AFSA USAID Vice President Update: June 11, 2008

To sign up for AFSANET, click here.

Here is your update from USAID Vice President Francisco Zamora. Please send any comments and questions to <fzamora@usaid.gov>.

1. The 6/8-Year Rule: Some of you have contacted me about a recent Notice dated June 4, 2008 referring to service in USAID/W beyond 5 years
(http://iapp1.usaid.gov/notices/notDetail.cfm?msgID=14915&currmo=6&curryr=2008&prevnext=yes)
which seems to shorten the time officers were allowed to serve in Washington. AFSA was concerned that the notice had ch anged the rule without the required consultation with us. We sent a protest to HR about this and after discussing this more thoroughly with HR staff, we discovered that there has been no change in the regulation but that rather, HR was attempting to be helpful by clarifying the specifics of the rule. Nevertheless, it did cause some concern and I am providing more information below about this.

For those of you who are confused, the rule refers to the maximum time (6 years) that an officer can serve in the U.S. unless a waiver is approved. It says that any time beyond 6 years must be approved through a waiver on a yearly basis for up to 8 years total. Beyond 8 years, the justification must be very strong such as a medical condition which would prevent the officer from serving overseas.

To calculate your date for mandatory bidding on overseas assignments or requesting a waiver, use the following procedure:

a) Take the date you arrived in Washin gton (i.e., July 4, 2003) and add six years (i.e., July 5, 2009).
b) That date (July 5, 2009) puts you in the 2009 Calendar Year Bidding Cycle which will normally be announced in a listing of available positions on/about November 2008.
c) Therefore, you will be submitting your bids during your 5th year in Washington in order for your assignment to be effective during the summer or fall of 2009.
d) If, for some reason, you will be requiring a waiver, this would also be the time to request it.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this notice, but the bottom line is that the 6/8 rule is unchanged.

2. The 15-Year Period Rule for Overseas Service: Another rule regarding service has been causing problems in the Agency. The Foreign Service Act of 1980 under Section 504 (b) states that .Consistent with the needs of the Service, the Secretary shall seek to assign each career member of the Service who is a citizen of the United States to duty with the United States at least once during each period of fifteen years that the member is in the Service. HR, however, has chosen to interpret this regulation to mean that if an officer has or will be overseas 12 or more years he/she must plan to return to Washington to start at least a three-year rotation. This, in our opinion, is an overly strict interpretation of the regulation. Why, for example, cant an officer stay up to 14 years overseas and start a Washington rotation before the fifteen year period? This would meet the legislative requirement also. The regulation does NOT say that the officer must serve at least one three-year tour in Washington. It states that the career member will be ASSIGNED during this fifteen-year period. Such a strict interpretation has prevented some officers, for instance, to bid on SMG positions because they are forced to return to the U.S. What is of greater concern is the fact that HR is offering some of these SMG positions to SES civil service officers ostensibly because they cannot find eligible FSOs! AFSA sent the following protest to HR and the Administrator regarding this situation:

AFSA is extremely concerned with the direction USAID is taking in allowing Senior Executive Service (SES) officers to bid on overseas Senior Management Group (SMG) positions. The recent General Notice dated May 22, 2008 opens the door to several high-level overseas positions to SES employees. We believe that the agency has not made a serious good faith effort to seek or certify potentially qualified and available Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) for these jobs and it appears that the Human Resource (HR) office has been too strict, uneven and inflexible in interpreting Foreign Service assignment guidance. The agency's rationale for allowing civil service officers to apply for such positions is, ostensibly, that no qualified Foreign Service officers had stepped up following the two re quired advertising cycles. That is a decision poorly supported by the facts and we have several recommendations with regard to this topic.

We realize that the administration has a responsibility to meet critical staffing needs in a reasonable manner if it determines that a position overseas must be filled. After all, it would be unwise to waste resources or allow an emergency to exist because positions go unfilled. We also accept that on occasion there may be no qualified FSOs to fill certain slots. In those rare situations, limited assignments of civil service officers may be the only, albeit temporary, option.

While the Foreign Service Act of 1980 allows for such contingencies, it is nevertheless clear in its intent that staffing overseas positions be carried out with qualified FSOs. The Foreign Service is a career-focused profession in which officers develop their skills through a combination of experiences and training developed through long-te rm exposure to overseas work. Members must accept the concept of an "up-or-out" service that has many restrictions to reach the higher levels. It is not a profession that can be learned by serving predominantly in Washington, DC. This is in no way a criticism of civil service officers since they also have unique skills and a role in support of USAID's overall mission. However, the two career tracks are not simply interchangeable and to pretend that they are will only harm our agency.

With regard to SMG positions, it is even more critical that these leadership slots be filled with highly qualified and tested FSOs. At the mission level, Mission Directors and Deputy Mission Directors must be seen by those they lead as being legitimately deserving and qualified for these jobs. FSOs will not be pleased by the assignment of someone who has not lived by the Foreign Service career rules to get to the top. Mission staff will justly question the qualifications of anyone who se emingly has jumped to the front of the line and does not understand the overseas perspective. Suspicions of favoritism will irreparably harm staff morale which is key to carrying out our overseas programs.

By its recent announcement, HR has determined that it must seek civil service employees to fill overseas SMG jobs because supposedly no FSOs are currently eligible due to excessive time overseas. HR stated that FSOs who have or will be overseas more than 12 years are not "eligible" to apply for these SMG positions since the guidelines state that FSOs should also work at headquarters during their careers. AFSA believes this rule is being used selectively and arbitrarily to determine eligibility. While we agree that stateside service is important, enforcement of this rule has been too selective, arbitrary and erratic throughout the years. There is flexibility on how it is interpreted and, in fact, the current vacancy announcement for Lebanon waives this "12-year rule " as it is for a Critical Priority Country. We believe that in relation to SMG overseas positions, this would be an appropriate time to temporarily waive this rule. AFSA has heard from several officers who would take these positions if not for this rule. For the reasons given above, the agency should realize that it is more important to fill these jobs with FSOs than to enforce the 12-year rule and select civil service employees who do not have the same background and experience to lead our overseas staff and implement our programs.

Another action which HR could choose is to reach down to the many qualified officers at the FS-02 levels interested in SMG jobs. A good number of these officers have many proven years of excellent overseas service and were ranked for promotion by the boards but have been held back due to restrictive promotion numbers. This idea is not new since in past SMG cycles, FS-02 officers have been allowed to bid. There is no reason why this cannot be repeated as these FSOs would make outstanding Deputies. It is this type of flexibility and creativity that we are requesting from the agency.

In summary, HR should reconsider its decision to allow SES employees to bid on the recently advertised SMG jobs by waiving selectively and temporarily the 12-year rule and allowing FS-02 officers to bid on them. Failing to do this will do a disservice to our mission and staff.

3. Agency Plans for Mid-Level Hiring for Several Backstops: In the last few weeks, HR has approached AFSA about hiring Foreign Service personnel at mid-level grades such as FS-02 and FS-03. Currently, we have a request to hire Education Officers and Economic Officers. Their stated reasons are that there exists a large gap of higher level officers who are able to serve as mentors or have higher level skills and stature in dealing with counterpart government officials. While HR has assured us that the majority of the hiring will still be through t he Development Leadership Initiative (DLI) Junior Officer program at the lower FS grades, their argument is that because Education and Economic program are growing very rapidly it is imperative that mid-level hiring take place. We did not agree with this justification. Here is our AFSA response to HR:

Thank you for sending the requests for AFSA concurrence for hiring FS-02 Economists and Education Officers. Senior Labor Management Advisor Doug Broome and I were happy to discuss with you and others the justification you proposed for hiring for these professions. We do not disagree with the need for higher level officers as it is clear that programs have increased in funding and scope. The hiring decisions of the past have caused this situation and this is unfortunate.

However, after careful consideration of your justifications, AFSA cannot concur with your plan to hire the five Education and ten Economist mid-level positions. We are not convinced that this actio n will not negatively affect other regular FSOs who are striving to advance in their careers. There is a good possibility that hiring at the FS-02 level will hurt lower ranked officers. If the need for mid-level Education and Economist Officers is that acute and hopefully short-term, AFSA would be much more supportive of hiring them through the Personal Services Contract mechanisms instead. This will give regular FSOs a chance to move up eventually and the PSCs can then be terminated.

Recent personnel decisions by the Agency have increasingly been putting FSOs at a disadvantage. Hiring at the mid-level will only increase the perception that HR is not interested in the career orientation of the Foreign Service. AFSA is very committed to getting the situation back to normal instead of increasing this negative trend.

4. Conclusion: As you can see from above, we are worried about the increasing tendency in the agency toward emasculating the career Foreign Se rvice. We see more and more evidence of plans for mid-level hiring, civil service incursions into the Foreign Service, and forcing officers into decisions that are career damaging. Please let HR know that you are not pleased with this trend. We will do everything possible to support you. Thanks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AFSANET is a free service of the American Foreign Service Association
designed to provide updates on items of interest to the foreign
affairs community.

You can update your mailing address by going to our website:
< http://www.afsa.org/comment.cfm>

To become a member of AFSA, visit
<http://www.afsa.org/mbr/index.cfm>.

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this newsletter go to
<http://www.afsa.org/forms/maillist.cfm>.