The Foreign Service Journal, September 2003

I can’t tell you how many senior OMSs I know with the word “retirement” on their lips, and I’m convinced the state of the OMS promotion system is a big part of the reason. It got this way incrementally, and there may even be some movement to correct it in Washington to which, being so far from the source, I am not privy. One can only hope. The history is that, in recognition of how significantly our responsibilities have changed over the past couple of decades, the department did away with the lower grades. Newly-hired OMSs are currently brought in at the FP-7 level. They are administratively promoted to FP-6 after about 18 months and then compete for promotion to FP- 5, FP-4, and FP-3 (where we are capped). There are only 23 FP-3 OMSs out of the entire corps of 816, so you can see the chances of making it to the top are quite slim. Last year’s promotion statistics showed 6 OMSs promoted to FP-3. Their average length of service was 24.2 years and average time-in-class was nine years. How many officers would stick around if faced with these statistics? In fact, whenever I explain the limitations on the OMS career path to officers, they are unanimously appalled — as well they should be. We have argued that since the department has recog- nized the substantive changes in our work responsibilities by abolishing the lower grades, they should take the next steps to upgrade other positions (and promote into them accordingly) as well as opening to us the FP-2 level. I believe that unless this is done soon, we will see a steady loss in our most experienced OMSs that can only result in less efficient operations for the Foreign Service as a whole. Carol Scannell Office Manager Embassy Asuncion How to Bring the Walls Down I quit AFSA about five years ago when I grew weary of never seeing any references to specialists in the Foreign Service Journal or other periodic dispatches by the association such as the presidential update mes- sages. It appeared to me AFSA did not realize there were specialists among their membership, or they just plain didn’t care. To me this was a perfect example of the attitude that is endemic throughout the Foreign Service. Should AFSA take a more proactive approach to specialist issues, I may consider rejoining. I do not consider a lot of issues raised by my IRM col- leagues to be very significant. There are many who want diplomatic status so they can have “CD” license plates, diplomatic titles, freer access to work-related locations within the country where they work (airport tarmacs), diplomatic immunity, tax advantages, more lenient import restrictions (or total lack thereof) and other similar “perks” that come with diplomatic status. Perhaps the department should strive to better inform all prospective and active-duty specialists of the nature of being a member of the administrative and technical staff at posts overseas. I never realized there was actually a dif- ference between specialists and officers (and had never even heard the term “A & T Staff”) until after I had served almost six years in the Foreign Service and was assigned to Guangzhou, China. Guangzhou was a consumables post then. My wife and I had planned to “split” our consumables shipment into two shipments a year apart to better manage how much we bought and minimize waste. It wasn’t until we had bought, paid for, and were ready to ship our second ship- ment that we were told specialists were only authorized one consumables shipment, and only immediately after arrival at post. That was when I began to learn of the true gulf that separates “us” from “them.” It is my belief that a lot of the perceived and real down- trodding of the specialist corps can probably be primarily attributed to one issue: The overwhelming majority of FSOs do not seem to have a clear idea exactly what many specialists’ responsibilities are, where they start and end, and how they all fit into the overall personnel structure at post. This is particularly true for Information Management Specialists, who are generally looked upon more as a “necessary evil” than genuine contributors to the mission’s activities. I have experienced examples of this dynamic so many times it would be impossible for me to outline them all. Even a fellow specialist at my current post seems to have no idea why IRM is a necessity here at the largest con- sulate in Africa, despite my repeated attempts to provide him with detailed information regarding our functions and activities. Not once has the Information Management Officer — who is the highest-graded, longest-in-service specialist at post — been asked to serve as the Acting Management Officer. No IRM representa- tive is ever invited to attend country team meetings (a sit- F O C U S 58 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3