1. The AFSA Governing Board is disappointed that several highly-placed State Department officials have sought to denigrate the credibility of AFSA's worldwide opinion survey of the State Department Foreign Service and to dismiss out of hand the results of a survey in which thousands of our colleagues participated. We are particularly saddened that they chose to attack the survey on a public Internet blog (< http://blogs.state.gov/ >) and even renewed that attack in even more strident terms on January 14.

2. AFSA takes these criticisms seriously, especially since they come from individuals selected by President Bush for senior roles in developing and implementing his foreign policy. Since these officers made their criticisms in a public forum that many Foreign Service members will have seen, we believe that our members deserve to hear AFSA's response to the two main criticisms: a) that AFSA’s employee survey does not offer valid insights into the views of the Foreign Service and b) that AFSA should not have published the survey results in order to draw outside attention to the unmet needs of the Foreign Service.

VALIDITY OF THE SURVEY

3. While we understand that these senior officials might not share the opinions of the majority of the rank-and-file Foreign Service, we disagree with them on the validity and relevance of these survey results. This electronic poll drew completed responses from 4,311 State Foreign Service members out of a total of 11,300. Our survey got multiple responses from virtually every Foreign Service post overseas and every domestic bureau. Well over 300 members of the Senior Foreign Service completed it, as did close to 1,000 entry-level employees. Nearly half of our membership currently assigned to Iraq (110 people) took the poll, as did hundreds of those who previously served in Iraq. The thousands of respondents included Specialists and Generalists, as well as those assigned overseas and those assigned domestically, in almost exactly their respective percentages in the total Foreign Service population.

4. Any pollster or statistician will tell you that a response rate of nearly 40 percent of the total population constitutes a massive, statistically valid survey sample. In proportional terms, it is comparable to a survey sent to every single person in the United States that attracts 115 million respondents. It would be difficult to imagine making the argument that a poll containing the stated opinions of 115 million Americans was insignificant. This is a larger percentage of the population than the total percentage who vote in any presidential election.

5. It is also inaccurate to suggest that AFSA's opinion poll is inconsequential because it was "self-selecting" and only attracted people who want to complain. Every public opinion poll is inherently "self-selecting" in that participation is voluntary. When national polling organizations conduct polls intended to represent the overall opinions of 300 million American, they typically make phone calls to no more than 5,000-7,000 people, knowing full well that four-fifths of them will refuse to participate. The remaining 1,000-1,500 is considered a statistically valid representation of the entire U.S. population. Any voluntary survey is "self-selecting" in this regard.

6. The Department itself has conducted a number of employee surveys over the years that have attracted a smaller percentage of voluntary respondents than did AFSA's poll, yet State considered them to be highly valid and representative. A recent example was the survey conducted by M/MED and M/FLO of some 2,600 Foreign Service members who had served tours of duty at unaccompanied posts. Some 877 responded, the equivalent of 33 percent.

7. AFSA, like any representative organization, has an obligation to reflect the concerns of the majority of our members. We began conducting these worldwide electronic polls two years ago as a conscientious, good-faith effort to make a more systematic effort to gauge the priorities of our members and to have more credibility in representing their concerns to Department management. In the past, when AFSA based a particular demarche to Management on the approaches that individual members had made to us, we were accused of relying on purely anecdotal evidence. Now, unfortunately, a survey containing feedback from thousands of Foreign Service members is prompting the same accusation that this is nothing more than the anecdotal complaints of a few malcontents.

8. AFSA's intent is not to cause a rift between State Department Management and employees. Foreign Service members remain profoundly loyal and dedicated to our sense of duty. But there are clearly some very serious concerns held by a great many members of our profession that senior Department officials would be well advised to take to heart. We hope that these survey results will help State Management understand what those concerns are and seek better ways to address them, in a spirit of open-mindedness, working side-by-side with AFSA.

9. For the record, AFSA's senior leaders gave a one-hour briefing on the survey's methodology and results to three of the State Department's top officials on December 18, 2007 - several weeks before the survey was published. AFSA's leaders briefed another top official on January 10. While several of them expressed some concerns about the specific phraseology of a few questions, all of those officials indicated that they agreed that the survey provided valuable insights into the views of their Foreign Service employees. Foreign Service employees can judge for themselves the credibility of this worldwide poll. Detailed results were reported in the January issue of AFSA's Foreign Service Journal (< http://www.afsa.org/Jan08survey.pdf >).

APPROPRIATENESS OF SPEAKING OUT

10. As documented above, AFSA’s survey does indeed have a high degree of validity. Thus, AFSA is duty bound to honor the survey result showing that two-thirds of respondents want us to be more vocal and assertive -- even at the cost of more friction with Management -- while just one percent of respondents want us to be less vocal and assertive. Of course, that general guidance does not give AFSA a blank check in our advocacy efforts. Thus, we must still consider the criticism that AFSA was somehow out of line to publish the employee survey results to draw outside attention to the unmet needs of the Foreign Service.

11. To examine that criticism, it is illuminating to put the issue in broader perspective by looking to see how our colleagues in the uniformed military go about drawing attention to their needs. While the U.S. military does not have labor unions, they do have 35 different private, non-profit educational organizations (see listing at < http://themilitarycoalition.org/ >). Checking their websites, it is readily apparent that most are actively engaged in vigorous and outspoken public advocacy of the needs of their members. For example:

-- The Association of the U.S. Army ("The Voice of America's Army") has a robust legislative agenda supported by position papers featuring hard-hitting language on unmet needs. For example: “The Army has previously accepted a culture of impoverishment, but the line has been crossed, and no longer can the nation’s premier force sustain itself at the necessary level of efficiency with the current level of funding.” On their website, AUSA President GEN (Ret.) Gordon R. Sullivan says "We state unequivocally - our Army is out of balance for today and tomorrow. To start to regain that needed balance, adequate resources must be provided."

-- The Air Force Association (“The Force behind the Force”) also has a robust legislative agenda. Supporting those efforts is it monthly Air Force Magazine, the January 2008 issue of which has an editorial entitled “Catastrophic Failure” that begins “Washington’s apathy toward USAF’s geriatric fleet comes close to outright negligence.”

12. Thus, compared to organizations representing military members, the tone of AFSA’s advocacy language does not seem to be out of line. The one difference is that, unlike AFSA, the military groups do not appear to call on their service Secretaries to work to get more resources. The reason seems clear: they do not need to call on their service Secretaries to advocate for them because the groups’ websites are filled with links to speeches, Op-eds, and congressional testimony by their leaders advocating for them. AFSA's survey shows that the Foreign Service longs for more such advocacy by its senior leaders. Thus, especially in the wake of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' recent strong call for more resources for diplomacy (< http://www.afsa.org/113007gates.cfm >), AFSA believes that it is appropriate to urge our own senior leaders to speak out more.

13. But what about the charge that AFSA was somehow out of line to survey active duty Foreign Service employees and then publish the results? Again, it is illuminating to look at organizations representing military members. For example, the Military Officers Association of America (“The nation's largest and most influential association of military officers”) also polls of its members. For example, an online poll taken early last year asked “The Army is considering extending combat tours of troops in Iraq. Do you support this extension?” Some 59 percent of respondents said “no.”

14. A final charge against AFSA is that our public highlighting of bread-and-butter concerns such as the overseas pay disparity somehow makes the Foreign Service seem like whiners. But, for example, despite everything that the U.S. Army is facing today, the Association of the U.S. Army lists "increased military pay" as a top goal on its legislative agenda. That is no different from AFSA's listing as our top priority the ending the overseas pay disparity. The only difference is that there are numerous journalists and other pundits ready to jump on any pretext to criticize diplomats. The fact that such knee-jerk critics exist is not a justification for failing to speak up for ourselves.

15. AFSA, therefore, will continue to speak out on behalf of the career Foreign Service. As we do so, we welcome constructive criticism intended to help us improve the effectiveness of our advocacy efforts.