The Foreign Service Journal, October 2006

76 F OR E I GN S E R V I C E J OU R N A L / OC T OB E R 2 0 0 6 short (10-day) turnaround time togo from proposals topolicies indicatedthatdecisions were intended tobe finalwhen thepropos- alswent out to the field. Theproposalswere incorporated into the “Instructions on Bidding and Assignments” for the 2007 openassignments cycle, postedonAug. 28. AFSA offered support for the general thrust of the proposed changes aimed at improving the overall fairness and trans- parency of the assignment system. AFSA reluctantly agreed to the department’s changes to the rules relating to extensions. But AFSA believes that the department needs to showsome flexibility and consid- eration of personal circumstances, partic- ularly as they relate to family and educa- tional issues, and to implement some tran- sition rules that will permit exceptions for such family andeducational issues for those who were assigned to posts under the old extension rules. AFSA believes that the department should modify this new poli- cy to exempt all hard-language-designat- ed positions. The association accepted the proposed newrequirement that “handshakes”not be registered by Human Resources until the start of the applicable assignment season (with special arrangementsmade for those coming out of Iraq PRTs who have been guaranteed one of their top five onward assignments); and the strengthening of the roleofHR/CDA in the assignment process. AFSAhadquestions about theproposed changes to the “fair share”bidding require- ment, whichwould restrict fair-share bids to those at 15-percent-or-greater hardship posts, but after consultationswithmanage- ment, accepted this proposal, aswell. AFSA rejected theproposal tochange the 6/8-year rule to5/6, because itwouldeffectively limit Foreign Service members to two regular domestic assignments in a row, even for those who have just completed multiple overseas hardshippostings or haveperson- al reasons to stay longer in Washington. The department was not able to substan- tiate its claimthat this changewouldmake it easier to fill its priority jobs. AFSA met several times with depart- ment management to discuss the propos- als. AFSAhas tried to ensure thatmanage- ment considers all the implications of these changes and that unintended conse- quences are minimized. AFSA also encouraged Foreign Service members to send input toAFSAand to thedirector gen- eral. Hundreds did so. OnAug. 31, AFSA sent out the follow- ing message to membership to clarify its position on the new assignment rules: AFSANET MESSAGE TO THE MEMBERSHIP Straight Talk on the New Assignment Rules As previewed in theDirectorGeneral’s “The Future Is Now” cable and AFSA’s companionpiece (State 133427), the 2007 Bidding Instructions have nowbeen pub- lished with a number of changes over last year’s version. Noone candoubt the intent of these changes, which were designed to increase the incentives and pressure on Foreign Service members to bid on the growingnumberof extreme-hardship, dan- ger-pay and unaccompanied positions that now need to be filled every summer. This shift in emphasis fromnon-hardship to hardship posts is a reality of the more challenging and sometimes more hostile world inwhichmanyof our embassies and consulates must operate, but it is also an inescapable byproduct of the Secretary’s transformational diplomacy agenda. Hundreds of AFSAmembers have sent us feedback in response to these two cables. This extensive feedback illustrates the diverse, multifaceted and often contradic- tory rangeof opinions that exist amongour worldwidemembership. Most respondents clearly understand the imperative to staff ourmost difficult posts and support a tight- ening upof the fair-share bidding rules. A strong majority heartily endorse a crack- down on the backroom“handshake” sys- tem that has often allowed bureaus to cut special deals for their insiders. Foreign Servicemembers across the boardapprove of any measures to clamp down on “needs of the Service” exceptions that ben- efit certain senior officers and a select few others who have good connections on the 7th floor or in the front offices of geograph- ic bureaus. At the same time, there is also a wide- spread concern that longstanding assign- ment rules and practices are being hastily jettisoned inorder toaddress the short-term staffing needs of the most difficult places, suchas the IraqPRTs. Membersworldwide have repeatedly raised questions about the sizeoftheU.S.embassyinIraqandtheprac- tical abilityof FSpersonnel toperformtheir assigneddutiesgiventhesecurityconstraints. Members feel as if the excellent work per- formed by the Foreign Service in many importantbut lessdifficultposts isno longer valued or rewarded. Most importantly, while most Foreign Service employees are tough, adaptable peoplewho are fully pre- pared to volunteer for their share of hard- shippostings,many fear they are losing the flexibility to structure their careers in ways that accommodate their personal and family needs. AFSA has vigorously rein- forced these points inour discussions with department management. The 2007 Bidding Instructions AFSA urges all members to carefully read the new bidding instructions, posted at http://hrweb.hr.state.gov/prd/hrweb/ cda/Bidding_Instructions.html . The instructions spell out the new sequence of the four “seasons” for assignment panels, whichwill focus on fillingunaccompanied positions earlier in the cycle. AFSA views this new sequencing as an experiment for this assignment cycle, the results of which we hope to review for fairness with the director general before any decisions are taken for next year. The instructions also set forth the strengthened requirements for fair-share bidders, who must now bid on three posts at 15-percent or greater differ- ential. Wewouldnote that there has been a gradual shift in the classificationofmany hardship posts from lesser to greater dif- ferentials. So the list of posts now classi- fied at differentials of 15, 20, 25 or higher percent is considerably longer than it was even five years ago. Members should understand that these rules are forward- looking, not retroactive, soanyonewhohas served at a hardship post of any differen- A F S A N E W S Assignment Changes • Continued from page 71