The Foreign Service Journal, November 2003

L et’s pretend! Pretending can be fun— it takes us back to less complicated times. Ready? Let’s pretend we are embarking on that imaginary road called the “career path” and we have come to Robert Frost’s decisive fork in the road. Which road to choose? The one that offers us a plan for student loan repayment, or the one that does not? The one that pays per diem and allowances when we initially come on board, or the one that does not? The one that has policies allowing business-class travel when appro- priate, or the one that has the policy but does not fully implement it? The one that permits spouses to study foreign languages for the same number of weeks as a full- time employee, or the one that limits language-class participation? The one that facilitates participation in an insurance plan that provides an immediate benefit upon death, or the one that does not? The one that affords eligibility to join USAA, or the one that does not? Actually, pretending is not necessary at all in this case. Sadly, this is the reali- ty. Let us be blunt: USAID is not keeping pace with the other foreign affairs agencies on benefits. The problem sounds clear, yet the broader context is fraught with ambiguity and contradiction. Alas, we have the headline hoopla on page 2 of the July/August issue of Front Lines , which reads: “State and AID Forge Joint Strategy.” While the two organiza- tions may be melodiously harmo- nizing in important programmat- ic areas, there is an ever-increasing gulf in others, especially in the area of what AFSA would call “investing in the employee.” AFSA exhorts USAIDmanagement to exam- ine the ever-widening personnel and benefit disparities and begin to close the gaps. AFSA has raised thesematters withmanagement and will continue to do so at every opportunity. USAID and State officers serve side by side in posts throughout the world, enduring the same dangers, hardships and career uncertainties: shouldn’t they be receiving the same benefits? Management usually gives “funding constraints” as the catchall reasonwhy some of the benefits mentioned above will not be accommodated at USAID. Yet many of us are distressed to see far less important expenditures beingmade regularly while these areas of benefit equity are neglected. The budget trade-offs in the Operating Expense process seem to be black-boxed, never getting openly vetted as they were in the past. It is critical for USAID to attract, and just as important, to retain the quality and numbers of new personnel to deal with the complicated development assistance challenges that face our nation inAfghanistan, Iraq, Liberia and elsewhere. In order to do this, the agency will need to grapple with this serious benefits dis- parity problem— and quickly. If the benefit potholes are not filled in soon, it is not difficult to imagine which road will become the less traveled. ▫ Let us be blunt: USAID is not keeping pace with the other foreign affairs agencies on benefits. V.P. VOICE: USAID BY BILL CARTER Potholes Along the Benefits Road NOVEMBER 2003 • AFSA NEWS 5 actions against foreign countries in U.S. courts. Anyonewho fileda suit andalready received compensation would not be eli- gibleforadditionalcompensationunderthis legislation and anyone who accepts com- pensationunder the act couldnot then sue for compensation for the same terrorist act. Members of the Foreign Service and their family members who are U.S. citizens would, of course, be covered by this legis- lation. AFSA supports fair and timely com- pensation for victims of terrorism. The AFSAGoverning Board voted on Sept. 10 to support the passage of this bill, with important changes. AFSA has written to SFRCChairmanLugar urging an increase in the proposed compensation figure to bring it closer to the amounts offered vic- tims of 9/11. AFSAhas alsourged that the law include a provision for compensating locally-engaged staff at our overseas mis- sions. During a July 17 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, State Legal AdvisorWilliamH. Taft IV presented the administration’sproposal, onwhichthebill was based. He reiterated the outline sent to Congress by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in June 2002. The four principles in the proposal were: theprogramshouldprovide the same benefits toall, regardless of income or esti- mates of future economic worth; victims should receive benefits as quickly as possiblewithout theneed for lit- igation; the amount to be paid should be on aparwith that provided to families of pub- lic safetyofficers killedor injured in the line of duty; and compensationwouldnot come from blocked assets from other nations. There is debate around the adminis- tration’s proposal to take blocked assets from other nations off the table for use in compensation tovictims of terrorism. The administrationhas several reasons forwant- ing to do this. It can take years to reach judgment in these cases. Inmanycases, the funds are simply not there. Perhaps most Terror • Continued from page 1 Continued on page 7