The Foreign Service Journal, June 2005

4 AFSA NEWS • JUNE 2005 I nherAprilcolumn,“WhatMakesLouise Really Mad?”, AFSA VP Louise Crane railed against what she termed the “nasty, nefarious assignmentpractice”of the chair holding proposed assignments at panel. She painted a picture of the depart- ment’s Foreign Service assignment system that couldeasily lead readers tobelieve that management habitually and repeatedly manipulates theprocess through theuseof chair holds. This is completelyuntrue, and what makes me really mad is that Louise knew full well that she was misleading her readerswhenshe stretcheda single incident with which she took exception into a par- adigm for the entire assignments system. Whatmakesme really proud is the trans- parent and fair manner in which we con- duct the assignments process. The Office of Career Development and Assign- ments has paneled more than 2,200 employees to jobs so far this year. Out of all those panel actions, how many assign- ments has the chair held? One. And Louise knows it was just one, becauseearlyintheseason,aftershehadtold me how much she despised chair holds, I promisedtotellAFSAinadvanceeverytime I planned to invoke a chair hold (which I dutifullydid in the case towhichshe refers). Yet Louise chose to take the only instance inwhicha chairholdwasused this year and make it appear as though it were the norm for the assignments process. “Management uses the trickof chair holds,” shewrote, “to keepcertainassignmentsopenfor these fair- share bidders.” Let’sbe fair. IfAFSAwants to takeman- agement to task for a singleperceivedabuse of the system, I say good for you. Spread theword. Keep the systemhonest andput everyone onnotice that the union is fulfill- ing its function as a watchdog. That is AFSA’s role,whichI supportbothas aman- ager and as an AFSAmember. Do not, however, perpetuate the false notion that ForeignService assignments are somehow riddled with favoritism. What youhavedoneiscastaspersionsontheover- allintegrityoftheassignmentssystem,some- thing in which the entire Foreign Service communityhasahugestake. Thisdoesboth the department andAFSAa disservice: the department, because it is filledwithhonor- ablepeople trying todo the right thing, and AFSA, because you end up placing a good union’s credibilityat risk. At the same time, you impugn the integrity of all of the employeesinCDA,whoalsoserveaswatch- dogs for the assignments system. AllForeignServicepersonnelhavearight to invest in thebasicnotion that theprocess of making assignments in the department is fundamentally fair. Note that I don’t say totally fair or universally fair or cosmically fair, because HR work is an imprecise sci- ence, and there are as many variations on an assignment theme as there are Foreign Service employees. InCDA, weworkhard tobuildtrustinthissystem. Wehavedozens of standard operating procedures that governall assignments andpanels. Wehave 105 pairs of eyes in this office, all watching over the process, all representing differing viewpoints and different constituencies in what has come to be, over the course of many years, apretty good systemof checks andbalances. I canassure you that all those who work in CDA are as conscientious about the pursuit of fairness as I am. Instead of raising false alarms, AFSA would do well to give credit to the 3,000 assignmentsmade everyyear inaccordance with strict procedures. Give credit to all of thepanel actions that requiredifficult deci- sions inCDA to balance service needs and employee aspirations. Fair-share and 6/8 rules, curtailments, adjustments, conal appeals, details, training, home leave and R&R, language waivers, LWOP, nepotism work-arounds, service need differential, tandems, stretch assignments — all are tough issues that are based on rules vetted withAFSAand then considered on a case- by-case basis by your peers. Unless an employee or a bureau appeals a decision made byCDA’s panels, thedirector gener- al does not involve himself in this process. Nevertheless, I remain cognizant, as should AFSA, of the statutes under which weoperate—specifically, Section502(a)(1) of the Foreign Service Act, which gives the Secretary of State the authority, delegated to the director general, to assignamember of the Service to any Foreign Service posi- tionas theneeds of theServicemay require. Yet look at how incredibly rarely higher management has intervened in the panel process. Is itnot instructive tonote that you had to reach back several years to find an “abuse”of the systemtocite in the column? I cannot imagine adirector generalwho could uphold the letter and spirit of the assignments process more assiduously than the current one. Even the assignment LouisespeaksofinhercolumnwasnotDG- directed in the end, butwas turnedback to the assignments panel for a decision, which the panelmadewith full knowledge of the equities of all parties involved. Her conspiracy theoryofmanagement regular- ly using chair holds to subvert the process simply does not hold water. If AFSA truly feels that the Foreign Service assignments system is fundamen- tally flawed, it should take that belief to its members in a manner that is clear and unambiguous. Imyself believe that thevast majority of FS employees sharemy strong conviction that the assignments system is not just fair and equitable, but is, in fact, exceedingly so. r AN HR RESPONSE TO “WHAT MAKES LOUISE MAD?” What Makes Gary Really Proud? BY GARY PERGL, OFFICE DIRECTOR, CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSIGNMENTS AFSA President John Limbert responds: We agree thatMr. Pergl andhis staff deserve praise for theirwork inuphold- inganequitableassignment system. The one case mentioned, however, is one case too many. In AFSA’s view, this apparent disregard for fair-share rules — which HR says it wants to uphold — does not serve the interest of the Service; rather itworks against efforts to strengthenanopenand fair assignment system that needs the trust of all employees if it’s going to work.