A
F
S
A
FAS BY HENRY S. SCHMICK
N
E
W
S
Why FAS Adopted the
Foreign Service System
Although agricultural reporting, export expansion and U.S.
wine promotion activities can be traced back to the third-ranked officer of the U.S. mission to France in 1784
(Thomas Jefferson, serving under Deputy John Adams and
Minister Benjamin Franklin — imagine those country team meetings!), the Foreign Agricultural Service has only existed since 1930.
From 1930 to 1939, FAS had about 10 agricultural commissioners
posted overseas. In 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered
the Foreign Service officers from FAS and FCS to merge with those
from State in order to have a unified overseas
presence in the run-up to World War II.
In the early 1950s, following “
encouragement” from agricultural commodity groups
working with Congress, the agricultural
attachés returned to FAS. “In 1954, when FAS
was taking permanent shape, the agricultural
attachés became civil servants instead of
Foreign Service officers. This led to a number
of problems,” Allan Mustard observed in his
article, “An Unauthorized History of FAS” (May
2003 FSJ ). “First, rotational authority (the ability to ‘stretch’ or ‘shrink’ into assignments) is,
of course not inherent to the Civil Service. This sometimes made
matching the right person to the right job impossible for bureaucratic reasons.” In addition to the assignment difficulties, overseas benefits did not accrue for FAS attachés, and some foreign
countries would not grant them diplomatic privileges or standing.
In the late 1970s, after AFSA became a union and started working on the Foreign Service Act of 1980, FAS became convinced
it was time to join the Foreign Service. Director General of the
Foreign Service Harry Barnes urged Secretary of Agriculture Earl
Butz and FAS to consider joining the effort to convince Congress
it was time for a total rewrite of the Foreign Service rules.
In 1977, Richard “Dick” Smith (at that point deputy administrator for management and attachés, and later FAS administrator) organized a three-day seminar in Williamsburg for all senior
FAS managers to discuss whether or not to adopt a Foreign Service
personnel system. Following a heated discussion, there was a consensus to join with State and other foreign affairs agencies to develop the Foreign Service Act of 1980.
While the Foreign Service Act brought a number of benefits
to agricultural officers (along with mandatory retirement and selec-tion-out processes), it also became a point of confusion to our
FAS Civil Service colleagues. The two personnel systems have
fundamentally different views: the Foreign Service has a “rank
in person” approach, while the Civil Service uses “rank in job.”
The Foreign Service system eases the problem of placing officers
overseas because shrinks and stretches are easily handled, while
the more rigid Civil Service approach to promotion and career
advancement is simpler to implement
and understand.
Many of the FAS Civil Service concerns
about the FS approach are not really about
the specifics, but rather the administrative
burden of having two separate personnel
systems within one small agency that also
has to handle a large rotation of agricultural
officers returning from overseas posts.
Many of the current issues were identified in the 1965 Stanley Andrews report
to then-Administrator Raymond “Ray”
Ioanes. That study noted that the key con-
cerns were communication with the field, orientation training
for the attachés, and “staffing in a very broad sense.” The latter
includes the rotation of officers to and from overseas positions.
All those issues persist today, whether or not the agricultural
attachés are FSOs or Civil Service employees.
So, what to make of the Foreign Service system for FAS? The
“rank in person” approach eases slightly the administrative task
of assigning officers overseas; it provides some benefits; and the
up-or-out system sparks a feeling of urgency (or stress) to shine
at all times. It has also served as a false point of conflict within
FAS; the “Washington placement” issue exists whether or not agricultural officers are FSOs or Civil Service employees. Should FAS
stick with the Foreign Service system? In the words of a recent
candidate, “You betcha.”
This short article is based heavily on the FAS historical research
that the (usually) Honorable Allan P. Mustard, agricultural minister counselor in Mexico City, has done over the course of his career.
FAS employees can read much more on the FASTNET Virtual
Museum Web pages.
The “rank-in-person” approach
eases slightly the administrative
task of assigning officers overseas;
it provides some benefits;
and the up or out system sparks
a feeling of urgency (or stress)
to shine at all times.
