Quickie: Unwed FS Couples Want Benefits, Too

Image via Wikipedia

Paul Richter writes in today’s issue of the LA Times: Benefits for gays? Us too, say the unwed. He reports that opposite-sex partners in the Foreign Service say they should be treated the same and that at least one FS couple has threatened to challenge the rules in court as discriminatory.

I don’t know what the numbers is for the Foreign Service but according to this report census data show that unwed heterosexual couples in the United States comprise about 10% of opposite-sex couples living together. I though think that this issue, because it has to do with people and benefits has the potential to get rather messy. Quick excerpts below:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton won praise in June after pushing to extend many federal benefits traditionally provided to diplomats' spouses to gay and lesbian partners.Since then, unmarried heterosexual couples have been lining up to ask for benefits too. They have approached the State Department's personnel office and the diplomats' union, arguing that they are entitled to equal treatment. At least one couple has threatened to challenge the rules in court as discriminatory.[…]The family benefits, although a small part of diplomats' overall benefit package, are important to Foreign Service officers. Benefits include paid travel for the partner to and from overseas posts; visas and diplomatic passports; emergency medical treatment; shipment of household possessions; emergency evacuation in times of danger; and education benefits for minor children. Health insurance is not included for gay partners, although spouses are covered.[…]The American Foreign Service Assn., the diplomats' union, has not yet taken a position, said spokesman Tom Switzer, but it "has heard from a number of members who believe that the same benefits should be extended to opposite-sex, unmarried partners as well."

Read the whole thing here.

FECA Death Gratuity Goes Up to 100K

Image via Wikipedia

The Interim final rule and request for comments on the Death Gratuity Under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) has been posted in the Federal Register.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Public Law 110-181, was enacted on January 28, 2008. Section 1105 of Public Law 110-181 amended the FECA, creating a new section 8102a. The section establishes a new FECA benefit for eligible survivors of Federal employees and NAFI (non-appropriated fund instrumentality employees) who die of injuries incurred in connection with service with an Armed Force in a contingency operation.

“Section 8102a was effective upon enactment of Public Law 110-181, on January 28, 2008. It states that the United States will pay the death gratuity of up to $100,000 to the eligible survivors ``immediately upon receiving official notification'' of an employee's death. The section also contains a retroactive payment provision, stating that the death gratuity will be paid for employees of certain agencies who died on or after October 7, 2001, due to injuries incurred in connection with service with an Armed Force in the theater of operations of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Both the immediate payment provision and the retroactive payment provision strongly suggest that the Department act as quickly as possible to implement section 8102a.” (links added)

Read the whole thing here.

Comments are solicited.

Applicability date: This interim final rule applies to all claims filed on or after August 18, 2009. This rule also applies to any claims that are pending before OWCP on August 18, 2009.

Comments: The Department invites comments on the interim final rule from interested parties. Comments on the interim final rule must be postmarked by October 19, 2009. Written comments on the new information collection requirements in this rule must be postmarked by October 19, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the interim final rule, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1215-AB66, by any ONE of the following methods:

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: The Internet address to submit comments on the rule is http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web site instructions for submitting comments. Or you can go directly to the page for sending comments to this specific rule here. The full text of the interim rule is here.

Mail: Submit written comments to Shelby Hallmark, Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3524, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Because of security measures, mail directed to Washington, DC is sometimes delayed. We will only consider comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or other delivery service on or before the deadline for comments.

Instructions: All comments must include the RIN 1215-AB66 for this rulemaking. Receipt of any comments, whether by mail or Internet, will not be acknowledged. Because DOL continues to experience delays in receiving postal mail in the Washington, DC area, commenters are encouraged to submit any comments by mail early.

Examples provided with the interim final rule.

(1) Example One. An employee's survivors are entitled to the Foreign Service Act death gratuity; the employee's spouse received payment in the amount of $80,000 under that Act. A death gratuity is also payable under FECA; the amount of the FECA death gratuity that is payable is a total of $20,000. That employee, using Form CA-40 had designated 50% of the death gratuity under this subpart to be paid to his neighbor John Smith who is still living. So, 50% of the death gratuity will be paid to his spouse and the remaining 50% of the death gratuity paid under this subpart would be paid to John Smith. This means the surviving spouse will receive $10,000 and John Smith will receive $10,000.

(2) Example Two. Employee dies in circumstances that would qualify her for payment of the gratuity under this subpart; her agency has paid the $10,000 death gratuity pursuant to Public Law 104-208. The employee had not completed any designation form. The FECA death gratuity is reduced by the $10,000 death gratuity and employee's spouse receives $90,000.

(3) Example Three. An employee of the Foreign Service whose annual salary is $75,000 dies in circumstances that would qualify for payment of both the Foreign Service Act death gratuity and the death gratuity under this subpart. Before his death, the employee designated that 40% of the death gratuity under this subpart be paid to his cousin Jane Smith, pursuant to the alternate beneficiary designation provision at section 10.908 and that 10% be paid to his uncle John Doe who has since died. At the time of his death, the employee had no surviving spouse, children, parents, or siblings. Therefore, the Foreign Service Act death gratuity will not be paid, because no eligible survivors according to the Foreign Service Act provision exist. The death gratuity under this subpart would equal $100,000, because no other death gratuity has been paid, and Jane would receive $40,000 according to the employee's designation. As John Doe is deceased, no death gratuity may be paid pursuant to the designation of a share of the death gratuity to him.

Data on Injuries and Death since 2004 in Iraq:

The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) has been tracking federal civilian injuries and deaths resulting from incidents or exposures arising in Iraq since March 2004. Through the end of FY 2008, there have been 220 claims accepted for injuries or exposures sustained in Iraq. Of those 220 accepted claims, 14 have been claims arising from the death of the Federal civilian employee.

Data on Injuries and Death since 2007 in Afghanistan:

OWCP also has been tracking Federal civilian injuries and deaths resulting from incidents or exposures arising in Afghanistan, but only since October, 2007. Through the end of FY 2008, there have been 25 claims accepted for injuries or exposures sustained in Afghanistan and only 1 of those claims was for the death of the employee.

OWCP Projects Expenditures:

Based upon these data, OWCP projects about 10 death claims per year as an upper limit estimate. Assuming each claim is paid at the maximum allowable rate, this would result in expenditures of $1 million or less annually. It is important to note, however, that the projection is based on a very limited amount of data and that a single significant event could result in substantially higher than projected expenditures.

Some Questions:

#1. The rule says that “DOL has determined for equitable reasons that every death gratuity will be paid in the amount of $100,000. (The $100,000 gratuity is offset by other death gratuities that have been paid for the same death.)” But how did Labor come up with that figure is what I’d like to know. What went into that calculation?

#2. This rule specifically addresses the death gratuity for Federal employees who “die of injuries incurred in connection with service with an Armed Force in a contingency operation.” Elsewhere, it talks about “injuries incurred in connection with service with an Armed Force in the theater of operations of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Okay so -- A) What happens to FS employees who die in terrorist attacks outside the theater of operation? Those that are located in places not considered “service with an Armed Force in a contingency operation?” Wouldn’t this result in a two-system gratuity?

B) Operation Enduring Freedom includes operations in Afghanistan, the Philippines, the Horn of Africa (Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia), Trans-Sahara and Kyrgyzstan. USAID officer, John Granville was in Sudan when he was assassinated in 2008; Sudan falling under OEF, his NOK could potentially received retroactive benefit under this new rule. But where does this leave the family of Laurence M. Foley, the US diplomat who was assassinated in Jordan in 2002? Or David Foy who was killed in Pakistan in 2006?

The full text of the interim rule is here. You can also send comments to this rule no later than October 19, 2009; see the comments page here.

* * *

For State, the death benefits for death in the performance of duty under 3 FAM 3650 derives its authority from the following:

(1) Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 8101-8152; 20 C.F.R. Parts 1, 10 and 25;(2) Title VI, Section 651 of Public Law 104-208 (The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996), effective September 30, 1996; and(3) Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act, codified in 5 U.S.C. 5570; Executive Order 12598; 22 C.F.R. Part 192.

State’s Bureau of Human Resources explained this below:

Section 413 of the Foreign Service Act, 22 U.S.C. § 3973 The Secretary of State, the Director of AID and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce may provide for payment of a death gratuity in an amount equal to one year's salary of the employee at the time of death to the surviving dependents of any Foreign Service employee who dies as a result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty abroad.

3 FAM 3653.1 on Eligibility: A death gratuity may be payable under section 413 of the Foreign Service Act when any member of the Foreign Service or a U.S. representative to an international organization or commission dies as a result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty abroad (outside the United States) provided that a survivor is entitled to elect monthly compensation benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA).

According to 3 FAM 3653 Death Gratuity Under Section 413 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980:

The survivor is eligible for one year's salary of the employee at the time of death. For purposes of the death gratuity under Section 413 of the Foreign Service Act, one year’s salary includes the employee’s full annual salary (rate of basic pay) or full cash wage, locality pay, and law enforcement availability pay that the employee was receiving at the time of death.

Title VI, Section 651 of Public Law 104-208 Under Title VI, Section 651 of P.L. 104-208 (the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996), the head of an agency may pay a death gratuity of up to $10,000 to the personal representative of the deceased employee. The legislative history for this provision indicates that the amount is intended to supplement costs for funeral expenses. This payment may not exceed $10,000 inclusive of the amounts identified in paragraphs (2) and (3) under FECA benefits above. Because $ 1,000 for funeral and administrative payments typically is made under FECA, the amount of this death gratuity payment usually is $9,000. Death benefits under this authority are considered taxable income.

Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. §5570 and 22 CFR 192

This authority provides for the payment of compensation to eligible dependents or parents by Federal agencies where U.S. Government civilian employees or family members of such employees are killed, if the President determines that the death was caused by hostile action and was the result of the individual’s relationship with the Government. Payment authorized under this authority must be reduced by any other amount payable by the U.S. Government in connection with the death or disability (emphasis added).

[NOTE: Because of the other payments authorized above, including FECA and section 413 of the Foreign Service Act authorizing one year’s salary, this benefit rarely is paid because of the offset provision in the law.]

The President’s authority under the Act was delegated to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor. The Department’s regulations at 22 CFR Part 192 implementing 5 U.S.C. §5570 provide that the death benefit payment for either an employee or a family member of an employee is equal to one year’s salary of the principal at the time of death.

* * *

That’s how FSO Howard Kavaler and his two daughters received $65,000 as death gratuity for his wife, Prabhi, a Foreign Service officer who perished in Kenya during the East Africa embassy bombings. Jeff Stein pointed out in this article that “the families of the 1,995 men and women killed in the Sept. 11 attacks were awarded checks averaging nearly $1.5 million each.” 12 Americans were killed in Nairobi. I am jaded; the families of 12 are not enough to move Congress.

H.R. 2410 which passed the House last June did contain a provision (Section 313) that the death gratuity be ‘‘at level II of the Executive Schedule.” As of 2009, that amount is at $177,000.00. H.R. 2410 was referred to Senate committee on June 22, 2009. Current bill status: “Received in the Senate, read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.” We’ll keep our eyes on it. But it’s time to write to your representatives in Congress.

Related Items:

• 3 FAM 3653 Death Gratuity Under Section 413 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980
• State Department: Death and Disability Benefits – Iraq and Afghanistan (undated)http://www.rnet.state.gov/forms/Death_Disability_Benefits__Iraq__Afghanistan.pdf

Report on Pay and Benefits of Deployed Civilians in War Zones

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released its report on compensation and medical benefits extended to Federal civilians during deployment in the war zones. Selected excerpts reprinted below:

Summary:

The Department of Defense (DOD) and other executive agencies increasingly deploy civilians in support of contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prior GAO reports show that the use of deployed civilians has raised questions about the potential for differences in policies on compensation and medical benefits. GAO was asked to compare agency policies and to identify any issues in policy or implementation regarding (1) compensation, (2) medical benefits, and (3) identification and tracking of deployed civilians. GAO reviewed laws and agency policies; interviewed officials responsible for governmentwide guidance at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and for policy at six selected agencies, including DOD and State; reviewed all workers' compensation claims filed by deployed civilians from January 1, 2006 through April 30, 2008 at the Department of Labor; and conducted a generalizeable survey of civilians deployed from the six agencies during this same period.

Although policies concerning compensation for deployed civilians are generally comparable across agencies, GAO found some issues that affect the amount of compensation--depending on such things as the agency's pay system or the employee's grade/band--and the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of this compensation. For example, two civilian supervisors with comparable salaries who deploy under different pay systems receive different overtime pay because the overtime rate is determined by the employee's pay system and grade/band level. While a congressional subcommittee asked OPM to develop a benefits package for all deployed civilians to war zones and to recommend enabling legislation, OPM has not yet developed such a package or provided legislation. Also, implementation of some policies may not always be accurate or timely. For example, GAO estimates that approximately 40 percent of the deployed civilians in its survey reported experiencing problems with compensation--including not receiving danger pay--in part because they did not know where to go for assistance. Moreover, in January 2008, Congress gave agency heads discretion to apply the death gratuity provision retroactively for deaths connected with operations in Iraq or Afghanistan on or after October 7, 2001. At the time of GAO's review, agencies had not yet issued formal policy to implement this benefit.

Although agency policies on medical benefits are similar, GAO found some issues with medical care following deployment, workers' compensation, and post deployment medical screenings that affect the benefits of deployed civilians. Specifically, while DOD allows its treatment facilities to care for "non-DOD" civilians following deployment in some cases, the circumstances are not clearly identified in guidance and some agencies were unaware of DOD's policy. Civilians who deploy also may be eligible for medical benefits through worker's compensation. GAO's analysis of 188 such claims filed with Labor revealed some significant processing delays resulting in part from lack of clarity about the documentation required to support claims. Without clear information on what documents to submit to support a claim, applicants may continue to experience delays. Further, while DOD requires medical screening before and following deployment for civilians, State requires medical screenings only before deployment. Prior GAO work found that documenting the medical condition of deployed personnel before and following deployment was critical to identifying conditions that may have resulted from deployment. Each agency provided GAO with a list of deployed civilians, but none had fully implemented policies to identify and track these civilians. DOD, for example, had procedures to identify and track deployed civilians but concluded that its guidance was not consistently implemented. While the other agencies had some ability to identify and track civilians, some had to manually search their systems. Thus, agencies may lack critical information on the location and movement of personnel, which may hamper their ability to intervene promptly to address emerging health issues, as GAO has previously reported.

Death Gratuity:

In addition, Congress provided for a death gratuity under FECA of up to $100,000 to be paid to the survivor of a deployed civilian whose death resulted from injuries incurred while deployed in support of a contingency operation. This statute also provided agency heads with the discretion to apply the death gratuity provision retroactively for survivors of civilians who died, on or after October 7, 2001, from injuries incurred in connection with their service with an armed service in the theater of operations during either Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. This provision became law on January 28, 2008. However, Labor, which is responsible for implementing regulations under FECA, has yet to issue formal implementing policy—although Labor officials told us that they have been working to finalize a policy for over a year. Further, while some agencies have issued memoranda or conducted briefings concerning the death gratuity, according to officials at the agencies included in our review, none has issued formal policy that incorporates these provisions—including the retroactive provision—because they are waiting for implementing guidance from Labor.

In fact, officials from State and USAID said that they cannot move forward on these provisions until Labor issues its guidance. Labor officials told us that because of the recent change in administration, they could not provide us with an anticipated issue date for the final policy; Labor officials stated that the draft policy is currently being reviewed for approval by the Office of Management and Budget. Despite the lack of formal policy, officials at Labor and DOD stated that, at the time of our review, this $100,000 death gratuity had been paid in one instance Civilians’ Eligibility to Receive Care at DOD Medical Facilities Following Deployment Is Not Clear or Conveyed to Other Agencies Despite DOD’s policy to allow “non-DOD” civilians to receive treatment in DOD facilities following deployment, confusion exists within other agencies and DOD regarding non-DOD civilians’ eligibility for this care. For example, officials at several agencies, including State, USAID, and Justice, were unaware that deployed civilians were eligible for care at DOD facilities following deployment, in part because these agencies did not receive the September 2007 memorandum from DOD. Additionally, confusion exists within DOD regarding non-DOD civilians’ eligibility.


Response from the Department of State:

In its written comments in response to a draft of our report, the Department of State concurred with our three recommendations. Specifically, with respect to our recommendation that it develop post-deployment medical screening requirements, State committed to implementing mandatory medical clearance exams for civilian employees upon completion of their assignment in a combat zone, beginning in 2010. With respect to our recommendation that it establish an ombudsman program to help ensure that deployed civilians receive the compensation and medical benefits to which they are entitled, State committed to designating a formal ombudsman to replace its informal existing mechanisms. Finally, with respect to our recommendation that it establish policies and procedures to identify and track deployed civilians, State committed to consulting and coordinating with DOD and other executive agencies to determine the best way to establish policies and procedures to accurately identify and track standardized information on deployed civilians. If properly designed and implemented, these actions should meet the intent of our recommendations.


Response from United States Agency for International Development:


In its written comments in response to a draft of our report, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) generally agreed with our conclusions but did not agree with our recommendations. With respect to our recommendation that USAID establish an ombudsman to help ensure that its deployed civilians receive the compensation and medical benefits to which they are entitled, USAID officials pointed out that the agency already has an ombudsman to support its Critical Priority Countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan. According to USAID, this ombudsman, among other things, helps Foreign Service employees deployed to these countries with a variety of issues, including compensation and medical benefits. We contacted the individual who USAID identified as the ombudsman and asked for documentation related to this position and its origin and responsibilities. This official stated that the position was established in 2006 to assist deployed civilians in obtaining the compensation and medical benefits to which they are entitled, but this official did not provide any supporting documentation. In the absence of documentation, it is unclear to us how USAID's ombudsman ensures that deployed civilians receive the full compensation and benefits to which they are entitled. Accordingly, we continue to believe our recommendation has merit. With respect to our recommendation to establish policies and procedures to accurately identify and track standardized information on deployed civilians, USAID commented that it believed its current systems to be adequate and additional policies and procedures to be unnecessary at this juncture. We disagree; for example, when asked to develop a list of civilians the agency had deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, USAID officials stated that they had no agencywide system that would provide this information. They relied in part on a manual search of personnel records.

Furthermore, we note that USAID was unable to provide a list of civilians who had deployed for less than 180 days--in part because doing so would have been extremely labor intensive. As we have noted in this report and in prior work, agencies must be able to capture and subsequently retrieve location-specific information on employees, to identify possible exposures to environmental or industrial contaminants during deployment. Such information includes movement within theater and medical treatments while deployed. Without this capability, an agency may be unable to intervene promptly to address any future health problems that employees may develop as a result of deployment in support of contingency operations. USAID's current capability, which relies in part on manual searches and may require labor intensive efforts to retrieve this information, does not represent a system that meets the intent of our recommendation. Should any deployment-related medical concerns develop in the future, such a system may fail to identify all individuals who may be affected. As a result, we continue to believe that our recommendation is appropriate.


Read the whole thing here including the GAO's 10-point recommendations.

Related Item:
GAO: Human Capital - Actions Needed to Better Track and Provide Timely and Accurate Compensation and Medical Benefits to Deployed Federal Civilians GAO-09-562 | June 2009 (pdf)

Foreign Service Same-Sex Domestic Partners Get Benefits

HRC’s Statement on Benefits for Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Foreign Service Employees:

While a career in the Foreign Service is rewarding, the demands to serve our country require great commitment and sacrifice by Foreign Service employees and their families. As in American society, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our Post communities abroad. Family members often uproot their lives, endure hardship conditions, and put their own careers on hold to support our overseas missions. The Department of State acknowledges these vital contributions by providing certain family members with benefits, training, and allowances.

The same has not been true for domestic partners of Foreign Service employees. While these partners support the work of our overseas posts, they are not granted benefits and allowances provided for other family members. Domestic partners of federal employees have for too long been treated unequally. As one of my first acts as Secretary, I directed the Department to review whether we had the flexibility to extend additional benefits to domestic partners.

Yesterday, the President issued a memorandum reflecting his commitment to ensuring that same-sex domestic partners receive the maximum benefits that each agency legally can undertake. I am pleased to announce that the Department of State is extending the full range of legally available benefits and allowances to same-sex domestic partners of members of the Foreign Service sent to serve abroad.

Changing our policy to provide training, medical care and other benefits to same-sex domestic partners will promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad. It will help the Department attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers. This change is the right thing to do, and it is the smart thing to do.

We will implement this policy by changing our Foreign Affairs Manual and the Standardized Regulations to allow the same-sex domestic partners of the Department’s Foreign Service employees to qualify as family members for a variety of benefits and allowances. Where appropriate, this extension of benefits and allowances will apply to the children of same-sex domestic partners as well. To qualify for these benefits and allowances on behalf of a same-sex domestic partner, an employee must file an affidavit identifying his or her same-sex domestic partner and certifying to certain eligibility requirements that will be set forth in the FAM.


The Department of State intends to provide the following additional benefits and allowances for declared same-sex domestic partners of eligible employees serving overseas:

• Diplomatic passports,
• Inclusion on employee travel orders to and from posts abroad,
• Shipment of household effects,
• Inclusion in family size calculations for the purpose of making housing allocations,
• Family member preference for employment at posts abroad,
• Use of medical facilities at posts abroad,
• Medical evacuation from posts abroad,
• Emergency travel for partners to visit gravely ill or injured employees and relatives,
• Inclusion as family members for emergency evacuation from posts abroad,
• Subsistence payments related to emergency evacuation from posts abroad,
• Inclusion in calculations of payments of overseas allowances (e.g., payment for quarters, cost of living, and other allowances),
• Representation expenses, and
• Training at the Foreign Service Institute.

The Department also will work with foreign governments to provide same-sex domestic partners, to the extent possible, with diplomatic visas, privileges and immunities, and authorization to work in the local economy.


We look forward to implementing these changes.

* * *

Wow! Change has come to the State Department. See original statement here. I am deeply proud of the State Department today. Here's a shout out to Digger of Life After Jerusalem and to my two dear friends heading off to their new assignment.

Foreign Service Overseas Pay Equity Act of 2009

On July 16, 2008, the AFSA-supported "Foreign Service Overseas Pay Equity Act of 2008" (H.R. 3202 which was originally offered by Rep. Christopher Smith [R-NJ]) was approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) on a voice vote with bipartisan support and no opposition. Congressman Smith wrote a letter to his colleagues regarding this issue last year. On September 23, 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) passed an almost identical version of the House bill (assigned Senate bill number S. 3426 when offered by Senator John Kerry (D-MA)) on a voice vote with bi-partisan support and no opposition.

Then Congress adjourned without moving the bill to final passage.

AFSA was nonetheless pleased that the bill went that far saying that these actions were “a result of expanding awareness on Capitol Hill that the large and growing cut in base pay imposed on the junior and mid-level Foreign Service is a serious disincentive to recruitment, retention, and overseas service.”

Thanks to Diplopundit reader, Stephanie for the tip on the whereabouts of this bill – it is still in Committee.

Rep. Christopher Smith [R-NJ] re-introduced the bill as H.R. 370: Foreign Service Overseas Pay Equity Act of 2009 in the 111^st Congress on January 9^th. It currently has one sponsor, Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ] and has been referred to House Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Foreign Affairs. This bill is once more, in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate.

Would this go further this congressional year? In this severe budget crunch? Don’t know -- it’s all guess work right now.

The Foreign Service Overseas Pay Equity Act of 2009, like its previous version seeks to amend the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to extend comparability pay adjustments to members of the Foreign Service assigned to posts abroad, and to amend the provision relating to the death gratuity payable to surviving dependents of Foreign Service employees who die as a result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty abroad. Read the whole text of the bill here.

A lot of talk on the pay gap already, so I'll look at Section 3 of this bill which reads: SEC. 3. DEATH GRATUITY.

The first sentence of section 413(a) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3973(a)) is amended by striking `at the time of death' and inserting `at level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, at the time of death, except that for employees compensated under local compensation plans established under section 408, the amount shall be equal to the greater of 1 year's salary at the time of death or 1 year's salary at the highest step of the highest grade on the local compensation plan from which the employee was being paid at the time of death'.

The CRS folks who did a report on this last year writes that the Foreign Service Act of 1980 currently authorizes the Secretary of State to provide, at the Secretary’s discretion, a death gratuity to the survivors of any Foreign Service employee who dies as a result of injuries sustained in the performance of the employee’s duty abroad. The amount of the death gratuity is equal to the employee’s annual salary at the time of death.

The death gratuity section amends the current death gratuity provision in two ways:

#1. The death gratuity is increased for Foreign Service employees who die as a result of injuries sustained in the performance of his/her duty from the equivalent of one year’s salary to the salary of a level II of the Executive Schedule (As of January 2009, Level II pay in the Executive Schedule is $177,000). If an entry level FSO is killed, his/her surviving dependents would get a death gratuity of $177,000 instead of his/her one year salary of approximately 38K in the 2009 pay schedule).

#2. A death gratuity is authorized for employees compensated under local compensation plans. The amount of the death gratuity for the individual is equal to the greater of one year’s salary at the time of death, or one year’s salary at the highest step of the highest grade on the local compensation plan that the employee was under at the time of death.

The local compensation plans vary from country to country based on prevailing rates, normally paid in local currency, unless the economy has been dolarized but -- my understanding on this is if an employee is an FSN 6/2, and he/she is killed his/her death gratuity would be the greater amount between his/her annual salary at the time of death or one year salary at the highest step of the highest grade in his/her local plan (FSN 12/step 12 is the highest grade and step, I think). In the US Embassy Nairobi bombing in 1998, 12 American USG employees and family members, and 32 Kenyan local employees of the U.S. government were killed. This type of provision would have authorized giving the survivors of the Kenyan local employees a death gratuity.

U.S. diplomat Howard Kavaler according to this report received $68,000 as death gratuity for his FSO wife’s horrific death in Nairobi. I have no idea how much the local employees’ survivors were compensated in that incident under the Secretary of State’s discretion.

The 2008 CRS report here interprets the second portion of this section as a reference to Civil Service employees detailed to an embassy. I thought -- what? It must have been 30 years ago when local employees at U.S. missions overseas were moved away from Civil Service, so the argument used in this report is not accurate, I think. Also, this bill uses the specific language of “employees compensated under local compensation plans;” I don’t think you would lump Civil Servants under any local plan.


I'm not a lawyer, so if you have a different reading of this bill, please feel free to comment below.

Then there's this piece on death and forgetfulness in the Foreign Service that is heartbreaking. You can help by contacting your senators and representative in the 111^th Congress here.

Related items:

• Must Read: Jeff Stein’s
  “State Department ‘Weenies’ Do Have a Point” (Nov 2007)
• 3 Foreign Affairs Manual 3650
  Death Benefits for Death in the Performance of Duty (pdf)
  
• Congressional Research Service
  Proposals for a New Foreign Service Compensation System in the 110th Congress
  September 12, 2008 (pdf)

Updating Stuff

Just a few updates on items I have posted here previously:

On Xobni (you can read the original post here):
The company has concluded its private beta on May 5th and is now available for immediate download. Click here if you're interested - and be prepared to be amazed! Note: I am running Windows XP with Outlook 2007 in a desktop and a Compaq laptop and have had no problems with installation and running this program. I know somebody who has Windows Vista running in a laptop who seemed to be having problems, just so you know.

On H.R. 5550 (you can read the original post here):
Lawmakers advanced this bill last week according to reports in Federal Times. H.R. 5550 would extend health coverage for children of federal employees from age 22 to 25 (three years longer than currently allowed) and would create a young adult dependent option in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Under that plan, dependents would still have to pay the full premium, but they would not pay the 2 percent administrative fee. This is a step in the right direction since young adults ages 19 to 29 are the largest and fastest-growing segment of the population without health insurance. You can read the entire report here.

On the Security Clearance Process (no, not specific to Q21):
Government Executive reports that the Office of Management and Budget recently announced the details of its plan to streamline the security clearance process for employees and contractors working for intelligence agencies. OMB aims ultimately to reduce the time it takes to investigate and process such clearances from the current 112 days to 60 days, said Clay Johnson, the agency's deputy director of management. The plan relies on an automated verification system using government and commercial databases to save time and reduce manual labor in hiring and clearing workers who handle classified information. The reforms, prompted by a Feb. 5 memo from President Bush directing the federal government to modernize its security clearance process, also include developing an electronic application to collect comprehensive biographic details of each candidate, requiring reinvestigations of employees and contractors to better identify security risks, and developing a computer system that identifies and grants "clean" applications for Secret clearances -- allowing agency adjudicators to focus on more complex cases. You can read the entire piece here.

Retiring Soon? Contact Congress About Your Unused Sick Leave

On March 10, Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) sponsored a new bill that would allow federal employees to cash out part of their unused sick leave at retirement. H.R.5573 amends title 5 of the United States Code, "to provide for a lump-sum payment for certain Federal employees who retire with a substantial amount of unused sick leave for which they would not otherwise receive any compensation or benefit." The proposal applies to accrued sick leave in excess of 500 hours and is capped at $10,000.

Employees covered under the old system (CSRS) have their unused sick leave converted into credits that increase their pension rates, however employees who joined the Feds under FERS (since 1983) do not have the same consideration. The WP's article cited an average of 13.5 hours more sick leave used annually by those who are near their retirement window. Congressman Moran is concerned that the "use-it-or-lose-it" policy is impacting productivity. I think, if approved, the proposal is also an excellent way of motivating FERS-enrolled employees to use their sick leave credits responsibly and rewarding those who do.

Considering that 60% of people in the federal workforce will be eligible to retire over the next 10 years, this is an issue that should resonate to a lot of people, hopefully, including you. Please contact your elected representative to request their support for H.R. 5573. Click here or here to write to your representative online. Click here for guidelines on writing to Congress. If you are not quite sure how laws are made, click here to learn about the process and why your support is needed on this.

You can read the entire text of the bill in PDF format here. H.R. 5573 is cosponsored by Rep Tom Davis (R-Va) and Rep Frank R. Wolf (R-Va) and has been referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on March 10.

Disclosures: I do not have any unused sick leave that I could cash in under this proposal, nor am I anywhere close to retirement. But I do have somebody dear to me who has over 1200 hours of unused sick leave who will be retiring in 2-3 years, as well as friends who are in the same retirement track.

Health Insurance Proposal - Contact Your Representatives

Stephen Barr's column of March 11 in The Washington Post talked about a government health insurance proposal sponsored by Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL) that would extend health coverage for children of federal employees from age 22 to 25.

"At a House hearing last week, Davis announced plans for legislation to change the age restriction in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. He said young adults are the fastest-growing age group among the uninsured, and that many 22-year-olds are in temporary positions and low-wage jobs and find it difficult to afford health care."

According to Barr's column, Davis who is chairman of the House federal workforce subcommittee said that raising the maximum age for dependent coverage "will increase worker morale" and helps create "a more family-friendly environment for federal employees."

Even if you have no children at this point, this is a proposal that deserves our support. One day, we may have young adult children ourselves, and health insurance would be one less thing to worry about especially at a time when these kids are starting out on their careers. If you are in the Foreign Service, this would be a much welcomed development, especially as young adult children often visit the employees at their overseas assignments.

You can read the entire text of H.R. 5550 here. Contact your representative today to request their support for this proposal. If you have never written to your elected representatives before, you can check this guide on how to write to Congress and this one on how to write effective letters to your representatives. Foreign Service employees might also want to read the writing tips from AFSA here.