AFSA FCS Vice President Update June 30, 2006

AFSA FCS Vice President Update: June 30, 2006

Revised Assignment and Tour of Duty Policy in MS Word or HTML
I apologize in advance for the length of this message, but as most of you know there have been so many issues and our Department has been dragging its feet on almost all of them, which has delayed this message until the end of June, weeks beyond when some of it should have been sent.
Here are the issues to be covered:

• Status of the Strategic Disbursement/Right Sizing/Post Closures
• Status of the Deputy Director General (DDG) Position
• Status of Senior Foreign Service (SFS) Pay for Performance from 05
    Selection Board
• Status of Agreement between USFCS & AFSA on Expansion of the
    Assignments Panel to include Dan Bloom for Advocacy Center positions,
    including multilateral development bank positions
• Agreement between USFCS and AFSA on New Comp Time
    Rules/Procedures
• Revised Matrix linking Results to ITA Strategic Plan and Pay for
    Performance Rankings for SFS Only
• Foreign Service Modernization – Finalization of an AFSA-Supported Bill to
    Introduce Pay for Performance to FS-1 and below and Provide Overseas
    Comparability (Locality) Pay into Base Salary
• My Participation at SCO Conferences and AFSA Membership
• First Meeting of AFSA President and AFSA Commerce with U/S ITA Frank
    Lavin

1. Status of the Strategic Disbursement/Right Sizing/Post Closures
Although at the first SCO Conference this year in early April for Asia it was believed that a decision memo had gone up in late January, we learned just a couple of weeks ago at the last SCO Conference in June for ANESA that this important piece had just gone up to the Office of the Secretary and is still awaiting his approval. Management has been consistent in declining to provide a copy of the actual decision memo to AFSA prior to its final approval by the Secretary, at which point any AFSA input would almost certainly be moot.
2. Status of the Deputy Director General (DDG) Position
Several officers have asked AFSA about the DDG position vacated early by Tom Moore for his onward assignment as SCO in Rome. DG Israel Hernandez made the announcement in an email dated April 18 and indicated he was assigning Tom McGinty as Acting DDG for a period of 4 months starting May 1 (ending August 31). Because some officers were concerned either about the DDG position being a “foreign service position” (reserved for FS officers) or about the various impacts of assigning a non-FSO to a MC position, AFSA did file an information request with management. On this one management was fairly quick to respond

Historically, the DDG position replaced in a sense the PDAS position that was alternately held by political appointees or sometimes by an FCSO (e.g., Cal Berlin). It was established in 1998 and USDOC 4047 dated August 28, 1998 was the collective cable announcing the new senior vacancy at USFCS HQ as a civil service SES position on which FSOs were invited to bid as well. In July- September 1998, the classification record was signed by then DG Marquez, then D/US Hauser and classified as ES 1101 SES General (not reserved for political appointees) by O/S (Deborah Jefferson). As we all know, FCSO Jerry Mitchell was selected to be the first DDG by the DG and was succeeded by Larry Jensen, Carlos Poza and Tom Moore, all FCSOs. The then ITA Human Resources Manager James King even sent a memo to O/S HR indicating “The Director General interviewed candidates referred under both systems and selected Mr. Mitchell. The position should now be established as a Foreign Service position (italics added for emphasis)…” Mr. Mitchell was in fact then assigned to DDG-0001 as an FE-MC position (the paperwork actually erroneously had it as CM!).

I admit there was some pondering and even brain twisting about whether Mr. King’s memo meant that the FS position was replacing/supplanting the SES position or simply succeeding it due to the appointment of an FS officer. In the best of times it is difficult to reconcile the FS and Civil Service systems at Commerce, but given the vacancy announcements issued both in 1998 and in 2006 for an SES position, I have come to the conclusion that the DDG position is either/or FS and CS (Civil Service) and the DG again is free to select candidates from either system.

To be clear, AFSA has never taken the position that the DDG position should be reserved for FS only and never be assigned to a SESer with the qualification and experience to do the job. There are obviously concerns about how a non-FS appointee would vacate the position along the rotation periods of the FS system. However, it is clear that whether SES or FS the DDG appointee essentially serves at the pleasure of the DG, who tends to move on after 2-3 years anyway. There are also concerns about flow-through and what would happen to the non-occupied MC position if a SESer filled the DDG position.

AFSA frankly would like to see real competition for positions that can be either FS or SES, i.e., SESers from the rest of ITA if not USDOC as a whole should be eligible to compete for the DDG position; likewise, FCSers should be eligible to compete ITA-wide for senior non-USFCS positions. While this is legal in theory, in practice there have been almost no FS appointments in senior positions in ITA outside USFCS (I had the pleasure of working as senior Japan desk officer in IEP/MAC under then Deputy Director George Mu, but that was in the early 1980s!).

AFSA recognizes that there are multiple bidders in I-bid and potentially more that are interested for the DDG position. The DG has not indicated anything to AFSA about his pending selection for September, so the best advice is for all to keep expressing their interest and allow the system – such as it is – to work.
3. Status of Senior Foreign Service (SFS) Pay for Performance from 05 Selection Board
All SFSers are painfully aware of the delay in 2005 in receiving their pay for performance pay increases, as this was the subject of a poignant Foreign Service Journal piece by then AFSA VP Chuck Ford pointing out that SFSers from FCS had to wait until June 2005 to receive what their State counterparts received no later than April, and hence lost irretrievably 2-3 months of salary increase with all its effects on high-3 for retirement, etc.

Unfortunately, Commerce learned little from this bad experience and is set to repeat history again this year. In 2006, State SFSers received approximately 2 percent in January and, if qualified, another 2 percent in April. It is said that June 27 is the real deadline for Commerce this year (again no retroactivity with the required 12-month separation) but that is now a couple of days away and still no word from on high. It was also said that: (a) management’s memo’s on this subject would not repeat not be shared with AFSA and (b) next year it is hoped that a waiver will be approved and we will move onto the same cycle as State (again with no guarantee of AFSA being directly involved or the request being shared with AFSA, though we requested it of course).
4. Status of Agreement between USFCS & AFSA on Expansion of the Assignments Panel to include Dan Bloom for Advocacy Center positions, including multilateral development bank positions
A piece of good news for a change! At the request of Dan Bloom, Executive Director of the Advocacy Center, management proposed a change in the assignment and tour of duty policy (assignment panel) which would expand the panel to the head of the Advocacy Center to reflect its control over all Advocacy Center/MDB positions as the latter were transferred at the beginning of 2006 from OIO to the Advocacy Center. ITA HR sent AFSA the notification of proposed change on April 20, and AFSA concurred on May 11. Assignment Policy Change for Advocacy Center (MS Word) is the management notification; AFSA Letter Head Assignment Panel (MS Word) the AFSA concurrence. The only “bad news” is that we are still waiting almost 6 weeks later for the O/S formal approval with possible minor changes.
[The formal document was approved on July 19, 2006]
5. Agreement between USFCS and AFSA on New Comp Time Rules/Procedures
Another piece of good news! At the request of Dan Harris DAS/OIO, OFSHR prepared clearer guidance on compensatory leave time for FCSOs, including limited appointees. Essentially the guidance emphasizes that in principle comp time should be approved in advance and should be approved in writing; also that there is a limited amount of time in which to use comp time earned, which under the FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) differs from that of USDOC and USFCS civil service comp and credit time. AFSA (both staffer James Yorke and VP Donald Businger) took pains to make sure the exception to written approval in advance was clearly and consistently formulated and incorporated in the policy. Comp Time Policy Changes (MS Word) is the May 10 memo from ITA HR notifying to AFSA the proposed change (which also equalized treatment for FS limiteds); Compensatory Time for FSOs.April 28, 2006 (MS Word) is the agreed upon comp time policy, which should soon be finalized and transmitted by DAS/OIO Dan Harris.
6. Revised Matrix linking Results to ITA Strategic Plan and Pay for Performance Rankings for SFS Only
Karen Ware’s email of June 13 transmitted to Senior Foreign Service Officers only the guidance on preparing 2006 appraisal narratives for purposes of pay for performance rankings by the Senior Board using a matrix which links work results with the ITA Strategic Plan and the critical elements of the FCS work plans. AFSA has been following this closely both in its own merit for Seniors and with a view to negotiating and implementing pay for performance procedures for FS-1s and below in connection with the proposed Foreign Service Modernization linking that significant step with locality pay (overseas comparability pay) – see next section below. In addition to AFSA’s comments in writing and in meetings, there was a lively exchange among SFS officers regarding the relative lateness of the OFSHR transmitted guidance, coming as it did after the close of the rating period and even very close to the deadline for employee, rating officer, and reviewing officer narratives. AFSA has also asked to be included in the so-called “technical briefings” of the Board so that we can follow directly this issue in the future. ITA is also by the way constructing a new Strategic Plan for next year, but apparently not in time for the due date of the coming year’s work plans (June 30, 2006 for the most part).
7. Foreign Service Modernization – Finalization of an AFSA-Supported Bill to Introduce Pay for Performance to FS-1 and below and Provide Overseas Comparability (Locality) Pay into Base Salary
As recently as mid-June, AFSA came to agreement on the final revised language of the proposed legislation on this topic and I have asked AFSA to post it and explanatory materials on the AFSA home page.

For now, I can do no better than copy the following text of my FAS colleague (Laura Scandurra), which provided an excellent and concise summary:

[BEGIN TEXT] Pay for Performance for FS: Revised pay for performance legislation for the Foreign Service will likely be introduced in July with potential action before the August recess. The legislation was revised to address AFSA concerns regarding the sole and exclusive authority given to the Secretary of State and the ability of AFSA to negotiate implementation.

Pay for performance is a significant change in the way FSOs are compensated. Under pay for performance, FO-1s and below will lose their automatic step increases. Instead all pay increases (except COLAs) will be tied exclusively to individual performance and will be determined by the selection boards. In return for pay for performance, overseas comparability pay will be phased in over time. If all goes as expected, FO-1s and below serving abroad will receive comparability pay in the form of approximately a 9% pay increase during the second half of fiscal year 2007 and the full amount, approximately 18%, as of April 2008.

The specifics of how pay for performance will be implemented still need to be negotiated. Based on our experience with the SFS pay-for-performance system, a primary FAS AFSA objective will be to minimize the "all or nothing" aspect of the system. [END TEXT]

I should add that AFSA Commerce has already submitted a Spring 2006 mid-term request regarding the SFS pay policy, which by extension could be applied to issues surrounding the future non-SFS pay policy, consistent with AFSA’s overall objectives of “equal treatment” among all FS agencies to extent feasible and less “winner take all”.
8. My Participation at SCO Conferences and AFSA Membership
As most if not all of the SCOs know, I was able to participate this year in 3 of the 4 regional SCO Conferences – EAP in Los Angeles; WH in Colorado Springs; and at a no-host dinner with ANESA in Philadelphia. This was thanks to AFSA picking up 100 percent of the tab for my participation at these events. EUR invited me to conduct a conference call with Jos in early June as I could not be funded by AFSA to go to the SCO Conference in Berlin.

A principal aspect of my participation at the SCO Conferences and in maintaining a comprehensive list of all FCS officers and their AFSA membership status is of course AFSA’s desire to make sure that all officers are canvassed to join AFSA, if they are not already members. We like other FS agencies have a good participation rate – roughly 70 percent gross modo, and many of you have received emails from me customized to your situation to confirm your membership status and seek additional members. I also attempt to attend every swearing in of new members and alert them to the benefits of AFSA membership.
9. First Meeting of AFSA President and AFSA Commerce with U/S ITA Frank Lavin
Finally, I wanted to let you all know that we had our first meeting with U/S ITA Frank Lavin on May 22. The President of AFSA Tony Holmes, myself and Will Center met with U/S Lavin and DG Hernandez for over an hour on issues of the future of the Commercial Service, the relative budgets of State (150 account) and Commerce (not the 150 account) for export promotion, the slow pace of decision-making on major issues like post closures and SFS pay increases, etc. There was a lively exchange of views and AFSA re-emphasized its desire to work cooperatively with Commerce management at all levels and move forward on important outstanding issues.