Peace Corps Online | The Peace Corps Safety and Security Bill before Congress

The Peace Corps Safety and Security Bill before Congress

Peace Corps Online: Peace Corps News: Special Reports: August 7, 2004: Director Gaddi Vasquez: The PCOL Interview: The Peace Corps Safety and Security Bill before Congress

By Admin1 (admin) (pool-151-196-239-147.balt.east.verizon.net - 151.196.239.147) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Director Gaddi Vasquez: The PCOL Interview - The Peace Corps Safety and Security Bill before Congress

Director Gaddi Vasquez: The PCOL Interview - The Peace Corps Safety and Security Bill before Congress

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.

The Peace Corps Safety and Security Bill before Congress

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.

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; Congress; Legislation; Safety and Security of Volunteers

PCOL13830
78

.

By Anonymous (ca1462-ch01-bl02.ma-cambridg0.sa.earthlink.net - 207.69.137.201) on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 09:12 pm: Edit

The Big Jip,

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.

Quote from the so called Director of Peace Corps.

You never mentioned the Volunteer.

The Volunteer has no rights in your Kangaroo court or friends with the inspector general's office. How many claims have been sucessfully claimed for gross negligence or wrongful death suits?

Peace Corps volunteers need the ability to challenge on equal footing the agency in wrong doing and gross negligence. This has not occured. Employees of Peace Corps are not volunteers.

You don't know what you are talking about Mr. Director, you never served, nor did you go through a safety issue from foreign hostiles.

It is a shame for all those who have gone through these situations and health issues that are not served correctly from Peace Corps and or the Department of labor. Your friend Elaine chao has made sure of that. She now farms out cases to insurance adjusters. How fair is that to a volunteer or any RPCV?

Not having an Ombudsman's office and or attorney working on behalf of volunteers has hurt the program and undermined the meaning of Peace.

It is a jip, to volunteer your time and have been injured, gone through a safety issue and have trouble in his or her careers because you "Volunteered your time to Peace Corps".

Vasquez, you would not know this because you make alot more than any volunteer. I suggest after working for the President, you volunteer in a remote village in say a Latin American country to understand what it really means to be a Volunteer.

We need more than a Ombudsman's office, we need an investigation to whether RPCV's are being discriminated against because they served.

You are not accurate Vasquez, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Former volunteer

By former V (134.241.126.46) on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 04:37 pm: Edit

It has been very costly to the victims of violence and the families of former volunteers who served the Peace Corps to be treated poorly by agency heads such as you.

The Inspector General or any other agency of the government is not adequately aiding former volunteers who have gone through safety and health issues. The inspector general can only recommend to the director that fraud and abuse has occured. How many times have they found on the side of the volunteer? How many times have they taken a recommendation that was aiding a volunteer to the Director and the Director actually found on the side of the volunteer?

I bet you can count them on their hand, one hand at that.

Volunteers need a General Counsel to work solely for them and their work in the field. This part of General Counsel should be authorized with funding from Congress and provided with a budget to look into former volunteer separation, health and safety issues.

This General counsel that would work solely on behalf of volunteer's experiences. It would ensure "soviet union type" of labeling or stygmitizing of former volunteers doesn't happen. This would protect volunteers from staffers who have undue influence over volunteers current and future federal career. It would ensure that families of former volunteers have representation on equal footing with the agency's General Counsel and interests. Currently, there are thousands of former volunteers not be served for service related injuries because the system works against them as an injured volunteer. Currently, Volunteers have no rights without getting an a federal attorney who makes three hundred dollars an hour.

What happened to the 2,900 volunteers who were victims of violence in service? How many are getting proper care and guidance from the agency?
What are their status? We need a GAO report separations, health and safety and see how many in a poll feel they have been treated correctly by the agency?

Maybe after that we can actually have "volunteers who have gone through safety and health issues and separations testify before Congress to initiate this office of General Counsel for Volunteers only.

How does that sound Mr. Smith and Mr. Vasquez?

Sounds good to us.

Our families and us as former volunteers need to have our experiences recognized correctly.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Vasquez? Have you served in a remote village? or are you just used to criticizing volunteers who have gone through issues in your easy chairs at Peace Corps. How much money do you make per year Mr. Smith and how many years have you served? Over ten? That is at least a half a million dollars. How about you Gaddi?

We are better than you. Why because we gave our time. Volunteered our time to our government. We asked not. You have not.

			This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:
Password:
E-mail:
Post as "Anonymous"

Add a Message