The Foreign Service Journal, May 2015

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MAY 2015 53 AFSA NEWS State Proposes Changes to Danger Pay, Hardship Differentials The State Department is pro- posing changes to its method for determining danger pay at all overseas posts. In a recent cable (STATE 25786), Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy writes that the changes will be made to ensure compliance with the law governing allowances (5 USC 5928) and to promote an implementation process that is “consistent, transparent, fair and repeatable.” The proposed process for calculating danger pay will make use of the existing security environment threat list (SETL) process. Under the new system, a post would be considered for danger pay based solely on that coun- try’s SETL scores for political violence and terrorism. According to a briefing State officials recently con- ducted for AFSA’s leadership, the new systemwould replace the current danger-pay struc- ture—5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 percent—with levels of 15, 25 and 35 percent. Conditions no longer evalu- ated under the new definition of danger pay will now be con- sidered under the category of hardship differentials, which is also under review. The net effect on posts’ overall allow- ances (danger plus hardship) is not yet clear, although it appears that the impact will be negative. AFSA is concerned about how elimination of the danger pay incremental levels might affect negotiated conditions of employment: e.g., benefits (Student Loan Repayment Program), bidding (fair share and equity) and Senior For- eign Service eligibility (Career Development Program). Under the Foreign Service Act of 1980, the State Depart- ment is required to consult AFSA on matters affecting the rights, benefits or obligations of individuals, and to negotiate the impact and implementa- tion of changes to conditions of employment. AFSA is concerned about these proposals, both in process and substance, and will continue to engage with State’s leadership on this topic. The world is not getting any less dangerous, and it is important that benefits reflect that harsh reality. n —Stephan Skora, AFSA Labor Management Intern American Academy of Diplomacy Releases Report: ‘American Diplomacy at Risk’ The American Academy of Diplomacy released a major report, titled “American Diplomacy at Risk,” on April 1 at a press conference held at The GeorgeWashington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Ambas- sador Ronald Neumann, president of the AAD, as well as report co-chairs Ambas- sador Thomas Pickering and Ambassador Marc Grossman, presented the document. “A strong State Depart- ment, based on a strong Foreign Service and a strong Civil Service, is a critical com- ponent of America’s security,” the report states in its open- ing paragraph. “But America’s diplomacy—the front line of our defenses—is in trouble.” The report details the threat: “There is an increas- ingly politicized appointment and policy process in the State Department, resulting in a steady decrease in the use of diplomacy professionals with current field experience and long-term perspective in making and implementing policy,” it asserts. “This is reversing a century-long effort to create a merit-based system that val- ued high professionalism. It is both ironic and tragic that the United States is now moving away from the principles of a career professional Foreign Service based on ‘admission through impartial and rigor- ous examination’ (as stated in the [Foreign Service] Act [of 1980]), promotion on merit, and advice to the political level based on extensive expe- rience, much of it overseas, as well as impartial judgment at a time when we need it most.” The second factor AAD identifies is the department’s effort to “break down all institutional, cultural and legal barriers between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service.” The report says this effort was identified in official press guidance issued by the State Department in April 2013. “The Academy calls on the Secretary and his manage- ment team to honor the distinction in law and practice between the Foreign Service and the Civil Service,” the report states. “We call upon those in the department who have misused calls for unity of effort as a chance to promote their vision of amalgamation to end this campaign to un- name the Foreign Service and de-commission FSOs. These actions weaken the Foreign and Civil Services. Both ser- vices are indispensable to a strong State Department and the proper conduct of foreign policy.” The report also highlights Continued on p. 62