Tuesday, June 9, 2015

CFSO Congratulates the New AFSA Governing Board

AFSA has announced the winners of its 2015 Governing Board elections. The Strong Diplomacy Slate led by AFSA's new President-elect Barbara Stephenson  defeated Matthew Asada's Future Forward slate by a two-to-one margin. CFSO congratulates the entire Strong Diplomacy Slate and wishes them a productive and successful term.

AFSA's new Board has campaigned on a platform stressing new directions and new priorities. Here are some things CFSO members would like to see:

We would like to see greater engagement by AFSA with Congress. The last several years have seen increasing politicization of the HFAC and the SFRC, both of which have sought greater control over the State Department's internal functions.

AFSA has not done enough to educate Hill members about the Foreign Service. On the contrary, the current Congress seems more inclined than many previous Congresses to resurrect archaic ideas of a Foreign Service that is elitist, isolated, and out of touch with the needs of its clients. AFSA's focus on "The Mission" (diplomacy) rather than on the means (thousands of "ordinary" FS members who advance America's interests overseas by performing tasks very similar to those performed by Americans in other professions - but performing them overseas under difficult, often dangerous, and occasionally unique conditions) has deepened those misconceptions.     

AFSA capitulated in 2014 with still-ongoing efforts by the SFRC to "vet" Foreign Service nominees for promotion and tenure to a far deeper and more intrusive degree than presidential nominees are vetted for any other function of government. The entire elected Senate has a clear constitutional role in reviewing nominees.  However, that role should not give unelected SFRC staff lacking the technical skills or information available to State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, OIG, or HR staff, the right to adjudicate de-novo old personnel issues, OIG decisions or disciplinary matters, or to require State to provide raw data to enable unelected SFRC staffers to do so. Moreover, the Senate's role is intended to increase transparency and decrease politicization. The new vetting process being obliged now serves exactly the opposite function. AFSA's new President will have to walk back earlier capitulation by AFSA's outgoing State VP, and will have to collaborate closely with State Department elements navigating the new realities created by that debacle.

AFSA has not engaged strongly enough on Overseas Comparability Pay, and has done nothing to advance a Foreign Service equivalent of the Service Members' Civil Relief Act (SCRA). Rather than focusing on building OCP into the budget, or integrating FS provisions into the existing SCRA, AFSA should work with the Department and with Congress to integrate underlying framework into the 22 USC.

Despite increasing (and increasingly meaningless) rhetoric, the outgoing AFSA Board did nothing to increase AFSA's outreach to State governments nationwide, and to local government in areas where FS members are assigned domestically. Not only would such outreach help members deal with issues like maintaining residency for in-state tuition, property tax, or state-subsidized health care functions, but it would also help the Foreign Service build its "brand" recognition and support among Americans who rarely otherwise think about the Foreign Service. That, in turn, has implications for Congress, as well as recruitment and diversity.

Internally, incoming State Vice President Angie Bryan will have to work to rebuild an AFSA relationship with State Department management that was reduced to near non-existence by Asada's confrontational style. 

She should restart efforts to ensure that this year's Meritorious Step Increase recipients will all receive payments. Our advice: drop AFSA's weak Implementation Dispute, and re-open negotiations based on budget and law.

She should work with Diplomatic Security to further hone compliance with government-wide quality standards for security clearance adjudications and to reduce the once-again-growing backlog of potential adverse-action cases. With regard to the related DS pass-through process, higher quality adjudications based on better understanding of individual cases are the place to focus attention.

CFSO members remain frustrated over the assignments and performance evaluations processes.

Ms. Bryan should examine ways to increase the reliability, credibility and information quality conveyed by resumes and internal reports used in the assignments process, and to reduce the impact of often-incorrect "corridor reputations." In other words, she should look for ways to more accurately document employees' achievements and knowledge, and for ways to make the process more about what they know, and less about who they know.

Performance evaluations ultimately come down to supervision and management, and the FS still has some of the worst managers in the world. Colin Powell's efforts to strengthen training and build a training continuum based on a training "float" still have not been implemented. Incoming president Stephenson is uniquely qualified to ensure that a greater percentage of that "pig in a python" bulge everyone is talking about, gets the training to be better managers and supervisors; skills which will help AFSA members in many ways.

That bulge means more AFSA members, and rather than pinching pennies and cutting corners just for frugality's sake, the new Board would be well advised to examine expanding staff in some areas, including legal staff, legislative staff, and a new body or two devoted to State and local liaison.

Last but not least, the new Board should at least partially interpret their win as a rejection of the Tex Harris cronyism that has plagued AFSA for decades. AFSA should not serve as a private source of funds for the projects of former AFSA presidents, nor should it serve as a member-funded memorial to the imagined greatness of a handful of septuagenarian and octogenarian former ambassadors. There is a reason why AFSA was shamefully left out of the planning of the new Foreign Service museum. The new Board should focus on the Foreign Service of 2015, not 1990. The Young Turks - now mostly grandparents -  should fade into history.

Thursday, May 28, 2015


My brother-in-law is an idiot. In a certain presidential election, he justified his vote for the candidate he voted for by saying: "He got us into this mess. He's the only one who can get us out of it." Then - and here comes the funny part - he proceeded to spend the next four years agonizing over the fact that the person who got us into that mess actually continued to get us deeper and deeper into that mess, by doing the exact same things he had done during the four years of his earlier term.

Now, Matthew Asada, the Presidential candidate of the Future Forward AFSA Slate, wants your vote because he got us into this mess, and he's promising to get us out of it.

In recent communications, he's highlighted continued issues with DS pass-throughs, particularly with regard to Asian-Americans.

He's highlighted proposed cuts to benefits and allowances (danger pay),

Refusal to pay 2013 and 2014 Selection Board MSIs,

And banning of cellular phones from domestic facilities.

And he states that the solution to these problems is an "advocate who is willing to be independent from management."

People who actually care about the issues described above know two things:

They are not new,

And Matthew Asada, as AFSA's State Vice President during the past two years has done nothing to either fix them or keep them from getting worse.

Pass-throughs were an issue that Asada campaigned on in 2013, strongly supported by the Asian American Foreign Affairs Association. Despite marginal improvement due to internal improvements in the security clearance process in general, they continue to be the number one issue of interest to the AAFAA, and, apparently, an issue Asada continues to promise to fix. Readers would be correct to assume that the reason they are still an issue is that Asada was unable to make good on his campaign promise.

Pass-throughs are a unique internal process by which DS reviews (and sometimes vetos) the assignments of Americans descended from certain immigrant groups to the countries of their ancestry. Asada has vigorously opposed them as racist. That is why  he has failed to improve them.

Racism consists of treating people differently because of their race or ethnic heritage. The security clearance guidelines treat everyone the same. Those guidelines require every holder of a security clearance to be reevaluated if there is an event (such as marriage, reassignment, or investigative findings) which predictably raises concerns under 13 adjudicative guidelines. The guideline "Foreign Influence" addresses the question of whether a person may be subject to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. Adjudication under this Guideline must consider the identity of the foreign country involved, including, but not limited to, such considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target United States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a risk of terrorism.

The risk here is not that a member of a certain ethnic group may be inherently less loyal, but rather that a person of a certain national origin, if assigned to their country of ancestral origin, may be subject to pressure or coercion by the government of that country of origin. Western European countries don't usually subject American descendants of their former citizens to pressure or coercion. Some Asian nations, some dictatorships, some communist nations, and some Middle Eastern nations, do.

Referring to that concern as racism, and demanding that DS, in essence, ignore a legal requirement imposed on every U.S. Government agency involved in the security clearance process, has done nothing except convince DS that Matthew Asada does not know what he is talking about. And as a general rule, people who are believed by their interlocutors to be ignorant, are not very effective advocates.

There are ways to improve the process, by improving the efficiency of information-gathering related to individual cases, by ensuring the accuracy of risk assessments, and by regularly re-evaluating the threats involved, but negotiating those changes requires doing something Matthew Asada cannot do: demonstrating sufficient familiarity with the real issues involved to be taken seriously by his DS interlocutors.

So, campaign promise in 2013. Campaign promise in 2015. And no improvement in between.

MSIs were an issue highlighted in three State Department telegrams that came out in July and September, 2013 and May, 2014, when Matthew Asada was already AFSA Vice President. Those cables, allegedly cleared by AFSA when Asada was (let us repeat it) already AFSA Vice President, contained inaccuracies which Asada did nothing to correct, and which formed the basis of the 2013 and 2014 refusals to pay MSIs.

Asada made an ineffective and ill-informed attempt to negotiate the matter (advocate for affected AFSA members) then filed an institutional grievance (implementation dispute) which a) contained inaccuracies and b) did what all grievances do: force the Department to dig in its heels, and to claim an obligation to take no further action until the grievance is resolved. Which it is not yet.

So, seeds of the problem sown by Asada in 2013, and a campaign promise to fix it in 2015.

Danger Pay reforms? Began over a year ago when Congress began to question the methodology used to calculate it. AFSA's State Vice President was silent for over a year, allowed the issue to be virtually completely decided, and is now promising, as a 2015 campaign promise, to fix it.

Other benefits and allowances may actually increase when Danger Pay goes down. In any event, they are all affected by a tasking given to the new Director of the Bureau of Administration's Office of Allowances when he assumed that office last year.

Again, over a year ago. And again, Asada only noticed the issue at campaign time.

The banning of cellular phones is an absolute non-issue, of the type Asada is good at creating and manipulating. People who work in the Department and in embassies all know that cellular phones are not allowed in secure areas where classified information may be discussed. As the Department has tightened security controls on passport issuance to include consideration of possible terrorist ties and other applicant factors, the process has begun to include consideration of classified information, and certain areas designated as being areas where such information might be discussed. So, no cell phones.

What, exactly, is AFSA going to do to change that?

Albert Einstein is alleged to once have said “The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

Last election, AFSA members voted into AFSA office the least experienced least qualified, candidate ever to sit in the State Vice President's chair.  A Foreign Service Officer with barely five year's overseas experience, none of it in an actual Embassy, and a grand total of six months of experience dealing with (the mid-level bureaucracy) in HR (CDA).  The results speak for themselves.

It would be insane to assume that Asada, as President, would be better than Asada, as Vice President. It is time for a change.

AFSA members do indeed need an advocate who is willing to be independent from management. But they need, more than that. They need an advocate who is competent and credible.

Competence and credibility come from experience.

Learning how to work with Management, and even earning Management's respect, does not automatically make the person who can do that a puppet of the regime.

Last election, AFSA members voted into AFSA office the candidate they would most like to have a beer with, rather than the candidate who would be most respected by the interlocutors who make decisions affecting our careers.

How about, this election, we elect the candidate with experience and qualifications, and give her the benefit of the doubt that she will put that experience to use to benefit the members who elected her?

Monday, May 25, 2015

CFSO joins Rolling Thunder in Memorium


We join our colleagues and our friends in remembering those who have lost their lives or liberty in support of our own. May God grant peace to every veteran and to their families. May we never stop trying to find and return home those who are still missing in action.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Of ethics and Auld Lang Syne

Aaaaaah the good old days!

When the American Foreign Service Association was cost-effectively staffed by the wives and girlfriends of a handful of regular Board members.

When a handful of self-styled Young Turks regularly traded off AFSA Board leadership positions, and their perpetual presence on the Board kept AFSA members' money flowing to the special projects of the one-or-two-or-three-person largely-unknown "academies" and "institutes" founded by their friends.

When these "academies" and "institutes" and the incestuous AFSA awards process catapulted a not-very-remarkable ex-Ambassador to Upper Volta, an even less remarkable ex-Ambassador to Guinea Bissau, a ne'er do well bon vivant whose entire career consisted of dining for years off a single telegram he wrote as an entry-level officer, and their friends, into highly paid consultancies and retainerships as representatives of the Foreign Service.

There is a certain irony in the fact that the Future Forward AFSA slate is so heavily endorsed by three octogenarian 1970's era ambassadors, by their 77-year-old lifetime tagalong wannabe-ambassador friend, and by the former treasurer who ensured, during four terms in AFSA, that their projects got funded every year long after they lost their majority on the Board.

There is equal irony in the fact that one has to count back ten AFSA presidents, to 1997, then 15 more years, to 1972 through 1975, to find the names of the three ex-AFSA presidents who endorse the allegedly forward-leaning role of the Future Forward AFSA Slate.

Not one AFSA President since 1997 endorses Asada's bid for the AFSA Presidency. Importantly, neither of the two Presidents who served with him on an AFSA Board has done so.

No AFSA President since 1997 seems to believe that the Future Forward AFSA Slate is the right slate to lead AFSA in the 21st Century.

There is also a certain irony in their tactics.

AFSA's Instructions to Candidates limit the number of words each candidate or slate may use in statements to their members, both initially, and in subsequent campaign emails. The idea is to create a level playing field.

AFSA members with access to campaign messages can verify that the same octogenarian "Young Turks" are using their quotas of words to endorse the Future Forward AFSA Slate, rather than their own candidacies. To say this clearly, Tex Harris is running for the AFSA Presidency solely in order to expand Matthew Asada's platform by doubling his quota of words.

So much for their claim to the pulpit of ethics.

Why do these 80-something old men who retired from the Foreign Service in the 1980s and 1990s support a 30-something FSO with barely six years of overseas experience to be President of AFSA?

Because, as Tex Harris says: "Matthew Asada gets it." He knows who butters his bread, who lets him sit at the grownup table, and why.

He is, in the eyes of those who have sucked at AFSA's teat for decades, a good investment.

There is an old French curse from the childhood years of Asada's supporters that is both explicit and politically insensitive: "Va te faire encule par un Turk." Make that an octogenarian ex-Young Turk, or his ambitious young protégé, and the Future Forward AFSA Slate seems intent on doing so, for old-timers' sakes, to AFSA's members.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

AAD and AFSA: Complicit in the Foreign Service Image Problem

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

AFSA's Town Hall Meetings April 7 and 8 - Questions for the Future Forward AFSA Slate

Matthew K. Asada, who was elected Vice President of the American Foreign Service Association largely on the strength of his diversity platform, does not identify himself as Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or Queer. He does not speak publicly about his sexual orientation. He does not participate as a Gay man in Gay Pride events. He proudly touts his "fourth generation Japanese American" ethnic heritage in every biography he publishes, but never, ever, ever, mentions his sexual orientation. We will not "out" his orientation here. That is for him, not us, to do.

We will mention here, however, that as Asada begins his campaign to become the least experienced and least qualified President of AFSA, he has begun to frequent GLIFAA events, in the company of a nice Gay man who works at NPR, who seems to believe that he and Matthew Asada are planning to "move in together," something Asada has also asserted.

This may mean nothing at all with regard to Asada's sexual orientation. In response to social pressures, homosexual men often move in with and even marry heterosexual women in order to conceal their true orientation. The fact that Asada, who until now has lived alone with his Hello Kitty dolls is choosing now to move in with a Gay man may be nothing more than a similar response to social pressures, to conceal his true heterosexual orientation.

Besides, who cares if Matthew Asada is Gay or not?

AFSA voters should care.

Not because he is or is not Gay. His orientation itself is of no more relevance than his hair color.

But because people who are voting for an official who will represent their interests to their employer, to their Congress and to the American people have a right to know who they are voting for.

Matthew Asada is campaigning on two platforms: Diversity and Transparency.

The question of whether or not he is Gay, and whether or not he is honest and transparent about who, exactly, he is, as a person, are relevant to both of those platforms.

Mr. Asada is very, very vocal about his Japanese-American heritage, despite the fact that it is neither apparent from his appearance nor from any aspect of his comportment. In other words, although there is no reason on earth why the fact that his Japanese ancestors came to America four generations ago should affect Matthew Asada's career or social interactions, he chooses to make it an issue. He puts it in his biographies. He volunteers to represent Asian Americans during Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. He talks about it in his campaign.  He does not do the same with his sexual orientation.


Because it is inconvenient to his future political aspirations?

Because he wants the votes of older AFSA members who may not welcome an openly Gay AFSA President?

Because he thinks it will hurt his Foreign Service career?

A diversity candidate who hides a key aspect of his own identity, because he is afraid or ashamed to share who he is with the people he hopes will vote for him?!?

What does that tell us about Matthew Asada?

What does that tell us about his willingness to go out on a limb to protect and defend other AFSA members who share his orientation?

Or those who don't?

How far would he go to hide his orientation?

Does his secret make him vulnerable to coercion?

Supposing, for example, a Senate staffer with the ability to affect Foreign Service promotions were to threaten to expose his secrets if he did not provide derogatory information on Foreign Service nominees for tenure and promotion. How far would Mr. Asada go to avoid exposure?

Remember, this is the same Matthew Asada who, when he first assumed the position of AFSA Vice President, actively sought to change AFSA's rules to allow him, as AFSA's Vice President, access to the files of every member seeking AFSA assistance, so that he could personally decide whether assisting them was, in his opinion, in AFSA's institutional  interest.

And, again, Mr. Asada is campaigning on a platform of ethics, transparency and good AFSA governance.

Transparency is important, and ethics and good governance cannot exist without it.

What could be less transparent than someone who refuses to tell you exactly who he is?

And how far does Mr. Asada's lack of transparency go?

We know, for example, from Mr. Asada's biographies that he joined the Foreign Service in 2003, twelve years ago. We know that he served for two years in AFSA, a year on the Hill, and spent at least two years in training at FSI. He allegedly served at four overseas locations, Kunduz, Kolkata, Lahore and Munich. He also allegedly has extensive experience in HR, as a staffer in M, and allegedly has served in every cone and in every regional bureau. Allegedly, in each of his posts, he also served on school boards, housing boards and employment boards. Really? In Kunduz, Kolkata and Lahore?

We wonder: during the twelve years he has been a Foreign Service Officer, of which at least five or six were in Washington, how long did Matthew Asada actually serve in each of his four overseas posts, or in an overseas position that has any relationship to the jobs most Foreign Service members perform?

When he represents us to Congress, to the American people, and to our employers - or when he tells Congress that ambassadors must have experience -  what experience and gravitas does he himself bring to the table?

Matthew Asada has published very slick websites, lovely narrative biographies, beautifully meaningless homilies.

Why will he not simply share a resume - an ordinary garden variety resume with dates and places and job descriptions - with AFSA members, so they can know who they are voting for?

He was a CDO. We know that. We know that being a CDO is legally incompatible with representing AFSA members in collective bargaining unit. And we know that Mr. Asada served on such a unit, as a State Representative on AFSA's Board, while working as a CDO, and that he took personal credit for a number of key labor-management achievements of that Board.

In fact, we have strong reason to believe that Mr. Asada was unanimously asked to leave AFSA's Board to prevent a clear and illegal conflict of interest, but refused to do so. The issue, allegedly, damaged relations between the Department and AFSA, and required both sides to repeatedly certify that Mr. Asada had not participated in certain meetings.

Given that assertion, one might reasonably ask the Future Forward AFSA Slate's ethics-and-good-governance candidate for President, how exactly he managed to reconcile his service on AFSA's Board, and his alleged labor-management breakthroughs, with his CDO position, in light of Section 1017(e) of the Foreign Service Act (22 USC 4117(e).

Surely transparency would dictate that he clarify that point.

Did he break the law by participating in labor-management negotiations illegally? Or, if he did not participate in such discussions, on what basis does he take credit for the results?

A person who will not tell you the truth about who he is and what he has done, even to the point of clarifying his own professional experience to the voters, is probably not the very best possible spokesperson for ethics and good governance.

And probably not very trustworthy.

So when we hear comments about Mr. Asada's relationship with an equally closeted and secretive Conservative SFRC staffer, we wonder:

Could coercion, and the threat to expose one's closeted sexuality, work both ways?

And what does it mean if the Vice President of a union has a secret relationship with a Senate staffer willing to keep nominations off the agenda, or allow nominations to build up until Asada's "efforts" can "release" them, just in time for campaign soundbites?

Questions to think about as you watch Mr. Asada work the crowd.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

What's Wrong With The SFRC Picture?

At the end of 2014, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) returned to the President over 1200 Foreign Service nominations which had not been acted upon by that Committee, continuing an unprecedented two-year trend of failure to place nominations on the agenda for consideration by the entire committee of elected Senators.  

Most were not nominations of ambassadors and other officials. The vast majority were "routine" nominations of ordinary Foreign Service employees nominated for hiring, tenure, or promotion. 

Most of the nominations had been retained (kept off the SFRC agenda) by a single unelected staffer working for a single Senator, for "further study" which dragged on, in some cases for up to two years, until the nominations were returned, without review by the Committee as a whole, to the White House. 

Committee leadership has stated that this is the "new normal," and is the predictable result of Committee members getting tougher on reviewing the qualifications of nominees, allegedly in compliance with their constitutional mandate, and in the interest of the American taxpayer.

CFSO disagrees. We consider that the SFRC practice of keeping names off the SFRC agenda and preventing their consideration by the entirety of elected Senators who are members of the committee is unconstitutional, illegal, damaging to American foreign policy, and detrimental to the American taxpayer. 

Here is what's wrong with the picture of normalcy painted by SFRC proponents of current practices:

Constitutional Mandate: The Constitution of the United States accords the right to appoint senior government officials to the President of the United States. Under Article 2 which describes the authorities incumbent to the President, it states "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls." 

While this implies a role for the Senate, Constitutional scholars will tell you that the placement of this clause in the section describing the role of the President, and not in the section describing the role of the Legislature, means that the founders intended for the President, not the Senate, to have ultimate decision-making authority. This is born out in numerous accounts of the discussions of the founders during the period that our constitution was written. 

The idea of the founders was that the Senate (the American people writ large) should have visibility into the process, and the ability to object to egregious cases of abuse, but not that the Senate could simply halt the process of nominations for whatever reasons it saw fit.

But the Senate has a role to play. The elected Senators are the eyes and ears, and proxy expressers of the opinion of the American people. Senators are our "elder statesmen," and in theory represent both the people and our values. Senate review is a key component of the process and appointments normally cannot occur without it.     

Moreover, regardless of who has the mandate to appoint officials, the Constitution accords the mandate to "advise and consent" to the Senate - to the totality of the elected Senators. Not to one single Senator. Or to a small group. And certainly not to the unelected staff. In order for the Senate to comply with its mandate, a significant unit of elected Senators must have at least the opportunity to consider the nomination. If someone prevents this from happening, they are preventing the Senate from carrying out its mandate. 

Transparency: To repeat, numerous accounts of the discussions surrounding the writing of our constitution are clear that the primary purpose of the Senate's role is to give the American people, through their elected Senators, a view into the process. 

Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and others wrote that this was in order to prevent a "secret cabal" which would result in "the bartering of votes for places," in other words, that it would provide the transparency necessary to prevent the secret bartering of votes for jobs or positions of influence in the government. 

What has been happening in the SFRC is the exact opposite of what the founders intended. Names are being kept off the agenda of the committee by a single, or handful of, Senate staffers in order to prevent the majority of elected Senators in the Committee (much less a majority of the elected Senators in the Senate) from being able to consider them at all. 

Far from the transparency intended by the founders, the SFRC itself has been indulging in secret meetings, in which names of nominees are kept off the table in order to satisfy secret agendas - be they efforts to twist the arms of the State Department, or be they private vendettas.

Service to the Taxpayer: The Taxpayer pays the salary of every government employee, and has a right to know four things: that the service provided by the employee is necessary to the interests of the Nation, that the employee is qualified to perform the job, that the employee was hired in compliance with law, and that the employee is providing the best service that the employee can provide. 

When it comes to confirming the names of nominees before the SFRC, three of those four things are not in question. The SFRC confirmation process does not decide which positions are necessary. That is decided in other processes. It does not decide whether a person was legally hired. Nor does it decide whether the person is providing the best service possible. 

Those decisions  are made by the people most qualified to make them: the hiring authorities of the agency, the employees' supervisors, and the boards and employees involved in the hiring, tenuring and promotion processes.

The question decided by the SFRC is not whether the taxpayer will pay these people. The taxpayer already is paying them.

The question before the SFRC in the case of nominations for promotion is whether promotions will be approved - whether people already on the payroll will be used at the highest level of service for which the agency considers them qualified; and for those awaiting approval of tenure, whether they will be retained - or whether there is some reason agreed upon by the elected Senators considering the nomination that they should be denied tenure - effectively firing them for cause. 

Clearly, the Senate has the right, and the responsibility, to research the nominations. But let us be clear: in neither case does the taxpayer benefit from the act of withholding names from the Senators entrusted to review them, nor from the return, without any action at all, of names to the White House.

In the case of promotees, the "new normal" means that the taxpayer is denied the services at a higher level of those that the agency considers the best and the brightest performers on their staffs, and in the case of employees who should not get tenure, the taxpayer continues to pay employees who should, perhaps, be fired. But in either case, until the elected Senators on the SFRC make a decision, the taxpayer is still paying these employees; just not for the services that the taxpayer deserves.

In the larger picture, other laws apply as well: Consuls not approved by the Senate are technically not Consuls, and therefore are "operating without a licence" in terms of some international laws. That prevents them from being able, in some cases, to fully perform the job the taxpayer hired them to do. 

Similarly, employees filling many positions of trust regarding responsibility for government funds and resources are similarly "unlicensed" when it comes to certain of their duties, and in this as well, indefinitely preventing the discussion of nominations and slowing the process down to the point where hundreds of nominations are returned to the White House unacted upon prevents the taxpayer from being able to fully benefit from the services that the taxpayer is already paying for.

The Agency: Federal Executive Departments like the State Department are among the oldest primary units of the Government of the United States. All  were established by Congress within a few weeks of each other in 1789. The Department of State was the first to be established and indeed, a Department of Foreign Affairs was created by the First Continental Congress in 1781. The mission of the agency has been considered important to the American people for as long as the United States of America has been in existence.  

In 3 USC 301 and 303 and 22 USC in its entirety (with special attention to Chapter 14), Congress expressed the will of the American people to empower the Secretary of State to perform a full range of functions to manage the agency's mission, resources and personnel. While Congress is empowered in a very general sense to exercise oversight (again in order to ensure transparency to the American people) the Secretary is fully entrusted,to hire, fire, promote and staff the agency, to investigate professional infractions, to discipline employees, and to protect the security of the agency.  

The current SFRC practice hinders the agency's mission and illegally impacts the agency's activities in a number of ways:  

The Mission: The public evaluation of the qualifications of ambassadors and key cabinet officials can serve as an example of the transparency of our government and the seriousness with the American people approach qualifications for public service. In a public hearing, opinions can be aired and contrasted, and, where public sentiment disagrees with that of the President, nominees can be turned down; providing an example of a democracy and a constitution that works. 

On the other hand, failure to even consider nominees - keeping names off the agenda indefinitely for spurious or unstated reasons - provides a completely different optic. At best, it gives the impression that the Senate does not value America's relations with other nations, nor the services of those employed in the profession of representing America to foreign governments. At worst, it provides the world with an image of an American Senate that is just as secretive and corrupt as the foreign governments it criticises. 

And between those extremes, it shows the world a range of disdain for and distrust of the Foreign Service and the State Department, and for the foreign policy of the administration. 

All of these optics undermine the credibility of the Foreign Service and its ability to represent the American people to the governments of other nations.

As mentioned above, Consuls not approved by the Senate are technically not Consuls, and therefore are "operating without a licence" in terms of some international laws. The failure to confirm them means they are unable, in some cases, to fully perform the job the taxpayer hired them to do. Similarly, employees filling many positions of trust regarding responsibility for government funds and resources are similarly "unlicensed" when it comes to certain of their duties, and are unable to independently perform certain jobs in embassies. 

The failure to confirm them hampers operations and reduce the ability of the agency to protect Americans oversees and support operations necessary to the mission.

The Authorities of the Agency:  The Foreign Service nominees held off the agenda indefinitely for further study by Senate staffers have all been hired and vetted through a very rigorous and competitive process. They have all passed the requirements for a Top Secret Security Clearance, have all passed suitability evaluations, have all been subjected to name checks and agency checks and every other requirement of hiring into a position of public trust that requires access to classified information. 

They were hired by an agency that has the authority to hire them, promoted by competitive processes that comply with federal laws and had their performances evaluated by standardized procedures that go far beyond the norm for most federal agencies. They are employed in an up or out system which promote people based on demonstrated merit and fires poor performers. 

These processes are not conducted by amateurs. The State Department (read here: the taxpayer) employs thousands of trained and qualified professionals whose sole function it is to evaluate candidates, assess their qualifications for promotion, investigate their backgrounds, suitability and integrity, investigate any infractions or allegations of impropriety, adjudicate the findings, determine whether to discipline and retain them, or fire them, assess their potential for greater responsibility, etc. 

These actions are carried out in compliance with a very broad range of complex federal laws. Compliance with the laws is monitored by an Inspector General, by independent outside auditors, by OPM and OMB, and periodically by the General Accounting Office. The State Department has won both government-wide and national awards for its excellence in conducting some of these functions.

There is no question that the Senate has an obligation to satisfy itself that nominees are qualified, and past Senates relied heavily on input from the agency based on the authorities and resources incumbent to it. Part of the current problem is that, for the first time in memory, Senate staffers are now painstakingly duplicating the efforts of the agency, ignoring agency assertions regarding the qualifications of nominees, and requiring of Foreign Service members things which have not been not required by any other committee, of any other nominee, from any other agency, ever.  

For example, the SFRC now requires Foreign Service nominees to sign a document stating that they have not been convicted of any crime during the past seven years. This has never been required before, and is not required of nominees of other agencies. It is unnecessary, because all Foreign Service members have Top Secret Clearances, which means that by definition, they have not been convicted of any crime in the past seven years, or in any seven year period prior to any renewal of their clearances. 

It seems intended solely as a means to slow down the process and to personally convey to each and every nominee the contempt in which they are held by the Senators who imposed this new procedure in 2014.  

Since every single member of the Foreign Service must pass through the SFRC review process several times during their careers, it also creates additional work for the agency, which must expend resources to ensure compliance with this new, entirely unnecessary, requirement. 

A larger question concerns employees who have committed some infraction at some point in their lives. A SFRC staffer is currently sitting on a number of nominations because, at some point in the past, the employees were investigated or disciplined for minor administrative matters - some over two decades ago. We are not, here, discussing crimes, because crimes would result in the loss of employment, and the employee would not be a nominee. We are talking about investigations which either found an employee innocent, or found that their actions were not criminal and not serious enough to merit dismissal for cause. 

On the one hand, the SFRC requires employees to self-certify only that they have not been convicted of a crime in the past seven years. On the other, they seem to want to go back to infancy to check out those matters which do not rise to the criminal level. 

Putting that discrepancy aside, what does this say about the statutory authority of the agency to make its own personnel decisions? The agency expends resources to investigate, expends resources to adjudicate an outcome that it considers best for the government and the taxpayer, then gets second-guessed twenty years later, and has to expend resources to research and investigate why it did what it did twenty years ago. In what way does that promote efficiency? Is that really the best use of taxpayer resources? 

Considering the fact that experts in the agency have investigated and adjudicated these matters, a reasonable person might assume that the agency's determinations should be relied upon. Or, if doubts remain, that the SFRC would comply with its constitutional mandate to discuss these doubts as part of the consideration of the nominee by the elected Senators who are members of the committee. Clearly the founders intended for that to happen, and more than one Senator has, on more than one occasion, stated that "an up or down vote" is the right of every nominee. 

Instead, the staff of the SFRC simply keep these names off the agenda indefinitely, until they are returned to the White House.  The taxpayer continues to pay them.  The Senate is denied its mandate. For what?  

The new SFRC procedures do not benefit the taxpayer. They prevent the Senate from complying with its mandate by denying Senators the opportunity to discuss nominations in a transparent manner. They hamper the efficiency of the State Department. And they arguably criminally prevent the State Department from being able to carry out the actions required of it by law. 

The American people have a right to a voice in the selection of high level government employees. Candidates nominated by the President of the United States have a right to be reviewed by the Senators elected by their fellow Americans. Senators have a constitutional obligation to perform the duties for which they were elected. We urge the SFRC to allow the Senate to comply with its mandate.