, and contended that had the press release been issued this would have rebutted the articles or they would not have been published. He argues that the Agency allowed employees and family members to utilize the EEO process to raise false allegations against him despite the Agency’s conclusion that they were baseless, and in failing to clear his name breached the settlement agreement and made it ineffective and unenforceable.
The Agency found that it complied with the settlement agreement. Regarding term 9.d, the Agency found that Complainant’s submittal of proposed changes to his 2012 EER was a condition precedent to the former DCM reviewing them and considering making changes, and Complainant admitted he did not submit proposed changes because he was too disheartened and depressed. On appeal, Complainant, who is represented by counsel, confirms this, but adds another reason was that he lacked the necessary facts, particularly the EEO decision on Subordinate 1’s complaint.
Regarding term 9.g, the Agency recounted that Complainant stated it was breached because (1) the Agency simply wrote a one page memorandum simply listing the allegations against him and stating they were found to be unsubstantiated rather than discussing things in context to show how his accusers seized on scandal to defame him and hinder his career, (2) the memorandum was only based on facts until October 2013, failing to fulfill its purpose of summarizing the Diplomatic Security investigation,3 and (3) the Agency, in response to his inquiries, could not give him a clear answer on whether he could share the memorandum with family, colleagues, friends, and his Italian attorney, preventing him from doing so. On appeal, Complainant confirms that he raised reasons (1) and (3). He argues that not being able to share the memorandum makes it useless and his reason for entering into settlement negotiations was to restore his reputation.
In determining that it complied with term 9.g, the Agency found that it met its obligation to provide a summary of the investigation, and that there is no evidence the parties agreed to any specific format in or upon the use of the memorandum.
In determining that it did not negotiate the settlement agreement in bad faith, the Agency found that Complainant cited no authority for the proposition that it was obligated to divulge the outcome of Subordinate 1’s EEO case, and there was no evidence it negotiated in bad faith.
On appeal, Complainant adds that he would not have bargained for a memorandum summarizing the results of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s investigation had he known he could not use it, this is common sense, and the Agency’s failure to authorize its use is a breach of the settlement agreement. Complainant argues that the Agency breached the settlement agreement by failing to live up to the spirit of the document. He argues that the Agency’s failure, upon his request, to allow the issuance of the proposed press release in the Agency’s name violates the settlement agreement.
In opposition to the appeal, the Agency argues that disclosing Subordinate 1’s employment discrimination investigation would violate privacy right protected information, and it did not negotiate the settlement agreement in bad faith.
In June 2013, after the New York Post reported highly charged accusations by Subordinate 1 about the way Complainant treated a staffer, an Agency email string on which Complainant was copied showed the staffer wanted to say something rebutting what was reported, but the former DCM opined it would be much better if the staffer did not say anything now – this could blow over quickly. Further, Complainant strongly suggests that he was aware the Bureau of Diplomatic Security investigation was favorable and he certainly knew the Agency had done nothing to publically clear his name. While Complainant wanted the Agency to publically clear his name, he agreed to a settlement agreement that did not have a term explicitly doing this. Instead, the Agency agreed to issue to a summary of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to Complainant – not the public.
Complainant’s contention that the Agency bargained for the settlement agreement in bad faith is not persuasive. First, as argued by the Agency, it had reason to believe the administrative decision on Subordinate 1’s complaint was protected by the Privacy Act, since administrative EEO records are generally within the scope of the Act. Further, Complainant has not shown he did not already have sufficient information to make a fair bargain when negotiating the settlement agreement.
The FAD is AFFIRMED.
Read the full case here via eeoc.gov.
Social observers are particularly attuned to braggadocio. What do you think of a person who claims to be a better driver, performer or lover than average? Is this person better described as confident or cocky; self-important or honest? Would you put your health or safety in their hands? And what about the opposite type of person, who claims to be worse than others? Would you hire this person for a job? In what field?
Social scientists have been asking for decades whether boastful, self-aggrandising beliefs and behaviours are beneficial to those who make such claims. According to one school of thought, claiming to be better than others feels good, and when we feel good, we are happier and better adjusted. This argument suggests that bragging to others can satisfy the motive to craft and maintain a positive self-image. According to another line of research, however, consistently viewing oneself as superior entails a distortion of reality. Inaccurate individuals with low self-knowledge have weaker relationships and a tendency to make riskier decisions than their accurate, self-aware counterparts.
Together with Joachim Krueger at Brown University in Rhode Island, I recently proposed a middle ground: braggadocio could be a double-edged sword. In our paper in the journal Social Psychology, we argue that thinking you are better than average (and bragging to others about it) can damage some aspects of your reputation but boost others. Bragging can help or harm depending upon your goals – so you’d do well to know what you want to accomplish before tooting your own horn.
To test how observers respond to braggadocio and humility, we recruited nearly 400 volunteers and asked them to rate a series of target individuals along the two major dimensions of social perception: competence, including rationality, intelligence and naiveté, and morality, including ethics, trustworthiness and selfishness. Some of the targets were defined as performing better or worse than average without making claims Some claimed to be better or worse than average without any evidence. Others both made a claim about themselves (‘I did better/worse than average’) while researchers revealed their scores.
The results demonstrated several detrimental effects of boasting, although we observed some surprising benefits too. Perhaps the most interesting finding was what we call the ‘humility paradox’. In the absence of evidence (ie, a test score), bragging to be better than average boosted a target’s reputation as competent, but diminished their reputation as moral. Conversely, those who remained humble by claiming to be worse than average were rated as more moral and less competent than the braggarts. The paradox suggests that when deciding whether or not to boast about your performance, keen decision-makers might first stop to consider which aspect of reputation they are most interested in emphasising or protecting.
The results were especially nuanced when test subjects rated targets whose claims were either validated or violated by objective evidence (their actual test performance). For moral reputations, humility remained a beneficial strategy even when a target performed well. Across the board, participants rated targets who claimed to be worse than average as more moral than targets who claimed to be better than average, regardless of their actual performance. In the domain of morality, humility pays.
For perceived competence, evidence mattered. The absolute worst thing a target could do was to claim superiority (‘I am better than average’) when the evidence proved him wrong (‘Harry actually scored below average on the test’).
There was, to be sure, some strategic benefit to making a boastful claim: targets who claimed to be better than average were seen as quite competent either when:
(a) evidence supported this claim; or
(b) no evidence was available.
In other words, boasting appeared to benefit a target’s reputation as competent, so long as contradictory evidence was never revealed.
As is the case with most experiments in social psychology, these studies were conducted in a contrived laboratory setting, and carry several limitations. All our participants lived in the United States, although we know that cultural background can encourage or discourage boasting. Similarly, all the targets that our participants rated had male names in order to rule out any confounding effects of gender, even though we know that the gender of observers and targets plays an important role in social perception. Culture and gender are two variables we would like to incorporate in future studies on the nature and perception of bragging.
Despite these limitations, the results of our studies suggest a few strategies for daily life: in situations where your competence is of critical interest (such as a job interview or debate), claiming to be better than the other candidates could be beneficial, so long as contradictory evidence will never come to light. But in situations where your reputation as a warm or moral person is put to the test (say, while networking or on a date), it appears that humility is the best strategy, even if you truly have something to brag about.
This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.
Posted: 2:19 am ET
Each fall, usually in November, and tentatively scheduled for Friday, November 17, 2017 this year, the Secretary of State hosts the annual retirement ceremony. Invitations usually go out out in the first half of October to State Department Civil Service and Foreign Service employees who retires between September 1 the year before and August 31 of the current year. Employees who retire after August 31, 2017 for instance will be invited to next year’s ceremony (fall of 2018).
On October 23, State/HR sent out an email announcement informing recipients that the Secretary’s Annual Retirement Ceremony has been changed. “Regrettably, the tentative date for the Retirement Ceremony has been preempted by another event.” This year’s ceremony is now reportedly scheduled for Thursday, December 7. The invitations to the honorees were supposedly mailed out the first week of November.
The State Department’s public schedule for November 17 is listed as follows:
9:45 a.m. Secretary Tillerson delivers remarks at the Ministerial on Trade, Security, and Governance in Africa, at the Department of State.
11:30 a.m. Secretary Tillerson participates in a Family Photo, at the Department of State.
4:30 p.m. Secretary Tillerson meets with President Donald Trump, at the White House.
We don’t know which of the above pre-empted the event last week or if somebody else had some private ceremony at the State Department venue. We’re told this has to be done during the day to avoid overtime payment. In any case, we’ll have to watch out what happens on December 7 and see if they can round up enough people for Tillerson’s first retirement ceremony.
On November 14, a notification also went out from State/HR that the 2017 Department Annual Awards Ceremony has been rescheduled:
The Secretary’s travel demands will make it impossible for him to preside over the Department Awards ceremony scheduled tentatively for November 21, 2017. We expect to reschedule the event for a date in the near future. The Secretary would like very much to present these awards himself and asks that we try to find a date and time that fits with his calendar. We will be in touch as soon as we have any information on the plans for the ceremony.
A howler arrived in our inbox:
The Secretary postponed State’s annual awards ceremony on short notice. Individuals understand the priority of world affairs and how a crisis takes precedence over a ceremony, however, that is precisely when another senior officer conducts the ceremony. That’s great the Secretary himself wants to be there, but the show must go on. Many (if not most) individuals receiving these prestigious awards had family traveling to DC to be present. The awards are a big deal and it is Thanksgiving weekend. Now all the travel plans are wasted, money is lost (who buys non-refundable tickets?) and Thanksgiving reunions are ruined.
It’s almost like the Secretary and his top team seek out every opportunity to destroy morale amongst his staff.
Perhaps Mr. Tillerson isn’t used to thinking about these things. But see, if he has counsel at the top besides the denizens of the “God Pod”, that individual would have anticipated this. The awardees are not just coming from next door, or within driving distance, and their families do not live in Washington, D.C. Anyone with a slight interest in the Foreign Service should know that. It is understandable that the Secretary has lots of responsibilities, but State could have used his deputy, or if he, too, is traveling, they could certainly use “P” to do this on Mr. Tillerson’s behalf. Of course, if advisors at the top are as blind as the secretary, this is what you get, which only alienates the building more.
Should be interesting to see where Secretary Tillerson’s travel take him this Thanksgiving week.
If this is true, combined with the absence of Rex Tillerson in making this statement, it confirms Tillerson's incompetence.https://t.co/WljlnX7RXF
— Cheryl Rofer (@CherylRofer) November 19, 2017