The Foreign Service Journal, February 2007

us a favor when they write a negative report but fail to follow proper proce- dures. We are all safer when the reg- ulations are adhered to, so that RSOs cannot write reports that will be kept secret from us and from our chain-of- command to be used against us later. I am curious to know what my fel- low FSO, FSS, LNA and CS employ- ees have to say about this. Please e- mail me at JohnXKane@yahoo.com . John Kane Civil Service Washington, D.C. 10 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 7 L E T T E R S Clarification Since my October “President’s Views” column went to print, I’ve learned more about USAID’s handling of its Senior Foreign Service pay-for-performance sys- tem. The facts are: • USAID ultimately did provide perfor- mance-based salary increases for all SFS members for 2005 in late September 2005. Though the increases were delayed because of perceived budget shortfalls, the agency did make them retroactive to the originally scheduled effective dates. • All USAID SFS employees recom- mended for 2004 pay-for-performance awards received them. No one was mov- ed to a lower pay adjustment category. However, the USAID administrator did decide to give extra pay increases to a handful of SFS members in 2004, identify- ing additional funding to do so. He did not give anyone these extra pay increases in 2005. • Despite USAID’s belief that the extra pay raises for a selected few officers were legal and appropriate, AFSA strongly dis- agrees. We believe that a policy that allows the USAID administrator to exercise any pay discretion after the selection boards have completed their work is not only illegal, but also opens the door to questions over the bases for selective pay adjustments and undermines the role of the boards. Amb. J. Anthony Holmes AFSA President