The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2014

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | JULY-AUGUST 2014 51 AFSA NEWS individuals to reach consensus on what constitutes a good set of performance guidelines was a far more difficult task. Most of the working group’s activity was conducted via email for the first few months. Drafts, redrafts and comments flew back and forth each day as the 10 of us wrestled with our sometimes strongly diverging views, based on our unique experiences as ambassadors. Since many of the arguments were more about process than substance, the outstanding drafting skills of Janice Weiner, a recently retired FSO and AFSA staff member who served as the working group secretary, enabled us to reconcile our differences. During a face-to-face meeting at AFSA headquarters in December 2013, we formally adopted the guidelines. The basis of the document we forwarded to the AFSA Governing Board for approval drew mainly on the following sources: the Foreign Service Act of 1980; State Depart- ment Office of the Inspector General criteria on qualities of COMs; and our individual experiences. The four guidelines for successful performance as a COM that we identified were: • Leadership and interpersonal skills • Understanding of high-level policy and key U.S. interests and values in the host country • Management skills • Understanding of the host country and international affairs, and ability to promote U.S. interests. These four guidelines are easily understood, and can be used to assess career and non-career nominees alike, without regard to the background of the individual. I continue to believe that of these four criteria, leadership is the most critical. But after intense discussion, we came to the consensus that all are equally important. After all, a suc- cessful COM has to be knowledgeable about policy issues and have the leadership skills that enable him or her to apply that knowledge effectively. Recognizing Reality Our project was controversial from the beginning. In par- ticular, some critics object to the involvement of non-career individuals in the process. I understand this view, given AFSA’s historically strong posi- tion on non-career ambassadors, but still see it as misguided in this context. While I personally believe that the vast majority of ambassadorial positions should go to qualified, proven pro- fessional FSOs, from the beginning of the republic presidents have nominated people from the private sector for ambassa- dorial positions. An even stronger justification for at least some non-career appointments is found in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitu- tion of the United States, which says in part: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other pub- lic Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for...” The members of our working group never viewed recogni- tion of this reality as contra- dicting AFSA’s stand in favor of selecting career FSOs as ambassadors. Moreover, we believe COM positions are far too important to ignore the need for all appointees, regardless of background, to be fully qualified to successfully carry out the nation’s busi- ness. After giving serious consideration to those who advocated that the COM Guidelines demand that only career diplomats be selected for service as chief of mission, our working group decided that we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We also remain convinced that for the document to have any chance of acceptance by all stakeholders in the COM nomination process, it had to be relatively simple and universally applicable, and deal with the world as it is. Spreading the Word Once the AFSA Governing Board approved the document, we shared it with senior managers in the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development and other foreign affairs agencies. We then presented it to key members and staffers in Congress, as well as the White House personnel office. We also shared it with other foreign affairs organiza- tions, such as the American Academy of Diplomacy, the Asso- ciation of Black American Ambassadors and the Council of American Ambassadors. The general reaction to the guidelines from all these recipients was agreement in principle, and in some cases strong support. When we shared the guidelines with the media, there followed a veritable blizzard of press coverage. This was mostly positive, though some expressed skepticism about how effective the guidelines would be in ensuring successful We believe COM positions are far too important to ignore the need for all appointees, regardless of background, to be fully qualified.