Talk:United States Department of State

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives

/Archive 1

Revised employment language

Given the recent spat of reverts from anons and likely sockpuppetry edits, I have reverted to the language from February. This is supportable from various sources, most clearly from the Department of State's own employmnet/career page - http://www.state.gov/careers/ - which clearly states the verbage used in the old language.

"Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) advocate American foreign policy, protect American citizens, and promote American business interests throughout the world. FSOs staff our Embassies, consulates and other diplomatic missions devoted to strengthening peace, stability, and prosperity. Their perceptiveness, dedication, and creativity drive the formulation and achievement of American foreign policy objectives. Increasingly, transnational issues such as the environment, science and technology; the global struggle against diseases such as AIDS; international law enforcement cooperation and counter narcotics trafficking; counter proliferation and international action against trafficking in persons have gained stature among American foreign policy objectives."

"The Department of State offers career opportunities to professionals in specialized functions needed to meet Foreign Service responsibilities around the world. As a Foreign Service Specialist, you will provide important technical, support or administrative services at one of 250 posts overseas, in Washington, D.C., or elsewhere in the United States."

"Civil Service employees at the U.S. Department of State help transform societies into stronger democracies and full partners in the international community while experiencing extraordinary careers as they work in the Department's Washington, D.C. headquarters location, or other cities throughout the United States. To meet the challenges of the 21st century — and beyond — we need intelligent, creative, strategic-thinking, adventurous individuals who can bring their academic knowledge, professional and personal experiences, cultural awareness and appreciation, and dedication to improving the world in which we live"

Yes, there are people who are not in the Foreign Service in embassy's overseas (mainly other agencies, like DOD, DEA, DHS, etc). Yes, there are civil service folks who are given limited career appointments in the Foreign Service for hard to fill posts where other Foreign Service personnel are unavailable - just look at the most current ALDAC telegram (assuming you are a department employee) that lists availabilities for Civil Service folks to serve overseas. Or, go to http://www.careers.state.gov/general/training.html and see the following language

"Civil Service (CS) to Foreign Service (FS) Hard-to-Fill Program The Department's annual "Foreign Service Hard-to-Fill" exercise provides opportunities for Civil Service career development and mobility while helping meet critical Foreign Service staffing needs. Civil Service assignments to overseas Foreign Service positions have been an important part of the Department's HR program for many years, allowing CS employees the opportunity to participate directly in the Department's overseas missions and to experience life and work at an embassy or consulate. Some CS participants in the CS to FS HTF Program have used it as a first step towards careers in the Foreign Service. The CS to FS HTF Program is designed to help meet critical overseas staffing needs while providing a unique career development opportunity for CS personnel."

This is not a controversial subject within the department - at all. Bevinbell (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You probably should have archived the page rather than deleting most of it. Now to make the generalized statement there is no controversy in the Department as far as relations (spacially and personally) between FSOs, Specialists, and CS would be over simplifiation but it is not as bad as the sockpuppet indicated by a long shot. Also, the assignment of CS personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan to meet critical needs may not have followed the CS/FS HTF procedures perhaps? But I agree 100% as far as how wording in the article should be changed to reflect the true nature of State abroad which is staffed by the Foreign Service other than noted above. Maybe we need to refer to an article clearly spelling out FS vs GS (maybe United States Foreign Service?) Mikebar (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I courtesy blanked - given the sockpuppetry comments (multiple comments by same editor trying to make it look like something that is not there - seemed appropriate. Its all still there for anyone who wants to see it - maybe if you want, you can make it an archive in stead. Personally, if they do not want to follow HTF for Iraq, that's no worries for me unless it sets precedent for other posts. Maybe you take a stab at creating a new page describing the differences? I assume it would not be an easy draft to reach consensus on. Maybe a GS page since FS has its own? Bevinbell (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

SF-50 Form

This has recently been cited as evidence that there is no difference between those serving at the state department. Here is the OMP link to the form - http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/sf50.pdf I see nothing on the form that uses the word Civil Service. I see Federal Service, but nothing about Civil Service. Interesting...Bevinbell (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This form has a section 34 called "position occupied. It lists the 4 employment systems currently used at the State Department, Excepted Service, Competitive Service, Senior Executive Service General. (SES General) and Senior Executive Service Career (SES Career). These are all defined as part of the Civil Service under Title 5. State employees are assigned abroad under these systems. The State Department Foreign Affairs Manual separately refers to "foreign service employees" and "civil service employees". That is a source of much confusion and controversy. One only has to look at the SF-50 form for "foreign service employees" to see that they are part of the "Excepted Service". The so-called "excursionist" people, or as this article suggests "civil service employees serving in FS positions" are also "Excepted Service". In fact, the Secretary of State appoints employees to the Foreign Service before they serve abroad. This includes so-called "civil service employees" who are converted to "foreign service employees" before serving overseas. There are no "civil service employees" serving overseas - by law they must all become members of the FS personnel system in order to fill positions designated as FS positions.

The main point I am trying to make here is that these personnel categories are complicated and overlapping, and are also a source of friction and dispute within the bureaucracy. It would be best to leave the section about "foreign" vs "civil" service members out of this article and focus on the functions of the State Department. If necessary, a separated entry could be made about the roles that various personnel designations play, but that would probably not be useful in a general reference article. If left as is, the section will continue to generate debate and bad feeling among DOS employees. I have taken the liberty of deleting this section in a spirit of eliminating unecessary controversial details. JST Foreign Affairs Officer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a bit of a stretch to paint a broad brush from the form, especially since it does not use the words civil service anywhere on it. Considering that the FAM is the codified regulations of the department, that carries a lot more weight than a govenment wide standardized form from OPM that does not even use the words civil service. I think that by removing any reference to the Foreign Service is fairly offensive to folks who are commissioned officers who have to spend the careers overseas serving the country with the benefits of the civil service system nor locality pay.

Please sign your posts. Also, It looks like you have posted under various pen names and wiki names. To avoid the apperance of sock or meat puppetry, please use a consistent name, preferable a wiki account. I do not know if you are Fsbrat or his other confirmed user names, but if you continue to make proactive edits that remove reference to the FS and do so with an anon IP, I will revert. If you try to log in under various user names or pen names with this IP, I think it is safe to assume that you are the same person. Assume good faith, but make consistent edits under a single name and maybe a consensus version can emerge. Just deleting what you don't like isnt going to work. Bevinbell (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting article read by many USG employees - I just checked the FS 50 form and was shocked to see that it does not mention the Foreign Service. That must be a major oversite by whoever printed the form. It is very offensive indeed to post anti-FS rhetoric on this site. Please remove the offensive content and any reference to the SF-50 form until a revised version can be issued. It is absolutely intolerable for anyone to blur the Foreign Service, consisting of highly qualified diplomats serving on the front lines of diplomacy with civil servants who work fixed hours, do not speak foreign languages and often have never even applied for passports. long term trainee, FSI Arlington Virginia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What, are you kidding or something. I have great respect for our CS department folks (well, except maybe my personell tech). They work the same hours I do, speak plenty of other languages, and many have ppts. No need to be insulting IP 169.252.4.21. Again, instead of anon posting why not get a log in so you can be taken somewhat more seriously? Bevinbell (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)