I Should Be Singing

The State Department has decided to recognize me for tenure. Woohoo! If I had not been recommended for tenure earlier than Nov. 3, 2008, I would have lost my security clearance, and my job. Some officers have appealed their not being recommended for tenure and have found themselves sitting in a nonclassified Washington office waiting for a panel to review their case.

Fantastic news!

The Return

I recently returned from an extended rest in clean California (well, compared to Mexico City that is.) I came back to meet with several representatives from the eDiplomacy movement, who have been attempting to promote blogs and our e-presence.

My favorite comment -- the State Department is considering changing the name of its blog Dipnote, because dip has other connotations outside of our world.

I am a bit of a zombie today. I went to an orthodox Jewish wedding today and I'm ready for some deep sleep tonight.

Employees May Be Rewarded for Good Health

Rep. James P. Moran, Virginia Democrat, outlined a plan to give feds a cash payment at the time of retirement for unused sick leave.

Employees under the Civil Service Retirement System have that benefit, but the majority of feds, under the newer Federal Employees Retirement System, have only a use-it-or-lose-it option.

Mr. Moran's plan, outlined at the Federal Managers Association convention in Arlington, requires approval of Congress and the White House.

Budget Battles

The president has proposed a 2.9 percent raise for federal employees and a 3.4 percent raise for the military, even though Congress traditionally prefers parity in pay adjustments between civilian and military personnel.

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, is fighting for a 3.9 percent pay increase. The NTEU is also lobbying for a full repeal of the Homeland Security Department's new personnel system.

Trying to Serve

A one-sided Washington Post article has insight into the hiring practices of the Foreign Service

To sum up the article: an applicant passed the rigorous foreign service exam but after informing officials he had obsessive compulsive disorder and takes a Paxil, the State Department decided not to hire him because they felt he would not be eligible to serve anywhere in the world. The applicant filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but lost when an EEOC administrative judge ruled the State Department had not violated the 1973 Rehabilitation Act "because the requirement for worldwide assignment was a lawful, job-related standard."

Security Clearances

Bob Brewin recently wrote a length article concerning the security clearance process. "[Ben Romero, chairman of the Intelligence Committee of the Information Technology Association of America] told the [House Readiness Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee] that the average processing time for Secret clearances averaged 200 days in 2007, and the average time for processing Top Secret clearances was 300 days last year."

Jack Edwards, the Government Accountability Office's acting director of Defense capabilities and management, said that "continuing delays in determining clearance eligibility can result in increased costs and risk to national security."

Kathy Dillaman, associate director of OPM's Federal Investigative Services division, talked to the panel about automated information tools which could enable OPM to process clearances in an end-to-end paperless system this year.

Check out the article for more details.

US Drops Ban on HIV - Positive Diplomats

A recent article by the Associated Press claims the State Department is changing current rules that automatically disqualify HIV-positive people from becoming U.S. diplomats. Many people are disqualified for all kinds of medical reasons since diplomats are supposed to be able to go anywhere, anytime regardless of local hospital or medical services.

According to the article, "The department removed HIV from a list of medical conditions that automatically prevent foreign service candidates from meeting an employment requirement that they be able to work anywhere in the world."

In addition, "Officials denied that the policy had ever intentionally discriminated against HIV-positive people and noted that the policy had applied only to incoming diplomats, not those who had contracted the virus or other diseases while in the foreign service."

Entry-level government employees not as young as you might think

From the Washington Post's Federal Diary:

People who take entry-level jobs are supposed to be young, inexperienced and just out of college.

But not in the government. The average age of new federal hires is 33.

That finding is in a report released by the Merit Systems Protection Board, which conducts studies of the civil service for the White House and Congress. The report, "Attracting the Next Generation," was prompted by concerns that Uncle Sam may not be able to compete for talent as baby boomers retire from government.

A spate of studies and polls have suggested that younger Americans are wary of working for the government and are turned off by its cumbersome hiring procedures, which can include filling out numerous employment forms and undergoing lengthy background investigations. Younger Americans often see nonprofit organizations and state and local governments as places where they can "make a difference," according to the studies.

The board's research found that the typical entry-level hire is surprisingly older than generally assumed, is highly motivated to land a federal job, and is interested in the same things that prior generations have valued: job stability, annual pay raises, vacation time and health insurance.

"The government is actually better at attracting new hires than some might think," the report concludes.

National workforce projections show that skilled employees, especially in the sciences and engineering, will be in high demand and short supply in coming years, and the Bush administration has urged agencies to prepare for a "war for talent," as it is called, with corporations, think tanks and other employers.

The merit board's findings should be encouraging to agencies, especially those that are ramping up recruitment efforts to fill the hundreds of thousands of jobs that will open in the next few years because of baby boomers' retirements.

Agencies can step up to the challenge, the report suggests, if they tout their job benefits while marketing themselves to the next generation of workers, if they make their hiring procedures as speedy as possible, and if they "avoid stereotyping applicants based on generational assumptions."

Part of the board's report is based on survey responses from 1,115 federal employees who were hired into full-time professional and administrative occupations in entry-level jobs, at General Schedule grades 5, 7 and 9. The survey was conducted from February to May 2006. Some of the findings were released by the board last year in agency newsletters.

In the survey, the board asked new hires, who earn from $26,000 to $52,000 in base pay, why they decided to work for the government.

The most important reason was job security. It was the top answer of 28 percent of the respondents, regardless of age.

That suggests that "the old employment contract is not yet dead," the report said, and runs counter to some research that shows that the young generation is no longer motivated by job security and the prospect of promotions up an organizational hierarchy.

Contrary to popular perceptions, many of the new employees had full-time work experience before joining the government. In the survey, 32 percent reported working for one to five years before accepting a federal job, and a surprising proportion -- 20 percent -- said they had more than 20 years of work experience beforehand.

That report said many new federal hires are starting a second career with the government, hoping to supplement their private-sector retirement with federal benefits.

The new federal employees signaled strong interest in the benefits that come with a government job. The majority said yearly salary increases, vacation time, health insurance, 401(k)-type retirement savings plans and fixed pensions were important when considering job offers.

When comparing responses of those under 30 to those of workers older than 30, the board found that there was little difference between the two groups and that some traditional benefits, such as annual pay raises and health insurance, were more important to the younger new hires.

The merit board's report also noted that if federal employees do not resign in their first year or two of employment, they usually stick with the government.

"So once federal employees get in the door -- regardless of generation -- the government may likely retain them through their career," the report said.

Foreign Service Staffing

From the Houston Chronicle:
President's Bid to Rebuild Diplomatic Corps is On Target But Off Schedule

Trained and deployed well, diplomats sometimes can do more than an army. One of diplomacy's chief aims, after all, is working things out without killing anyone.

So President George W. Bush's budget proposal Monday — which would fund 1,076 new diplomat jobs — is a huge advance for U.S. security. Both Bush and Congress, which has turned down far smaller proposals, need to fight hard to get this request passed.

Since fiscal 2005, as our military commitment has surged, the number of foreign service workers has remained essentially flat. It's a deficit as dangerous to American interests as neglecting our military.

Bush's budget request calls for an $8.2 billion increase for the State Department in budget year 2009. The plan would boost embassy construction spending by 41 percent and add almost 20 percent more for security worldwide.

Most significantly, though, it would add 1,076 jobs to the State Department, including spots for diplomats, security experts and replacement employees to allow 450 State Department workers to undergo intensive language training.

It's a stunning increase from Bush's meek request last year for only 256 diplomat jobs — a request that Congress nevertheless shot down.

To even make this year's request, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had to return to White House budgeters three times to plead her case. Her argument: the State Department needs to become an agent of "transformational diplomacy," focusing on partnering with, rather than coercing, countries to respond democratically to the needs of their own people.

Plenty of states, of course, haven't the slightest interest in partnering with the United States in any context. But many, especially since the launch of an ill-planned war in Iraq, have radicalized directly because of the perceived brutality of U.S. foreign policy.

Unfortunately, we have few diplomats fluent enough in Arabic to debate the point on Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language international news channel based in Qatar.

For more than four years, this country has fought wars on two fronts, lost thousands of servicemen and women and cost hundreds of thousands of foreign lives. Yet the United States has not bothered to fully staff its core international diplomatic force.

Numerous American embassies struggle along at 70 percent staffing. Last year, 10 percent of diplomatic job openings for 2008 were cut.

How Congress justifies neglecting this arm of national security forces is a mystery. But a recent barrage of critiques, including two speeches by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, may have spurred Bush to finally fight for proper diplomatic funding.

The sum Bush is asking for diplomats would be minor in the military's budget. Yet the additional funds would muster serious smart power: civilian teams to rebuild post-conflict societies; spokesmen to intelligently voice U.S. goals abroad; negotiators to press solutions in the most stubborn conflicts.

Adding new jobs would strengthen the diplomatic corps by a significant percentage. But that's the minimum reinforcement owed to the thousands of soldiers the United States sends around the world to risk their lives.