The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2011

6 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 1 1 L ETTERS Well Done! Congratulations on your May issue (“Work-Life Balance: Handling the Ups and Downs of Foreign Service Life”), which brought together a lively set of articles to address a very appo- site theme. I particularly enjoyed Amanda Fernandez’s contribution, “Si, Se Puede,” because it is written in the present tense, journal-style, and does not dwell only on the drudgery of the advance visit. It also describes the pleasure of getting away from parent- ing responsibilities for a few days, and pays attention to a soccer match be- tween Ecuador and big bad Argentina. Larry Lesser FSO, retired Washington, D.C. Ecuador Has It Now Quito was my first Foreign Service posting, so I was interested to read Amanda Fernandez’s account of her quick visit there in the May Foreign Service Journal . I was particularly amused by her report that Ecuador’s national motto is “Si, se puede” (“Yes, it can be done,” or “Yes, we can”), which she used as the title for her arti- cle. During my time in Ecuador in the mid-1970s, it seemed like the national motto was “No hay” (“There isn’t any,” or “We don’t have any”). I would stop at the store to buy something, and very often that was the reply. “Hay leche?” (“Do you have milk?”), I would ask. “No hay.” Or if the shop- keeper was particularly grumpy, the an- swer might be, “Si hay, pero no tenemos.” (“Of course, the item you’re asking for is available somewhere in the world, but we don’t have it.”) If things have progressed so much in Ecuador in the last 35 years that “Si, se puede” is indeed more appropriate than “No hay,” I am delighted for that country and its inhabitants. Stephen Muller FSO, retired Troy, N.Y. Rebalancing Pay The Secretary of State should sug- gest to the appropriate parties that all U.S. government personnel serving overseas receive the “rest of U.S.” lo- cality pay rate — currently 14.16 per- cent. While this would be a salary cut for everyone serving overseas (approx- imately 2.3 percent for non-Senior Foreign Service personnel and rough- ly 10 percent for all others), it would be a fair change that would put all civilians serving overseas on an equal footing. Many will argue we should not will- ingly give up any compensation. But we need to consider that in return, we will gain an equitable system and mil- lions of dollars in savings — some of which could be used to address com- pensation shortfalls affecting our local staff members, many of whom risk their lives for our country and receive precious little in return. Concurrently, I suggest that the U.S. government make Thrift Savings Plan contributions for personnel serv- ing overseas based on the Washington, D.C., rate — similar to the scheme used to assure retirement annuities are based upon virtual locality pay. This slight increase in compensation would ease the impact of the reduction advo- cated above. It would also right the wrong that is presently being done to all non-Senior Foreign Service personnel serving overseas. Over the course of a typical FS career, this currently translates into a reduction in deposits to an em- ployee’s TSP exceeding $10,000. For far too long, our Senior Foreign Service leadership have accepted the pay-scale change that gave them the equivalent of Washington, D.C., local- ity pay regardless of where they serve, but have done an ineffective job of ad- vocating that lower-graded staff receive the same compensation. I acknowl- edge that many people have worked very hard on this issue, and my state- ment is not meant to diminish those ef- forts. But the fact remains that they have fallen short. Like many former military person- nel, I was always taught that you take care of the troops first. So what a prin- cipled Senior Foreign Service leader-