The Foreign Service Journal, June 2004

matic privileges nor immunity.” “Welcome, indeed!” quipped this employee in recounting his story to the Foreign Service Journal . He reported that “as a direct response to this message, we chose to marry earlier than we would have otherwise.” Over the decades, the Foreign Service, like a bureau- cratic Cupid, has undoubtedly been responsible for hundreds of marriages. That’s because the Service traditionally drew a sharp distinction between family members — who enjoyed numerous privileges — and non-family members (like girlfriends) who had to fend for themselves. It was simply easier to get married — at least where that was an option. That rigid distinction was blurred significantly in the last days of the Clinton administration. On Dec. 26, 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright issued a cable outlining a new policy for “members of the households (MOH) of State Department employ- ees assigned to our missions abroad. Here I refer to those individuals who have accompanied the employ- ee overseas and who the employee has declared to the chief of mission are part of his/her household and who will reside at post with the employee.” Albright’s cable described the new policy as a way of attracting and retaining the best people in “the war for talent,” and it laid out a number of accommoda- tions that posts should make. Perhaps the most important innovation was also the least specific: “COMs [chiefs of mission] shall work to ensure that the official American community environment is as welcoming as possible.” The cable also urged State Department staff to help MOHs with visa and resi- dency permits, to give them access to Community Liaison Office and Family Liaison Office activities and social events, to consider them for employment, to include them in phone and address lists, and to make other such low-cost accommodations. The new policy was a response to a rapidly chang- ing world in which gays and lesbians were now “out” in the Foreign Service, unmar- ried heterosexual couples fre- quently lived together, and other family arrangements were prolif- erating. In fact, MOH policy over the past three years has encompassed domestic partners (aka boyfriends and girlfriends), both gay and straight, children over 21 still living with Mom and/or Dad, elderly parents, and occasionally other relatives as well. (Even though a live-in nanny — especially one who has accompanied an employee from post to post — may seem like a mem- ber of the family, such helpers don’t fall within the MOH category.) MOH policy has been heartily welcomed, especial- ly by gay and lesbian employees. But it has also cre- ated a tricky new, intermediate category of persons who, while part of the post community, are distinctly underprivileged compared to “eligible family mem- bers” such as spouses and children. Not surprisingly, some FS employees have raised questions and com- plaints about MOH policy, asking why the people they love and who have sacrificed to accompany them abroad can’t be treated better — more like Eligible Family Members. Both “EFM” and “MOH” are defined in the Foreign Affairs Manual, which sets out the regula- tions under which the Foreign Service operates. EFMs, as defined by 6 FAM 111.3-1, include spous- es; children under 21 (including those for whom the employee or spouse is guardian); and parents, sisters and brothers when they are dependent on the employee for support or are incapable of self-support. That definition has changed over the years, and does not seem to be specified by law. AFSA labor manage- ment specialist James Yorke tells the Journal that a quick review of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 and other relevant laws did not turn up any statutory def- initions of “family member” or “EFM.” Of course, that will have a bearing on whether State may legally tinker with the EFM-MOH distinction. In 3 FAM 4180, MOHs are defined along the lines outlined in Secretary Albright’s cable, as are the priv- ileges they are to be afforded. However, the provi- J U N E 2 0 0 4 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 17 It’s been essential to the acceptance of the MOH policy that it applies to heterosexual couples and other family members, not only to gays and lesbians. Bob Guldin, a former editor of the Journal , is a free- lance writer and editor in the Washington area. M E M B E R S O F H O U S E H O L D