The Foreign Service Journal, April 2013

46 APRIL 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL AFSA NEWS A Jury of Our Peers STATE VP VOICE | BY DANIEL HIRSCH AFSA NEWS Views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the AFSA State VP. For as long as people have been thinking about the behavior of other people, they have shared a single common view: “If you behave like me, you are good. If you behave differently, you are bad.” This works well as a determinant of normalcy in a homogeneous society or organization, but quickly breaks down as a group becomes diverse. As early as the Middle Ages, a jury of one’s peers solved the problem. A peer is someone like you in as many respects as is practical, and presumably shares, or can at least under- stand, your own point of view. The value of the opinions of one’s peers is recognized not only in our legal system, but also in academia, the arts and, indeed, our own profession of diplomacy. It forms, for example, the underlying basis for the promotion and tenure boards, which review the performance of Foreign Service members and weigh them against both absolute standards and each other. Having personally observed numerous aspects of that process, I can attest that it works well in the vast majority of cases. The adjudicators in security clearance and discipline cases, and the Office of the Inspector General investigators, are not Foreign Service members. Many investigators and deciding officials differ substantially from the Foreign Service employ- ees they are reviewing in terms of age, background, experi- ence, philosophy, cultural exposure and outlook. In my opinion (and AFSA’s perception), this has contributed to a small but significant number of problems. When employees perceive the process as unfair, they not only mistrust the findings but become reluctant to cooperate with these offices. This also has the effect of stifling initiative and innovation, since deviation from a narrow norm could subject the employee to punishment. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review report urges FS members to take calculated risks in order to advance the State Department’s mission. However, we need assurances that risk-taking will not be interpreted as malfeasance. That requires that those doing the interpreting understand fully what we do. Peer perspective is especially important in issues of judgment, morality and personal conduct. We have seen a dramatic increase in instances of “morality police” cases, ascribing improper or even criminal intent to private actions by employees and family members. There are some actions that are universally recognized as wrong, imprudent or illegal by most Americans. But increasingly, we are seeing not only consensual sexual relationships being described as disgrace- ful, but even cases in which parenting styles are challenged. Few areas of conduct are more subjective than sexual rela- tionships. The propriety of otherwise identical scenarios will vary greatly with the circumstances, intentions, beliefs, status and identities of those involved. So will parenting styles, especially as many FS members have foreign-born spouses or partners. Parents who bathe with their preschool-age children, or allow their toddler to sleep with them, or kiss their 7-year-old child goodbye with a quick peck on the lips, are not perverts or pedophiles, but merely have different parental styles than do the investigat- ing agents. Those with a broader view than just law enforce- ment should review allegations involving such personal issues. We think it important that a number of practices, many already enshrined in the For- eign Affairs Manual, be rigidly adhered to and enforced: • Investigators should objectively gather the facts, not just with an eye towards supporting a criminal indictment or disciplinary case, but solely with an eye towards creating the fullest picture possible of the issue or event. Investigative reports should never include the investigator's opinions or recommendations. • There should be absolute separation between the adjudica- tors or deciders of a case and the investigators. Those who make a decision should have no investment in the investiga- tion itself, nor should the investigator have any input—beyond objectively gathered facts—into the process. • At the earliest possible moment, before a decision is made, the findings should be reviewed and analyzed by people who are the peers of those being reviewed, and the opinions of those peers given weight in any assessment. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the Office of Human Resources and the Office of the Inspector General should all create and use advi- sory groups, drawn from FS members in their own ranks, as well as other FS members, to regularly review cases or issues where perspectives might vary in a diverse society. • DS and OIG should endeavor to staff adjudicative func- tions with employees from diverse backgrounds and disci- plines, and establish procedures for group review of cases. In offices where decisions routinely require assessments of personal behavior or judgment, the office staff involved in the case should represent a diverse range of perspectives and backgrounds. n Peer perspective is especially important in issues of judgment, morality and personal conduct.