Tag Archives: Senior Foreign Service

U.S. Senate Confirms 203 Senior Foreign Service Promotions

July 1, 2021 By in Confirmations, Foreign Service, FSOs, Promotions, U.S. Senate Tags: , , ,
13 Going on 14 — GFM: https://gofund.me/32671a27

 

On June 24, the U.S. Senate confirmed 203 nominees for Senior Foreign Service promotions:

2021-06-24 PN357-1 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Deanna Hanek Abdeen, and ending Ellen K. Tannor, which 203 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 13, 2021.

Nominees: PN357-1 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)All Information

The following-named Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of State for promotion within the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Minister-Counselor:

Nominee

  • Deanna Hanek Abdeen, of VA
  • Begzat Bix Aliu, of VA
  • Jorgan Kendal Andrews, of VA
  • Mary Emma Arnold, of VA
  • Jennifer L. Bachus, of VA
  • Lance M. Bailey, of VA
  • Nicholas R. Berliner, of VA
  • Tobin J. Bradley, of DC
  • Katherine Ann Brucker, of DC
  • Robert G. Burgess, of DC
  • Michelle Ann Burton, of WA
  • Kelly S. Cecil, of FL
  • Ricardo Cifredo Colon, of VA
  • Angela Colyvas-McGinnis, of MD
  • Kathryn Taylor Crockart, of NC
  • Jill E. Darken, of IL
  • James R. Dayringer, of MO
  • Marc Douglas Dillard, of VA
  • James Edward Donegan, of VA
  • Kurt D. Donnelly, of VA
  • Abigail Lee Dressel, of CT
  • Patrick M. Dunn, of VA
  • David S. Elmo, of VA
  • Gabriel Escobar, of TX
  • Yuri P. Fedorenko, of MI
  • Tara Elizabeth Feret, of VA
  • Julie Davis Fisher, of VA
  • Kathleen A. Fitzgibbon, of VA
  • J. Robert Garverick, of VA
  • Jennifer Gavito, of MO
  • Ellen J. Germain, of NY
  • Carolyn B. Glassman, of CA
  • Ryan M. Gliha, of AZ
  • Michael Gonzales, of MD
  • Robert F. Hannan, of VA
  • Keith Lee Heffern, of VA
  • Christina Maria Huth Higgins, of VA
  • Melanie Harris Higgins, of VA
  • Elizabeth K. Horst, of DC
  • Paul R. Houston, of VA
  • Bryan D. Hunt, of VA
  • David R. Johnson, of MN
  • Mark Coolidge Johnson, of VA
  • Karen D. Kelley, of HI
  • Martin T. Kelly, of FL
  • Angela M. Kerwin, of VA
  • Cynthia A. Kierscht, of VA
  • Margaret Kurtz-Randall, of NY
  • Helen Grace LaFave, of NH
  • Daniel J. Lawton, of VA
  • Panfilo Marquez, of CA
  • Paul Overton Mayer, of VA
  • Joshua D. McDavid, of WA
  • John W. McIntyre, of TX
  • Deborah Rutledge Mennuti, of DC
  • Jonathan Robert Mennuti, of DC
  • Mario McGwinn Mesquita, of VA
  • Herro K. Mustafa, of CA
  • George M. Navadel, of TX
  • J. Robert Post, of DC
  • Timothy Meade Richardson, of MD
  • Karen Hideko Sasahara, of VA
  • Jonathan L. Shrier, of NY
  • Michael H. Smith, of ME
  • Willard Tenney Smith, of VA
  • Thomas D. Smitham, of MD
  • Howard T. Solomon, of MI
  • Linda S. Specht, of RI
  • Ellen Barbara Thorburn, of FL
  • Christina Tomlinson, of VA
  • Pamela M. Tremont, of VA
  • Hale Colburn VanKoughnett, of DC
  • Lesslie C. Viguerie, of VA
  • Peter H. Vrooman, of NY
  • JoAnne Wagner, of VA
  • Eva Anne Weigold Schultz, of VA
  • Aleisha Woodward, of VA
  • Marta Costanzo Youth, of MD
Continue reading →

Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch Retires From the Foreign Service After 34 Years of Service

February 7, 2020 By in Ambassadors, Foreign Service, FSOs, Realities of the FS, Staffing the FS, State Department, Trends, Trump, U.S. Missions, Ukraine Tags: , , , , , ,

Updated: 3:54 pm PST with correction on Amb. Yovanovitch’s promotion to Career Minister in 2016.

Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine who was one of the top witnesses in the Trump Impeachment hearings reportedly retired from the State Department.  Ambassador Yovanovitch served 34 years in the U.S. Foreign Service.  She previously served as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia (2008-2011) under President Obama and to the Kyrgyz Republic (2005-2008) under President George W. Bush.
Based on her online bio, Ambassador Yovanovitch is 61 years old, which is four years short of the mandatory retirement in the U.S. Foreign Service. (Foreign Service employees are eligible to retire at age 50 with 20 years of service).
Ambassador Yovanovitch was promoted to the Senior Foreign Service Class of Minister-Counselor in 2007. She was ranked Minister-Counselor during her last two appointments as Ambassador to Armenia in 2008 and as Ambassador to Ukraine in 2016. The maximum time-in-class (TIC) limits for Minister-Counselor is “14 years combined TIC with no more than seven years in the class of Counselor.” We don’t have public details beyond what is on congress.gov and the FAM, but it looks like she has not reach her maximum TIC in 2020. It is also likely that she was eligible for promotion to Career Minister prior to her retirement. Correction: Amb. Yovanovitch was promoted to Career Minister in 2016 (thanks B!)
So why would she retire? Perhaps she got exhausted by all the controversy. Or perhaps she simply realized that, given her rank, she could not find a warm home in Pompeo’s State Department nor is she going to get another presidential appointment under this Administration.  Having been yanked out of one assignment without an onward assignment, with a huge WH target on her back, we’ve always suspected that she would not be able to return to Foggy Bottom or get another overseas assignment.
Per 3 FAM 6215 career members of the Foreign Service who have completed Presidential assignments under section 302(b) of the Foreign Service Act, and who have not been reassigned within 90 days after the termination of such assignment, plus any period of authorized leave, shall be retired as provided in section 813 of the Act. 
Ambassador Yovanovitch was detailed to a university for a year. As a career member of the Foreign Service,  she was recalled from an assignment but wasn’t fired after her posting at the US Embassy in Kyiv. In reality, her career ended in Kyiv. Without that university assignment, it’s likely that she would have been subjected to the 90-day rule and be forced into mandatory retirement last summer.
In any case, that university assignment would have ran out this spring but in May 2019, it allowed the State Department to pretend that this was a normal job rotation. For the State Department, it also avoided one spectacle: given that the recall quickly became very high profile and political, they would have had to explain her mandatory retirement in Summer 2019 following the conclusion of her presidential appointment without an onward assignment.
Her case underscores some realities of the Foreign Service that folks will continue to wrestle with for a long time. How breathtakingly easy it was for motivated bad actors to whisper in powerful, receptive ears and ruin a 34-year career. You may have thought that Administration officials could not possibly have believed the whispers, that over three decades of dedicated service meant something, but believed them they did. Since this happened to her, how easily could it happen to anyone, at any post, at any given country around the world? Then to realize how thin the protection afforded career employees, and how easily the system adapts to the political demands of the day.
Note that in the Foreign Service, retirements may be either voluntary or involuntary. According to State, involuntary retirements include those due to reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65 (except DS special agents where the mandatory retirement age is 57), which cannot be waived unless an employee is serving in a Presidential appointment, or if the Director General of the Foreign Service determines that the employee’s retention in active duty is in the “public interest”; and those who trigger the “up-or-out” rules in the FS personnel system (e.g., restrictions in the number of years FS employees can remain in one class or below the Senior Foreign Service threshold).
Voluntary non-retirements include resignations, transfers, and deaths. Involuntary non-retirements consist of terminations, as well as “selection out” of tenured employees and non-tenured decisions for entry level FS employees.
Between FY 2018 and FY 2022, the Department projected that close to 5,900 career CS and FS employees will leave the Department due to various types of attrition.  Most FS attrition reportedly is due to retirements. In FY 2017, 70 percent of all separations from the FS were retirements. For the FY 2018 to FY 2022 period, the attrition mix is expected to be 80 percent retirements and 20 percent non-retirements.

 

Related posts:

 

 

All Promotions Into/Within the Senior Foreign Service Must be Vetted by White House?

March 28, 2018 By in Foreign Service, FSOs, Functional Bureaus, Huh? News, Realities of the FS, Spectacular, Staffing the FS, State Department, Trends, Trump Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted: 1:23 am  ET

 

State/HR recently sent a Frequently Asked Questions to newly promoted OCs concerning the differences between being an FS-01, the highest rank in the regular Foreign Service, and as OC, the starter rank in the Senior Foreign Service. The FAQ talks about pay, bidding, EERs, benefits, and of course, promotions. And then there’s this question, and apparent answer:

Q: When are promotions from FS-01 to OC effective?
Answer: Promotion boards issue a list in the fall of officers “recommended” for promotion from FS-01 to OC, OC to MC and MC to CM. However, all promotions into and within the Senior Foreign Service must be vetted by the White House, confirmed by the Senate and attested by the President. This process can take several months. Promotions into and within the SFS are effective the first pay period following Presidential attestation. However, you may start bidding as an OC as soon as the promotion list is released by the board.

Yo! You know this is nuts, right? The White House can barely vet its own staffers, and it will now vet all promotions of FSOs into and within the Senior Foreign Service? With one exception that we are aware of (and we’ll write about that case separately), this WH vetting requirement is new, and yes, we remember the “improved” vetting required by the SFRC back in 2015 (SFRC Bullies Diplomats Up For Promotion to Self-Certify They Have Not Been Convicted of Any Crime).  Is the WH also vetting all senior promotions out of the Pentagon? Who’s going to be doing this and what does this vetting includes? Also whose great idea was this, pray tell?  Will State/HR and A/DGHR soon say that this vetting has always been done by the White House since the beginning of whatevs?

#


Watch Out For the 90-Day Rule: Mandatory Retirement For Former Presidential Appointees

February 20, 2018 By in Ambassadors, Foreign Service, FSOs, Functional Bureaus, Org Life, Realities of the FS, Regulations, Reorganization, Retirement, Staffing the FS, State Department, Trends Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Posted: 12:54 am ET

 

Yo!

3 FAM 6215
MANDATORY RETIREMENT OF FORMER PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES
(CT:PER-594;   03-06-2007)
(State only)
(Applies to Foreign Service Employees)

a. Career members of the Service who have completed Presidential assignments under section 302(b) of the Act, and who have not been reassigned within 90 days after the termination of such assignment, plus any period of authorized leave, shall be retired as provided in section 813 of the Act.  For purposes of this section, a reassignment includes the following:

(1)  An assignment to an established position for a period of at least six months pursuant to the established assignments process (including an assignment that has been approved in principle by the appropriate assignments panel);

(2)  Any assignment pursuant to section 503 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as amended;

(3)  A detail (reimbursable or nonreimbursable) to another U.S. Government agency or to an international organization;

(4)  A transfer to an international organization pursuant to 5 U.S.C. sections 3581 through 3584; or

(5)  A pending recommendation to the President that the former appointee be nominated for a subsequent Presidential appointment to a specific position.

b. Except as provided for in paragraph c of this section, a reassignment does not include an assignment to a Department bureau in “overcomplement” status or to a designated “Y” tour position.

c.  The Director General may determine that appointees who have medical conditions that require assignment to “medical overcomplement” status are reassigned for purposes of Section 813 of the Foreign Service Act.

d. To the maximum extent possible, former appointees who appear not likely to be reassigned and thus subject to mandatory retirement under section 813 of the Act will be so notified in writing by the Director General not later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the 90-day reassignment period.

#

Senate Confirms Four Foreign Service Lists Including Two Pretty Thin Promotion Lists (Updated)

February 12, 2018 By in Confirmations, Foreign Service, FSOs, Functional Bureaus, Promotions, Realities of the FS, Staffing the FS, State Department, Trends, U.S. Senate Tags: , , , ,

Posted: 3:43 am ET
Updated 2:04 pm PT

 

On January 30, the U.S. Senate confirmed four Foreign Service lists including two promotion lists that look pretty thin.  Are these all the names of FSOs/FSSs who got promoted, 98 in all? There were no promotions to the Career Ambassador (CA). or the Career Minister (CM) ranks, hey? How normal is that? 

According to State/HR’s count from last year (PDF), there were  19 Career Ministers in the entire Foreign Service at the end of FY2017. Unless there’s a separate list floating around, we’re not seeing the CA/CM promotions. There could also be a reduction in the Minister Counselor (MC) and Counselor numbers given that the count published by State was dated September 30, 2017 (Department of State Facts About Our Most Valuable Asset – Our People (September 30, 2017 Counts) and we have no idea how many departures by rank had occurred between October to January 2018.

Update: On November 16, 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed four nominees to the rank of Career Minister (see PN 2100). 

The following-named Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of State for promotion within the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Career Minister:

  • John R. Bass II, of VA (current ambassador to Kabul)
  • John D. Feeley, of DC (will retire effective March 2018)
  • Judith G. Garber, of VA (current Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environment and Science (OES)
  • Sung Y. Kim, of VA (current ambassador to Manila)

With the promotion of 4 career employees into the Career Minister rank, the State Department now appears to have 23 Career Minister rank members (4 new promotions, 19 FSOs, 0 FSSs). See PDF. That’s the same low number as in 2012, but will dipped to 22, same as in 2009, when Ambassador Feeley retires in March 2018. The lowest dips occurred at 19 both in 2008 and 2017.

With the promotion of  33 career employees into the Minister Counselor rank, the State Department now appears to have 447 Minister-Counselor rank members (33 new promotions, 384 FSOs, and 29 FSSs with Minister-Counselor rank).  See PDF.

With with promotion of 64 career employees into the Counselor rank, the State Department now appears to have s 611 Counselor-rank members (64 new promotions, plus 431 FSOs, and 116 FSSs with Counselor rank). See PDF.

This is our best guess at this time given the published numbers available and the congress.gov data.

2018-01-30 PN1434 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Alyce S. Ahn, and ending Michele D. Woonacott, which 90 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 8, 2018.

2018-01-30 PN1435 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Priya U. Amin, and ending Erik Z. Zahnen, which 118 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 8, 2018.

2018-01-30 PN1433 Foreign Service |Nominations beginning Marc Clayton Gilkey, and ending Mark A. Myers, which 6 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 8, 2018. (5 PROMOTIONs)

The following-named Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of Agriculture for promotion within the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Minister-Counselor:

Marc Clayton Gilkey, of CA

The following-named Career Members of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor

Deanna M. J. Ayala, of MN

Darya Chehrezad, of CA

Morgan A. Perkins, of MD

Stanley Storey Phillips, of MT

/4

2018-01-30 PN1436-1 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Angela P. Aggeler, and ending Mari Jain Womack, which 93 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 8, 2018. (93 PROMOTIONS)

The following-named Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of State for promotion within the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Minister-Counselor:

Angela P. Aggeler, of DC

Peter H. Barlerin, of MD

Colombia A. Barrosse, of VA

MaryKay Loss Carlson, of VA

Julie J. Chung, of CA

Karen Kaska Davidson, of TX

Kelly Colleen Degnan, of DC

Chayan C. Dey, of FL

John E. Fitzsimmons, of MD

Eric Alan Flohr, of FL

Anthony Godfrey, of VA

Peter T. Guerin, of NM

Lisa Kennedy Heller, of VA

Nicholas Manning Hill, of NY

J. Baxter Hunt III, of VA

Henry V. Jardine, of VA

Lisa A. Johnson, of VA

Steven C. Koutsis, of MD

Kamala Shirin Lakhdhir, of DC

Karin Melka Lang, of VA

Jeanne Marie Maloney, of VA

Ervin J. Massinga, of WA

Brian David McFeeters, of VA

Karen E. Mummaw, of VA

Richard Carl Paschall III, of VA

Lisa J. Peterson, of VA

Jo Ann E. Scandola, of DC

Mark Toner, of MD

Frank J. Whitaker, of SC

Michael L. Yoder, of VA

Andrew R. Young, of CA

David J. Young, of VA

Stephen Arthur Young, of FL

/33

The following-named Career Members of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor:

Begzat Bix Aliu, of VA

Robert Lloyd Batchelder, of VA

Andrea Renee Brouillette-Rodriguez, of VA

Rachel L. Cooke, of VA

Susannah E. Cooper, of MD

Jason Richard Cubas, of FL

Abigail Lee Dressel, of CT

Marion Johnston Ekpuk, of VA

Jill Marie Esposito, of VT

Daniel J. Fennell, of FL

Eric Vincent Gaudiosi, of MD

William Robert Gill Jr., of VA

Ryan M. Gliha, of AZ

David J. Greene, of DC

Keith Lee Heffern, of VA

Elizabeth K. Horst, of MN

Martin T. Kelly, of FL

Angela M. Kerwin, of VA

William H. Klein, of CA

Kimberly Krhounek, of DC

Christopher A. Landberg, of DC

John David Lippeatt, of VA

Gregory Daniel LoGerfo, of VA

Ian Joseph McCary, of NY

David Ray McCawley, of CA

John W. McIntyre, of TX

Heather Christine Merritt, of VA

Mario McGwinn Mesquita, of VA

Marcus Robert Micheli, of CA

Andrew Thomas Miller, of VA

Mark David Moody, of MO

Joyce Winchel Namde, of VA

Scott McConnin Oudkirk, of VA

Jonathan G. Pratt, of CA

Jose Kieran Santacana, of DC

Jennifer L. Savage, of FL

William Steuer, of TX

Donn-Allan G. Titus, of FL

Christina Tomlinson, of VA

John E. Warner, of VA

Kami Ann Witmer, of PA

/41

The following-named Career Members of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, and a Consular Officer and a Secretary in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

Paul Avallone, of FL

Philip Karl Barth, of VA

Wade L. Boston, of VA

David L. Duncan, of UT

Vida M. Gecas, of VA

Glenn E. Harms, of VA

Joy D. Herrera-Baca, of VA

Tuan Q. Hoang, of WA

Jason R. Kight, of VA

Jacqueline Levesque, of VA

Luis A. Matus, of VA

Chanda C. McDaniel, of MO

William I. Mellott, of AZ

Thad Osterhout, of VA

Michael C. Ranger, of VA

Paul L. Schaefer, of VA

Robert A. Solomon, of PA

Mark A. Wilson, of VA

Mari Jain Womack, of TX

/19

#

AFSA: FSOs Will Now Compete in a “Scavenger Hunt” to Be Considered for Promotion Into the Senior Foreign Service

January 9, 2018 By in Foreign Service, FSOs, Professional Development, Realities of the FS, Regulations, Staffing the FS, State Department, Trends Tags: , , , ,

Posted: 1:07 pm PT

 
AFSA’s State VP Kenneth Kero-Mentz sent out a message today on the new Professional Development Program and new requirements for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, Promotion Criteria Changed: Opening Your Window. If you have not seen it yet, see below via afsa.org:

 

Over a year ago, the Department informed AFSA that it wanted to change the criteria for those seeking entry into the Senior Foreign Service under the “Professional Development Program.” While AFSA supported many of the changes included in the PDP, we expressed deep concern about the so-called “service needs” proposal. Currently, those FSOs interested in opening their window must have served at least one tour at a 15% or higher hardship post. The Department told us it wanted to mandate that FSOs complete a tour at a 25% or greater hardship differential post from entry into the Foreign Service (or a tour at an unaccompanied post from entry), AND a second tour at a 20% or greater differential post after tenure.

During the extended negotiations, the Department’s justification for this radical shift changed constantly. Initially, the proposed changes were necessary to fill vacant positions at greater hardship posts. AFSA pointed out that the Department’s own data revealed that vacancy rates at 20% and higher differential posts are actually lower than the vacancy rates at 0% and 15% posts. Next, the Department claimed that the real problem was that there were too few and/or subpar bidders at certain hardship posts in Africa and South Central Asia. We countered that the recent changes to Fair Share rules and bidding privileges will drive more bidders to 20% and higher posts, alleviating that possible concern. But then the Department changed its rationale a third time, arguing that FSOs need to be exposed to service in high differential posts to build the leadership skills necessary for promotion into the SFS.

AFSA fought back, and took the dispute all the way to the Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel (FSIDP) where we argued strenuously that this move is unnecessary (based on the Department’s own data), directly contradicts the Foreign Service Act of 1980, harms members of the Foreign Service, and is untenable. Implementing this proposal would result in a less diverse SFS, we argued, and it contravenes both Section 101 of the Act (which states that “the members of the Foreign Service should be representative of the American people”) as well as Secretary Tillerson’s stated goal of a more diverse Foreign Service. Unfortunately, the FSIDP sided with the Department.

Our position has remained consistent: if the Department can identify a realproblem, AFSA is committed to working with the Department to solve it. Not only did the Department fail to provide evidence of a genuine problem, its proposed solution to its ever-evolving alleged problem is contrary to the Act’s SFS promotion criteria in that it undermines the legal authority of the Selection Boards. Adoption of the Department’s proposal guts the SFS promotion process by transferring decisions regarding the future leadership of the Department from the Selection Boards to HR. Instead of competing for promotion on the strength of their performance evaluations, FSOs will now compete in a “scavenger hunt” for the limited number of positions at 25% or higher posts to meet an arbitrary criterion to be allowed to open their windows and be considered for promotion into the SFS by the Selection Boards. We are quite certain this change will lead to unforeseen difficulties, not only for FSOs but also for regional bureaus, especially those with many FSO positions to fill at 15% posts.

This change in criteria will have an adverse impact on many Foreign Service employees who will not be able to meet the requirements due to the lack of available positions and their own or their family members’ personal situations, thus, undermining the diversity of the SFS. We argued—and provided concrete examples—that many of the greater hardship posts are even more challenging to serve in for tandem couples, for those with medical concerns, for families with children with special needs, or for LGBT FSOs where privileges and immunitiesmay not be granted to their spouses and families. And what about for those who are consistently promoted at the first opportunity—our “fast risers”—are they expected to focus only on hardship posts as they move up?

Unfortunately, now that the FSIDP has ruled, the Department announced this change on December 29 with the release of 17 STATE 127376. We believe this change is likely to result in numerous grievances from FSOs who bid, year after year, on greater hardship posts but were not assigned to such posts, and so we urge all FSOs to keep records of bidding. The Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB) “has long recognized that agencies are responsible for providing Foreign Service Officers with opportunities to advance their careers… [T]his provides a necessary protection in an ‘up or out’ promotion system and is grounded in the FSA and agency regulations.” Further, “a Foreign Service agency has an affirmative obligation to provide each of its officers with fair and reasonable opportunities for development and retention in the Service… [T]he agency cannot simultaneously engage in a process that deprives its officers of those very opportunities…”

AFSA has repeatedly told the Department that it wants to help solve problems in filling FSO positions at greater hardship posts, if they truly exist, but to date the Department has failed to provide any evidence of an actual problem. While AFSA will continue to be collaborative in its labor management relationship with the Department—and we are pleased that our negotiations with the Department yielded many positive changes in the PDP compared with earlier versions—we will not be complicit in the pursuit of a “solution” for which there is no problem. Further, the Department’s changes to the PDP will further complicate bidding simply because there are not enough hardship positions to meet demand. There is no guarantee that talented FSOs, who have to this point progressed quickly through the ranks, will be able to meet these additional requirements to enter the Senior Foreign Service within the prescribed time frame. Those FSOs unable to meet these new requirements—and, given the scarcity of positions available, that will be many FS-01s—will not be allowed to open their windows unless they can convince HR to grant them a waiver.

With the recent FSIDP decision, the Department is now free to implement this radical change through the Professional Development Program. It is AFSA’s intention to approach discussions with the Department with the goal of minimizing adverse impact of this new policy on our members’ careers to the greatest extent possible. Looking toward the future, we urge all members of the Foreign Service to maintain good records of their bidding efforts, and stay tuned as we work with the Department to ensure that the “waiver” portion of its proposal is developed into a robust, transparent, and well-defined system. In accordance with the Department’s ALDAC, those with policy questions should direct their concerns to careerdevhelpdesk@state.gov and feel free to share your concerns with us as well.

Despite our disappointment, we look forward to continuing with our overall collaborative and positive relationship with the Department.

 

#

AFSA Shouts “Fire!” and a @StateDept Spox on Background Asks, “Fire, What Fire?”

November 9, 2017 By in Ambassadors, Diplomatic Security, Foreign Service, FSOs, Leadership and Management, Realities of the FS, Reorganization, Resignations, Retirement, Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, SFRC, Staffing the FS, State Department, Top Ranks, Transformation, Trends, Trump Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted: 2:58 pm PT
Follow @Diplopundit

 

The piece below, in case you have not read it yet, is an advance copy of AFSA President Barbara Stephenson’s opinion essay on the depletion of the Foreign Service career ranks. Not NYT or the Washington Post but for a December 2017 column in the Foreign Service Journal, the group’s trade publication with a reported circulation of 17,500 and approximately 35,000 readers (this column was also circulated via an email marketing service). We’ve been watching the departures from the State Department since January, and this is the first time we’re seeing these numbers. And frankly, the first time we’re hearing the alarm from the “voice of the Foreign Service.” We have some thoughts below after the piece.

 

Time to Ask Why
December 2017 Foreign Service Journal
President’s Views
By AFSA President Ambassador Barbara Stephenson

I begin with a reminder that we, the members of the career Foreign Service, have an obligation as stewards of our institution to be effective advocates for why diplomacy matters. That requires some skill in explaining how diplomacy works.

While raising awareness of and appreciation for the Foreign Service is a longstanding goal, one AFSA has pursued with renewed vigor and impact over the past couple years, the need to make the case for the Foreign Service with fellow Americans and our elected representatives has taken on a new urgency. The cover of the Time magazine that arrived as I was writing this column jarred me with its graphic of wrecking balls and warning of “dismantling government as we know it.”

While I do my best, as principal advocate for our institution and as a seasoned American diplomat, to model responsible, civil discourse, there is simply no denying the warning signs that point to mounting threats to our institution—and to the global leadership that depends on us.

There is no denying that our leadership ranks are being depleted at a dizzying speed, due in part to the decision to slash promotion numbers by more than half. The Foreign Service officer corps at State has lost 60 percent of its Career Ambassadors since January. Ranks of Career Ministers, our three-star equivalents, are down from 33 to 19. The ranks of our two-star Minister Counselors have fallen from 431 right after Labor Day to 369 today—and are still falling. 

These numbers are hard to square with the stated agenda of making State and the Foreign Service stronger. Were the U.S. military to face such a decapitation of its leadership ranks, I would expect a public outcry. Like the military, the Foreign Service recruits officers at entry level and grows them into seasoned leaders over decades. The talent being shown the door now is not only our top talent, but also talent that cannot be replicated overnight. The rapid loss of so many senior officers has a serious, immediate, and tangible effect on the capacity of the United States to shape world events.

Meanwhile, the self-imposed hiring freeze is taking its toll at the entry level. Intake into the Foreign Service at State will drop from 366 in 2016 to around 100 new entry-level officers joining A100 in 2018 (including 60 Pickering and Rangel Fellows).

Not surprisingly, given the blocked entry path, interest in joining the Foreign Service is plummeting. I wrote with pride in my March 2016 column that “more than 17,000 people applied to take the Foreign Service Officer Test last year,” citing interest in joining the Foreign Service as a key indicator of the health of the institution. What does it tell us, then, that we are on track to have fewer than half as many people take the Foreign Service Officer Test this year?

As the shape and extent of the staffing cuts to the Foreign Service at State become clearer, I believe we must shine a light on these disturbing trends and ask “why?” and “to what end?”   

Congress rejected drastic cuts to State and USAID funding. The Senate labeled the proposed cuts a “doctrine of retreat” and directed that appropriated funds “shall support” staffing State at not less than Sept. 30, 2016, levels, and further directed that “The Secretary of State shall continue A-100 entry-level classes for FSOs in a manner similar to prior years.”

Given this clear congressional intent, we have to ask: Why such a focus on slashing staffing at State? Why such a focus on decapitating leadership? How do these actions serve the stated agenda of making the State Department stronger?

Remember, nine in ten Americans favor a strong global leadership role for our great country, and we know from personal experience that such leadership is unthinkable without a strong professional Foreign Service deployed around the world protecting and defending America’s people, interests and values.  Where then, does the impetus come from to weaken the American Foreign Service?  Where is the mandate to pull the Foreign Service team from the field and forfeit the game to our adversaries?

#

AFSA says that the Foreign Service officer corps “has lost 60 percent of its Career Ambassadors since January.” We winced when we saw that one. Not all career diplomats attain this rank; in fact, only a handful of individuals are nominated by the President to become Career Ambassadors but this is the very top rank of the Foreign Service, equivalent to a four-star general. Imagine if the Pentagon lost 60 percent of its 0-10 but way, way worse because the Foreign Service is a much smaller service, and the loss of one or two officials have significant impact to the leadership ranks.

When we saw the AFSA message Tuesday night, we noticed that social media started latching on to the 60 percent loss.  AFSA could have used actual numbers as it did with the break down of the second and third top ranks in the FS, but for its own reason, it used the percentage instead of actual numbers for the career ambassadors. So that caused a mild feeding frenzy that’s not helpful because when folks realize that 60 percent is really 3 out of 5 career ambassadors, they won’t be happy.

Continue reading →

Senate Confirmations: Promotion List – Senior FSOs to Class of Career Minister

December 19, 2016 By in Ambassadors, Foreign Service, FSOs, Promotions, State Department, Top Ranks, U.S. Senate Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted: 12:26 am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

The following-named Career Members of the Senior Foreign Service of the Department of State for promotion within the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Career Minister (FE-CM):

Robert Stephen Beecroft California
Arnold A. Chacon Virginia
Tracey Ann Jacobson District of Columbia
Geoffrey R. Pyatt California
Marie L. Yovanovitch Connecticut

2016-12-07 PN1909 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Robert Stephen Beecroft, and ending Marie L. Yovanovitch, which 5 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 29, 2016.

#

 

Senate Confirmations: Promotion List – Career FSOs to Class of Counselor

December 19, 2016 By in Confirmations, Foreign Service, FSOs, Promotions, State Department, U.S. Senate Tags: , , , ,

Posted: 12:22 am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

The following-named Career Member of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor, effective February 21, 2016.

Nominee State
Laura Ann Griesmer Washington

2016-12-07 PN1908 Foreign Service | Nominations beginning Robert L. Adams, and ending Laura Ann Griesmer, which 181 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 29, 2016.

The following-named Career Members of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service of the United States of America, Class of Counselor:

Nominee State
Deanna Hanek Abdeen Virginia
Stephen Anderson Montana
Keith Mims Anderton Virginia
Douglas Joseph Apostol California
Constance C. Arvis Virginia
Jennifer L. Bachus Kansas
Doron D. Bard Washington
Nicholas R. Berliner Virginia
Marcia P. Bosshardt Virginia
David Noel Brizzee Idaho
Dana M. Brown California
Robert G. Burgess District of Columbia
Carol-Anne Chang Virginia
Angela Colyvas-Mcginnis Pennsylvania
Robert E. Copley Colorado
Chad Parker Cummins California
James R. Dayringer Montana
John C. Dockery Texas
Joel Ehrendreich New York
Jewell Elizabeth Evans District of Columbia
Alan E. Eyre Maryland
Eric A. Fichte Washington
Troy Damian Fitrell Virginia
Richard Harris Glenn Virginia
Matthew Eugene Goshko District of Columbia
Ramond F. Greene III District of Columbia
Theresa Grencik Maryland
Anne E. Grimes Virginia
Edward G. Grulich Virginia
Margaret Hawthorne District of Columbia
John Hennessey-Niland Virginia
Christina Maria Huth Higgins Virginia
Melanie Harris Higgins Florida
Lisa S. Kenna Maryland
Jonathan Stuart Kessler Virginia
Cynthia A. Kierscht Minnesota
Michael F. Kleine District of Columbia
Christopher M. Krafft Virginia
Helen Grace LaFave Virginia
Adam Duane Lamoreaux Oregon
Gregory F. Lawless Virginia
Phillip Linderman Virginia
Charles Luoma-Overstreet Virginia
Michael Macy Florida
Jerrold L. Mallory California
Bettina A. Malone Virginia
Ann Barrows McConnell California
Meredith Clare McEvoy Virginia
Richard Mei Jr. Kentucky
Alan D. Meltzer Virginia
Jane S. W. Messenger Maryland
Joaquin F. Monserrate Puerto Rico
Mitchell R. Moss Virginia
Phillip R. Nelson Montana
Elisha Nyman Maryland
Gary Glenn Oba Arkansas
Martha E. Patterson Texas
Roy Albert Perrin Virginia
David D. Potter Virginia
Virginia Sher Ramadan Virginia
Walter Scott Reid Virginia
Jeffrey James Robertson California
Hugo F. Rodriguez Jr. District of Columbia
Russell A. Schiebel Texas
Jonathan A. Schools Texas
Micaela A. Schweitzer-Bluhm Virginia
Mark Wayne Seibel North Carolina
Jonathan L. Shrier New York
Susan Marie Shultz District of Columbia
Eugenia M. Sidereas District of Columbia
David W. Simons Virginia
Jefferson D. Smith Texas
Matthew D. Smith New York
Willard Tenney Smith Virginia
Linda S. Specht Virginia
Gavin A. Sundwall North Carolina
Rebecca T. Brown Thompson Virginia
Scott Brian Ticknor Virginia
Alan R. Tousignant Virginia
Pamela M. Tremont Virginia
Stewart D. Tuttle Jr. California
Heather Catherine Variava Virginia
Amy Hart Vrampas District of Columbia
JoAnne Wagner Virginia
Susan M. Walsh Rhode Island
Eva Anne Weigold Schultz Virginia
Edward Anthony White Florida
Aleisha Woodward Utah

2016-12-07 PN1908 Foreign Service

The following-named Career Members of the Foreign Service for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, as a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, and a Consular Officer and a Secretary in the Diplomatic Service of the United States of America:

Nominee State
Wendy A. Bashnan South Carolina
John C. Brewer Alabama
Julie S. Cabus Virginia
Cornell Chasten North Carolina
Natalie Cropper South Carolina
Jaime Esquivel Virginia
Yuri P. Fedorenko Michigan
Donald E. Gonneville Jr. Virginia
Marcia K. Henke Alabama
Paul R. Houston Virginia
Joshua D. McDavid Washington
George M. Navadel District of Columbia
Michael Britton Phillips Maryland
Larry D. Roberts Jr. Virginia
Christopher R. Rooks Virginia
Behzad Shahbazian Maryland
Hartaje K. Thiara District of Columbia
Jeffrey A. Thomas Virginia
Tracy Jo Thomas Virginia
Jennifer S. Tseng Colorado
Thomas R. Vandenbrink Virginia
Judith Vardy Florida

2016-12-07 PN1908 Foreign Service

 

#

Restoring Faith in the Foreign Service Assignment System Starts With Talking About It

March 10, 2016 By in Consulate General, Controversies, Courage, EUR|Europe, Foreign Service, FSOs, Functional Bureaus, Leadership and Management, Org Culture, Org Life, Realities of the FS, Regulations, Secretary of State, Staffing the FS, State Department, Top Ranks, Transparency, U.S. Missions Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

Posted: 1:27 am EDT
Updated: 2:52 a.m. EDT
Updated March 12, 2016
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

We understand that the State Department has just finished up a big online survey on how to improve the Foreign Service bidding process. One part of the survey apparently includes improving the process through “increase transparency.”  Well, it seems it seeks to improve transparency for the bureaus so they can tell who is actually a serious bidder, but it does not improve transparency for the FS employees who are doing the bidding. That part appears to have been short-circuited so unless DGHR starts looking at the whole system, the process is not going to significantly improve for everyone except the bureau folks who are tasked with selecting the employees rotating in.

Now that we’re thinking about the bidding process …. remember last year when we wrote about the controversy about who’s going to be the next Consul General in Istanbul (see Whoa! The Next Consul General in Istanbul Will Be a Political Appointee? and Coming Soon to PBS — That CG Istanbul Position Is Apparently Another Foggy Bottom Drama)?  The March issue of the Foreign Service Journal includes a Speaking Out piece by career diplomat Matthew Keene who has been in the Foreign Service since 1999.  According to FSJ, the author has previously worked in the Office of Career Development and Assignments in the Bureau of Human Resources as a special assistant and an assignments officer.  His piece mentions our blogpost although it does not specifically mention the USCG Istanbul position.

He notes the “tenacity with which many CDOs and AOs argue at panel on behalf of their clients and their bureaus”  and concludes that “these people care about you and the organization, and they are fiercely protective of the integrity of the assignments process.” But the Speaking Out piece also does not mince words about the problems with the Foreign Service assignments.  Excerpt below:

Last November, the blogger known as “Diplopundit” published a story about the assignment of a well-connected FS-1 as principal officer in a European Bureau post, a Senior Foreign Service position.

Since the candidate was below grade for the position, this was a “stretch assignment,” which requires the division in the Bureau of Human Resources responsible for the career development and assignment of officers who are FS-1 or higher (HR/CDA/SL) to cede the position to the division responsible for mid-level officers (HR/CDA/ML) after canvassing its clients to gauge interest in the position by currently unassigned officers.

That no qualified Senior FSO bid on a position as prominent as this one frankly strains credulity. The episode underscores a serious perception problem when it comes to Foreign Service assignments. For all the State Department’s carefully crafted standard operating procedures, as well as the Foreign Affairs Manual and Foreign Affairs Handbook guidance—to say nothing of the attention paid to precedent and the needs of the Service—when push comes to shove, getting the best jobs depends far more on who you know than what.

Indeed, if you are fortunate enough to breathe the rarefied air in the front office of a highly regarded assistant secretary or another sixth- or seventh-floor denizen, there is almost no position to which you cannot aspire.
[…]
So how do ridiculous stretch assignments happen, then? Why do positions mysteriously vanish off one bid list only to reappear days later on the list of a future cycle—or on the now list? Why are inquiries on jobs that are ostensibly open in FS Bid dismissed or unanswered? Why was some employee allowed to extend for a fourth year in a non-differential post when no one else was permitted to do the same? And how on earth did that officer get a language waiver, when the FS is filled with officers who speak that language?

These anomalies are more likely to happen when HR is run by senior officers insufficiently committed to overseeing a system that is fair, just and above reproach. The fact is that far too often, those in the most important positions, the gatekeepers, aren’t serving out of any great love of personnel management work. Some are serving a domestic tour while awaiting a plum overseas deputy chief of mission or principal officer gig. Others find themselves serving domestically for personal reasons, and believe HR provides a convenient landing spot.

The author does not just point out the problems but also writes about how to restore faith in the system. “HR must do a far better job of recruiting senior leaders uncompromising in their commitment to an FS assignments system that sets an example for the rest of the Service in terms of integrity and transparency, that meets the needs of the Service, and that upholds core values even when it is uncomfortable or may disappoint someone further up the food chain.”

Less than a day after we posted this article, we heard via Burn Bag that there is a senior cede request for Deputy Executive Director in Consular Affairs. That position allegedly is not in FSBid. Deleted due to subsequent correction received.

We have to add that this is not just a serious perception problem, and of course, it disturbs more than just the rank and file in Human Resources.  A longtime diplomat who follows this blog told us that “the reason this sort of thing gets to me is that as diplomats we are constantly promoting merit-based decision-making, democracy and rule of law, and anti-corruption in countries where we serve, a very tough message when our own department flaunts these principles.” That is not an isolated perspective.

We admire Mr. Keene for writing this piece. It takes courage to do this in a culture where frank and straight discussions about uncomfortable issues doesn’t always get the safe space it needs.

Read the full More Hemingway, Less Kafka, Please.

Let’s face it, this secretary of state or the next, and next ones after that are not going to do anything about making this process better. They will all have a host of things to do, places to go, and strengthening the institution is not going to be on anyone’s top list.  So here’s something from the Lorax to think about.

 

#