Travels With Mike and Susan: Munich, Dakar, Luanda, Addis Ababa, Riyadh, Muscat

 

Muscat, Oman

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Luanda, Angola

Dakar, Senegal

Munich, Germany

Advertisements

Snapshot: USAID’s Program Cycle Framework

Via state.gov

USAID implements an integrated Program Cycle Policy (Automated Directive System [ADS] 201), USAID’s framework for planning, implementing, assessing, and adapting programs that support countries to advance their journey to self-reliance. The Program Cycle provides policy and procedures for making strategic programming decisions to ensure effective use of foreign assistance resources. The guidance integrates continuous learning throughout all Program Cycle components to inform adaptive management and improve achievement of results. Robust monitoring and evaluation practices provide feedback on progress in achieving short- and long-term objectives.

Related post:
Snapshot: StateDepartment’s Managing for Results (MfR) Framework 

Report: Covid19-Infected Amcits From #DiamondPrincess Flown Home Against CDC Advice

 

Via WaPo, February 20, 2020:

In Washington, where it was still Sunday afternoon, a fierce debate broke out: The State Department and a top Trump administration health official wanted to forge ahead. The infected passengers had no symptoms and could be segregated on the plane in a plastic-lined enclosure. But officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention disagreed, contending they could still spread the virus. The CDC believed the 14 should not be flown back with uninfected passengers.
[…]
The State Department won the argument. But unhappy CDC officials demanded to be left out of the news release that explained that infected people were being flown back to the United States — a move that would nearly double the number of known coronavirus cases in this country.
[…]

During one call, the CDC’s principal deputy director, Anne Schuchat, argued against taking the infected Americans on the plane, according to two participants. She noted the U.S. government had already told passengers they would not be evacuated with anyone who was infected or who showed symptoms. She was also concerned about infection control.

Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who was also on the calls, recalled saying her points were valid and should be considered.

But Robert Kadlec, assistant secretary for preparedness and response for the Department of Health and Human Services and a member of the coronavirus task force, pushed back: Officials had already prepared the plane to handle passengers who might develop symptoms on the long flight, he argued. The two Boeing 747s had 18 seats cordoned off with 10-foot-high plastic on all four sides. Infectious disease doctors would also be onboard.

“We felt like we had very experienced hands in evaluating and caring for these patients,” Kadlec said at a news briefing Monday.

The State Department made the call. The 14 people were already in the evacuation pipeline and protocol dictated they be brought home, said William Walters, director of operational medicine for the State Department.

As the State Department drafted its news release, the CDC’s top officials insisted that any mention of the agency be removed.

Read the full report below.
Anyone know if the State Department has a Task Force for Covid-19 already? It looks like U.S. citizens in Hubei Province or those with information about U.S. citizens in Hubei are advised to contact the U.S. Embassy or the State Department at the same email address: CoronaVirusEmergencyUSC@state.gov.
Excerpt from State Dept Special Briefing on Repatriation ofo U.S. Citizens from the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship, February 17, 2020:

OPERATOR: The line of Alex Horton from Washington Post has been opened. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, thanks, everyone, for jumping on this call on a holiday. So I was curious about when discussion with the CDC was executed to make this call. Based on their press release a few days ago, they said there would be screening to prevent symptomatic travelers from departing Japan. The press release you guys issued is very carefully worded when you said, “After consulting HHS, the State Department made the decision to allow those individuals to go on,” those 14.

So is there daylight with CDC and HHS in this decision by you guys to send them forward, and what were some of their objections that you – that you seem to have overturned?

DR WALTERS: This is Dr. Walters. What I’d say is that the chief of mission, right, through the U.S. embassy, is ultimately the head of all executive branch activities. So when we are very careful about taking responsibility for the decision, the State Department is – that is the embassy. The State Department was running the aviation mission, and the decision to put the people into that isolation area initially to provide some time for discussion and for onward, afterwards, is a State Department decision.

There is a – I think where you might see the appearance of a discrepancy is in the definition of symptomatic. Symptomatic – when we use the word “symptomatic,” we’re talking about coughing and sneezing and fever and body aches. Those are symptoms, all right? And as Dr. Kadlec laid out and I reinforced, each one of these 338 [4] people was evaluated by an experienced medical provider, and none of them had symptoms.

Once they were on the bus, we received information about a lab test that had been done two or three days earlier. But it is, in fact – it is a fact that no symptomatic patients – no one with a fever or a cough or lower respiratory tract infection or body aches, or anything that would lead one to believe this person is infected with the virus was – none of that was in place before – at the time a decision was made to evacuate these folks.

 

@StateDept’s Rules Governing the Use of Social Media by Eligible Family Members

 

Related to D/SecState Biegun Alerts @StateDept Employees to Updated Guidance For Political Activities Restrictions, we’ found this item from the FLO’s FAQ on the use of social media by EFMs.
Via state.gov/FLO/FAQ
What are the Department’s rules governing the use of social media by eligible family members?
    • 3 FAM 4170 sets out Department policy for employees on public speaking, teaching, writing, and media engagement, including the use of social media. Social media posts pertaining to U.S. foreign policy written in an employee’s capacity as a private citizen must be reviewed/cleared by the appropriate office (3 FAM 4174.3). These provisions apply to Eligible Family Members (EFMs) when they are employed by the Department in any capacity in the United States or abroad, including those EFMs working at post under either an appointment or Personal Service Agreement (PSA) and/or who are members of the Foreign Service Family Reserve Corps (FSFRC). EFMs who are in Intermittent No Work Scheduled (INWS) status or members of the FSFRC in Reserve Status, are employees of the Department and must abide by Department policies.
    • Where review is required, the Final Review Office for FSFRC members at post (even if not currently working in a position at post) is the Chief of Mission or his/her designee. For FSFRC members residing in the U.S., the Bureau of Public Affairs is the Final Review Office. (See 3 FAM 4174.3.)
    • The provisions of 3 FAM 4170 apply only to employees and, as such, do not apply to EFMs who are not currently employed by the Department in any capacity (i.e., not working at post or domestically for the Department or not a member of the FSFRC); however, the general provisions governing outside activities would be applicable, and the non-employee EFM should be cognizant of the general guidance provided in 3 FAM 4125 (Outside Employment and Activities by Spouses and Family Members Abroad). There is no expectation of privacy on social networking sites. Even where users have taken privacy precautions, hackers and other bad actors may still be able to access information.
Links to the Foreign Affairs Manual inserted above. Below is the specific cite linked to by D/Biegun in recent message (3 FAM 4123.3 (Employee Responsibilities Abroad/Political Activities):

3 FAM 4123.3  Political Activities

(TL:PER-491;   12-23-2003)
(Uniform State/USAID/Commerce/Foreign Service Corps-USDA)
(Applies to Foreign Service, Foreign Service National, and Civil Service)

A U.S. citizen employee, spouse, or family member shall not engage in partisan political activities abroad, other than authorized activities pertaining to U.S. elections.  This provision shall not preclude a locally hired U.S. citizen employee, who also is a national of the country of residence, from exercising political rights deriving from that foreign nationality.

Shall not as in a commanding must not?  Or else what?
Does the recent Pompeo-approved updated guidance for political activities restrictions from the L bureau addresses 3 FAM 4123.3 order and spouses not currently employed?  Does this regs apply to all EFMs or are there exceptions? If so, what are the exceptions? Best to ask now, or later after surprises?

Snapshot: StateDepartment’s Managing for Results (MfR) Framework

 

Via state.gov:
The Department’s Managing for Results (MfR) Framework creates feedback loops among planning, budgeting, managing, and learning processes to inform and support programmatic, budget, and policy decisions. To integrate the MfR more fully within bureaus and missions, State created a website to provide information, tools, and templates pertaining to work in all four quadrants of the cycle: planning, budgeting, managing, and learning. The “managing” and “learning” portions of the MfR Framework are supported with the Department’s Program and Project Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation Policy, which requires that all major programs and projects have documented goals, objectives, logic models, and plans for monitoring and evaluating performance.

In 2018, all bureaus at State were required to delineate their major programs or projects, and begin formally documenting the design of each one via a logic model (or equivalent) so that subsequent monitoring and evaluation efforts are all tied back to the outputs and outcomes specified in the design. These efforts will improve the completeness and utility of monitoring data, and help ensure the Department is tracking the right metrics to assess progress toward its program- and strategic-level goals, as well as better account for results. The Policy also requires senior Department bureau leaders and chiefs of mission to institute regular reviews to assess progress against strategic objectives, and ensure alignment of policy, planning, resources, and program decision making.

@StateDept Contracting Officer Zaldy N. Sabino Gets 87 Months in Prison For Bribery and Procurement Fraud

 

This is the conclusion to the court case of a State Department contracting official charged with bribery and procurement fraud (see @StateDept Contracting Officer Zaldy N. Sabino Convicted of Bribery and Procurement Fraud; @StateDept Contracting Officer Faces 17-Count Indictment For Bribery and Procurement Fraud).  On February 14, 2020, USDOJ announced that the former contracting officer Zaldy N. Zabino was sentenced to 87 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised released.
Via USDOJ:
State Department Contracting Officer Sentenced to Prison for Bribery and Procurement Fraud Scheme=

A contracting officer with the U.S. Department of State was sentenced today to 87 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release after he was convicted of 13 counts of conspiracy, bribery, honest services wire fraud and making false statements.

Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger of the Eastern District of Virginia, Special Agent in Charge Marc Meyer of the U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General and Assistant Director in Charge Timothy R. Slater of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.

Zaldy N. Sabino, 60, of Fort Washington, Maryland, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady after Sabino’s conviction on Oct. 4, 2019.  In addition to his term of imprisonment, Sabino was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine.

According to the evidence at trial, between November 2012 and early 2017, Sabino and the owner of a Turkish construction firm engaged in a bribery and procurement fraud scheme in which Sabino received at least $521,862.93 in cash payments from the Turkish owner while Sabino supervised multi-million dollar construction contracts awarded to the Turkish owner’s business partners and while Sabino made over a half million dollars in structured cash deposits into his personal bank accounts.  Sabino concealed his unlawful relationship by, among other things, making false statements on financial disclosure forms and during his background reinvestigation.

The Department of State’s Office of Inspector General, led by Steve A. Linick, and the FBI’s Washington Field Office investigated the case.  Trial Attorney Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Hanly of the Eastern District of Virginia prosecuted the case.

 

D/SecState Biegun Alerts @StateDept Employees to Updated Guidance For Political Activities Restrictions

State Department employees on February 19 woke up to a love letter in their inbox from their new Deputy Secretary of State Steve Biegun. The Deputy Secretary says that he is looking forward to highlighting his priorities relating to people, policy and process but the new email was aimed at tackling “the first issue”, that is, how they can  “work together to ensure we do not improperly engage the Department of State in the political process.”
He writes  that “One of the great strengths of our country is its democratic process, which we proudly showcase in our global engagements.”
(Uhm…okay).
He talks about the political debate going on and the agency’s far-reaching restrictions “designed to ensure our representation overseas is not perceived as partisan.”

It is not lost on any of us that there is a national political debate going on around us that manifests itself daily in news feeds, questions and comments from our foreign contacts, and communications from friends via emails and social media. I have spent my career at the intersection of foreign policy and politics, so I recognize that it can be personally challenging to keep politics outside of daily engagements. This, however, is what our laws and policies require. State Department employees, like all federal employees, are subject to restrictions on engaging in partisan political activity while at work and outside of work. We often talk of Hatch Act requirements, but in truth the Department has more far-reaching restrictions designed to ensure our representation overseas is not perceived as partisan.

Apparently, Mr. Pompeo recently approved “updated guidance  for political activities restrictions that apply to all Department employees.” Further, Mr. Biegun notes that “Department legal requirements and policies, which have been in place for decades, are broad and bear careful review.”
He tells employees that “obligations differ based on your employment status” and reveals that “as a Senate confirmed Department official, I will be sitting on the sidelines of the political process this year and will not be attending any political events, to include the national conventions.”
His message does not say if all Senate-confirmed Department officials will also sit on the sidelines.
He writes that while he is not active on social media, he encourage employees “to think about your own practices and how the guidelines provided by the Office of the Legal Adviser might apply to your social media activity.” Further, he also shared that he intends “to be thoughtful in how I respond to emails from friends that have even the appearance of partisan political content.”
Apparently, there are three new Department memoranda which summarize political activity guidance for each of three categories of Department employees—
(1) All Presidential Appointees and All Political Appointees
(2) Career SES Employees
(3) All Department of State Employees (Other than Career SES, Presidential Appointees, and Political Appointees)
(—as well as special guidance for employees and their families abroad).
The Office of the Legal Adviser has issued three political activities memoranda but they are behind the firewall, so we do not, as yet, know what they say.  He is asking employees “to review the guidelines carefully so that together we can ensure that our Department work is above reproach.”
(Can somebody please FOIA these updated guidance?)
Mr. Biegun also cited 3 FAM 4123.3 (Employee Responsibilities Abroad/Political Activities): https://fam.state.gov/fam/03fam/03fam4120.html — see 3 FAM 4123.3  for Political Activities
He ends his message with:

“I am impressed by the discipline and unfailing professionalism that I see across our Department team on a daily basis, exemplifying the Secretary’s Ethos statement. I hope you will join me in carefully adhering to these restrictions designed to support our nonpartisan foreign policy.”

Oops! We read “Secretary’s Ethos statement” and we nearly fell off our chair like a drunken master.
Ay, caramba!
Bonus report below about the deputy secretary’s boss’ recent 17-minute speech at a city of 3,100 people in Florida and then you all can have a town hall meeting about how to ensure that the Department’s work is beyond reproach.
In any case, it sounds like employees who want to learn more  may attend a special training session by the Office of the Special Counsel scheduled for March 13 in Foggy Bottom. It doesn’t sound like senior State Department officials and advisers who are active and partisan on social media are required to attend the training session. State/D’s message only notes that he is attending the OSC’s session, and it is “a regularly scheduled session available to all employees.”

Snapshot: OFDA’S Percent of Disaster Declarations Responded to Within 72 Hours

 

Via State Department FY 2018 Annual Performance Report | FY 2020 Annual Performance Plan
(PDF/p.171)

Performance Goal 3.4.6: Humanitarian Assistance Performance Goal Statement:

By 2022, the United States will increase the timeliness and effectiveness of responses to U.S. government-declared international disasters, responding to 95 percent of disaster declarations within 72 hours and reporting on results. (USAID) Performance Goal Overview/Progress Update The Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) explains that the Department and USAID will support needs based humanitarian assistance through multi-sectoral programs that provide relief from crises, conflicts, and natural disasters. Collaboration with donors and host countries will help identify solutions to displacement, protect populations at risk, reduce the risk of disasters, and foster resilience. USAID/OFDA is the U.S. Government’s lead federal coordinator for international disaster response. The Office’s mandate is to save lives, alleviate human suffering, and reduce the social and economic impacts of disasters worldwide. Responding efficiently to disasters is critical for USAID/OFDA to implement its mandate. As such, this PG aims to ensure that USAID/OFDA continues to respond to disasters rapidly and efficiently.

Key Indicator: Percent of disaster declarations responded to within 72 hours

Indicator Analysis The above figures provide a summary of USAID/OFDA’s immediate responses to new disaster declarations only, as measured by the release of a disaster response cable or submission of an email response with fund cite information within 72 hours of a disaster declaration cable’s circulation; the figures do not take into account disaster redeclarations or adjustments to end-of year disaster response totals.

Note that two of the three delayed response cables in FY 2018 were for Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) responses related to a politically sensitive complex emergency of high interest to the interagency. The sensitive political nature of these U.S. Government responses necessitated exceptional levels of intra-agency and interagency coordination, which created a lag in USAID/OFDA’s normal response timeframe. Had these delays not occurred, USAID/OFDA’s rate of response within 72 hours would have been 96 percent for FY 2018.

Indicator Methodology USAID/OFDA will source data from 1) an internal program-management database that keeps a record of official cables; 2) Senior Management Team notification of the deployment of a Disaster-Assistance Response Team or the activation of another assistance team; and 3) Information Support Unit records of a disaster declaration. Document review will provide the needed information.

@StateDept’s HR Bureau Rebrands as Bureau of Global Talent Management

 

The Director General of the Foreign Service Carol Perez marked the start of her second year as DGHR by announcing the rebranding of the Bureau of Human Resources into the Bureau of Global Talent Management (GTM).

Somebody notes that the name sounds like “a second-rate modeling agency.”

And how do you pronounce the new acronym … “Get’um”? “Git’um”? “Get’m”?

Apparently, DGHR Perez has previously  mentioned during a bureau town hall that the Global Talent Management “better captures the scope and strategic nature” of the  Bureau’s work.  Always great, great when you add the word “strategic” into the fray, makes everything so strategic.  It supposedly also makes two essential features clear — that the bureau is  a global operation, with over 270 posts in over 190 countries around the world, and that the bureau is in “the talent business”, that is, “recruiting, hiring, retaining and cultivating the best people for the mission.”
We were hoping to hear what happens after “cultivating the best people for the mission” but we were disappointed, of course.
She tells her folks: “I know change is never easy, and I don’t expect it to take place overnight. All of the logistics that go into a name change are being executed in-house. This not only saves resources, but also ensures that the effort is led by those who know the bureau best—our own employees. However, it also means that the full roll-out will be gradual. An ALDAC and Department Notice announcing the name change to the wider workforce will go out later this week, but the full transition will be ongoing. I ask for your patience as signage and digital platforms are updated.”
Why is the HR bureau rebranding? The purported reason being “human resources is a critical bureau function, but not the Bureau’s sole function.”  The DGHR says that “the name “Bureau of Human Resources” no longer represents the full scope of our work, and it lags behind current industry standards. This is one small yet symbolic piece of the Department’s larger efforts to modernize.”
Don’t worry, while HR is not the Bureau’s sole function, it remains an integral part of the bureaus work so there will be no/no change in job titles with one exception. Human Resources Officers (HROs) will not/not become Global Talent Officers  (GTOs) and HR Specialists will not/not become Global Talent Specialists. The one exception is the DGHR. Her full title will be Director General of the Foreign Service (DGHR) and now also Director of Global Talent (DGT). 
The full rollout apparently will be gradual and will include updating signage, updating the digital platforms, e-mail signature blocks, and vocabularies.  Folks should be in the lookout for the Strategic (MY.THAT.WORD. AGAIN) Communications Unit (SCU); it will be sending around a checklist, style guide, and templates so everyone can start living loudly under the new brand.
A few bureau offices will also change their names:
HR/REE (Office of Recruitment, Examination, and Employment) will now be known as Talent Acquisition (GTM/TAC).
HR/RMA (Office of Resource Management and Organization Analysis) should now be called  Organization and Talent Analytics (GTM/OTA).
HR/SS  (Office of Shared Services)  will now be known as Talent Services (GTM/TS).
The announcement makes clear that this is not/not a reorganization and there will also be no/no change in core functions!
So they’re changing the bureau’s name and a few offices names, but everything else stays the same. Yay!
The new name is a “symbolic piece” that will make folks think of the department’s “modernization.”
Yay!Yay!
Makes a lot of sense, really. Of all the problems facing the Foreign Service these days, a bureau’s rebranding  should be on top of it. Change is never easy, so go slow, people, make sure the logos, signage and new paint job are done right.

 

Related posts: