@StateDept Building Ops Employees Asked to Pick Top Ten Core Values From a 99 Values Menu

Posted: 3:21 am ET

 

This is OBO according to the state.gov:

The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) directs the worldwide overseas building program for the Department of State and the U.S. Government community serving abroad under the authority of the chiefs of mission. In concert with other State Department bureaus, foreign affairs agencies, and Congress, OBO sets worldwide priorities for the design, construction, acquisition, maintenance, use, and sale of real properties and the use of sales proceeds.

OBO’s mission is to provide safe, secure and functional facilities that represent the U.S. government to the host nation and support our staff in the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives. These facilities should represent American values and the best in American architecture, design, engineering, technology, sustainability, art, culture and construction execution.

OBO folks recently received the following information:

Transformational change is underway within OBO and your involvement is integral to this process. In preparation for the Department’s larger Redesign effort, the OBO Transformation Team is hosting discussions around organizational culture and values to help chart the future OBO course. An organization’s core values are fixed and timeless, inform customers and third parties alike about “who we are, what we believe in and what drives us” and are touchpoints for decision-making. They are not best practices or necessarily related to the mission; they are the north star(s) that remain constant regardless of the operating environment. You will shortly be sent a survey and asked to select those top ten core values that you hold and that you think are representative of OBO’s values. During the discussion on November 14, we will talk about these values and work toward a common understanding about what OBO might need to do, to change or to prioritize in order to make our values present every day in our organization.

We understand that the recipients were instructed to respond to a two-point survey via surveymonkey but the response is reportedly needed by noon on Tuesday, November 14. The first point in the screen grab above says “Core values are those “essential ingredients” that support the OBO vision, shape our culture and reflect what we value. Which ten choices from the list below represent your idea of OBO’s core values?” and one option to click on the “ok” button. If you’re not okay with that description on “core values”, well, there are no other choices.

The second survey point asks recipients to “Choose ten values” by selecting the respective radio buttons from a list of ninety-nine “values” arranged alphabetically from “Accomplishment” to “Wellness.”

Well, this is kinda perplexing. OBO is not/not a stand alone entity but is part of the State Department; it shares its organizational norms and culture, why does it need its very own OBO “fixed and timeless” core values?  How many OBO employees are part of this OBO Transformation Team?

Some folks are just curious if this is going to be another word cloud exercise.

If you’re in the middle of this “transformational change” does this exercise and hosted discussion helpful in making you adjust/deal/understand the changes unfolding in your organization? Are they useful in addressing employee concerns and anxieties? We’re also interested to know — is this exercise being replicated in every geographic and functional bureau of the State Department? How many “transformation teams” are there? What are their team compositions and roles?

In related news, we understand that a Republican nominee who ran and lost in the 2012 U.S. House of Representatives elections will soon be joining OBO as a Schedule C appointee. He will reportedly be supporting directly the bureau director; a permanent OBO director has yet to be named but there is an ambassador leading the bureau in an acting capacity. More OBO news in a bit.

#

Advertisements

Painless Process Exhibit: A Schedule C Employee Takes a Job at the State Department

Posted: 2:46  am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

Remember in 2014,  when the State Department officially rejected criticisms that too many top diplomatic jobs have gone to political appointees rather than to career foreign service officers? The official who rebutted that criticism was the spokesperson of the State Department, Jennifer Psaki, a former political operative and herself, a political appointee (see Political Appointee Rejects Criticisms of Too Many Political Picks at the State Department).

Below is part of an FOIA case filed by Judicial Watch that shows what happens when a Schedule C political appointee gets a job at the State Department. Let us not kid ourselves.  This has been going on for years and years.  This goes on with every new administration. But this is the first time, we get a look at the discussion that goes on behind the scene. It also shows just how deeply the political appointees moved into the bureaucracy in places like IRM where you would not expect to find one. Poor IRM folks did not even know what is a PAS.

Here are a few things we learned:

  • Somebody needs to write a position description (PD) that fits the Schedule C employee to be; no need for USAjobs.gov
  • The position description needs to be classified per OPM guidance for GS position. No worries, somebody will make that happened.
  • Once the position is OPM-classified, bringing the Schedule C employee onboard takes 2-4 weeks.
  • Schedule C pay will match current pay
  • Schedule C employee reports to a PAS; not a traditional supervisor/employee position.

Read the emails below:

 

#

Where, Oh, Where Is Bryan Pagliano’s Outlook PST File?

Posted: 1:38 am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

Microsoft Outlook automatically stores messages, contacts, appointments, tasks, notes, and journal entries in a personal storage folder, also known as a .pst file on the hard disk drive or  the information is probably being stored in a mailbox on an Exchange Server .  According to Microsoft:

To know how to back up your data if you use Outlook with a Microsoft Exchange Server, you have to know where the data is stored. The default delivery and storage location for Outlook data is the Exchange Server mailbox. The Exchange Server administrator usually handles backups of the mailboxes on the server. However, some Exchange Server administrators store Outlook data in a .pst file on your hard disk drive.

So, question is — who was the administrator who handled the backups for IRM folks?

Below via DPB of May 10, 2016:

QUESTION: Yesterday in its court submission, the RNC said that you guys had told them that you would not be producing any of Mr. Pagliano – any more, I guess, of Mr. Pagliano’s emails. Is that correct?

MS TRUDEAU: So thank you for that, because there’s been some unclear reporting on this. So the department has searched Mr. Pagliano’s email PST file and has not located one that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure. The absence of this email file, however, does not indicate that the department has no emails sent or received by him. In fact, we have previously produced through FOIA and to Congress emails sent and received by Mr. Pagliano during Secretary Clinton’s tenure. Furthermore, at no point did the State Department convey to the RNC that we did not intend to produce responsive emails within our possession consistent with our obligations under the law.

QUESTION: Okay, but I mean, are you done? Have you given them everything that they are – should get that you have?

MS TRUDEAU: So we continue to take a look at it. We will produce files as we are required under the law.

QUESTION: Right, I understand that. But do you know at the moment if you have – if there are emails that you have found from that time period that have just not yet been turned over to —

MS TRUDEAU: So the department’s ongoing – conducting a thorough search. I don’t have details on that, but at no point did we say to the RNC that we would not produce.

In February this year, Cause of Action also asked Senator Grassley of the Judiciary Comittee  and Congressman Chaffetz of the House Oversight Committee “to examine the similar issues that have arisen in the context of former Secretary of State Clinton and her closest advisors’ activities in the State Department.”

  1. Why were federal employees communicating over email accounts belonging to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign committee long after the campaign had ended?
  2. Why did Ms. Mills remain in possession and use of a campaign Blackberry during her employment at the State Department and who paid for that device?
  3. Who continued to pay for the hillaryclinton.com email accounts being used by federal employees?
  4. What other email communications, potentially implicating official government business, did federal employees have using Clinton campaign email accounts, and have such email communications been recovered and saved to official government recordkeeping systems?
  5. What other ex-campaign staffers employed at the State Department or elsewhere in the government continued to use their Hillary Clinton campaign email accounts?
  6. Does the email exchange between Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Mills with the subject line “My candidacy” (attached as Ex. 3) implicate a violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from using government time and resources to engage in political and campaign activities?

The emails cited in this letter are available to read here (PDF).

 

#

DOJ Grants Immunity to Bryan Pagliano, Ex @StateDept Staffer and HRC’s Former Server Guy

Posted: 2:16 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

 

#

 

 

OPM Issues Guidelines For Incentive Awards During 2016 Election Period

Posted: 12:55 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

On January 11, Acting Director Beth F. Cobert issued the  OPM guidelines for Appointments and Awards During the 2016 Presidential Election Period. Below is an excerpt on the prohibition of awards  from June 1, 2016 – January 20, 2017:

Under 5 U.S.C 4508, an incentive award may not be given during the period beginning June 1, 2016, through January 20, 2017, to a senior politically appointed officer, defined as:

  1. An individual who serves in an SES position and is not a career appointee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(4), or
  2. An individual who serves in a position of a confidential or policy determining character as a Schedule C employee.

Because Limited Term/Limited Emergency appointees are not “career appointees,” they meet this definition of senior politically appointed officer and cannot receive incentive awards during the 2016 election period.

In addition, all political appointees continue to be covered by a freeze on discretionary awards, bonuses, and similar payments.  This freeze was established by Presidential Memorandum on August 3, 2010 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-freeze-discretionary-awards-bonuses-and-similar-payments) and continues to remain in effect until further notice (https://www.chcoc.gov/content/guidance-awards-fiscal-year-2014). Agencies should continue to apply this freeze in accordance with OPM’s guidance at https://www.chcoc.gov/content/guidance-freeze-discretionary-awards-bonuses-and-similar-payments-federal-employees-serving.

For additional guidance regarding appointments of current or former political appointees to competitive service, non-political excepted service, or career SES position, contact Ana A. Mazzi, Deputy Associate Director for Merit System Accountability and Compliance, at (202) 606-4309 or PoliticalConversions@opm.gov.  For guidance on awards during the 2016 Presidential election period, contact Steve Shih, Deputy Associate Director for Senior Executive Services and Performance Management, by calling (202) 606-8046 or Performance-Management@opm.gov.

Read more here.

 

#

 

About Time For That Washington Ritual: Watch Out For Political Appointees “Burrowing In”

Posted: 12:53 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

Late last year, WaPo wrote about the watchdogs being in the lookout for Obama appointees ‘burrowing in’:

As each administration winds down, some political appointees traditionally seek to continue their government service as career employees beyond the administration they served. Also known as “conversions,” the practice has attracted skepticism from government watchdogs and experts but has become known as something of a Washington ritual.
[…]
In 2010, GAO reviewed 26 federal departments and agencies that converted 139 people from political to career positions from May 2005 through May 2009. While the majority of the conversions followed proper procedures, GAO said at least seven might have violated the merit-based system, including a Department of Veterans Affairs appointee who lacked the required experience and a Justice Department employee who received a career position despite unfavorable recommendations from government interviewers.

A separate WaPo report notes that in May 2006, investigators found that 23 agencies hired 144 political appointees from the G.W.Bush administration into career positions from May 2001 to April 2005. “In at least 18 cases the agencies did not follow proper procedures, the GAO found, citing problems such as hiring appointees with limited qualifications, creating positions for specific individuals and disregarding veterans’ preference laws.”

It also cites a report from 2002 where apparently between October 1998 and April 2001, 111 political appointees and congressional aides from the Clinton administration landed career jobs in 45 executive-branch agencies.

On January 11, 2015, OPM also issued guidelines for processing certain appointments during the 2016 presidential election period.

I.  Appointment of Current or Former Political Appointees to Career Civil Service Positions

Agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before appointing a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code.  A former or recent political appointee is someone who held a political appointment covered by OPM’s policy within the previous five-year period.  OPM reviews these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws.  OPM’s memo and instructions regarding political appointees and career civil service positions is available at https://www.chcoc.gov/content/political-appointees-and-career-civil-service-positions.  The memo includes pre-appointment review checklists to assist agencies in preparing their submissions for review.

Note:  Schedule C employees may not be detailed to competitive service positions without prior OPM approval [see 5 CFR 300.301(c)], and no competitive service vacancy should be created for the sole purpose of selecting a Schedule C or Noncareer SES employee. 

OPM prepared a series of questions and answers (Q&As) to respond to agency inquiries about its policy for pre-appointment reviews and to provide additional details that will help agencies meet the policy’s requirements.  These Q&As, which follow, are also available at http://www.opm.gov/FAQs/topic/ppa/index.aspx?page=1

II.  Appointing Employees to the Senior Executive Service

OPM will continue to conduct merit staffing reviews of proposed career SES selections that involve a current or former political, Schedule C, or Noncareer SES appointee before such cases are formally presented to a Qualifications Review Board (QRB).  Agencies should carefully review all actions that would result in the career SES appointment of a political, Schedule C, or Noncareer SES before forwarding such cases to OPM.

Note:  All SES vacancies to be filled by initial career appointment must be publicly announced (5 CFR 317.501).  Only a career SES or career-type non‑SES appointee may be detailed to a Career-Reserved position (5 CFR 317.903(c)).  

In addition, OPM will suspend the processing of QRB cases when an agency head leaves office or announces his or her intention to leave office, or if the President has nominated a new agency head.  OPM imposes a moratorium on QRB cases as a courtesy to a new agency head when it learns of an agency head’s planned departure.  However, OPM will consider requests for exceptions to such a moratorium on a case-by-case basis.  When a presidential transition occurs, OPM will determine the disposition of QRB cases based upon the policy of the new administration.

In the same announcement, OPM released its Do’s and Don’t’s with burrowing employees:

Effective January 1, 2010, OPM conducts on-going pre-appointment reviews of current or former political appointee, Schedule C employee, and Noncareer SES member appointments to the competitive or exceptive service.  OPM seeks to ensure that the merit system principle of fair and open competition is protected.  With this in mind, these are the two most common reasons for OPM not to approve an appointment or a conversion:

  1. the new position appears to have been designed solely for the individual who is being converted, and/or
  2. competition has been limited inappropriately.

Below are “Do’s” that will help agencies with the conversion approval process:

  • Do make a public announcement through OPM’s USAJOBS when filling competitive or excepted service vacancies from candidates outside your own agency’s workforce.
  • Do carefully consider the Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan for Displaced Employees regulations (5 CFR 330, Subpart G) before making selections.
  • Do ensure the Chief Human Capital Officer and Human Resources Director closely review all such proposed actions to determine if they meet the test of merit.
  • Do ensure the Chief Human Capital Officer and Human Resources Director gather all necessary internal agency approvals before presenting a case to OPM for review.

And “Don’ts”:

  • Don’t create or announce a competitive or excepted service vacancy for the sole purpose of selecting a current or former political appointee, Schedule C employee, or Noncareer SES member.
  • Don’t remove the Schedule C or Noncareer SES elements of a position solely to appoint the incumbent into the competitive or excepted service.

Read more here.

 

#

How to Join the U.S. Diplomatic Service Without Taking the Foreign Service Exam

— Domani Spero
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

Yup, it can be done, if you have some expertise lacking in the Foreign Service, say a nuclear physicist needed in Japan. Or  we imagine, if you’re a tattoo artist who can decipher ISIS tattoos, there maybe work for you (seriously, is there?).  It can also happen if you or your folks know the right people in WashDC.  Or technically, if you’re in the right spot at the right moment, and there is an “urgent need,” it just might be you.

The State Department has updated the categories of non-Foreign Service employees it is able to assign to diplomatic missions overseas this past spring, adding ” Urgent, Limited Need” as a seventh category to the list. Foreign Affairs Manual 3 FAM 2293 (pdf) spells out the rules for appointing not just Department Civil Service employees but also “other individuals” from outside the Foreign Service under a limited non-career appointment (LNA). This is how post may end up with a political ambassador’s chief of staff who has never worked in the Foreign Service, or a speechwriter who is not a Foreign Service officer. Or how posts overseas get their Security Protective Specialists (SPS) who are all hired under LNAs.

3 FAM 2293 TYPES OF LIMITED NONCAREER APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTION 303 OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT (CT:PER-726; 04-18-2014) (State Only) (Applies to Foreign Service and Civil Service employees)

a. Consistent with Section 502 of the Foreign Service Act (22 U.S.C. 3982), the Department’s goal is to ensure that positions designated as Foreign Service positions are filled by assignment of career and career-conditional members of the Foreign Service.

b. Pursuant to Sections 303 and 309 of the Foreign Service Act, the Department appoints Civil Service employees and other individuals from outside the Foreign Service to LNAs as:

(1) Hard-to-Fill (HTF) Candidates: Positions that have not attracted sufficient bidders through the Foreign Service assignments process and thus may be filled by Department Civil Service employees. The procedures and eligibility requirements applicable to HTF positions as well as the scope and frequency of available positions may vary from year to year. Each HTF program will be announced by an ALDAC after consultation with the Foreign Service’s exclusive representative;

(2) Expert Candidates: For these positions, bureaus are to request temporary FTE from the Office of Resource Management (HR/RMA) before presenting an Action Memorandum to the Director, HR/CDA. For example, expert LNAs include, but are not limited to, positions that cannot normally be filled with Foreign Service personnel, such as certain attorney positions at embassies and missions that are filled by lawyers from the Office of the Legal Adviser, and a nuclear physicist position that was temporarily required in Japan.

(3) Developmental Assignment Candidates: These assignments provide experience and exposure to Foreign Service operations for Civil Service personnel through two methods–bureau candidate only advertised positions, for example, A Bureau positions at ELSO and Overseas Development Program positions advertised via CS merit promotion announcements.

(4) Volunteer Cable Candidates: Volunteer cables are sent, as agreed annually with the exclusive representative in the Bidding Instructions, when there are no qualified bidders for a vacancy that has been advertised. The regional bureaus initiate the volunteer cable exercise as a request to HR/CDA to send such a cable based on Foreign Service need. If a Civil Service candidate is selected, the Director General must prepare a Certificate of Need in accordance with 3 FAM 2295 (see also 3 FAM Exhibit 2295 for an example of this certificate);

(5) Schedule C and Other Outside-Hire Candidates: These appointments include, but are not limited to, chief-of-mission office management specialists, eligible family members, and other outside hires;

(6) Exceptional Circumstance Candidates: The Department’s Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources (Director General) may designate certain positions to be filled under an “exceptional circumstance” category (see 3 FAM 2294 below).

(7) Urgent, Limited Need: These limited non-career appointments support specific or exceptional mission-critical needs that existing Foreign Service personnel cannot meet. These needs are considered to be of limited duration, not justifying the creation of a new category of a career Foreign Service employee. HR/RMA will authorize the FTE for these positions. Every two years, the Director General or designee will review each category of LNA falling under this paragraph in consultation with the Foreign Service’s exclusive representative, to determine whether the specific need still exists and existing Foreign Service personnel cannot meet the need.

NOTE: The seven categories in 3 FAM 2293, subparagraphs b(1) through b(7), are the only categories by which a Civil Service employee or other individual from outside the Foreign Service may be appointed to the Foreign Service pursuant to an LNA under Section 303 of the Foreign Service Act. The Department’s procedures for appointing Civil Service employees and other individuals from outside the Foreign Service as LNAs outside these categories are subject to negotiations between the Department and the Foreign Service’s exclusive representative, prior to institution of further categories.

 

The regulations note that “In the event that no bids for exceptional circumstance positions are received from members of the Foreign Service after the positions have been advertised for the required 15 working days, or the Director General determines that the member(s) of the Foreign Service whose bid is (are) not suited to the assignment, the Department may select a Department Civil Service employee or other candidate for appointment to an LNA for assignment to this position, based on a Certificate of Need signed by the Director General in accordance with 3 FAM 2295.”

However, the FAM does not explain fully how the “Urgent, Limited Need” or ULN appointments will be handled. Will these positions be advertised or will it be as painless as the Director General (DGHR) designating the positions as ULNs?  The brief explanation under this category says that “These needs are considered to be of limited duration, not justifying the creation of a new category of a career Foreign Service employee.” And yet, it also says that the DGHR will review LNAs under this category every two years.  How many reviews will be required before a determination needs to be done to justify a regular position?  Will the DGHR similarly be required to issue a “Certificate of Need?” Currently, the FAM only says that a “Certificate of Need” is required when the Department fills a position with an exceptional circumstance candidate or fills a volunteer cable position with a Civil Service employee, but silent when the position is filled under the “Urgent, Limited Need” category.

Most important of all, who is tasked with making a determination that an Urgent, Limited Need exists — the 7th floor, the functional bureau, the regional bureau, post management, the ambassador, a special envoy, a special rep, any top gun in the alphabet soup?

Or would your fairy godfather works just as well?

We must note that according to the regs, LNAs are normally limited to the duration of the specific assignment for which the candidate is hired and normally may not exceed five years in duration. But — the DGHR may propose to extend the limited appointment beyond five years.  Similarly, only the DGHR is tasked with the issuance of a “Certificate of Need.” We are sure that DGHR has the statistics on how many LNAs have been hired under these seven different categories, or for that matter, how is it that two decades on, the temporary Hard-To-Fill category has now become part of normal staffing, but —  those numbers are not for public consumption.

We suspect that Schedule C hires, as well as candidates for Exceptional Circumstance and Urgent, Limited Need categories need not have to bother with usajobs.gov like regular people; that’s the job site for applicants who do not know anybody traveling on the special lanes. And really, if you have the right names on your digital Rolodex, this system works perfectly in your favor.  Ugh! Why bother filling out the KSAs (knowledge, skill, ability) when you can take the short cut.

These new changes bear paying attention to in light of news that a son of a Democratic donor, who was a former WH volunteer snared in the Cartagena Prostitution Scandal is now a full-time policy adviser in the Office on Global Women’s Issues for the U.S. State Department.

We can imagine a time in the future when Schedule C and other non-career appointees may proliferate at the Front Office level. It’s already happening at HQ level, how long before it starts showing up at missions X, Y and Z. Who’s going to say “no” if a political ambassador ask that his/her chief of staff or social media advisor, or speechwriter be designated as a Schedule C or an “Urgent, Limited Need” position?

For those not too familiar with staffing lingo, Schedule C positions are excepted from the competitive service because “they have policy-determining responsibilities or require the incumbent to serve in a confidential relationship to a key official.” According to OPM, appointments to Schedule C positions require advance approval from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel and OPM, but appointments may be made without competition. OPM does not review the qualifications of a Schedule C appointee — final authority on this matter rests with the appointing official.

Are we wrong to presume that final authority on the hiring of Urgent, Limited Need appointee also rests with the appointing official?

Now, we think this is a challenge for the Foreign Service — FS personnel is worldwide available, which means they can be sent anywhere in the world where they are needed. In practice, with the exception of the first two tours upon entering the Service, employees typically only go where they “bid” to go; they are not “directed” or “forced” to go anywhere they don’t want to go.  Even employees who pick assignments in the war zones are volunteers (or voluntold). Better to have volunteers than draftees.

But the world is changing right before our eyes, and the State Department’s personnel and org systems are not changing fast enough to adapt to the needs of our times.  We are convinced that ULN is not going to be the last category on the FAM list and that the State Department will continue to expand the categories of non-career personnel “joining” the Foreign Service under an excuse of not having enough qualified people to send there, wherever there may be. Whether that is actually true or not is hard to say.

For instance, Diplomatic Security’s High Threat directorate reportedly has gaps in its staffing. That’s totally expected given that assignments are dole out a year in advance. What about standing up a new office with the Global Coalition Against ISIL under General Allen?

Not long ago, we’ve heard that several rounds of directed assignments weren’t enough to fill all the vacancies on the S Detail.  Is that reflective of service discipline?  Perhaps. But if you have difficulty filling in the slots for the Secretary’s security detail, one has to start asking the hard questions. And ‘would these positions qualify for urgent, limited need category,’ should not be the main question. Go do a root cause exercise.

We’ve also heard that Office Management Specialists (OMS) has a high attrition rate and that a good number of Civil Service OMS are in the front offices at embassies overseas instead of FS OMS. But surely, you’ve all heard about the FS OMS complaints of lack of a career path?  Go do a root cause exercise.

If the QDDR should have some concrete utility this year, it ought to take a look foremost at the personnel systems of the State Department and how it can make the institution stronger and adapt to the needs of our times.  And perhaps the time has come to seriously look at a unitary personnel system that is agile, and flexible, if we want to see State as our lead foreign affairs agency in fact, not just in name.

 * * *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephanie Kinney: Wither the Foreign Service? — Wham! Read Before You Go-Go

❊ If you want to help keep us around, see Help Diplopundit Continue the Chase—Crowdfunding for 2014 via RocketHub ❊

— Domani Spero

On its home page, the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training shares a funny ha!ha! joke that the Foreign Service has undergone major reforms and tinkering over the past century so much that people often say that if you didn’t like the current system, just wait a few years and it would change.  One of the fascinating periods of change at the State Department occurred during the tenure of William Crocket, the Deputy Under-Secretary of State for Administration from 1963-1967. He  was responsible for bringing Chris Argyris to write a report on the Foreign Service, now only available to read at the State Department library (anyone has a digital copy?).  He did T-groups, organizational development and such.  When Mr. Crockett retired in 1967 many of the programs he started were barely alive or already buried and forgotten.  He was never credited for some that still lives on.  He felt he was an outcast from the Foreign Service and left a disillusioned man. He tried to change the service, and it wasn’t quite ready for him (see pdf of oral history).

We recently just read ADST’s oral history interview with Stephanie Kinney.  We have previously quoted her in this blog in 2009 and are familiar with her ideas for change.  Ms. Kinney is a former Senior Foreign Service Officer, one of the first “tandem couples” (i.e., both are FSOs), and winner of the Department of State’s Lifetime Achievement Award, as well as the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) Harriman Award for her leadership role in creating the Department’s Family Liaison Office (FLO). She was interviewed by Charles Stuart Kennedy in 2010 for ADST.

Below is an excerpt from her 2010 interview.  Check out her full oral history interview here.

[T]he problem at the State Department, I believe, is its lack of institutional leadership and its lack of a single, unified and vibrant corporate cultures. Its culture is still fundamentally 20th century and divided between Foreign Service and Civil Service and the growing overlay of short-term, Schedule C [political appointees] leadership. There are people, pockets of people, working to change that, but it is an uphill battle.
[…]
The drafters of the 1980 Act did not believe in a generalist Foreign Service officer corps. Bill Backus and I argued about “generalists” versus “specialists” ad nauseam; he wanted to create a Foreign Service more like the Civil Service, of which he was a part. He and the other drafters wanted to tie the Foreign Service to the Civil Service and create an equivalency that has never existed because the two personnel systems and cultures are so different. They also created something called LCEs, Limited Career Extensions, which seriously corrupted the Senior Foreign Service through their abuse, and then created an infamous senior surplus, the cost of which was the gutting of a generation of largely 01, political officers in the mid 1990’s. [Note: An FS-01 is equivalent to a GS-15 and is the level before entering the Senior Foreign Service.]

So today what do we have at the State Department? The vast majority of our FSOs have less than five years experience. You have officers expecting to be promoted to 01 who have done only their obligatory consular tour, maybe a tour in their cone, and one or two others.

Another pattern is that many entry level officers now have to do two consular tours, then return to the Department for a desk job and then go to Iraq or Afghanistan, where they do ops with the military. They have never done the first lick of what you would call mainstream diplomacy. One wonders what the impact of this will be on the system?

Now this is not to say that what they have been doing is not a kind of diplomacy; it is and it is utterly essential to the 21st century. But their experience to date is not a kind of work that has prepared them to come back into the civilized world and maintain proper relations and perform with long standing successful states and cultures. These more established states—be they developed or “emerging” like the BRICs [Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, and China], all value tradition and diplomatic savoir faire more than we, and they far outstrip the value and importance of either Iraq or Afghanistan.
[…]
The people to whom you have referred as the high flying “staffers,” have taken no interest in their own institution, which is the base of their power and their work. It is the nature of a profession that it is involved in its own institutions. Otherwise, it is not a profession.

I could not sustain the assertion today that diplomacy is a profession at the Department of State. I think it can be. I think it should be. I am working to move it in that direction, but there is no evidence that the current culture and conditions and leadership are encouraging and helping the younger generation assume the responsibilities and take the measures needed to improve the situation….

But minus strong leadership that seeks to instill common ethics and standards and professional pride, there seems to be growing concern that what we are getting is a group of people for whom little matters beyond one’s own interests. If the Foreign Service culture is all about stepping on someone else to get to the next rung, it is not going to work. You are going to hang separately, because, in my view, that is how it has gotten us where we are.
[…]
When I came to State, there was no such thing as a Schedule C Assistant Secretary. Jimmy Carter took eight FSOs—well they were almost all FSOs under the age of 38 who had resigned over Vietnam, such as Dick Holbrook and Tony Lake—and he made them Assistant Secretaries. They were known as the Baby Eight. So when Ronald Reagan came in he said, “Oh, I will pocket those eight, and I also want a DAS in every bureau,” and so the Deputy Assistant Secretaries became politicized. Today it goes down to the Office Director level. (Note: see this graphic – pdf)
[…]
The politicization, along with Secretaries of State who also have no sense of responsibility for or interest in the Department as an institution, continues to sap the  institution of vitality. That in my view is one of the primary reasons that the institution has fallen on such hard times.

What’s remarkable is that Mr. Crockett in his oral history interview (pdf) conducted in 1990 said practically the  same thing:

“The absence of Secretarial interest in the operations of the Department and many of its functions is often pointed out as one of State’s major deficiencies. Most Secretaries, when faced with the choice of being part of the policy development process or managers of a Cabinet Department, opt for the first to the detriment, I believe, of the second. I am sure it is far more attractive to run around the world like Shultz did–involved in diplomatic activities–that staying at home managing a fairly large organization–certainly a complex one. State is unique among Cabinet Departments in that regard because a Secretary can get by without paying much attention to the management of his Department.”

What’s that they say about change — the more things change, the more they stay the same?

In related news, Secretary Kerry is on travel, this time to Seoul, Beijing, Jakarta, and Abu Dhabi, from February 13-18, 2014. On his first year as Secretary of State, he was on travel 152 days, to 39 countries, travelling 327,124 miles.  If he keep at this, he will break Secretary Clinton’s travel record.  He may also go down in the history books as the Secretary of State who was almost never home.

* * *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta