Tag Archives: LE Staff

US Mission Germany: LE Staff Age Discrimination Cases Fail at the EEOC Over 45-Day Time Limit

October 15, 2021 By in Americans Abroad, Discrimination, EUR|Europe, Locally Employed Staff, Realities of the FS, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , , ,
Below are two three recent cases at the EEOC where former LE staff at US Mission Germany alleged unlawful employment discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Both complainants were already retired when the complaints were filed at the Commission. In both cases, the EEOC affirmed the State Department’s decision. In the first case, the complainant argues that the Commission should waive the 45-day time limit.  In the second case, the complainant’s case failed for failure to initiate EEO counseling within the 45-day time limit. In the third case, the complainant filed the case 15 years later, “well beyond the 45-day limitation period.”
EEOC Appeal No. 2021001196:
Complainant, a U.S. citizen, was hired by the Agency effective October 17, 2005, as a Secretary, Pay Plan 01, Grade 06 (PP-01-06). She was competitively promoted to Administrative Assistant Move Coordinator), PP-01-09 effective April 1, 2007, was reassigned to Administrative Assistant, PP-01-08 effective April 26, 2009, and retired on December 31, 2018. All these jobs were with the American Embassy Berlin in Berlin Germany, part of U.S. Mission Germany. Complainant worked as Locally Employed (LE) Staff, meaning staff who were legal permanent residents of Germany, including U.S. and non-U.S. citizens.

On August 24, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on age because throughout her employment she was ineligible, due to being hired after her 45th birthday, to participate in the Mission Germany Retirement Benefit Plan/Defined Benefit Plan (DBP) for LE Staff.
[…]
The Agency dismissed the EEO complaint because Complainant did not initiate EEO counseling within the 45-day time limit of when she reasonably should have suspected discrimination. It found as follows. Complainant should have reasonably suspected discrimination upon her retirement (December 31, 2018) when she learned that she did not qualify for retirement benefits, and again by February 26, 2020, when post leadership issued cable 20 STATE 21066 denying Complainant and similarly situated LE retirees retirement benefits. The Agency found that Complainant had constructive notice of the 45-day time limit because of numerous posted notices on the Agency’s internet site, its intranet site dedicated to employment information, and on Embassy Berlin’s intranet site. The Agency also dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for various reasons.

The instant appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant argues that when she was hired American Embassy Berlin was in the process of building a new embassy. She writes she was not located in one of official Embassy buildings and because her location did not have access to the Agency and Mission Germany intranet websites she did not have the means to learn of the 45 day time limit. Complainant writes that the above occurred when she worked for Overseas Building Operations (OBO) of the Embassy.
[…]
The record reflects Complainant stopped working in OBO when she was promoted on April 1, 2007, and she does not argue she was unaware of the 45-day time limit thereafter. Rather, Complainant argues that the Commission should waive the 45-day time limit because the Agency deliberately hindered those injured from becoming aware of the age discrimination and because of the gravity of its offense. Complainant argues that she only formed a reasonable suspicion of age discrimination after extensive consultation with experts and similarly situated LE Staff and retirees, and hence her EEO contact was timely. She also argues that her complaint states a claim.
[…]
Complainant argues that after she retired on December 31, 2018, she helped establish a Pension Sub-Committee to meet with management to discuss DBP age discrimination (meaning allow those excluded from DBP due to their age to retroactively join DBP), but on February 26, 2019, via cable, management declined to grandfather them into DBP. Based on this information, we  conclude that Complainant had a reasonable suspicion of discrimination years before she initiated EEO counseling on July 21, 2020. Accordingly, the FAD is AFFIRMED
EEOC Appeal No. 2021001243
Complainant, a U.S. citizen, was hired by the Agency starting on February 24, 1997, to a limited term position as a Commercial Representative at the American Consulate General, Office of the Foreign Commercial Service, in Dusseldorf, Germany. The term appointment allowed for the option of subsequent annual extensions. It appears the Agency annually renewed Complainant’s term employment until he retired on October 31, 2017. In July 2009, Complainant was reassigned from Dusseldorf to Munich, Germany, where he remained until his retirement. Throughout his career with the Agency’s U.S. Mission Germany, Complainant worked as Locally Employed (LE) Staff, meaning staff who were legal permanent residents of Germany.
On July 23, 2020, Complainant initiated EEO counseling and later filed a formal equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint dated August 26, 2020, alleging the Agency discriminated against him based on his age because he was ineligible, due to being hired after his 45th birthday, to participate in Part A of the Mission Germany Retirement Benefit Plan/Defined Benefit Plan (DBP) for LE Staff.
[..]
The Agency dismissed Complainant’s EEO complaint because he did not initiate EEO counseling within the 45-day time limit of when he reasonably should have suspected discrimination. The Agency found that, at the latest, Complainant should have reasonably suspected discrimination when he retired on October 31, 2017, because he did not qualify for retirement benefits at that point. It further found that assuming Complainant did not reasonably suspect discrimination upon his retirement, he should have reasonably suspected discrimination when, on February 26, 2020, via cable (identified as 20 STATE 21066), Agency leadership denied the request by similarly situated former LE Staff, also hired after age 45, for retirement  benefits. The Agency found that Complainant knew or had constructive notice of the 45-day time limit because of posted notices on the Agency’s intranet and internet sites dedicated to employment information. The complaint file contains screen shots of the referenced notices.
[…]
The doctrine of laches is an equitable remedy under which an individual’s failure to pursue diligently his course of action could bar his claim. We find laches applies here. Complainant delayed almost three years after he retired to initiate EEO counseling. While the record may not show exactly when Complainant was notified of the time limit to initiate EEO counseling, we conclude that the record sufficiently supports a finding that he did not act with due diligence in starting his EEO case, justifying the application of the doctrine of laches. Accordingly, the FAD dismissing the complaint for untimely EEO counseling is AFFIRMED.
EEOC Appeal No. 2021001278 :
During the relevant period, Complainant worked as a Computer Management Specialist at the Agency’s US Embassy Berlin in Berlin, Germany.

On July 21, 2020, Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact. Informal efforts to resolve his concerns were unsuccessful.

On August 27, 2020, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination based on age when he was informed that he was not eligible for benefits under Mission Germany’s Retirement Benefit Plan, beginning the date of his employment as a locally employed staff member on October 17, 2015.

In its October 13, 2020 final decision, the Agency dismissed the formal complaint claim for untimely EEO Counselor contact, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2).
Specifically, the Agency determined that Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact on July 21, 2020, which the Agency found was more than forty-five days after the alleged discriminatory event occurred. In addition, the Agency argued that Complainant knew or should have known that retirement benefits were not part of his employment benefit package.
In support of its assertions, the Agency included a copy of Complainant’s offer letter and employment history that he signed on September 9, 2005, acknowledging receipt of the Foreign Service National (FSN) Handbook that explains retirement benefit eligibility.
[…]
The Agency noted further that the instant complaint raises issues of retirement benefits for Locally Employed Staff (LE) which arise under the Foreign Service Act (FSA). Complainant signed the LCP when he began his employment with Mission Germany and properly grieved the LCP provisions. The Agency found that, as a result, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide the allegations Complainant raised in his complaint.

Finally, the Agency found that the subject claim is a collateral attack on the Agency grievance proceeding. The Agency stated that Complainant should have raised his allegations through the Agency grievance proceeding, and not through the EEO complaint process.
[..]
Here, the Agency properly dismissed the formal complaint on the grounds of untimely EEO counselor contact. Complainant was notified in his employment contract in 2005 that he was not eligible for retirement benefits. However, Complainant did not initiate contact with an EEO

Counselor until July 21, 2020, 15 years later and well beyond the 45-day limitation period. We note that in his complaint, Complainant states he did not reasonably suspect discrimination until February 26, 2020, when Agency leadership issued a decision entitled 20 STATE 21066 denying retirement benefits to Complainant and other similarly situated retirees. Even counting from that date, Complainant’s July 21, 2020 initial EEO counselor contact was untimely made.
[..]
The Agency’s final decision dismissing the formal complaint for the reasons stated herein is AFFIRMED.
Not sure what “Agency grievance proceeding” the State Department is referencing here. Is there a grievance system for LE staff overseas, besides getting a hearing from the COM? The Foreign Service Grievance System (FSGB) applies to Foreign Service employees only.
Note: Depending on the browser you’re using, the FSGB cases may not be available to read online; each record may need to be downloaded to be accessible. With Firefox browser, however, you may select “open with Firefox” if you want to read the case file, or save the file to your computer. Please use the search button here to locate specific FSGB records.
###

 

Turkish Court Rules to Keep USG Employee Metin Topuz in Jail

December 13, 2019 By in Career Employees, Federal Agencies, Locally Employed Staff, Realities of the FS, Regulations, Staffing the FS, State Department, Trends, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Reuters reported on December 11, that a Turkish court ruled that U.S. Consulate General Istanbul employee, Metin Topuz remain jail “as his trial on espionage charges continues.”
Reuters previously reported in September that the lawyers for Metin Topuz applied in January to the European Court of Human Rights and that  the ECHR has accepted the application.
The AP previously reported that Topuz began working at the consulate in 1982 as a switchboard operator and was promoted to work as an assistant and translator to the DEA’s American personnel in Turkey a decade later.
Topuz was first arrested in October 2017 and has now been incarcerated for over two years. He is still an employee of the U.S. Government. We’ve been wondering what’s going to happen to him. There’ll be another hearing in March. And on and on it goes? Until when?
The State Department has previously updated its Foreign Affairs Manual in 2017 which provides the terms and conditions for authorizing compensation payments for current and former locally employed (LE) staff who are/were imprisoned by foreign governments as a result of their employment by the United States Government.
So for “amount of benefit” which applies to locally employed staff at State and All Agencies under Chief of Mission Authority (includes DEA):

a. State:  Compensation may not exceed an amount that the State Deputy Assistant Secretary for HR determines to approximate the salary and benefits to which an employee or former employee would have been entitled had the individual remained working during the period of such imprisonment.

b. All other agencies:  Compensation may not exceed an amount that the agency head determines to approximate the salary and benefits to which an employee or former employee would have been entitled had the individual remained working during the period of such imprisonment.

c.  Once the compensation amount has been set, each agency will deny or reduce this compensation by the amount of any other relief received by the employee or other claimant, such as through private legislation enacted by the Congress.

Under the section of “other benefits”:

Any period of imprisonment for which an employee is compensated under this section shall be considered for purposes of any other employee benefit to be a period of employment by the U.S. Government, with the following exceptions:

(1)  A period of imprisonment shall not be creditable toward Civil Service retirement unless the employee was covered by the U.S. Civil Service Retirement and Disability System during the period of U.S. Government employment last preceding the imprisonment, or the employee qualifies for annuity benefits by reason of other services; and/or

(2)  A period of imprisonment shall not be considered for purposes of workers’ compensation under Subchapter I of Chapter 81 of Title 5, U.S.C., unless the individual was employed by the U.S. Government at the time of imprisonment.

Just pause and think about this for a moment.  Local employees are typically are not paid in U.S. dollars but paid in local compensation plans/currencies. The United States Government will only pay the amount that the employee would have been entitled to if she were at work (and not in prison). Were Congress to allocate any compensation, USG will deny or reduce the amount claimed beyond the approximate salary.
So compensated for eight hours a day considered a workweek but none for weekends and 16 hours a day spent incarcerated and away from families or being slammed around by prison hosts? (A former Turkish official assigned to NATO arrested and accused as a “Feto” member spoke of tortures and show trials).
Wow!  This is breathtaking and full of heart, we wanna scream.
Also with very few exceptions, most locally employed staff are not covered by U.S. Civil Service retirement. But former USG local employees who gets in the cross-hairs of their governments and imprisoned due to their employment with the U.S. Government, their imprisonment “shall not be considered for purposes of workers’ compensation”. That only applies if they are employed by the USG at the time of imprisonment.
State/HR’s Overseas Employment should be proud of that ‘taking care of local employees’ award.

 

Related posts:

 

Foreign Service Institute Rolls Out Pompeo’s Pursuit – A ‘One Team’ Four-Day Pilot Course For “Everyone”

September 4, 2019 By in Appointments, Huh? News, Leadership and Management, Locally Employed Staff, Mike Pompeo, Org Culture, Org Life, Pompeo, Realities of the FS, Secretary of State, Spectacular, State Department, Training, Trends Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Last week, Secretary Pompeo announced to agency employees that the Foreign Service Institute has launched its very first “One Team” pilot course.  Apparently, this new course is a four-day pilot  and “builds upon the ideas” expressed in the recently rolled out Professional Ethos. The purpose is  “to unite new employees around the “One Team, One Mission, One Future” vision and the unique history of the Department.”
The “One Team” course will reportedly supplement existing training to provide a common experience for new employees. According to Secretary Pompeo, “For the first time, Foreign Service, Civil Service, Limited Non-Career Appointments, and political appointees will all learn side-by-side. Everyone will grow as one team together”.

In developing the One Team course, we drew heavily from your thoughts on what new Department employees should know and understand about the Department, especially the importance of working together. As a result, the course will:

    • Explore the guiding principles of the Department, including our Professional Ethos;
    • Help employees connect their efforts and that of their colleagues to the Department’s mission;
    • Analyze how the Department’s work connects to the National Security Strategy, and the Department’s other strategic planning mechanisms;
    • Examine the meaning of the Oath of Office;
    • Investigate how the Department’s work directly benefits the American public; and
    • Inform our team about key accomplishments and personnel in the Department’s history that spans more than 230 years.
Supposedly, this course is “light on lectures” but full of “hands-on” engagement with the goal of “helping participants see how they each contribute” to the collective success as an organization.
There are reportedly 85 employees currently enrolled in the pilot course at FSI.  They are expected to provide feedback so the course can be “refined” for “several more trial runs this fall and in early 2020.”
Secretary Pompeo also told State Department employees that the goal is “to finalize the course and begin ramping it up next year to accommodate the roughly 1,600-1,800 new employees that the Department onboards every year.” He also said that “This critical investment will ensure that each one of our future colleagues is best prepared to join our efforts as champions of American diplomacy.”
We can’t tell right now how expensive is this project. Presumably, not as expensive as Rex Tillerson’s redesign project but one never know.  If you’re taking the course, we’re looking forward to hearing your assessment of the course, as well as assessment of the identified learning goals. Is this effective indoctrination, or a waste of dime and time? Are students in a bubble wrap or are they allowed to question the misalignment of stated values and actual practice we can see with our very stable faculties every day? Are trainers able to reconcile the gap between the stated professional ethos and reality? Is the State Department making this course mandatory for the leadership  at the Bureau of International Organizations, for starters or as refreshers?
There is also one glaring omission in the target audience for this course – the largest employee group in the State Department: not Foreign Service, not Civil Service, not Limited Non-Career Appointments, and not political appointees but it’s local employees, spanning over 275 posts, and totaling more than all other employee groups combined.  They do not appear to be included in this training “to unite new employees around the “One Team, One Mission, One Future” vision and the unique history of the Department.” These folks, almost all foreign nationals, often touted as the backbone of the State Department’s overseas presence, do not need to be champions of American diplomacy, do they?
Nothing shouts “One Team” louder than excluding local employees from this supposedly common, and unifying experience for new employees. This “One Team” training is in person right now, we can’t imagine State expending dollars to bring in LE employees from overseas to Washington, D.C. Although, one can make the case that if this is as important as they say it is, then doesn’t it make sense that all employees in the organization are trained and imbued with its specific point of view, and guiding principles? Are they considering an online course? web-based courses?
In any case, when the secretary says that this will help “everyone to grow as one team together”, everyone doesn’t really mean everyone, just all direct-hire American employees. But don’t fret, the $10,000 “One Team” Award is available for uh … Everyone. Even contractors. Oops, uh wait, what’s that?

#

 

@StateDept Lays Off 360 Local Staff at U.S. Embassy Yemen

February 20, 2018 By in Ambassadors, Functional Bureaus, Locally Employed Staff, Realities of the FS, State Department, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted: 1:22 am ET

 

The State Department suspended its embassy operations at the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen and American staff were relocated out of the country  in February 2015. Embassy Sanaa had previously announced the suspension of all consular services until further notice on February 8, 2015.

A January 10 Travel Advisory is a Level 4 Do Not Travel citing terrorism, civil unrest, health, and armed conflict. “Terrorist groups continue to plot and conduct attacks in Yemen. Terrorists may attack with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, and local government facilities.” The Advisory notes that the U.S. government is unable to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens in Yemen.

On February 11, Reuters reported that the U.S. Government has laid off 360 local staff in Yemen. Ambassador Matthew Tueller has reportedly written to to the LE staff saying that “new US State Department regulations about suspended embassies meant he could no longer keep them on.”  A State Department official confirmed the lay-offs to Reuters, saying: “We are extremely grateful for the service of each and every one of these individuals and hope to work with them at some point in the future when we can safely resume operations in Yemen.”

#

A Look at @StateDept Staffing Losses Between FY2016-FY2017 #ThisCouldGetWorse

February 12, 2018 By in Foreign Service, Leadership and Management, Realities of the FS, Reform, Reorganization, Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, Staffing the FS, State Department, Trends, Trump, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Posted: 12:28 pm PT
Updated: Feb 13, 2:02 pm PT

 

We’ve written previously about staffing and attrition at the State Department in this blog. We’ve decided to put the staffing numbers in FY16 and FY17 next to each other for comparison. The numbers are publicly released by State/HR, and links are provided below.

Since the State Department had also released an update of its staffing numbers dated December 31, 2017 for the first quarter of FY2018, we’ve added that in the table below.

FY2016 saw a high water mark in the total number of State Department employees worldwide at 75,231.  There were 13,980 Foreign Service employees (officers and specialists), 11,147 Civil Service employees and 50,104 locally employed (LE) staff members at 275 overseas posts.

The Trump Administration took office on January 20, 2017. On February 1, 2017, Rex W. Tillerson was sworn in as the 69th Secretary of State. With the exception of the month of January, note that Secretary Tillerson was at the helm at State for eight months in FY2017 (February-September 30, 2017), and the first three months of FY2018 (October 2017-December 2017).

With 75,231 overall number as our marker, we find that the State Department overall was reduced by 351 employees at the end of FY2017.  On the first quarter of FY18, this number was reduced further by 476 employees.  Between September 30, 2016, and December 31, 2017 — 15 months — the agency was reduced  overall by 827 employees (including LE employees).

FY2017 did see six, that’s right, six new FS specialists, and 256 LE staffers added to its rolls (see That FSS Number for additional discussion on that six FSS gains). Note that LE staffers are generally host country nationals paid in local compensation plans with non-dollarized salaries.

Data also shows that there were 68 more FS/CS employees overseas. We interpret this to mean 68 more FS/CS employees assigned overseas, and not/not necessarily new hires. The FSO ranks were reduced by 107 officers, and the Civil Service corps was reduced by 500 out of a total of 25,127 American employees by September 2017. The Foreign Service was further reduced by 197 employees, and the Civil Service reduced by 144 employees by December 31, 2017.

Tillerson on Track

Mr. Tillerson goal is reportedly to reduce the department’s full-time American employees by 8 percent by the end of September 2018, the date by which Mr. Tillerson has purportedly promised to complete the first round of cuts. A November 2017 report  calculated the 8 percent as 1,982 people with 1,341 expected to retire or quit, and 641 employees expected to take buyouts. The data below indicates that the State Department’s American FS/CS employees at 25,127 in FY2016 was reduced by 948 employees by December 31, 2017, a reduction of 3.8 percent.  If the buyouts, as reported, occurs in April 2018, Tillerson would be at 6.3 percent reduction by spring, with five months to get to the remaining 1.7 percent to make his 8 percent target by September 30. And this is just the first round.

Projected Attrition

In 2016, the State Department already projected that between FY 2016 and FY 2020, close to 5,400 career FS and CS employees (21 percent) will leave the Department due to various types of attrition (non-retirements, retirements, voluntary, involuntary). That’s an average of 1,080 reduction each fiscal year from FY2016-FY2020.  Even without a threat of staff reduction, it was already anticipated that the State Department was going to shrink by 1,080 employees every year until 2020.  We think that part of this estimate has to do with the graying of the federal service, and the mandatory age retirement for the Foreign Service, but also because of the built-in RIF in the Foreign Service with its “up or out” system. Anytime we hear the State Department trimming its promotion numbers, we also anticipate more departures for people who could not get promoted.

It’s Not a RIF, Just Shrinking the Promotion Numbers

Tillerson made the staff reduction his own by announcing a staffing cut and a buyout. This was obviously a mistake, but what do we know? What this signals to us is a lack of understanding of how the system was intended to work most especially in the Foreign Service. This is a mistake that he could have easily avoided had he not walled himself away from career people who knew the building and the system that he was trying to redesign.

Yes, the reduction in State Department workforce was in the stars whether Tillerson became Secretary of State or not. There is a regular brain drain because the Foreign Service is an “up or out” system. Some diplomats who are at the prime of their careers but are not promoted are often forced to leave.  But to get more people to leave, Tillerson does not even need to announce a RIF, he only need to shrink the promotion numbers. A source familiar with the numbers told us that in 2017, 41 FSOs were promoted from FS01 to the Senior Foreign Service (SFS), down from an average over the past five years of 101, or a 60% decrease. Across the Foreign Service, we understand that the average decrease in promotion numbers is about 30% percent.

In the rules books, the Director General of the Foreign Service is supposed to determine the number of promotions of members of the Foreign Service reviewed by the selection boards by “taking into account such factors as vacancies, availability of funds, estimated attrition, projected needs of the Service, and the need for retention of expertise and experience.” This decisions is based on “a systematic, long-term projection of personnel flows and needs designed to provide: (1)  A regular, predictable flow of recruitment into the Service; (2)  Effective career development to meet Service needs; and (3)  A regular, predictable flow of talent upwards through the ranks and into the SFS.”

The State Department does not even have a Senate-confirmed DGHR. The last Senate confirmed Director General Arnold Chacon left his post in June 2017 (see DGHR Arnold Chacón Steps Down, One More @StateDept Office Goes Vacant). Bill Todd who is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary is now acting Director General of the Foreign Service & acting Director of Human Resources, as well as “M” Coordinator. The Trump Administration has nominated ex-FSO  Stephen Akard to be the next DGHR (see Ten Ex-Directors General Call on the SFRC to Oppose Stephen Akard’s Confirmation).

Burning Both Ends of the Candle

The surprise is not that people are leaving, it is that people that you don’t expect to leave now are leaving or have left. An ambassador who retires in the middle of a three-year tenure. The highest ranking female diplomat who potentially could have been “P” retired. A senior diplomat retiring while at the pinnacle of his diplomatic career five years short of mandatory age retirement. A talented diplomat calling it quits while there’s a whole new world yet to be explored. The highest numbers of departures are occurring at the Minister Counselor level, and at the FS01s and below level (PDF). That said, these numbers as released and shown below, are still within the previously projected attrition numbers for FY2017. The FY2018 numbers is the one we’re anxious to see.

Tillerson’s staff reduction is not even the most glaring problem he gave himself. Basically, Tillerson’s State Department is burning both ends of the candle. The diplomatic ranks were reduced by 225 in December 31 last year but State will reportedly only hire a hundred in FY2018. There are rumors of only hiring at 3 for 1 to attrition. If this is the plan, Tillerson will surely shrink the diplomatic service but by not ensuring a smooth flow of new blood into the Service, he will put the institution and its people at risk. For instance, there are about 2,000 Diplomatic Security agents. Let’s say 21 percent or 420 agents leave the agency between now and 2020, and the State Department hires 140 new agents during the same period. The work will still be there, it will just remain unfilled or the positions get eliminated. A three-person security office could shrink to two, to one, or none. In the meantime, the United States has 275 posts overseas, including high threat/high risk priority posts that require those security agents.  What happens then? Are we going to see more contractors? Since contractor numbers are typically not released by the State Department, we won’t have any idea how many will supplement the agency’s workforce domestically and overseas.

The Foreign Service Specialists (FSS) Count

So if we look at the first table below (thanks JR), note that the total Foreign Service Specialists (FSSs) number is 5,821. A State Department release in November 29, 2017 confirms the 5,821 figure. But this figure as you can see here (PDF) includes Consular Fellow gains (previously known as Consular Adjudicators) in FY2017 (231), FY2016 (141), FY2015 (70), FY2014 (35) and FY2013 (37). The numbers are not clear from FY13 and FY14 because the counts were not done at the end of the fiscal year but midyear and end of the year. As best we can tell, the State Department HR Fact Sheet counts Consular Fellows as part of its FSS count in fiscal years 2015-2017.

The result is that the career FSS count is artificially inflated by the inclusion of the Consular Fellows in the count. While the first table below shows an FSS gain of six specialists, in reality, the CF inclusion in the count hides the career FSS losses in the last three fiscal years that ended. Why does that count matter? Because the Consular Fellow LNA appointments max out at 60 months.

11/29/17  Department of State Facts About Our Most Valuable Asset – Our People (September 30, 2017 Counts) 

Consular Fellows are hired via limited non-career appointments (LNAs). The Consular Fellows program, similar to its predecessor, the Consular Adjudicator Limited Non-Career Appointment (CA LNA) program, is not an alternate entry method to the Foreign Service or the U.S. Department of State, i.e. this service does not lead to onward employment at the U.S. Department of State or with the U.S. government. In fact state.gov notes that Consular Fellows are welcome to apply to become Foreign Service Specialists, Foreign Service Generalists, or Civil Service employees, but they must complete the standard application and assessment processes. So for Congressional folks keeping track of the career Foreign Service numbers, this would be a notable distinction.

Trump’s 2019 Budget and the Next 27% Cut

Trump’s fiscal 2019 proposed budget includes a 27% cut to the State Department. This potentially could get a lot worse; when the Administration starts shrinking programs, and priorities at this rate, it will inevitably create a cascading effect impacting overseas presence and personnel. State Department officials may say no post closures, and no reduction-in-force now but we probably will see those down the road, even if not immediately.  Remember when State was shrunk in the early 1990’s? It took a while before people could start picking up the pieces, and the replenishment for the workforce did not happen until almost a decade later. (see The Last Time @StateDept Had a 27% Budget Cut, Congress Killed ACDA and USIA).

Still, we have to remind ourselves that the budget proposal is just that, a proposal, and that Congress has the power of the purse. Is it foolish to hang our hopes on our elected reps?

HR Fact Sheet as of December 31, 2017 (PDF)

HR Fact Sheet as of 9/30/2017 (PDF)
Oops, looks like this file was subsequently removed after post went up.
See copy via the Internet Archive

HR Fact Sheet as of 9/30/2016 (Archived PDF)

HR Fact Sheet as of 9/30/2015 (PDF)

Below is a bonus chart with the FY2015 staffing numbers (yellow column#1), and the gains/losses between September 2015 to December 2017 (yellow column ##2). We’re sure that Mr. Tillerson’s aides would say that yes, there are staffing losses but look, the State Department’s overall workforce is still larger at the end of 2017 when compared to 2015. And that is true. Except that if you look closely at the numbers, you will quickly note that the gains of 1,346 employees are all LE staffers on local compensation.

 

Related posts:

#

Mr. Smith Writes to Washington, Goes to Bat For Local Staff in the Persian Gulf’s Unfair Labor Markets

July 12, 2016 By in Compensation and Benefits, Dissent, Foreign Service, FS Groups, FSOs, Leadership and Management, Locally Employed Staff, NEA|Near East Asia, Realities of the FS, Reform, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

Posted: 2:43 am ET
Updated: 10:17 am PT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopun

Via AFSA:

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).”

#