Jump to content

Talk:United States Department of State/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

I recognize that this entry is heavily propagandistic, and would like for someone else to take a stab at putting it in shape. I'd prefer to recuse myself from the case. ;-)

Also, there is quite a lot more information about various agencies within the U.S. Dept State at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/rls/dos/index.cfm?docid=436&clid=264 --KQ

my favorite propaganda bit is the 'we do it all with fewer employees than the city of Memphis!' gosh, those dedicated DoS employees! I cut "advances U.S. objectives and interests in shaping a freer, more secure, and more prosperous world" down to "advances U.S. objectives and interests in the world", which seems more NPOV. --MichaelTinkler

Similarly I changed "Creating jobs at home by opening markets abroad" to "Opening markets abroad". What might make your thing more NPOV, and it's probably spelled out elsewhere, is what the DoS defines as "freer, more secure, and more prosperous". Great examples for the doublespeak entry. --TheCunctator

Is it appropriate to refer to the Department's workforce as "small" (in the Duties and Responsibilities section)? It has 30,000 employees... - Walkiped 23:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the "small workforce" references. The claim doesn't make sense in light of the fact that the Department has 30,000 employees. And, as MichaelTinkler notes above, it's a little propaganda-esque (not surprising, considering the Duties and Responsbilities section was copied right out of a State Department webpage talking about all the things the Department does). - Walkiped 04:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Domestic and Foreign Assignments

The parts about various "services" are misleading and unecessary. The suggestion that only "foreign" servants serve abroad or that "civil" servants only serve at home is wrong. At State, all employees are supposed to be part of "one big family". The particular service or personnel system, or salary schedule to which they are assigned is neither useful or interesting to the general public. Granted, there is plenty of squabbling going on, and there are those who claim that one "service" is better than all the rest, but those arguments are best left off a general reference site. If necessary, separate entries could be created about the various personnel systems used for diplomatic assignments. But not in a general article about a USG Executive Agency. I suggest that the passages about "foreign" and "civil" servants, and claims about who is entitled to serve abroad be deleted, or moved to a separate namespace.


"Sock Puppet Crap"

This is my first posting so please forgive my ignorance if this is a stupid question. As a US diplomat, I was surprised to see certain inaccuracies pop up on this page that were not there previousl, suggesting that we have various classes of diplomats. Such errors are divisive and suggest a "balkanization" of the United States Diplomatic Service is occuring. We are all one team of Civil Servants serving our national leaders. Anyway, I checked and found an earlier version that looks like what used to be there. Then I see it was reverted and labeled as "puppet crap". That sounds like an insulting term, not appropriate for a site like this. I took the liberty of changing the article back anonymously because I fear that this site might have become unfriendly with all the remarks about vandalism, and not "puppet crap". Could someone enlighten me as to the meaning of this term and whether my action in restoring a version is considered accepteable. Thank you for your guidance in this matter.

An anonymous US diplomat


I fully agree, efforts to provide a more accurate portrayal of the State Department, especially if done by an employee, should not be denounced as "vandalism" or "sock puppet crap". Responsible, diplomatic discussion should be encouraged. Diverse opinions should be tolerated, if this site is to be maintained in a democratic manner. fsbrat 20080415T0834Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsbrat (talk • contribs) 08:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Please sign your edits and comments with 4 tilde characters at the end (~~~~) which will insert your user name and date. That way people will know who is saying what and you will build credibility on your comments. Anonymous DIplomat - just create a user name and use it. Mikebar (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Civil Service vs. Foreign Service

All of the Department's employees are civil servants, part of the US Civil Service (Someone keeps adding sentences about "Foreign Service officers" as if they are the only employees in the Diplomatic Service. The truth is that the Diplomatic Service includes Foreign Service Officers, Foreign Service specialists, and many other categories of employees. Secretary Powell has made this clear in recent remarks. and implies that the Foreign Service is not part of the Civil Service. However, the US Code Title V defines the Civil Service to include both the Competitive Service and the Excepted Service. The Foreign Service is part of the Excepted Service.


Actually as one of them I can testify that FSOs are part of the Civil Service. We are civil servants, but serving in a special personnel system under the Excepted Service. Our appointment documents and personnel action forms(SF-50) clearly state that we are in the Civil Service, having been given excepted service appointments. It would be best in my judgement to downplay the "foreign" vs "civil" dispute and use the general term "Diplomatic Service" to more accurately reflect the various types of appointments under which the State Department posts diplomats abroad. Increasingly, it is using personnel systems other than the FS, possibly in order to save money, because the FS personnely system provides additional benefits not available under most other systems, to mitigage the hardship of serving abroad. Therefore, diplomats willing to serve under non FS systems deserve our respect and should be recognized. The section about "civil servants" filling positions when no FSO is available is factually incorrect and should be deleted.

Diplobrat

THE FACT IS THAT OFFICERS CAN ONLY BE FROM THE FOREIGN SERVICE AND THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE A CAREER AMBASSADOR, DCM, MANAGEMENT OFFICER, POLITICAL COUNSELOR, ECONOMIC COUNSELOR, CONSUL GENERAL, AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BRUSSELS, PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNSELOR, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE A FORIEGN SERVICE OFFICER. SURE, THERE ARE DEFENSE ATTACHES WHO ARE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENTS, BUT THATS ABOUT IT. SPECIALISTS ARE ALSO PART OF THE FORIEGN SERVICE WITH SPECIFIC, SPECIALIZED FUNCTIONS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.240.31.223 (talk)
The text in question was copied directly from a State Department webpage (after some NPOV and other editing), which makes a clear distinction between Civil Service and Foreign Service employees ("The Department of State conducts all of these activities with a small workforce comprised of Civil Service and Foreign Service employees."). It's true that US Code Title V, Part III, Subpart A, Chapter 21, Section 2101 appears to define the Foreign Service as part of the Civil Service, but it does so, "for the purpose of this title". So I'm not sure the definition extends beyond intepreting Title V of the U.S. Code. I also concede that the Foreign Service consists of more than just Foreign Service Officers, as Foreign Service specialists and Foreign Service Nationals are also part of the Foreign Service. But I don't think it's correct to say, "The Department of State conducts these activities with a workforce of Civil Service employees." Am I off-base? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. - Walkiped 12:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Secretary of State appoints the members of the Service and in nearly every case, appoints an employee to the (Foreign) Service prior to assigning the person overseas. The silly controversy about "excursionists" was whipped up by a labor union known as "AFSA". They claim that the Secretary's actions in appointing members to the Foreign Service without AFSA's approval are illegal. Basically, any person who served in the State Department under the GS schedule prior to joining the Foreign Service is in AFSA's view, an "excursionist". AFSA is trying to have such assignments curtailed, and in some cases has been sucessful in pressuring the Secretary to terminate FS appointments. A well known case is the so called "LIMA DCM INCIDENT". Details can be found on various sites, including afsa.org, talesmag.com, and in the Washington Post back issues. As a neutral reference source, I suggest that Wikipedia refrain from adding references to these variouis personnel categories under this heading. If necessary, the dispute over "civil" and "foreign" servants/excursinists could be put somewhere else, perhaps under labor disputes. Statesman 12:32, 25Mar2005 (UTC)


The State Department has internal regulations known as the FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual).

Internally, it defines "civil service employees" as those employed under the GS salary schedule and "foreign service employees" as those who are members of the Foreign Service. This is only the State Departments internal nomenclature, not to be confused with the term "Civil Service" in the official legal sense as used throughout the USG. Maybe to avoid confusion and controversy, it would be better to delete the passage "The Department of State conducts these activities with a workforce of Civil Service employees." altogether. Alternatively, one could state that internally, the Dept. classifies employees as "civil" and "foreign" service, although this is probably not necessary.

Most importantly, under the current leadership, the policy has stressed the importance of working together as a team, that all members of the Diplomatic Service are equally valued, and that labels such as "FS", "GS", etc are not important.

FSO (Tokyo, Japan)


US Diplomats are not always assigned under the "Foreign Service" system. Increasingly, we are serving under alternate systems, sometimes in order to get around restrictions imposed by the labor union known as "AFSA". For example, non tenured members of the Foreign Service can only serve 5 years in the same position, regardless of needs of Service or lack of qualified employees. This is due to AFSA's actions, They even succeeded in removing a qualified DCM (Deputy Chief of Mission ) from Peru, simply because she had not been appointed as an "FSO". Therefore, the Secretary has recently been forced to use alternate appointment mechanisms, and we have more and more US diplomats serving under non FS appointments.

On Foreign Affairs Day the President chose to use the term "DIPLOMATIC SERVICE" rather than "Foreign Service" to describe the men and women representing America overseas. The text is available on line, including, ironically, on the AFSA web site. www.afsa.org

Therefore, in the interest of objectivity, I suggest we refrain from using the term "foreign service" to describe US diplomats. Diplomatic Service is more accurate, and more in line with international practice

Peter Tomsen

Various personnel systems used within the Department

Increasingly, it appears that the Secretary of State is assigning diplomats abroad under personnel systems other than the Foreign Service. This is true in Iraq, but also in Japan, China, Russia and other posts that are hard to fill. This is a sensitive issue among US diplomats because those who are lucky enough to serve under the Foreign Service system get special protections afforded by that personnel system that was specifically designed for positions overseas, where conditions are often harsher than in the U.S. But frequently they work side by side with other US diplomats who were sent under other systems, without the same protections. And those who serve under the "FS" (foreign service) label get extra pay for speaking the language - up to 15 percent of annual salary in some cases. There is heated debate within the Diplomatic Service about the relative roles and benefits that apply to these various systems, such as whether one personnel system gets priority for positions at home or abroad, etc etc. Those issues should not appear in a general article about the State Department, where all diplomatic personnel are considered "one big family" working to promote US interests. Therefore, I have taken the liberty of deleting a few sentences about "excursionists" "LNA", etc.

The Foreign Service Act is available on line at the US Congress web site. It authorizes the Secretary to appoint members of the service and to use that personnel system for positions that require service abroad.

Paul K. Austin, Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.209.142 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just made some changes to restore a version with a more balanced depiction of the various classes of diplomats in the State Department. The various categories is a sensitive issue so we should try to avoid giving the impression that once group is favored, in this case the "foreign" over the "general" service. I also see that many of the editing changes indicate they are done to "revert vandalism" or even "extreme vandalism". I wonder how the term "vandalism" is used here and whether it is possible to have an objective discussion or even permit ordinary users to edit without being labeled a vandal. It might be better just to delete the controversial wording about personnel systems as it is not that useful to the general reader.

Genaralo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalo (talk • contribs) 09:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are sensitivities. But we won't be able to work them out unless changes have some wort of basis. When an edit is made by an unsigned editor or do not have an Edit Summary comment, no one knows whythe editor made a change. Likewise, it would help if someone makes major changes to post on this talk page why they make a major and possibly controversial edit. Thus you'll see people doing the things you do. Note - SineBot had to sign your edit also - all editors should use the 4 tildes ~~~~ to sign their comments on this page to attribute their words properly wiki-style. Mikebar (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The FS is part of the Excepted Service which is part of the Civil Service

USG employees are appointed, fired, assigned, promoted, transferred by their agencies and such actions are documented on a form known as the SF-50. State Department employees are no exception. When an employee is assigned abroad on a diplomatic mission, the Department documents that action on the SF-50, also know as a personnel action form. That form clearly states that it applies to all "Civil Service" employees. All diplomats receive this form when they are appointed under either the FS (foreign service) or GS (General Schedule) salary systems. This includes FSOs (foreign service officers). When I was appointed political counselor, I received such a form. It proves that I am a member of the Civil Service. Of course, I am also a member of the FS personnel system.

There is a small category of vocal US diplomats that keeps harping on the theme of the "unique" "Special" status of FS members, and the "superiority" of officers vs specialists or non-FS diplomats. And there is nothing special about those of us in political cones (specializing in political affairs). The distinction between "civil" and "foreign" service employees found on the State website is taken from their internal regulations known as the FAM (Foreign Affairs manual), and is purely internal nomenclature. Those internal regulations do not have the force of law. The Foreign Service Act (22 USC) makes no mention of such a distinction - it actually states that appointments in the Service are excepted appointments.

Based on the above, I have reversed the recent edit so as to more accurately reflect the status of the Foreign Service personnel system. As US diplomats, we are indeed one big family regardless of the personnel system under which we are serving. And those of us willing to serve without the protections of the FS system deserve our respect - they are paid less, receive less bonuses, and often serve in the most difficult dangerous environments that very few if any FSOs are willing to go to.

J. H. Poloff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.209.142 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 

  There is often confusion between the terms "civil service", which includes Competitive and Excepted Service and "GS" which is simply a salary schedule. Foreign Service members are under the Excepted Service, but they are NOT "GS" employees. They are paid under the "FS" schedule which is more favorable, with faster step increases due to the special nature of service abroad.

"Excursionists"

Is "excursionists" used by Foreign Service Officers as a dismissive term for political appointees? That's my guess, since "excurisonist" usually means tourist. If so, this article's use of the term seems obviously non-NPOV. -Hickoryhillster 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

After browsing a messageboard, http://www.talesmag.com/talkshop/foreign_service_life/, I get the distinct sense that this usage of the term "excursionist" is controversial, so I'm going to remove it. I suggest adding a section titled "Issues within the department," where there could be a paragraph explaining the differing opinions over overseas assignment for non FSOs, and this paragraph could explain who uses the term "excursionist" and why they do so. This section could also be a better home for a version of what is currently the final paragraph under "Duties and Responsibilities," which seems to hint at rank-and-file disatasifaction with the department leadership's level of assertiveness in dealing with other government departments. -Hickoryhillster 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I would pay much attention to that message board. There is a mention in the Foreign Affairs Manual of Civil Service employees on excursion tours. Given that it is in the FAM, I am not sure that the use is offensive or unrecognized by the department. The common venacular in the department for Civil Service working overseas is to use excursion tours.

Here is the reference from the FAM

Appendices B and C identify specific criteria considered for those willing to serve at danger pay and designated greater hardship (15% differential or above) posts for Foreign Service employees and Civil Service employees serving on excursion tours."

3 FAM 3823

Internally, the State Department does use the terms "civil service employee" and "foreign service employee" separately. But according to the law, the Foreign Service is part of the Excepted Service, and the Excepted Service is part of the Civil Service. Thus members of the Foreign Service, and other US Diplomats are all civil servants.

Whether or not the term "excursionist" is PC is open to debate. The important point to remember is that the Secretary appoints "members of the Service" and once a person is appointed in the Service, that person becomes a "member of the Service", regardless of the personnel category under which he or she previously served. Therefore, the section about "civil service employees" is inaccurate and misleading. There are many categories of foreign service employees, and they all deserve equal respect. Furthermore, the FS is not the same as Diplomatic Service. The USG assignes diplomats abroad under various systems, not only as FS.

Ok, as one of "them" I'll elaborate. In State parlance, an excursion is anyone taking a job outside their normal job function. It does not mean a GS person taking a FS job necessarily unless the job is functionally different. An example: an Information Management Officer doing a tour as a General Services Officer or a Consular Officer doung a tour as a Political Officer. Also applies at times to assignments such as War/Staff college, teaching, etc. again outside of your normal State skill code.
I think the wholesale replacement of Foreign Service with diplomat may be shortsighted - there are phrases that walk the line but please be careful. Mikebar (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Huge photo

What's with the huge photo for the Department of State? I think the photo should be downsized alot. It takes up nearly the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.163.224 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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 blankedI archived it - 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)

Not all U.S. Diplomats are Foreign Service Members

It is worthwhile noting that the State Department is increasingly assigning people overseas under non Foreign Service systems. These are "assignments", not just "TDY". In some cases, this is to circumvent the five-year limit on limited appointments specified in the Foreign Service Act of 1980. In other cases, it is apparently done to save money, because non FS diplomats receive inferior benefits. There are many cases in which employees work side by side in the same positions at major Embassies, but are assigned under different personnel systems. The article is misleading because it creates the impression that the Department only uses the FS system to assign personnel abroad. It should be modified to reflect the reality - that the Secretary is authorized, but not required to use the FS personnel system for positions abroad.ExplodingBoy22 (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(Not to mention that about 1/3rd of Ambassadors are political appointees) Seyon (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

CS vs FS

As a retired FSO I can state unequivocally that this is the number one issue of concern. FSOs have had their careers and prestige ruined by the shameful policies which led to assignment of civil servants overseas. The most notorious was a civil servant assignment as DCM in Lima, Peru. Fortunately under the leadership of AFSA, through concerted efforts of FSOs around the world, that person was curtailed. However, FSOs are still threatened by loopholes that let civil servants and other unqualified groups of people take jobs at Foreign Service posts which by law. may only be filled by members of the Foreign Service.

More information is viewable at the AFSA web site www.afsa.org. I propose that a filter be set up on this site to prevent civil servants from defacing this article or posting any anti FS rhetoric. There is a small handful of troublemakers that seek to blur the distinctions between the Foreign Service and civil servants who are there to support FSOs in the field. CaliforniaSushi (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Domestic duties

It would be intriguing to discuss the few domestic duties that still accrue to the State Department. For instance, when Nixon resigned, he submitted his resignation level to Sec. of State Kissinger, as you can see here. I believe that the SoS must officially sing off on constitutional amendments, as well? --Jfruh (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Name

Why is the State department known as the Department of State? Why did Congress change the name from Foreign Affairs to State? --Son (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 8 years later, unanswered, still as good a question now as it was then. Most other "English"speaking countries have "Foreign Affairs" Departments. So why was it changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.146.139.203 (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering, too. The article now probably states the reason: "In September 1789, additional legislation changed the name of the agency to the Department of State and assigned to it a variety of domestic duties." --SmilingBoy (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Rizwan 203.171.101.124 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

History

"During the American Civil War the position of Secretary of State was an important factor, "

George Thomas Kurian ed. "A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government" New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. (this citation is not correct)also I suggest citing the history section with this source, as it reads as follows "These responsibilities grew to include management of the Mint, keeper of the Great Seal of the United States, and the taking of the census." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexw6 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

1787-1987 History

(research)

  • in 1787 the president was given power of foreign relations.
  • in 1789 the house and senate approved legislation to establish the Department of Foreign Affairs.
  • in 1789 the president signed it into law.
  • in 1789 the name was changed to Department of State.
  • in 1789 Thomas Jefferson became the first secretary of state.
  • in 1790 Jefferson returned from Paris.
  • in 1790 the number of employees was eight (8)
  • in 1790 the number of consular posts was ten (10)
  • in 1790 the United states had diplomats in France and England nowhere else.
  • in 1800 ca. the Department of State moved to Washington, D.C.
  • in 1825 the department of state grew to twenty 920) employee's
  • in 1825 the department focused on ships and commerce (is that a fact?)
  • in 1830 the number of employees increased to twenty three (23)
  • in 1830 the number of countries that had diplomatic contact with the united states was fifteen (15)
  • in 1830 the number of consular posts was 141
  • in 1833 Secretary of State Louis McLane carried out the first reorganization of the department, and that was the creation of Diplomatic, Consular, and Home Bureaus.
  • in 1852 William Hunter is appointed chief clerk
  • in 1860 the number of consular posts was two hundred and fifty two (252)
  • in 1860 the number of employees at the state department was forty two (42)
  • in 1860 the united states was in contact with thirty three (33) other nations
  • in 1860 fourhundred and eighty (480) consulates, commercial agencies, and consular agencies abroad.
  • in 1866 a second assistant secretary was added to the department
  • in 1870 Hamilton Fish redefined the department's bureau structure and issued a series of rules and regulations updating its administrative practice.
  • in 1886 William Hunter dies.
  • in 1890 sevenhundred and sixty (760)consulates, commercial agencies, and consular agencies abroad.
  • in 1893 congress approved appointment of ambassador rank representatives to the United Kingdom.
  • in 1895 Grover Cleveland issued regulations requiring the filling of vacanies on the basis of written exams.
  • in 1900 the budget was $141,000 and nintey one (91) employees in Washington, D.C.
  • in 1909 Philander Knox introduces political-geographic divisions. expanded the departments solicitor. assigns administrative tasks to the third assistant secretary of state.
  • in 1919 congress creats the position of under secretary of state.
  • in 1920 the budget was $1.4 million and sevenhundred eight (708) employees
  • in 1920 career officers serving as chief of mission was zero (0)
  • in 1924 congress created the Rogers Act creating a unified and profession foreign service.
  • in 1924 career officers serving as chief of mission was thirty percent (30%)
  • in 1925 women are admitted into Foreign Service
  • in 1925 blacks admitted into Foreign Service
  • in 1925 Clifton Wharton became a Foreign Service officer
  • in 1926 Foreign Services Buildings Act created construction of consulates overseas.
  • in 1933 Ruth Owen served as minister to Denmark
  • in 1937 Florence Harriman served as minister to Norway
  • in 1940 the budget was $2.8 million and one thousand one hundred twenty eight (1,128) employees
  • in 1950 National Security Council (NSC) document no. 68, which took for granted a long period of world crisis.
  • in 1945 employement reached three thousand and seven hundred (3,700)
  • in 1947 Executive Secretariat and Policy Planning Staff were created
  • in 1944 Bureau for Administration and Economic Affairs were established
  • in 1946 secretary for economic affairs is created
  • in 1949 a department restructuring was carried out creating the bureaus of Inter-American Affairs, Far Eastern Affairs, European Affairs, Near Eastern and African Affairs, International Organization Affairs, and Congressional Relations.
  • in 1949 a deputy under secretary for management was created
  • 1949 deputy under secretary for political affairs overseas political bureaus
  • in 1950 employment reaches nearly nine thousand (9,000)
  • in 1952 a Bureau of Consular Affairs is created
  • in 1957 a Bureau of Intelligence is created
  • in 1958 the geographic bureau structure is rounded out- African is being rapidly decolonized
  • in 1960 a Bureau of Cultural Affairs is created

(analysis)

Notes:
Early secretaries of state included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams later included Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan Consuls promote the expansion of American Commerce.William Hunter was chief clerk from 1852 until 1866. William Derrick. William Hunter. Alvey Adee. 1909 Know may have created Divisions for Information and for Trade Relations book is unclear if he did this. 1919 congress created {position of under secretary of state} needs more information. 1900 to 1914 telegrams increased. "American Black Chamber" effeort to decipher coded messages. {Cordell Hull} used telephone to intruct a mission needs a date. Margaret M. Hanna was a clerk for correspondence Bureau succeeded by Blanche Halla circa 1930. Ruth Shipley needs more information. research q: When did women become a part of the state department? Women were admitted into the {new} Foreign Service beginning in 1925. Ruth Bryan Owen demark minister. Florence Jaffrey Harriman norway. Clifton Wharton first black to enter foreign service needs more information. Jews were not included. 1924 rogers act needs more information. career officers serving as chief of mission rose from zero before 1920 to thirty percent in 1924 and 55% in 1940 needs more information 30% of zero?

Where do the post numbers come from?

More than 250 posts around the world? Where is the evidence to support that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.27.196.119 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is cited numerous times on the DoS website, for example: http://www.state.gov/m/a/c8020.htm
Seyon (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Another image

When a history section is more fleshed out, this belongs in it. This was State Department headquarters for a decade starting in 1866. - Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

overstating sources for blog

Given the sources, the statements about the blog go well beyond what's factual (found in the sources). Perhaps the statement can be repaired using a newer source. TEDickey (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

reorganization

See http://www.state.gov/e/ and http://www.state.gov/j/ for new organization for State after adopting changes recommended by the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. I've started to make changes, could use some help. Mikebar (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the reorganization of the Department of State, in one place it says the '1999 reorganization' and in two places elsewhere in the article it says '1996 reorganization'. This is pretty confusing indeed. Which year is correct? Would someone in the know kindly clarify this matter and correct the article as needed. Thanks. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

New 2012 Organization Chart

State has updated it's org chart on the Department website - see http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/187423.pdf Mikebar (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Franklin Fellows program merge

I have merged the small section from the article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.weedle (talk • contribs) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Office of the North Korea Policy Coordinator

In which branch does the "Office of the North Korea Policy Coordinator" belong?[1]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Twillisjr (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/experts/1331/office_of_the_north_korea_policy_coordinator_united_states_department_of_state.html

citation needed

Please explain to me why this department was needed. With a budget of $57.533 Billion (FY 2012) there should be some serious reason and the "History" section gives no details other than "it soon became necessary."68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the accomplishments of the state department?

have they accomplished anything important? 68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No Al Farwazirip (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Why no mention of the many and various controversies surrounding Kerry?

From tossing his medals over a fence, to Kerry's dishonest congressional testimony in which he slammed an entire generation of veterans without having the slightest personal knowledge of the land war, to Kerry being out on his yacht on a Wednesday when Egypt was descending into chaos, there are a tony of controversies about Kerry. If I added any of them to the article, some liberal would falsely claim it was vandalism and delete it. But, for the article to be meaningful and honest, it cannot simply ignore the Secretary of State or pretend he is universally loved and admired. There has to be some intellectual heft to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.69.229 (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not just the Secretary of State, this article gives the impression that the US State Department is universally admired. Instead of this love-fest, can we have some more honest views on the US State Department and John Kerry? 92.25.232.150 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Sunday 4 April, just posted the following remark:
"Cheer-leader Wikipedia and their Love-in with the State Department
Given the speed at which it was deleted, it seems that questioning remarks about the US State Department will not be allowed. For, as with the last deleted posting, it should be interesting to see how long this comment stays in place. As if a crime, it seems that negative comments about the Department are far from welcome on this site. But is not Wikipedia the site that anyone can edit?"
If people object to such anti-State Department statement - can they give reasons for deleting then?
78.147.91.207 (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Politically expedient

Under "policy", it needs some specification that it carries out its mission when politically expedient. The state department will not help out Americans if it makes a country like Iran look bad, when they don't want to upset their enemies. For instance, wasn't there a Christian that got imprisoned there, and the state department stayed mum about it? That should probably be mentioned, and a picture of him should be put up instead of John Kerry's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.165.27 (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States Department of State. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Teacher

I want to a job teacher 2400:1A00:BB20:8AF0:C0BD:AC6E:71E3:42D0 (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Department_of_State/Archive_1&oldid=1224192657"