The Foreign Service Journal, June 2006

I n March-April 2006, AFSA FCS sent a survey to 219 FSOs in the ForeignCommercial Service (those who are non-man- agement, non-limited career FSOs) to complement the ear- lier surveys done by State and the Foreign Agricultural Service (see AFSANews, Nov. 2005: “OnlineOpinion Poll Shapes AFSA Agenda,” by State VP Steve Kashkett; and “Capitalizing on FAS’s Human Resources,” by FAS VP Laura Scandurra). The FCS response was excellent. We heard from124 FSOs, a strong 57- percent response rate. Like our State colleagues, FCS officers strongly endorse seek- ing overseas locality or comparability pay as AFSA’s top pri- ority, with 95 percent of respondents agreeing (about 70 per- cent agreeing “strongly”). Likewise, 85 percent ormore ofmem- bers responding supported fighting for fairness in assign- ments and promotions, assistingmembers with individual labor- management problems, and defending the reputation and role of the professional Foreign Commercial Service as AFSA pri- orities (see chart). As we all know from the April Foreign Service Journal issue and elsewhere, the administration has proposed phasing in overseas locality pay, in tandem with pay for per- formance for FS-1s and below, in mid-2007. In terms of howwell AFSA is serving FCSmembers, 70 per- cent of respondents feel AFSA should be “more vocal and assertive” with management, but 78 percent are basically sat- isfied with FCS/AFSA’s efforts on behalf of its members. AFSANET e-mails and the Foreign Service Journal are themain sources of information about AFSA activities and efforts, while word-of-mouth and the AFSAWeb site are important but secondary. We continue our efforts to improve theWeb site by postingmore information, and encour- age members to visit it regularly: www.afsa.org/cspage.cfm . Certain recurring themes in individual survey comments are worthnoting. Several FCSofficers feel thatAFSA, overall, and the FSJ are too State-centric. The emphasis on State is understand- able, however, given the disproportion in our relative member- shipnumbers. Others note that FCSdoes not “get credit” for sup- portingother divisions ofCommerce andotherU.S. government agencies in broader commercial diplomacy, in addition to tradi- tional export promotionwork. (It isworthnoting thatAFSAtes- tifiedontheHill before theHouseSmallBusinessCommitteeabout the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee on April 26.) Despite the fact that FCS officers have served in our domes- tic network in the nominally integrated U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service since the mid-1990s, we continue to hear that more progress is needed on domestic positions, evalua- tions, promotions, etc. “Too often, commercial officers go into the domestic field and are sort of forgotten,” onemember com- mented. Finally, several officers wonder whether AFSA could play an effective role inseekingmoreandbetter resources for aCommercial Service fromwhich, according toone respondent, “the fat has been cut and we are now losing bone marrow.” In fact, ominously, more than half of FCS officers surveyed feel that working con- ditions are getting worse rather than better. r V.P. VOICE: FCS n BY DON BUSINGER Satisfied with AFSA; Much Less So with Working Conditions What would you like to see as AFSA’s top priorities? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Lobbying for overseas locality pay Fighting for fairness in assignments/promotions Assisting members with problems/ concerns etc. Defending the reputation of the professional FCS and its role in commercial policy and trade promotion Series 1 Highest Priority Series 2 Medium Priority 70% 25% 54% 37% 45% 45% 31% 54% Present Foreign Service Working Conditions 33% Remains the Same 57% Worsening 10% Improving 4 AFSA NEWS • JUNE 2006