The Foreign Service Journal, February 2003

V.P. VOICE: USAID BY JOE PASTIC Feedback T he cry for more and better feedback in the evalua- tion process has come from several quarters. I recall from the panel debriefings that at least two panels expressed frustration at being unable to give substantive feedback to employees. Moreover, several members have commented both to me and reportedly to Business Transformation Executive Committee members on the need to improve panel feedback to FSOs. Agency officials (both in the BTEC and Human Resources) appear to be quite sincere in their search for ways to improve the evaluation process. They have already requested negotiations on an array of changes in the Foreign Service skills matrix, promotion precepts, duties of the Appraisal Committee, and the struc- ture of the evaluation forms. However, the changes seem to fall short of address- ing the thorny issue of getting effective feedback from the panels to the FSO. The problem is that freely given can- did feedback can lead to an explosion of grievances. The agency does not want this to happen, and neither does AFSA. I have heard that HR hopes to develop a system of remarks, pre-approved by the HR Labor and Employee Relations Office, that will enable the perfor- mance boards to make a selec- tion from such a list of the most frequently used remarks with- out fear that the remark will touch off a grievance and it can still be a remark of substance. More and better feedback from the boards would be extremely valuable to all Foreign Service personnel. Imagine getting unfil- tered views on our performance directly from the boards. What a boon this could be to our career planning! I do not think such feedback serves a useful purpose if it only feeds grievances, but I am not sure a menu of pre-approved comments would meet the objective. On previous occasions, I have told management that I would be more than willing to discuss an agreement that could permit performance boards to be freer and more liberal in their feedback without fueling the grievance process. That the agency appears to be taking a more conservative approach, described above, both shows its concern about the vital issue of improving feedback, and also serves as a wake-up call for AFSA to consider its own move. I am suggesting that AFSA should present its own proposal on ways to improve board feedback. How far are we willing to go in terms of giving up some rights to grieve in order to get more substantial feedback from the performance panels? What would we not want to have sacrificed? I need your input. Please send me your ideas, comments, warnings and provisos as soon as possible. First, I will determine if there is sufficient member interest in this initiative. If there is, I would then try to identify a common thread around which to weave a proposal. I’ll keep you posted through my AFSANET VP reports. ▫ Imagine getting unfiltered views on our performance directly from the boards. What a boon this could be to our career planning! FEBRUARY 2003 • AFSA NEWS 3 Contribution vs. Endorsement Q: Does an AFSA-PAC contribution mean that AFSA endorses that candidate for re-election? A: No. Contributions andendorse- ments are two different things. Acontributiongives a candidate fundswith which topublicize his or her platform. An endorsement puts the endorser on record as supporting that platform. While thismay sound like hair-splitting to those unfamil- iarwithpartisanpolitics, CapitalHill insid- ers clearly understand that a contribution does not equal an endorsement. Thus, in the closing days of the 2002 campaign, the staff of then-Congresswoman Connie Morella, R-Md., called asking if AFSA would endorse her re-election in addition to AFSA-PAC’s earlier contribu- tion to her campaign. AFSA’s staff, accu- rately judging Mrs. Morella as one of the lawmakerswhowasmost supportiveof the ForeignService, said“yes.” Afewdays later, her campaign ran a two-page Washington Post advertisement listing AFSA as one of her many endorsers. That ad caused AFSA’s Governing Board toponder, for the first time, whether AFSA—likemost other federal unions— should be in the business of issuing endorsements. When the Governing Boardhad its regularmonthlymeeting the day after ElectionDay 2002, it decided that AFSAhadmore to lose than togainby issu- ing endorsements. Therefore, it unani- mously adoptedapolicyprohibitingAFSA from endorsing candidates. ▫ PAC • Continued from page 1 Contributions and endorsements are two different things. A contribution gives a candidate funds with which to publicize his or her platform.