Talk:United States Department of State/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I recognize that this entry is heavily propagandistic, and would like for someone else to take a stab at putting it in shape. I'd prefer to recuse myself from the case. ;-)

Also, there is quite a lot more information about various agencies within the U.S. Dept State at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/rls/dos/index.cfm?docid=436&clid=264 --KQ

my favorite propaganda bit is the 'we do it all with fewer employees than the city of Memphis!' gosh, those dedicated DoS employees! I cut "advances U.S. objectives and interests in shaping a freer, more secure, and more prosperous world" down to "advances U.S. objectives and interests in the world", which seems more NPOV. --MichaelTinkler

Similarly I changed "Creating jobs at home by opening markets abroad" to "Opening markets abroad". What might make your thing more NPOV, and it's probably spelled out elsewhere, is what the DoS defines as "freer, more secure, and more prosperous". Great examples for the doublespeak entry. --TheCunctator

Is it appropriate to refer to the Department's workforce as "small" (in the Duties and Responsibilities section)? It has 30,000 employees... - Walkiped 23:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the "small workforce" references. The claim doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the Department has 30,000 employees. And, as MichaelTinkler notes above, it's a little propaganda-esque (not surprising, considering the Duties and Responsbilities section was copied right out of a State Department webpage talking about all the things the Department does). - Walkiped 04:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Contents

Domestic and Foreign Assignments

The parts about various "services" are misleading and unecessary. The suggestion that only "foreign" servants serve abroad or that "civil" servants only serve at home is wrong. At State, all employees are supposed to be part of "one big family". The particular service or personnel system, or salary schedule to which they are assigned is neither useful or interesting to the general public. Granted, there is plenty of squabbling going on, and there are those who claim that one "service" is better than all the rest, but those arguments are best left off a general reference site. If necessary, separate entries could be created about the various personnel systems used for diplomatic assignments. But not in a general article about a USG Executive Agency. I suggest that the passages about "foreign" and "civil" servants, and claims about who is entitled to serve abroad be deleted, or moved to a separate namespace.


"Sock Puppet Crap"

This is my first posting so please forgive my ignorance if this is a stupid question. As a US diplomat, I was surprised to see certain inaccuracies pop up on this page that were not there previousl, suggesting that we have various classes of diplomats. Such errors are divisive and suggest a "balkanization" of the United States Diplomatic Service is occuring. We are all one team of Civil Servants serving our national leaders. Anyway, I checked and found an earlier version that looks like what used to be there. Then I see it was reverted and labeled as "puppet crap". That sounds like an insulting term, not appropriate for a site like this. I took the liberty of changing the article back anonymously because I fear that this site might have become unfriendly with all the remarks about vandalism, and not "puppet crap". Could someone enlighten me as to the meaning of this term and whether my action in restoring a version is considered accepteable. Thank you for your guidance in this matter.

An anonymous US diplomat


I fully agree, efforts to provide a more accurate portrayal of the State Department, especially if done by an employee, should not be denounced as "vandalism" or "sock puppet crap". Responsible, diplomatic discussion should be encouraged. Diverse opinions should be tolerated, if this site is to be maintained in a democratic manner. fsbrat 20080415T0834Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsbrat (talk • contribs) 08:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Please sign your edits and comments with 4 tilde characters at the end (~~~~) which will insert your user name and date. That way people will know who is saying what and you will build credibility on your comments. Anonymous DIplomat - just create a user name and use it. Mikebar (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Civil Service vs. Foreign Service

All of the Department's employees are civil servants, part of the US Civil Service (Someone keeps adding sentences about "Foreign Service officers" as if they are the only employees in the Diplomatic Service. The truth is that the Diplomatic Service includes Foreign Service Officers, Foreign Service specialists, and many other categories of employees. Secretary Powell has made this clear in recent remarks. and implies that the Foreign Service is not part of the Civil Service. However, the US Code Title V defines the Civil Service to include both the Competitive Service and the Excepted Service. The Foreign Service is part of the Excepted Service.


Actually as one of them I can testify that FSOs are part of the Civil Service. We are civil servants, but serving in a special personnel system under the Excepted Service. Our appointment documents and personnel action forms(SF-50) clearly state that we are in the Civil Service, having been given excepted service appointments. It would be best in my judgement to downplay the "foreign" vs "civil" dispute and use the general term "Diplomatic Service" to more accurately reflect the various types of appointments under which the State Department posts diplomats abroad. Increasingly, it is using personnel systems other than the FS, possibly in order to save money, because the FS personnely system provides additional benefits not available under most other systems, to mitigage the hardship of serving abroad. Therefore, diplomats willing to serve under non FS systems deserve our respect and should be recognized. The section about "civil servants" filling positions when no FSO is available is factually incorrect and should be deleted.

Diplobrat

THE FACT IS THAT OFFICERS CAN ONLY BE FROM THE FOREIGN SERVICE AND THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE A CAREER AMBASSADOR, DCM, MANAGEMENT OFFICER, POLITICAL COUNSELOR, ECONOMIC COUNSELOR, CONSUL GENERAL, AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BRUSSELS, PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNSELOR, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE A FORIEGN SERVICE OFFICER. SURE, THERE ARE DEFENSE ATTACHES WHO ARE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENTS, BUT THATS ABOUT IT. SPECIALISTS ARE ALSO PART OF THE FORIEGN SERVICE WITH SPECIFIC, SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.240.31.223 (talk)
The text in question was copied directly from a State Department webpage (after some NPOV and other editing), which makes a clear distinction between Civil Service and Foreign Service employees ("The Department of State conducts all of these activities with a small workforce comprised of Civil Service and Foreign Service employees."). It's true that US Code Title V, Part III, Subpart A, Chapter 21, Section 2101 appears to define the Foreign Service as part of the Civil Service, but it does so, "for the purpose of this title". So I'm not sure the definition extends beyond intepreting Title V of the U.S. Code. I also concede that the Foreign Service consists of more than just Foreign Service Officers, as Foreign Service specialists and Foreign Service Nationals are also part of the Foreign Service. But I don't think it's correct to say, "The Department of State conducts these activities with a workforce of Civil Service employees." Am I off-base? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. - Walkiped 12:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Secretary of State appoints the members of the Service and in nearly every case, appoints an employee to the (Foreign) Service prior to assigning the person overseas. The silly controversy about "excursionists" was whipped up by a labor union known as "AFSA". They claim that the Secretary's actions in appointing members to the Foreign Service without AFSA's approval are illegal. Basically, any person who served in the State Department under the GS schedule prior to joining the Foreign Service is in AFSA's view, an "excursionist". AFSA is trying to have such assignments curtailed, and in some cases has been sucessful in pressuring the Secretary to terminate FS appointments. A well known case is the so called "LIMA DCM INCIDENT". Details can be found on various sites, including afsa.org, talesmag.com, and in the Washington Post back issues. As a neutral reference source, I suggest that Wikipedia refrain from adding references to these variouis personnel categories under this heading. If necessary, the dispute over "civil" and "foreign" servants/excursinists could be put somewhere else, perhaps under labor disputes. Statesman 12:32, 25Mar2005 (UTC)


The State Department has internal regulations known as the FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual).

Internally, it defines "civil service employees" as those employed under the GS salary schedule and "foreign service employees" as those who are members of the Foreign Service. This is only the State Departments internal nomenclature, not to be confused with the term "Civil Service" in the official legal sense as used throughout the USG. Maybe to avoid confusion and controversy, it would be better to delete the passage "The Department of State conducts these activities with a workforce of Civil Service employees." altogether. Alternatively, one could state that internally, the Dept. classifies employees as "civil" and "foreign" service, although this is probably not necessary.

Most importantly, under the current leadership, the policy has stressed the importance of working together as a team, that all members of the Diplomatic Service are equally valued, and that labels such as "FS", "GS", etc are not important.

FSO (Tokyo, Japan)


US Diplomats are not always assigned under the "Foreign Service" system. Increasingly, we are serving under alternate systems, sometimes in order to get around restrictions imposed by the labor union known as "AFSA". For example, non tenured members of the Foreign Service can only serve 5 years in the same position, regardless of needs of Service or lack of qualified employees. This is due to AFSA's actions, They even succeeded in removing a qualified DCM (Deputy Chief of Mission ) from Peru, simply because she had not been appointed as an "FSO". Therefore, the Secretary has recently been forced to use alternate appointment mechanisms, and we have more and more US diplomats serving under non FS appointments.

On Foreign Affairs Day the President chose to use the term "DIPLOMATIC SERVICE" rather than "Foreign Service" to describe the men and women representing America overseas. The text is available on line, including, ironically, on the AFSA web site. www.afsa.org

Therefore, in the interest of objectivity, I suggest we refrain from using the term "foreign service" to describe US diplomats. Diplomatic Service is more accurate, and more in line with international practice

Peter Tomsen

Various personnel systems used within the Department

Increasingly, it appears that the Secretary of State is assigning diplomats abroad under personnel systems other than the Foreign Service. This is true in Iraq, but also in Japan, China, Russia and other posts that are hard to fill. This is a sensitive issue among US diplomats because those who are lucky enough to serve under the Foreign Service system get special protections afforded by that personnel system that was specifically designed for positions overseas, where conditions are often harsher than in the U.S. But frequently they work side by side with other US diplomats who were sent under other systems, without the same protections. And those who serve under the "FS" (foreign service) label get extra pay for speaking the language - up to 15 percent of annual salary in some cases. There is heated debate within the Diplomatic Service about the relative roles and benefits that apply to these various systems, such as whether one personnel system gets priority for positions at home or abroad, etc etc. Those issues should not appear in a general article about the State Department, where all diplomatic personnel are considered "one big family" working to promote US interests. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of deleting a few sentences about "excursionists" "LNA", etc.

The Foreign Service Act is available on line at the US Congress web site. It authorizes the Secretary to appoint members of the service and to use that personnel system for positions that require service abroad.

Paul K. Austin, Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.209.142 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just made some changes to restore a version with a more balanced depiction of the various classes of diplomats in the State Department. The various categories is a sensitive issue so we should try to avoid giving the impression that once group is favored, in this case the "foreign" over the "general" service. I also see that many of the editing changes indicate they are done to "revert vandalism" or even "extreme vandalism". I wonder how the term "vandalism" is used here and whether it is possible to have an objective discussion or even permit ordinary users to edit without being labeled a vandal. It might be better just to delete the controversial wording about personnel systems as it is not that useful to the general reader.

Genaralo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalo (talk • contribs) 09:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are sensitivities. But we won't be able to work them out unless changes have some wort of basis. When an edit is made by an unsigned editor or do not have an Edit Summary comment, no one knows whythe editor made a change. Likewise, it would help if someone makes major changes to post on this talk page why they make a major and possibly controversial edit. Thus you'll see people doing the things you do. Note - SineBot had to sign your edit also - all editors should use the 4 tildes ~~~~ to sign their comments on this page to attribute their words properly wiki-style. Mikebar (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The FS is part of the Excepted Service which is part of the Civil Service

USG employees are appointed, fired, assigned, promoted, transferred by their agencies and such actions are documented on a form known as the SF-50. State Department employees are no exception. When an employee is assigned abroad on a diplomatic mission, the Department documents that action on the SF-50, also know as a personnel action form. That form clearly states that it applies to all "Civil Service" employees. All diplomats receive this form when they are appointed under either the FS (foreign service) or GS (General Schedule) salary systems. This includes FSOs (foreign service officers). When I was appointed political counselor, I received such a form. It proves that I am a member of the Civil Service. Of course, I am also a member of the FS personnel system.

There is a small category of vocal US diplomats that keeps harping on the theme of the "unique" "Special" status of FS members, and the "superiority" of officers vs specialists or non-FS diplomats. And there is nothing special about those of us in political cones (specializing in political affairs). The distinction between "civil" and "foreign" service employees found on the State website is taken from their internal regulations known as the FAM (Foreign Affairs manual), and is purely internal nomenclature. Those internal regulations do not have the force of law. The Foreign Service Act (22 USC) makes no mention of such a distinction - it actually states that appointments in the Service are excepted appointments.

Based on the above, I have reversed the recent edit so as to more accurately reflect the status of the Foreign Service personnel system. As US diplomats, we are indeed one big family regardless of the personnel system under which we are serving. And those of us willing to serve without the protections of the FS system deserve our respect - they are paid less, receive less bonuses, and often serve in the most difficult dangerous environments that very few if any FSOs are willing to go to.

J. H. Poloff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.209.142 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  There is often confusion between the terms "civil service", which includes Competitive and Excepted Service and "GS" which is simply a salary schedule. Foreign Service members are under the Excepted Service, but they are NOT "GS" employees. They are paid under the "FS" schedule which is more favorable, with faster step increases due to the special nature of service abroad.

"Excursionists"

Is "excursionists" used by Foreign Service Officers as a dismissive term for political appointees? That's my guess, since "excurisonist" usually means tourist. If so, this article's use of the term seems obviously non-NPOV. -Hickoryhillster 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

After browsing a messageboard, http://www.talesmag.com/talkshop/foreign_service_life/, I get the distinct sense that this usage of the term "excursionist" is controversial, so I'm going to remove it. I suggest adding a section titled "Issues within the department," where there could be a paragraph explaining the differing opinions over overseas assignment for non FSOs, and this paragraph could explain who uses the term "excursionist" and why they do so. This section could also be a better home for a version of what is currently the final paragraph under "Duties and Responsibilities," which seems to hint at rank-and-file disatasifaction with the department leadership's level of assertiveness in dealing with other government departments. -Hickoryhillster 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I would pay much attention to that message board. There is a mention in the Foreign Affairs Manual of Civil Service employees on excursion tours. Given that it is in the FAM, I am not sure that the use is offensive or unrecognized by the department. The common venacular in the department for Civil Service working overseas is to use excursion tours.

Here is the reference from the FAM

Appendices B and C identify specific criteria considered for those willing to serve at danger pay and designated greater hardship (15% differential or above) posts for Foreign Service employees and Civil Service employees serving on excursion tours."

3 FAM 3823

Internally, the State Department does use the terms "civil service employee" and "foreign service employee" separately. But according to the law, the Foreign Service is part of the Excepted Service, and the Excepted Service is part of the Civil Service. Thus members of the Foreign Service, and other US Diplomats are all civil servants.

Whether or not the term "excursionist" is PC is open to debate. The important point to remember is that the Secretary appoints "members of the Service" and once a person is appointed in the Service, that person becomes a "member of the Service", regardless of the personnel category under which he or she previously served. Therefore, the section about "civil service employees" is inaccurate and misleading. There are many categories of foreign service employees, and they all deserve equal respect. Furthermore, the FS is not the same as Diplomatic Service. The USG assignes diplomats abroad under various systems, not only as FS.

Ok, as one of "them" I'll elaborate. In State parlance, an excursion is anyone taking a job outside their normal job function. It does not mean a GS person taking a FS job necessarily unless the job is functionally different. An example: an Information Management Officer doing a tour as a General Services Officer or a Consular Officer doung a tour as a Political Officer. Also applies at times to assignments such as War/Staff college, teaching, etc. again outside of your normal State skill code.
I think the wholesale replacement of Foreign Service with diplomat may be shortsighted - there are phrases that walk the line but please be careful. Mikebar (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Huge photo

What's with the huge photo for the Department of State? I think the photo should be downsized alot. It takes up nearly the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.163.224 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.