Foreign Service Promotion Statistics 2014-2017: Minister Counselors (FE-MC) to Career Ministers (FE-CM)

Posted: 3:05 am ET
Updated: 12:37 pm PT

 

Below is the comparative look of the State Department Foreign Service promotion stats from 2014-2017 for Minister Counselors (FE-MC equivalent to Two-star rank (O-8)) to Career Ministers (FE-CM equivalent to Three-star rank (O-9)). FE-CM is the highest regular senior rank in the Foreign Service.  On November 16, 2017, the U.S. Senate confirmed four nominees to the rank of Career Minister (see PN 2100). Promotion stats below (also published annually in State Magazine) only covers the State Department; we don’t have data for USAID, Commerce (Foreign Commercial Service), or Agriculture (Foreign Agricultural Service).

Four FSOs were promoted to this rank in 2017, the same number promoted in 2015. The number of promotions to this rank ranges from 4-6 FSOs in 2014-2017, so there’s nothing that appears particularly striking in these numbers. If you’re seeing something we’re not seeing, email us. We’ll try and do the other ranks; there are notable numbers there.

Via state.gov 11/24/17  FS Promotion Statistics

Note that an extremely limited number of career diplomats attain Career Ambassador rank (FE-CA equivalent to Four-star rank (O-10)). Per 3 FAM 2320, the Secretary may recommend to the President the conferral of the personal rank of Career Ambassador on a limited number of career members of the SFS of the class of Career Minister whose careers have been characterized by especially distinguished service over a sustained period and who meet the requirements of 3 FAM 2324.2.  Conferral of the personal rank of Career Ambassador is made by the President, and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(click on image for larger view)

#

Advertisements

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

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 – Senior FSOs to Class of Minister-Counselor

Posted: 12:24 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 Minister-Counselor:

Nominee State
Robert L. Adams Texas
Brian C. Aggeler District of Columbia
Tanya Cecelia Anderson District of Columbia
Michael Adam Barkin Florida
Stanley H. Bennett Minnesota
Randy William Berry Colorado
Timothy A. Betts District of Columbia
Virginia Meade Blaser Virginia
Steven Craig Bondy Virginia
Maria Elena Brewer Virginia
Bridget A. Brink Michigan
John Leslie Carwile Virginia
Carmen Margarita Castro Virginia
Craig Lewis Cloud Florida
Theodore Raymond Coley Virginia
Marie Christine Damour Virginia
Nicholas Julian Dean Virginia
Robin D. Diallo Maryland
John Walter Dinkelman Virginia
Michael J. Dodman District of Columbia
Christine Ann Elder Washington
Michelle M. Esperdy Pennsylvania
Nina Maria Fite Virginia
Bradley Alan Freden Arizona
Rebecca Eliza Gonzales District of Columbia
Alyson Lynn Grunder New York
Todd Philip Haskell Florida
Jeffrey J. Hawkins Jr. Maryland
Peter Mark Haymond Virginia
Brian George Heath District of Columbia
Jonathan Henick California
Elizabeth Ann Hopkins District of Columbia
Virginia Idelle Keener Maryland
Kevin J. Kilpatrick Indiana
Douglas A. Koneff Connecticut
Donald William Koran Virginia
Steven Herbert Kraft Virginia
Suzanne I. Lawrence Virginia
Thomas H. Lloyd Virginia
Najib Mahmood Virginia
Jean Elizabeth Manes Florida
Joseph Manso District of Columbia
Jennifer Allyn McIntyre District of Columbia
David Meale Virginia
John S. Moretti Virginia
Katherine Anne Munchmeyer District of Columbia
Michael John Murphy Virginia
Mirembe L. Nantongo Virginia
Susan Butler Niblock Maryland
Francisco Luis Palmieri Connecticut
Charisse Melanie Phillips Florida
Beth L. Poisson Maryland
Lynette Joyce Poulton Virginia
Wayne F. Quillin New York
Joseph N. Rawlings Georgia
Kurt R. Rice Virginia
Joan Marie Richards Virginia
Christopher J. Sandrolini Virginia
Stephen M. Schwartz Maryland
Dorothy Camille Shea District of Columbia
George N. Sibley Virginia
Adnan A. Siddiqi Virginia
Adam H. Sterling Virginia
Stephanie Faye Syptak-Ramnath Virginia
Melinda C. Tabler-Stone Virginia
John Stephen Tavenner Texas
Dean Thompson Maryland
Lisa Annette Vickers California
Samuel R. Watson III Virginia
Eugene Stewart Young Virginia

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.

#

Dear @JohnKerry: One of Your Foggy Bottom Folks Is Asking — Is This Diversity?

Posted: 1:25 pm ET
Note: In an ideal, healthy organization, this letter would be signed by the author and you’d be reading this and discussing creative solutions on the Secretary’s Sounding Board.  What is clear to us is that the fears of reprisal/retaliation are real. This anonymous letter is one more proof of that.  Except for the four active hyperlinks we’ve added to help readers, the text and photo below are published below as received — [twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

From an anonymous DS Employee: Is This Diversity?

A poignant piece in the President’s Memorandum on Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce was the conclusion that “In broad comparison with the wider Federal Government, the federal workforce dedicated to our national security and foreign policy is – on average – less diverse, including at the highest levels.”  Unfortunately, when it comes to the highest levels of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) diversity is not only less than the average – – it is nonexistent!

ds-top-ranks

A review of the facts.

DS senior leadership is composed of an Assistant Secretary, a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, seven Deputy Assistant Secretaries, an Executive Director, and a Coordinator for Security Infrastructure.  Four years ago all of these positions with the exception of the AS were held by active Senior Foreign Service and Senior Executive Service officers.  Two positions were held by female officers and one by a African-American officer.  In the past three years, all three minority members either retired or moved into other positions outside of DS.  Eight of the ten senior leadership positions have become vacant during that time, some more than once, and the current PDAS – Bill Miller, who became subject to Time-in-Class (TIC) restrictions and left active service – was appointed into the PDAS role.

Of the ten opportunities that DS has had to select officers to fill vacancies at the Bureau’s senior-most positions it has consistently selected Caucasian male officers. DS went from a Bureau that from a diversity standpoint was about where the rest of the government is now – less diverse than the average – to one that is now all white, all male, all the time.

We have witnessed the cleansing of DS over the past three years.  It is troubling, and, it should be raising alarm bells throughout the Department.

But is it not.

Instead, the Department is preparing to reward DSS Director Miller with a third appointment year as PDAS of DS.  Furthermore, DS is now expanding the practice of appointing officers subject to TIC up or out restrictions into positions formerly held exclusively by active SFS officers with the appointment of the outgoing Overseas Security Advisory Council Office Director into his own position, as an appointee. This was accomplished quietly, with the Department’s concurrence, devoid of any semblance of transparency.

The lack diversity is not limited to the FE-MC/OC and SES level officers who make up DS’s Senior Leadership.  It also extends to the subordinate staffs.  Unlike the Assistant Secretary’s DS Front Office, which to Gregory Starr’s credit has consistent been composed of a highly qualified and richly diverse staff, the PDAS’ DSS FO has been anything but.  To this day, the DSS FO staff with the exception of the Office Manager consists of…all white males.  One DS Senior sets a model for the Bureau to emulate, the other projects a do as I say not as I do standard.

In May, PDAS Miller brought most of the DS leadership from around the globe to the Department for a two-day leadership forum.  On day two he showcased his all-white, all-male team of seniors on the dais for a full day of Q&As. The one area the PDAS and the rest in the dais were unprepared to discuss were the stream of questions on the topic of diversity that were raised throughout the day and which went largely unaddressed.

It is difficult to reconcile Director General Arnold Chacon’s statements about Department values and principles, and ensuring that the Department’s workforce reflect the nation’s richness and diversity, when matched against the reality of the past three years within DS.  Even more difficult considering that all senior-most assignments in DS require the approval of Department Seniors.

In response, the Department should:

  • first and foremost, acknowledge that there is an appalling lack of diversity in the senior-most ranks of DS that should jar the Department’s Leadership into action to identity immediate steps to rectify the issue;
  • either instill a sense of urgency in current DS Leadership on the topic or allow the next set of leaders to rise to the top positions, with a renewed sense of purpose and focus that truly embraces the ideals that the Department publishes;
  • if the current PDAS is to remain in place for another year, an officer from the Office of Civil Rights should be permanently assigned to his Front Office to help guide him on matters of inclusivity and diversity;
  • mandate that DS develop and publicly publish a comprehensive diversity strategy;
  • understand that it shares in the responsibility for the current state within DS;
  • also, understand the likelihood that this letter will evoke a backlash from those who have been criticized and take steps to guard against the potential for retribution.
A series of conscious decisions led to the current state of DS. This is written in part as a call for accountability. It is also written in the hope that it will trigger action and a sense among the increasingly disenfranchised segment of DS that it is ok to voice concern even when aimed at our most senior leadership.
#
Related items:

 

 

 

@StateDept Updates Its Polygraph Policy: Are Results Shared For Security Clearance/Assignment Purposes?

Posted: 1:26 am ET
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

On September 1, 2016, the State Department updated its 12 FAM 250 policy on the use of the polygraph to examine Department employees (including employees on the General Schedule, the Foreign Service, on Personal Service Contracts, Limited NonCareer Appointees, and Locally Employed Staff).  

Per 12 FAM 251.2-2, the Office of Investigations and Counterintelligence (DS/DO/ICI) Counterterrorism Vetting Unit (CCV) administers the polygraph program and is responsible for hiring polygraph examiners, responding to requests for polygraph support, deploying polygraph examiners, and maintaining relevant records.

The update includes the following:
  • Streamlines the polygraph examination process by removing a requirement to seek pre-approval before a DS or OIG agent can ask an employee if s/he is willing to submit to a polygraph.
  • Authorizes a DS agent or Department OIG investigator to alert an employee or contractor, currently subject to a criminal, personnel security, or counterintelligence investigation, that s/he has the option to undergo an exculpatory polygraph examination, rather than limiting exculpatory polygraphs to cases where it is initiated by the individual under investigation.
  • Allow polygraphs of Department employees detailed to federal agencies (in addition to the NSA, CIA, and DIA) when the relevant agency requires a polygraph to be detailed to the position. Polygraphs of employees detailed to agencies other than the NSA, CIA, or DIA will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will require approval from the Under Secretary for Management.
  • Limits the scope of polygraph examinations of Department detailees to other federal agencies to counterintelligence topics for all detailees.
  • Formalize existing processes for polygraph examination of certain locally employed staff, in accordance with the approvals specified in the polygraph policy

Back in May 2015, we questioned the use of the CIA’s polygraph exams of State Department employees (see AFSA Elections: What’s Missing This Campaign Season? Fire, Ice and Some Spirited Debates, Please).

Do you know that Department employees who take the CIA’s polygraph examination for detail assignments will have the  results of their polygraph provided to DS and HR for security  clearance and assignment purposes?  A source told us that “In and of itself, it does no  harm if the CIA retains them for its clearance purposes, but it can  have an unanticipated negative impact when indiscriminately released  by the CIA to third parties, like DS and HR, who use them in violation of the CIA’s restrictions to the Department  and assurances to the examinees.”  If this affects only a fraction of the Foreign Service, is that an excuse not to do anything about it, or at a minimum, provide an alert to employees contemplating these detail assignments?

We’ve recently discovered a newly posted grievance case dated March 2010. We don’t know why this is currently on display upfront on fsgb.gov.  In any case, this is related to the subject of polygraph examination.

On June 24, 2009, grievant, a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer, appealed to the FS Grievance Board the State Department’s (Department) denial of his grievance with respect to the use of the results of a polygraph exam he took in 2003 in conjunction with a detail to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Grievant claims the improper handling and use of the results of that exam violated the Department’s own regulations (12 FAM 250) and resulted in his having been denied a Presidential Appointment as a Chief of Mission (Ambassador).  The ROP includes some interesting interrogatories:

#1: Has the Department ever obtained a Department employee’s polygraph examination results from the CIA for a personnel security background investigation based on the employee’s SF-86 signed release? If so, please describe the circumstances under which this would occur.

The Department objected to answering this interrogatory on the grounds that is was overbroad, immaterial, and irrelevant.

IR #6e for Diplomatic Security Case Officer for the second background investigation: Have you ever requested an employee’s polygraph results from the CIA before? If so, under what circumstances‘?

The Department found this interrogatory overbroad, irrelevant, and immaterial.

Ruling on IR #6e: Under the more ample concept of relevance applied at the discovery stage, the Board finds that the information requested is sufficiently relevant to grievant’s claims or likely to lead to the discovery of information relevant to such claims to compel discovery. The information requested may help to clarify the Department’s practice in applying the regulations governing the use of polygraphs that are issue in this case. We do not find the request to impose such a burden on the Department as to outweigh the potential usefulness of the information requested. The Department is directed to respond.

IR # 7h for Diplomatic Security: Does DS routinely request and receive polygraph examination results on all Department employees who have taken polygraph examinations at the CIA as part of their routine background security investigations?

The Department objected to this interrogatory as irrelevant and immaterial in all respects.

The Department was directed to respond to grievant’s Interrogatories 6e and 7h not later than 20 days after receipt of the order but we have been unable to find the decision on this case.

 

On June 24, 2009, grievant filed a grievance appeal, claiming improper use by the Department (Department, agency) of the results of a polygraph examination he had taken in conjunction with a detail from the Department to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).  The grievant makes several specific claims:

1) that the CIA provided the results of the polygraph to a Diplomatic Security (DS) agent in the Department, in violation of Department regulations and CIA policy;
2) that the Department requested and/or received the polygraph results from the CIA, in violation of its own regulations;
3) that the Department improperly used the polygraph results in the course of security update investigations; and
4) that the Department improperly provided information drawn from the polygraph to the Director General (DG), which resulted in the DG withdrawing grievant’s nomination to be a chief of mission. The FSGB Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the claims presented by the grievant.

 

#

Senior FSO Solicits Favorable Comments From Subordinates, Wants GSO “To Grow a Pair”

Posted: 1:53 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

An unnamed senior FSO solicited favorable statements about herself from her subordinates and in an email to her supervisor, the DCM, made disparaging remarks that the General Services office “needs to grow a pair.” Both made it to the FSO’s evaluation report which became the subject of a grievance case before the Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB Case No. 2014-029).

The FSGB decision: Grievant, has failed to show by a preponderance of evidence pursuant to 22 C.F.R. §905.1 that her 2013 Amended EER documenting her performance while serving as Principal Officer/Consul in contained inaccuracies, omissions, errors, or falsely prejudicial information to such an extent that it must be expunged in its entirety. The appeal is denied in part and granted in part, but only for a remand with instructions to delete one phrase in the Amended EER. No other relief is granted.

Excerpt below:

Grievant is a Senior Foreign Service Officer, class of Counselor (FE-OC). She appeals the Department’s partial denial of her grievance in which she seeks the following relief: expunction from her Official Performance File (OPF) of her 2013 Amended Employee Evaluation Report (EER); extension of her time-in-class by one year; and a reconstituted 2014 SB to consider her file, if in fact she was low-ranked by the 2014 Promotion Board based upon her 2013 Amended EER.

Grievant joined the Foreign Service in 1987 as a Political Officer, and has had tours both overseas and in Washington. She has served in a variety of increasingly senior positions, including Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM)/Charge d’affaires in [REDACTED] Principal Officer in [REDACTED]  and Special Advisor to the Assistant Secretary in the [REDACTED] Bureau in Washington. The recipient of a number of awards throughout her career, she was also recommended for Performance Pay while serving as Principal Officer/Consul General in [REDACTED]. Grievant describes herself alternatively as “autistic” and a person who suffers from a disability known as Asperger’s Syndrome (a condition on what is known as the autism “spectrum”).

The contested statements concern two incidents, the basic facts of which are not in dispute and are summarized below. One incident involved grievant’s solicitation of favorable statements about herself from subordinates. The other incident arose from a remark grievant made to her rater, expressing grievant’s views of her own colleagues and using language that the rater deemed inappropriate.

The Solicitation of Statements from Subordinates. The first incident arose when grievant asked her locally-engaged (LE) assistant to gather from other LE staff written statements in which staff would describe what they liked about grievant, or how they viewed her as a boss. On December 15, 2012, grievant sent an email to her LE assistant asking that “each employee who is able or wants to do so” submit something written stating “if they liked working for me or something they liked about me as a boss.” Grievant asked her assistant (REDACTED) to compile such favorable comments for presentation to the grievant at the time of grievant’s upcoming birthday. In this email, grievant characterized the employee statements as “a gift I can keep with me always.”

When the DCM learned of grievant’s actions, she accused grievant of soliciting a gift from subordinates. The DCM issued a Letter of Admonishment to grievant, citing the email of December 15, 2012 to [REDACTED] asking for a “gift” from subordinates on the occasion of grievant’s birthday.2 In the Letter of Admonishment, the DCM instructed grievant to rescind that request. In an email of January 14, 2013, the DCM transmitted to grievant a copy of the Letter of Admonishment, directing grievant to comply with the instructions in the Letter, and to sign the Letter and return it to her. Grievant responded with a refusal to implement the instructions.

Grievant’s Remarks About Colleagues. The second incident concerns an email grievant sent to the DCM in preparation for a visit by the Secretary of State of [REDACTED]. Locally-engaged [REDACTED] staff would be coming to  [REDACTED] to support the visit. The scarcity of hotel rooms or accommodations for them became a pressing issue. In an email of August 6, 2012, to the DCM, grievant expressed her frustration that [REDACTED] American management staff, the Management Officer, and the General Services Officer (GSO), were not doing enough to secure such accommodations. Grievant wrote, in pertinent part:

For months and even during the current pre-advance, I have been trying to get the people to focus on finding hotel space or working with the government to find hotel space for the support staff. They refused to do so. Instead, they are living under the fantasy that they will be able to force the USG, with less than a month to go, to accredit FSNs as members of the US delegation and they will be able to stay with other members of the US delegation on .

Both you and I know that the USG is not going to accredit FSNs. If you are not accredited, you are not going to sleep on . Even if they want to continue to entertain this fantasy, check out hotels as a plan B. However, MGT says they have a plan B – staying in the Consulate’s non-existent TDY housing (LOL), bunking with Consulate officers (NO!), or sleeping through the night at the Consulate (H$*# to the No!).

One problem is that when the American officers broach the subject with FSNs, the FSNs refuse to look at hotel options, because the FSNs want to be accredited. GSO needs to grow a pair.

The appeal is granted in part and denied in part. Pursuant to the Board’s findings, the sole form of relief granted is that the case is remanded to the Department with instructions to make two modifications to the Amended EER. One, the Department is hereby ordered to delete the words “gift of” in every place in which the Amended EER contains the phrase “gift of positive statements from her direct reports.” Second, the Department is hereby ordered to delete from the section on “Interpersonal Skills” the phrase “and in doing so, did not set the standard for integrity.”

Read in full: 2014-029 06-11-2015 – B – Decision_Redacted (pdf).

#

Alaina Teplitz Sworn In as Next U.S. Ambassador to Nepal

Posted: 12:49 am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

.

Certificate of Competency – Teplitz Alaina B – Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal – April 2015

The WH released the following brief bio when it announced the nomination  in March 2015:

Alaina B. Teplitz, a career member of the Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, currently serves as the Director of the Office of Management Policy, Rightsizing, and Innovation at the Department of State, a position she has held since 2012.  Previously, Ms. Teplitz served as the Management Minister Counselor at the U.S. Mission in Kabul, Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012, Deputy Executive Director in the Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs from 2009 to 2011, and Director of Management Tradecraft Training at the Department’s Foreign Service Institute from 2007 to 2009.  Prior to that, she was the Deputy Director of Joint Administrative Services at the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, Belgium from 2004 to 2007, Management Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh from 2002 to 2004, and Program Analyst at the Center for Administrative Innovation at the Department from 2001 to 2002.  After joining the Foreign Service in 1991, she served in the State Department’s Bureau of Administration, as well as in posts in Australia, Albania, and Mongolia.

Ms. Teplitz received a B.A. from Georgetown University.

#

State Dept Appoints Senior Diplomat Michael Ratney as New U.S. Special Envoy for Syria

Posted: 12:58  am EDT
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]

 

On July 27, Secretary Kerry announced the appointment of career diplomat Michael Ratney as the new U.S. Special Envoy for Syria.

I am pleased to announce the appointment of Michael Ratney as the new U.S. Special Envoy for Syria. I have come to know Michael well in his most recent role as U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem, and am impressed by his keen intellect, deep knowledge of the region, and policy judgment.

Michael is a Senior Foreign Service officer who is fluent in Arabic and whose distinguished career has spanned Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, and beyond. I am confident he will continue the important work led by his predecessor, Daniel Rubinstein, to shape our response to the complex and devastating conflict in Syria.

Michael’s leadership and counsel will be critical as we confront the significant challenges posed by more than four years of suffering, bloodshed, and destruction in Syria. We remain committed to reaching a negotiated political transition away from Bashar al-Assad, working to counter the shared threat of terrorism, supporting the moderate opposition, and addressing the humanitarian disaster and its impact on Syria’s neighbors.

Special Envoy Ratney will soon travel to the region to begin consultations with Syrians and other stakeholders seeking an end to the violence and a future of freedom and dignity for all Syrian people.

Mr. Ratney was the Consul General in Jerusalem from July 2012 until this appointment. Below is a quick bio:

Prior to assuming his duties in Jerusalem, Mr. Ratney was Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Media, leading efforts in the Bureau of Public Affairs focused on foreign communications and media engagement. From 2010 to 2011, he established and served as the first Director of the Office of International Media Engagement, where he managed State Department initiatives to ensure accurate and positive coverage of U.S. policy by foreign media. In this capacity, Mr. Ratney oversaw the State Department’s six Media Hubs in London, Brussels, Dubai, Johannesburg, Tokyo, and Miami.

From 2009 to 2010, Mr. Ratney served as Spokesman for the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

Prior to returning to Washington in 2009, Mr. Ratney served from 2006 to 2009 as Deputy Chief of Mission at the American Embassy in Doha, Qatar. Mr. Ratney was the Deputy Economic Counselor at the American Embassy in Mexico City from 2003 to 2006. In 2004, he served in Iraq, first as a Political Advisor for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, and then as the first Regional Coordinator at the Regional Embassy Office in Basrah.

Mr. Ratney has a B.S. in Mass Communication from Boston University and an M.A. in International Affairs from the George Washington University. His languages are Arabic, French, and Spanish.

#

Ex-USAID/OIG Pakistan: Finding fully developed for final report, whatchatalkinbout?

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

 

We previously blogged recent items about USAID (see below):

In response to WaPo’s Oct. 23 article “USAID watchdog said to alter reports,” USAID/OIG has released a two-page statement dated October 24 citing its “extensive track record of providing independent, robust oversight.” It has tweeted that October 24 statement multiple times since it was first linked to on Twitter on October 27.

Screen Shot 2014-11-03

 

Yesterday, WaPo published a letter to the editor from Joseph Farinellaa senior FSO who was USAID/OIG director in Pakistan:

The Oct. 23 front-page article “USAID watchdog said to alter reports” cited a Sept. 30, 2012, inspector general’s report on an audit of a U.S. Agency for International Development assistance program in Pakistan. I was the inspector general director in Pakistan whose office conducted the audit. The article cited a draft audit finding placed in a confidential “management letter” rather than in the final published report. The inspector general’s chief of staff said that this was done because our work was not supported by evidence and more time was needed to develop information for a final report.

I recently retired as a senior Foreign Service officer with more than 40 years of worldwide audit experience in several organizations. Our finding on the program not operating efficiently and effectively was fully developed for inclusion in the final report. We provided examples of funds not used for main program goals, why this happened and the negative effect on the program.

Instead of a fully developed finding with recommendations in a published audit report, information was provided to the mission director in a letter. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said it all: “That’s ridiculous. The finding shouldn’t have been removed.”

Okay, maybe the USAID/OIG or his chief of staff would like to take a stab at this again?

Once more with feelings.

It seems to us that there is an easy remedy here for USAID/OIG if it really wishes to put these allegations to rest.

  • First, release all the draft audit reports as a companion to each of the final reports that are the subject of these allegations. It will give us, the paying public, a way to gauge just how much sanitation work were or were not done with these reports.
  • Second, USAID/OIG can release all the confidential “management letters” or “management alerts” it issued to USAID management, and all follow-up actions.  The October 24, 2014 USAID/OIG statement  says that “OIG’s current policy and practice is to post all management letters on its public Web site. This policy has been applied to management letters issued from April 2014 forward.” Okay, but that’s not any help with these allegations as there’s no way to tell how many “management letters” have actually been issued by USAID/OIG previous to April 2014. The allegation is that audit findings were placed on management letters that are not accessible to the public. So let’s see those management letters online and see which audit findings were not supported by evidence.

These allegations go to the heart of USAID/OIG’s mandate as an independent overseer of the people’s money.  Here now, we have an ex-auditor for a specific program publicly contradicting USAID/OIG’s official spin, not to mention the multiple whistleblowers who also came forward. Sorry, but a two-page statement touting the office’s “independent and robust oversight” will not be good enough to shut this down.

 * * *