When Will It Be a Lesbian's Turn

The Senate is finally getting around to clearing some of the ambassadorial nominees that have been sitting in limbo for months and months.

I suspect this could be happening because they know that when the Republicans take over in January, Presidential appointments could be more contentious.

I am really happy to see this happening. We need to have ambassadors in our countries. It says a lot about the seriousness with which we take the relations with that country and it affects the work we are able to do.

I am particularly happy to see folks like Donald Lu, who is going out as Ambassador to Albania, get confirmed. I have never met him, but every single person I have spoken to about him said he is a guy to work for. That they would work for him anywhere. That is the highest compliment a Foreign Service Officer can get.

And I am ecstatic to see Ted Osius' confirmation as Ambassador to Vietnam. Up to now, all of the current openly gay Ambassadors have been political appointees. Ted is a career officer, as is his husband Clayton Boyd. I have never met Ted, but Clayton is an awesome guy. I'd love to work with him one day.

But still missing from this lineup are openly gay Ambassadors of color or openly lesbian Ambassadors (career or political). Yes, I have heard speculation that this female Ambassador or that was lesbian (though that is often something speculated about any strong woman regardless of her sexuality), but I am talking about an out lesbian. A role model to the lesbians of the world and to the lesbian diplomats in the Department.

When will we see those appointments?

It Isn't Just Ambassadorial Appointees Who Are Waiting

You would think that with all that is going on in Ukraine and the need for diplomacy to help keep this from escalating to World War III that our Congress would prioritize, at least for a few minutes, the Foreign Service.

And you would be wrong.

I get it. I have ranted plenty about political appointee ambassadors and how there are too many of them and that some, especially recently, have been, shall we say, underwhelming in the qualifications department.

So I had considered blogging about the recent articles in the Washington Post about the backlog of ambassadorial appointments that are just sitting, waiting for Senate action. But I hadn't done it yet. Because I get it. They want to make a point about the sometimes profoundly unqualified donors selected to be ambassadors to important allies. But I also know they were sitting on career appointees too, who generally (but not always) do know about the countries to which they are headed. This leaves a lot of posts without an ambassador...some 28 ambassadorial vacancies in Central and South America, and 10 of 40 posts in Africa are also waiting. Most of these are not posts given to political appointees. Some of these folks have been waiting for nearly a year, (for the wait times, look here) and for the usually decidedly not wealthy career appointees (a career in government service in NOT a path to wealth unless you are serving in Congress), this means trying to find temporary jobs and housing while they wait. It is expensive for them, hard for posts, hard for the jobs they sit in waiting to leave, hard for our diplomatic relations with those countries....basically, hard for everyone but Congress.

So the post was coming...I just hadn't written it yet.

And then I get an email today from AFSA, the American Foreign Service Assocation, our "union" of sorts (they can bargain for us but we can't strike).

It seems that the Senate is not just sitting on ambassadorial appointments.

According to the email, the Senate is now holding up the commissioning, tenuring and promotions of some 1,700 folks in the Foreign Service. They do say that "progress has been made," but I don't read that as they have actually released the hold.

Come on now people.

We aren't talking about Ambassadors here. We are talking about the average Joes working in the Foreign Service. And for most of these, we are talking about the absolutely most junior diplomats. Commissioning usually happens short after you come on board and finish A-100. Tenuring usually happens within your first three to five years in the Service. It has to happen within five years or you are out (so if Congress holds up approving tenure for these officers too long, people who we want to keep will be forced out). So we aren't talking about folks who have been in a long time. Lots of these folks are sitting in visa mills, making sure people can come visit the U.S. (and spend their money here), making sure you can get home from overseas when your passport is stolen, making sure you are cared for in an overseas hospital or jail should bad things befall you on your trip. They are the lowest ranked, lowest paid of the exceptionally bright and motivated people we bring into the Foreign Service each year.

This seems like a good way to keep them from remaining motivated.

And the promotions? Those can range anywhere from those newly minted diplomats getting administrative promotions to senior Foreign Service. But let me assure you, the numbers of promotions at the upper level pale in comparison to those at the junior and mid-level. (ON EDIT: I was told the promotions are only Senior Foreign Service).

You are hurting solidly middle-class Americans who are deeply devoted to this country and want to serve it.

Stop it.