Thursday, February 08, 2018

Still Here

It has been more than a year since I have posted. (Trust me, it is not that I have had nothing to say.) And in that time, you have no doubt heard about the mass exodus from the State Department.

It is true that a lot of senior people have left. You can tell it by the lines (or lack thereof) in the cafeteria. You can tell it by the empty spaces in the parking garage, especially the ones marked with green that are reserved for the highest ranking people in the Department. We are missing a lot of very senior people. I sometimes joke that it feels like all the grownups are leaving.

A fair number of more junior folks have left as well. Many are now on Facebook insisting you have to leave or be complicit with the current administration.

But I don't believe that. And so I am still here.

And there are a lot of here who feel that way. The importance of our work hasn't changed even if it feels less appreciated. Or at least less appreciated by some. Oddly, Congress, on both sides of the aisle, has been showing us MORE appreciation lately even as we stare down another potential shutdown. (I won't even get started on that one right now.)

A lot of us are still here doing the work we feel that matters. Upholding our oath to the Constitution because THAT matters. A LOT.

There is a good piece in Foreign Policy today about those who are leaving and the need for folks to stay. Suzanne Nossel writes:

"U.S. interests now and in the future depend on having a robust, experienced, and committed diplomatic corps. Embassies with experts on politics, economics, counterterrorism, human rights, arms control, drug trafficking, international development, and an array of other topics — coupled with counterparts back in Washington — give the United States unmatched capacity to mobilize support, move international opinion, and respond to crises. In an era when cyberattacks, pandemics, natural disasters, and other threats can originate anywhere and spread overnight, the breadth of this network is invaluable. To let this arm of American influence atrophy would be a grave self-inflicted wound."

I won't be a party to that wound.

So I am staying.

She goes on in the article to call on those who are concerned with foreign affairs to help make sure those of who stay aren't forced out or punished for staying.

"Diplomacy is a job you cannot learn outside of government. While there are people with related expertise in think tanks, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector, anyone who has entered government from the outside will affirm that one’s effectiveness is enormously dependent on the career officials who show you how to get things done. While a hollowing out of the diplomatic corps may feel like a well-deserved thumb in the eye for Trump, those concerned with U.S. foreign policy need to take the long view, doing everything possible to ensure that career officials hang in there and are still around when it’s time to help U.S. diplomacy rise anew."

I hope they do. Because I still believe in diplomacy. I still believe the State Department is worth fighting for. We don't need a damn military parade. We need dedicated diplomats doing everything they can to keep us out of wars in the first place. Use that money to fund diplomacy, or at least to take care of the wounded warriors we have already created.

And so I hope if you were thinking of joining the Foreign Service, you still do, even if the numbers are smaller and so getting in is harder. And if you are here, I hope you stay. You won't be alone.

I will still be here.

Friday, February 03, 2017

Welcome, Mr. Secretary

Newly confirmed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had his first day in the office yesterday and was greeting by a crowd of the Department's Foreign and Civil Service employees. I admit that much has given me angst about the way things have been going for the last couple weeks, but he isn't one of those things. I am actually cautiously optimistic.

The speech was a good one. And I was touched that he paid his respects at our Memorial Wall, inscribed with the names of all of our number who have given their lives in the line of duty. It touched me when he reached up and touched Ambassador Stevens' name.

I have only one complaint however. Praising the New England Patriots is not the way to unite your team. (Steelers forever!)

Here is the text of his speech if you don't have time to watch the video.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, good morning, all. We apologize for being late. It seemed that this year’s prayer breakfast, people felt the need to pray a little longer. (Laughter.) But I certainly welcomed them all, so – thank you for such a warm reception. And it’s a pleasure to be here, obviously. I’ve been anxious to be here, and I’m so pleased to have my wife, Renda, of more than 30 years. And she has been just steadfast through this process, encouraging me on and reminding me what this is really all about. And so thank you. (Applause.)

I also want to thank Acting Secretary Tom Shannon, who has just been superb through this entire process. And Tom, thank you so much. (Applause.) It was truly and indeed an honor that Tom joined us in the Oval Office last night for my swearing-in, and I appreciated that he was there.

Obviously, I also want to recognize and thank all of you here at headquarters of our State Department, the staff and partners around the world, who have faithfully performed your duties regardless of who was in charge. It was so important. I know many of you have assisted ambassadors and other officials during the Senate confirmation process, and indeed some of you have been through it yourself. Having just come through it for the first time, I can assure you the Senate still takes it as serious as ever, they’re as energetic as ever, they’re as thorough as ever – but we’re here. (Laughter and applause.)

So in the days and weeks ahead we’re going to have plenty of opportunity to discuss in more detail the goals, the priorities, and the strategic direction for our organization. But for now I really want to take a few minutes to communicate my high regard for the men and women of the State Department and share with you some principles for all of us to live by as we pursue our shared mission.

The individuals who comprise this department are among the finest public servants in the world. Many of you serve our nation abroad and have served our nation abroad. State Department staffers in the field are not just conduits for policies and plans; you are our emissaries of our nation and the ideals we stand for. When people see you, they see America.

When I wake up each morning, the very first thing I ask myself is: Are all of our people safe? The safety of every single member of our State Department family, regardless of where he or she is posted, is not just a priority for me. It’s a core value, and it will become a core value of this department. (Applause.) This means the State Department family here in the U.S. and all those agencies serving under chief of missions abroad, including Civil Service; Foreign Service officers and specialists; locally engaged staff of host country and third-country nationals; interns, fellows, support contractors and implementing partners; and not least of all, the family members who support us at home and in our service to our country overseas.

The Foreign Service is not the only component of the State Department. The Civil Service workforce at the State Department plays an indispensable role in all we achieve, and we cannot attain success without the mission-critical services that you provide.

Though we often live in a world of headlines, working outside of the public eye does not make you any less essential to our operations. Your dedication, your intelligence, and your sound judgment are the brick and mortar elements of all we do. We all depend on your good work, and I know it will continue.

One of the great – (applause) – one of the great challenges and thrills for the State Department staff is deciding how to confront changing conditions in every corner of the world. And I encourage all of you to use your natural and well-developed skills to adapt to changes here at home as well.

I know this was a hotly contested election and we do not all feel the same way about the outcome. Each of us is entitled to the expression of our political beliefs, but we cannot let our personal convictions overwhelm our ability to work as one team. Let us be understanding with each other about the times we live in as we focus our energies on our departmental goals.

As Secretary, I will deploy the talent and resources of the State Department in the most efficient ways possible. That may entail making some changes to how things are traditionally done in this department. Change for the sake of change can be counterproductive, and that will never be my approach.

But we cannot sustain ineffective traditions over optimal outcomes. I will gather information on what processes should be reformed, and do my part to make sure we are functioning in the most productive and efficient way possible.

Regardless of the circumstances shaping our country or our department, we must all remain focused on the mission at hand before us. I remind you that our undertakings are larger than ourselves or our personal careers.

Our duty is to faithfully represent our nation in the arena of foreign affairs. If we stay focused on the work before us, I promise I will work to ensure you achieve your own personal success and your professional satisfaction in what you are doing.

For every individual who works at the State Department, I ask that we adopt a few core principles.

First, I believe that any organization runs best when all of its members embrace accountability. From the mailroom to the boardroom, every member of a team has a job to do. I know nobody will always be perfect, and that certainly includes me. But I ask that everyone strive for excellence and assume responsibility for their actions and their decisions.

The New England Patriots have signs posted all over their team facilities that simply say, “Do your job.” It is a brief message, but one with profound importance. If we all do our jobs and embrace a willingness to be held accountable for our performance, we work better as a unit and move closer to attaining our goals. It’s worked pretty well for the Patriots over the years, as I must admit. (Laughter.)

Secondly, I want us to be honest with one another. We’re on the same team. We share the same mission. Honesty will undergird our foreign policy, and we’ll start by making it the basis of how we interact with each other.

Lastly, we’re going to treat each other with respect. No one will tolerate disrespect of anyone. Before we are employees of the State Department, we are human beings first. Let us extend respect to each other, especially when we may disagree.

What I ask of you and what I demand of myself – I will embrace accountability, honesty, and respect no less than anyone.

Before President Trump called me, I thought I would be entering retirement this spring after four decades of business experience. (Laughter.) Renda and I were ready to head off to the ranch and enjoy our grandchildren. But when I came back from my first meeting with President Trump and he asked me to do this, Renda said, “You didn’t know it, but you’ve been in a 41-year training program for this job.” (Laughter and applause.) So despite our own dreams, she said, “You’re supposed to do this.”

Well, my first day is here. I’m on the job. Hi, I’m the new guy. (Applause.)

As such, I will depend on the expertise of this institution. There are over 75,000 members of the State Department workforce, both Foreign and Civil Service employees, with an average of over 11 years of service in the department. I have 25 minutes. (Laughter.) You have accumulated knowledge and experience that cannot be replicated anywhere else. Your wisdom, your work ethic and patriotism, is as important as ever. And as your Secretary, I will be proud to draw upon all these qualities in my decision-making.

I ask that you join me in upholding high standards of ethics and professionalism, committing to personal accountability and honesty, and respecting your colleagues. There will undoubtedly be times of victory, but there will also be many times of difficulty. Let’s go forward as a team through all of it. Let’s make the American people proud of what we do in this building and beyond.

Inscribed on the walls in this lobby are the names of fallen Foreign Service personnel, who, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, gave their last full measure of devotion. They died in service of causes far greater than themselves. As we move forward in a new era, it is important to honor the sacrifices of those who have come before us, and reflect on the legacy that we inherit.

In closing, I am honored to be serving alongside each of you as I serve our nation as the Secretary of State. So now I am going to take a moment and pay my respects to those individuals that are memorialized on this wall, and then I look forward to making the rounds and greeting you personally. It may take me a few days. (Laughter.) But in all sincerity, I do hope to have the opportunity to shake the hand of every one of you that’s here. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Two Welcome Surprises and One Unwelcome (non)Surpise

We got a couple bits of good news yesterday.

First, we found out that the President issued an Executive Order stating he would not overturn the executive order signed by President Obama affording protections to LGBT employees of federal contractors.

The text reads:

Office of the Press Secretary
January 31, 2017
President Donald J. Trump Will Continue to Enforce Executive Order Protecting the Rights of the LGBTQ Community in the Workplace President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community. President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election. The President is proud to have been the first ever GOP nominee to mention the LGBTQ community in his nomination acceptance speech, pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression. The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump.

Of course, it does beg the question of why he would need to publically state he is going to continue with a particular policy. Part of the explanation I am sure is that rumors had been swirling that an executive order was forthcoming either rescinding the Obama protections or allowing discrimination based on "sincerely held religious beliefs" (or both). The latter could still be coming. I also suspect it could have something to do with his nomination of a Supreme Court Justice to fill the seat vacated with Anthony Scalia died (you know, the one that has been vacant since February because the Senate refused to have a hearing for Merrick Garland, the Obama nominee). More on that in a bit.

The next nice surprise came in the form of a bit of support from the Democrats on the House Committee for Foreign Affairs. In a letter to the President, they expressed concern about Press Secretary Spicer's comments regarding those who supported the dissent channel message and not the President's policy, saying they should "get with the program or get out." You can read my thoughts on that here. And by the way, apparently more than a thousand people have signed it so far and more wanted to. And that is out of some 7,600 Foreign Service Officers (that number may be higher if it doesn't include FS specialists) and 11,000 civil servants.

In the letter, they said:

Dear Mr. President:

Yesterday, from the White House podium, your spokesperson, Sean Spicer, announced that State Department employees who offer dissent to your executive order on immigration and refugees should “get with the program or they should go.” We are alarmed by Mr. Spicer’s apparent lack of knowledge about the way foreign policy is made in the United States.

We would like you to know that during the Administration of President Nixon, the State Department established a formal mechanism to allow personnel to express dissent from Administration policy. According to the State Department, “the Dissent Channel was created to allow its users the opportunity to bring dissenting or alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues, when such views cannot be communicated in a full and timely manner through regular operating channels or procedures.” For decades, the Dissent Channel has offered our diplomats the ability in critical circumstances to express concerns and warnings contrary to Administration policies. Notable examples have included dissents from policies toward Vietnam and Syria.

So it’s deeply troubling that your Administration isn’t interested in hearing different perspectives, especially those transmitted through the State Department’s revered Dissent Channel. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual prohibits reprisal or disciplinary action against anyone who uses the Dissent Channel. We are requesting your assurances that State Department personnel will not be subject to harassment or retribution if they take advantage of the Dissent Channel or offer policy advice that doesn’t align with White House policy decisions.

Please reply as soon as possible confirming that your Administration will respect the law (P.L. 96-465) governing the State Department and the treatment of its personnel.

It was signed by every Democrat on the committee. Thanks y'all!

And for the record, I don't think most of us are going anywhere. We are the last line of defense for the Constitution (and the first line of defense to protect our military).

So then came the unwelcome news, which was actually not much of a surprise (though the reality TV manner of making the announcement kind of was...I was expecting the President to give a rose to the Supreme Court nominee he selected since he invited the top two for the announcement and had clearly already made up his mind...).

The President is nominating Neil Gorsuch to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

This makes keeping the protections in place for LGBT people seem like a ploy to get our guard down (it didn't work, by the way).

According to the Washington Blade, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), called Judge Gorsuch "Justice Scalia on steroids,” Nadler said. “His record demonstrates that, if confirmed, he would rely on his conservative, originalist philosophy to overturn critical precedents and to disregard the rights of everyday Americans while bolstering protections for corporations and special interests.”

Gorsuch is definitely no friend to the LGBT community. In a paper for the National Review, he lamented that "liberals" are addicted to having the courts rather than the ballot box solve society issues including marriage equality. Never mind of course that it was the courts that overturned laws against interracial marriage at a time when 75 percent of the country opposed it. Because in a Republic, the minority is supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority, and the courts are generally our best defense for that. And never mind that it was the courts that desegregated schools. We should just let the majority vote on our rights, right?

He is also a supporter of so-called "religious freedom" laws and has already ruled in their favor. Those laws, in case you aren't aware, allow those with sincerely held religious beliefs to discriminate against LGBT people. This includes doctors in some I guess if you are in the ER and need a doctor with a sincerely held religious belief against you to save your life, you are out of luck. I wonder what Jesus would do...

I admit I am not overly worried, only because he replaces the most far-right judge who was on the court. But I do worry about future appointments (circle of protection around the notorious RBG please).

But I do think it shows we have to stay in, we have to fight to preserve the Constitution and our democracy, and we can't let our guard down for a second.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

This IS the Program

Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, referring to a dissent channel cable working its way around the Department opposing the executive order banning immigration or travel to the U.S. from seven particular countries, said that State Department employees should "get with the program or they can go."

The comments represent a profound misunderstanding about the State Department in general, the dissent channel process specifically, and in fact, the nature of a nonpartisan civil service.

To put it succinctly, this IS the program.

Spicer seems to think that federal employees should just agree with everything coming from the White House without questioning. But if that is the case, why have us at all?

Let's have a little history, shall we?

The idea behind the reform of the civil service from what that was simply based on a spoils system (winner of the election gets to put their own people in all jobs) was to replace patronage appointees with nonpartisan employees qualified because of their skills. The idea is pretty old by U.S. standards. President Ulysses S Grant supported civil service reform and rejected demands to suspend it and make patronage appointments. It was his cabinet who implemented a merit system to increase the number of qualified candidates. Those efforts went a step further with the Civil Service Reform Act (also called "the Pendleton Act") of 1883. This act created the United States Civil Service Commission and eventually placed most federal employees on the merit system. It was supposed to mark the end of the so-called "spoils system."

And America is better for it. Do we really want to return to the days when our generals were chosen not for their military skills but for their connections (granted, we still have a degree of that with political Ambassadors, but that is another post)? Do you want the person developing a bridge on an interstate highway to know nothing about engineering? I hope you want those positions to be awarded based on merit and qualifications.

The Foreign Service is a good example of a meritocracy. Each year, some 50-80,000 people take a written exam. The ones who score enough to pass move on, regardless of their background or who they know. Those who pass write essays, and those who pass that get to take the oral examination. That exam is scored on a point system from 1-7, with passing being around 5.5 (it varies by career track). You can get extra points if you pass a language test, because we need people who possess foreign language skills. You can also get extra points if you are a veteran. Then you get all your clearances (security and medical). You are then place on a roll of highest score to lowest, and people are offered slots in the orientation class starting with the highest scorers first. None of it has anything to do with who you know or what political party you support. It is all about how you would do at the job.

And this system gets a lot of really exceptional people, people with real world experiences they can offer to the service of the country. And what you get when you bring in a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds and a variety of experiences is a lot of smart people with good ideas on how to help the country.

Which brings me to our dissent channel.

We communicate through cables (mostly by email now but the name cable harkens back to older times). And we will absolutely support and implement the President's foreign policy, or if we can't, we will quit. But the dissent channel gives us the opportunity to say, without fear of reprisals, that we think a particular policy is a bad idea. It was started back during the Vietnam War and according to the Foreign Affairs Manual (the FAM as we call it): "The State Department has a strong interest in facilitating open, creative, and uncensored dialogue on substantive foreign policy issues within the professional foreign affairs community, and a responsibility to foster an atmosphere supportive of such dialogue, including the opportunity to offer alternative or dissenting opinions without fear of penalty. The Dissent Channel was created to allow its users the opportunity to bring dissenting or alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues, when such views cannot be communicated in a full and timely manner through regular operating channels or procedures, to the attention of the Secretary of State and other senior State Department officials in a manner which protects the author from any penalty, reprisal, or recrimination.

Freedom from reprisal for Dissent Channel users is strictly enforced; officers or employees found to have engaged in retaliation or reprisal against Dissent Channel users, or to have divulged to unauthorized personnel the source or contents of Dissent Channel messages, will be subject to disciplinary action. Dissent Channel messages, including the identity of the authors, are a most sensitive element in the internal deliberative process and are to be protected accordingly."

It is meant to be internal, and I admit I am not happy it was leaked. And so I'll only discuss the contents of the memo generally and I won't mention any of the signatories (since there are already fears of reprisals and we have apparently been instructed not to even discuss it with Congress!). Basically, it says that the undersigned believe that the policy will hinder rather than help our mutual goal of making the United States safer. The drafters believe the executive order will actually serve as a recruiting tool for terrorists (and there is already evidence this is happening,) while actually souring our relations with the countries included in the ban.

So. Mr. Spicer, this IS the program. We are the country's foreign policy experts, hired for our skills and now with decades of experience. It is our obligation as public servants to warn the administration of dangers we see. If you are about to get into a car, and we know there is a bomb in it, I would think you would want us to warn you. And we would want to warn you. Because we love this country and what it stands for just as much as you do and have devoted our lives to serving it.

This IS the program. And I would hope that would be the way you would want it."

Friday, January 27, 2017

The New Normal?

I think most federal employees, and certainly a big swath of the country, is worried.

Some days I feel like there is so much coming at us that we need to pay attention to that I just get overwhelmed. Where do you even start?

And then I worry that if I don't say something, so many issues will have piled on and it will all just become normal. And it can't.

And I see it. Like the removal of web pages that have been put up over the years on issues like LGBT rights and climate change. All gone.

Yes, it is normal for a new administration to replace old policy pages with their own. But this many? And the not replace them with ANYTHING? Like those issues never happened, never mattered?
That isn't normal.

And now we have the resignations from the Department.

Again, normal for a new administration to want to install their own people. But this many career officers gone so fast? With no replacements in sight?

And yes, they were career officers who were in Senate approved positions. But usually, they are allowed to move into other positions because they are not really political appointees. They are career diplomats. Diplomats who have served both Republicans and Democrats. And they seemed willing to stay. Instead, they resigned. Or retired. Or were fired. Or were just asked not to come back.

Who knows?

So far, we know that Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary for Management; Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Administration; Michele Bond, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs; and Gentry Smith, Director of the Office of Foreign Missions, are all gone. I've heard stories of several others.

Politico reported that "As is standard when a new president takes over, each official had submitted a letter of resignation. But instead of keeping the officials on, as previous administrations have often done to ensure continuity and smooth the transition process, the Trump team accepted the resignations."
That isn't normal.

They added that there have been rumors that these folks resigned in protest, but I doubt it. I worked closely with U/S Kennedy in his capacity as the mentor for GLIFAA, he was extremely professional and devoted to his work. And I hear from consular friends that A/S Bond was universally loved. they also said there is worry of a talent drain from State. I hope that won't happen, though I do know at least one person who resigned in protest. But I hope most people are dedicated enough to service, to the country, to the Constitution, to stick it out.
But still, it is already a lot. And the void is felt.

Diplopundit talked about how there is now no one in place who can declare an ordered or authorized departure. So if everything goes to hell at a post, just sit tight until they figure things out? Really?

I know someone who couldn't get a random medevac cable processed because of "post-inauguration confusion."

That isn't normal.

I worry things are breaking down. Not just at State, but in our whole country.

And I worry most that our society's attention span has withered to the point that we can't keep our focus for four years. I remember reading something about outrage fatigue.

It will all become normal.

And it isn't.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

I got the CNN alert on my phone last night right as I got home.

The President had just signed an executive order freezing federal hiring. No positions, except those in the military, that were vacant on January 22 may be filled.

I am sure there are many who cheered. The swamp is getting drained.

First of all, being called a swamp dweller is getting pretty old. Federal employees are not the ones getting rich off of the American taxpayer. For that, you might look to Congress, who has not been subject to pay freezes or pay stoppages in the event of government shutdowns. And they are curiously well off for people working for the people...I think you will find more millionaires there percentage-wise than you will among federal employees.

Part of the trouble is that Americans have been, and are being, sold lies.

Lie Number 1: We are getting rich off of the taxpayers

As I said, we are not wealthy. Most of us are hard-working, solidly middle class folks who want to serve our country and pay our bills. We do not, contrary to what you may have heard, make more than those in the private sector. In fact, especially for those of us with university degrees, most of us make more like 24% less than we could on average if we weren't serving the country. But we want to serve, and none of us expects to get rich doing it. (and the ones who ARE making more than the private sector? Those are blue-collar jobs in the government, and I hope you wouldn't begrudge a janitor making just a bit more in order to serve the country and live in DC).

And if you got rid of our jobs, we would head straight to the unemployment office. So it isn't like you could save the government money by getting rid of us. We aren't living off of inheritances. We need our paychecks to get by. And I bet most of us are living paycheck to paycheck just like you are.

Lie Number 2: There are more federal employees than ever

Completely false. Even with the hiring done in the last months of the previous administration, we are still at our lowest levels in decades. There were 2.7 million people on the federal payroll in May, and that number rose about 3% to 2.8 million in December (largely due to agencies trying to fill positions they needed before a suspected freeze happened. The civilian workforce, by comparison, grew 4.9% over than same period.

Even at 2.8 million, the numbers are historically low. Hiring has been pretty flat over the last administration, and the current numbers are similar to the beginning of the Obama and Clinton administrations and lower than at any time during the Reagan administration. In the meantime, the population we serve has grown drastically. Percentage-wise, we are at our lowest rate in 70 years. Seven percent of the population worked for the government during World War II. Now, only 2% does. Yes, some of that number is offset by contractors, but while they are easier to fire than federal employees, they are also more expensive.

Lie Number 3: We take up a huge portion of the federal budget
False. A CBO report in 2011 showed that federal salaries make up 15 percent of discretionary spending in the federal budget. And nearly half of that goes to the Department of Defense's civilian employees. And that is not 15 percent of the total budget, mind you. Discretionary spending is just 40 percent of the budget. that means federal salaries account for just less than 6 percent of the total budget. Do you really think cutting there will help that much with spending?

Lie Number 4: The shutdowns proved we are bloated

Actually, they don't. I heard during the shutdowns from members of my own family that if employees are "non-essential" (the term they used to use for employees who were told not to come to work during the shutdown), they should be gotten rid of. But the trouble is that some of those "non-essential" people were actually in training. Most of us were forced to come to work even under the threat of not getting paid during that time. That of course gave the impression that everything functioned just fine without the government. The trouble is, it was a lie. Notice that your social security check still got delivered? That is because employees in the Social Security Administration kept working to process your payments and the post office kept delivering the mail. And the ultimate irony is that the shutdown actually cost the taxpayers MORE money.

Far from bloated, most agencies are actually understaffed. Just at our embassy, we have a number of positions that need to be filled, and now they can't. We have been told to do more with less for year, and I am sure we will be again. But at a point, we will have to do less with less. And the taxpayers will feel the brunt of it.

Lie Number 5: It is just "DC Elites" who work for the federal government anyway

Wrong. 85% of us live and work outside the Beltway, including Foreign Service Officers, who live in dangerous places and away from family just to serve you. And about 20-30 percent of us are veterans.

So seriously, just stop. Stop with the name called and please stop with the abuse. We aren't swamp dwellers. We are Americans. Americans who have devoted our lives to serving you and to serving our country, often while making less than we could otherwise. Often at risk to our own personal safety. Often at great personal sacrifice.

Beating on us may make you feel better, but it isn't getting you anything. Despite the fact that we give you a lot.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The Spoils of War

Seems more and more like the change of administration means open season has been declared on federal employees.
Federal employees have long been the whipping boys for certain members of Congress.

There doesn't seem to be a problem they can't distract us from by taking aim at dedicated servants of the American people.

They shut down the government and don't pay us (but they still get paid) any time they don't get their way on an issue. (and make no mistake, we all still work, because they don't want you to know how much you actually need the government).

And when it comes to cutting the budget, it is always feds and not real areas of spending bloat (like insisting the military continue to buy equipment it neither wants nor needs because the companies making that equipment have wisely spread out the jobs across multiple states. This isn't a military need. This is a pork barrel jobs program). They freeze our pay for years. They threaten our pensions. They cut hiring when we are already at historically low levels and are stretched thin. And the farm out our work to contractors who cost more (but can be fired more easily) and sometimes even give us the likes of Edward Snowden.

And now, they want to be able to fire us without cause.

I get it. We have all dealt with THAT government employee. The one retired on active duty. The one who snarls at you when you need government services. The one who collects their pay but you can't really tell that they actually do work. I get it. I have dealt with those people too.

But the majority of us are actually dedicated, patriotic and hard-working. We know most of us could earn more in the private sector but we choose to serve. To serve the country, to serve the people, to serve the Constitution. I have never met anyone more patriotic than the hard-working federal employees I have the fortune to serve with.

Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has put forward HR 6278, which he calls “Promote Accountability and Government Efficiency Act.” According to the Washington Post, Rokita considers the bill “a tool for … President [-elect Donald] Trump to use in draining the swamp.” What it really does is eviscerate civil service protections for all new federal employees, meaning federal employees hired one year after enactment or later “shall be hired on an at-will basis.” And the bill is crystal clear on the meaning of at-will status: “Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.”

That's right, for NO CAUSE. And they will not have any right to appeal.

Of course, I posted this on Facebook, and many of my friends immediately chimed in with, "So what? Lots of businesses do that."

And that is their right as business owners. But the government is different.

The Civil Service is intended to be non-partisan. We serve all Americans regardless of their or our political affiliation (can you imagine if we didn't? I'm sorry, but I refuse to send social security checks to people from Party X. Government tenders will only be given to those from Party Y). The protections for federal employees are meant to keep us non-partisan, to keep us from facing political reprisals. That was the idea behind the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. Previously, federal positions were essentially the spoils of war, granted to supporters of the winning party. It is also the thinking behind the Hatch Act of 1939, which prohibits federal employees from participating in certain types of political activities.

I notice they aren't trying to get rid of that.

So here is where we feds stand now.
* The transition team has asked for the names of people who have worked on particular issues, such as climate change in the Department of Energy and gender and LGBT issue at the Department of State (and were asked to "ferret out" those working on LGBT issues).

* The Holman Rule has been reinstated, meaning that any member of Congress can target ANY federal employee and cut that person's annual salary to ONE DOLLAR.

* Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is pursuing measures to fire feds faster, freeze federal hiring, decrease federal contributions to federal retirement and disqualify federal employees and contractors who are “seriously delinquent” on their federal taxes. (Never mind that federal employees are delinquent on their taxes at a far lower rate than the general population. Or that is it hard to collect back taxes on people who lose their jobs.)

* Employees could be required to contribute more to their retirement, meaning an up to 5% pay cut.

* Employees could be fired without cause and without the right to appeal.

* And then of course for those of us in the Foreign Service, there is the added bonus of threats to withhold 50% of our security budget unless our embassy to Israel is moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

No wonder people are afraid.

Our jobs, our lives, have become the spoils of war.

But yeah, thanks for your service.