The Foreign Service Journal, February 2004

need to develop a capability to antici- pate and to respond to crises. NEA has done a splendid job responding to needs for Iraq, but by developing a wider set of resources we’ll be able to do an even better job in addressing crises in the future. Second, I think the way people have been dealing with the danger of living abroad, with the effect that has on families, and with their own pro- fessional choices are all very admirable. In fact, I think morale within the Service since Sept. 11, 2001, has actually gone up. People understand that we’re facing a serious challenge and they’re prepared to respond in a positive way. And I found the same thing to be true in Ankara when I was ambassador there. I think that speaks very highly of the kind of people we have in the State Department as well as in the other agencies represented overseas. FSJ : One longstanding complaint about the open assignments system is the apparent ability of individual bureaus to “wire” assignments, both for active-duty officers and WAE appointments. Do you plan any spe- cific steps to enforce fairness and ensure that when a position is on the bid list, it really is open to all qualified bidders? WRP : We have done two or three things that are useful along those lines. We agree that the more trans- parency there is in the assignment process, the fairer it will be. We asked bureaus to hold off on “handshakes” until all bids were due, and they responded very well. On some occa- sions we have asked bureaus to go back and get additional candidates for a position when we felt the number of candidates needed to be increased. We’ve especially tried to ensure that people who are bidding from Iraq, who might not have easy and current access to information, have been able to get their preferences and their dis- cussion points into the process. I think all of us are committed to having a more truly open assignments process, and have made that point clear to the bureaus as well. FSJ : How can HR better enforce fair share bidding to keep so many hardship posts, particularly in Africa, from being filled almost entirely by untenured officers who may not know the bidding process well enough to keep from being sent there? WRP : Let me say something about those employees. Often, at least recently, those first- and second- tour employees have been bidding heavily on some of those hardship posts and have been enthusiastically doing so. That’s one of the rather remarkably good things about the people we’re taking into the Service. We have to remember that a lot of them entered since 9/11 and so they’ve come in with their eyes open. They understand what the world looks like now, and I think that’s very admirable. They also are doing good jobs in these tough posts. And because we have so many relatively junior employees reporting directly to DCMs and ambassadors, we have talked with those ambassadors and DCMs extensively about the kind of mentoring in leadership and profes- sional development that we expect, and they’re responding well. On the fair share concept itself, as you know, for a fair share bidder, three of their six core bids have to be at differential posts, in grade and at cone. We believe in fair share, and we are enforcing it. And this year, we are looking at all the fair share bidders. I also think that the vast majority of Foreign Service employees support the fair share concept. Finally, if we apply the fair share rule equitably, as we intend to do, then the truly humanitarian cases can be dealt with without confusing them with the core requirement of fair share bidding and fair share assignments. FSJ : Do you support AFSA’s ongo- ing efforts to reduce the low-ranking requirement from 5 percent to 2 per- cent of all evaluations? WRP : AFSA and management both support such a change, and I also understand that some selection boards also have made similar recommenda- tions. So it seems to me that there is a general consensus on that issue. FSJ : AFSA has also pointed out that last year, several individuals were recommended for tenure and low- ranked in the same year. How do you plan to address such anomalies? WRP : I agree that is something we ought to look at, and in fact we are planning to take a look at the tenuring system. I believe we can improve on the present process and, more impor- tantly, so do many of my colleagues. FSJ : Might one option be to go back to the old system of having tenuring boards meet full-time instead of part-time, so they can review files more thoroughly? WRP : Yes, that is one option. Whatever we do, I think tenuring is one of the things we can make some improvements on. 54 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 4 Why not let our reach exceed our grasp a little and bring ourselves up to the level of quality response that we’re capable of?