Not Not Picking
Mr. White - I apologize if it appeared as if I were nit picking. In fact, the point I was attempting to make in stating much of DSS is foreign service is that it would possibly be even more difficult to downsize than if they were civil service. I imagine eliminating foreign service positions (FSOs or not) is about as attractive and easy for State as it is for the AF to cut pilot slots.
Go DSS
Iwould say that I am all in favor expanding the DSS. Of course this because I discovered them about three days ago while looking up the difference between 68x MH specialist and 31B MP on the Army COOL site and have decided that as soon as complete my undergrad I will apply for a DSS agent position. On the realistic side, the feds can't even fund the Federal Protective Service after it should have become a priority post 9/11, so I don't see how we could expand the DSS to meet current needs. My suggestion for positive reform for the Personal Protective Service mission would be to have individual contractors available for missions with the government providing equipment and train-up. Not cheap, but cheaper then PMC's and higher likelihood of low-key presence and professional behavior in the field.
Reed
Originally Posted by sapperfitz82
I know, didn't mean to sound snippy...
True dat. Only prob with FSOs is getting 'em to go where needed instead of where they want to go...
Tongue in cheek that. While it does apply to a few, the majority are good hard working folks who DO go where they're needed and put up with a lot in the process. I've worked with a bunch, here and there. As is true in any endeavor, about 10% are worthless prima donnas, the good 20% do 80% of the work and most of 'em are good people.
Last time I checked DSS--2007 when their academy director was here; I worked with him in Africa--are not rated as FSOs and fall under the civil service side, not the FS side of State. Has to do with their assignment patterns. The first assignments are typically stateside as security investigators for clearances, then on proyective details, and later as Embasst assistant regional security officers and RSOs. Can be a good to great job. My experience with them is they are for the most part cops. And as a non-FSO element of an FS dominated agency, they are looked upon as red headed step children. Like any outfit most are good professionals and some are not. I have run into both but mainly the former. Stan has some insights as well.
Tom
Off on a tangent...
Since this is virtually the only area within this thread with which I can claim any level of knowledge or expertise, I figured I would go ahead and add/clarify to Mr. Odom's post.
Within the Department of State you have the Foreign Service and the Civil Service. The Foreign Service is divided between Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) and Foreign Service Specialists. Most (but not all) DSS agents are Foreign Service Specialists. Foreign Service Officers are the "Diplomats," and specialize in several different cones. Foreign Service Specialists, besides DSS agents, include such careers as health pracitioners, engineers, communications specialists, etc.
Most DSS agents have an OPM code of 2501. Series 2501 agents typically follow the career path outlined by Mr. Odom, with the workload being skewed towards protection work as opposed to criminal investigations. The non-2501DSS agents are coded 1811, which is the same as most federal criminal investigators in other agencies (DEA, FBI, etc.) DSS 1811s do protection work but are intended to focus on investigations. DSS 1811s also fall under the Civil Service as opposed to the Foreign Service.
The differences might seem superficial, but keem in mind DSS 2501s are on the same pay scale, etc. as FSOs and the rest of those in the Foreign Service while the 1811s are on the Civil Service schedule. Additionally, career development and tenure benchmarks are different between the two. 2501s are expected to learn a language at some point in their career, 1801s are not.
Can't comment on the "red headed step children" remark. DSS appears to have a reputation for professionalism.
Why all this matters to the original discussion is that ultimately these guys carry guns and consequentially there will likely be resistance by DoS to increase numbers dramatically. Furthermore, DSS seems to have fairly high standards when it comes to hiring agents. Without lowering standards, they might be hard pressed to increase their size to meet the objective of replacing all contractors. This, combined with Mr. White's previous points outline why it is better to retain the services of the contractors. As far as reed11b's comments go, I have no knowledge of the feasibility of the suggestion.
Here is a link to the State Department Foreign Service Specialist employment site in case anyone is interested in learning more about the differences between the employment categories of the State Department: http://careers.state.gov/specialist/employment.html
David,Can't comment on the "red headed step children" remark. DSS appears to have a reputation for professionalism.
That remark is about standard FSO attitudes towards RSOs; the same tendencies are shown with regards to GSOs and communicators. All part of State's inner culture--rather similar to pilots and non-pilots in the Air Force.
Standards are high indeed in the DSS. As an outsider with freinds in the DSS, there is a sense of confusion/wannabe something else that emerges when you talk to DSS types.
Some--not all---seem to want to be more than a security specialist; the worst tend to want to get involved as intelligence operators as in generating intelligence when they are intelligence consumers.
Others are so focused on the primary mission--protection--that they ignore the political situation. A very close friend of mine who had dual security duties with the DSS and Blackwater types in Baghdad said this showed in their overly aggressive tactics--and yes he was there when the Blackwater shooting that caused such a stir broke out. To their credit DSS recognized that contract standards were going to have to be enforced in the field afterwards.
It is a difficult job and they do it well.
Tom
State Contract Standards
Mr. Odom - What do you think some of the positive improvements to contract standard enforcement which State has made? What do you think are some areas in which they might improve?
Why do you think "some" of "the worst" tend to want to be collectors? Is this a common trend? Any theories as to why this is the case, or why the occupational confusion?
I also sent you a PM with some follow up.
the main thing on the contract standards was the decision that DSS would have a supervising agent riding at least periodically along with more stringent certification of ROE. the other thing was a greater emphasis on context as in situational awareness and understanding, notably so protective details would not do the road warrior run and run over everyone when in unnecessary.
On the collector thing, I always saw it as a macho man complex--wannabe agency or whatever or just want to show off. DSS is not the only agency subject to the "cowboy" complex. I had a fellow DATT who was supposed to be low key out in Goma demanding his "Israeli LBE" and a US flag for his truck. I told if he needed LBE or a US flag, he was f+$#ING up. Turned out he was and he went home.
Tom
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks