Still Pale and Male

Notice anything missing from this picture?

This is the ad for the event that took place this week at the Newseum. It was a gathering of all the openly gay U.S. Ambassadors.

The ad says openly LGBT U.S. Ambassadors, but you might have noticed that is not what is pictured there.

Participating in the panel discussion, which was hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, the Harvey Milk Foundation and GLIFAA (formerly Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies and now LGBT+ in Foreign Affairs) were Ambassador to Australia John Berry, Ambassador to the Dominican Republic James Brewster, Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford, Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Daniel Baer, Ambassador to Spain James Costos and Ambassador to Vietnam Ted Osius (the only career ambassador). They are gay men and they are all white. Not even one of the moderators was a lesbian or person of color, to say nothing of transgender. LBT was not present in that picture or on that stage.

None of the stories I have seen on the event (such as this one in the Washington Post and this one in the Washington Blade), which I am the first to admit is a wonderful thing and evidence of how far we have come, mentioned this absence. Which I take as evidence of how far we have to go.

Of course, it was definitely noticed in social media, where I was not the only one to notice that these representatives of the State Department are very pale and male.

And it isn't just the Ambassadors. When the Department recently appointed an LGBT envoy, which to its credit is a career FSO (as is only one of the out gay Ambassadors), it appointed another white man. I was told at the time that there just aren't any lesbians or people of color who rank highly enough to be considered. And that seems to be true. I can find no lesbian or out person of color who has made it to the ranks of Senior Foreign Service.

Of course, rank didn't stop the Department during Secretary Rice's tenure from appointing several men to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) who were only FS 02s in rank (for reference, FS 02 is the Foreign Service equivalent of a Lt. Colonel. Senior Foreign Service is the equivalent of a general. The highest ranking out lesbians that I know of in the Department are FS 01s, or Colonels, higher ranking than those men who were made DASes). And those men did not return to their mid-level positions afterward. In fact, two became Ambassadors, another an Assistant Secretary.

So really, the Department could appoint a career lesbian or out person of color if it really wanted to.

But we don't even need to go there. Because it could be argued, quite rightly, that an officer should have more experience before being named to such high positions.

But what about the political appointees? Five white men. Are you really telling me the Department could not find a single out lesbian or person of color for one of these positions? Anywhere? It stretches the bounds of credibility.

I hope that someone in the Department will take notice the optics of how jarringly white that picture is, and how inappropriate it is given we strive for diversity and for a State Department that looks like America. As one person on Facebook said, this looks like the Supreme Court of the 1960s.

I hope that the Secretary really meant when he said last year during his Pride remarks that " I’m working hard to ensure that by the end of my tenure, we will have lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ambassadors in our ranks as well."

Because you might have noticed the next Presidential race has already started, 

So we don't have much time left.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

From left; U.S. Ambassador to Australia John Berry, U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Daniel Baer, U.S. Ambassador to Spain James Costos, U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford and U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic James “Wally” Brewster. (Photo by Blake Bergen, courtesy of GLIFAA)

GLIFAA (Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies) recently met with the five current Ambassadors who are openly gay. The meeting was covered by the Washington Blade, so you can read about it here.

A friend forwarded me the piece and asked, "See anything wrong with this picture?"

I did immediately. Do you?

I'll give you a hint: I have complained about it before.

I am glad there are openly gay ambassadors. Truly I am.

But where is the diversity here?

Why is there not a single lesbian in the group? A single person of color? Hell, even a single career person (though I hear rumors that at least that couple change soon, though we will still not have a lesbian or person of color in the bunch)?

It is time.

Past time, really.

Where are the Lesbian Ambassadors?

Before today, there had only been three openly gay male Ambassadors, two of whom were political appointees.

Photo courtesy of Owen Hughes

The first, James Hormel, was appointed by President Clinton as Ambassador to Luxembourg just 16 years ago. He was followed by Michael Guest, a career officer appointed by President George W. Bush as Ambassador to Romania, and then David Huebner, appointed by President Obama as Ambassador to New Zealand.

Ambassador Huebner was the first to receive little opposition. The battle to confirm Ambassador Guest included Senate questions about whether the U.S. Government was paying to transport his partner's underwear. Ambassador Hormel was never able to be confirmed, and had to be appointed while the Senate was in recess.

As of yesterday, the number of openly gay ambassadors had more have more than doubled. The Senate confirmed former head of the Office of Personnel and management John Berry to serve as ambassador to Australia (the first out gay ambassador to a G-20 country), Rufus Gifford as ambassador to Denmark, James Costos as ambassador to Spain and Daniel Baer as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). A fifth, James “Wally” Brewster, has been nominated as ambassador the the Dominican Republic, but that nomination was not acted on last night. All five are political appointees.

This is all really good news.

But.

That is still just one openly gay career diplomat to seven political appointees.

There is an interesting article earlier this week in the Washington Post on why there have been so few openly gay ambassadors.

The article makes some really good points. Like that career officers tend to be appointed to ambassadorships in countries where they have a lot of regional experience. And if gay officers have served most of their time in Western Europe because that area has historically been more friendly to gays, they are likely out of luck. Because while 70% of ambassadorships go to career diplomats, nearly 100% of them in Western Europe go to political appointees.

Other issues the article addresses are the ease with which the Senate can put an appointee on hold and the reluctance on the part of Presidents to expend political capital to get someone through who is not a political ally. And then there is the issue of most ambassadors being expected to have a spouse to assist with representational events. Single, or at least apparently single, men make less attractive candidates.

Did you notice I said men?

The thing this article doesn't address, that no article I have seen addresses, and that these appointments don't address, is why has there never been an out lesbian ambassador? Career or political. There has never been a lesbian even nominated to be ambassador.

Why?

Clearly we are willing to address racism. We have had ambassadors of all races and colors. And one of the things I am really proud of this country for is sending a black ambassador to South Africa during apartheid. Because when we are at our best, we stand for equality. Our ambassadors represent our country and our values, not those of the country where they serve.

Likewise, we have taken on sexism. We have sent women ambassadors around the world, including to countries that actively repress half of their population.

And we have addressed homophobia. With this batch, we will even be sending a gay ambassador to a country where religious leaders have protested his appointment.

But addressing sexism and homophobia together, even without addressing racism?

That is apparently the bridge too far.

It's A Combined Team Effort

It is nice when Federal employees get a little credit. In the current political climate, that is a rare occurance.

That's why this piece in the Federal Times is so nice.

Berry: Many feds assisted mission to find, kill bin Laden

[...]

.... [Office of Personnel Management Director John] Berry said in an interview that thousands of civilian employees played a part in collecting and analyzing the intelligence that led to Sunday's mission in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

"It wasn't just the Navy SEALs," Berry said. "It was our men and women at [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and the CIA and the Foreign Service from the State Department, who have been on the ground working in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a combined team effort."

[...]

Berry hopes that as the public learns about how civilian employees helped the military kill bin Laden, they will be more receptive to arguments about the value of the federal workforce.

[...]

He noted that nearly 3,000 federal civilian employees have died on the job since 1992, including 24 who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. About 100,000 civilian employees have served alongside military service members in those countries over the last decade, and Berry said more needs to be done to recognize civilian employees killed in the line of duty.

"When you join the military, or you join the civilian force, you take the same oath to defend the same Constitution," Berry said.

[...]

You can read the whole piece here.

OPM 'Wholeheartedly' Endorses Benefits for Same-Sex Partners

This from the Washington Post this morning. What a difference ten months can make.

OPM 'Wholeheartedly' Endorses Benefits for Same-Sex Partners

In case there was any lingering doubt from last fall about the government's position on providing full domestic benefits for same-sex partners of federal workers, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry erased them yesterday.

The White House and OPM, he said at the top of his statement to a House hearing, "wholeheartedly endorse passage" of legislation that would provide them with health and retirement coverage.

His clear, declarative statement could not have been more of a turnaround from the agency's bumbling presentation in September. Then, an OPM official told a Senate committee that the Bush administration had no position on similar legislation, only to correct himself minutes later after an aide informed him that OPM actually opposed the bill.

The official's use of the movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry," an Adam Sandler film about two firefighters who pretend they are lovers so they can get domestic partner benefits, to demonstrate the dangers of insurance fraud, also left many incredulous.

But now the Obama administration has reversed the Bush administration's position, and the new policy was presented by the government's highest ranking openly gay official.

The current policy, Berry said, "is unjust and it directly undermines the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain the nation's best workers. Historically, the federal government has in many ways been a progressive employer, but we're behind the private sector and 19 states, including Alaska and Arizona, on this one. Almost 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies already offer similar benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of their employees. . . . The Federal Government does not effectively compete with these companies for every talented person when we fail to offer comparable job benefits to our employees."

President Obama took a small but important step toward ending federal workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians when he issued a memorandum last month that allows same-sex partners of federal employees to be covered by federal long-term care insurance. The memorandum also allows the workers to use sick leave to care for their same-sex partners. But extending full benefits requires legislation of the sort being considered by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's federal workforce subcommittee.

Berry's argument did not convince Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on the subcommittee, which held the hearing. He said the bill "is directly discriminatory against heterosexual couples" who cohabitate without marriage. The legislation would not cover them.

Those couples, however, have the option to marry, which would allow them to be covered.

Berry does not have that option. He and his partner of 13 years would benefit from the bill because Berry's partner does not have employer-provided insurance.

Unlike some other hearings about federal workforce issues that were relatively lonely affairs, yesterday's session was packed with spectators who waited in a long line to get in. Many in the audience appeared to support the legislation, but not the Chaffetz-invited group of sharply dressed ministers from the Missionary Baptist Ministers Conference.

Pastor T.L. Rogers of Triumphant Church in Hyattsville was among those who says he thinks the bill would invite fraud because a non-gay couple could pretend to be lovers to reap the employee benefits. "If I have a cousin who does not have insurance, I can say he is my domestic partner," Rogers said in an interview.

[Digger comments: There is an easy solution to this. Pass federal same-sex marriage now.]

Of course, this version of the Chuck and Larry argument implies that large numbers of people would risk committing a federal crime, by signing an affidavit subject to perjury laws, that certifies the partner relationship meets a set of criteria that says, among other things, the couple share each other's financial obligations. Married couples don't have to submit such documentation.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the chief sponsor of the legislation, said intentional false statements to obtain benefits could get culprits five years in prison or a $10,000 fine. As shot with holes as our health-care system is, it's still unlikely that many people would risk that punishment to get the federal benefits.

Baldwin noted that as a lesbian, she is denied the same level of compensation as her straight, married colleagues in Congress. She and her partner also are not subject, as they would be under the legislation, to the same obligations of married couples. In Baldwin's case that would include disclosure of her partner's income and debts.

Baldwin summed up the rationale for her bill with a simple statement about fairness. The purpose, she said, "is to ensure that hard-working Americans can no longer be denied equal compensation for equal work just because of who they love."

Written statements from the hearing are available here.

The Memorandum

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release June 17, 2009
June 17, 2009

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination

Millions of hard-working, dedicated, and patriotic public servants are employed by the Federal Government as part of the civilian workforce, and many of these devoted Americans have same-sex domestic partners. Leading companies in the private sector are free to provide to same-sex domestic partners the same benefits they provide to married people of the opposite sex. Executive departments and agencies, however, may only provide benefits on that basis if they have legal authorization to do so. My Administration is not authorized by Federal law to extend a number of available Federal benefits to the same-sex partners of Federal employees. Within existing law, however, my Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of State, who oversees our Foreign Service employees, and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, who oversees human resource management for our civil service employees, has identified areas in which statutory authority exists to achieve greater equality for the Federal workforce through extension to same-sex domestic partners of benefits currently available to married people of the opposite sex. Extending available benefits will help the Federal Government compete with the private sector to recruit and retain the best and the brightest employees.
I hereby request the following:

Section 1. Extension of Identified Benefits. The Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall, in consultation with the Department of Justice, extend the benefits they have respectively identified to qualified same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees where doing so can be achieved and is consistent with Federal law.

Sec. 2. Review of Governmentwide Benefits. The heads of all other executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, shall conduct a review of the benefits provided by their respective departments and agencies to determine what authority they have to extend such benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. The results of this review shall be reported within 90 days to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, who, in consultation with the Department of Justice, shall recommend to me any additional measures that can be taken, consistent with existing law, to provide benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal Government employees.

Sec 3. Promoting Compliance with Existing Law Requiring Federal Workplaces to be Free of Discrimination Based on Non-Merit Factors. The Office of Personnel Management shall issue guidance within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil service laws, rules, and regulations, including 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(10), which make it unlawful to discriminate against Federal employees or applicants for Federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) Authority granted by law or Executive Order to an agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) Functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 5. Publication. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
# # #

A State Department couple and the debate over federal benefits for same-sex partners of employees

From Government Executive:

FEATURES Foreign & Domestic
By Alyssa Rosenberg

A State Department couple and the debate over federal benefits for same-sex partners of employees.

Five years ago this March, Michelle Schohn joined the Foreign Service.

Diplomacy wasn't her initial field of choice; she already had a job as an archaeologist. But there was one very significant factor influencing her decision to change careers. Schohn's partner, Mary Glantz, already was a member of the Foreign Service. And when Glantz was posted overseas, things got complicated. The State Department classifies the spouses of gay and lesbian employees as "members of household," according them different benefits than heterosexual couples who are legally married.

Members of household are not eligible to participate in special early-round applications for jobs at embassies, as heterosexual spouses can. They cannot be covered by their partners' health insurance, so they are not guaranteed coverage when they go overseas. They do not have access to diplomatic posts' medical facilities. And if posts have to be evacuated, members of household are not guaranteed evacuation pay or subsidies to cover expenses.

"I was in a career I liked very much," says Schohn, now president of the organization Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. But she was faced with the choice of either going overseas unemployed with her partner and without diplomatic protections, or quitting her job and joining the Foreign Service so she and Glantz could get equal treatment. "I didn't like either option," Schohn says.

She may be one of the few people ever to decide to join the federal government because of the way its employment policies distinguish between straight and gay couples. Often, the policies have the opposite effect. At a September 2008 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, Frank A. Hartigan, a deputy regional director for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, said if he were starting out in the job market again, he would look outside government for an employer that would allow him to add his partner to his health insurance. Soon, though, Schohn, Hartigan and thousands of other federal employees might not have to make such a choice.

A combination of events - including two court orders from California federal judges, the appointment of an Office of Personnel Management director with a long history of working to change policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees, and the inauguration of a president who has voiced support for expanding gay rights - have created a climate favorable to enacting domestic partner benefits for federal employees.

Beyond 'Chuck and Larry'

Every year since 1997, legislation called the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act has been introduced in Congress.

It would grant the domestic partners and legally married spouses of gay and lesbian federal employees access to benefits ranging from access to health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to full participation in relocation programs that are currently available only to married couples. The bill also would require same-sex couples to abide by the rules governing married couples, including nepotism regulations.

Despite the bill's long history, it kicked around from committee to committee without any forward momentum until last year, when Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who introduced the latest iteration in December 2007, held the first hearing on the legislation.

It was a largely tame event, without much in the way of partisan bickering or attempts to score points on either side of the culture war. The lone Republican attendee, Maine Sen. Susan M. Collins, was there to support the bill, and she even suggested broadening it to include heterosexual couples who are not married but live together in committed relationships.

There was little disagreement among the witnesses, four out of five of whom testified in support of the bill. The lone dissent came from OPM.

Howard C. Weizmann, then the deputy director of the agency in the waning months of the Bush administration, said OPM opposed the legislation on the grounds that it would be extremely difficult to determine the validity of relationships between same-sex couples in the absence of standard documentation, such as a marriage license. The risk that couples would commit fraud to get access to federal benefits is "not farfetched," Weizmann said, pointing to I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, a movie about two New York firefighters who fake a domestic partnership to protect their pension benefits.

His choice of examples sparked outrage from gay and lesbian federal government employees.

"Weizmann hadn't done his homework," says Leonard Hirsch, president of Federal GLOBE, the governmentwide affinity group for gay and lesbian employees. "It was a total embarrassment to the United States. That won't happen again."

The Berry Effect

Hirsch's prediction that OPM's reaction to the bill is likely to change is probably on the mark, although it's hard to tell officially, because OPM declined requests to comment for this article. What's certainly true is the next time the agency's representatives come before Congress to discuss the legislation, they will be looking at it from a different perspective.

The handover of the White House from Republicans to Democrats accounts for part of the change. In particular, President Obama's choice for OPM director, John Berry, will bring a new set of experiences and convictions to workforce policy.

Berry, who was confirmed by unanimous consent of the Senate in early April, is the first openly gay agency head in the executive branch. His service as assistant secretary for policy, management and budget at the Interior Department during the Clinton administration provides a blueprint for how he might address issues facing gay and lesbian employees. At Interior, Berry instituted a full review of policies affecting gay workers, resulting in:

* Establishment of a grievance procedure for employees who say they experienced sexual-orientation discrimination.
* Expansion of relocation benefits and counseling services for domestic partners of Interior employees.
* Creation of a liaison to gay and lesbian employees.
* Elimination of a requirement that gay and lesbian applicants for law enforcement positions at the National Park Service undergo background checks.

Berry said at his confirmation hearing that he couldn't comment on specific issues until he was in office, but his expected support for the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act could give the legislation momentum when it is reintroduced in this session of Congress. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., was planning to introduce the bill this spring in the House and Lieberman and Collins are set to push it in the Senate.

External circumstances may encourage the legislators to move quickly. In January and February, two federal judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California issued separate orders directing the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to process benefits applications for the same-sex partners of two court employees, and to continue to process such applications on a routine basis. OPM has told the office that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is not set up to deal with such applications.

One of the judges has retained jurisdiction over his employee's benefits, and said he will issue additional orders to force the processing of benefits forms, setting up a potential clash between the executive and the judiciary branches.
The quickest way to avert that clash, Hirsch says, would be to pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. Then OPM could discuss adding domestic partners with FEHBP providers when it makes its annual round of changes to the program during discussions that take place in the spring and summer.

"It's just simply going through the law and writing the regulations," Hirsch says. "That is normal procedure. It would take six months or so, but hopefully it would immediately impact internally to agencies their understanding of their obligations to [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered] employees."

Model Programs

But agencies and employee groups aren't simply waiting for Congress and the White House to act. Last year, the National Treasury Employees Union and FDIC reached an agreement to create a domestic partnership benefits program at the agency. FDIC is one of only a few agencies where federal unions negotiate pay and benefits issues, rather than simply bargain over working conditions. That created an opportunity for NTEU to push for a program that will allow gay and lesbian FDIC employees to enroll their partners in health, dental, vision and life insurance programs, and to include domestic partners and their children fully in relocation benefits programs.

NTEU president Colleen Kelley credits FDIC chairwoman Sheila Bair, a Republican appointee, with supporting the program, which the labor leader says provides a model for the rest of federal government.

"That's what agencies should follow," she says. "We're in ongoing discussions with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We're pursuing it in every avenue we have."
Other agencies are going through processes similar to the one Berry conducted at Interior in the 1990s. At the State Department, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton met with Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies shortly after she took office and promised a review of the policies that affect them and their partners. In February, gay newsmagazine The Advocate reported that Clinton told town hall participants that the review was "on a fast timeline," suggesting that she might change State policy even before Congress acts.

Hirsch says Attorney General Eric Holder is conducting a similar review at the Justice Department. Other agencies could follow suit, indicating they would be ready to implement new benefits quickly if the domestic partnership legislation passes Congress.

Broader Effects

Extending federal benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees would make life easier for them. But would such a policy change have broader effects, such as making the government a more attractive place to work, both to potential applicants and current employees?

At Lieberman's hearing last fall, Weizmann said that in the private sector, less than 1 percent of employees at companies that offer domestic partnership benefits actually sign up for them. With such low participation rates, he said, it was a far leap to suggest that implementing such benefits would have any impact on recruitment or retention.

A 2008 report by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law predicted that 14,436 additional same-sex partners and children of federal employees would sign up for health benefits if the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act passed, increasing benefits spending by $60.4 million annually. The Congressional Budget Office put the price tag at $670 million over 10 years.

But Yvette C. Burton, business development executive at IBM, testified at Lieberman's hearing that domestic partnership benefits weren't simply a way to recruit and retain gay and lesbian employees.

"Like IBM, many companies report that implementation of domestic partnership benefits help to attract and retain crucial talent segments of non- LGBT employees," she said. "These particular candidates have reported that the existence of domestic partnership benefit policies like that at IBM demonstrate that the company truly values and respects all employees, that they protect all employees. . . . This trend is especially prevalent among younger candidates of the workforce, a segment crucial to the future demographics of any sector."

In the short term, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act would have a big effect on federal employees like Michelle Schohn and Mary Glantz, who continually reassess their decision to stay in government.

"We make decisions on a tour-by-tour basis if we're going to stay in the department," Schohn says. "And we will stay in the department if the department allows us to stay together."

HRC Press Release: Berry Confirmed

I received this press release from the Human Rights Campaign:

Human Rights Campaign Statement on Confirmation of John Berry as Director of the Office of Personnel Management

HRC President Joe Solmonese: “John Berry has an exemplary record of leadership in both the public and private sector.”

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights group, today praised the confirmation of John Berry as Director of the Office of Personnel Management. Berry, who previously served as director of the National Zoological Park, is the highest ranking, openly gay man to be appointed in the Obama administration.

“As the human resource agency for the federal government, OPM is responsible for implementing the Administration’s personnel policies. John Berry has an exemplary record of leadership in both the public and private sector. As Director of OPM we fully expect that he will apply federal employment policies fairly and equitably to all employees, including LBGT workers,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

At his confirmation hearing, Berry emphasized the need for the federal government to adopt policies which make it competitive with the private sector. Although the federal government has historically been a leader in providing strong employee benefits, it now lags behind the private sector because its lesbian and gay employees cannot take advantage of the high-quality family health insurance program and other benefits. By contrast, most Fortune 500 companies now reward their gay and lesbian workers equally for their equal contributions.

Before his time at the National Zoological Park, Berry was executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a congressionally chartered nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of the nation’s wildlife resources. Prior to joining the Wildlife Foundation, Berry served as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget at the Interior Department for three years.

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

They also note that shortly after the House and Senate return from recess April 20, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act will re-introduced.

Openly gay John Berry named OPM director

This was in today's Government Executive. I also noticed mention of it in the Washington Post's "In The Loop." If Berry is confirmed, this is great news for all LGBT government employees.

John Berry named OPM director

By Alyssa Rosenberg arosenberg@govexec.com

March 3, 2009

President Obama on Tuesday nominated John Berry, currently the director of the National Zoo, to lead the Office of Personnel Management.

"From turning around the National Zoo to fostering a more productive work environment at the Department of the Interior, John Berry has a tremendous record of effective management in key public service roles," Obama said. "I'm confident that he will provide that same leadership at OPM to help ensure that government works for the American people the way it should."

Karen Korpowski-Gallo, senior public affairs specialist for the zoo, said Berry would not speak to the media until after he is confirmed by the Senate.

Berry has a long history in federal workforce and management issues. He served as legislative director to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., for 10 years.

During that time, he was Hoyer's lead on federal employee policy issues, helping to guide the negotiations that led to the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act, which established the locality pay system. Beth Moten, legislative director of the American Federation for Government Employees, said congressional staffers noted at the time that without Berry to manage the often-tense discussions, the legislation never would have passed.

"I can think of no better person than John Berry to lead the Office of Personnel Management," Hoyer said. "John is an incredibly qualified public servant who possesses significant management experience, great knowledge of government, and a high regard for our federal workforce. Anyone who has worked with him knows how very bright and positive a person he is. He is an excellent choice to lead OPM, and I strongly support his nomination."

Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Federal Workforce Subcommittee, which will oversee Berry's nomination, also had high praise for Obama's pick.

"I know John to be a strong, capable, and passionate leader," Akaka said. "OPM is key to our government's ability to perform, because human capital is critical in everything our government does, from national security to financial industry oversight. We need someone like John who can attract talented leaders and maintain quality across federal agencies so management will be at its prime."

Berry built solid relationships with federal employee unions during his time on Capitol Hill.

John Gage, president of AFGE, said the union had recommended Berry to the Obama administration. Gage said he spoke with Berry recently and expected to work with him on a number of issues, including giving federal employees college credit for training courses, reforming the classification system and increasing union involvement in shaping the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said she thought Berry would foster partnerships between management and labor.

"I believe he will play a key role in helping return respect to the federal workforce, which in turn will help attract talented and dedicated employees to public service," Kelley said.

During the Clinton administration, Berry served as assistant secretary for policy, management and budget at Interior, where he oversaw a number of programs to improve employees' work-life balance. He held town hall meetings to elicit suggestions, leading to upgrades to the Interior cafeteria and health center, and also improved the department's credit union and continuing education options. Berry funded a number of those enhancements through partnerships with unions, other agencies and even employees -- reducing their overall costs to the department.

At the zoo, Berry drew up a strategic plan, reorganized its management structure and completed a 20-year capital plan for its finances.

Berry is also known as an advocate for gay and lesbian federal employees. According to the Human Rights Campaign, if confirmed, he will be the highest-ranking openly gay official to serve in the executive branch in any administration.

During his time at Interior, Berry worked to create a grievance procedure for employees who experience discrimination because of their sexual orientation, expand relocation benefits and counseling services to the domestic partners of employees, establish a liaison to gay and lesbian workers, and eliminate discriminatory provisions of the National Park Service's law enforcement standards -- including a ban on security clearances for gay and lesbian employees.

Under President Bush, OPM opposed allowing the domestic partners of federal employees to receive health and retirement benefits available to heterosexual married couples. OPM argued in a 2008 congressional hearing that extending partner benefits was too risky because gay and lesbian federal employees might commit fraud to get them.

Leonard Hirsch, international liaison at the Smithsonian Institution and president of Federal GLOBE, which represents gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender government employees, said in a January interview with Government Executive that he thought Berry would reverse OPM's benefits policy.

"I have known John for over 15 years, and his intelligence, skills, energy, and bountiful personality will make him an extraordinary Director of OPM for all Federal employees," Hirsch said on Tuesday. "In these times of challenge, no worker should be left behind."

Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, said he thinks Berry will bring an innovative approach to the major challenges the federal government faces.

"We need a very talented, strong person for that job," Stier said. "The president's [outlined] an enormous agenda, and it's going to depend in large measure on whether we've got a large number of people engaged in the best way to make it happen."