The Foreign Service Journal, May 2004

MAY 2004 • AFSA NEWS 3 I nMarch, I attendedmy secondregional conference for entry- level employees, this one inWarsaw. I returnedas impressed with the employees serving in Europe as I was with those in the East Asia and Pacific regionwhom I met at the January Manila conference. In addition, I gained a new appreciation for the rigors of serving in Central Asian posts. One-thirdof all ForeignService employees have beenhired since1998. Thismeans thedepartment isblessedwitha remark- ably energetic, resilient and eager populationof specialists and generalists. Because of hiring freezes in the 1990s,manynewemployees have beengiven responsibilities previously reserved for experiencedmid-level officers. Theyhave acquit- ted themselves exceedingly well. The mid-level deficit meant that some of these new-entry employees have not had full-time supervisors. I spoke with several employees who had been supervised by a string of WAE (when actually employed, retired FS) bosses. I do not mean to deni- grate theworthy retirees, but in the cases brought tomy attention, the temporary super- visors didnot leave behind comments for EERs, which left their ratees in a bit of a lurch. Naturally, new-entry professionals are con- cernedabout tenure. Theywant it andarework- ing hard to get it, but the workings of the Commissioning and Tenure Board are opaque. For example, if the boarddecides todefer a deci- sion on a candidate on the first review, the can- didate is due a letter explaining why (AFSA requested this and management agreed). The board is supposed to issue the letter shortly after it meets to allow the candidate time to correct shortcomings or gain new experience. Unfortunately, the board is too often late in getting out its letters. In Warsaw, I met one candidate who had yet to receive his letter from the June 2003 board and another who received his letter eight months after the board had met. The tardiness of the explanatory letters does not engender faith in the system. Leaving names off the lists of those to be reviewed for tenuring, forgetting administrative pro- motions for a whole class of specialists, and other bureaucratic missteps weaken faith in the system. If any system demands faith, it is the system that governs the Foreign Service, becausewe are essentially self-governing. Members of theForeignService admin- ister the Foreign Service: there is no permanent managerial class to do it. We admin- ister the discipline and craft the training. We are in charge of peer review (i.e., promo- tions and awards) and handle assignments. Lack of trust in one area of the adminis- trationmaywell spill over intoother areas. Thismust be avoidedat all costs. The integri- ty of the systemmust be maintained. AFSA will focus on improving the administration of the Foreign Service. The del- uge of those hired under the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative has yet to crest. The first of the large entry-level classes come up for their first tenure review inMarch2005. There is time to streamline operations, automate them to the extent possible, and otherwise prepare toprovide these employees the level of attention and follow-through they have every right to expect in return for their enthusiastic service in some very difficult and dangerous places. ▫ Naturally, new-entry professionals are concerned about tenure. V.P. VOICE: STATE BY LOUISE CRANE Keeping the Faith LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The 150 Account & the Budget Process C ongress officially began the long funding process for Fiscal Year 2005 when the Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 95 on March 11, by a 51-45 vote, and theHouse passed House Concurrent Resolution 393, by a 215-212 vote. The administra- tion’s request for the International Affairs Account in FY05 is $31.519 bil- lion. The Senate budget resolutionwould allocate $31.970 billion for foreign affairs, while the House would allocate $26.886 billion, $4.6 billion below request. The Senate and the Housemust meet in conference to resolve the differences between the resolutions. Chief among these differences is the role that the Senate-proposed “Pay-Go” budget enforcement authority and alternative House proposals will play. Differences in funding proposals are not that great in terms of budget allocations. In con- ference, the final numbers for the International Affairs Account and the other accounts usually end up being somewhere between the Senate and the House’s proposed allocations, which means that the numbers will be below the administration’s request. As we continue into the appropria- tions part of the funding process, the key questions are: Will the final budget res- olution be closer to the Senate number or the House number, and what pro- grams in the 150 account will have to be cut and by how much? The closeness of the budget resolution votes (nearly party-line) indicate the dif- ficulties that will be confronted during this election year as Congress works to do the people’s business, show concern about the deficit and position members for the elections. AFSAwill continue to be engaged in this process, working to maximize funding for the 150 International Affairs Account. ▫