The Washington Post

International drama added to Foreign Service officers’ feud


What started as essentially a family feud among federal employees has reached the Senate and potentially a key Middle East ally.

The feud involves former presidents of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) who asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to postpone consideration of a Foreign Service officer as ambassador to Qatar.

Joe Davidson writes the Federal Diary, a column about federal government and workplace issues that celebrated its 80th birthday in November 2012. Davidson previously was an assistant city editor at The Washington Post and a Washington and foreign correspondent with The Wall Street Journal, where he covered federal agencies and political campaigns. View Archive

That added a little international drama to an otherwise internal dispute among Foreign Service officers, who generally appear to be a pretty cohesive bunch.

Qatar increased interest in the rumpus because of President Obama’s controversial move last month. The administration sent five Taliban detainees to Qatar in exchange for the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held prisoner for five years. The next envoy to Qatar will have to deal with that.

Apparently sensing a tactical opportunity, 11 former AFSA presidents asked Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and ranking Republican Bob Corker (Tenn.) to postpone action on the Qatar nominee, Dana Shell Smith. They wanted her nomination delayed until an employment dispute involving her and another former AFSA president, Susan Johnson, is resolved. Smith, the former AFSA presidents said, “has not demonstrated the judgment or temperament” to be chief of mission.

The tactic was successful in raising the visibility of Johnson’s complaint with the State Department. It wasn’t successful in postponing action on Smith’s nomination. She was easily approved along with other nominees in a block voice vote. There wasn’t any mention of the dispute involving Smith and Johnson, nor any discussion about Smith’s nomination before the vote.

“I appreciate their [former AFSA presidents’] concerns, but I saw nothing in the nominee’s hearing or abilities to not move forward, and Qatar is incredibly important to us,” Menendez said after the committee meeting.

The family feud is rooted in a broader issue — the appropriate role of political appointees in government agencies.

The long and complicated story dates to April 2013, when Johnson, who filed the complaint, and two former State Department officials wrote a Washington Post op-ed article.

They said the “Foreign Service is being relegated to a secondary status” by “the overwhelming — and growing — presence of political appointees in mid-level and top leadership positions.”

Smith and Valerie Fowler, both Foreign Service officers, took issue with the op-ed. They circulated a letter addressed to Johnson, signed by 10 State Department employees, that said the article was “inaccurate, offensive to many of our colleagues and completely misrepresentative of AFSA membership.”

Johnson’s arguments, they added, were “short-sighted and selfish.”

Two co-authors wrote the article with Johnson, but, for whatever reason, the letter criticizing the op-ed did not mention them. Also, two signers of the letter to Johnson were approved for ambassadorships without controversy.

Though the letter said “we are expressing our own personal opinions in this letter,” the writers sent it through the government’s e-mail system and included their work titles written in State’s abbreviated form.

Fowler later was on a review board that considered Johnson for a promotion she did not get.

Without mentioning names, a statement from the current AFSA leadership said that it “is focused on achieving Senate confirmation of all career Foreign Service ambassadorial nominees” and that it “does not comment on individual members’ grievances because they are confidential.”

Johnson referred all comment to Thomas Boyatt, a former ambassador who is among the past AFSA presidents supporting her. Boyatt said Johnson filed a grievance against the department because it did not disavow the letter Smith and Fowler circulated. That letter damaged Johnson’s reputation and opportunity for promotion, Boyatt said, and sent an “intimidating” message to those who disagree with management’s orthodoxy. At the time, State officials seemed cool to the op-ed’s message but did not criticize Johnson directly. The complaint also was filed because Fowler did not recuse herself from Johnson’s promotion review board as good personnel practice says she should have.

The letter from Boyatt and other Johnson supporters to the committee said State’s appearance of condoning the comments from Smith, Fowler and their group “send a chilling message that speaking out about or questioning personnel policies that lead to the weakening of the Foreign Service as a professional cadre may put careers at risk.”

State did not permit interviews with Smith and Fowler.

Doug Frantz, an assistant secretary of state, said the letter asking the committee to delay action on Smith “contained errors.” He noted Johnson’s grievance “was filed subsequent to Ms. Smith’s nomination.” He added that Johnson could have requested Fowler’s recusal from the board but did not. Johnson, however, did not personally appear before the panel and did not know Fowler was on the board before it finished its review.

Though Smith, Fowler and the others criticized Johnson by government e-mail, Frantz said it “was intended to be a private communication from AFSA members to the head of their association.”

It’s not private now.

Twitter: @JoeDavidsonWP

Previous columns by Joe Davidson are available at

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
New Hampshire has voted. The Democrats debate on Thursday. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Philip Rucker and Robert Costa say...
For Trump, the victory here was sweet vindication, showing that his atypical campaign could prevail largely on the power of celebrity and saturation media coverage. But there was also potential for concern in Tuesday's outcome. Trump faces doubts about his discipline as a candidate and whether he can build his support beyond the levels he has shown in the polls.
The Post's John Wagner and Anne Gearan say...
Hillary Clinton, who was declared the winner of the Iowa caucuses last week by the narrowest of margins, now finds herself struggling to right her once-formidable campaign against a self-described democratic socialist whom she has accused of selling pipe dreams to his supporters.
People have every right to be angry. But they're also hungry for solutions.
Hillary Clinton, in her New Hampshire primary night speech
I am going to be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.
Donald Trump, in his New Hampshire primary victory speech
Upcoming debates
Feb. 11: Democratic debate

on PBS, in Wisconsin

Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

Campaign 2016
See results from N.H.

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.