Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXVIII, Organization and Management of Foreign Policy

171. Memorandum From the Senior Officer Bunch to the Under Secretary of State for Management (Read) and the Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Personnel (Barnes)¹

Washington, undated

In reply to your request,² please find attached our recommendations for specific changes in the proposed Foreign Service Act of 1980.³

Our recommendations are substantively the same as those we have suggested over the last few months⁴ and we continue to believe that they are the minimum required to achieve the support of the Foreign Service and the Congress.

As you read the attached revisions, please keep in mind our basic position:

—We believe that the purpose of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 must be to effect major reform in the Foreign Service—with the aim of recreating a system based on excellence.

—The key objects of such change—reflected in over 30 years of reform efforts—revolve around the questions of

—A single Foreign Service of the United States v. disparate agency services.

—The question of generalists and specialists.

and

—The notion of “up or out”—i.e. an egress mechanism that assures rational intake and promotion opportunities.

—Any reform effort which does not address these issues clearly is doomed to failure—or worse, may exacerbate an already bad situation.

Our recommendations fall within, indeed at the head of, the mainstream of reform. We believe that

—Compatible structures should exist among the “feeder systems” of the various agencies up to the senior threshold—but that the Senior Foreign Service must be a single service.

—We need both across the board executives and highly qualified experts and the way to produce these is to establish a Senior Foreign Service which will attract such talents in the numbers we require.

and

—The system of renewable limited appointments, associated with a personnel model which determines the number of vacancies required at the senior ranks, will provide the tool which will maintain the overall flow of talent we need from bottom to top of the profession.

We remain at your disposition to discuss these proposals. We recognize that our language may have to be conformed to legislative requirements, and we are prepared to envisage alternative proposals in certain areas, for example in the transition phase.

But, we wish again to state that our support of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 is directly related to the essential positions we have recommended in our various papers and in the attached revisions.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Records of the Under Secretary for Management (M), 1978–1979, Box 8, Chron June 1–6, 1979. No classification marking. “The Senior Officer Bunch” is presumably the senior officer group represented by Harrop in the May 19 meeting with Vance, Read, and Barnes; see Section II of Document 170.
2. Not further identified.
3. Attached but not printed.
4. See, for example, Section II of Document 170.