This story was in today's Washington Blade.
Gov’t workers ask Clinton for policy change
Chris Johnson
Friday, January 30, 2009
About 2,200 Foreign Service officials co-signed a letter sent this week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, urging her to address inequities in how her department treats its gay and straight employees.
Those who signed the letter, delivered by Gays & Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, said that they “are troubled that our families are not all treated equally and with the same respect.”
The letter notes that the partners of gay Foreign Service officers are not included in travel orders, not eligible for federal health care insurance, not entitled to emergency evacuation and not eligible for more than basic language training — unlike the spouses of straight Foreign Service officers.
The letter also notes that while the State Department covers various travel expenses for officials moving overseas, including the cost of moving a pet, the department doesn’t reimburse travel costs for a partner.
Noel Clay, State Department spokesperson, confirmed that Clinton received the letter and said she is “currently reviewing the concerns addressed in the letter.”
When Clinton was asked about some of the inequities by U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) during her confirmation hearing earlier this month, she said she would “take a hard look at existing policy,” and that her “understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit.”
Michelle Schohn, president of GLIFAA, said her organization sent the letter to Clinton because “we felt that it was important to bring to her attention the inequities that are faced by gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers.”
“What we have found most often with our colleagues is not that people agree with the discrimination … but they just don’t know that it’s taking place,” Schohn said.
Schohn was optimistic that Clinton “will want to be fair” in how she treats employees, but said she did not receive an immediate response from the State Department regarding the letter.
Schohn said she would bring up the issue with Clinton during a meeting with the secretary and the heads of the State Department’s affinity groups, but a day for the meeting had not yet been scheduled.
The discrepancies in how the State Department treats its gay and straight employees received to media attention in 2007 when former U.S. Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest, who’s gay, retired in protest.
Following the retirement of Guest, who was not immediately available for comment, the State Department granted the partners of gay Foreign Services officers access to some training, but no other changes have since been made.
The Blade also had an editorial today on the issue:
Hillary’s chance to deliver
KEVIN NAFF
Friday, January 30, 2009
SECRETARY OF STATE Hillary Clinton enjoyed widespread gay support during her run for the Democratic presidential nomination and now she has the opportunity to reward a constituency that embraced her so enthusiastically.
This week, more than 2,000 government employees sent Clinton a letter asking for equal treatment of same-sex partners by the government. Partners of Foreign Service workers are not entitled to the same benefits as the spouses of straight workers. The disparity in treatment prompted a public protest by Michael Guest, the former ambassador to Romania, who retired in 2007 to call attention to the issue.
Guest told the Blade in December 2007 that he spent the previous three years urging then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to change policies that provide more benefits to pets than to partners of gay Foreign Service officers.
“I decided that if for three years I haven’t been able to get them to do anything about these problems and if I’m going to have to go overseas, then I might as well just pull the plug and start looking for a new line of work,” Guest said. “Because I’m not going to take my partner overseas without them fixing the problems, and they’ve shown no inclination of fixing them.”
There are a range of benefits denied to gay partners, some of which could prove life threatening. The State Department, for example, provides training classes to wives or husbands of Foreign Service officers in how to recognize a terrorist threat or a possible trap by foreign intelligence agents. Those classes are denied to gay partners. The State Department also pays for all travel expenses for spouses, children and family pets, a benefit not extended to domestic partners. Most disturbingly, emergency evacuation services are not available to gay partners of workers who might need to flee a foreign country.
The letter to Clinton was drafted by Gays & Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies and asks the new secretary of state to rectify the disparate treatment with an order from her office.
During her confirmation hearings, Clinton indicated a willingness to review department policies toward gays.
“I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy,” she said. “My understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit.”
It was hardly a firm commitment to change and the policies of other nations should have no bearing on a U.S. decision to do the right thing in this regard. Isn’t America supposed to lead the world in matters of equal rights?
Clinton made many laudable commitments to gays during the campaign. She is now in a position to act and should do so without delay.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
DMW: Members of Service
Dead Men Working has a nice response to the GLIFAA letter.
DMW writes:
Arguments based on cost would certainly not stand up to scrutiny. Expanding existing benefits would cost money, of course, but that money would be buying a happier, more diverse, more effective and more productive workforce.
The Department pays widely disparate costs to transfer, house and accommodate FSO families, and modifies those costs to accommodate a variety of personal decisions.
For example, in an age of birth control, having children is a personal decision. An FSO who adopts a child, or who decides to have another child, or who takes custody of a child from a former marriage, can expect for that child to be transported, housed and educated at government expense. There is no rhyme or reason to this. Nobody limits the number of children a Foreign Service Officer can have or adopt, and there are some who have eight children or more. So one traditional family might cause the Department to support ten people, another only two, both related to employees of equal rank and cone; and nobody mutters much about the difference.
[...]
Fairness is over-rated.
So, Madam Secretary, don't do it for fairness.
Do it because it makes good business sense, improves our efficiency, makes the Foreign Service more representative of American Society, and makes it easier for the Foreign Service to perform the tasks we were hired to perform.
I recommend you read the entire piece, which, as always, is well written and argued. I have personally made the budgetary argument to the Under Secretary for Management. I pointed out that budgetary arguments really can't be considered because, aside from the miniscule amount of difference it would make in the overall budget, the Department can no more budget for an office remaining single (at least for budget purposes) for an entire career any more than it can limit the number of children an officer has.
DMW writes:
Arguments based on cost would certainly not stand up to scrutiny. Expanding existing benefits would cost money, of course, but that money would be buying a happier, more diverse, more effective and more productive workforce.
The Department pays widely disparate costs to transfer, house and accommodate FSO families, and modifies those costs to accommodate a variety of personal decisions.
For example, in an age of birth control, having children is a personal decision. An FSO who adopts a child, or who decides to have another child, or who takes custody of a child from a former marriage, can expect for that child to be transported, housed and educated at government expense. There is no rhyme or reason to this. Nobody limits the number of children a Foreign Service Officer can have or adopt, and there are some who have eight children or more. So one traditional family might cause the Department to support ten people, another only two, both related to employees of equal rank and cone; and nobody mutters much about the difference.
[...]
Fairness is over-rated.
So, Madam Secretary, don't do it for fairness.
Do it because it makes good business sense, improves our efficiency, makes the Foreign Service more representative of American Society, and makes it easier for the Foreign Service to perform the tasks we were hired to perform.
I recommend you read the entire piece, which, as always, is well written and argued. I have personally made the budgetary argument to the Under Secretary for Management. I pointed out that budgetary arguments really can't be considered because, aside from the miniscule amount of difference it would make in the overall budget, the Department can no more budget for an office remaining single (at least for budget purposes) for an entire career any more than it can limit the number of children an officer has.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Undiplomatic: The Other Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Undiplomatic also covered the issues facing LGBT foreign service employees yesterday. His is a great piece that I recommend you read in its entirety (the comments are pretty good too).
Charlie writes:
This is what I mean by the other don’t ask don’t tell. It’s not as discriminatory as what happens in the military: gays and lesbians no longer are drummed out of the foreign service as a result of their sexual orientation. But they are asked to pretend that they are not second-class citizens.
To put it another way, they’re being told “don’t tell us we’re not treating you fairly and we won’t ask why that’s a problem.”
That’s ridiculous, and shameful. As the GLIFAA letter notes, there’s a simple solution here: designate partners as Eligible Family Members, which would “give” them the rights and privileges (and protection) enjoyed by all other family members. (Of course the notion that the government has the ability to “give” fundamental human rights to people is, in itself, offensive, but we’ll set that aside for the moment.)
You want to know how ridiculous this is? If a foreign service officer is married to the love of her life, and her spouse brings into the marriage a daughter, and the foreign service officer adopts that daughter, the daughter is an Eligible Family Member, but her own birth mother is not.
[...]
some folks at State may nervous about “granting” full rights and privileges to same sex spouses because they’re afraid of how some countries — particularly the Vatican, most African states, and Muslim-majority states — may react. You could call it the Anglican church precedent: rock the boat and you create problems. That’s a fallacy, of course — it hasn’t been the case for other countries that have given same-sex spouses full rights and benefits — and it’s allowing diplomacy to mask discrimination.
Lest you think that these are a minor issues, remember this: until the Clinton Administration, one of the questions on the security clearance questionnaire was whether you had ever engaged in “homosexual activity.” Some very talented people over the years have been excluded from the foreign service or drummed out simply because they were gay. Don’t forget that the red hunts of the 1950s were also used to fire gay foreign service officers because they were viewed as somehow more “susceptible” to recruitment.
Some of his commenters were concerned with "forced outings" and being "too gay" in the Department. As you know, I would be hard pressed to be more out at the Department. I joined because my partner was in the service, and I was out from my first security interview. We are an "unofficial tandem," and have been posted together overseas and domestically. Her picture is on my desk. My name has been in the press over this issue. As I told my security interviewer, everybody knows. My family knows, my friends know, my congressman knows, and people on the street figure it out.
I think it is important that everyone knows for several reasons. First, I am too damned old and have been out for too long to go back into the closet. And I think being out helps the gay rights movement as much as any march, because people who know that someone they care about is gay or lesbian are less likely to want to discriminate against us (many people in my family are conservative Republicans who believe in gay marriage because they believe in MY right to marry). But I also see the point that being in the closet is a security risk. There are places that we serve in the foreign service where they are looking for any vulnerability they can exploit to force us to reveal things we are charged with protecting. I am out because I never what to be vulnerable to blackmail.
Of course, all of this ignores the security risk that the Department CREATES with discriminatory policies. The Department doesn't give diplomatic protections to opposite sex spouses because the folks there are such nice guys. They do it to protect the diplomat. We don't want a foreign government being able to get at a diplomat by picking up and holding their spouse. But that is the danger we put our LGBT employees in by not giving their spouses diplomatic protections. It was a danger I was keenly aware of when I was a member of household while my partner served in a former Soviet country. And that is one of the reasons I did not live there full time during her tour.
I am cautiously optimistic that Secretary Clinton will make things more equitable, and not just because she has been a long-time friend to the LGBT community. She wants to strengthen the Department, and a move that lets us compete against business for the best and brightest, improves morale, and reduces security threats is a big step in that direction.
Charlie writes:
This is what I mean by the other don’t ask don’t tell. It’s not as discriminatory as what happens in the military: gays and lesbians no longer are drummed out of the foreign service as a result of their sexual orientation. But they are asked to pretend that they are not second-class citizens.
To put it another way, they’re being told “don’t tell us we’re not treating you fairly and we won’t ask why that’s a problem.”
That’s ridiculous, and shameful. As the GLIFAA letter notes, there’s a simple solution here: designate partners as Eligible Family Members, which would “give” them the rights and privileges (and protection) enjoyed by all other family members. (Of course the notion that the government has the ability to “give” fundamental human rights to people is, in itself, offensive, but we’ll set that aside for the moment.)
You want to know how ridiculous this is? If a foreign service officer is married to the love of her life, and her spouse brings into the marriage a daughter, and the foreign service officer adopts that daughter, the daughter is an Eligible Family Member, but her own birth mother is not.
[...]
some folks at State may nervous about “granting” full rights and privileges to same sex spouses because they’re afraid of how some countries — particularly the Vatican, most African states, and Muslim-majority states — may react. You could call it the Anglican church precedent: rock the boat and you create problems. That’s a fallacy, of course — it hasn’t been the case for other countries that have given same-sex spouses full rights and benefits — and it’s allowing diplomacy to mask discrimination.
Lest you think that these are a minor issues, remember this: until the Clinton Administration, one of the questions on the security clearance questionnaire was whether you had ever engaged in “homosexual activity.” Some very talented people over the years have been excluded from the foreign service or drummed out simply because they were gay. Don’t forget that the red hunts of the 1950s were also used to fire gay foreign service officers because they were viewed as somehow more “susceptible” to recruitment.
Some of his commenters were concerned with "forced outings" and being "too gay" in the Department. As you know, I would be hard pressed to be more out at the Department. I joined because my partner was in the service, and I was out from my first security interview. We are an "unofficial tandem," and have been posted together overseas and domestically. Her picture is on my desk. My name has been in the press over this issue. As I told my security interviewer, everybody knows. My family knows, my friends know, my congressman knows, and people on the street figure it out.
I think it is important that everyone knows for several reasons. First, I am too damned old and have been out for too long to go back into the closet. And I think being out helps the gay rights movement as much as any march, because people who know that someone they care about is gay or lesbian are less likely to want to discriminate against us (many people in my family are conservative Republicans who believe in gay marriage because they believe in MY right to marry). But I also see the point that being in the closet is a security risk. There are places that we serve in the foreign service where they are looking for any vulnerability they can exploit to force us to reveal things we are charged with protecting. I am out because I never what to be vulnerable to blackmail.
Of course, all of this ignores the security risk that the Department CREATES with discriminatory policies. The Department doesn't give diplomatic protections to opposite sex spouses because the folks there are such nice guys. They do it to protect the diplomat. We don't want a foreign government being able to get at a diplomat by picking up and holding their spouse. But that is the danger we put our LGBT employees in by not giving their spouses diplomatic protections. It was a danger I was keenly aware of when I was a member of household while my partner served in a former Soviet country. And that is one of the reasons I did not live there full time during her tour.
I am cautiously optimistic that Secretary Clinton will make things more equitable, and not just because she has been a long-time friend to the LGBT community. She wants to strengthen the Department, and a move that lets us compete against business for the best and brightest, improves morale, and reduces security threats is a big step in that direction.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
GLIFAA letter covered all over the place!
There is a story in today's Advocate on the GLIFAA letter.
LGBT Group Lobbies Clinton For Fair Treatment At State
About 2,200 government employees working in foreign affairs signed a letter supporting the rights of the LGBT employees that was hand-delivered to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office Monday afternoon.
The letter (full text below) from Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies congratulated Secretary Clinton on her confirmation and then proceeded to outline a number of inequities faced by same-sex partners of employees at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, among others.
"We are concerned that access to the federal health care insurance program is denied to same-sex partners of employees serving in Third World countries with substandard medical care," read the letter. "We question the logic of leaving same-sex partners to fend for themselves during an emergency evacuation of a high danger post. We are embarrassed when the Department will reimburse a variety of moving expenses, including the cost of transporting a pet, when an employee is assigned overseas, but will not do the same for a same-sex partner."
The document's delivery came on the heels of Clinton's confirmation testimony earlier this month in which she promised to review the policy regarding same-sex partners of civil and foreign service agents. "This issue was brought to my attention during the transition," Clinton noted. "I've asked to have more briefing on it because I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy."
Same-sex partners of foreign service personnel are currently deprived of health care benefits and are unable to access other services available to heterosexual spouses, such as subsidized relocation, language training, employment opportunities, on-site medical treatment, and evacuation aid in emergency situations. According to Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), an order from Clinton to designate gay partners as eligible family members could remedy a number of these inequalities.
J. Michelle Schohn, president of GLIFAA, said the group has not yet received a response from Secretary Clinton but anticipated the issue would be addressed.
"We feel really confident that she will end up seeing the letter and that she is interested in hearing our issues," said Schohn, who has spent five years as a foreign service officer and whose partner has served for seven. "The mood here is overwhelmingly optimistic -- as optimistic as I have seen it."
Schohn said the majority of the signatories were heterosexual, and she was particularly struck that 92% of the those who signed had no "member of household" -- meaning they have nothing to gain immediately from a policy change because they are either single, in a heterosexual marriage, or their partner is also employed as a foreign service officer and so the department usually assigns the couple in tandem whether they are gay or straight.
"Those people were signing just because it's the right and fair thing to do. I can't tell you how amazing that feels, being a lesbian person in the department, to have that kind of support from your colleagues," said Schohn, who had been working on the message since mid November. "It's just an overwhelmingly positive feeling I've gotten from my colleagues during the course of doing this letter." (Kerry Eleveld, Advocate.com)
The letter was also covered by HRC Backstory, U.K.'s Pink News, Americablog, Towleroad, and AKA William.
LGBT Group Lobbies Clinton For Fair Treatment At State
About 2,200 government employees working in foreign affairs signed a letter supporting the rights of the LGBT employees that was hand-delivered to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office Monday afternoon.
The letter (full text below) from Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies congratulated Secretary Clinton on her confirmation and then proceeded to outline a number of inequities faced by same-sex partners of employees at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, among others.
"We are concerned that access to the federal health care insurance program is denied to same-sex partners of employees serving in Third World countries with substandard medical care," read the letter. "We question the logic of leaving same-sex partners to fend for themselves during an emergency evacuation of a high danger post. We are embarrassed when the Department will reimburse a variety of moving expenses, including the cost of transporting a pet, when an employee is assigned overseas, but will not do the same for a same-sex partner."
The document's delivery came on the heels of Clinton's confirmation testimony earlier this month in which she promised to review the policy regarding same-sex partners of civil and foreign service agents. "This issue was brought to my attention during the transition," Clinton noted. "I've asked to have more briefing on it because I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy."
Same-sex partners of foreign service personnel are currently deprived of health care benefits and are unable to access other services available to heterosexual spouses, such as subsidized relocation, language training, employment opportunities, on-site medical treatment, and evacuation aid in emergency situations. According to Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), an order from Clinton to designate gay partners as eligible family members could remedy a number of these inequalities.
J. Michelle Schohn, president of GLIFAA, said the group has not yet received a response from Secretary Clinton but anticipated the issue would be addressed.
"We feel really confident that she will end up seeing the letter and that she is interested in hearing our issues," said Schohn, who has spent five years as a foreign service officer and whose partner has served for seven. "The mood here is overwhelmingly optimistic -- as optimistic as I have seen it."
Schohn said the majority of the signatories were heterosexual, and she was particularly struck that 92% of the those who signed had no "member of household" -- meaning they have nothing to gain immediately from a policy change because they are either single, in a heterosexual marriage, or their partner is also employed as a foreign service officer and so the department usually assigns the couple in tandem whether they are gay or straight.
"Those people were signing just because it's the right and fair thing to do. I can't tell you how amazing that feels, being a lesbian person in the department, to have that kind of support from your colleagues," said Schohn, who had been working on the message since mid November. "It's just an overwhelmingly positive feeling I've gotten from my colleagues during the course of doing this letter." (Kerry Eleveld, Advocate.com)
The letter was also covered by HRC Backstory, U.K.'s Pink News, Americablog, Towleroad, and AKA William.
GLIFAA Letter Gets Coverage
This was in this morning's Washington Post.
Foreign Policy Workers Ask U.S. To Back Benefits for Gay Partners
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Nearly 2,200 government employees involved in foreign policy issues signed a letter delivered to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday calling on the government to give equal benefits to same-sex partners.
The Bush administration had eased some rules, opening up some training to same-sex partners, but had resisted efforts to treat homosexual partners the same as married couples. But Clinton, during her confirmation hearings, indicated a greater willingness to explore the issue.
"I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy," Clinton said in response to a question from Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). "My understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit."
The issue achieved prominence in 2007 when a respected ambassador, Michael Guest, resigned after 26 years in the Foreign Service to protest the rules and regulations that he argued gave same-sex partners fewer benefits than family pets. Guest said he was forced to choose "between obligations to my partner, who is my family, and service to my country," which he called "a shame for this institution and our country."
Guest was a member of Obama's State Department transition team.
In the letter, which was organized by the group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, the signatories wrote, "We believe that no colleague of ours is a second-class colleague, and no colleague's family is a second-class family." Many of the disparities could be resolved with an order from Clinton's office, the letter said, though some would require legislation.
J. Michelle Schohn, president of the organization, said that since Guest's resignation, State has opened an overseas security training seminar and short language courses to same-sex partners, among other measures. But she said a wide array of benefits are still denied to same-sex partners, such as paid travel to and from overseas posts, employment opportunities at the embassy, visas and diplomatic passports, mail privileges and evacuation in case of a security emergency or medical necessity.
The letter was also covered by Pam's House Blend here.
Foreign Policy Workers Ask U.S. To Back Benefits for Gay Partners
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Nearly 2,200 government employees involved in foreign policy issues signed a letter delivered to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday calling on the government to give equal benefits to same-sex partners.
The Bush administration had eased some rules, opening up some training to same-sex partners, but had resisted efforts to treat homosexual partners the same as married couples. But Clinton, during her confirmation hearings, indicated a greater willingness to explore the issue.
"I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy," Clinton said in response to a question from Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). "My understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit."
The issue achieved prominence in 2007 when a respected ambassador, Michael Guest, resigned after 26 years in the Foreign Service to protest the rules and regulations that he argued gave same-sex partners fewer benefits than family pets. Guest said he was forced to choose "between obligations to my partner, who is my family, and service to my country," which he called "a shame for this institution and our country."
Guest was a member of Obama's State Department transition team.
In the letter, which was organized by the group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, the signatories wrote, "We believe that no colleague of ours is a second-class colleague, and no colleague's family is a second-class family." Many of the disparities could be resolved with an order from Clinton's office, the letter said, though some would require legislation.
J. Michelle Schohn, president of the organization, said that since Guest's resignation, State has opened an overseas security training seminar and short language courses to same-sex partners, among other measures. But she said a wide array of benefits are still denied to same-sex partners, such as paid travel to and from overseas posts, employment opportunities at the embassy, visas and diplomatic passports, mail privileges and evacuation in case of a security emergency or medical necessity.
The letter was also covered by Pam's House Blend here.
Monday, January 26, 2009
A Letter to the Secretary
It is my understanding that GLIFAA (Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies) delivered the letter below to Secretary Clinton's staff today. I was among those to sign it...I think nearly 2,200 people in the foreign affairs community did, and that less than 10% of those who signed currently have an MOH.
Let's hope it brings about some changes.
Madam Secretary:
We congratulate you on your Senate confirmation, and we look forward to working with you in promoting America’s interests and strengthening our national security in this rapidly changing world. Whether assigned stateside or overseas, Civil Service or Foreign Service, active or retired, we are all proud to be serving our nation.
We, the undersigned and representing the diversity of the foreign affairs agencies, would like to bring to your attention a matter that concerns us all. All of us are troubled that our families are not all treated equally and with the same respect. We are concerned that access to the federal health care insurance program is denied to same-sex partners of employees serving in Third World countries with substandard medical care. We question the logic of leaving same-sex partners to fend for themselves during an emergency evacuation of a high danger post. We are embarrassed when the Department will reimburse a variety of moving expenses, including the cost of transporting a pet, when an employee is assigned overseas, but will not do the same for a same-sex partner. We are saddened that individual and community safety are put at risk because full language instruction is not available to same-sex partners. We are uncomfortable that same-sex partners receive less compensation and fewer benefits for performing exactly the same job inside the mission as an opposite-sex spouse, that is, when same-sex partners are given a chance to work.
An order from your office designating same-sex partners as Eligible Family Members (EFMs) could remedy many of the inequalities that these families face. Other remedies will require coordination between the Executive and Legislative branches.
Madam Secretary, we believe that no colleague of ours is a second-class colleague, and no colleague's family is a second-class family. Given your commitment to protecting the safety and promoting the welfare of all Foreign Service families, we ask for your full consideration of our concerns and we hope that a dialogue aimed at ending this unequal treatment can be started.
Your loyal staff,
Let's hope it brings about some changes.
Madam Secretary:
We congratulate you on your Senate confirmation, and we look forward to working with you in promoting America’s interests and strengthening our national security in this rapidly changing world. Whether assigned stateside or overseas, Civil Service or Foreign Service, active or retired, we are all proud to be serving our nation.
We, the undersigned and representing the diversity of the foreign affairs agencies, would like to bring to your attention a matter that concerns us all. All of us are troubled that our families are not all treated equally and with the same respect. We are concerned that access to the federal health care insurance program is denied to same-sex partners of employees serving in Third World countries with substandard medical care. We question the logic of leaving same-sex partners to fend for themselves during an emergency evacuation of a high danger post. We are embarrassed when the Department will reimburse a variety of moving expenses, including the cost of transporting a pet, when an employee is assigned overseas, but will not do the same for a same-sex partner. We are saddened that individual and community safety are put at risk because full language instruction is not available to same-sex partners. We are uncomfortable that same-sex partners receive less compensation and fewer benefits for performing exactly the same job inside the mission as an opposite-sex spouse, that is, when same-sex partners are given a chance to work.
An order from your office designating same-sex partners as Eligible Family Members (EFMs) could remedy many of the inequalities that these families face. Other remedies will require coordination between the Executive and Legislative branches.
Madam Secretary, we believe that no colleague of ours is a second-class colleague, and no colleague's family is a second-class family. Given your commitment to protecting the safety and promoting the welfare of all Foreign Service families, we ask for your full consideration of our concerns and we hope that a dialogue aimed at ending this unequal treatment can be started.
Your loyal staff,
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?
I've been remiss in telling you anything about the new folks coming in at the State Department, and I thought I would begin to try to remedy that.
You may have heard long ago that Secretary Clinton will have two Deputies (D in State Department shorthand), James B. Steinberg and Jacob Lew.
Steinberg will have the role vacated by Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte (and will be considered the Principal Deputy). Steinberg served as deputy national security adviser in Bill Clinton's administration.
Lew, former Office of Management and Budget director during President Clinton's administration, will focus on budget and resources. His appointment is to what is essentially a new position at the Department. There is usually there is only one deputy, and this may be a sign of Secretary Clinton's interest in expanding resources for the department. I certainly hope so. It is clear from her welcoming remarks and the subsequent visit by President Obama that both Secretary Clinton and the President are committed to revitalizing the role of diplomacy in national security policy, and the Department needs more resources to do that job.
It seems that Under Secretary for Political Affairs Bill Burns (P in State Department shorthand) and Under Secretary for Management Pat Kennedy (M) will both be staying on. I think that will be good both for continuity and for keeping careerists in prominent positions.
A former top State Department official during President Clinton's administration, Wendy R. Sherman, may be to be returning to the Department, possibly in another stint as counselor (C) to the Secretary.
Al Kamen, in today's In the Loop in the Washington Post, had these picks:
Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert at the Brookings Institution who had been Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's terrorism adviser during the presidential campaign, appears to be joining the State Department as assistant secretary for counterterrorism. "The Next Attack," a book he co-authored, opens with: "We are losing . . ."
Jennifer E. Sims, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence coordination and Senate intelligence committee aide who is now a Georgetown professor, is returning to Foggy Bottom to head the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
[...]
Rose Gottemoeller is reportedly coming back from the Carnegie Institute's Moscow office to be assistant secretary of state for verification.
[...]
There still appear to be openings at State for top jobs minding South Asia -- but no one seems to want them now, because the odds are you'll never know what's really going on in your region what with special envoy Richard C. Holbrooke in charge. Ditto for the Middle East post, but they might decide to just elevate the highly regarded career deputy, Jeffrey D. Feltman, to take care of things new special envoy George J. Mitchell (and maybe Dennis Ross) don't care about.
I guess this also means that Elizabeth Jones, the former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (EUR), who had been mentioned as the new A/S for Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), has bowed out of consideration. I would be happy to see Ambassador Feltman get the top spot at NEA, not just because he is a careerist but because he is an all-around decent guy. As for who would take the A/S position in SCA, I haven't heard. Kurt Campbell, who had been at the Pentagon in the Clinton administration as deputy assistant secretary for Asia-Pacific matters, is still apparently the choice to be assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs (EAP).
You may have heard long ago that Secretary Clinton will have two Deputies (D in State Department shorthand), James B. Steinberg and Jacob Lew.
Steinberg will have the role vacated by Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte (and will be considered the Principal Deputy). Steinberg served as deputy national security adviser in Bill Clinton's administration.
Lew, former Office of Management and Budget director during President Clinton's administration, will focus on budget and resources. His appointment is to what is essentially a new position at the Department. There is usually there is only one deputy, and this may be a sign of Secretary Clinton's interest in expanding resources for the department. I certainly hope so. It is clear from her welcoming remarks and the subsequent visit by President Obama that both Secretary Clinton and the President are committed to revitalizing the role of diplomacy in national security policy, and the Department needs more resources to do that job.
It seems that Under Secretary for Political Affairs Bill Burns (P in State Department shorthand) and Under Secretary for Management Pat Kennedy (M) will both be staying on. I think that will be good both for continuity and for keeping careerists in prominent positions.
A former top State Department official during President Clinton's administration, Wendy R. Sherman, may be to be returning to the Department, possibly in another stint as counselor (C) to the Secretary.
Al Kamen, in today's In the Loop in the Washington Post, had these picks:
Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert at the Brookings Institution who had been Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's terrorism adviser during the presidential campaign, appears to be joining the State Department as assistant secretary for counterterrorism. "The Next Attack," a book he co-authored, opens with: "We are losing . . ."
Jennifer E. Sims, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence coordination and Senate intelligence committee aide who is now a Georgetown professor, is returning to Foggy Bottom to head the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
[...]
Rose Gottemoeller is reportedly coming back from the Carnegie Institute's Moscow office to be assistant secretary of state for verification.
[...]
There still appear to be openings at State for top jobs minding South Asia -- but no one seems to want them now, because the odds are you'll never know what's really going on in your region what with special envoy Richard C. Holbrooke in charge. Ditto for the Middle East post, but they might decide to just elevate the highly regarded career deputy, Jeffrey D. Feltman, to take care of things new special envoy George J. Mitchell (and maybe Dennis Ross) don't care about.
I guess this also means that Elizabeth Jones, the former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (EUR), who had been mentioned as the new A/S for Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), has bowed out of consideration. I would be happy to see Ambassador Feltman get the top spot at NEA, not just because he is a careerist but because he is an all-around decent guy. As for who would take the A/S position in SCA, I haven't heard. Kurt Campbell, who had been at the Pentagon in the Clinton administration as deputy assistant secretary for Asia-Pacific matters, is still apparently the choice to be assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs (EAP).
Sunday, January 25, 2009
RHH: New emphasis on diplomacy welcome
I found this editorial in the Rock Hill (SC) Herald from their retired editor, who is also the father of an FSO.
New emphasis on diplomacy welcome
By Terry Plumb - The Herald
During her first day on the job last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over an event of some significance.
President Obama and Vice President Biden came to the State Department to affirm their confidence in Clinton. She, in turn, introduced two seasoned diplomats called back into service to resolve conflicts between Israel and its neighbors, and the ongoing strife in Afghanistan and Pakistan, respectively.
Not surprisingly, more media attention has been paid to Obama's announcements on torture and closing the prison at Guantanamo, but neither should eclipse what else took place at Foggy Bottom on Thursday.
Biden's presence may have been intended to dispel the idea -- fomented by a slip of Jill Biden's lips -- that Hillary Clinton was not necessarily Obama's first choice to lead State.
"Mr. President, your choice of our colleague, Sen. Clinton, is absolutely the right person, in my view, at the right moment in American history," Biden gushed.
Few in the audience doubted that had he wanted the job, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would be secretary of state. The personal diplomacy was appreciated by his audience, nonetheless.
Obama himself deferred to his appointee. It was Clinton who introduced George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke, A-team diplomats charged with our thorniest problems abroad.
The appointments came as no surprise. True to fashion, Mitchell's and Holbrooke's new jobs had been leaked to the press hours earlier. By the time they were formally introduced, the world knew the new sheriff in town was sending our best negotiators into the fray.
It was only after Mitchell and Holbrooke spoke, however, that our new president took the microphone. I find it hard to imagine either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton showing such deference to subordinates. Clearly, Obama wanted to signify that his administration would restore diplomacy to its proper role.
"And part of what we want to do is to make sure that everybody understands that the State Department is going to be absolutely critical to our success in the years to come," Obama told State Department employees "and you individually are going to be critical to our success in the years to come."
My wife and I were in the audience seven years earlier when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed 97 new Foreign Service officers, including our older daughter. We therefore were heartened by President Obama's next remark: "And we want to send a signal to all kinds of young people who may be thinking about the Foreign Service that they are going to be critical in terms of projecting not just America's power, but also America's values and America's ideals."
Others have noted that Obama's visit to State precedes his first trip to the Pentagon. At the same time, by retaining Robert Gates as secretary of defense and Gen. David Petraus over U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama previously had shown that he values continuity in the military chain of command.
With State, it's another matter. Secretary Clinton follows two public servants who were undercut by the White House. Powell's tenure had a bright beginning but floundered after he was duped by the neocons looking for the flimsiest justification to invade Iraq. Condoleezza Rice, also a respected public figure, never was given a winnable hand. Her ultimate indignity came recently when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert publicly boasted he browbeat President Bush into repudiating a ceasefire Rice had crafted for conflict in Gaza.
Just as every basketball team is undefeated until after its first game of the season, success in diplomacy is easier to predict than to achieve. As George Mitchell, architect of the agreement that ended centuries of conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, put it, "In the negotiations which led to that agreement, we had 700 days of failure and one day of success."
That a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the war in Afghanistan could take 700 days or longer to negotiate is painful to contemplate.
Then again, as Mitchell put it so well: "Conflicts are created, conducted and sustained by human beings; they can be ended by human beings."
New emphasis on diplomacy welcome
By Terry Plumb - The Herald
During her first day on the job last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over an event of some significance.
President Obama and Vice President Biden came to the State Department to affirm their confidence in Clinton. She, in turn, introduced two seasoned diplomats called back into service to resolve conflicts between Israel and its neighbors, and the ongoing strife in Afghanistan and Pakistan, respectively.
Not surprisingly, more media attention has been paid to Obama's announcements on torture and closing the prison at Guantanamo, but neither should eclipse what else took place at Foggy Bottom on Thursday.
Biden's presence may have been intended to dispel the idea -- fomented by a slip of Jill Biden's lips -- that Hillary Clinton was not necessarily Obama's first choice to lead State.
"Mr. President, your choice of our colleague, Sen. Clinton, is absolutely the right person, in my view, at the right moment in American history," Biden gushed.
Few in the audience doubted that had he wanted the job, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would be secretary of state. The personal diplomacy was appreciated by his audience, nonetheless.
Obama himself deferred to his appointee. It was Clinton who introduced George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke, A-team diplomats charged with our thorniest problems abroad.
The appointments came as no surprise. True to fashion, Mitchell's and Holbrooke's new jobs had been leaked to the press hours earlier. By the time they were formally introduced, the world knew the new sheriff in town was sending our best negotiators into the fray.
It was only after Mitchell and Holbrooke spoke, however, that our new president took the microphone. I find it hard to imagine either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton showing such deference to subordinates. Clearly, Obama wanted to signify that his administration would restore diplomacy to its proper role.
"And part of what we want to do is to make sure that everybody understands that the State Department is going to be absolutely critical to our success in the years to come," Obama told State Department employees "and you individually are going to be critical to our success in the years to come."
My wife and I were in the audience seven years earlier when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed 97 new Foreign Service officers, including our older daughter. We therefore were heartened by President Obama's next remark: "And we want to send a signal to all kinds of young people who may be thinking about the Foreign Service that they are going to be critical in terms of projecting not just America's power, but also America's values and America's ideals."
Others have noted that Obama's visit to State precedes his first trip to the Pentagon. At the same time, by retaining Robert Gates as secretary of defense and Gen. David Petraus over U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama previously had shown that he values continuity in the military chain of command.
With State, it's another matter. Secretary Clinton follows two public servants who were undercut by the White House. Powell's tenure had a bright beginning but floundered after he was duped by the neocons looking for the flimsiest justification to invade Iraq. Condoleezza Rice, also a respected public figure, never was given a winnable hand. Her ultimate indignity came recently when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert publicly boasted he browbeat President Bush into repudiating a ceasefire Rice had crafted for conflict in Gaza.
Just as every basketball team is undefeated until after its first game of the season, success in diplomacy is easier to predict than to achieve. As George Mitchell, architect of the agreement that ended centuries of conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, put it, "In the negotiations which led to that agreement, we had 700 days of failure and one day of success."
That a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the war in Afghanistan could take 700 days or longer to negotiate is painful to contemplate.
Then again, as Mitchell put it so well: "Conflicts are created, conducted and sustained by human beings; they can be ended by human beings."
Friday, January 23, 2009
Like Two Rock Stars In One Day
Everyone knew President Obama was coming yesterday. It was in the Washington Post and the New York Times (I'm sure security just LOVED that).
I was glad that he did not come in with Secretary Clinton when she first came into the building in the morning. That was HER moment to shine. And to tell us that diplomacy matters again. President Obama then came later to re-enforce this new truth with the appointment of Senator George Mitchell as a special envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as an envoy for Afghanistan/Pakistan (and I love that we have a President who knows how to pronounce that!). Soft power, or as Secretary Clinton calls it, Smart Power, is back. And I'd have to say the Department is THRILLED!
I was disappointed not to be among the ones selected to hear him speak, but I did get to hear him, Vice President Biden, and Secretary Clinton via our Department broadcast on BNET.
Secretary Clinton, in her introduction, said, "Anything short of relentless diplomatic efforts will fail to achieve peace." Amen. Vice President Biden seconded that thought, saying: "We are going to invigorate our nation's committment to diplomacy....For too long, we have put the bulk of the burden on the military." Amen again!
President Obama's remarks were again inspiring (and I must add, some of the most balanced I have heard in a long time on the Israeli-Paelstinian conflict...I liked that he said: "Now, just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians"). Of diplomacy and those of us serving America's foreign policy objectives, President Obama said:
My appearance today, as has been noted, underscores my commitment to the importance of diplomacy and renewing American leadership. And it gives me an opportunity to thank you for the services that you perform every single day.
Sometimes I think the American public doesn't fully understand the sacrifices that you and your families make, the dedication that is involved in you carrying on your tasks day in, day out.
And I know I speak for Joe Biden, as well as everybody else on this stage, when we tell you that we are proud of you. You are carrying on a vital task in the safety and security of the American people.
And part of what we want to do is to make sure that everybody understands that the State Department is going to be absolutely critical to our success in the years to come, and you individually are going to be critical to our success in the years to come. And we want to send a signal to all kinds of young people who may be thinking about the Foreign Service that they are going to be critical in terms of projecting not just America's power, but also America's values and America's ideals.
[...]
You can read the entire text of his remarks at Dead Men Working.
There is also a nice piece in Time that explains a bit about why folks in the Department are so optimistic:
The euphoria that greeted Hillary Clinton's arrival at the State Department on Thursday was not unfamiliar. Every few years, the usually reserved diplomats at Foggy Bottom drop their world-weariness and get all googly-eyed over a new leader: When Colin Powell took charge in January 2001, he was mobbed by star-struck Foreign Service Officers hoping he'd reverse the department's diminishing stature under Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. In early 2005, their adulation was even more desperate as they greeted Condoleezza Rice following Powell's four-year emasculation at the hands of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.
What the downcast diplomats really seek is someone who will return the State Department to the central role it played in the days when American diplomacy shaped the most important world events. And they embraced Secretary Clinton with fervor, as she arrived promising a new era of robust diplomacy. With President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at her side, she underscored that promise by announcing two high powered envoys to take charge of diplomatic efforts in two key hot spots: Richard Holbrooke was named Special Adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan, while Senator George Mitchell was named special envoy for the Middle East.
[...]
There are reasons to be optimistic that Holbrooke and Mitchell, and Clinton herself for that matter, are part of a new beginning for American diplomacy. Obama had made rejuvenating diplomacy a centerpiece of his campaign, and he has named a serious and strong-willed team whose members, as much as anything, hate to fail. Both envoys are known to be energetic in the field and to have records of peace-making achievement, Holbrooke in brokering the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the Bosnia conflict, and Mitchell in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement that marked the beginning of the end of the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.
[...]
If the weary diplomats at the State department want nothing more than action on the diplomatic front, they're certainly going to get it from Holbrooke and Mitchell. Whether the two men will actually succeed may depend on the policies that guide their efforts and on Hillary Clinton's skills in managing them. She had a simple message for everyone at Foggy Bottom on her first day at work. "This is a team," she told the gathered diplomats, and "We are not any longer going to tolerate the kind of divisiveness that has paralyzed and undermined our ability to get things done for America." Says Levy of the New America Foundation: "I think you can make it work."
As my A-100 coordinator Charlie used to say to us each morning when we came in, It is a Great Day to be serving this Great Nation!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Secretary Clinton's welcome remarks
Diplopundit had the full text of Secretary Clinton's welcome remarks (see below) to the State Department this moring. You should also check out her post for a video of the event.
Thank you. Thank you all so much. Well, I am absolutely honored and thrilled beyond words to be here with you as our nation's 67th Secretary of State. And I believe, with all of my heart, that this is a new era for America. (Applause.)
President Obama set the tone with his inaugural address. And the work of the Obama-Biden Administration is committed to advancing America's national security, furthering America's interests, and respecting and exemplifying America's values around the world. (Applause.)
There are three legs to the stool of American foreign policy: defense, diplomacy, and development. And we are responsible for two of the three legs. And we will make clear, as we go forward, that diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long-term objectives of the United States. And I will do all that I can, working with you, to make it abundantly clear that robust diplomacy and effective development are the best long-term tools for securing America's future. (Applause.)
In my testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, I spoke a lot about smart power. Well, at the heart of smart power are smart people, and you are those people. And you are the ones that we will count on and turn to for the advice and counsel, the expertise and experience to make good on the promises of this new Administration.
I want to thank Steve for his comments that really summarized the full range of experience and expertise of both the Foreign Service and the Civil Service, and also to send my appreciation to all of the nationals around the world who work in our embassies and work with government officials.
This is going to be a challenging time and it will require 21st century tools and solutions to meet our problems and seize our opportunities. I'm going to be asking a lot of you. I want you to think outside the proverbial box. I want you to give me the best advice you can. I want you to understand there is nothing that I welcome more than a good debate and the kind of dialogue - (applause) - that will make us better. (Applause.)
We cannot be our best if we don't demand that from ourselves and each other. I will give you my very best efforts. I will do all that I can, working with our President, to make sure that we deliver on the promises that are at the very core of what this new Administration and this new era represent. So we need to collaborate, and we need to have a sense of openness and candor in this building. And I invite that.
Now, not everybody's ideas - (applause) - will make it into policy, but we will be better because we have heard from you.
I also want to address a word to the USAID family. I will be there tomorrow to greet them and thank them for the work they've done on behalf of development through some very difficult years, because they will be our partners. (Applause.)
Now, as Steve candidly said, so far, we're thrilled. (Laughter.) This is not going to be easy. (Laughter.) I don't want anybody to leave this extraordinarily warm reception thinking, oh, good - (laughter) - you know, this is going to be great. It's going to be hard. But if it weren't hard, somebody else could do it, besides the professionals of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service and our Diplomatic and Development Corps. (Applause.)
Now, as you may have heard percolating through the building, you know, when I was first nominated, I realized that there was this living, organic creature known as the building. (Laughter.) And as you probably already know, we are expecting the President and the Vice President to be here in the State Department this afternoon. (Applause.)
Among the many conversations that I've had with the President and with the Vice President, over years, but certainly much more astutely and in a concentrated way in the last weeks, we want to send a clear and unequivocal message: This is a team, and you are the members of that team. There isn't anything that I can get done from the seventh floor or the President can get done from the Oval Office, unless we make clear we are all on the American team. We are not any longer going to tolerate the kind of divisiveness that has paralyzed and undermined our ability to get things done for America.
So the President will be here - (applause) - on his second day in office to let all of you know, and all who are serving on our behalf around the world, how seriously committed he is to working with us. So this is going to be a great adventure. We'll have some ups and some downs. We'll face some obstacles along the way. But be of good cheer - (laughter) - and be of strong heart, and do not grow weary, as we attempt to do good on behalf of our country and the world.
I think this is a time of such potential and possibility. I don't get up in the morning just thinking about the threats and the dangers, as real as they are. I also think about what we can do and who we are and what we represent. So I take this office with a real sense of joy and responsibility, commitment and collaboration. And now, ladies and gentlemen, let's get to work. (Applause.)
Thank you and God bless you.
Thank you. Thank you all so much. Well, I am absolutely honored and thrilled beyond words to be here with you as our nation's 67th Secretary of State. And I believe, with all of my heart, that this is a new era for America. (Applause.)
President Obama set the tone with his inaugural address. And the work of the Obama-Biden Administration is committed to advancing America's national security, furthering America's interests, and respecting and exemplifying America's values around the world. (Applause.)
There are three legs to the stool of American foreign policy: defense, diplomacy, and development. And we are responsible for two of the three legs. And we will make clear, as we go forward, that diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long-term objectives of the United States. And I will do all that I can, working with you, to make it abundantly clear that robust diplomacy and effective development are the best long-term tools for securing America's future. (Applause.)
In my testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, I spoke a lot about smart power. Well, at the heart of smart power are smart people, and you are those people. And you are the ones that we will count on and turn to for the advice and counsel, the expertise and experience to make good on the promises of this new Administration.
I want to thank Steve for his comments that really summarized the full range of experience and expertise of both the Foreign Service and the Civil Service, and also to send my appreciation to all of the nationals around the world who work in our embassies and work with government officials.
This is going to be a challenging time and it will require 21st century tools and solutions to meet our problems and seize our opportunities. I'm going to be asking a lot of you. I want you to think outside the proverbial box. I want you to give me the best advice you can. I want you to understand there is nothing that I welcome more than a good debate and the kind of dialogue - (applause) - that will make us better. (Applause.)
We cannot be our best if we don't demand that from ourselves and each other. I will give you my very best efforts. I will do all that I can, working with our President, to make sure that we deliver on the promises that are at the very core of what this new Administration and this new era represent. So we need to collaborate, and we need to have a sense of openness and candor in this building. And I invite that.
Now, not everybody's ideas - (applause) - will make it into policy, but we will be better because we have heard from you.
I also want to address a word to the USAID family. I will be there tomorrow to greet them and thank them for the work they've done on behalf of development through some very difficult years, because they will be our partners. (Applause.)
Now, as Steve candidly said, so far, we're thrilled. (Laughter.) This is not going to be easy. (Laughter.) I don't want anybody to leave this extraordinarily warm reception thinking, oh, good - (laughter) - you know, this is going to be great. It's going to be hard. But if it weren't hard, somebody else could do it, besides the professionals of the Foreign Service and the Civil Service and our Diplomatic and Development Corps. (Applause.)
Now, as you may have heard percolating through the building, you know, when I was first nominated, I realized that there was this living, organic creature known as the building. (Laughter.) And as you probably already know, we are expecting the President and the Vice President to be here in the State Department this afternoon. (Applause.)
Among the many conversations that I've had with the President and with the Vice President, over years, but certainly much more astutely and in a concentrated way in the last weeks, we want to send a clear and unequivocal message: This is a team, and you are the members of that team. There isn't anything that I can get done from the seventh floor or the President can get done from the Oval Office, unless we make clear we are all on the American team. We are not any longer going to tolerate the kind of divisiveness that has paralyzed and undermined our ability to get things done for America.
So the President will be here - (applause) - on his second day in office to let all of you know, and all who are serving on our behalf around the world, how seriously committed he is to working with us. So this is going to be a great adventure. We'll have some ups and some downs. We'll face some obstacles along the way. But be of good cheer - (laughter) - and be of strong heart, and do not grow weary, as we attempt to do good on behalf of our country and the world.
I think this is a time of such potential and possibility. I don't get up in the morning just thinking about the threats and the dangers, as real as they are. I also think about what we can do and who we are and what we represent. So I take this office with a real sense of joy and responsibility, commitment and collaboration. And now, ladies and gentlemen, let's get to work. (Applause.)
Thank you and God bless you.
Clinton's First Day
I wonder if you would believe me if I told you I went in to work at 8:30 this morning, even though I didn't have to be there until 1:30 this afternoon, just so I could tell you about Secretary Clinton's arrival.
The C Street entrance to Main State was PACKED, and if you have been there, you know it is not an ideal place for crowds. I was way in the back, behind the glass barracades, and I couldn't see her when she walked in. But you would have thought a rock star had entered the building. A new cheer went up each time she took a few steps so a new section of the crowd could see her.
I didn't think so.
The truth is, I am a geek and I am geekishly loyal to the Department. So I really wanted to be there.
I wasn't the only one.
The C Street entrance to Main State was PACKED, and if you have been there, you know it is not an ideal place for crowds. I was way in the back, behind the glass barracades, and I couldn't see her when she walked in. But you would have thought a rock star had entered the building. A new cheer went up each time she took a few steps so a new section of the crowd could see her. She stood on the steps so she could be seen, and she made some short, really nice remarks. She said that foreign policy is a three-legged stool, with the legs being defense, diplomacy and development. And that diplomacy and development belonged to us, and she and the President planned to make those legs strong again.
She said that she doesn't wake up each morning thinking only of the threats we face, though they are real and serious. She said she also wakes up each morning thinking about who we are and what we can do. She said it wouldn't be easy, but that if it was easy, anyone could do it and we wouldn't need all the smart and talented professionals of the foreign service. She said she intended to hear us, and that while our individual views might not make it into foreign policy, she liked a good debate and that our policy would be stronger for it. She said when she referred to smart power and smart diplomacy, she was talking about us.
When she finished, she walked the long way through the crowd, shaking hands with a lot of the people there. Me included. My spot at the back of the room turned out to be a pretty good one.
And really I did it all for you.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
CNN: Clinton confirmed as Secretary of State by 94-2 vote
Clinton confirmed as secretary of state by 94-2 vote
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate approved the nomination of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state Wednesday by a vote of 94-2.
The two senators who opposed Clinton's confirmation were Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and David Vitter, R-Louisiana.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, had objected to the confirmation Tuesday, preventing the Senate from voting by unanimous consent. His objection meant that the Senate held a roll call vote on Clinton's nomination Wednesday.
Cornyn said he knew that Clinton would be confirmed but said he delayed the vote because he wanted more time to talk about the foundation run by her husband, former President Clinton.
Bill Clinton signed an agreement with the Obama transition team pledging to limit foreign donations and to release annual disclosures of new donations to his foundation.
Speaking from the floor, Sen. John McCain on Wednesday urged a quick confirmation of Clinton by a voice vote.
McCain, R-Arizona, who was the Republican presidential candidate last year, frequently spoke of his respect for Clinton during the campaign season.
Cornyn said he told McCain that he wouldn't agree to an immediate voice vote but said that as long as senators have time to express their concerns, a voice vote might have been acceptable.
Cornyn wrote to Hillary Clinton last week to outline his concerns.
"I remain deeply troubled that America's foreign policy and your diplomatic mission will be encumbered by the sweeping global activities of the Clinton Foundation ... unless tighter foreign fundraising restrictions and transparency protocols are adopted by your husband's organization," he wrote in a letter he released to the media .
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16-1 last week in favor of Clinton's nomination, with Vitter casting the sole dissenting vote. The committee vote sent Clinton's nomination to the full Senate, the final step in the confirmation process.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate approved the nomination of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state Wednesday by a vote of 94-2.
The two senators who opposed Clinton's confirmation were Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and David Vitter, R-Louisiana.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, had objected to the confirmation Tuesday, preventing the Senate from voting by unanimous consent. His objection meant that the Senate held a roll call vote on Clinton's nomination Wednesday.
Cornyn said he knew that Clinton would be confirmed but said he delayed the vote because he wanted more time to talk about the foundation run by her husband, former President Clinton.
Bill Clinton signed an agreement with the Obama transition team pledging to limit foreign donations and to release annual disclosures of new donations to his foundation.
Speaking from the floor, Sen. John McCain on Wednesday urged a quick confirmation of Clinton by a voice vote.
McCain, R-Arizona, who was the Republican presidential candidate last year, frequently spoke of his respect for Clinton during the campaign season.
Cornyn said he told McCain that he wouldn't agree to an immediate voice vote but said that as long as senators have time to express their concerns, a voice vote might have been acceptable.
Cornyn wrote to Hillary Clinton last week to outline his concerns.
"I remain deeply troubled that America's foreign policy and your diplomatic mission will be encumbered by the sweeping global activities of the Clinton Foundation ... unless tighter foreign fundraising restrictions and transparency protocols are adopted by your husband's organization," he wrote in a letter he released to the media .
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16-1 last week in favor of Clinton's nomination, with Vitter casting the sole dissenting vote. The committee vote sent Clinton's nomination to the full Senate, the final step in the confirmation process.
Change
Change doesn't usually come quickly to the government. But apparently it does to the government websites.
My partner noticed last night, while looking to see if we had press guidance on a particular issue, that the Department's website has already been changed to reflect the incoming Secretary, Hillary Clinton.
Another exciting change is that the agenda of seeking civil rights for gay and lesbian people has been moved from the change.gov website to the Whitehouse website.
I can't tell you how amazing it feels to be included after so many years of exclusion, to feel finally like a full, valued citizen. To go from being the whipping boy (ever notice a correlation between dropping approval ratings of the war and Rove screaming "the gays are going to get married!"?...I certainly wasn't the only one) to this item on President Obama's (man I like writing that) agenda:
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Wow.
My partner noticed last night, while looking to see if we had press guidance on a particular issue, that the Department's website has already been changed to reflect the incoming Secretary, Hillary Clinton.
Another exciting change is that the agenda of seeking civil rights for gay and lesbian people has been moved from the change.gov website to the Whitehouse website.
I can't tell you how amazing it feels to be included after so many years of exclusion, to feel finally like a full, valued citizen. To go from being the whipping boy (ever notice a correlation between dropping approval ratings of the war and Rove screaming "the gays are going to get married!"?...I certainly wasn't the only one) to this item on President Obama's (man I like writing that) agenda:
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Wow.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Witnessing History
I have a love-hate relationship with DC. Given my druthers, if I am in the states, this is not where I would choose to live. I don't like the traffic, I don't like the weather. But the job is here, when I am in the states, so I am here.
I do like the easy access to so much of what DC has to offer. Great restaurants, museums...and inaugurations.
I meant to stay home. Ask any of my friends, I planned to barricade myself in my apartment until it was all over. Which is not to say I wasn't excited, just that I planned to watch it on tv from the warmth of my apartment.
Besides, in addition to being cold, all the bridges from Virginia into the District were closed.
I went anyway.
It was cold. I wore more layers than I can count and I was still cold (though the ear muffs were a great investment). And it was crowded. I spend about an hour and a half crammed like a sardine into the metro. And then I spent even more hours crammed into the mall (and risked getting trampled trying to get off the mall at the end) all for a glimpse of history. I couldn't even see the Capital building from where I stood.
I do like the easy access to so much of what DC has to offer. Great restaurants, museums...and inaugurations.
I meant to stay home. Ask any of my friends, I planned to barricade myself in my apartment until it was all over. Which is not to say I wasn't excited, just that I planned to watch it on tv from the warmth of my apartment.
Besides, in addition to being cold, all the bridges from Virginia into the District were closed.
I went anyway.
It was cold. I wore more layers than I can count and I was still cold (though the ear muffs were a great investment). And it was crowded. I spend about an hour and a half crammed like a sardine into the metro. And then I spent even more hours crammed into the mall (and risked getting trampled trying to get off the mall at the end) all for a glimpse of history. I couldn't even see the Capital building from where I stood.
I never found a friend I was supposed to meet there, but I found a good spot near a jumbo-tron and had a great view of the ceremony. I laughed with the crowd when the speaker told everyone to be seated, and cheered with them when my future boss, Hillary Clinton, came in with her husband. I chanted "O-Ba-Ma" with them, and I cheered with them when our new President took his oath and made his inspiring speech. I am optimistic.
I am still disappointed that Rick Warren was allowed to be part of the ceremony, and trying to get off the Mall was an exercize in patience when places we had been told would be open were closed off. I ended up walking a long way to find an open metro station, and stood in line with what seemed like thousands of people waiting just to go downstairs onto the ramp. Metro police stopped the line when the platform was full, and yelled over a bullhorn. "Watch the people in front of you. When they move, you move. When they stop, you stop." By the time I got to the platform, the whole crowd was repeating it with him. But I still made it home in time to watch the parade, since you had to choose that or the ceremony.
I'm glad I went, endured the cold and inconvenience, and got to be a part of it all. I am glad I am American, and as an American Indian, glad to live in a time when a person of color can be President.
And I am proud and honored to serve this great country.
I'm glad I went, endured the cold and inconvenience, and got to be a part of it all. I am glad I am American, and as an American Indian, glad to live in a time when a person of color can be President.
And I am proud and honored to serve this great country.
Clinton Nomination Vote Delayed
From the Washington Post:
Hill Transition
Clinton Nomination Vote Delayed
By Glenn Kessler
The Senate delayed a vote on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's nomination to become secretary of state after a Republican lawmaker objected to a planned voice vote today.
Clinton, whose nomination was approved last week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 16-1, had hoped to immediately begin her job today after a voice vote. But a single senator can block such a vote, and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said he would insist on "a full and open debate" on what he considered potential conflicts of interests caused by the fundraising practices of the foundation run by former president Bill Clinton.
The former president has agreed to disclose his overseas donors but some Republicans have urged the New York senator to amend the agreement to provide even greater and more timely disclosure.
The Senate will likely hold a roll call vote on Clinton's nomination early on Wednesday.
Hill Transition
Clinton Nomination Vote Delayed
By Glenn Kessler
The Senate delayed a vote on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's nomination to become secretary of state after a Republican lawmaker objected to a planned voice vote today.
Clinton, whose nomination was approved last week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 16-1, had hoped to immediately begin her job today after a voice vote. But a single senator can block such a vote, and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said he would insist on "a full and open debate" on what he considered potential conflicts of interests caused by the fundraising practices of the foundation run by former president Bill Clinton.
The former president has agreed to disclose his overseas donors but some Republicans have urged the New York senator to amend the agreement to provide even greater and more timely disclosure.
The Senate will likely hold a roll call vote on Clinton's nomination early on Wednesday.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Like New Year's Eve/Day
I have to admit, in a geeky sort of way, I am excited about being in the Department right now. Neither my partner nor I have really been here through a transition. Yes, there have been comings and goings, and no, Secretary Rice was not Secretary when either of us joined. Those were transitions of a sort.
But this is different.
So many of the offices are empty. I ran into Secretary-designate Clinton yesterday afternoon in the garage, and tonight I went by Secretary Rice's office. She is gone, of course. Her goodbye was on tv today (at least the State Department's network). I ran into her personal assistant, a career member of the Service. We spent many hours together while the Secretary was in meetings with the Palestinian President, and I found her to be a genuinely nice person. I took it as a personal mission each visit to find her a smoke-free place to be in the Muqata, the Palestinian President's office compound. She told me today this is it for her. She is heading for a well-earned retirement.
It all has me feeling a bit like I do each New Year's. Of course it is true that the New Year may be no better (and maybe even worse) than the last. But just for that moment, the coming year is filled with promise and wonder. Will life be better under team Obama/Clinton than Bush/Rice? How drastically will our foreign policy change? I can't imagine it would stay the same. And if Iraq is no longer our top priority, will the Embassy there be reduced in size?
I wonder too if Secretary Clinton will be more interested in managing the Department than Secretary Rice seemed to be? Will we get more resources? More people? Will Secretary Clinton make the changes she can make with the stroke of a pen to improve the lives of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers and specialists and their families?
Like I said, things could get worse. But I hope not. Like at the dawn of the New Year, I am cautiously optimistic.
And crossing my fingers.
But this is different.
So many of the offices are empty. I ran into Secretary-designate Clinton yesterday afternoon in the garage, and tonight I went by Secretary Rice's office. She is gone, of course. Her goodbye was on tv today (at least the State Department's network). I ran into her personal assistant, a career member of the Service. We spent many hours together while the Secretary was in meetings with the Palestinian President, and I found her to be a genuinely nice person. I took it as a personal mission each visit to find her a smoke-free place to be in the Muqata, the Palestinian President's office compound. She told me today this is it for her. She is heading for a well-earned retirement.
It all has me feeling a bit like I do each New Year's. Of course it is true that the New Year may be no better (and maybe even worse) than the last. But just for that moment, the coming year is filled with promise and wonder. Will life be better under team Obama/Clinton than Bush/Rice? How drastically will our foreign policy change? I can't imagine it would stay the same. And if Iraq is no longer our top priority, will the Embassy there be reduced in size?
I wonder too if Secretary Clinton will be more interested in managing the Department than Secretary Rice seemed to be? Will we get more resources? More people? Will Secretary Clinton make the changes she can make with the stroke of a pen to improve the lives of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers and specialists and their families?
Like I said, things could get worse. But I hope not. Like at the dawn of the New Year, I am cautiously optimistic.
And crossing my fingers.
Coverage continues over HRC's comment about FS gays and lesbians
I found a couple more pieces today covering the comments made my Secretary-designate Clinton during her confirmation hearing Tuesday. The first piece is from Pink News in the U.K.
Gay State Department staff hope Clinton will grant more partner benefits
An organisation representing US State Department gay and lesbian personnel and their families has welcomed comments from Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton about same-sex partners.
Today the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton by 16 votes to one.
There will be a vote of the full Senate to confirm her appointment after President-elect Barack Obama takes office next week.
Mrs Clinton will become the first former First Lady of the United States to be appointed to the Cabinet.
During her campaign for the Democratic party's nomination for President, she said she would be an advocate for gay rights across the world if elected.
During her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Mrs Clinton was asked by Senator Russ Feingold if she will support "changes to existing personnel policy in order to ensure that LGBT staff at State and USAID receive equal benefits and support."
She told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "we should take a hard look at the existing policy" and she has asked for more briefing on the issue.
"My understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit. And we will come back to you to inform you of decisions we make going forward," she said.
Under the current regulations a US State Department employee's spouse can claim several rights which are denied to unmarried partners and same-sex partners.
Other issues include the lack of training for same-sex partners to recognise terrorist threats, the lack of medical care and the need to pay for one's own transportation when one's partner is on duty.
Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) welcomed Mrs Clinton's comments.
GLIFAA President Michelle Schohn "noted that LGBT US diplomats and aid workers serve overseas in some of the most dangerous locations, but continue to be denied equal treatment for their families. "
She expressed hope that the incoming Obama administration would work to implement "overdue reforms."
Last year Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, from Wisconsin, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, along with Congressional colleagues, and highlighted "basic and common-sense" policy changes that the State Department need to enact regarding Foreign Service Officers (FSOs).
Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Jeffrey Bergner replied that the State Department treats "same-sex and opposite sex unmarried partners of US government employees stationed abroad in an equivalent manner."
He cited, among other things, helping the unmarried partners of employees overseas obtain residency permits and including them in the Mission phone book.
Digger comments:
This is actually done on a case by case basis. Chiefs of Mission can choose not to assist employee's partners in getting visas because it is not a Department requirement. Some partners are not even allowed access to the compound, while heterosexual spouses get embassy ID cards. I even know of one case where a very good friend of mine had the support of the Ambassador for a visa for her partner. He wrote a letter to the Foreign Ministry of the country where my friend was posted requesting a visa, and his secretary THREW THE LETTER INTO THE TRASH!
Pink New continues:
The inequalities faced by gay and lesbian State Department staff were highlighted in December 2007 when a former US ambassador left his post after criticising Condoleezza Rice's stance on the issue.
Michael E Guest retired after more than 26 years as a form of protest against regulations that he considered as unfair to same-sex partners.
The 50-year-old, who is openly gay, served as US ambassador to Romania when President Bush took office.
Mr Guest was the first out gay person to be confirmed by the Senate to an ambassadorial post.
"For the past three years, I've urged the Secretary and her senior management team to redress policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees," he said during a speech in Washington.
Guest said that these issues could have been solved simply with Ms Rice's signature, but his pleas had never received any attention.
Let's hope they are solved by Secretary-designate Clinton's signature.
The issue was also covered by Entre-Elle here. She said: "Democratic senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin posed the question to Clinton after he noted that addressing these inequities was a natural outgrowth of the need to build a more robust diplomatic corps." I certainly agree.
Gay State Department staff hope Clinton will grant more partner benefits
An organisation representing US State Department gay and lesbian personnel and their families has welcomed comments from Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton about same-sex partners.
Today the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton by 16 votes to one.
There will be a vote of the full Senate to confirm her appointment after President-elect Barack Obama takes office next week.
Mrs Clinton will become the first former First Lady of the United States to be appointed to the Cabinet.
During her campaign for the Democratic party's nomination for President, she said she would be an advocate for gay rights across the world if elected.
During her confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Mrs Clinton was asked by Senator Russ Feingold if she will support "changes to existing personnel policy in order to ensure that LGBT staff at State and USAID receive equal benefits and support."
She told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "we should take a hard look at the existing policy" and she has asked for more briefing on the issue.
"My understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit. And we will come back to you to inform you of decisions we make going forward," she said.
Under the current regulations a US State Department employee's spouse can claim several rights which are denied to unmarried partners and same-sex partners.
Other issues include the lack of training for same-sex partners to recognise terrorist threats, the lack of medical care and the need to pay for one's own transportation when one's partner is on duty.
Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) welcomed Mrs Clinton's comments.
GLIFAA President Michelle Schohn "noted that LGBT US diplomats and aid workers serve overseas in some of the most dangerous locations, but continue to be denied equal treatment for their families. "
She expressed hope that the incoming Obama administration would work to implement "overdue reforms."
Last year Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, from Wisconsin, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, along with Congressional colleagues, and highlighted "basic and common-sense" policy changes that the State Department need to enact regarding Foreign Service Officers (FSOs).
Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Jeffrey Bergner replied that the State Department treats "same-sex and opposite sex unmarried partners of US government employees stationed abroad in an equivalent manner."
He cited, among other things, helping the unmarried partners of employees overseas obtain residency permits and including them in the Mission phone book.
Digger comments:
This is actually done on a case by case basis. Chiefs of Mission can choose not to assist employee's partners in getting visas because it is not a Department requirement. Some partners are not even allowed access to the compound, while heterosexual spouses get embassy ID cards. I even know of one case where a very good friend of mine had the support of the Ambassador for a visa for her partner. He wrote a letter to the Foreign Ministry of the country where my friend was posted requesting a visa, and his secretary THREW THE LETTER INTO THE TRASH!
Pink New continues:
The inequalities faced by gay and lesbian State Department staff were highlighted in December 2007 when a former US ambassador left his post after criticising Condoleezza Rice's stance on the issue.
Michael E Guest retired after more than 26 years as a form of protest against regulations that he considered as unfair to same-sex partners.
The 50-year-old, who is openly gay, served as US ambassador to Romania when President Bush took office.
Mr Guest was the first out gay person to be confirmed by the Senate to an ambassadorial post.
"For the past three years, I've urged the Secretary and her senior management team to redress policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees," he said during a speech in Washington.
Guest said that these issues could have been solved simply with Ms Rice's signature, but his pleas had never received any attention.
Let's hope they are solved by Secretary-designate Clinton's signature.
The issue was also covered by Entre-Elle here. She said: "Democratic senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin posed the question to Clinton after he noted that addressing these inequities was a natural outgrowth of the need to build a more robust diplomatic corps." I certainly agree.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
SFRC Approves Secretary-designate Clinton
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Secretary-designation Clinton to serve as the next Secretary of State by a vote of 16-1. David Vitter was the lone dissenter.
Secretary-designate Clinton's nomination goes before the full Senate on January 20.
Secretary-designate Clinton's nomination goes before the full Senate on January 20.
More coverage of Secretary-designate Clinton's comments
This piece in on the Human Rights Campaign's website. There is also a video at the bottom of the piece of Amb. Guest speaking about his experience.
State Department LGBT group welcomes Clinton support for reviewing unequal policies
Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), the U.S. State Department LGBT employee group, said yesterday that they are pleased with Secretary of State-nominee Hillary Clinton's statement during her confirmation hearing yesterday that she would review policies to see what could be changed to assist LGBT personnel at the Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies.
In response to a question from Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Russ Feingold (D-WI), Senator Clinton noted that many foreign countries have already changed the policies to provide equal treatment for gay and lesbian staff of foreign affairs agencies. Senator Feingold specifically referenced regulations that deny the same-sex partners of LGBT personnel the same rights as heterosexual spouses.
Here's more from GLIFAA's statement:
GLIFAA plans to present to the incoming Secretary of State a letter signed by over 2,000 current and former employees of the Department of State and other foreign affairs agencies, requesting fairness for LBGT employees. GLIFAA board members also met with members of President-elect Obama's transition team at the Department of State in December.
GLIFAA President Michelle Schohn welcomed Senator Clinton's acknowledgement that fairer policies serve as good business sense. Schohn noted that LGBT U.S. diplomats and aid workers serve overseas in some of the most dangerous locations, but continue to be denied equal treatment for their families. She expressed hope that the incoming Administration would work quickly to implement overdue reforms.
U.S. Foreign Service personnel - as well as civil service and contract employees - are required to serve a large portion of their careers at U.S. embassies and missions overseas. However, the partners of LGBT personnel currently receive no assistance while accompanying employees on these mandatory assignments. Among many other obstacles, LGBT partners lack access to affordable health insurance coverage and resources for moving abroad. During overseas tours, employees' partners do not receive assistance in obtaining a visa and lack access to employment opportunities, emergency evacuation, and embassy medical units, all afforded to married, heterosexual couples.
U.S. Ambassador Michael Guest, the first openly gay ambassador, resigned from the State Department in 2007 after 26 years of service to protest of the department's failure to correct policies that discriminate against LGBT employees.
State Department LGBT group welcomes Clinton support for reviewing unequal policies
Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), the U.S. State Department LGBT employee group, said yesterday that they are pleased with Secretary of State-nominee Hillary Clinton's statement during her confirmation hearing yesterday that she would review policies to see what could be changed to assist LGBT personnel at the Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies.
In response to a question from Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Russ Feingold (D-WI), Senator Clinton noted that many foreign countries have already changed the policies to provide equal treatment for gay and lesbian staff of foreign affairs agencies. Senator Feingold specifically referenced regulations that deny the same-sex partners of LGBT personnel the same rights as heterosexual spouses.
Here's more from GLIFAA's statement:
GLIFAA plans to present to the incoming Secretary of State a letter signed by over 2,000 current and former employees of the Department of State and other foreign affairs agencies, requesting fairness for LBGT employees. GLIFAA board members also met with members of President-elect Obama's transition team at the Department of State in December.
GLIFAA President Michelle Schohn welcomed Senator Clinton's acknowledgement that fairer policies serve as good business sense. Schohn noted that LGBT U.S. diplomats and aid workers serve overseas in some of the most dangerous locations, but continue to be denied equal treatment for their families. She expressed hope that the incoming Administration would work quickly to implement overdue reforms.
U.S. Foreign Service personnel - as well as civil service and contract employees - are required to serve a large portion of their careers at U.S. embassies and missions overseas. However, the partners of LGBT personnel currently receive no assistance while accompanying employees on these mandatory assignments. Among many other obstacles, LGBT partners lack access to affordable health insurance coverage and resources for moving abroad. During overseas tours, employees' partners do not receive assistance in obtaining a visa and lack access to employment opportunities, emergency evacuation, and embassy medical units, all afforded to married, heterosexual couples.
U.S. Ambassador Michael Guest, the first openly gay ambassador, resigned from the State Department in 2007 after 26 years of service to protest of the department's failure to correct policies that discriminate against LGBT employees.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
365gay.com: Clinton wins praise from State Dept. gays
From 365gay.com.
Clinton wins praise from State Dept. gays
(Washington) A group that represents LGBT workers in the federal government is welcoming a commitment by Hillary Clinton that if confirmed as Secretary of State she would review policies to see what could be changed to assist gay personnel at the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other foreign affairs agencies.
During questioning at her confirmation hearing, Clinton was asked by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) about regulations that deny the same-sex partners of LGBT personnel the same rights as heterosexual spouses.
In saying she would review existing policies, Clinton noted that many foreign countries have already changed the policies to provide equal treatment for gay and lesbian staff of foreign affairs agencies.
The employee affinity group for the State Department, Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, said in a statement that it plans to present the incoming Secretary of State with a letter signed by over 2,000 current and former employees of the Department of State and other foreign affairs agencies requesting fairness for LBGT employees.
GLIFAA board members also met with members of President-elect Obama’s transition team at the Department of State in December.
GLIFAA President Michelle Schohn noted that gay U.S. diplomats and aid workers serve overseas “in some of the most dangerous locations, but continue to be denied equal treatment for their families.”
U.S. Foreign Service personnel – as well as civil service and contract employees – are required to serve a large portion of their careers at U.S. embassies and missions overseas. However, the partners of gay personnel receive no assistance while accompanying employees on these mandatory assignments.
Among many other obstacles, gay partners lack access to affordable health insurance coverage and resources for moving abroad.
During overseas tours, employees’ partners do not receive assistance in obtaining a visa and lack access to employment opportunities, emergency evacuation, and embassy medical units, all afforded to married, heterosexual couples.
Former U.S. Ambassador Michael Guest, who resigned in protest in 2007, was the highest profile Foreign Service Officer to leave the State Department due to its failure to redress inequalities in the treatment between heterosexual spouses and same-sex partners.
Guest became the first openly gay ambassador confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2001 and earned a number of awards and accolades during his 26 years in the Foreign Service.
[...]
Clinton wins praise from State Dept. gays
(Washington) A group that represents LGBT workers in the federal government is welcoming a commitment by Hillary Clinton that if confirmed as Secretary of State she would review policies to see what could be changed to assist gay personnel at the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other foreign affairs agencies.
During questioning at her confirmation hearing, Clinton was asked by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) about regulations that deny the same-sex partners of LGBT personnel the same rights as heterosexual spouses.
In saying she would review existing policies, Clinton noted that many foreign countries have already changed the policies to provide equal treatment for gay and lesbian staff of foreign affairs agencies.
The employee affinity group for the State Department, Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, said in a statement that it plans to present the incoming Secretary of State with a letter signed by over 2,000 current and former employees of the Department of State and other foreign affairs agencies requesting fairness for LBGT employees.
GLIFAA board members also met with members of President-elect Obama’s transition team at the Department of State in December.
GLIFAA President Michelle Schohn noted that gay U.S. diplomats and aid workers serve overseas “in some of the most dangerous locations, but continue to be denied equal treatment for their families.”
U.S. Foreign Service personnel – as well as civil service and contract employees – are required to serve a large portion of their careers at U.S. embassies and missions overseas. However, the partners of gay personnel receive no assistance while accompanying employees on these mandatory assignments.
Among many other obstacles, gay partners lack access to affordable health insurance coverage and resources for moving abroad.
During overseas tours, employees’ partners do not receive assistance in obtaining a visa and lack access to employment opportunities, emergency evacuation, and embassy medical units, all afforded to married, heterosexual couples.
Former U.S. Ambassador Michael Guest, who resigned in protest in 2007, was the highest profile Foreign Service Officer to leave the State Department due to its failure to redress inequalities in the treatment between heterosexual spouses and same-sex partners.
Guest became the first openly gay ambassador confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2001 and earned a number of awards and accolades during his 26 years in the Foreign Service.
[...]
Coverage of Secretary-designate Clinton's comments
The Advocate ran a piece today about Secretary-designate Clinton's comments:
Clinton Pledges Review of LGBT Policies at State Department
Senator Hillary Clinton said Tuesday during her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State that she intended to review the department's policy of not extending benefits to partners of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender foreign service officers. But Clinton stopped short of giving a specific commitment to make partner benefits available, saying she needed more information on the existing policies.
Beyond being deprived of health care benefits, same-sex partners of foreign service personnel are currently unable to access other services available to heterosexual spouses, such as subsidized relocation, language training, employment opportunities, on-site medical treatment, and evacuation aid in emergency situations.
Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin posed the question to Sen. Clinton after he noted that addressing these inequities was a natural outgrowth of the need to build a more robust diplomatic corps.
"Will you support changes to existing personnel policy in order to ensure that LGBT staff at State and [the U.S. Agency for International Development] receive equal benefits and support?" he asked.
Sen. Clinton responded: "Senator, this issue was brought to my attention during the transition. I've asked to have more briefing on it because I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy. As I understand it, but don't hold me to it because I don't have the full briefing material, but my understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit. And we will come back to you to inform you of decisions we make going forward."
LGBT diplomats who work for the State Department welcomed the comments from Senator Clinton, who is expected to be confirmed next week.
"Secretary-designate Clinton has been a good friend to the LGBT community, and I am delighted that she recognizes that fairer policies make good business sense," said Michelle Schohn, president of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Service Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA). "LGBT diplomats and aid workers serve overseas in some of the most dangerous locations, but current State Department policies continue to be deny equal treatment for our families. I am hopeful that Secretary Clinton will work quickly to implement overdue reforms so that we can continue to serve our country at a time when it needs us most without having to choose our job over our family."
Schohn has personal experience with the inequities faced by LGBT couples. She was a "member of household" when her partner, who has been in the service seven years, was stationed in Baku, Azerbaijan. Schohn ultimately decided to become a U.S. diplomat herself when she realized it would be too difficult to accompany her partner for the duration of her career without having the benefits afforded to heterosexual spouses.
"I left a career I loved," said Schohn, who has now been a foreign service officer for five years. "I am proud of my service but joining the State Department is not a choice everyone can or should have to make." (Kerry Eleveld, Advocate.com)
The issue was also covered at Towleroad:
Issues of inequality and unfair treatment at the State Department were highlighted last year when departing Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest criticized the agency's failure to deal with them. Guest took a parting shot at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at his retirement ceremony for failing to answer his calls to address LGBT issues. Said Guest: "This was my last chance. I never got a response. I don't know that I expected a response. What I wanted was attention to the issue....One word from the secretary [would have spurred action]. That's what I was hoping, that I would somehow get to her heart."
Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) was pleased with the Feingold-Clinton exchange, and released the following statement:
"GLIFAA plans to present to the incoming Secretary of State a letter signed by over 2,000 current and former employees of the Department of State and other foreign affairs agencies, requesting fairness for LBGT employees. GLIFAA board members also met with members of President-elect Obama's transition team at the Department of State in December. GLIFAA President Michelle Schohn welcomed Senator Clinton's acknowledgement that fairer policies serve as good business sense. Schohn noted that LGBT U.S. diplomats and aid workers serve overseas in some of the most dangerous locations, but continue to be denied equal treatment for their families. She expressed hope that the incoming Administration would work quickly to implement overdue reforms...Among many other obstacles, LGBT partners lack access to affordable health insurance coverage and resources for moving abroad. During overseas tours, employees' partners do not receive assistance in obtaining a visa and lack access to employment opportunities, emergency evacuation, and embassy medical units, all afforded to married, heterosexual couples."
Clinton Pledges Review of LGBT Policies at State Department
Senator Hillary Clinton said Tuesday during her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State that she intended to review the department's policy of not extending benefits to partners of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender foreign service officers. But Clinton stopped short of giving a specific commitment to make partner benefits available, saying she needed more information on the existing policies.
Beyond being deprived of health care benefits, same-sex partners of foreign service personnel are currently unable to access other services available to heterosexual spouses, such as subsidized relocation, language training, employment opportunities, on-site medical treatment, and evacuation aid in emergency situations.
Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin posed the question to Sen. Clinton after he noted that addressing these inequities was a natural outgrowth of the need to build a more robust diplomatic corps.
"Will you support changes to existing personnel policy in order to ensure that LGBT staff at State and [the U.S. Agency for International Development] receive equal benefits and support?" he asked.
Sen. Clinton responded: "Senator, this issue was brought to my attention during the transition. I've asked to have more briefing on it because I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy. As I understand it, but don't hold me to it because I don't have the full briefing material, but my understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit. And we will come back to you to inform you of decisions we make going forward."
LGBT diplomats who work for the State Department welcomed the comments from Senator Clinton, who is expected to be confirmed next week.
"Secretary-designate Clinton has been a good friend to the LGBT community, and I am delighted that she recognizes that fairer policies make good business sense," said Michelle Schohn, president of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Service Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA). "LGBT diplomats and aid workers serve overseas in some of the most dangerous locations, but current State Department policies continue to be deny equal treatment for our families. I am hopeful that Secretary Clinton will work quickly to implement overdue reforms so that we can continue to serve our country at a time when it needs us most without having to choose our job over our family."
Schohn has personal experience with the inequities faced by LGBT couples. She was a "member of household" when her partner, who has been in the service seven years, was stationed in Baku, Azerbaijan. Schohn ultimately decided to become a U.S. diplomat herself when she realized it would be too difficult to accompany her partner for the duration of her career without having the benefits afforded to heterosexual spouses.
"I left a career I loved," said Schohn, who has now been a foreign service officer for five years. "I am proud of my service but joining the State Department is not a choice everyone can or should have to make." (Kerry Eleveld, Advocate.com)
The issue was also covered at Towleroad:
Issues of inequality and unfair treatment at the State Department were highlighted last year when departing Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest criticized the agency's failure to deal with them. Guest took a parting shot at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at his retirement ceremony for failing to answer his calls to address LGBT issues. Said Guest: "This was my last chance. I never got a response. I don't know that I expected a response. What I wanted was attention to the issue....One word from the secretary [would have spurred action]. That's what I was hoping, that I would somehow get to her heart."
Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) was pleased with the Feingold-Clinton exchange, and released the following statement:
"GLIFAA plans to present to the incoming Secretary of State a letter signed by over 2,000 current and former employees of the Department of State and other foreign affairs agencies, requesting fairness for LBGT employees. GLIFAA board members also met with members of President-elect Obama's transition team at the Department of State in December. GLIFAA President Michelle Schohn welcomed Senator Clinton's acknowledgement that fairer policies serve as good business sense. Schohn noted that LGBT U.S. diplomats and aid workers serve overseas in some of the most dangerous locations, but continue to be denied equal treatment for their families. She expressed hope that the incoming Administration would work quickly to implement overdue reforms...Among many other obstacles, LGBT partners lack access to affordable health insurance coverage and resources for moving abroad. During overseas tours, employees' partners do not receive assistance in obtaining a visa and lack access to employment opportunities, emergency evacuation, and embassy medical units, all afforded to married, heterosexual couples."
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Secretary-designate Clinton addresses issues faced by LGBT employees
At her confirmation hearing today, Secretary-designate Clinton was saying a lot of the right things, like that she wanted to make sure that there were sufficient resources for the Foreign Service to do its job. She acknowledged that Foreign Service officers were doing the work of America, often putting their lives at risk to do it.
She also answered a question from Senator Feingold about the issues facing gay and lesbian employees at the State Department and USAID.
SEN. FEINGOLD: -- Let me switch to something completely different.
There's widespread recognition of the need to build a more robust and effective diplomatic and development corps. And as a part of that effort, it of course makes sense to consider ways to address challenges faced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, particularly relating to domestic partner benefits in State Department policies that make it difficult for the partners of Foreign Service officers to travel and live at overseas posts.
What would you do, as secretary of State, to address these concerns? Will you support changes to existing personnel policies in order to ensure that LGBT staff at State and USAID receive equal benefits and support?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, Senator, this issue was brought to my attention during the transition. I've asked to have more briefing on it because I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy. As I understand it -- but, I don't hold me to it because I don't have the full briefing material, but my understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit, and we will come back to you to inform you of decisions we make going forward.
Not perfect, but it is a start. And at least the question was asked (thanks Senator Feingold!).
She also answered a question from Senator Feingold about the issues facing gay and lesbian employees at the State Department and USAID.
SEN. FEINGOLD: -- Let me switch to something completely different.
There's widespread recognition of the need to build a more robust and effective diplomatic and development corps. And as a part of that effort, it of course makes sense to consider ways to address challenges faced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, particularly relating to domestic partner benefits in State Department policies that make it difficult for the partners of Foreign Service officers to travel and live at overseas posts.
What would you do, as secretary of State, to address these concerns? Will you support changes to existing personnel policies in order to ensure that LGBT staff at State and USAID receive equal benefits and support?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, Senator, this issue was brought to my attention during the transition. I've asked to have more briefing on it because I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy. As I understand it -- but, I don't hold me to it because I don't have the full briefing material, but my understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit, and we will come back to you to inform you of decisions we make going forward.
Not perfect, but it is a start. And at least the question was asked (thanks Senator Feingold!).
Saturday, January 10, 2009
FT: Management of State top priority for Clinton
From the Federal Times:
Senator: Management of State top priority for Clinton
I just got off a conference call with Sen. Robert Casey, D-Penn., about his meeting today with Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton. Casey, who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that will consider Clinton’s nomination Jan. 13, said he is very pleased with the direction Clinton wants to take State and expects she’ll be easily confirmed.
Most of today’s meeting dealt with State’s management, budget and personnel issues, Casey said, which will be among Clinton’s primary concerns. And one of Clinton’s first actions at State will be to elevate management issues to the deputy secretary level.
Eight years ago, Congress created a deputy secretary for management and resources position at State, but it was never officially filled and the job got busted down to undersecretary for management. Casey is glad to see Clinton restore clout to the management position, and said her selection of former Office of Management and Budget director Jacob Lew is the right move to make sure State’s initiatives succeed. “You can have all the right policies and goals, but if you can’t manage and don’t have someone whose expertise is in the world of budgets and dollars, you won’t be successful,” Casey said.
Casey said Clinton is also concerned that the Foreign Service is understaffed and could hire more, though he said Clinton did not say how many she’d like to hire. Casey also said State should improve its training of Foreign Service officers to keep their skills sharp when they are between assignments.
Senator: Management of State top priority for Clinton
I just got off a conference call with Sen. Robert Casey, D-Penn., about his meeting today with Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton. Casey, who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that will consider Clinton’s nomination Jan. 13, said he is very pleased with the direction Clinton wants to take State and expects she’ll be easily confirmed.
Most of today’s meeting dealt with State’s management, budget and personnel issues, Casey said, which will be among Clinton’s primary concerns. And one of Clinton’s first actions at State will be to elevate management issues to the deputy secretary level.
Eight years ago, Congress created a deputy secretary for management and resources position at State, but it was never officially filled and the job got busted down to undersecretary for management. Casey is glad to see Clinton restore clout to the management position, and said her selection of former Office of Management and Budget director Jacob Lew is the right move to make sure State’s initiatives succeed. “You can have all the right policies and goals, but if you can’t manage and don’t have someone whose expertise is in the world of budgets and dollars, you won’t be successful,” Casey said.
Casey said Clinton is also concerned that the Foreign Service is understaffed and could hire more, though he said Clinton did not say how many she’d like to hire. Casey also said State should improve its training of Foreign Service officers to keep their skills sharp when they are between assignments.
A good start anyway...
According to the Associated Press Friday:
Obama anticipates some political appointments
WASHINGTON (AP) - He's vowed to change the way business is done in Washington, but that doesn't mean Barack Obama won't be making some political appointments to ambassadorial posts around the world.
The president-elect told reporters Friday that his "general inclination" is to have career foreign service people in those posts "whenever possible." He says that's one way of "rejuvenating" the State Department and attracting young people.
But Obama said it would be "disingenuous" for him to suggest that he won't be putting some political appointees in embassies.
He says they'll still be "excellent public servants," and that people will be able to judge the "professionalism and high quality" of the people he appoints to those posts.
Of course he will have political appointees...but if we could reduce the number, I think that would be a good start. As I have said before, my current boss is (was) a political appointee. I thought he was great in the job and he'll be missed. But I do think most Ambassadorships and high-level positions in the State Department should be held by careerists.
Obama anticipates some political appointments
WASHINGTON (AP) - He's vowed to change the way business is done in Washington, but that doesn't mean Barack Obama won't be making some political appointments to ambassadorial posts around the world.
The president-elect told reporters Friday that his "general inclination" is to have career foreign service people in those posts "whenever possible." He says that's one way of "rejuvenating" the State Department and attracting young people.
But Obama said it would be "disingenuous" for him to suggest that he won't be putting some political appointees in embassies.
He says they'll still be "excellent public servants," and that people will be able to judge the "professionalism and high quality" of the people he appoints to those posts.
Of course he will have political appointees...but if we could reduce the number, I think that would be a good start. As I have said before, my current boss is (was) a political appointee. I thought he was great in the job and he'll be missed. But I do think most Ambassadorships and high-level positions in the State Department should be held by careerists.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Diplopundit on Overseas Compatibility Pay
Diplopundit has a very illustrative example of the effects of the lack of overseas compatibility pay for Foreign Service Officers.
I haven't written much on this issue (I did discuss it some here, here and here) but it is a pretty hot one for the Foreign Service. I have shied away from it largely because it gets played up in the media as FSOs being greedy.
I have mentioned how the situation is even more dire for those with same-sex members of household because MOHs are not allowed to compete for even the nominal jobs available to spouses unless there is no qualified Eligible Family Member (EFM). But even those in the best of circumstances have trouble with the impact of the pay cut. For example, my partner and I need both of our salaries to pay our mortgage. Going overseas, we will both see a 23% cut in pay. The amount we make renting out our place will only lessen but not cover the loss. And we still have to make the payments.
And while we serve side-by-side in embassies with employees of a number of other federal agencies, we are the only ones who take that pay cut to do it.
The fair thing to do is to close the gap. But who knows when (or if) that will happen, especially when Congress thinks we live high on the hog when we are overseas. One alternative solution I have a considered, but no one else seems to have addressed, is to have all of our allowances and differentials included in the calculations of our retirement pay or death benefits. That might encourage folks to go overseas to some high differential hardship posts at the end of their careers, when their experience could be extremely useful, rather than spending the last few years of their career in DC so that their retirement is based on locality pay.
And just my two cents, but if State used PR like many other agencies do, working with the media and Hollywood to show the realities of FS life (the tv show "American Embassy" back in 2002 was killed by the Department while there have been tv shows about the CIA, the military and most recently, DHS) vs the "glamorous image" that persists in the public's (and Congress's) imagination, we'd have a better shot at getting all of our budgetary needs met, including overseas compatability pay.
ON EDIT:
I discovered this link this morning (January 10), where you can track the status of H.R. 370, a bill "to amend the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to extend comparability pay adjustments to members of the Foreign Service assigned to posts abroad, and to amend the provision relating to the death gratuity payable to surviving dependents of Foreign Service employees who die as a result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty abroad."
I haven't written much on this issue (I did discuss it some here, here and here) but it is a pretty hot one for the Foreign Service. I have shied away from it largely because it gets played up in the media as FSOs being greedy.
I have mentioned how the situation is even more dire for those with same-sex members of household because MOHs are not allowed to compete for even the nominal jobs available to spouses unless there is no qualified Eligible Family Member (EFM). But even those in the best of circumstances have trouble with the impact of the pay cut. For example, my partner and I need both of our salaries to pay our mortgage. Going overseas, we will both see a 23% cut in pay. The amount we make renting out our place will only lessen but not cover the loss. And we still have to make the payments.
And while we serve side-by-side in embassies with employees of a number of other federal agencies, we are the only ones who take that pay cut to do it.
The fair thing to do is to close the gap. But who knows when (or if) that will happen, especially when Congress thinks we live high on the hog when we are overseas. One alternative solution I have a considered, but no one else seems to have addressed, is to have all of our allowances and differentials included in the calculations of our retirement pay or death benefits. That might encourage folks to go overseas to some high differential hardship posts at the end of their careers, when their experience could be extremely useful, rather than spending the last few years of their career in DC so that their retirement is based on locality pay.
And just my two cents, but if State used PR like many other agencies do, working with the media and Hollywood to show the realities of FS life (the tv show "American Embassy" back in 2002 was killed by the Department while there have been tv shows about the CIA, the military and most recently, DHS) vs the "glamorous image" that persists in the public's (and Congress's) imagination, we'd have a better shot at getting all of our budgetary needs met, including overseas compatability pay.
ON EDIT:
I discovered this link this morning (January 10), where you can track the status of H.R. 370, a bill "to amend the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to extend comparability pay adjustments to members of the Foreign Service assigned to posts abroad, and to amend the provision relating to the death gratuity payable to surviving dependents of Foreign Service employees who die as a result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty abroad."
AP: Clinton's State Department team takes shape
I found this today from the Associated Press. I am especially pleased to see that she plans to keep Undersecretary for Political Affairs Burns, who I think is competent and qualified. I am also glad Undersecretary for Management Pat Kennedy is staying. I have had some dealings with him as well and have appreciated both his guidance and candor.
Clinton's State Department team takes shape
Hillary Rodham Clinton is quietly building a new State Department team with seasoned diplomats as she prepares for her confirmation hearings next week, according to Democratic sources and officials familiar with the transition.
Clinton has settled on choices for a number of top positions, including high-profile special envoys who played prominent roles in her husband's administration for key hotspots South Asia and the Middle East, and pointmen for East Asia and Europe, they said. She will also keep at least two career foreign service officers in critical posts, they said.
The incoming secretary of state plans to name former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke to be special adviser for Pakistan and Afghanistan and is almost certain to appoint former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross to be her special adviser for the Middle East and Iran, they said.
Clinton will retain respected career diplomat William Burns in his current position as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the department's third-highest ranking job, and keep on Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, who oversees the department's far-flung worldwide operations, the sources said.
In addition, they said, Clinton will select Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton administration Pentagon official, to be assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, and Philip Gordon, a former director for European affairs at the National Security Council, to be assistant secretary of state for European affairs.
She also intends to name Princeton University professor Anne-Marie Slaughter to be the State Department's next director of policy planning, they said.
The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the appointments, some of which require Senate confirmation, have not been formally announced. Clinton herself will appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday for what many expect will be a relatively painless confirmation hearing.
Her choices for top positions - including earlier selections of James Steinberg and Jacob Lew, both former Clinton administration officials, to be deputy secretaries of state - appear to reflect a desire to bring back or retain current expertise in many of what will become President-elect Barack Obama's most serious foreign policy challenges.
Holbrooke and Ross have long histories of involvement in some of the most intense diplomatic negotiations in U.S. history.
Holbrooke brokered the peace deal that ended the 1992-1995 Balkans war. He was also U.S. ambassador to Germany and envoy to the United Nations during President Bill Clinton's administration and gave foreign policy advice to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries last year.
Ross was the lead U.S. negotiator in Mideast peace efforts for both Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton. He played a major part in an interim agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in 1995 and worked on the failed effort to arrange peace between Israel and Syria and the ultimately unsuccessful 2000 Camp David talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
Clinton's State Department team takes shape
Hillary Rodham Clinton is quietly building a new State Department team with seasoned diplomats as she prepares for her confirmation hearings next week, according to Democratic sources and officials familiar with the transition.
Clinton has settled on choices for a number of top positions, including high-profile special envoys who played prominent roles in her husband's administration for key hotspots South Asia and the Middle East, and pointmen for East Asia and Europe, they said. She will also keep at least two career foreign service officers in critical posts, they said.
The incoming secretary of state plans to name former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke to be special adviser for Pakistan and Afghanistan and is almost certain to appoint former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross to be her special adviser for the Middle East and Iran, they said.
Clinton will retain respected career diplomat William Burns in his current position as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the department's third-highest ranking job, and keep on Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, who oversees the department's far-flung worldwide operations, the sources said.
In addition, they said, Clinton will select Kurt Campbell, a former Clinton administration Pentagon official, to be assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, and Philip Gordon, a former director for European affairs at the National Security Council, to be assistant secretary of state for European affairs.
She also intends to name Princeton University professor Anne-Marie Slaughter to be the State Department's next director of policy planning, they said.
The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the appointments, some of which require Senate confirmation, have not been formally announced. Clinton herself will appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday for what many expect will be a relatively painless confirmation hearing.
Her choices for top positions - including earlier selections of James Steinberg and Jacob Lew, both former Clinton administration officials, to be deputy secretaries of state - appear to reflect a desire to bring back or retain current expertise in many of what will become President-elect Barack Obama's most serious foreign policy challenges.
Holbrooke and Ross have long histories of involvement in some of the most intense diplomatic negotiations in U.S. history.
Holbrooke brokered the peace deal that ended the 1992-1995 Balkans war. He was also U.S. ambassador to Germany and envoy to the United Nations during President Bill Clinton's administration and gave foreign policy advice to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries last year.
Ross was the lead U.S. negotiator in Mideast peace efforts for both Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton. He played a major part in an interim agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in 1995 and worked on the failed effort to arrange peace between Israel and Syria and the ultimately unsuccessful 2000 Camp David talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Picking a Cone
No, not ice cream.
In the foreign service, there are five career tracks: political, public diplomacy (PD), consular, management, and economic. If you have read this for a while, you know that I am PD coned and my partner is Pol coned.
The Hegemenist, a fairly new foreign service blogger, is doing some nice descriptions of each cone, including what to expect before and after tenure. Since I have gotten emails from readers asking about how to choose a cone (beyond taking the quiz at http://www.careers.state.gov/), I think this is pretty useful for those considering the foreign service.
So far, he has done descriptions of Consular, Management and Public Diplomacy.
He says Econ is on deck for tomorrow. If you are interested in learning more, check it out.
In the foreign service, there are five career tracks: political, public diplomacy (PD), consular, management, and economic. If you have read this for a while, you know that I am PD coned and my partner is Pol coned.
The Hegemenist, a fairly new foreign service blogger, is doing some nice descriptions of each cone, including what to expect before and after tenure. Since I have gotten emails from readers asking about how to choose a cone (beyond taking the quiz at http://www.careers.state.gov/), I think this is pretty useful for those considering the foreign service.
So far, he has done descriptions of Consular, Management and Public Diplomacy.
He says Econ is on deck for tomorrow. If you are interested in learning more, check it out.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
CAA: Advice for FSO bloggers
Consul-At Arms (who has apparently started a new blog) answers an email from new FSO blogger The Hegemonist (as an anthropologist, I LOVE that name for a blog) asking for advice on blogging as a Foreign Service Officer.
CAA writes:
Encourage and applaud the things you feel the Department or the Service is doing right; be judicious in your public criticism (after all, Damning-with-faint-praise is something of an FS tradition);
Take advantage of the many opportunities to explain/defend your profession, the Service, the Department, when commenting at other web logs or when unfair/unbalanced media coverage slams us. As a Department, our PD effort is on the weak side, with lots of room for improvement, and as "new media" proliferates and increases in importance, it's incumbent upon individual FSOs to help "carry the water." It's not about being a mindless cheerleader, it's about combatting outdated and pernicious stereotypes that interfere with accomplishing our core missions. An informed citizenry is a bulwark of democracy."
CAA writes:
Encourage and applaud the things you feel the Department or the Service is doing right; be judicious in your public criticism (after all, Damning-with-faint-praise is something of an FS tradition);
Take advantage of the many opportunities to explain/defend your profession, the Service, the Department, when commenting at other web logs or when unfair/unbalanced media coverage slams us. As a Department, our PD effort is on the weak side, with lots of room for improvement, and as "new media" proliferates and increases in importance, it's incumbent upon individual FSOs to help "carry the water." It's not about being a mindless cheerleader, it's about combatting outdated and pernicious stereotypes that interfere with accomplishing our core missions. An informed citizenry is a bulwark of democracy."
Friday, January 02, 2009
FDIC announces domestic partner program
I hope that everyone had a wonderful time ringing in the new year and that regardless of how your 2008 was, that 2009 is even better.
I heard some positive, though agency-specific, news about the FDIC. They have developed a domestic partner program that will allow, among other things, the employee to get insurance for his or her partner. It is my hope that this will help pave the way for similar (and dare I say, better) programs for the foreign service.
You can read the announcement below.
For information regarding this message contact the Benefits Hotline
OIG Employees should contact the OIG Human Resources Branch at 703-562-6419
Through the extended efforts of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the Chairman’s Diversity Advisory Committee (CDAC), and the Chairman’s Culture Change Initiative, the FDIC has developed and received Board approval to implement a Domestic Partner Program. This new program will enable eligible employees to cover their same sex or opposite sex domestic partners and/or the domestic partner’s children for certain FDIC health-related and life insurance benefits as well as coverage under provisions of the FDIC Relocation Travel Program and FDIC Business Travel Accident Insurance Program when the domestic partnership meets certain requirements. The FDIC has negotiated the provisions and reached an agreement with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) on this program for bargaining unit employees. In addition, FDIC management has extended the terms and conditions of this program to cover all non-bargaining unit employees.
Details about the FDIC Domestic Partner Program can be viewed on the Domestic Partner Program web page.
Domestic Partner Benefits Available During Open Enrollment
Open Enrollment for certain FDIC benefits extended to domestic partners begins immediately and will coincide with the Benefits Open Enrollment Period that is underway and continues through Monday, December 8th. Additionally, employees with domestic partners who have not made their benefits elections through MyEnroll.com by the end of Open Enrollment and who still want to opt into the Domestic Partner Program will be able to do so by calling the FDIC Benefits Hotline beginning December 9th through December 15th to complete their enrollment outside of the MyEnroll.com system with the assistance of an FDIC Benefits Hotline agent. This call-in process is not available until December 9th and is available only if the employee is enrolling under the Domestic Partner Program.
Eligible employees may cover a domestic partner and/or the domestic partner’s eligible dependent children under the following FDIC benefits:
· FDIC Dental Insurance
· FDIC Vision Insurance
· FDIC Dependent Life Insurance (FDIC Option 2, Spouse/Domestic Partner Life Insurance, and FDIC Option 3, Family Life Insurance)
· Health Insurance Premium Reimbursement – a reimbursement to the employee for a portion of the premium cost for non-subsidized health insurance on the domestic partner and/or the domestic partner’s eligible dependent children.
Enrollment for domestic partner benefits is performed through MyEnroll.com as an integral part of an employee’s open enrollment for FDIC benefits. When an employee enrolls for one or more domestic partner benefits, the election(s) will be pended and the employee will be sent a Declaration of Domestic Partnership form via a MyEnrollServices.com e-mail. The employee and the employee’s domestic partner must complete and sign this form and return it as instructed. Domestic partner benefits elections will become effective on the later of January 1, 2009, or the first day of the first pay period after receipt of a completed Declaration acceptable to FDIC.
FDIC Relocation Travel Program and FDIC Business Travel Accident Insurance
The provisions of the FDIC Relocation Travel Program and the FDIC Business Travel Accident Insurance Program are extended to an eligible employee’s domestic partner and the domestic partner’s eligible, dependent children on the same basis as a spouse and the employee’s eligible children. The employee and the employee’s domestic partner must complete a Declaration of Domestic Partnership to be eligible to participate in these Programs. The Declaration form that is submitted for benefits enrollment through MyEnroll.com can also be used for these purposes.
Tax Implications of Domestic Partner Benefits
There are tax implications associated with domestic partner benefits. Employees are encouraged to seek the guidance of a tax advisor if they are considering enrolling under the FDIC Domestic Partner Program.
Briefly, under Federal law, if a domestic partner and/or the domestic partner’s eligible dependent children do not qualify as the employee’s tax dependent for health coverage purposes, then the portion of the employee premium for the domestic partner’s/children’s FDIC Dental and/or Vision coverage must be paid on a post-tax basis. Furthermore, the value of that coverage is considered imputed income subject to taxation, less any post-tax premiums that the employee pays for that coverage.
Similarly, the Health Insurance Premium Reimbursement (HIPR) is taxable income from which applicable taxes will be withheld. See the Domestic Partner Program web page for examples of post-tax premium and imputed income calculations for various options and coverage levels under the FDIC Dental and Vision Plans and for a HIPR worksheet to calculate the reimbursable portion of non-subsidized health insurance premiums for a domestic partner’s/children’s coverage prior to tax withholding.
Reservation of Rights
The FDIC may terminate the Domestic Partner Program or may modify, amend or change the provisions, terms, and conditions of the Program at any time, subject to fulfillment of bargaining obligations with the NTEU.
I heard some positive, though agency-specific, news about the FDIC. They have developed a domestic partner program that will allow, among other things, the employee to get insurance for his or her partner. It is my hope that this will help pave the way for similar (and dare I say, better) programs for the foreign service.
You can read the announcement below.
For information regarding this message contact the Benefits Hotline
OIG Employees should contact the OIG Human Resources Branch at 703-562-6419
Through the extended efforts of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the Chairman’s Diversity Advisory Committee (CDAC), and the Chairman’s Culture Change Initiative, the FDIC has developed and received Board approval to implement a Domestic Partner Program. This new program will enable eligible employees to cover their same sex or opposite sex domestic partners and/or the domestic partner’s children for certain FDIC health-related and life insurance benefits as well as coverage under provisions of the FDIC Relocation Travel Program and FDIC Business Travel Accident Insurance Program when the domestic partnership meets certain requirements. The FDIC has negotiated the provisions and reached an agreement with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) on this program for bargaining unit employees. In addition, FDIC management has extended the terms and conditions of this program to cover all non-bargaining unit employees.
Details about the FDIC Domestic Partner Program can be viewed on the Domestic Partner Program web page.
Domestic Partner Benefits Available During Open Enrollment
Open Enrollment for certain FDIC benefits extended to domestic partners begins immediately and will coincide with the Benefits Open Enrollment Period that is underway and continues through Monday, December 8th. Additionally, employees with domestic partners who have not made their benefits elections through MyEnroll.com by the end of Open Enrollment and who still want to opt into the Domestic Partner Program will be able to do so by calling the FDIC Benefits Hotline beginning December 9th through December 15th to complete their enrollment outside of the MyEnroll.com system with the assistance of an FDIC Benefits Hotline agent. This call-in process is not available until December 9th and is available only if the employee is enrolling under the Domestic Partner Program.
Eligible employees may cover a domestic partner and/or the domestic partner’s eligible dependent children under the following FDIC benefits:
· FDIC Dental Insurance
· FDIC Vision Insurance
· FDIC Dependent Life Insurance (FDIC Option 2, Spouse/Domestic Partner Life Insurance, and FDIC Option 3, Family Life Insurance)
· Health Insurance Premium Reimbursement – a reimbursement to the employee for a portion of the premium cost for non-subsidized health insurance on the domestic partner and/or the domestic partner’s eligible dependent children.
Enrollment for domestic partner benefits is performed through MyEnroll.com as an integral part of an employee’s open enrollment for FDIC benefits. When an employee enrolls for one or more domestic partner benefits, the election(s) will be pended and the employee will be sent a Declaration of Domestic Partnership form via a MyEnrollServices.com e-mail. The employee and the employee’s domestic partner must complete and sign this form and return it as instructed. Domestic partner benefits elections will become effective on the later of January 1, 2009, or the first day of the first pay period after receipt of a completed Declaration acceptable to FDIC.
FDIC Relocation Travel Program and FDIC Business Travel Accident Insurance
The provisions of the FDIC Relocation Travel Program and the FDIC Business Travel Accident Insurance Program are extended to an eligible employee’s domestic partner and the domestic partner’s eligible, dependent children on the same basis as a spouse and the employee’s eligible children. The employee and the employee’s domestic partner must complete a Declaration of Domestic Partnership to be eligible to participate in these Programs. The Declaration form that is submitted for benefits enrollment through MyEnroll.com can also be used for these purposes.
Tax Implications of Domestic Partner Benefits
There are tax implications associated with domestic partner benefits. Employees are encouraged to seek the guidance of a tax advisor if they are considering enrolling under the FDIC Domestic Partner Program.
Briefly, under Federal law, if a domestic partner and/or the domestic partner’s eligible dependent children do not qualify as the employee’s tax dependent for health coverage purposes, then the portion of the employee premium for the domestic partner’s/children’s FDIC Dental and/or Vision coverage must be paid on a post-tax basis. Furthermore, the value of that coverage is considered imputed income subject to taxation, less any post-tax premiums that the employee pays for that coverage.
Similarly, the Health Insurance Premium Reimbursement (HIPR) is taxable income from which applicable taxes will be withheld. See the Domestic Partner Program web page for examples of post-tax premium and imputed income calculations for various options and coverage levels under the FDIC Dental and Vision Plans and for a HIPR worksheet to calculate the reimbursable portion of non-subsidized health insurance premiums for a domestic partner’s/children’s coverage prior to tax withholding.
Reservation of Rights
The FDIC may terminate the Domestic Partner Program or may modify, amend or change the provisions, terms, and conditions of the Program at any time, subject to fulfillment of bargaining obligations with the NTEU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
