The Foreign Service Journal, December 2015

10 DECEMBER 2015 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL LETTERS alist” into the State Department’s human resources lexicon. A quick review of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 shows there is no such position. The title is and has always been “Foreign Service officer.” FSOs are not mere dabblers in diplomatic and consular work, but like their Foreign Service spe- cialist counterparts have honed skills. We should use the correct term to recognize that fact. On another note, I enjoy your monthly feature of a quote from the Journal , “50 Years Ago.” I suggest you consider varying it with other periods from the FSJ archives—e.g., “90 Years Ago” or “75 Years Ago.” Thanks for a fantastic magazine. Stuart R. Denyer FSO Embassy Algiers Civil Service-Foreign Service Relations With all due respect to Larry W. Roeder Jr. (“Seeking Parity Between the Civil and Foreign Services,” October Speaking Out), he seems either ignoran t of or unwilling to acknowledge the profound differences and conditions of employment that distinguish the rank-in-job, domestic Civil Service (GS) personnel system from the rank-in- person, worldwide-available, up-or-out Foreign Service—or their very different evaluation systems. I also remain perplexed as to what the career of his father has to do with Mr. Roeder’s call for privileging domestic employees at the expense of the Foreign Service and those who comply with its requirements. If Mr. Roeder and others want to take FSO positions abroad, I sug- gest they take the exam and enter into the Foreign Service, with all its rigors and sacrifice, as other FSOs do. If Mr. Roeder finds Foreign Service jobs so desirable— especially at senior levels— then perhaps he should have chosen the more rigorous personnel system designed to prepare him for those jobs years ago! Stephanie Smith Kinney SFS, retired Washington, D.C. Parity Is Not Equality Larry W. Roeder Jr.’s Speaking Out column makes a compelling case that foreign affairs officers (FAOs) like him are a real asset to the Foreign Service, the State Department and the other foreign affairs agencies. Speaking as a former Foreign Service officer myself, I have never understood the tendency of far too many FSOs to disparage their Civil Service colleagues. As Mr. Roeder rightly says, “modern diplomacy needs a strong Civil Service as much as a strong Foreign Service.” Furthermore, as his own career demonstrates, many FAOs perform well in certain overseas positions. For that reason, in cases where no qualified FSO has bid on such a slot, FAOs should be considered for an excur- sion tour to fill vacancies—as has been State’s practice for at least 30 years that I know of (and quite possibly longer). In the process, however, we need to preserve the fundamental distinction between FSOs and FAOs, which is this: Foreign Service members commit to being available for worldwide service throughout their careers, albeit with the possibility of limited waivers because of health or other factors. In contrast, FAOs are not expected to serve overseas, and are never penalized for turning down an overseas assignment. Moreover, until the Foreign Service Act of 1980 is repealed or rewritten, there is simply no legal basis for allowing FAOs “the opportunity to convert directly to the Foreign Service at equal rank”— much less be considered for an ambas- sadorship, as Mr. Roeder advocates. All that said, I strongly support treat- ing members of the Foreign Service and Civil Service equally, valuing each cohort for its respective contributions to diplo- macy. But that is not the same as parity, which would imply that the two person- nel systems are functionally the same. They are not. Steven Alan Honley Former FSO Washington, D.C. Yes to 360s I write to disagree with Wil- liam Bent’s September Speak- ing Out column, “The State Department Needs to Reevalu- ate Its Use of 360-Degree Reviews.” His logic about best practices in implement- ing such reviews is seriously flawed when applied to the Foreign Service assignment process. Few leaders, myself included, would consider offering a position to an officer with five or more years’ experience who did not have at least four to six col- leagues who could vouch for his or her skills and experience. Unlike the private-sector environ- ment that Mr. Bent references, one-third of the Foreign Service changes jobs every year, based on many hundreds of