January 12, 2005

Ambassador W. Robert Pearson
Director General of the Foreign Service and
Director of Human Resource
Room 6218 - Harry S. Truman
Department of State
Washington, DC 20052

Dear Mr. Ambassador:

AFSA greatly appreciated the Department's including it in briefings as the new "pay for performance" schedule for members of the Senior Foreign Service took shape.   AFSA knows that the Department was aware that the new system could mean that members of the SFS might find themselves earning less than their FS-01 colleagues who had not yet crossed the threshold. AFSA did not think it would occur as quickly as it apparently will.

AFSA wishes to point out to the Department that this now appears to be the case for FS- 01s serving in Washington.   Those at the FS-01/10 and above level on the 2005 pay scale , earn $135,136.   Meanwhile, many an FE-0C is earning $134,232.

If this FE-OC is not among the 50% of her class who are recommended for performance pay two years running, and if general schedule Washington level salaries continue to increase by 3.5% or higher annually, then as soon as next January,   the Washington-based FS-01/10 will earn more than her FE-OC counterpart.   AFSA knows the Department does not anticipate granting a 3.5% salary increase to SFS members not recommended for performance pay. Given the minimum salary increase planned for those not recommended for performance pay, they   will all find themselves rapidly losing financial ground against FS-01s based in Washington. AFSA sees this as happening to broad categories of employees such as:

• Those assigned to Washington "housekeeping" bureaus such as HR, DRL, A, etc.
• Those assigned to jobs at missions in first world countries such as France, Japan, Switzerland, etc.

What concerns AFSA is that the performance pay will be awarded not by performance, but by positions and where those positions are.   

AFSA does not think this was the intent of the legislation affecting SES/SFS salaries and is confident the Department concurs.   It will surely not escape our Foreign Service colleagues that opening their windows might have serious negative effects on their annuities and their TSP balances.    Meanwhile, SFS members will quickly realize that despite good performance, they will be financially disadvantaged as compared with their FS-01 colleagues by arbitrary and capricious rules.   AFSA thinks this is particularly applicable to those specialists who cannot rise above the FE-OC level such as   Information Resource Officers and Financial Management Officers. Under the current rules, they cannot all be recommended for performance pay.

AFSA believes there should be some remedy.   It proposes the following:

• Selection Boards should rank order all employees.
• Selection Boards should be instructed to recommend more than 50% of the class for performance pay.
• Selection Boards should know those who were recommended for performance pay by previous boards.  
• Selection Boards should be instructed that their decisions will have important financial consequences for their colleagues.  
• There should be a limit on how many times a member of the SFS can receive a cash award.   Just as there is a waiting period before those promoted from FS-02 to FS-01 can compete for promotion into the Senior Foreign Service, those who receive cash awards one year should be deemed ineligible for consideration the next.

AFSA may submit additional proposals.  

The Department and AFSA last year agreed that those SFS members who had TICed out should be considered for performance pay to encourage superior performance.   AFSA believes the above proposals should be adopted to prevent hardworking members of the SFS being financially disadvantaged by this flawed legislation governing senior pay.

                          Sincerely yours,