The Foreign Service Journal, March 2009

A lthough agricultural reporting, export expansion andU.S. wine promotion activities can be traced back to the third- ranked officer of the U.S. mission to France in 1784 (Thomas Jefferson, serving under Deputy John Adams and Minister BenjaminFranklin—imagine those country teammeet- ings!), the ForeignAgricultural Service has only existed since 1930. From1930 to1939, FAShad about 10 agricultural commissioners postedoverseas. In1939, President FranklinD. Roosevelt ordered the ForeignService officers fromFAS andFCS tomergewith those from State in order to have a unified overseas presence in the run-up to World War II. In the early 1950s, following “encourage- ment” from agricultural commodity groups working with Congress, the agricultural attachés returned to FAS. “In 1954, when FAS was taking permanent shape, the agricultural attachés became civil servants instead of Foreign Service officers. This led to a number of problems,” Allan Mustard observed in his article, “AnUnauthorizedHistoryof FAS” (May 2003 FSJ ) . “ First, rotational authority (the abil- ity to ‘stretch’ or ‘shrink’ into assignments) is, of course not inherent to theCivil Service. This sometimesmade matching the right person to the right job impossible for bureau- cratic reasons.” In addition to the assignment difficulties, over- seas benefits did not accrue for FAS attachés, and some foreign countries would not grant them diplomatic privileges or stand- ing. In the late 1970s, afterAFSAbecame aunionand startedwork- ing on the Foreign Service Act of 1980, FAS became convinced it was time to join the Foreign Service. Director General of the Foreign ServiceHarry Barnes urged Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz and FAS to consider joining the effort to convinceCongress it was time for a total rewrite of the Foreign Service rules. In 1977, Richard “Dick” Smith (at that point deputy admin- istrator for management and attachés, and later FAS adminis- trator) organizeda three-day seminar inWilliamsburg for all senior FASmanagers todiscusswhether or not to adopt a ForeignService personnel system. Following a heateddiscussion, therewas a con- sensus to joinwithState andother foreign affairs agencies todevel- op the Foreign Service Act of 1980. While the Foreign Service Act brought a number of benefits toagricultural officers (alongwithmandatory retirement and selec- tion-out processes), it also became a point of confusion to our FAS Civil Service colleagues. The two personnel systems have fundamentally different views: the Foreign Service has a “rank in person” approach, while the Civil Service uses “rank in job.” The Foreign Service systemeases the problemof placing officers overseas because shrinks and stretches are easily handled, while the more rigid Civil Service approach to promotion and career advancement is simpler to implement and understand. Many of the FASCivil Service concerns about the FS approach are not really about the specifics, but rather the administrative burden of having two separate personnel systems within one small agency that also has tohandle a large rotationof agricultural officers returning from overseas posts. Many of the current issues were iden- tified in the 1965 Stanley Andrews report to then-Administrator Raymond “Ray” Ioanes. That study noted that the key con- cerns were communication with the field, orientation training for the attachés, and “staffing in a very broad sense.” The latter includes the rotation of officers to and from overseas positions. All those issues persist today, whether or not the agricultural attachés are FSOs or Civil Service employees. So, what tomake of the Foreign Service systemfor FAS? The “rank in person” approach eases slightly the administrative task of assigning officers overseas; it provides some benefits; and the up-or-out system sparks a feeling of urgency (or stress) to shine at all times. It has also served as a false point of conflict within FAS; the “Washingtonplacement” issue existswhether or not agri- cultural officers are FSOs or Civil Service employees. ShouldFAS stick with the Foreign Service system? In the words of a recent candidate, “You betcha.” This short article is based heavily on the FAS historical research that the (usually) Honorable Allan P. Mustard, agricultural min- ister counselor inMexicoCity, has done over the course of his career. FAS employees can read much more on the FASTNET Virtual MuseumWeb pages. V.P. VOICE: FAS BYHENRYS. SCHMICK Why FAS Adopted the Foreign Service System 52 F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L / MA R CH 2 0 0 9 A F S A N E W S The “rank-in-person” approach eases slightly the administrative task of assigning officers overseas; it provides some benefits; and the up or out system sparks a feeling of urgency (or stress) to shine at all times.