The Foreign Service Journal, October 2008

64 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 8 A F S A N E W S T he career Foreign Service of USAID is under attack—not fromthe outside, for there is strong bipartisan support for rectifying staff andoperating fund shortages, but frominside the agency, through decisions and actions that undermine the “career” concept. AFSA has tried to ameliorate this situation with varying levels of success, but the threat has not disappeared. One example is the administration’s push for greatly increased mid-career hiring through the newly approved Development Leadership Initiative. The DLI will finally allow USAID to double its Foreign Service staff over a three-year peri- od. Nevertheless, there exists the potential to take a good thing and get bad results. Let me explain. We are extremely concerned that under the DLI, USAID plans to hire 50 outsiders a year for three years to “leap-frog” over career FSOswhohavewaited their turn for pro- motions. Apart from the fact that there is no significant short- age of officers waiting tomove into the FS-2 and FS-3 levels (see the chart), bringing a large number of new hires into the mid- career rankswill not only killmorale but directly undermine the concept of a career Foreign Service. AFSA has transmitted cor- respondence to variousmembers of Congress to raise this issue. The Foreign Service Act of 1980 reinforces the concept that ourprofession ismeant tooperate “inaccordancewithmerit prin- ciples, admission through impartial and rigorous examination, acquisitionof career status only by thosewhohave demonstrated their fitness through successful completionof probationary assign- ments, effective career development, advancement and retention of the ablest, and separation of those who do not meet the req- uisite standards of performance.” In other words, FSOs should bemolded througha careerlongprocess of extensive training and overseas experienceunique to theprofession. This typeof employ- ee cannot simplybe procured fromthe general jobmarket. FSOs are grown into leadership positions just as are colonels or gen- erals in the military. Of course, no one is arguing against the necessity of hiring certain highly specialized technical and hard-to-fill profession- als suchas engineers, lawyers andaccountants. However, the cur- rent shortages exist primarily because of past short-sighteddeci- sions to decrease the size of the agency through reductions in force and hiring freezes. Certainpositionsmay be considered “special needs” and qualify for employment at higher ranks. However, the agency has gone overboard and picked an arbitrary figure of 50 mid- career hires per year without any rigorous analyses. This is poor work-force planning and shouldnot be the basis for such impor- tant decisions. WehaveaskedCongress to insteaddirect theagency to work closely with AFSA to determine the most appropriate and justifiable levels andquantities ofmid-career hiring inorder to preserve a strong Foreign Service. Another example of how this administration does not seem to value the career Foreign Service is its recent decision to assign a Senior Executive Service officer as mission director in Namibia. Despite AFSA’s protest, the agency has already sworn in this person who, in our opinion, does not meet the require- ments outlined in the ForeignServiceAct. This is a position that requires at least eight yearsof prioroverseas experience for a senior- level FSO. Yet, this requirement is being ignored in the current case. The agency claims that there were no qualified FS bidders. However, due to a very strict interpretation of a guideline that recommends that FSOs serve at headquarters during a 15-year period,many qualifiedofficerswere unfairly judged ineligible to bid on the job. Nomatter how talented, SES employees simply do not have the necessary overseasUSAID-based experience tomanagemis- sions. What is more, the average career FSOhas patiently wait- ed years for his or her turn as a mission director. Many have endured numerous hardship postings and put their families in difficult situations in order to finally reach that career goal. Yet a Civil Service employee can nowwait comfortably stateside for the right overseas opportunity topass over deserving career FSOs. This is an unconscionable and morale-busting violation of the career Foreign Service concept. It is no accident that Congress designed the career Foreign Service to be the highest caliber of representation in the conduct of foreign affairs. Important positions such as mission director — managing an elite staff of seasoned FSOs and multimillion dollar development programs — should not be given as politi- cal or personal favors tountested, undeserving insiders fromthe current administration. These types of actions give one the impression that there is a move toburrowinas this administrationcomes toanend. Major decisions onmid-career hiring and important high-level assign- ments shouldbe deferred to the next administration. Only then can the staff feel assured of support from all sides. o V.P. VOICE: USAID n BY FRANCISCO ZAMORA The Career Foreign Service: Under Attack from the Inside