The Complete Transcript
Peace Corps Online:
Peace Corps News:
Special Reports:
August 7, 2004: Director Gaddi Vasquez: The PCOL Interview:
The Complete Transcript
 | Director Gaddi Vasquez: The PCOL Interview
This month we sat down for an extended interview with Peace Corps Director Gaddi Vasquez. Read the entire interview from start to finish and we promise you will learn something about the Peace Corps you didn't know before.
Then read the questions and answers one by one and leave your comments on the issues raised during the interview including Infrastructure Upgrades and the new Situation Room at Headquarters, Is there a Budget Crunch this year at Peace Corps, Peace Corps' Long Term Expansion, the Changes to the Five-Year Rule made last year, Safety and Security Issues, the Cooperative Agreement with NPCA, RPCVs in Policy Making Positions at Peace Corps Headquarters, Peace Corps' Departure from Russia in 2002, Director Vasquez's Accomplishments as Director, the Peace Corps Safety and Security Bill before Congress, Continuity at the Agency during Changes in Administration, the Community College Program, and the Director's Message to the Returned Volunteer Community. |
Director Gaddi Vasquez: The PCOL Interview
Director Gaddi Vasquez: The PCOL Interview
Infrastructure Upgrades and the Peace Corps Situation Room
PCOL: Director Vasquez, there have been a number of infrastructure upgrades during your administration including the new web site, the online application tracking process, and improvements in the Volunteer Delivery System. Could you tell us about the new Situation Room that has been constructed at Peace Corps Headquarters and the role that it played in the successful evacuation of Peace Corps Volunteers from Haiti and compare the Haiti evacuation which took place in about two or three days with the evacuation from Ivory Coast in 2002 that took considerably longer.
GV: The Situation Room was established to develop greater efficiencies for Peace Corps and also to ensure that there is a consistent protocol for handling evacuations.
The teams that staff the Situation Room during an evacuation are trained for specific scenarios that may occur. Obviously, we hope for minimal use of the Situation Room because when it is activated, it is done for purposes of responding to an emergency. In the instances that we have used the Situation Room, it has worked very effectively. There are multiple teams that are trained to staff the room, so in the unusual event that you have multiple evacuations going on simultaneously, you don't rely on just one team, you have teams that can operate simultaneously.
In addition, there is cross training so that people know each other's functions. If there needs to be some rotation or substitution, those options are available.
The difference, I think, is that during the Haiti evacuation we had technology, we had communication, and we had more efficiencies working for us. Having said that, I have had six evacuations during the time I have been Director of the Peace Corps and every one of those evacuations was successful, without any harm coming to any volunteer. I am proud of our record. It is a real tribute to our staff, the men and women who have spent considerable time training, because they care a great deal about the volunteer. We are all committed to ensuring that volunteers are evacuated safely and securely.
PCOL: Was Haiti the first instance that you used the Situation Room for an evacuation?
GV: That is correct.
PCOL: Did you notice any difference in the efficiency of the evacuation when you used the Situation Room?
GV: When you have consolidated communications and a central point of coordination, absolutely. We had the ability to turn around responses quickly, decisively, and effectively. The technology of the Internet and other means of communications in the Situation Room proved to be very valuable during an evacuation that had the potential to be very high risk.
Is there a Budget Crunch this year at Peace Corps?
PCOL: I have heard that this year there has been a budget crunch at Peace Corps and that the agency has cut back in some areas to save money. Has there been a budget crunch this year and if so what was it due to?
GV: The Peace Corps is managed within the resources that Congress appropriates. So, as Congress has appropriated, we have fulfilled our obligations and staffing requirements. We have placed the highest priority on ensuring that field operations are sustained and maintained at levels that make certain volunteers are getting the support they need.
It is fair to say that there have been some areas where we have increased the level of spending, particularly in the area of safety and security. Therefore, I wouldn't view it as a budget crunch, but rather, managing your priorities. Part of managing the budget and an agency like the Peace Corps is looking at the priorities, finding what the needs are, and then funding those accordingly.
PCOL: I know that there was a Continuing Resolution this year and that Peace Corps didn't get its funding until January of 2004, when normally the fiscal year starts October 1. Were you counting on the $359 million that the President had proposed and was that an issue in placing volunteers overseas?
GV: We look at the appropriations process the way that it was intended. First, we recognize that a continuing resolution is always a possibility. So consequently, we plan and evaluate circumstances and conditions. Whether it is a re-entry, an entry into a new country, or the expansion of a program, we have to create the balance that the situation requires. When there is what we call a CR, we have to make adjustments because at that point there is no guarantee of what the level of funding will be, other than the knowledge that funding will be at the previous year's level. You have to operate within those constraints. We did that and will always do that because that is the right and prudent way to manage.
On the other hand, the challenge of a lengthy continuing resolution is that recruitment operates on a cyclical basis and any extended delays in funding provide some setbacks in recruitment. You can't really go out and recruit or issue invitations to trainees and then face a situation where you dis-invite someone. You don't want to go down that path, and we have never had to do that in the time I have been director of the Peace Corps.
PCOL: President Bush says he supports doubling the size of the Peace Corps and his party controls both the House and the Senate. Candidate Kerry says he supports tripling the size of the Peace Corps so obviously there is a strong bipartisan support for the agency. With this support, why did the President receive $50 million less this year than what he asked for and what do you think the prospects are for higher Peace Corps budgets in the future?
GV: On the issue of appropriation levels, we do the best job that we can to present our program and expansion opportunities to Congress. Congress then makes the determination as to what our appropriations level will be. I might add that while the funding over the last two years has not been at the requested levels - the fact of the matter is that they have been at a historic high for the Peace Corps. So, it shows a level of willingness on the part of Congress to increase the funding, even if it is not to the level we have requested. However, we will continue to make the case that the Peace Corps is well positioned to expand and that there is a supply and a demand for Americans who are willing to serve in a number of countries that would like to have programs.
Long Term Peace Corps Expansion
PCOL: To meet the growth goals set by President Bush, is the primary challenge strictly a matter of having the funding to pay for more volunteers and infrastructure, is it in increasing the countries that the Peace Corps operates in, or is it in recruiting enough qualified volunteers to fill the requests you have coming in?
GV: It is all of the above. The challenges we face are that we want to grow and expand, because we believe that the time is right. We believe that the demand exists for more programs, and know for a fact that even within existing programs, there are requests for more volunteers. So, we have the ability to grow within the framework of existing countries and we have the ability to grow with new country entries. With additional recruitment dollars we can expand the recruitment effort into media buys for radio and television commercials. We could also purchase print advertising and other media so that it's a multi-faceted campaign. However, the one thing I do not want to do is compromise safety and security or the quality of the Peace Corps volunteer experience. Those remain my highest priorities. There needs to be an integrated growth strategy to build the infrastructure, and assess the available opportunities for Americans to serve in the Peace Corps, and for host countries to gain the optimum benefits of that volunteer service. Ultimately, we want the volunteer to have the experience they aspire to when they begin their Peace Corps service, because that is important to the third goal.
PCOL: Could you tell us some of the countries the Peace Corps may be going into in the future once the Peace Corps receives the appropriations to support the new programs?
GV: Some of the countries that come to mind are Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria. Vietnam has expressed an interest, and we have had some preliminary inquiries from Chile. There are a number of countries that we have had preliminary dialog with, and others that have actually formalized an invitation and have requested us to do an assessment. We are looking at the Marshall Islands as a possibility for re-entry. I just visited recently with the President of the Marshall Islands who requested that we consider a return. So there are, frankly, an abundance of opportunities that are basically available to us, contingent on funding.
PCOL: So you would say that the goal of doubling the Peace Corps to 15,000 volunteers is a goal that is attainable over the next four or five years if the appropriations are there?
GV: The appropriations are the first step. I think the Peace Corps has an obligation to build the infrastructure to support the growth as that is very important. For example, we are using technology now for the application process. Over 70 to 80 percent of all applicants who are applying to the Peace Corps these days are doing so online. So, we need to build the technology infrastructure. I know I am preaching to the choir because you use technology to communicate and spread the news. Consequently, we use technology for the volunteer delivery system and the database systems to keep current information and process both current volunteers and RPCVs. We need to maintain the safety and security that creates optimum conditions for a safe experience, and to ensure that programming, training and support for posts is at the levels needed to ensure quality programs.
PCOL: So you are building the infrastructure and you do see the doubling of the Peace Corps as attainable over the next few years if the appropriations are there?
GV: I think it is attainable. I am not prepared today, as I sit here speaking with you, to put a number to the years that it would take because, again, it requires funding levels on a per year basis. However, if the question is, "do I believe that the Peace Corps is capable of achieving a doubling over a period of time, assuming full appropriations," I do believe that is entirely possible.
Recent Changes to the Five-Year Rule
PCOL: In February, 2003 you wrote over 50 letters to members of the Senate and House asking them to support a change to the five year rule to exempt Peace Corps employees involved in Safety and Security from the five year rule. What was your rationale for supporting the change?
GV: I am not sure what letter you are referring to. The language to change the five year rule to create exemptions was Chairman Kolbe's language in appropriations, which was the genesis of the changes that have occurred and have resulted in waivers of the five year rule for employees who are working directly in safety and security.
PCOL: I am referring to the Consolidated Appropriations Bill of 2003 that was passed, I believe, on February 13, 2003 and there was a clause in there that exempted...
GV: That's correct.
PCOL: …employees involved in safety and security from the five year rule and you are saying that Chairman Kolbe was the originator of the...
GV: That is correct.
PCOL: Do you support that change to the five year rule or did you support the change?
GV: I did support that change to the five year rule.
PCOL: What was your rationale for supporting the change?
GV: The rationale is that safety and security are the highest priorities for the Peace Corps. The world changed on September 11. If the Peace Corps is going to grow, we must be more conscious and more diligent and deliberate in the framework we build for the safety and security of volunteers. Part of that process is establishing some continuity and institutional knowledge of safety and security issues.
By exempting the staff that are involved in day to day security issues, meaning 100 percent of their job is safety and security of the volunteer, we are able to maintain the continuity and the retention of institutional memory.
It is very difficult to lose someone who has learned the ropes of safety and security issues in the Peace Corps, which is a very unique undertaking. To lose that person and have to start over again jeopardizes that continuity.
We owe it to the volunteer, we owe it to their loved ones, and we owe it to the experience of the Peace Corps, to ensure that safety and security is optimum. We believe that by providing continuity, we can increase the conditions for an optimum experience.
PCOL: I know that you don't support the Peace Corps Safety and Security bill that came out of Chairman Hyde's committee and I know a couple of the reasons are that you don't see a reason for an Ombudsman and the independence of the Inspector General and I am going to ask you about that a little later. "Peace Corps Online" has also taken an editorial position opposing the Peace Corps Safety and Security bill but the reason that we oppose it is that it expands the exemptions so they are not just for safety and security personnel but also includes exemptions for personnel who work in health and medical services and personnel who work in the Inspector General's office.
Do you have a concern that now that the door has been opened to exemptions to the five year rule with the clause in the Consolidated Appropriations Bill of 2003 that there is going to be pressure from other groups or pressure from Congress to expand the exemptions to the five year rule even more and that there may be a danger that that the five year rule over time may disappear completely?
GV: I don't want to speculate on what Congress may or may not do. But, I think it is important to look at this in the phases in which it has been undertaken.
First of all, Chairman Kolbe suggested that the personnel who are involved in safety and security should be exempt from the five year rule in order for the Peace Corps to maintain the continuity of service that is important for the safety and security of the volunteer. I have no disagreement with that. I was authorized by Congress to conduct an internal assessment and ascertain which positions within the Peace Corps are dedicated to safety and security. I identified 23 positions, plus the 71 safety and security coordinators assigned to each post, to be exempt from the five year rule. Once you get past that first phase or grouping it gets a little more complicated because then you have to look and say "Well, Hugh Pickens, who works at the Peace Corps - 30 percent of his job involves safety and security, 70 percent is non-safety and security." That gets a little more complicated, because then you have to decide where the threshold is and if the person meets that test. To that end, Peace Corps has retained consultants to study the issue so there is a thorough, diligent, and very deliberate process in place to analyze who, beyond the initial 23, should be considered for exemption to the five year rule.
We need to be careful in examining this because I think the five year rule has served the Peace Corps well in some respects. I also believe that it presents some challenges. For example, when you have people who work in Information Technology, a very competitive field and an area of critical support to the Peace Corps, we have lost many a good candidate who has considered coming to work at the Peace Corps but has retreated from accepting a job as a result of the five year rule. I don't think that exempting people that work in those areas would be detrimental to the spirit and intent of the five year rule. But it's early, it's going to require a lot of analysis and study.
In the case of the Inspector General's Office, not all of the people who work in that office are involved in safety and security of volunteers, so you have to be careful that you don't blanket approve people who are not part of the safety and security infrastructure . You also have to be cautious in how you manage those transitions so you don't create an inequality of those who are subject to the five year rule against those who are not.
PCOL: So your position would be that we wait and see what the results are, how the exemptions that have already been approved work out and it's possible that you would support further exemptions of personnel for example in medical services, IT, or the Inspector General's Office for exemptions to the five year rule?
GV: I think we need to take a look at the spirit and intent of what Congress has articulated in the original language. But, the first phase includes those involved in safety and security of the volunteer. Let's examine those positions. Let's look at the classifications and descriptions. Let's look at what percentage of time they are involved in safety and security. Consequently, when we do those analyses, if we are very deliberate and diligent about it, I think we can achieve some success. I am not prepared to issue a broad statement that IT people should be exempt. It requires analysis, it requires study, and we are in the process of doing that.
Safety and Security Issues
PCOL: A few weeks ago we posted an op-ed that you wrote for the Dayton Daily News stating that some of their allegations on Peace Corps safety and security didn't jibe with facts and I noticed that the parents of Walter Poirier made a post on "Peace Corps Online" praising the steps that you had taken to place greater emphasis on safety and security including the creation of the office of safety and security under your administration. Do you think that your administration has been unfairly blamed for previous issues regarding safety and security from previous administrations and do you think that the criticism from sources like the Dayton Daily News is fair?
GV: First of all, let me say that it's not about my administration or anyone's administration. I came to this job with the intent and purpose of maintaining and building the greatness of the Peace Corps. Part of the process during my time has been to enhance safety and security. There have been others who have preceded me who have built some solid framework and we have just added to that framework and augmented the positions, roles and responsibilities. We have changed policies, procedures, and standards so that we create an infrastructure in safety and security that really becomes the way that Peace Corps does business. Once people embrace and adopt that approach, it becomes just part of the way that you do business, and it seems less intrusive, less complicated.
In the case of the Dayton Daily News, I found that there were significant omissions and distortions. The fact is there was really no reporting on the progress and the improvements that Peace Corps has made over the years. Those were essentially ignored. There were a number of troubling mentions. One that leaped out at me that was mentioned a couple of times was that a Peace Corps volunteer dies in service once every two months. That is simply not true. It was also distorted because in the stories there was very little, if any reference, made to the fact that the majority of the volunteers who have died - and they are all tragic, we mourn the loss of every single volunteer who has died in service - have died as the result of an accident or illness. Their failure to disclose or clearly articulate the cause of the majority of deaths created a distortion and a view that is simply not accurate. They basically omitted pertinent information leading readers to conclude something that is not true.
I've been around media, press, and television for 25 years. One of my first jobs in my career was as a press relations officer for a medium sized police department. I don't profess to be an expert in journalism, but I certainly know a little bit about disclosure and inclusiveness of the facts in order to provide good public information. To say that a volunteer dies in service every two months is an absolute distortion. I have been in this office for two and a half years. Sadly, three volunteers have died in service during the time I have been director. None of the three have died at the hands of another or as the result of a violent act or a violent crime. And yet, the emphasis in the articles seemed to be the violence that faces volunteers. We need to learn from those experiences and examine every single occurrence. We need to see what we did right, what we did wrong, what we could do better. If we do that, the Peace Corps will be well served.
I have a law enforcement background. I have lived and worked daily in an environment of crime and violence. I have seen violence. I have seen the victimization of people, and I don't want to see people harmed, particularly now as the director the Peace Corps. We work very diligently to ensure the volunteers'safety and to create optimum conditions. But as members of Congress articulated in the hearing, there is no guarantee. Being a Peace Corps volunteer has some inherent risks. But I am committed to doing everything within my power, as is my team, to ensure that we create optimum conditions for a safe experience. That is what we are striving to do and I think that was perhaps one of the most glaring omissions I saw in the articles. That's why I felt the urgency to put our statements on the record, to bring some balance to the reporting.
PCOL: Congressman Sam Farr said during the hearings that if we go to far and build a "Fortress America Peace Corps," it will change the nature of the Peace Corps and the volunteer experience. How do you find the proper balance between safety and security and the volunteer experience?
GV: First of all, I agree with Congressman Farr. I think that he is absolutely correct. I was there when he said it. I heard it first-hand in the room, and I think he is absolutely correct.
Again, I think it goes back to the fact that there are going to be risks. There are risks the moment I walk out of this building and try to cross the street. There is the possibility that I could get hit by a car. There is a possibility that something else might happen, so there are going to be risks. I have volunteers who say to me, "Mr. Director, I feel safer in my community in Costa Rica than I do in my town in the United States."
I also think we need to strike a balance. If we reach a point where volunteers can no longer do their work effectively without the intrusion of burdening policies and procedures that create such a distraction from their work, then the quality of the volunteer experience begins to deteriorate.
That requires us to step back and look at a country and examine the trends, which we are doing now. We need to examine the crime trends and statistics and begin to include this in our evaluation as to whether a country, a part of a country, or a region within a country, remains viable for Peace Corps volunteers to work. For example, if we have a sector in a country that is constantly disrupted by crimes against volunteers, it is not beyond me to discuss it with the Country Director to seek out a recommendation. As a result, if the Country Director recommends relocating volunteers, I would support that recommendation.
PCOL: So you are saying that it is conceivable that the Peace Corps could withdraw from a country if the crime or danger to volunteers became too great?
GV: It is conceivable, assuming that all other avenues have been exhausted and the host government is unable to provide any additional support or suggestions as to how we might be able to minimize crimes against volunteers. I think you always have to leave the door open to that possibility. Having said that, I think it is also important to examine the issues closely, to examine the trends and then rely on the host country staff, starting with the Country Director, to give you the information and perspective you need to make a decision.
The Cooperative Agreement with NPCA
PCOL: Yesterday at the opening ceremonies you talked about how you had been the first to sign a cooperative agreement with the NPCA. Can you tell us what the status of the cooperative agreement is and do you expect it to be renewed, expanded or cut back this coming year?
GV: The agreement is in place and operational. Our intention going forward is to continue this relationship, as it is a good one. It is viable and has had some positive results. Most importantly, we think it creates the kind of communication and bridge building that is important between the Peace Corps and the NPCA. I have said from the onset, that the Returned Peace Corps Volunteer community is one of our greatest assets.
My relationship with Dane Smith and Kevin Quigley have been two of the finest relationships I have ever had in any of the areas that I have worked throughout my career. These are two outstanding individuals. And, I think that Kevin is doing a superb job.
When you have faith and respect in your partner, particularly in the man who leads the organization with whom you are partnering, then you have positive signs for the future.
PCOL: So you would see the relationship being sustained over the long term?
GV: I hope so.
RPCVs in Policy Making Positions at Peace Corps Headquarters
PCOL: I was looking at the Peace Corps Web site this morning and I noticed that there were nine new Country Directors who had been sworn in. I didn't have a chance to read their complete bios but I did notice that many of them were Returned Volunteers. No one would dispute that of the over 1,000 Peace Corps staff, many if not most of them are Returned Volunteers. But I would just like to raise the issue of Returned Volunteers in policy making positions at Peace Corps Headquarters.
Dena Bunis of your hometown newspaper, the Orange County Register, reported in a story last year that only three of the top 22 positions, the so-called "political" appointees were Returned Volunteers. Other Directors have relied to a much greater extent on Returned Volunteers in senior management positions at the agency. Can you explain your policy and why some people would say "why are there so few Returned Volunteers in senior policy making positions at Peace Corps Headquarters now?
GV: My first examination of personnel is of the pool of people who are available to me at the time. You have a pool of individuals who apply and express an interest in service in the Peace Corps. This is an administration that has a very strong history of support of the Peace Corps. These last couple of years have seen the highest level of appropriations in Peace Corps' history. We achieved a 28-year high in the number of volunteers serving last year, which is a credit to the support that President Bush has given to the Peace Corps. These are historic levels - that cannot be lost.
To that end, I think that the performance of the senior management team should be judged on results, because they are the ones who have to work the Hill. They are the ones who have to build the relationships with Congress. They are the ones who have to build the relationships with the White House. And as a team, whether they are RPCVs or they are not RPCVs, they are passionate about the work of the Peace Corps. That should be one of the key indicators and measures of an individual who works at the Peace Corps.
One of the things I set out to do is find talent and people who bring skills, abilities, experience, and history that will combine well with the team that leads the Peace Corps. Country Directors are part of that process. The way that we have managed is a bottoms-up approach. That is to say, we rely on people in the field. I'm not taking anything away from my predecessors, but I have had Country Directors who have told me that, "this is the first time, that someone from Washington has actually asked me what I think or how we ought to proceed on certain situations."
I respect the talents and the skills and the abilities of our Country Directors. They are exceptional, based on their experience, knowledge, and passion for the Peace Corps. We bring people who have been volunteers, and people who have not been volunteers to create a team that has produced great results. At the end of the day, that's what matters - the results.
PCOL: So what you are saying is that you were looking for specific skills for your senior management positions and you haven't been able to find those skills among returned volunteers?
GV: I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we have evaluated the candidates who have been brought before us to look at the talents, skills, and abilities. We have chosen those who we think can make the maximum contribution. Some have been Returned Peace Corps volunteers, and some have not been volunteers. I think that the team has worked well. The dynamics have been good. And again, I reiterate, that perhaps best of all, we have achieved some historical outcomes and results for the Peace Corps.
Peace Corps' Departure from Russia in 2002
PCOL: In August 2002, the Russian government refused to renew the one year visas of 30 of the 62 volunteers seeking visas for a second year in Russia and they were unable to complete their service. You had just been confirmed as Director a few months before when this occurred. By December 2002, the situation had escalated to spy allegations in the Russian press. The Russian head of the FSB (the successor organization to the KGB) stated that volunteers were engaged in intelligence activities and in spite of a personal appeal from Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Putin government terminated the Peace Corps program in Russia at the end of 2002.
In retrospect, is there anything that Peace Corps could have done differently or would have done differently in Russia to maintain the program? Or in retrospect, were there warning signs that we perhaps should have seen so that we could have exited the program before the situation got to the point of spy allegations?
GV: I think the Peace Corps did an extraordinary job in Russia. The volunteers' efforts were tremendous and provided the kind of education and programming that has made the Peace Corps the great organization that it is.
That's not speculation on my part. I was at the closing ceremony for the program. I spoke with countless leaders of community-based organizations who came from throughout Russia to Moscow to thank the volunteers and the Peace Corps for the tremendous service that volunteers rendered during the time we were in Russia. The allegations made about intelligence gathering were baseless. They were groundless and without merit. It was unfortunate that some chose to articulate that kind of suggestion because it's groundless.
Part of the Peace Corps philosophy is that Peace Corps volunteers serve in host countries where the host country welcomes and wants Peace Corps volunteers. Our bilateral agreements provide that anytime a host country determines that they no longer want Peace Corps volunteers, they have the right or prerogative to terminate a program, just as we do. In this instance, the Russian government chose to terminate the program. That was their decision and we respect that because that has been the tradition and philosophy of the Peace Corps, as far as I am aware, over the period of time that the Peace Corps has existed. We respect that. While we may have some disagreements, the fact is that it was their prerogative and they chose to exercise that.
PCOL: Do you think that the Peace Corps just got caught in some big power politics, that there were larger issues involved, and that perhaps the Peace Corps was just made a scapegoat or a symbol of the relationship between Russia and the United States?
GV: I don't have enough information to be able to make a judgment on that one way or the other. I believe that it is important for volunteers to be able to do their work with minimal distraction, minimal interruption. Once it gets to a point where volunteer's work is interrupted or distracted by whatever conditions or circumstances may exist in country, we need to evaluate whether a program can continue to be viable. I think that is the wise and prudent thing for any administration to do as it relates to the quality and effectiveness of a program. In this case, it was the host government that asked for the program to cease and be terminated and we respected that right and privilege. They chose to exercise it and we closed the program.
PCOL: I have heard that Peace Corps volunteers are having some visa problems in at least one other Central Asian Republic. Uzbekistan is the country I am referring to. Does this raise a red light with you? Is there something or are active steps being taken either to resolve the situation, improve the situation, or perhaps to take other steps.
GV: Let me answer the question in the broad context of my general philosophy. Again, I go back to what I just stated, which is evaluating the quality of the Peace Corps volunteer experience. This is not just talk. The people who work with me and for me will tell you that I mean business when I say the following. When a volunteer's work is disrupted or interrupted, and the volunteer becomes distracted from the focus of his or her job, then we as an agency have a responsibility to that volunteer to look into the issues, to evaluate the issues and determine whether a program is still viable in a country.
If we find that there may be some issues, we use the appropriate lines of communication to find out what issues may exist, try to resolve them and remedy the situation. For the most part, we are successful. But, we remain very vigilant when any kind of issue related to host government surfaces, so that we continue the smoothness of the relationship, but also preserve the quality of the experience of volunteers in country.
Your Accomplishments as Director
PCOL: When historians look back on your tenure as director I am sure they will talk about the infrastructure upgrades, the entry into Mexico, the reinstatement of programs like Peru, the improvements in safety and security, the community college program, and the expansion of the Peace Corps to its highest level in years. I wonder if you would elaborate on which of these accomplishments you personally consider most important or what other initiatives you think will be considered your most important as Director?
GV: I am not prepared to make such an assessment right now. First of all, you have to remember that I come from a family where we were taught that you work hard every day so that you have a job the next day. We don't rest on our laurels. The staff in Washington will tell you that just a few days ago I told them that not withstanding what is going on the world, it is still pedal to the metal. We are going to continue to work hard, and we're not done yet. So, it would be premature and early for me to talk in historical terms because I am not done.
PCOL: And that leads me right into my next question. Loret Ruppe Miller was the longest serving Peace Corps Director and many have said that her directorship was second to none except perhaps for Shriver, and that her longevity in office and her total commitment to the Peace Corps played a large part in her success and accomplishments. Assuming President Bush is re-elected, have you given any thought to staying on through his second term as Peace Corps Director to see your plans through and to have the same sort of impact that Ruppe Miller had on the Peace Corps? And if you don't stay on, how do you think your service as Peace Corps Director will influence your future work in the political arena or in any other area you may decide to work in?
GV: Well, to give you another Vasquez quote that is part of our family tradition - we live life one day at a time and we don't spend too much time speculating on the future. I consider myself, first of all, blessed because number one, you are talking to someone who is a descendant of migrant farm workers. By all statistical odds, I probably shouldn't be sitting here talking to you as director of the Peace Corps. But, I am here today because I am a citizen of a great country where those of us who are sons or grandsons of immigrants can dream, and not only dream, but realize our dreams. For me, being director of the Peace Corps is the fulfillment of a great dream. To me, this job is the ultimate job that captures the essence of service to others.
I will tell you that two and a half years into this job, I walk into the building at 20th and L with probably more enthusiasm and energy than I did at the start of the two and a half years. I leave at the end of the day with a sense of accomplishment because I have seen the work of the volunteers, I have seen what they are doing overseas. It re-energizes me every time I go overseas to do my job more effectively, to do my job better. So, I am fortunate.
I would not even begin to speculate on what or how this experience has impacted me. I think a lot of times you don't realize how something has impacted you until you have been away from it. Then you reflect on the experience and you realize what a tremendous honor and privilege you have had. I can say with certainty right now, I think that the future is open. What I can reflect on right now, is every day. And every day, I reflect on the work that I have done that day - as a positive and fulfilling experience.
I believe that every one of my predecessors who has served as director has done a great job. Each one of them has faced a set of challenges, had been given a set of opportunities and has led the Peace Corps in different time spans that have brought different conditions in the world. But, we certainly live in a unique time in history. I certainly consider myself blessed to be in this position and I look forward to continuing my service until the time comes to a close.
The Peace Corps Safety and Security Bill before Congress
PCOL: I was talking about the Peace Corps safety and security bill that was passed by the House of Representatives a little while ago and I know that you mentioned during the hearings that two of the reasons that you opposed the bill are because you don't think an Ombudsman is necessary and also because he don't happen to agree with the independent appointment of the Inspector General. Would you elaborate on those two points a little further?
GV: I think my testimony will reflect - and it is certainly a matter of public record - on the first issue relative to an ombudsman, we want to be helpful and responsive to Peace Corps volunteers. We want to be responsive to volunteers who have medical claims, who have issues with FECA and the Department of Labor. We want to work with volunteers.
What I have discovered in my research is that there is no pronounced backlog of processing at the Peace Corps level. The fact is, the turn-around time that the Peace Corps has in the medical services area of providing assistance and documentation or appropriate intervention for volunteers is a pretty good record, a pretty solid record.
I also think that the ombudsman language that was proposed is very broad. There are already existing channels for employees or others to engage in a process for claims, grievances, or issues, be it through normal channels, other agencies, or the Inspector General's Office. This remains available to all employees to file any kind of reports or requests for investigation that may be of concern. I think there are already existing recourses for those who would otherwise consider an ombudsman an option.
The other aspect is that you are creating one more layer of an office that could be very costly to the Peace Corps. Every dollar that is spent on something that is redundant for something that already exists, as I believe it does, is one less dollar to the field, one less dollar toward putting a volunteer in the field. So, I am not adverse to retooling our process so that if there needs to be additional channels created within the existing infrastructure, we ought to look at those. I am not adverse to that at all.
On the subject of the Inspector General, we have not had a chance to evaluate who within the Inspector General's Office is involved in safety and security, and who is not. Those who are, require an analysis, an evaluation of time devoted to safety and security.
I am very proud of the relationship we have had with the Inspector General's Office. I think if you talk to the most immediate past Inspector General, he will tell you that we had a positive relationship. We provided full funding during the years that he was Inspector General. And not once, in fact he has said it publicly in the building in front of audiences, that not once did he ever feel compromised in any way, form or fashion, in the time that he served under three Directors. I am proud of that because I think the IG serves a very important function. And, we have provided the resources and the support for that function.
PCOL: But in spite of that, Charles Smith did testify at the House hearings that he did support the independent appointment of the Inspector General and also the GAO representative said that most agencies have an independently appointed Inspector General and so is that something you would say you are still considering whether to support or not?
GV: That is a question that still remains open for discussion. Certainly Charles and I have spent a considerable amount of time discussing it. But, we still remain strong in the position that we articulated during the hearings.
Continuity at Peace Corps during Changes in Administration
PCOL: You were nominated as Director in September 2001 and weren't confirmed until over a year after President Bush took office. Did the one year lapse create a leadership vacuum in the Peace Corps and if so how can future administrations do a better job in easing the transition for future Peace Corps Directors and providing more continuity at the agency?
GV: One of the great tributes to the Peace Corps is the phenomenal staff that works at the Peace Corps. I am talking about all of the staff at the Peace Corps. These are men and women, who during the period of transition, did an incredible job at maintaining solid management and providing great leadership.
I for one, will always be grateful to them for the kind of work that they accomplished during that transition. I am so grateful because had they not done a great job during that transition, I would have come in and inherited a difficult situation. But, the situation was not difficult because they were professional, they were passionate, and dedicated their talents and energies to maintaining the continuity.
I think it stands to reason, and any logical person would conclude, that the less time you take to transition the leadership position of the Peace Corps the better off the agency will be. It will allow you to create the momentum that you need to sustain the agency and the morale, but also to build up the expectation of leadership of the employees and staff members of the Peace Corps. I think anything that can be done to reduce the amount of transition time is helpful to the agency.
The Community College Program
PCOL: The community college program has been one of your biggest initiatives. How successful has this program been and how do you respond to critics who say that community college graduates may lack the skills and the maturity to serve effectively as volunteers? How do you measure the success of the program so far and has your evaluation been positive or negative?
GV: Let me answer this in two basic parts. One, the initiative was just launched about five months ago. It is very early in the process to render any kind of judgment on the success of the program. But let me just tell you, if the response of community colleges across the nation is any indicator, I think this is going to be one of the great opportunities for the Peace Corps going forward. We already have over 250 points of contact across America at community colleges who are promoting the idea of community college students serving in the Peace Corps.
The second part, I would say in relationship to people who believe or speculate that we are somehow compromising the standards or qualifications of the Peace Corps, they are simply wrong. We're not changing the standards. We are not changing the requirements.
As I said when I made my remarks at the NPCA conference, the average age of a community college student is 29 years of age, older than the average age of an undergraduate student coming out of a four year school. Eleven million Americans attend community colleges across this nation. There are community college students who have undergraduate degrees, and I suspect graduate degrees who have gone back to community colleges to study specific areas like health, information technology, areas that we have an interest in and areas and sectors that may be beneficial to Peace Corps in the future. It is incumbent on us to look at all the available talents that we have in this country to see when and where those talents might fit into the future of the Peace Corps.
The other dimension is that community colleges are more ethnically diverse than four year schools across this nation. So, it creates a pool of talent for us that also creates greater diversity for the Peace Corps.
It is too early to make any conclusions, but what I can tell you with certainty, is that we are not compromising the standards and qualifications for Peace Corps service by virtue of a recruitment program at the community college level. That's an erroneous conclusion of those who have rendered that judgment. I'm a product of a community college program and I know what it is to go to a community college. It was a great education and I went to school with some pretty talented people who will be very successful in life.
A Message for Returned Volunteers
PCOL: That concludes my questions. Any message that you would like to send to the Returned Volunteer community?
GV: The message I would convey here is that I am grateful to the Returned Peace Corps Volunteer community for the continued engagement and involvement that so many have had in support of the Peace Corps.
Our success has been possible because of the involvement of the RPCV community. When I came to this position, you were there, I made a pledge that I would work very hard to build a stronger relationship with the RPCV community. I think that we have made great strides in that direction. I think the fact that over 7,000 RPCVs participated in Peace Corps Week this last year is quite indicative of the engagement, or in some cases, the re-engagement of RPCVs. Some have told me, "you know I was not active in the RPCV community until most recently." I think there is a resurgence of public awareness in the Peace Corps. That is also something that we set out to do - to reacquaint America with the Peace Corps.
Our campaign, "Life is calling. How far will you go?," has resonated very well with audiences across America. Certainly there is that sentimental favorite of the "toughest job you'll ever love" - that will always be part of the Peace Corps. But, the "Life is calling" campaign really strikes at the heart of why somebody wants to go into the Peace Corps. To me, that is a very important core value of the Peace Corps. That's why this campaign is geared to the individual and to the self-examination of why would you want to do this. It's not for the money - but what's in your heart, what's in your soul, what kind of talents do you have. And when you put all those together, I think the Peace Corps is well positioned and poised to achieve great things in the 21st Century.
I think President Bush has been an ardent supporter. He has visited with volunteers. The historic levels of funding, the historic levels of growth over the past 28 years that we have accomplished in the last year, I think are significant and send a strong indicator that the Peace Corps enjoys bipartisan support. We are well positioned. It is because of people's continued involvement and support, both in the current ranks of volunteers, as well as with Returned Peace Corps volunteers, that we are having some great success.
I also have to pay tribute to older Americans - those who are over the age of 50 who are applying to the Peace Corps in record numbers. That's inspiring. It's motivating because it's another furtherance of the attempt that we have made to diversify the Peace Corps so that the Peace Corps looks like America.
I am very honored to serve as director of the Peace Corps. I think some great times are ahead for us all, but we are doing this together. This is not about Gaddi Vasquez. This is about a team effort. This is about men and women who serve as Country Directors. This is about staff at overseas posts, the men and women in our recruiting offices who do exceptional work, and the men and women who make up the entire team at the Peace Corps in Washington, D.C.
I said to the folks at the Peace Corps, both in the field and in Washington, we are one Peace Corps. It's not Washington and the posts. It's not the countries against Washington. We are all in this together. We are one Peace Corps. We need to be seamless. We need to be together, because what we accomplish and what we achieve will be achievements of us all. And so, we remain committed to that because it is a team approach. I think the results that we have achieved so far are indicative of a very strong team committed to the goals and the mission of the Peace Corps.
PCOL: I want to thank you on behalf of "Peace Corps Online" and on behalf of the Returned Volunteer community for responding to our questions.
GV: It was a pleasure. Thanks a lot, delighted.
Read our interview with Director Vasquez in this month's issue of PCOL Magazine:
| Director Gaddi Vasquez: The PCOL Interview
This month we sat down for an extended interview with Peace Corps Director Gaddi Vasquez. Read the entire interview from start to finish and we promise you will learn something about the Peace Corps you didn't know before.
Then read the questions and answers one by one and leave your comments on the issues raised during the interview including Infrastructure Upgrades and the new Situation Room at Headquarters, Is there a Budget Crunch this year at Peace Corps, Peace Corps' Long Term Expansion, the Changes to the Five-Year Rule made last year, Safety and Security Issues, the Cooperative Agreement with NPCA, RPCVs in Policy Making Positions at Peace Corps Headquarters, Peace Corps' Departure from Russia in 2002, Director Vasquez's Accomplishments as Director, the Peace Corps Safety and Security Bill before Congress, Continuity at the Agency during Changes in Administration, the Community College Program, and the Director's Message to the Returned Volunteer Community. |
Read the questions and answers and leave your comments.
Some postings on Peace Corps Online are provided to the individual members of this group without permission of the copyright owner for the non-profit purposes of criticism, comment, education, scholarship, and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. Government copyright laws and they may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner. Peace Corps Online does not vouch for the accuracy of the content of the postings, which is the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.
Story Source: PCOL Exclusive
This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; Peace Corps Directors - Vasquez
PCOL13820
78
.
|
By Terry Adcock Colombia 1961-63 (cs666856-145.austin.rr.com - 66.68.56.145) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 9:43 am: Edit Post |
I would say that the Director has learned a lot since he was appointed. Think of what could have been accomplished had he actually been qualified for the position from the beginning.
|
By daniel (user-uinj0lr.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.121.130.187) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 1:21 pm: Edit Post |
Gaddi,
You are full of it. You have not repaired the damage to families and volunteers on Safety and Security issues and you will continually here from us to the point you won't be able to stand it.
Quit lieing to former volunteers, current volunteers and families about safety. The reason the Ombudsman's office was created was due to this mess Peace corps has stepped on my rights of average citizens. We are now in discussions with the ACLU and we will see you at that point behind your General Counsel. The Lies will end.
|
By Jim PCV (160.88.229.176) on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:42 am: Edit Post |
How come my last message was deleted? Is it possible that there is no balance for positive feedback in this forum.
I feel that Gaddi is doing a great job!!
He has set the course for our peace corp and is doing a excellent job!!!
Dear Jim PCV (no email address provided) -
No message was deleted.
The previous message to yours was posted at 9:20 am by Joseph F. Murnan and has sequence number #POST35236.
http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/2022778.html#POST35236
Your message, posted at 10:42 am, has the next sequence number which is #POST35237.
http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/2023627.html#POST35237
Best Regards,
Admin1
In our last posting, I must remind you, Director, that we did and still do support an independent Inspector General, as well as an Ombudsman to impartially address the problems that arise between the administration and the Volunteers. Again we cannot emphasis that every Agency within the Federal Government needs external over-sight. Otherwise, that Agency may become lax in its responsibilities.
|
By Just an interested reader, at this point (dsl-customer-205-208-213-250.ispnetbilling.com - 205.208.213.250) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 2:47 pm: Edit Post |
Daniel, your anger is strong and your threats are severe. What is the basis of your allegations? From an "outsider's" perspective, Director Vasquez seems bright and articulate and very focused on safety and security. What would you do differently and are you sure it would be effective? Has harm to volunteers increased or decreased under Director Vasquez's leadership?Record high volunteers, no harm during any of a number of evacuatons (six, I believe), and the like, seem to be good results, or are they lies? Your broad and sweeping allegations point the finger, but at what, specifically? Simply put, why are you so angry?
|
By daniel (user-uinj09p.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.121.129.57) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 7:57 pm: Edit Post |
2,800 plus were victims of violence in service since the early 1990's. He has done nothing substantial for the majority of these volunteers. If you read through the postings and the issue, you will find what he should be doing and should have done for these volunteers.
31 volunteers have been killed, died or are missing since this period.
What has he done for those individuals who were willing to serve? What has he done for the families who have a loved one who has gone through a safety issue or health issue related to these issues? Nothing and he is arrogant about repairing the lies in many separations which were performed wrongfully. Yet, they were safety issues.
What has he done for the families except for lip service? Nothing.
Any director who sweeps these issues under the rug has hurt the program and the lives of American citizens who served in Peace Corps.
People who served and got their rights trampled on by the Peace Corps in general will have their day in court, their day of justice and redemption from being categorized wrongfully in their separation process. Many went through safety issues and Peace Corps covered them up through medical services, through admin staff firing people on whims because of their beliefs and blamed the victims of these type of situations.
You call it leadership. I call it irresponsibility. Unable to respond correctly to the ones who have served.
The hearings, the Dayton Daily news articles and the GAO report did not come out of thin air. They are real people and real families who either have lost someone dear or are now dealing with the problems these individuals have which are service related.
At this point, it is not anger for me, but persistence in getting the record straight. Time and persistence will bring Peace to the victims of Peace Corps admin's bad policy, their actions regarding safety and in the future on how they treat these issues.
Court is a better place to take these issues. The Executive Branch can't do it and hasn't and the Congress only went half way with our concerns. In court, groups like the ACLU are looking at the volunteer's rights in these cases. Peace Corps volunteers are smart,focused, and can accomplish any goal with the right determination. We know the truth in our cases and they will get resolved. Whether Vasquez or any other staff member of former staff member like it or not.
When they (Peace Corps) ignore our cases they help the perpetrators of these crimes, threats and the interests of people who are not out for the best interest of a given volunteer.
Simply put, the hand waving and lies Peace Corps portrays to the public will end. We will get the proper rights we deserve as volunteers who served in Peace Corps.
|
By daniel (user-uinj09p.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.121.129.57) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 8:25 pm: Edit Post |
The Ombudsman's office is being created because Peace Corps covers their employees mistakes at the expense of the volunteer. Channels? There is no channel at Peace Corps for many of volunteers who have gone through a safety issue and been cast off.
As for FECA, trying telling his story to the thousands of volunteers who lanquish with his friend ,Elaine Chao's out sourcing of the Department, to insurance companies who are now handling particular volunteer's service records and service related issues. What right does an insurance adjuster have on a volunteer's service? Most of the Department of Labor employees have never served in Peace Corps and many resent our service and treat our claims accordingly.
He is right about Peace Corps efficiency in passing the buck of many FECA claims to the Department of Labor and no legal challenges of the these safety cases. They (Peace Corps) are experts at dishing off a volunteer into the abyss. If you challenge your claim or case, they have a team of attorney's in the General Counsel to cover up these cases and by suppressive tactics knowing the volunteers is probably not going to challenge them with a federal attorney who costs $300 per hour.
At the moment volunteers have no legal rights protecting them from staffers who abuse the Peace Corps act and other volunteers.
These issues would not being discussed if we did.
I think the DDN needs to do a follow up story.
I am stunned by the callousness of this Director and staffers at Peace Corps.
|
By Still Interested (dsl-customer-205-208-213-250.ispnetbilling.com - 205.208.213.250) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 2:11 pm: Edit Post |
Daniel, please, please answer my question. I know you are sincere, as am I in seeing what is going on and what should be done about it, but I need specifics.
Again, "Has harm to volunteers increased or decreased under Director Vasquez'a leadership?"
You answered with numbers that go back to the Clinton adminstration and the former director. Do you have numbers, up or down since Director Vasquez was confirmed?
I know you will not like this, but much of what a leader does is establishing a vision and communicating that vision to the 'troops' who really do the work. This can and will allows be seen as "lip service" by some who are synical by just reason or by nature. If I worked for Director Vasquez and he made the statements he made in his interview, I would go forward with the safety and security of volunteers as my vision of what the priorities are. At the end of the day, results are what matters, however, and WHAT ARE THE RESULTS SINCE HE TOOK THE POSITION? ARE THEY BETTER OR WORSE OR THE SAME?
It seems, from an interested outsider, that risk in inherent in the very nature of the work. The real question is "Are proper steps being taken to minimize the risk?" If you do not believe they are, what are the steps, specifically, you are asking for? I truly want to know and my quess is that Director Vasquez would be interested in specifically where he could and should do better. Being synical is the easiest job on earth. Solving problems is another story. Can you help this organization solve the problem, without getting the courts involved? Maybe you have exhausted all other channels, or have you?
|
By Still Interested (dsl-customer-205-208-213-250.ispnetbilling.com - 205.208.213.250) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 2:14 pm: Edit Post |
And, Daniel, by the way, it is "they" to you. Was it ever "we."
|
By Still interested (dsl-customer-205-208-213-250.ispnetbilling.com - 205.208.213.250) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 2:22 pm: Edit Post |
Please excuse the fast typing error. Of course I meant cynical, not synical. There are often good reasons to be cynical and sometimes it has a lot to do with personality. I don't mean it in a negative way, but I am asking, sincerely, for your self-evalutation.
|
By none (66-44-3-178.s940.apx1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com - 66.44.3.178) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 4:54 pm: Edit Post |
A correct question is being asked here, and no one, not Vasquez, not Peace Corps, nor anyone here is giving the answer. What have been the results of all Vasquez's safety priorities, policies and expenditures during his term of office? It is not a complicated question, and by Septemeber 2004 it should have an answer. Vasquez has said that 3 volunteers died while he was director. How many women volunteers were raped while he was director? Have his safety priorities and actions and all the money he directed spent kept women volunteers from being raped? A poster elsewhere went into great detail about how Vasquez is aware of each and every woman volunteer who is raped? Well, how many have there been? Is it 5 or 10 or 50 or 100 while Vasquez has directed the Peace Corps? If Vasquez knows about every one of them then he should be able to give a clear, firm number of how many women were raped just as he can say that 3 volunteers have died. Peace Corps has only released numbers from 2002. What happened in the last year and a half of Vazquez's directorship? This is being hidden, and there is some reason it is being hidden.
|
By Becoming even more interested (dsl-customer-205-208-213-250.ispnetbilling.com - 205.208.213.250) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 5:17 pm: Edit Post |
I appreciate some light on this. Thank you 66.44.3.178. whomever you are. I assume you are not Daniel, but share some of his same concerns. I am only trying to view this with some measure of rationale thought and Daniel, if you are reading this, please understand that that is my precise intent. You have alarming concern that I don't want to take lightly, but I need details in order to view it rationally.
Daniel, I am still interested in the answer to: You view this as "THEY." Was it ever "WE"? and, of course, have you exhausted all other efforts here? Has is come to this (law suits)?
A question for anyone out there: "Does the Peace Corps publish an annual report? There has to be a way to get answers outside of the courtroom."
|
By RPCV (105.41.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.41.105) on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 6:18 pm: Edit Post |
Dear Interested,
Perhaps you will find it of interest to accesss the following discussion series:
"Vasquez speaks out" / "Doesn't jibe with the facts"
There you will find posts from Daniel, None, Njma, me (RPCV, RPCV and former staffer) and others.
As a minimal effort for anyone truly interested in the subject, I would recommend accessing the official site, www.peacecorps.gov. Review the S&S infor that is available (including the 2002 report), then go to "contact us" and submit informed questions and constructive criticism, leaving an email address for feedback.
|
By Daniel (user-uinj0om.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.121.131.22) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 8:47 pm: Edit Post |
Yes, There is a way to postively change Peace Corp's view of persons and families who have gone through safety and health situations and or been wrongfully separated by Peace Corps staffers. First is to acknowledge the problem, open up an open forum for at the Peace Corps for all volunteers who have questions with their separation process and have these volunteers involved in working with Peace Corps/thus Dept of Labor for compensation for mistakes made to hurt volunteers who already went through a horrible situations who were covered up with an insult to injury. It hurt the program and continues to be a huge stain on the program's progress and truth in providing a quality program. These people need empathetic care and or direct rights in their case or have a group of these people who have been separated wrongfully look at their cases for wrong doing and stepping on their rights as a volunteer. These people have been truly injured by the Peace Corps by casting them out after they commited their time to country, a developing country and now they continue to hurt careers by having lies in their files of service. These people need to have their service record corrected from their perceptions to some degree. These are their experiences and not a staffers perception of illusions they create on the volunteer themselves. NO, we will not be stopped by these abitrary and capricious folks.
Peace Corps from my experience has never properly listen to any of us. Peace Corps deserves a good class action court action to wake them up to the fact these people served and deserve better than a "kick in the teeth". Vasquez has not changed anything for the victims of violence. It is still the same as Bubba's regime and the last Bush admin and beyond. We don't care whose admin it is, we care about our service and having our rights back or to be on equal grounds in our concerns about our service. Equal ground is court because Gaddi does not understand like anyother Director that we are part of the program.
There must be compensation. Many of these volunteer are suffering at home with recoveries from rape, assaults, threats to their lives, physical abuse, and health care issues that are not diagnosed correctly. These people have had their careers held back at the expense of other volunteers and staffers who stepped on them for upwardly mobile impressions and jobs within Peace Corps. We need these people to be compensated for being discrimated against on purpose by the agency. They (Peace Corps) know it too. We also want the perpetrators of violence pursued so it does not happen again to any other volunteers. These people think they can get away with these type of attacks because Peace Corps does not do anything. What they do is to fire the volunteer bogusly and make them go back to their home town dishonored and humiliated. This is not what Peace Corps was created for. Call Vasquez and tell him to do this and we can then proceed in a positive fashion.
We actually should be looking at Punitive Damages as a group of people. Then we can proceed feeling it won't happen again.
As for deaths during his administration. 3 is too many. Two of the three were alone. How many have been victims perhaps they should make it public instead of making and the DDN take them to court again because they are covering up like they covered up our cases.
Many of these people feel very strongly about Peace Corps and their families feel very strongly about international development, Peace, understanding of other cultures and government. These folks joined Peace Corps with this strong commitment. They and We was created by Peace Corps staffer's decisions to hurt volunteers careers, safety situations, blame them when they have gone through horrible situation, trying to deliberately misdiagnosing their health situation, covering up safety incidents because of their coordination with other governmental elements such as State Dept and RSO, making volunteers quit because of whimsical opinions of staffers without regard for attrition, quality support for a volunteer at their site, and the health and welfare of volunteers in general, covering up bad supervision of volunteers, bad placement policies, and many other varations of separations in safety and health situations.
There is something more for you.
|
By RPCV (206.37.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.37.206) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 9:01 pm: Edit Post |
Daniel,
With all due respect to your particular situation - and it has become very clear through the pattern of your messages over 2003 and 2004 that your separation involved a psych evaluation - I had to terminate volunteers for their own good as well as that of the program. Naturally, those volunteers most likely harbor ill feelings toward me. However, I have been contacted by a couple of separated PCVs, who after being back home and thinking it over for a month or even a year, wrote to thank me. Of course, most didn't. Life is hard sometimes, but one must move on.
How long has it been since you were a PCV? You're an angry man. Do you accept any responsibility for that anger or for the circumstances of your separation from service?
|
By daniel (165.121.131.22) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:19 pm: Edit Post |
You don't accept responsibility for your actions. You are an ex-staffer who apparently hasn't accepted the fact these folks have gone through something you probably haven't.
I don't accept any responsibility for truthfully reporting my safety incident. I did the right thing.
We will move on with compensation for the mistakes staffers like yourself made. You made money on the program. We volunteered.
Discrimination is what it is. Corruption is what I think of when I think of my own case and many other people.
I am glad many others did not call or write you. If they went through a safety incident and were cast off then they are doing the right thing.
"you had to separate people for their own good". Who are you RPCV, God, himself". I don't think so.
You know we will get our justice in our cases and you seem to have sour grapes about it. Many of these separated volunteers most likely won't have the type of judgement toward your type of former staffers. Image yourself being discriminated like this. We are not mean spirited people. We just want our experiences recorded correctly and not manipulated by people like yourself.
We will over come people like yourself whether you like it or not.
|
By daniel (user-uinj0om.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.121.131.22) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit Post |
Remember, RPCV has never indentified him or herself.
People who hide behind their decisions you have to wonder about.
"RPCV" does not want people who served and were injured by Peace Corps to get their justice. You have to wonder. Check out the blame game mentality. This is the They and We scenario.
|
By daniel (user-105n8vm.dialup.mindspring.com - 64.91.163.246) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 10:25 am: Edit Post |
In writing about the Director who did not serve, look at Vasquez's hands in the picture. "We have done all we can". Or "who me"?
He has done nothing for the victims of violence. Look at "RPCV" above posting and former staffer who justifies firing people. The culture at Peace Corps will change with volunteers having their rights by us going to court to challenge the decisions to hurt volunteer's services, safety at Peace Corps, and medical service cover ups in safety in health.
The ombudsman's office is coming for Gaddi to deal with too.
We don't have the numbers on Vasquez's time period, but 30% percent attrition rate is not normal in any organization who have people only serve for two years. The real attrition rate aids RPCV and former staff above on firing people, thinking they can decide whether some one experienced a safety issue or a rape or assault by thinking they are god.
We will continue to prove to Congress and to you, you are hurting volunteer's safety, health and the career's of former volunteers. These former and current staffers who fire people are hurting the program and will be stopped.
Daniel
|
By RPCV (209.41.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.41.209) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:56 pm: Edit Post |
Directors of PC 1989 - 2004
Paul Coverdell -R
Elain Chao - R
Carol Bellamy - R
Mark Gearan - D
Mark Scneider - D
Chuck Baquett - D
Gaddi Vasquez - R (current)
Daniel - Throughout your many posts you have blamed everyone of these directors by name, representing appointments from both major political parties, for your misfortunes. Furthermore, you have blamed anyone who has served on staff during their terms, including the vast number who themselves are RPCVs and have experienced the spectrum of safety, security and health issues. You've even castigated PCVs and RPCVs, who've never served on staff, that happen to disagree with you.
Everyone who disagrees with you has been characterized by you as "not caring about volunteer safety ..." in one form or another. You outrageously insinuate that we caused the deaths and assualts and don't care about the victims. You make up and misapply statistics and make false statements more deplorably than the slickest politician in a desperate attempt to win support for your "cause". You seem to have an exceedingly strong sense of entitlement and take no responsibility for your own situation.
While I certainly hope the ACLU will support any (R)PCV with a substantive case, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe they find you specifically to be a credible case.
|
By daniel (user-uinj436.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.121.144.102) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 3:56 pm: Edit Post |
You feel concerned don't you.
I experience the safety incident none of the above director's did nor the staffers involved with my separation, they were 15 hours away from where I lived. The Peace Corps and the staffers categorized my separation wrongfully from Coverdell to present and people like you believe it. You did not experience it nor was wrongfully separated. To attack people who have gone through these experiences and try to put them down, you help perpetrators of crimes against volunteers.
By bad policy and not listening to my cocnerns and the concerns of other by using the Psych arguements and blaming rape victims and suppressing cocerns of safety, yes you people put people in jeopardy and aided safety breaches. I still think that is happening. I have not made false statements. 31 Volunteers have died, been killed or are missing since 1996. and 2,800 plus victims of violence. Why did the Peace Corps cover up the facts of safety incidents during the 1990's and into 2004.
Some may disagree with me. I care about volunteers who were stepped on not judgemental foolish people.
You have not indentified yourself because you are a coward and afraid of your own shadow.
When you separated volunteers, you projected that fear on their situations and hurt them and the people around them and created a ripple of fear of the Peacee Corps. You will not help confront the perpetrators of violence against volunteers. Instead, I am sure you use your fear upon the volunteer. Your experiences, upon them. Have you ever thought you may have taken away their free will due to your insecurities. How many perpetrators of violence against volunteers have you reported.
Vasquez has an unsafe Peace Corps right now. It is better than Chuck Baquette. But not good enough.
And yes, I would do better than him.
|
By RPCV (110.37.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.37.110) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 4:21 pm: Edit Post |
Okay, Daniel many of your comments are simply irrational. Who's being judgemental on such a large scale that it involves the castigation of all those I mentioned above?
To quote just a few lines from you:
"You have not indentified yourself because you are a coward and afraid of your own shadow."
- Wow! Don't you remember my previous explanation? I don't want someone who seems potentially unstable "e-stalking" me.
"When you separated volunteers, you projected that fear on their situations and hurt them and the people around them and created a ripple of fear of the Peacee Corps. You will not help confront the perpetrators of violence against volunteers. Instead, I am sure you use your fear upon the volunteer."
-Sure, Daniel that's how we operate. We undergo intensive training to learn how to do these things. It was amazing how fast the agency brainwashed my RPCV mind into that of a terror inflicting staffer. Does it ever occur to you that I and the vast majority of staff actually work or have worked at PC because we do care? That perhaps we executed our jobs with competence and supported our volunteers with all effort? I can say that 90% plus of the volunteers I've worked with have been great, even if some needed to resign or were separated. And the disgruntled separated volunteers, whether by resignation, admin sep, med sep or other means, have been relatively few.
" ...not judgemental foolish people ..."
- Even you must see the irony in this statement.
Look, I'm not suggesting you don't have valid concerns embedded somewhere within the diatribes. If you were wrongly separated, then I hope your case is resolved. ACLU would be best advised to concentrate on the FECA process - which affects all federal agencies as administered by the DOL - and freedom of information issues. If you haven't been allowed to access all of your medical records, then that certainly seems worth pursuing.
However, the approach you've exhibited in your numerous postings is a strong indicator of why you've encountered difficulties these many years since being a PCV.
I hope you find peace. I'm signing off.
|
By daniel (user-uinj462.dialup.mindspring.com - 165.121.144.194) on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 6:06 pm: Edit Post |
e-stalking, give me a break young lady or young man.
Much of the FECA benefit program is like bribing for volunteers to quit and not question tort, injury and wrong doing while staffers climb the ladder by lieing about given volunteer's service. Many people deserve the health benefits but it is so complicated it becomes a nightmare for former volunteers. We should sue. Get the real compensation we deserve. That will put a check on the attrition rates and the whimisical firing system at Peace Corps. Then Peace Corps will be forced to support volunteers at their site. We should get FECA plus damages for being discrimiated action on purpose. That is Intentional Infliction of Emotional Duress. Within the law, that is what they have called it.
We can sue the Federal Agency because of the unique circumstances involved.
I realize I am confrontational but you would be too if you were in my shoes. During my service, I did a good job. Yes, my personality can rub some the wrong way. I have learned from that. But, no volunteer has been treated like this according to your friend Tom Tyghe. He admitted to me as a General counsel member that mistakes were made by staffers in my case. He then recused himself from my case.
Court is appropriate for some of us.
You know they hold information back even under FYOI to protect staffers who have made mistakes. The Soviet Union comes to mind when they cover up. What is the real problem with releasing personal information, "you are able to look at that information and reveal it to the public as a former volunteer and staffer".
The above never did the right thing knowing these problems were happening. That is the injustice.
You know there are problems and Peace corps has hurt volunteers.
Staffers and former staffers need to understand we have rights as volunteers and as citizens.
|
By ND RPCV (63.164.145.85) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 10:34 am: Edit Post |
Well alrighty then, Daniel
|
By Still interested , I think? (dsl-customer-205-208-213-250.ispnetbilling.com - 205.208.213.250) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 5:31 pm: Edit Post |
Well, this is 'interested' and I am back to my computer to glean some more insight into this organization. My interest in being 'interested' is that I am considering PC employment. I want to know as much as I can about what I may be getting into and even if I may have something to offer the organization.
What I am not clear about is how much Daniel represents other RPCVs. In the meantime, while I try to figure that one out; Daniel, please read what I am about to say carefully.
I have read, with open-minded interest, every single word of what you are trying to say. I have not been associated with the PC nor have I any self-interest in skewing my opinions one way or the other. I am simply seeking truth.
The truth is, Daniel, you are angry and your anger is your greatest enemy, especially if you have a valid case. You throw out accusations in broad sweeping fashion and you do yourself (and others who may have legitimate concerns) a real injustice. No problem was ever resolved with diatribes of accusations and no facts to back them up.
You say that 31 people were killed since 1996. You say that three people have been killed since Director Vasquez took office. That means, by your numbers, that 28 people were killed in a six-year period, 1996 to 2001, and three from 2001 to 2004. It appears to me, rationally thinking, that Vasquez has reduced the incidence of death about four-fold (from more that four each year to about one each year). Daniel, Daniel, Daniel, is there any credit to Vasquez for this accomplishment?
Daniel, one death is too many. The real question is whether better safe-guards are in place. Or, do you believe Vasquez just got lucky and the numbers went down on their own?
I can't even begin to address the concerns you create for yourself as you don't answer most of my specific and truly concerned questions, nor those of RPCV. Your method is to attack with attacks for which you have no facts. You attack RPCV for not giving his name as if "Daniel" somehow makes us aware of who you are. My own name, by the way, using 'interested' as a way to let others know something about me, is Ron. Now, Daniel, does that give you somehow more information about me and who I am?
I am actually far more interested in finding truth about an organization that I may some day be employed by. And, yes, Daniel, I am interested in what you have to say, and I have been since the beginning, but you have to say it with rational facts and details; and please stop accusing everyone of everything, except for yourself.
Daniel, if you truly believe (to RPCV) "...you separated volunteers, you projected that fear on their situations and hurt them and the people around them and..." How in heavens name do you know the details of any of these separations, let alone all of them? Daniel, this is not rational. It is anger. You are projecting your perception of your reality onto others, for which there is no rational connections. Well, unless, as you may believe, everyone in the organization is evil and out to get you hurt. Do you believe that? From your comments, that is what you are projecting.
I have been in the human service field for my entire career. I have been on both sides of bureaucracies and I know that no organization is perfect. It has been my experience that most people are trying to do their jobs the best they can, from the top down. Your accusations toward literally every staff member of the PC is far more telling about you than about the PC.
In all seriousness, Daniel, I sense that you feel that if you soften your heart, you will ‘lose’ the fight. My sincere input to you is that if you don’t, you will, of certainty, lose. There are many, many other people out there, I feel certain, who have legitimate concerns about the PC. Daniel, their message is lost in the sewer that you are trying to create. This all seems to be more about you and your anger and frustration than if ever, ever was about the PC. Rational, objectively thinking people will recognize that about you, very quickly at that, and more harm is done than good.
Daniel, I wish you well with your life. May I suggest devoting your time to something positive and uplifting. The experience of the Peace Corps should be one of selfless service. Was yours? If it wasn’t, it’s not too late. Devote a good measure of your time to service and you will be surprised at its value. I think you have it within you, you are very smart from what I can tell, and waking up every morning thinking about what you can do today to help others ain’t a bad way to live your life. I know, I know, you think you are doing something grand by exposing the “Evil PC.” but, Daniel, you have exposed your anger and little more. This path of yours leads you no where, and I am saying that, literally, as an unbiased bystander who happens to be interested in truth. Any truth that you want to expose is lost in the anger-ridden message.
I am still interested in learning about genuine concerns that deal with facts from anyone else who would like to enlighten an interested mind and heart (your time has expired Daniel, unless, of course, you want to lower your tone and have a conversation). Speaking of diatribes, I just had mine. Well, no one is perfect, and Daniel, that’s the point.
|
By Still Interested, well actually, Ron (dsl-customer-205-208-213-250.ispnetbilling.com - 205.208.213.250) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 5:44 pm: Edit Post |
To RPCV, thank you so much for your light in the darkness. I am taking your advice and I am glad the organization has had people like you serving in it.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
|
By none (66-44-0-141.s141.apx1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com - 66.44.0.141) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 8:22 pm: Edit Post |
There are many ways that the results of Vasquez's safety and security could be looked at. The only thing that he has said about the results during his term of office is that there have been 3 deaths while he has been director. Three people died while volunteering and that is a tragedy. Good that it is not more and all proper credit. Now what about crimes like rape? What are the numbers of rapes for Vasquez's term? What are the numbers for the last year and a half (thats over half of his time in office, isn't it)? Where are they? What are they? Why won't he or Peace Corps say? What is he hiding? He won't say he is actually making it safer to be in Peace Corps, only that he thinks safety should be a high priority, and he has spent lots of time and money on it. What are the results of that time and money?
|
By RPCV (23.42.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.42.23) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 9:03 pm: Edit Post |
None - Just curious ... see my posting at "Director Vasquez speaks out ..." discussion thread.
|
By RPCV (23.42.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.42.23) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 9:20 pm: Edit Post |
Dear Interested,
All the best to you in making your decision about PC employment. Despite its flaws PC really is a great program and an excellent place to work, in the field or at HQ, as a PCV and/or as a staffer. Fresh ideas, adapted practices and experience from outside are always needed in a learning organization that continuously seeks improvment.
While you may not find a broad spectrum of PCV feedback in these particular discussion threads, don't worry ... PCVs are never shy about sharing! You could perhaps visit the RPCV center in Rosslyn or RPCV/DC metro association for informal one-on-ones or group discussions (or contact the regional RPCV center and association nearest to you -- a list of centers and local RPCV groups can be accessed at www.peacecorps.gov and on this site).
|
By badr (dialup-4.159.220.18.dial1.chicago1.level3.net - 4.159.220.18) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:32 am: Edit Post |
Has anyone ever wondered why the last page of the PC volunteer application form asks for the names of any influential people the volunteers are connected to? Like how Peace Corps uses the information? It’s because there are two Peace Corps. One is for the privileged. Volunteers with family members who are legislators or corporate presidents can take their safety concerns to PC and no staffer will tell them to be responsible for their own safety, accuse them of having psych issues, ignore their health problems, hit on them, or tell them to live with severe sexual harassment. These volunteers do not have to write to their families asking for mace, only to be found dead a month later. They can walk into the PC office and tell the country director, “If I don’t get what I want, I will have your job.” If they have safety concerns, they are reassigned. If they have unsafe housing, they will get new housing. If they are merely unhappy with their assignments, PC creates new assignments for them. These volunteers do not write angry postings on websites. They have no reason to be angry because PC responds to their health and safety concerns.
The Other Peace Corps is for the fatherless, widows, single mothers, and the sons and daughters of middle class and working Americans. When these volunteers get sick and the medical office has nutritional supplements and over the counter medications in stock, these volunteers will not be told. They will have to buy their own medicine. They will not be taken to a doctor. When they have safety concerns at their sites, no one will investigate. If they fill out a safety incident report, it will be lost. They will be told if they report safety concerns they could jeopardize the Peace Corps program for the entire country. They will be told they have to take “personal responsibility” for their own safety. Nobody from the PC office will go out to their village with someone who speaks the language fluently and just talk to find out it the problem can be solved. These volunteers will not have access to site evaluations, translators, policy and procedure manuals, credit cards, phones, vehicles, or the considerable influence the U.S. government can exert. The volunteers with the fewest resources at their disposal are the most likely to be abandoned by PC.
It is an advantage to the local office if the volunteer with safety concerns will simply leave. Once the yearly volunteer count is made for PR purposes, the longer a volunteer stays, the more readjustment allowance will have to be paid to the volunteer, since readjustment allowance is based not on what the volunteer actually needs to get reestablished, but on length of service. PC can save literally thousands of dollars per volunteer per country per year by getting volunteers who report safety concerns out of the country early, pushing the cost of readjustment onto families who can least afford it, then waiting for the new crop of volunteers to arrive just before the next annual volunteer census. This is why 33% (or is it 50%?) of volunteers leave before finishing their first year. These are the volunteers who need an ombudsman office and an independent inspector general.
Safety cannot be improved until it can be measured. Peace Corps needs to track the number of volunteers who report safety concerns and how the concerns were resolved. The volunteers need to be able make safety reports online directly to Washington without going through the local offices that are so good at losing reports and ignoring safety concerns.
|
By Daniel (134.241.123.30) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:09 am: Edit Post |
Right on Badr,
I guess I have a friend. Sorry Ron and RPCV/ former staffer. Seems like other think like me.
Hey Still interested Ron,
I guess I got you interested. You seem to like this Director. Perhaps, if you like him so much you should join and go out and serve in Peace Corps.
3 is 3 people. I guess you don't have much regard for human life. You should join.
|
By daniel (134.241.123.30) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:14 am: Edit Post |
Peace Corps is unsafe under this Director. He covers up facts,safety issues and former volunteer cases that went through safety issues.
We should have another hearing on how many volunters have been wronged by Peace Corps reagarding safety issues and health issues.
Perhaps, we will convince memebers of Congress like we did in the past to hold these type of hearings.
|
By RPCV (31.41.171.66.subscriber.vzavenue.net - 66.171.41.31) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 12:13 pm: Edit Post |
Badr, Daniel -
I think your posts speak loudly for themselves and require no counter-point response. Do you even care about being taken seriously? And quit stealing from and debasing Sen. Edward's "Two Americas" theme.
In any case, the level of discussion has fallen to an unproductive low and it's time to leave this one permanently. I'm sure you'll miss me.
Peace
|
By Ron, not interested anymore (dsl-customer-205-208-213-250.ispnetbilling.com - 205.208.213.250) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 1:07 pm: Edit Post |
Daniel, I asked you to please stop accusing everyone of everything, except yourself, and your response is to accuse me of not having much regard for human life. The irony Daniel. Don't you see the ironly? Think about it Daniel. Your response to my genuine concern about you was to attack me. Has that approach been productive for you?
What both you and Badr don’t seem to get is that blasting allegations and accusations to absolutely everyone about absolutely everything, and now that includes me, with so much anger, well the message gets lost and disregarded very quickly. Such is your responsibility, not mine. If you never learn that lesson, you both will have a very long and troubled life, all self-inflicted. Mirrors were created for a good reason and those of us who are willing to look into them from time to time and self-evaluate our mental and emotional state (and stop blaming others for our misery) usually find peace in life and at least some form of happiness.
Daniel, my effort has been sincere and you are screaming from the rooftops so loudly that you have lost all reason and ability to communicate anything except anger and frustration. I am sure you have cause to be angry, but Daniel, you are going nowhere with me and I am bowing out of the this discussion.
The fact is, there are other views, such as Jim PCV, and my own persoanl ray of hope of finding reason and objectively RPCV (who sadly has had enough), and I am sure others.
I am still objectively trying to find truth here, but I am going to have to pursue other means to find it.
As I sign off, Daniel, I truly wish you well, but please get help. The blame-game is the most trouble-ridden approach to life anyone can embrace. You have embraced it with so much vigor that it is consuming you and your ability to communicate. Your approach has resulted in far more concern for your well-being and state of mind than anything that may be right or wrong with the PC. I hope you learn that at some point in your life and find something uplifting and rewarding to do with yourself.
Signing off and bowing out.
Why continue such a pointless, unsubstantiated rant? Why not give details about concerns for safety and then close the communication? As a former volu