The Foreign Service Journal, April 2013

the Foreign Service journal | April 2013 17 among those voting at that time. It was an era when the “old boy/old school tie” dominated. Diplomats were gentlemen (overwhelmingly), while most union members were industrial workers, more familiar with factory shop floors than embassies. Those endorsing the AFSA option—and I was one of them—blithely expected continuation of the historical precedent of lifetime careers leading to retirement, rather than up-or- out defenestration. We were wrong. And AFSA’s 1970s-era paradigm needs to be rethought and fun- damentally reinvented—or jettisoned. Without saying so in picket lines or manifestos, the Foreign Service rank-and- file implicitly recognizes AFSA’s feeble effect on their professional lives. The attitude is most evident in membership and election participation. At the time of the 2011 Governing Board elections, nearly a quarter of the Foreign Service’s 12,000-plus active-duty personnel were not AFSAmembers. I have heard frommany who have joined AFSA that a big incentive was access to legal services to fight the vagaries of Bureau of Diplomatic Security charges—not any ideological belief in the value of unions. Another indicator of widespread apathy is the fact that only a quarter of Foreign Ser- vice retirees choose to retain their AFSA membership. Historically, few AFSAmembers have ever bothered to vote in the biennial Governing Board elections (20 percent in 2007; 23 percent in 2009). For the 2011 elections, the results were even more piti- ful: reportedly, just a sixth (16.7 percent) of all members voted, and only 9.1 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot for the AFSA State vice president. One reason for such widespread voter apathy might well be the ad hominem bitterness that tainted the 2009 elec- tions. Responding to crossfire charges of procedural violations, the Department of Labor—which certifies the results of all union elections—took a more hands-on role in the 2011 elections. It would certainly seem that most AFSA members don’t regard the elections as personally meaningful. Think about that for a moment. Foreign Service person- nel are among the most politically aware, intellectually engaged citizens; it’s rea- sonable to assume that something close to 90 percent of them voted in the 2012 presidential election. Yet they can’t be bothered to take part in an AFSA election. A “union” with such a pitiful participa- tion rate risks being regarded as a paper tiger by State Department management. That perception, in turn, renders AFSA ineffectual in advocating its members’ interests, which sets up a vicious cycle. Revamping AFSA’s Election Process As this year’s elections proceed, AFSA needs to deliver on its commitments to engage AFSAmembers and attract new support. That point should be self-evident, but apparently is not. Toward that end, here are some spe- cific reforms it needs to adopt as soon as possible. (Most of them apply just as much to all other AFSA activities and opera- tions, not just biennial Governing Board elections.) Campaign Fatigue. The election cycle is much too long. Currently, the initial call for nominations goes out to the member- ship in November during even-numbered years, yet the process is not completed until the following July, with installation of the new Governing Board. We are now in the 21st century, and the process urgently needs to be streamlined. After all, we are no longer burdened by tiny posts communicating with Washing- ton only by monthly pouches. I am therefore pleased to note that beginning this year, AFSA is offering secure electronic voting for Governing Board positions. (Paper ballots will still be available, as well.) That hopefully will lead to a much more reasonable timeline for the electoral process, and boost participa- tion. Opening Up the Process. Long-serv- ing members of the Governing Board and AFSA’s various committees—regardless of their competence—should turn over more often. (If there are no candidates for posi- tions, they should go empty.) There should also be a focus on greater diversity in com- mittee appointments, particularly with regard to members from outside State. Speaking of openness, there should also be far greater transparency in regard to announcing the agenda for the Gov- erning Board’s monthly meetings and reporting the meeting minutes. The board should institute roll-call voting, as well. Change at the Top. Term limits for AFSA officers open the door to much- needed generational renewal. The coterie of retirees and aged officers who have long run AFSA badly needs expansion. It should be the exception rather than the norm that Governing Board leaders are older than the U.S. president. Yes, experience and seniority have value—but so do energy and vigor. Up- AFSA’s 1970s-era paradigm needs to be rethought and fundamentally reinvented—or jettisoned.