The Foreign Service Journal, April 2008

A P R I L 2 0 0 8 / F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L 59 decision is abudgetary imperative, andthere is little room to maneuver. AFSAofficials, aware that the change is a “morale buster,” share the frustration expressed by the membership. AFSA has metwithUnder Secretary forManagement Patrick Kennedy, key people in the direc- tor general’s office andother senior officials to argue for a reconsideration, to no avail. The decision to restrict premium-class travel is the product of two negative Government AccountabilityOffice reports on State’s spending on business-class travel and an OMB directive to all feder- al departments and agencies. AFSA has made the arguments raised by the mem- bership: that the Foreign Service is differ- ent frommost other parts of theU.S. gov- ernment in that FS business trips are not short jaunts toChicago or NewYork, but rather 22-hour, multiple-leg flights to Ulaanbaatar, Abuja orMumbai, oftenwith a spouse and a few kids in tow. Or they are long, stressful journeys to dangerous postings such as Iraq or Afghanistan. AFSAhas also argued that there is a dis- paritywith certain otherU.S. government agencies that seemto havemore generous rules. Unfortunately, while AFSA can protest, there is no legal or statutory recourse to stop the policy change. Considering the public beating that the image of the Foreign Service has taken in the media in recent months, this is a bad time for AFSA to be seen arguing for busi- ness-class travel. Neither the public nor Congress would view the argument sym- pathetically,regardlessofitsvalidity. Inaddi- tion, AFSA has been advised by friends on the Hill that the prospects for success on overseas comparabilitypay are improving, but couldbediminishedby toomuchper- ceivedwhining about business-class travel. Nonetheless, AFSA has raised strong objections with departmentmanagement —and did sowell before the decisionwas finalized—and is still urging the depart- ment to use whatever flexibility may be possible to findotherways todeal with the budget crunch rather than further squeez- ing Foreign Service members at the most remote posts. AFSA was heartened by the Feb. 21 message sent out by Under Secretary Kennedy, not because it offered any real hope for rejection of the new policy, but because it gave a candid and straightfor- ward assessment of the issue. His remarks are worth noting: “I have heard from a number of employees and from AFSA about the changes that wemade recently to our reg- ulations governing business-class travel in response to governmentwide regulatory amendments. The policy we had in place was one that nearly everyone in the depart- ment liked and understood. Under- standably, the changes that we recently made in response to the governmentwide policy shift are not so popular. “I know that some of you may have already experienced the personal impact of the change, andmanymore of youwill undoubtedly do so during the upcoming summer transfer season or as you move to another post of assignment later in your career. This was not a change that we sought nor one that we could avoidmak- ing. …. “I sympathize with the concerns that so many of you have expressed and so many others have probably felt. I know that this decision will make it more dif- ficult and less comfortable for employ- ees and families to travel to and fromdis- tant posts. In my 35 years with the department, I have visited dozens of posts and know first-hand howdistant somany of our posts are from Washington and home and how challenging it can be to travel to them. While our preference would have been to continue the policy we had in place, that was not an option. “I have made it clear in my conver- sations withOMB and other agencies that I expect these changes to be applied con- sistently across the executive branch. We will remain vigilant tomake sure that all agencies adhere to the new directive as thoroughly as we do. At the same time, given the reality of the change, I call on all COMs, DCMs, management officers and section chiefs to do your best to ease the inconvenience and discomfort of long trips by working with employees to schedule rest stops en route and rest on arrival as appropriate and as authorized in the regulations.” A F S A N E W S JOSH Travel • Continued from page 51