| By Admin1 (admin) (151.196.178.137) on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 9:25 pm: Edit Post |
Hyde Bill would create Peace Corps Ombudsman, independent Inspector General, modify five-year rule
| By jimdc821 (134.113.4.207) on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 8:43 am: Edit Post |
The Peace Corps ought to think long and hard on amending the five-year rule for staff who work in safety related areas. Those assigned to field work will be easily burned out with their incessant travel, and rotating them in and out of DC will result in a somewhat chaotic structure. More importantly, these "lifers" could begin to dominate PC operations given their longevity and "institutional knowledge," resulting in cynicism and hard feelings among non-tenured staff. Please do not start building mini-empires, in the name of PCV safety. The five-year rule is routinely circumvented to an 8-1/2 year stint for good performers -- this is enough tenure for any PC staff member.
| By Daniel (0-1pool136-11.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - 63.159.136.11) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit Post |
Circumvented. That is why there will be a change because bureaucrats at Peace Corps abused it.
| By anonymous (155.43.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.43.155) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 3:31 pm: Edit Post |
Extending to 8.5 years is not a circumvention of the PC act.The "5-year rule" is the default term limit. A third tour of 2.5 years plus one additional year for a total of 8.5 can be approved by the PC agency director for a certain percentage -- policy has been a ceiling of 15% in the past -- of staff in the interest of continuity in a particular post, experience in critical situations, opening a new post, etc. 8.5 years is a part of the PC act.
| By daniel (0-1pool136-1.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - 63.159.136.1) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 6:44 am: Edit Post |
I don't agree that it is the right thing to do pushing the agenda of extending the five year rule is good for safety. Experience is always good, but it does not bring freshness of ideas and solutions to problems.
I think the Peace Corps agency director approval for extensions is a problem and continues to be a problem.
Take for instance public figures and directors at Peace Corps who have hurt Peace Corps safety and security. Charles Baquet, got around the rule and hurt more volunteers than any director in the history of Peace Corps. Charles Smith, has hampered the program too. 2,800 plus volunteers have had serious safety problems for the last 8 plus years he has served. He could have prevented many deaths and safety incidents but he did not use his postion effectively and now we have real problems with safety. Dr. Guttnick, 8 plus years and he did more damage to former volunteers and covering up of health and safety incidents than any director of Medical services.
The Director's of the nineties thought it was "run of the mill" Policy because Chuck Baquet thought it was in the act under the Director's authority. It is there I agree with you. But it doesn't mean you circumvent it to make yourself more powerful at the expense of volunteers in the field which he did.
All three are chummy buddies who tried to destroy the five year rule by using extensions.
That is circumvention. Many directors from both parties have adhered to the rule. It worked fine until Baquet abused it and hurt volunteers by doing it.
That is a fact.
| By RPCV (119.37.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.37.119) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:54 am: Edit Post |
Daniel - The "rule" is 8.5 years that can be approved by the director, five being the norm with 15% being the ceiling for third tours ... In any event, CDs and APCDs must apply for each tour of duty, with the director directly approving CD tours of duty (first, second and third tours).
There is no magic number. On the whole, the vast majority of us in the PC world support term limits so as to avoid bureaucratic inertia, "empire building", etc. Chuck was extended, because PC had no director in place at the time of the most recent political transition. The Bush administration's slow nomination process and the delay in senate confirmation resulted in PC having no appointee in place for 14 months after the new administration took office (it took about 12 months duirng the Clinton transition - again too slow; see Gearan's recommendations for a more efficient process).
You've had your issues under at least three directors, and, whether all PC staff duirng that time had departed within 2.5 years or 5 years or 8.5 years or 10 years on duty, it seems you would have had issues regardless ... Think about it, the agency needs some flexibility to fill gaps in critical staff posting due to a variety of circumstances. However, I agree, none of the staff, including S&S and medical, should be given indefinite terms ... Within 5-10 years, these folks will be building insitutional seniority and probably exercising too much influence and micro-management of posts. Anyone with "S&S" in their title can be hired indefinitely ... And, yes, there will be cases whereby a person is given such a title in order to be retained ...
| By RPCV (119.37.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.37.119) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:56 am: Edit Post |
Daniel - The "rule" is 8.5 years that can be approved by the director, five being the norm with 15% being the ceiling for third tours ... In any event, CDs and APCDs must apply for each tour of duty, with the director directly approving CD tours of duty (first, second and third tours).
There is no magic number. On the whole, the vast majority of us in the PC world support term limits so as to avoid bureaucratic inertia, "empire building", etc. Chuck was extended, because PC had no director in place at the time of the most recent political transition. The Bush administration's slow nomination process and the delay in senate confirmation resulted in PC having no appointee in place for 14 months after the new administration took office (it took about 12 months duirng the Clinton transition - again too slow; see Gearan's recommendations for a more efficient process).
You've had your issues under at least three directors, and, whether all PC staff duirng that time had departed within 2.5 years or 5 years or 8.5 years or 10 years on duty, it seems you would have had issues regardless ... Think about it, the agency needs some flexibility to fill gaps in critical staff posting due to a variety of circumstances. However, I agree, none of the staff, including S&S and medical, should be given indefinite terms ... Within 5-10 years, these folks will be building insitutional seniority and probably exercising too much influence and micro-management of posts. Anyone with "S&S" in their title can be hired indefinitely ... And, yes, there will be cases whereby a person is given such a title in order to be retained ...
| By daniel (0-1pool136-10.nas12.somerville1.ma.us.da.qwest.net - 63.159.136.10) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 7:02 pm: Edit Post |
I can understand an extension for six months to a year, but not in the manner and long drawn out process Charles Baquet did it. He actually served from Late 1992 to 2001 in various capacities not director however, essentially the director, in the deputy director role. His attitude and carefree policies hampered security of volunteers in my opinion. I think he put people at risk through his policy making and responses to security concerns.
Its funny you know my personal case so well. Too many do and a volunteer should never have to fight to so hard for justice. Enough said. I don't want to rant on again. It wears on me too.
Yes, I had issues regardless because Carol Bellamy could have overturned or reviewed my case properly. Charles Baquet did her dirty work in covering up the facts during that period. Thomas Tyghe reviewed my case as a General Counsel member. He told me if we removed gossip and non medically related material in my file then Peace Corps position would be irrelevant. He was right. He is the only staff person who was half way decent to me in my situation. As you know, he recused himself from my case. That was unfortunate.
That is when I went to court the first time.
Anyway, still think it should be five years. That is my opinion. The Congress and many former staff disagree with me. However, that is not the issue I and many other have been lobbying for. I think you know. They came half way with us and it is not over.
Getting back to the other two Guttnick and Charles Smith. Many disagree with me on these positions too. However five years at Peace Corps headquarters is enough for a fresh Peace Corps. I think it already has an empire built it. Look at the "brick wall" I continuously met trying to reform just one small safety and security concern. I think by keeping staffers like the two above, we will have more of this kind of turf building in the bureaucracy of Peace Corps. That is my single opinion though.
What is unfortunate is that these two individuals above really hindered health care and safety and Charles Smith continues to do so.
He just wants to keep his job and thinks he is above everybody else in his position. I think he is part of bureaucracy that covers up cases and hurts people's career and puts volunteers in jeopardy by short sighted reviews and inspections. He has now been there for at least eight years.
Now, because he is friendly with a few RPCV's on the hill and republicans on the hill, we could see him forever in the Peace Corps landscape.
I say when people like Baquet circumvented rules and ruined the atmosphere envisioned by the Peace Corps Act and its founders. I think five years is five years. However, he opened a can of worms, now we will have lifers under safety and security, which I disagree with, but that is part of this legislation. I am only one person and I can't stop which is already moving in the wrong direction.
Daniel
| By DZO (218.104.206.84) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 5:17 am: Edit Post |
I'd like to (belatedly) add a dissenting voice to this discussion. When it first came up my internet connection foiled my attempts to post and I'm only getting around to it.
Personally, as an RPCV and former APCD, I think that Peace Corps should eliminate the 5-year rule as it stands now and replace it with a requirement that a person spend no more than 5 years in any one job or place. This would apply to all US direct hires in all departments (perhaps with a provision that the PC Director may exempt a very limited # of cases for urgent reasons - this for flexibility).
The 5-year rule had its purpose but I fail to see how, in an age when so many are talking about expanding the number of PCVs and the world is getting more complex and dangerous. There is always a trade-off in having or not having term limits, but I think that a provision that staff must move will make for both increased retention of institutional memory and skills on one hand, and freshness of perspective on the other.
Some people see the 5-year rule as giving new people the chance to serve as staff but 1) there will still be turnover, and if PC indeed does continue to grow this will not be negligeable, and 2) the priority in staffing now has to shift to a more professional level of support for volunteers in more complex settings where safety & security is much more than a buzz-word.
The proposal to exempt only some staff - S&S, IG, & some med. - from the rule will risk as others have suggested, creating a rift within the organization. Actually in S&S, the notion of bureaucratic inertia by lifers is potentially scary. Much better to have fresh faces in S&S from other staff positions (APCDs who've been with PCVs in the field regularly, Country desk officers who have interacted with PC country staff and parents during emergencies, etc.). And to provide for qualified S&S personnel to bring their fresh perspectives to various other positions. All in all, it would help develop an overall higher level of permeation of basic S&S concerns and knowledge throughout the agency.
As PC expands, it can no longer afford the luxury of high staff turnover, the staff downtime as they come to the end of a contract - or staff loss as they leave early because they find something and there's no future in PC.
Side effects of growing PC and maintaining the 5 year rule is that there will be an even higher % of new staff, and the HRM office will be that much busier. In fact, the staff turnover costs PC - I have no idea how much but it stands to reason that processing more applications for more selection processes, training more new staff, etc. requires more HRM and senior staff time.
In sum, the rule should be replaced with a provision allowing staff to serve in different PC staff positions after 5 years (they would have to apply for them as now), and this should apply across the board for all PC staff (other than perhaps those top positions that are appointed by the pres. - but this is beyond the current discussion anyway).