The Foreign Service Journal, June 2003

F O C U S decide issues relating to the implementation of the E.O., and the Disputes Panel, to deal with negotiating impasses). For its part, State management achieved a separate employee-manage- ment system for the Foreign Service and a degree of oversight by the Board of the Foreign Service in reviewing the decisions of the EMRC and the Disputes Panel. Second Battle: The 1971 AFSA Elections E.O. 11636 was issued in late 1971, a timeframe which also witnessed one of the hardest-fought AFSA elections ever. Two slates competed along with three independent candidates. The Participation Slate was composed of holdovers from the Bray Board (Harrop, Harris and oth- ers) along with a more aggressive cadre of candi- dates (Hank Cohen, Barbara Good, myself and others) who had opposed the Seven Points but accepted the negotiated version of E.O. 11636 as a basis for unionism in the Foreign Service. Our slate encompassed a coalition of political and economic officers from the regional bureaus, as well as secretaries, communica- tors and representatives from USIA and USAID. In strong opposition was the Members’ Interests Slate, whose core group was the Junior Foreign Service Officer Club leadership. Although they, too, wanted AFSA to become a union, they were con- cerned that through E.O. 11636 management would retain too much control over the negotiat- ing process. From the distance of 30-plus years, the two platforms do not appear so dissimilar. At the time, however, the debates were sharp, with both ideological and genera- tional overtones. The Members’ Interests Slate attacked from the left, strongly criticizing E.O. 11636 and the Participation Slate for accepting it in an alleged sell- out. Reflecting its core constituency, the slate’s other positions had a junior-officer cast, though it did attempt to diversify its candidates for the Governing Board. For our part, the Participation Slate argued that AFSA could become an effective union while maintaining its status as a first-rate profes- sional association. We supported E.O. 11636 because it emphasized the uniqueness and inde- pendence of the Foreign Service, but promised to use it effectively to negotiate with manage- ment on personnel and bread-and-butter issues. Our goal was to reach out from the center of the AFSA polity to the right and left. If anything, we had a middle-grade officer cast. Both sides debated in open meetings, worked the halls at State and tried to reach friends and sympathizers at posts abroad. Name recognition also played a role. When the votes were counted, the Participation Slate had swept all Governing Board seats, with each of its 11 candidates win- ning between 1,163 and 1,400 votes. However, the voting was quite close: the top Members’ Interests candidate received 1,103 votes, nearly catching our low scor- er, while the other members of the slate obtained between 769 and 1,000 votes each. But it was the Participation Slate that would lead the Foreign Service into the new world of unionism. In the end, AFSA achieved the best of both worlds. E.O. 11636 established a system that recognized a unique and independent Foreign Service. Tom Boyatt in 1978... ... and 2001. J U N E 2 0 0 3 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 31