Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
AFSA Elections - Get Out There And Vote!
Diplopundit has an article on the AFSA elections, noting the apparent apathy of AFSA voters towards the election results. The topic is important.
AFSA is not merely a union. It is the organization that is mandated by law to represent Foreign Service members to Management. The Foreign Service Act, which created the Foreign Service, identifies AFSA as the exclusive bargaining agent of the Foreign Service, and it and other laws require management to consult with AFSA on all issues affecting terms of employment.
Whether AFSA members vote or not, somebody will win the AFSA elections. The person who wins the State Vice President seat will represent every active duty State Department Foreign Service member to management.
That person will be consulted on all issues related to terms of employment, and will speak on your behalf concerning issues ranging from education allowances, to travel regulations, to EFM employment, to hardship differentials, to promotion precepts, to training of supervisors, to wording of EER forms, to composition of promotion panels, to specialist career paths, to career development plans, to adoption regulations, to security clearances, to discipline procedures, to security overseas, to safety of government housing, to transportation of children to schools, to the composition of medical units, to implementation of the QDDR and of the ARB recommendations.
It's entirely up to you whether you want to have a say in who that person might be, or whether you would rather leave it to chance.
But somebody is going to represent you, whether you choose to participate in the selection process or not.
Now, the person elected with or without your vote is going to speak on your behalf, and the Department is going to have to provide them the opportunity to do so. There is no law, however, that requires the Department to agree with AFSA, or to do what AFSA wants them to do. Having listened, they are legally free to ignore AFSA's input. Getting the Department to agree to what the Foreign Service wants depends on the ability of the AFSA State VP to convince sixth and seventh floor principals of the validity and credibility of AFSA's position. Those principals are not suckers. They are not usually particularly inclined to agree with AFSA. They have to be convinced.
So, the first question is: do you you care if the person who represents you understands your interests?
And the second question is: do you care if they are effective in representing you?
Assuming that the first two answers are affirmative, the next questions become:
Which candidate will do the best job of understanding your own interests and your own concerns with regard to the Foreign Service, and which candidate will be most credible and effective in convincing the Department to make decisions that incorporate your own desires for yourself, your career, and any significant others in your life?
The iAFSA Coalition Slate is endorsed by CFSO, by two other employee affiliation organizations, and a range of personal supporters including current AFSA Board members, a former AFSA president, senior specialists in the IM, OMS, FMO, and DS fields, and others. State Vice president candidate Greg Hicks has had a career far more representative of most FS members, is on a first-name basis with most of AFSA's interlocutors, and has actually done things relevant to the AFSA State Vice President's job, such as supervising American employees, serving on a promotion board, engaging DS leadership in security discussions, and testifying before Congress.
CFSO endorses Bob Silverman for AFSA President and Greg Hicks for State Vice President. We consider Greg Hicks to be the only one of the State Vice President candidates who has the experience and credibility to effectively represent the full range of FS interests. But please don't take our word for it.
Make the effort to inform yourself about all of the candidates. Find out who they are, and what they stand for. Ask real, probing, questions about their assertions and bona-fides. Separate campaign rhetoric and out-and-out distortion from the facts.
If you have not received an email allowing you to vote electronically, you can communicate with AFSA here . But please, do yourself and every other FS member a favor, and VOTE!
AFSA is not merely a union. It is the organization that is mandated by law to represent Foreign Service members to Management. The Foreign Service Act, which created the Foreign Service, identifies AFSA as the exclusive bargaining agent of the Foreign Service, and it and other laws require management to consult with AFSA on all issues affecting terms of employment.
Whether AFSA members vote or not, somebody will win the AFSA elections. The person who wins the State Vice President seat will represent every active duty State Department Foreign Service member to management.
That person will be consulted on all issues related to terms of employment, and will speak on your behalf concerning issues ranging from education allowances, to travel regulations, to EFM employment, to hardship differentials, to promotion precepts, to training of supervisors, to wording of EER forms, to composition of promotion panels, to specialist career paths, to career development plans, to adoption regulations, to security clearances, to discipline procedures, to security overseas, to safety of government housing, to transportation of children to schools, to the composition of medical units, to implementation of the QDDR and of the ARB recommendations.
It's entirely up to you whether you want to have a say in who that person might be, or whether you would rather leave it to chance.
But somebody is going to represent you, whether you choose to participate in the selection process or not.
Now, the person elected with or without your vote is going to speak on your behalf, and the Department is going to have to provide them the opportunity to do so. There is no law, however, that requires the Department to agree with AFSA, or to do what AFSA wants them to do. Having listened, they are legally free to ignore AFSA's input. Getting the Department to agree to what the Foreign Service wants depends on the ability of the AFSA State VP to convince sixth and seventh floor principals of the validity and credibility of AFSA's position. Those principals are not suckers. They are not usually particularly inclined to agree with AFSA. They have to be convinced.
So, the first question is: do you you care if the person who represents you understands your interests?
And the second question is: do you care if they are effective in representing you?
Assuming that the first two answers are affirmative, the next questions become:
Which candidate will do the best job of understanding your own interests and your own concerns with regard to the Foreign Service, and which candidate will be most credible and effective in convincing the Department to make decisions that incorporate your own desires for yourself, your career, and any significant others in your life?
The iAFSA Coalition Slate is endorsed by CFSO, by two other employee affiliation organizations, and a range of personal supporters including current AFSA Board members, a former AFSA president, senior specialists in the IM, OMS, FMO, and DS fields, and others. State Vice president candidate Greg Hicks has had a career far more representative of most FS members, is on a first-name basis with most of AFSA's interlocutors, and has actually done things relevant to the AFSA State Vice President's job, such as supervising American employees, serving on a promotion board, engaging DS leadership in security discussions, and testifying before Congress.
CFSO endorses Bob Silverman for AFSA President and Greg Hicks for State Vice President. We consider Greg Hicks to be the only one of the State Vice President candidates who has the experience and credibility to effectively represent the full range of FS interests. But please don't take our word for it.
Make the effort to inform yourself about all of the candidates. Find out who they are, and what they stand for. Ask real, probing, questions about their assertions and bona-fides. Separate campaign rhetoric and out-and-out distortion from the facts.
If you have not received an email allowing you to vote electronically, you can communicate with AFSA here . But please, do yourself and every other FS member a favor, and VOTE!
Sunday, April 21, 2013
A Foreign Service Code of Ethics?
This week AFSA sent a survey to members asking for their input into an AFSA project, led by AFSA's President and her Professionalism and Ethics Committee, to create a Foreign Service Code of Ethics.
We think that Foreign Service members should think long and hard about their answers to the survey.
On the one hand, a Foreign Service code of Ethics could help define the Foreign Service as a profession. The Military Code of Conduct, and the codes of ethics of the American Bar Association, American Medical Association, and others, help define those professions and promote professionalism among their ranks. To a certain degree, a shared code of ethics promotes esprit de corps, morale, and could, conceivably, elevate the Foreign Service profession in the public eye.
On the other hand, there already exists a Code of Ethics for federal employees, which is included by reference in the Foreign Affairs Manual and already applies to the Foreign Service. Several additional regulations already supplement this code for employees overseas. Some Foreign Service members, such as medical professionals, law enforcement professionals, IT professionals, management officers and and consular officers are bound by still more rules and codes of conduct. Is there a need, or a clamor, for additional guidelines? Is there really a shortage of rules governing how Foreign Service members should behave?
The Federal Code of Ethics is enshrined in Public Law. AFSA's code would not replace it, but would exist in addition to it. It would add new interpretations, and possibly new standards, to those which already exist. The following questions, among many others, arise:
Would these additional standards truly reflect the shared opinions of the entire Foreign Service, or only of some small portion thereof?
Would they apply only to those most directly involved in the practice of bilateral or multilateral diplomacy, or to all Foreign Service members equally?
Would they be "timeless" or reflect the views prevalent among AFSA members only at one specific time?
To what degree would they reflect the views of long-ago-retired retirees, as opposed to the views held by current active-duty Foreign Service members?
Would they be enforced, and if so, who would enforce them?
Would AFSA lobby to have them enshrined in law?
As noted recently by David Jones in the April 2013 Foreign Service Journal, AFSA has no authority to control membership in the Foreign Service, to certify its members, or to enforce any code of standards on the Foreign Service. That authority lies with the leadership of the Foreign Affairs Agencies, and particularly with the Secretary of State. Would the organs of those agencies add the proposed AFSA code to their procedures for hiring, firing, and disciplining employees?
Given that both OIG and DS routinely investigate alleged breaches of the official code of ethics, and given that the track record of both with regard to fairness and objectivity is not unblemished, what is the wisdom of adding additional rules to the many which are already imposed upon Foreign Service members? Would not the creation of a Foreign Service Code of Ethics merely add to the list of real or imagined offenses for which FS members might be investigated and/or fired?
Could the proposed AFSA Code of Foreign Service Ethics be used against employees under review by an Accountability Review Board or by Congress? Even if it existed only on AFSA's web page, one would imagine that a code of conduct developed not merely by one's employers, but by one's peers, would carry a lot of weight!
CFSO believes that the current effort is misguided and has considerable potential to rebound to the detriment of Foreign Service members. We assume absolutely that an AFSA code of conduct would be taken seriously, and used against employees by all of the above. We also wonder whether creating potential problems for FS members is really the best use of AFSA's resources, or of our collective AFSA dues.
We urge all Foreign Service and CFSO members receiving this survey to ask these questions, at least of themselves, before contributing to this effort, and to make their opinions known.
We think that Foreign Service members should think long and hard about their answers to the survey.
On the one hand, a Foreign Service code of Ethics could help define the Foreign Service as a profession. The Military Code of Conduct, and the codes of ethics of the American Bar Association, American Medical Association, and others, help define those professions and promote professionalism among their ranks. To a certain degree, a shared code of ethics promotes esprit de corps, morale, and could, conceivably, elevate the Foreign Service profession in the public eye.
On the other hand, there already exists a Code of Ethics for federal employees, which is included by reference in the Foreign Affairs Manual and already applies to the Foreign Service. Several additional regulations already supplement this code for employees overseas. Some Foreign Service members, such as medical professionals, law enforcement professionals, IT professionals, management officers and and consular officers are bound by still more rules and codes of conduct. Is there a need, or a clamor, for additional guidelines? Is there really a shortage of rules governing how Foreign Service members should behave?
The Federal Code of Ethics is enshrined in Public Law. AFSA's code would not replace it, but would exist in addition to it. It would add new interpretations, and possibly new standards, to those which already exist. The following questions, among many others, arise:
Would these additional standards truly reflect the shared opinions of the entire Foreign Service, or only of some small portion thereof?
Would they apply only to those most directly involved in the practice of bilateral or multilateral diplomacy, or to all Foreign Service members equally?
Would they be "timeless" or reflect the views prevalent among AFSA members only at one specific time?
To what degree would they reflect the views of long-ago-retired retirees, as opposed to the views held by current active-duty Foreign Service members?
Would they be enforced, and if so, who would enforce them?
Would AFSA lobby to have them enshrined in law?
As noted recently by David Jones in the April 2013 Foreign Service Journal, AFSA has no authority to control membership in the Foreign Service, to certify its members, or to enforce any code of standards on the Foreign Service. That authority lies with the leadership of the Foreign Affairs Agencies, and particularly with the Secretary of State. Would the organs of those agencies add the proposed AFSA code to their procedures for hiring, firing, and disciplining employees?
Given that both OIG and DS routinely investigate alleged breaches of the official code of ethics, and given that the track record of both with regard to fairness and objectivity is not unblemished, what is the wisdom of adding additional rules to the many which are already imposed upon Foreign Service members? Would not the creation of a Foreign Service Code of Ethics merely add to the list of real or imagined offenses for which FS members might be investigated and/or fired?
Could the proposed AFSA Code of Foreign Service Ethics be used against employees under review by an Accountability Review Board or by Congress? Even if it existed only on AFSA's web page, one would imagine that a code of conduct developed not merely by one's employers, but by one's peers, would carry a lot of weight!
CFSO believes that the current effort is misguided and has considerable potential to rebound to the detriment of Foreign Service members. We assume absolutely that an AFSA code of conduct would be taken seriously, and used against employees by all of the above. We also wonder whether creating potential problems for FS members is really the best use of AFSA's resources, or of our collective AFSA dues.
We urge all Foreign Service and CFSO members receiving this survey to ask these questions, at least of themselves, before contributing to this effort, and to make their opinions known.
Monday, April 15, 2013
AFSA Elections - If You Care About Security Vote For Experience
Today the American Foreign Service Association will release electronic ballots for the AFSA Governing Board Elections. CFSO leadership has reviewed the candidates' words and records, with particular attention to their statements and responses to questions at the AFSA Town Hall. We strongly endorse and support iAFSA Coalition candidate Greg Hicks for AFSA State Vice President.
The State Vice President of AFSA is not merely a voting member on AFSA's Board. He or she is the primary and usually the sole official negotiating representative of State Department Active Duty Foreign Service members, whether AFSA members or not, to State Department managers at the highest levels. Hicks is the only candidate running for State Vice President in this election who has the credibility to effectively discuss security issues to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Hill.
Security is a zero tolerance issue. Failure, anywhere in the world, can result in loss of American lives and/or damage to American national security. Protecting security worldwide requires considerable expertise, experience, and knowledge. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is widely considered to be the world leader in the field. State Department management wisely defers to them as the experts, in any security-related dispute.
Negotiating on behalf of FS members - seeking fairness in security clearance adjudications and assignment-related pass throughs (a special concern to Asian-American members and those of recent Eastern European ancestry); or negotiating the balance between access and protection - is not a game for amateurs.
Security is not about fairness. It is about managing risk. And for the State Department as an institution, there are considerations that go beyond national security. Politics. Liability issues. The "Washington Post test." And the "Russ Limbuagh test." The idea that, in that environment, the Department is going to defer to an inexperienced AFSA Vice President simply because he argues that a certain practice is biased or unfair - or simply because he is the AFSA Vice President - is absurd.
To achieve fairness, the AFSA Vice President has to be able to credibly speak the language of the experts, to the experts. He or she has to be able to address, first and foremost, the security concerns, and then discuss with and convince, not dictate to, DS, how those concerns can be managed or mitigated in a way that is fair to employees, or expands our ability to perform our mission. That requires knowledge, experience and credibility.
For security clearance adjudications, including assignment-related pass throughs, the adjudicative process is heavily controlled by law. DS is required by law to investigate and consider certain circumstances. DS will not simply ignore those legal requirements. It must be convinced, on a case by case basis, how investigative findings can be or have been mitigated. DS cannot, and will not try to, change the law. The key to fairness lies solely with ensuring transparency, instilling good and transparent managerial controls, and addressing the individual issues in each case in a way that satisfies the overwhelming requirement that decisions place national security first.
The process has to be one of working with, not against, DS. DS is the recognized expert. So the person who negotiates these issues on behalf of employees must have the personal credibility to impress the recognized experts that he or she actually understands the issues, and knows what he is talking about.
Greg Hicks has the personal knowledge and experience to do this. His opponents simply do not.
We strongly urge all AFSA members, and particularly those concerned about fairness in security clearance and related issues to vote for Greg Hicks and the iAFSA coalition in this election.
The State Vice President of AFSA is not merely a voting member on AFSA's Board. He or she is the primary and usually the sole official negotiating representative of State Department Active Duty Foreign Service members, whether AFSA members or not, to State Department managers at the highest levels. Hicks is the only candidate running for State Vice President in this election who has the credibility to effectively discuss security issues to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Hill.
Security is a zero tolerance issue. Failure, anywhere in the world, can result in loss of American lives and/or damage to American national security. Protecting security worldwide requires considerable expertise, experience, and knowledge. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is widely considered to be the world leader in the field. State Department management wisely defers to them as the experts, in any security-related dispute.
Negotiating on behalf of FS members - seeking fairness in security clearance adjudications and assignment-related pass throughs (a special concern to Asian-American members and those of recent Eastern European ancestry); or negotiating the balance between access and protection - is not a game for amateurs.
Security is not about fairness. It is about managing risk. And for the State Department as an institution, there are considerations that go beyond national security. Politics. Liability issues. The "Washington Post test." And the "Russ Limbuagh test." The idea that, in that environment, the Department is going to defer to an inexperienced AFSA Vice President simply because he argues that a certain practice is biased or unfair - or simply because he is the AFSA Vice President - is absurd.
To achieve fairness, the AFSA Vice President has to be able to credibly speak the language of the experts, to the experts. He or she has to be able to address, first and foremost, the security concerns, and then discuss with and convince, not dictate to, DS, how those concerns can be managed or mitigated in a way that is fair to employees, or expands our ability to perform our mission. That requires knowledge, experience and credibility.
For security clearance adjudications, including assignment-related pass throughs, the adjudicative process is heavily controlled by law. DS is required by law to investigate and consider certain circumstances. DS will not simply ignore those legal requirements. It must be convinced, on a case by case basis, how investigative findings can be or have been mitigated. DS cannot, and will not try to, change the law. The key to fairness lies solely with ensuring transparency, instilling good and transparent managerial controls, and addressing the individual issues in each case in a way that satisfies the overwhelming requirement that decisions place national security first.
The process has to be one of working with, not against, DS. DS is the recognized expert. So the person who negotiates these issues on behalf of employees must have the personal credibility to impress the recognized experts that he or she actually understands the issues, and knows what he is talking about.
Greg Hicks has the personal knowledge and experience to do this. His opponents simply do not.
We strongly urge all AFSA members, and particularly those concerned about fairness in security clearance and related issues to vote for Greg Hicks and the iAFSA coalition in this election.
Guidelines protect sex assault victims seeking security clearance
From U.S. News By Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released guidelines Friday that protect victims of sexual assault who fear that coming forward for help or counseling may jeopardize their security clearance.
Clapper's new guidance now mandates that someone seeking mental health counseling cannot be the sole reason that individual is denied security clearance.
So-called "Question 21" on the standard security clearance questionnaire has been criticized in recent months as discouraging victims of sexual assault from seeking help, spurring a long review of its use by the intelligence community.
Victims may now answer “No” to the question, which asks if the respondent has consulted a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental health condition or if he or she was similarly hos
spitalized.
This language will be added to the question:
"Please respond to this question with the following additional instruction: Victims of sexual assault who have consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental health condition during this period strictly in relation to the sexual assault are instructed to answer No."
“The U.S. Government recognizes the critical importance of mental health and supports proactive management of mental health conditions, wellness and recovery,” Clapper said in a release.
“The guidance which was issued on an interim basis pending formal revision of the policy, applies to all executive branch departments and agencies,” the release said.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issues guidance for all 17 of the agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community.
* * * *
DS generally follows the guidelines imposed by the DNI for security clearances. Hopefully, that means that clearances adjudicated by DS will soon follow suit.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
AFSA State Vice President Daniel Hirsch endorses the iAFSA Coalition
From Daniel Hirsch's blog:
As you know, the AFSA elections are underway. I am returning overseas, and will not be running again. However, as one might expect, I hope to leave my position in the best possible hands. I am very strongly endorsing Greg Hicks as State VP, Tim Corso, and all of the members of the iAFSA Coalition, led by AFSA President candidate Bob Silverman.
I strongly believe that Greg Hicks is the only candidate running for AFSA State VP who has the breadth and depth of experience to be able to credibly speak to the issues affecting the majority of our members.
I am voting for Greg Hicks because I believe that the State VP should represent the Foreign Service in both definitions of that word. He or she should be similar enough to you, or have shared enough experiences, to understand what is important to you. That includes your personal experiences as well as professional ones. AFSA members are concerned about more than their careers. Many have, or aspire to having, spouses or families, and care about issues like EFM employment, overseas education, tandem issues, EEO issues, and the health and safety of the ones they care most about.
Greg has served in hardship posts and danger posts, including several of the highest risk posts in our Service. He has raised a family overseas, served on school boards and housing boards, and experienced separation from his family during service in unaccompanied assignments. He has served as a senior manager, as a supervisor and as a rated employee. He is the only candidate who has the experience to credibly discuss issues like benefits, promotion precepts and assignments, QDDR and other program implementation, security, health, performance evaluation, training, EFM issues, discipline, and the wording of rules, regulations, program plans and SOPs, affecting every Foreign Service member in every cone and specialist skill code.
The State VP must also have the experience and credibility to represent the Foreign Service to interlocutors in the most senior ranks of the State Department and in Congress. The most senior members of the State Department and the heads of the substantive Bureaus are, for the most part, among the most experienced members of our service. To be credible to them, the State VP must have a level of experience and professional knowledge that compares with their own. Greg has that experience, and knows many of the AFSA VPs primary interlocutors personally. He has the experience necessary to represent Foreign Service members to the most senior officials in the State Department and to Congress.
Members of Congress and the media tend, in addition, to be more impressed by someone who has considerable personal experience than they are by other factors. They have staffers who can give them the numbers and statistics. They want to hear about the issues from someone who has actually been there. Greg Hicks and Bob Silverman have, unquestionably, been there.
Bob and Greg both share a very deep and broad understanding of the diverse and multifaceted organization that is today's Foreign Service. They share a deep appreciation for the fact that the Foreign Service is a team, and that there is no single "point of the spear" in the conduct of our mission. They share my view that the expertise of the experts must be respected, and that every member of the service, of every skill code, must have the opportunity to rise through the ranks and the freedom to chart their own career path. They are committed to a diverse AFSA Board that represents the Foreign Service, and to a diverse Foreign Service that truly represents America. They see the Foreign Service as a noble calling. And they are deeply devoted to ensuring fair treatment of employees.
The current AFSA Board members running with the iAFSA coalition represent the very best of the current Board, and many in iAFSA have supported their Foreign Service colleagues in other ways as well. Lily Wahl-Tuco co-founded "Balancing Act," a new employee affinity group dedicated to promoting work-life balance. Steven Keats co-founded - and served as treasurer of - the Disability Action Group, which has helped dozens of FS members navigate employment issues affecting those with disabilities and limited medical clearances. David Zwach, on his own initiative, pioneered the effort that led to the creation of a Tenure Certificate, signed by the Secretary, for all tenured Specialists. Ken Kero-Mentz is the President of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. The iAFSA team members did not wait for the AFSA elections to start working for you! They are serving you now! Together with Alex Copher (who has expertly brought an IM perspective to the Board) and Tim Corso (who has superbly represented the Special-Agent perspective), they are the group that has already been most influential in guiding AFSA's work for State members. I credit them with many of our best initiatives during the past term. They are serving you well, and deserve to be re-elected. I will be voting for the entire iAFSA coalition, for Greg Hicks and for Tim Corso in this election. I hope you will join me in bringing this excellent team into office.
The iAFSA Coalition is also on Facebook, and they now have a blog as well. I hope you will check them out, and find them as impressive as I do. Most importantly, vote for them. Your future and your careers are at stake.
All the best, Daniel Hirsch
As you know, the AFSA elections are underway. I am returning overseas, and will not be running again. However, as one might expect, I hope to leave my position in the best possible hands. I am very strongly endorsing Greg Hicks as State VP, Tim Corso, and all of the members of the iAFSA Coalition, led by AFSA President candidate Bob Silverman.
I strongly believe that Greg Hicks is the only candidate running for AFSA State VP who has the breadth and depth of experience to be able to credibly speak to the issues affecting the majority of our members.
I am voting for Greg Hicks because I believe that the State VP should represent the Foreign Service in both definitions of that word. He or she should be similar enough to you, or have shared enough experiences, to understand what is important to you. That includes your personal experiences as well as professional ones. AFSA members are concerned about more than their careers. Many have, or aspire to having, spouses or families, and care about issues like EFM employment, overseas education, tandem issues, EEO issues, and the health and safety of the ones they care most about.
Greg has served in hardship posts and danger posts, including several of the highest risk posts in our Service. He has raised a family overseas, served on school boards and housing boards, and experienced separation from his family during service in unaccompanied assignments. He has served as a senior manager, as a supervisor and as a rated employee. He is the only candidate who has the experience to credibly discuss issues like benefits, promotion precepts and assignments, QDDR and other program implementation, security, health, performance evaluation, training, EFM issues, discipline, and the wording of rules, regulations, program plans and SOPs, affecting every Foreign Service member in every cone and specialist skill code.
The State VP must also have the experience and credibility to represent the Foreign Service to interlocutors in the most senior ranks of the State Department and in Congress. The most senior members of the State Department and the heads of the substantive Bureaus are, for the most part, among the most experienced members of our service. To be credible to them, the State VP must have a level of experience and professional knowledge that compares with their own. Greg has that experience, and knows many of the AFSA VPs primary interlocutors personally. He has the experience necessary to represent Foreign Service members to the most senior officials in the State Department and to Congress.
Members of Congress and the media tend, in addition, to be more impressed by someone who has considerable personal experience than they are by other factors. They have staffers who can give them the numbers and statistics. They want to hear about the issues from someone who has actually been there. Greg Hicks and Bob Silverman have, unquestionably, been there.
Bob and Greg both share a very deep and broad understanding of the diverse and multifaceted organization that is today's Foreign Service. They share a deep appreciation for the fact that the Foreign Service is a team, and that there is no single "point of the spear" in the conduct of our mission. They share my view that the expertise of the experts must be respected, and that every member of the service, of every skill code, must have the opportunity to rise through the ranks and the freedom to chart their own career path. They are committed to a diverse AFSA Board that represents the Foreign Service, and to a diverse Foreign Service that truly represents America. They see the Foreign Service as a noble calling. And they are deeply devoted to ensuring fair treatment of employees.
The current AFSA Board members running with the iAFSA coalition represent the very best of the current Board, and many in iAFSA have supported their Foreign Service colleagues in other ways as well. Lily Wahl-Tuco co-founded "Balancing Act," a new employee affinity group dedicated to promoting work-life balance. Steven Keats co-founded - and served as treasurer of - the Disability Action Group, which has helped dozens of FS members navigate employment issues affecting those with disabilities and limited medical clearances. David Zwach, on his own initiative, pioneered the effort that led to the creation of a Tenure Certificate, signed by the Secretary, for all tenured Specialists. Ken Kero-Mentz is the President of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. The iAFSA team members did not wait for the AFSA elections to start working for you! They are serving you now! Together with Alex Copher (who has expertly brought an IM perspective to the Board) and Tim Corso (who has superbly represented the Special-Agent perspective), they are the group that has already been most influential in guiding AFSA's work for State members. I credit them with many of our best initiatives during the past term. They are serving you well, and deserve to be re-elected. I will be voting for the entire iAFSA coalition, for Greg Hicks and for Tim Corso in this election. I hope you will join me in bringing this excellent team into office.
The iAFSA Coalition is also on Facebook, and they now have a blog as well. I hope you will check them out, and find them as impressive as I do. Most importantly, vote for them. Your future and your careers are at stake.
All the best, Daniel Hirsch
Monday, March 25, 2013
Concerned Foreign Service Officers Supports the iAFSA Coalition in the American Foreign Service Association Governing Board Elections
The national security of the United States allows little margin for error. Maintaining U.S. Foreign relations likewise requires the highest standard of integrity. The State Department's OIG confirms that investigations can be subject to outside influence. A key function of the American Foreign Service Association is to protect employee rights and ensure due process for employees in a zero-tolerance, high visibility environment that presumes guilt upon receipt of any allegation. Performing this function requires experienced and credible leadership.
After careful review of candidates in the current AFSA Governing Board elections, the Executive Committee of Concerned Foreign Service Officers has decided to endorse the iAFSA Coalition for the leadership of AFSA. Robert Silverman and Greg Hicks have both served in multiple leadership and supervisory positions in the most dangerous Foreign Service posts. Greg Hicks is the only candidate for AFSA State Vice President who has the knowledge and experience to credibly represent Foreign Service interests in security-related matters.
The fact that their coalition has been joined and supported by the leaders and members of other employee affinity groups speaks well to their leadership and scope of vision. CFSO endorses all iAFSA Coalition candidates in the current AFSA Governing Board elections.
After careful review of candidates in the current AFSA Governing Board elections, the Executive Committee of Concerned Foreign Service Officers has decided to endorse the iAFSA Coalition for the leadership of AFSA. Robert Silverman and Greg Hicks have both served in multiple leadership and supervisory positions in the most dangerous Foreign Service posts. Greg Hicks is the only candidate for AFSA State Vice President who has the knowledge and experience to credibly represent Foreign Service interests in security-related matters.
The fact that their coalition has been joined and supported by the leaders and members of other employee affinity groups speaks well to their leadership and scope of vision. CFSO endorses all iAFSA Coalition candidates in the current AFSA Governing Board elections.
Concerned Foreign Service Officers is an association of over 300 active duty and retired State Department employees seeking to increase fairness and compliance with government-wide regulations in security clearance decisions by the U.S. Department of State.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
