The Foreign Service Journal, January-February 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JANUARY FEBRUARY 2015 9 Accountability for USAID/IG Recent reports in e Washington Post and other media highlight allega - tions made by auditors working for USAID’s inspector general that some audit reports were altered by IG upper management to omit certain ndings. ese allegations have caused consider- able dismay among former USAID IG auditors. Federal inspectors general have unique disclosure responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1976. ey report not only to their agency heads, but also to those congressional com- mittees that provide funding for agency operations and exercise oversight. While omission of inconvenient or sensitive matters from audit reports may well ingratiate inspectors with their agency heads, the practice not only less- ens the possibility that corrective actions will be taken by cognizant program managers, but corrodes the morale of audit sta . More importantly, it denies disclosure of such matters to the taxpay- ers’ representatives in Congress. Worse yet, perhaps, revelations of this sort tend to transform the public’s perception of inspectors general from that of alert monitors of agency pro- grams and operations (“junkyard dogs” in the words of Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general) into lap dogs of agency management. In short, inspectors general have an obligation to report their audit ndings in a thoughtful, balanced and objec- tive manner, letting the chips fall where they may. Findings deemed so sensitive that they might harm vital American interests if shared are always subject to classi cation and special handling in consultation with agency and IG upper management. In no case, however, should signi cant ndings be omitted or withheld from Congress. ose USAID/IG o cials who alleg- edly engaged in or condoned the unjus- ti able suppression of important audit ndings need to be held accountable for their actions. Fred Kalhammer USAID Senior FSO/supervisory auditor, retired Sun City Center, Florida How to Combat Inadvertent Judicial Bias e October FSJ article, “Child Cus- tody Issues in Foreign Service Divorces,” o ers a well-rounded primer on the unique chal- lenges facing a Foreign Service parent going through a divorce. Based on my observa- tions litigating family law cases in Fairfax County, Virginia, my sole critique is that the article understated the adver- sity often faced by an FS parent seeking to take a child overseas. All else being equal, family law judges tend to prefer custody arrangements with the parent who will remain in what has become a child’s hometown—the “non-posted parent.” Unconscious judicial preference for a stationary lifestyle should be combated by a competent legal advocate with the help of a credible scienti c expert wit- ness. e applicable Virginia statute (§ 20-124.3) does not expressly address the impact of a custodial parent’s plans to regularly relocate on the “best inter- ests” of the child. Furthermore, the Virginia Court of Appeals has declined to presume that moving will harm a child’s relationships, even when moving a “far distance” ( Goodhand v. Kildoo , 560 SE 2d 463, 2002). Nonetheless, trial court judges can be a conservative crowd, preferring past acts and known circumstances to unpredictable onward assignments and promises of future good behavior. For the parent who plans to remain in the Foreign Service and seek custody while living abroad, the importance of hiring a credible child psychologist to testify to the bene ts and advantages of a mobile, international lifestyle cannot be overemphasized. e extra money preparing for judicial education on the advantages of growing up overseas will be well spent. Failing to do so may subject a Foreign Service parent to the discretion of a judge who has inadvertently equated a static lifestyle with a stable one. Sam Schmitt, Esq. FS family member Vilnius, Lithuania Looking Back to the Fall On Nov. 1, a group of now mostly retired U.S. o cials celebrated the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. is symbolic victory was clearly the result of great teamwork conducted over the years by those in the U.S. and Allied military forces, their respective foreign o ces, Western intelligence services, and the underlying dogged, unrelenting spirit of the German citizenry. Much credit has already been given to various individuals who played di er- ent roles in the events leading up to that historic day, with particular importance attached to President Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down is Wall” LETTERS