type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\nOFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n United States Department of State\n and the Broadcasting Board of Governors\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTIONS\n\n Inspection of the Bureau of European and\n Eurasian Affairs\n\n\n Report Number ISP-I-11-22, March 2011\nInspector\nGeneral\nOffice of\n\n\n\n\n IMPORTANT NOTICE\n This report is intended solely for the official use of the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board\n of Governors, or any agency or organization receiving a copy directly from the Office of Inspector\n General. No secondary distribution may be made, in whole or in part, outside the Department of State\n or the Broadcasting Board of Governors, by them or by other agencies or organizations, without prior\n authorization by the Inspector General. Public availability of the document will be determined by the\n Inspector General under the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. 552. Improper disclosure of this report may result in\n criminal, civil, or administrative penalties.\n\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY \n\n OF THE INSPECTION\n\nThis inspection was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for\nInspections, as issued by the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency,\nand the Inspector\xe2\x80\x99s Handbook, as issued by the Office of Inspector General\nfor the U.S. Department of State (Department) and the Broadcasting Board of\nGovernors.\n\nPurpose and Scope\nThe Office of Inspections provides the Secretary of State, the Chairman\nof the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and Congress with systematic\nand independent evaluations of the operations of the Department and the\nBroadcasting Board of Governors. Inspections cover three broad areas,\nconsistent with Section 209 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \t Policy Implementation: whether policy goals and objectives are being\n effectively achieved; whether U.S. interests are being accurately\n and effectively represented; and whether all elements of an office or\n mission are being adequately coordinated.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \t Resource Management: whether resources are being used and\n managed with maximum efficiency, effectiveness, and economy and\n whether financial transactions and accounts are properly conducted,\n maintained, and reported.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \t Management Controls: whether the administration of activities and\n operations meets the requirements of applicable laws and regulations;\n whether internal management controls have been instituted to ensure\n quality of performance and reduce the likelihood of mismanagement;\n whether instance of fraud, waste, or abuse exist; and whether adequate\n steps for detection, correction, and prevention have been taken.\n\n\nMethodology\n\nIn conducting this inspection, the inspectors: reviewed pertinent records;\nas appropriate, circulated, reviewed, and compiled the results of survey\ninstruments; conducted on-site interviews; and reviewed the substance of\nthe report and its findings and recommendations with offices, individuals,\norganizations, and activities affected by this review.\n\n\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n United States Department of State\n and the Broadcasting Board of Governors\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n\nThis report was prepared by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) pursuant to the\nInspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and Section 209 of the Foreign Service\nAct of 1980, as amended. It is one of a series of audit, inspection, investigative, and\nspecial reports prepared by OIG periodically as part of its responsibility to promote\neffective management, accountability and positive change in the Department of State\nand the Broadcasting Board of Governors.\n\nThis report is the result of an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the\noffice, post, or function under review. It is based on interviews with employees and\nofficials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observation, and a review of\napplicable documents.\n\nThe recommendations therein have been developed on the basis of the best knowl\xc2\xad\nedge available to OIG and, as appropriate, have been discussed in draft with those\nresponsible for implementation. It is my hope that these recommendations will result\nin more effective, efficient and/or economical operations.\n\nI express my appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this\nreport.\n\n\n\n\n Harold W. Geisel\n Deputy Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n\nKEY JUDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1\n\nCONTEXT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3\n\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5\n\nPOLICY AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7\n\n Foreign Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7\n\n Regional/Functional Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10\n\n Functional Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10\n\n Regional Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14\n\n Office of Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20\n\n Embedded Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23\n\n Public Diplomacy Strategic Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25\n\n Division of Press and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26\n\nRESOURCE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29\n\n Management Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30\n\n Joint Executive Office: Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30\n\n Human Resources Division. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32\n\n Overseas Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33\n\n Post Management Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34\n\n Equal Employment Opportunity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35\n\n General Services Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35\n\n Customer Support Center Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35\n\n Financial Management Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38\n\n Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41\n\n Security Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45\n\nMANAGEMENT CONTROLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49\n\n Travel Vouchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49\n\n Purchase Card Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50\n\n Performance Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51\n\n Standard Operating Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51\n\nLIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53\n\nINFORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57\n\nPRINCIPAL OFFICIALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61\n\nABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63\n\nEUR BUREAU ORGANIZATION CHART. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 v\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\nvi OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\nKEY JUDGMENTS\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (EUR) plays a dynamic and\n highly effective role in assuring close U.S. collaboration and cooperation with\n European allies and regional organizations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty\n Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU), and the Organization for\n Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), across a wide range of political,\n security, economic, global, and cultural affairs. It also deals intensively with\n issues related to the Russian Federation and other European states beyond the\n limits of the EU. Although European issues may not dominate U.S. attention\n to the extent they did during the Cold War, EUR\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities continue\n to be of core importance to U.S. interests.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The bureau\xe2\x80\x99s organizational structure is an unusual mix of country and\n functional offices that has evolved over many years. To improve operational\n efficiency, a top-to-bottom review of EUR\xe2\x80\x99s structure should be carried out,\n with a view to reducing overlap among desks and issues and streamlining\n complex coordination processes.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t EUR\xe2\x80\x99s clearance process is cumbersome and the major cause of overtime in\n the functional and some regional offices. The bureau is aware of the problem\n and has worked to address internal clearance issues, but major contributing\n factors are external and beyond EUR\xe2\x80\x99s sole control.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia\n (ACE), which operates under congressional legislation, serves the bureau very\n well in ensuring that over $850 million in annual foreign assistance to the\n region is linked to foreign policy objectives, and that assistance programs are\n effectively coordinated, U.S. Government-wide.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The Office of Press and Public Diplomacy (PPD) is attempting to carry out\n two independent and potentially conflicting public diplomacy (PD) strate\xc2\xad\n gies. One is the PD \xe2\x80\x9cFramework,\xe2\x80\x9d designed by the Under Secretary for Public\n Diplomacy and Public Affairs (R). The second is EUR\xe2\x80\x99s strategic plan. The\n two plans need to be reconciled.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The Division of Press and Outreach should be placed under the direct super\xc2\xad\n vision of the deputy assistant secretary (DAS) responsible for PD, who is more\n regularly and directly involved in the office\xe2\x80\x99s work than is the director of\n PPD, the current supervisor.\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 1\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Overall, the Joint Executive Office (JEX) provides good administrative\n support to its customers in the two bureaus it serves, EUR and the Bureau\n of International Organization Affairs (IO). However, following significant\n growth spurts, JEX needs to address several operational areas to improve\n services.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Two years after the consolidation of desktop services with the Bureau of\n Information Resource Management (IRM), growing pains related to infor-\n mation technology (IT) remain widespread in EUR. IRM has not fully\n determined or conveyed the division of labor between consolidated bureaus\n and IRM with regard to IT services. In EUR, the result is frequent frustra-\n tion and low customer satisfaction among staff at all levels.\n\n The inspection took place in Washington, DC, between October 4 and November 29,\n 2010. (b) (6)\n\n\n\n\n2 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTEXT\n\n\nEUR is the largest geographic bureau in the Department of State (Department), with\n322 direct-hire and 40 contractor employees domestically, and 1,863 U.S. direct-hire\nand approximately 10,000 locally employed staff positions overseas, in 50 missions\nand 29 constituent posts. Total FY 2010 budget resources (domestic and overseas) for\nEUR are just under $604 million (excluding salaries for direct-hire Americans and\nforeign assistance). In addition to a geographic focus that stretches from Greenland\nto Vladivostok, EUR also operates as a de facto functional bureau in several specific\nareas of responsibility. Led by an Assistant Secretary, a principal deputy assistant\nsecretary (PDAS) and six DASes, EUR\xe2\x80\x99s 17 offices oversee and support the work of\n80 posts, accredited to 47 countries and four multilateral organizations. The bureau\nalso supports the work of four special envoys. (See organization chart at the end of\nthis report.)\n\nToday, EUR functions on the basis of a double legacy. First, it works to preserve and\nadapt the close relationships that the United States forged with Europe during the\nCold War \xe2\x80\x94 with our historic allies, as well as with NATO, the EU, and the OSCE,\norganizations that played key roles in rebuilding and redefining a continent ravaged\nby World War II. Second, EUR is responsible for managing relations with the states\nof Eastern Europe and the Balkans, many of which formerly fell under Soviet hege\xc2\xad\nmony. This complex and multifaceted dual portfolio comprises political, economic,\nstrategic, and humanitarian elements that are central to U.S. national interests.\n\nThe Office of Inspector General (OIG) last inspected EUR in FY 2000. In the\nintervening years, the international and domestic environments in which the bureau\noperates have changed profoundly. Iraq, Afghanistan, and new centers of global\ninfluence have emerged to challenge the international structures formed more than\na half century ago. Nevertheless, close collaboration and cooperation with Europe\nremain crucial to U.S. interests. EUR\xe2\x80\x99s fundamental mission today is to ensure that\nthese key relationships are not put at risk by taking them for granted.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 3\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n4 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTION\n\nBy the fall of 2010, when this inspection occurred, most of the leadership team had\nbeen in place for a year or more and had successfully put its stamp on bureau policy\nand operations. The Assistant Secretary, a highly respected expert in a wide range\nof European political, economic, and security issues, possesses both distinguished\nacademic credentials and prior government experience on the National Security\nCouncil staff. The PDAS is a widely respected career Foreign Service officer who\nhas served at a variety of European posts as ambassador, deputy chief of mission,\nand political officer, and in Washington with EUR, the Office of the Secretary of\nDefense, and the National Security Council. Her extensive, substantive background,\nbureaucratic experience, leadership skills, and operational know-how effectively\ncomplement the Assistant Secretary\xe2\x80\x99s acknowledged policy and analytical strengths.\n\nSix highly qualified DASes support the work of the Assistant Secretary and PDAS.\nThe PDAS personally supervises three functional offices. Five of the remaining\nDASes oversee an eclectic mix of regional and functional offices that cover countries\nfrom Iceland to Azerbaijan, as well as relations with the EU and policy and regional\naffairs. The sixth DAS focuses entirely on PD and press activities. Eight office\nmanagement specialists, one special assistant, five staff assistants, and one travel\ncoordinator round out the current front office staffing.\n\nThe Assistant Secretary (or the PDAS when he is traveling) chairs a daily staff meet\xc2\xad\ning at the start of every workday. DASes and office directors attend the meetings on\nMondays and Wednesdays, while the Friday meetings are also open to other \xe2\x80\x9cinter\xc2\xad\nested EUR personnel.\xe2\x80\x9d On Tuesdays and Thursdays only DASes participate, along\nwith press/public affairs staff. All these meetings are tightly focused and efficiently\nrun, but the atmosphere is informal and is leavened by a palpable sense of collegiality\nand mutual respect. While information is shared efficiently down to the DAS level,\nfeedback further down the chain of command (for instance, regarding EUR meetings\ninvolving the White House and Seventh Floor Principals) has been spotty, and occa\xc2\xad\nsionally desk officers wonder what use was made of the briefing papers they prepared\nfor high-level discussions. The OIG team discussed the issue of insufficient feedback\nwith the bureau, which has begun taking corrective action.\n\nDuring the inspection period, the bureau ably juggled the demands of an inspection\nwhile managing four high-level international conclaves: the October 14 meeting of\nNATO Foreign and Defense Ministers in Brussels, attended by Secretaries Clinton\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 5\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n and Gates; the November 19-20 NATO Summit in Lisbon; the November 20\n U.S.-EU Summit, also in Lisbon; and the December 1-2 OSCE Summit in Astana,\n Kazakhstan. Secretary Clinton accompanied the President to the events in Lisbon\n and led the U.S. delegation in Astana. EUR played a critical role in the preparations\n for all four events, and the Assistant Secretary traveled with the Secretary to all of\n them.\n\n As noted earlier, a de facto division of labor exists between the Assistant Secretary\n and the PDAS. This is properly reflected in the latter\xe2\x80\x99s work requirements statement,\n which accurately and succinctly defines her role as the intellectual and operational\n bridge between the Assistant Secretary and the rest of the bureau. Her work require\xc2\xad\n ments statement gives the PDAS the lead in welcome efforts to enhance diversity\n in the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s professional cadre. It also assigns her responsibility for mentoring\n new ambassadors, both career and noncareer. The range and variety of her tasks are\n daunting, but she carries them out with exceptional focus, energy, and commitment.\n\n At the present time, 25 of the 45 ambassadors at EUR\xe2\x80\x99s 50 overseas posts are political\n appointees. (Five EUR posts are currently without ambassadors.) While most ambas\xc2\xad\n sadors perform admirably, the front office, office directors, and desk officers spend\n an inordinate amount of time handling issues related to a small number of \xe2\x80\x9cdifficult\xe2\x80\x9d\n noncareer ambassadors. This has been a drain on human and resource capital, both\n at the posts concerned and in the bureau.\n\n The Department\xe2\x80\x99s increased emphasis on press and PD casts a spotlight on how PD\n is managed in EUR. The roles and responsibilities of PD officers who are \xe2\x80\x9cembed\xc2\xad\n ded\xe2\x80\x9d in EUR policy offices require better definition and should be reflected consis\xc2\xad\n tently in these officers\xe2\x80\x99 work requirements statements. The risk of duplication and\n inconsistency between the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s internal strategic planning for PD and the Public\n Diplomacy Framework issued by R raises questions about the lines of authority for\n PD issues, both within EUR and between EUR and R. To clarify PD lines of author\xc2\xad\n ity within EUR, bureau leadership should separate PD from the Office of Press and\n Public Diplomacy, with both offices reporting directly to the DAS responsible for\n public diplomacy. The OIG team has submitted recommendations addressing both\n these issues.\n\n Employee morale in EUR is generally high, which is noteworthy given the long hours\n and sustained high pressure that are the norm throughout the bureau. However,\n many new arrivals receive little or no orientation or training, relying instead on\n advice and guidance from very busy coworkers. Inspectors found a widespread\n sentiment among newcomers \xe2\x80\x94 especially among entry-level officers (ELOs) and\n others assigned to Washington for the first time \xe2\x80\x94 that whatever orientation they\n did receive was inadequate to address the substantive and operational challenges of,\n for example, a desk officer in a fast-moving interagency environment. Led by the\n PDAS, EUR is taking steps to address this issue and is instituting new orientation\n and mentoring programs for its ELOs.\n\n\n6 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\nPOLICY AND PROGRAM\nIMPLEMENTATION\n\n\nFOREIGN ASSISTANCE\nOffice of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance for Europe and Eurasia\nACE is responsible for planning, budgeting, coordinating, and monitoring all U.S.\nGovernment assistance, totaling over $1 billion in FY 2010, to 18 countries in\nEurope, Eurasia, and Central Asia. Strong office leadership, an experienced, enthusi\xc2\xad\nastic, and able staff, and direct control over 63 percent of all U.S. assistance funds to\nthe 18 countries give ACE the clout to effectively coordinate assistance to its regions.\nThe office\xe2\x80\x99s main objective is to guide and help establish market-oriented, democratic\nsocieties in the countries and regions it covers. This objective is consistent with and\nsupportive of the objectives of EUR and the Bureau of South and Central Asian\nAffairs, as written in their Bureau Strategic and Resource Plans (BSRP).\n\nThe coordinator\xe2\x80\x99s authority to perform these tasks is specified in the Support for\nEast European Democracies (SEED) Act of 1989 and the FREEDOM Support Act\nof 1992, which created the position and placed it within the Department. These\ntwo acts give the coordinator a broad mandate to oversee and coordinate all aspects\nof U.S. assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and five countries in Central Asia. The office\nis particularly effective in policy and program coordination, receiving praise from a\nnumber of U.S. Government agencies for its balanced approach and fairness.\n\nACE is headed by the coordinator, a senior Civil Service employee, who is designated\nby the President. As such, the coordinator has a certain degree of autonomy within\nEUR. The coordinator meets frequently with the Assistant Secretary and PDAS and\nparticipates in regularly scheduled EUR senior level team meetings to ensure a close\nlink between foreign policy and assistance programs.\n\nThe coordinator directs a staff of 33 Foreign Service officers, Civil Service employ\xc2\xad\nees, and contractors. This split among the employment categories works well, as all\nemployees bring expertise and different points of view: the Civil Service employees\nand contractors provide experience, continuity, and institutional memory; the\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 7\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n Foreign Service officers bring country experience and foreign policy insights. The\n office was reorganized in early 2010 to more closely integrate security and law\n enforcement and governance and democracy specialists from two stand-alone sections\n into the two regional sections. One regional section covers programs in Europe\n (SEED Act countries), and the other covers programs in Eurasia and Central Asia\n (FREEDOM Support Act countries). The two regional offices work closely with\n U.S. embassies, bureau country desks, and implementing agencies to ensure a close\n link between U.S. foreign policy objectives and the development process. In addi\xc2\xad\n tion a budget section prepares country and program budgets, allocates Assistance for\n Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA) funds, tracks expenditures, and notifies\n Congress about expenditures of programmed money; and a program section tracks,\n monitors, and reports on strategy and program performance.\n\n ACE, through its congressionally mandated authorities, has direct control over funds\n that Congress appropriates to the AEECA account. Through a participatory process,\n ACE allocates the AEECA funds to a number of agencies, primarily the U.S. Agency\n for International Development (USAID), for specific programs. ACE does not imple\xc2\xad\n ment any programs directly, other than a humanitarian grant program and some\n grants to democracy and governance program implementers, totaling $34.3 million\n in FY 2010. The office is also the foreign assistance planner for EUR and for the five\n Central Asian countries in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, providing\n coordination for non-AEECA funds, such as foreign military financing; international\n military education and training; nonproliferation, antiterrorism, demining, and\n related programs; economic support funds; and other Department-USAID funding\n in the regions. In FY 2010, Congress appropriated $741.6 million to the AEECA\n account and $297.9 million to the above listed, non-AEECA accounts. Of the\n AEECA funds, ACE transferred 68 percent to USAID for its programs, 12 percent to\n the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, five percent to\n EUR\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Regional Security and Political Military Affairs (RPM) for the U.S.\n contribution to the OSCE, and the remainder in smaller amounts to 18 other agen\xc2\xad\n cies or bureaus in the Department.\n\n An unusual aspect of this office is that its authority also covers five countries in\n Central Asia that are part of another bureau, the Bureau of South and Central Asian\n Affairs. The FREEDOM Support Act specifically includes Turkmenistan, Tajikistan,\n Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, and money is appropriated to the AEECA\n account to fund programs there. From its office in EUR, ACE coordinates effectively\n with the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs\xe2\x80\x99 front office, as well as with the\n country desks on the five Central Asian countries.\n\n Within the limitations of required congressional and other notifications, ACE can\n move quickly to reprogram AEECA funds to address special circumstances or events.\n Following crises such as the Georgia-Russia conflict in 2008 or the April 2010 revo\xc2\xad\n lution and subsequent violence in Kyrgyzstan, ACE convened interagency meetings\n to plan U.S. assistance to address the immediate crisis. Because of its mandate and\n\n8 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nits staff\xe2\x80\x99s expertise, ACE can reprogram resources if necessary, organize, and quickly\nimplement relief and reconstruction efforts.\n\nThe inspection team reviewed several grants and a contract managed directly by\nACE. These materials appeared to be in order, with copies of forms, invoices, and\nreports. All the grant officer representatives and contract officer representatives had\nthe required training to perform their duties, but several were not properly designated\nby the Office of Acquisitions Management. During the inspection, ACE requested\nthese designations.\n\nIn its coordination role, ACE draws together all interested parties, from country desk\nofficers and embassy officers to implementing agencies or organizations, including\nthe Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, to ensure a coordinated coun\xc2\xad\ntry plan and program. In particular, ACE consults closely with the ambassador and\nhis or her development team to confirm that the program meets local needs and is\nachievable. ACE country assistance coordinators, as well as specific program special\xc2\xad\nists, make annual trips to the countries they cover, to consult with the embassy and\nimplementers and to visit program sites.\n\nA key objective of the SEED Act and FREEDOM Support Act is to assist countries\nto develop stable, market-based democracies that are highly unlikely to return to\nauthoritarianism. A framework of benchmarks was established in 2004 that would\nindicate a country is ready to \xe2\x80\x9cgraduate\xe2\x80\x9d from U.S. assistance. Eleven recipients of\nSEED Act assistance have graduated,1 and all of them have joined NATO. Further,\nall recipients except Croatia have joined the EU. At the time of the inspection, ACE\nwas rewriting its phase-out framework to make it more systematic and to allow it\nsome flexibility, so that countries can adjust the effective date of graduation based on\nevents. It will be important to complete and implement the phase-out framework, as\nthere are several Balkan countries approaching the economic and democratic develop\xc2\xad\nment graduation threshold.\n\nAs countries are phased out of receiving assistance, ACE reviews its staffing needs.\nCurrent staff is effectively used, and staffing levels are sufficient to meet the work\xc2\xad\nload and react to surge demands, such as the increase in demand following the\nGeorgia-Russia conflicts over South Ossetia, when a supplemental appropriation\nprovided an additional $1 billion for Georgia, which needed to be programmed.\n\nNo other bureau in the Department has an office with the same functions and author\xc2\xad\nity as ACE. Its unique status helps EUR establish priorities through the budget process\nand link foreign policy objectives to assistance, as well as coordinat programs, conduct\nannual budget reviews, and evaluate performance at the country and program level.\n\n\n1\t\n Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia\n and Slovenia.\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 9\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n REGIONAL/FUNCTIONAL OFFICES\n\n\n EUR is deliberately structured to address multiple multilateral and bilateral issues.\n The bureau consists of a cluster of functional offices, along with traditional, bilateral\n regional offices. In addition, EUR supports missions to three multilateral organiza\xc2\xad\n tions: NATO, the EU, and OSCE. These functional offices, coordinate takes place\n for multinational operations in countries as distant as Afghanistan, as well as for\n maritime counter-piracy operations.\n\n The functional office cluster includes RPM, which has responsibility for NATO\n affairs and OSCE issues. RPM is the Department\xe2\x80\x99s anchor for European security\n issues, NATO operations, and U.S.-Russian security relations. Two other offices \xe2\x80\x94\n the Office of European Policy and Global Issues and the Office of European Policy\n and Regional Affairs \xe2\x80\x94 joined EUR in May 2001, following the dissolution of the\n Office of the Special Advisor to the Secretary for the New Independent States. These\n offices brought portfolios that overlap to some extent with portfolios in other EUR\n offices. Although useful on occasion for backup and cross checks, this situation can\n result in unnecessary layering.\n\n RPM has 13 NATO and 4 OSCE officers, who together are responsible for 86 issue\n areas. The Office of European Policy and Regional Affairs has 9 officers covering 59\n issues, some of which overlap with issues in the RPM portfolios. In general, portfolios\n tend to be excessively specific and limited, resulting in long lists of narrowly defined\n issues.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 1: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should conduct a top-to-bottom review of functional portfolios, reducing their\n overall number and reallocating them accordingly among the relevant offices.\n (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\n FUNCTIONAL OFFICES\n Of\xef\xac\x81ce of European Union and Regional Affairs\n\n The talented and highly motivated staff of the Office of European Union and\n Regional Affairs (ERA) consistently produces insightful analysis on some of the\n most important issues the bureau faces. However, the office has suffered from serious\n morale problems, which a new leadership team has begun to address. The office is\n\n\n10 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nled by an office director and two deputies, who are responsible respectively for an\neconomic policy unit and a political and security affairs unit. The rest of the office\nconsists of nine Foreign Service positions, three Civil Service positions, one contract\noffice management specialist (OMS), and from two to four interns at any given time.\n\nThe office is responsible for addressing U.S. relations with the EU and its institu\xc2\xad\ntions, including a newly empowered European Parliament. Recent issues included\nthe European Parliament\xe2\x80\x99s decision to terminate an interim agreement authorizing\nU.S.-EU cooperation in the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, which is designed\nto identify, track, and pursue terrorists and their networks. The decision was a\nmajor setback to U.S. and international counterterrorism efforts. ERA coordinated\nand managed 6 months of intensive interagency efforts, including at one stage the\npersonal intervention of the President, before the United States successfully negoti\xc2\xad\nated a new agreement with the EU. Later, the European Parliament raised objections\n(on privacy grounds) to provisions of another proposed agreement with regard to\nsharing airline passenger data. ERA now is coordinating the Department\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to\nresolve U.S.-EU differences over this issue. Other recent issues included the spring\n2010 economic crisis in Greece and other euro-zone countries, on which ERA\nproduced a series of perceptive analyses, and the successful effort to encourage the\nEU to adopt additional strong sanctions measures against Iran.\n\nThese were notable accomplishments, made by an office that had suffered from seri\xc2\xad\nous morale problems under its previous leadership, which failed to provide ERA with\na clear sense of where the office was going or how its efforts related to larger bureau\npriorities. Although desk in officers focused on the latest crisis, and achieved a good\ndeal the absence of direction, there was little or no sense of overall strategy. There\nwas a breakdown in effective communication between ERA and the front office, and\nthe perception, or misperception, grew that the Assistant Secretary had little time or\npatience for the tediously slow workings of the EU and little appreciation for ERA\xe2\x80\x99s\nwork on these matters.\n\nAn entirely new ERA leadership team is now in place, including a new director, two\nnew deputies, and a new DAS. The new team is well aware of the office\xe2\x80\x99s previous\nmorale problems and has moved quickly to address them. Communications among\nthe director, her deputies, and subordinate staff already have improved markedly.\nThe director is providing feedback from the senior staff meetings she attends and\nis serving as an effective channel for communicating her subordinates\xe2\x80\x99 concerns to\nthe front office. The new leadership also is working with the front office to provide\nthe level of strategic guidance that was at times lacking in the past. Office morale\nwill continue to demand the attention of ERA managers, including the new DAS.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 11\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n Communications, direction, feedback, and recognition are only some of the elements\n for building morale. Although these elements are fundamental, the OIG team\n counseled senior managers to consider additional creative solutions \xe2\x80\x94 which could\n be as simple as an occasional office celebration \xe2\x80\x94 to improve the atmosphere and\n help boost morale.\n\n\n Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues\n The Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues is a functional office respon\xc2\xad\n sible for developing and implementing U.S. policy with respect to the return of\n Holocaust-era assets to their rightful owners, seeking compensation for wrongs\n committed during the Holocaust, and Holocaust education and remembrance. It is\n headed by the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, and staffed by a deputy, two when\n actually employed (WAE) staff members, a temporary office assistant (contractor),\n and an OMS (contractor). The office supports the activities of the separate Special\n Advisor to the Secretary on Holocaust Era Issues, who is an unpaid \xe2\x80\x9cspecial govern\xc2\xad\n ment employee,\xe2\x80\x9d limited to 130 days\xe2\x80\x99 employment a year.\n\n This office was established in 1998 in part to follow up on agreements made with\n European countries on Holocaust era-related issues. One of the two WAEs has been\n with the office since its inception; the other has been there nearly as long. The office\xe2\x80\x99s\n mandate has been extended several times.\n\n The office performs admirably in a range of highly technical discussions and negotia\xc2\xad\n tions. These include dealing with executive agreements and out-of-court settlements\n reached with European countries on insurance claims and property restitution, and\n a number of similarly complex issues. The office was critically involved with the\n successful conclusion in June 2009 of a landmark, nonbinding agreement among 47\n nations that established a roadmap for resolving outstanding Holocaust-related issues.\n\n As the Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues addresses the opportunities\n presented by the 2009 agreement, it also faces a period of personnel transition. At the\n time of the inspection, the office was in the process of restructuring its personnel to\n provide more consistent, sustainable coverage of the office\xe2\x80\x99s issues, by replacing its\n two part-time WAEs with a single, full-time Civil Service employee. This transition,\n which has been in process for some months, has negatively affected office morale.\n\n Because the Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues was always envisioned\n as a temporary entity, bureau and office leadership now are exploring whether and\n how it might eventually be phased out as a separate office and its work incorporated\n into other entities.\n\n\n\n\n12 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 2: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs,\n in coordination with the Office of the Legal Adviser, should establish specific\n benchmarks in the resolution of Holocaust era-related issues that, when\n reached, would lead to the phasing out of the Office of the Special Envoy\n for Holocaust Issues and absorption of its remaining elements into other\n Department offices. (Action: EUR, in coordination with L)\n\n\n\nOffice of Policy and Global Issues\nThe Office of Policy and Global Issues consists of the officer director, a contract\nOMS, and 10 officers: a mix of three Foreign Service officers, who provide policy\narea awareness and experience, and seven Civil Service employees, who provide issue\ncontinuity.\n\nThe Office of Policy and Global Issues is responsible for some 20 cross-cutting issues,\nputting it in daily contact with 10 Department functional bureaus and 5 government\nagencies. These issues include counterterrorism, crime, counternarcotics, trafficking\nin persons, science and technology, and engaging Muslim communities. Working\nclosely with the Bureau of Legislative Affairs, the office also has the bureau lead on\ncongressional correspondence, congressional inquiries, testimony, preparation of prin\xc2\xad\ncipals for briefings and hearings, preparation for confirmation hearings, and day-to\xc2\xad\nday congressional liaison, including congressional travel. The OIG team informally\nrecommended that EUR review and reallocate the responsibilities for coordinating\nroutine legislative affairs directly to the responsible offices.\n\nThe office director developed a Civil Service professional development rotational\nprogram, which EUR began piloting in June 2010. It is a one-of-a-kind program that\ngives Civil Service personnel a chance to develop professionally and gain new skills\nand experience. The Bureau of Human Resources (HR) has shown interest in imple\xc2\xad\nmenting a similar program Department-wide, following the pilot\xe2\x80\x99s completion.\n\n\nOffice of Policy and Regional Affairs\nThe Office of Policy and Regional Affairs is the smallest functional office in the\nbureau. It coordinates policy on strategic security issues and provides guidance on\nsome 59 specific, bilateral issues, including nuclear defense posture and tactical\nnuclear weapons. The office is staffed by three Foreign Service officers with country-\nspecific experience and negotiating skills, seven Civil Service employees with techni\xc2\xad\ncal skills and portfolio continuity, and one contract employee.\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 13\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n The office receives guidance from the Assistant Secretary and PDAS on selected\n issues, such as tactical nuclear weapons policy, and separately from its own DAS\n on other strategic security issues. The Office of European Security and Political\n Affairs, which has responsibility for formulating policy and providing guidance to\n the missions to NATO and the OSCE, regularly meets with the Office of Policy and\n Regional Affairs to ensure consistency.\n\n The Office of Policy and Regional Affairs coordinates extensively with other U.S.\n Government agencies and entities, including the National Security Council, Office\n of the Secretary of Defense, Missile Defense Agency, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the intel\xc2\xad\n ligence community, and the Departments of Energy, Treasury, and Commerce.\n\n\n Office of European Security and Political Military Affairs\n RPM is the focal point within the Department for issues bearing on U.S. security\n policy in Europe. The office is divided into four units (NATO Operations, NATO\n Policy, NATO-Russia, OSCE), each headed by a deputy office director. Its office\n directors and their staffs are among the most knowledgeable and respected in the\n U.S. Government in their areas of expertise. Ironically, this has at times worked\n against the office; \xe2\x80\x9cpoaching\xe2\x80\x9d of its officers by higher-level policy offices in the\n Department and the National Security Council occurs with some regularity. The\n professionalism and dedication of RPM officers is exceptional, as are the long hours\n they regularly put in.\n\n While the office has the U.S. Government lead in providing political guidance to the\n U.S. missions to NATO and OSCE, other EUR offices (such as the Office of Policy\n and Regional Affairs) also deal with NATO and OSCE issues. The OIG team infor\xc2\xad\n mally recommended that the bureau compare security-related portfolios in RPM and\n the Office of Policy and Regional Affairs to minimize unnecessary overlap. Given the\n breadth and sensitivity of the issues the RPM covers, it is particularly vulnerable to\n the cumbersome clearance process both within and outside the Department.\n\n\n\n\n REGIONAL OFFICES\n\n Office of Caucasus Affairs and Regional Conflicts\n The Office of Caucasus Affairs and Regional Conflicts (CARC) covers three states\n in the Caucasus region, all of them former Soviet republics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and\n Georgia. The office is staffed by seven Foreign Service officers and a Foreign Service\n OMS. There is a vacant Civil Service position that, when filled, will cover regional\n\n\n14 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nissues, including energy and environment. Morale in the office is high, which officers\nattribute to their interesting and relevant work. Communications and guidance flow\neasily between the office and the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s leadership.\n\nThe office suite is shared by the co-chair of the Minsk Group, an OSCE effort to\nfind a political solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and\nAzerbaijan. The United States, along with Russia and France, provide co-chairs to\nthe negotiations. The U.S. Minsk Group co-chair, a WAE former ambassador, is\nsupported by CARC\xe2\x80\x99s conflicts advisor, who devotes 80 percent of his time to these\nduties. The conflicts advisor also supports the U.S. representative to the Geneva talks\nto resolve the 2008 conflicts between Russia and Georgia concerning Abkhazia/\nSouth Ossetia. The advisor exchanges information often with his desk officer\ncolleagues from the three countries involved in the conflicts and covered by the\noffice. Coordination and information sharing are frequent and substantial.\n\nThe two-officer Georgia desk is appropriate for this increasingly important bilateral\nrelationship. The second Georgia desk officer is an ELO on his first tour. The senior\ndesk officer has been his primary mentor, but all of the office staff members at vari\xc2\xad\nous times have helped familiarize him with the EUR bureau and the Department in\ngeneral. Communications among the three desks and the embassies are frequent and\ncomprehensive: secure video conferences are conducted biweekly, and telephone and\nemail exchanges take place often each day.\n\n\nOffice of Central European Affairs\nThe Office of Central European Affairs is well managed, covering 11 countries\nwith a staff of 17. It comprises a director, two deputy directors who are respon\xc2\xad\nsible respectively for the Alpine unit (Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein, Slovenia,\nand Switzerland) and the North Central Europe unit (Bulgaria, Czech Republic,\nHungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia), nine desk officers, two embedded PPD\nofficers, and two support staff. Two of the desk officers are first-tour ELOs; one is\na Civil Service officer on rotation from another EUR office. The director is highly\nregarded by his staff, which appreciates his attention to clear communication and\nwork-life balance. Morale is good.\n\nIt is one of the busiest offices in the bureau, covering a diverse set of issues. The\noffice does an admirable job managing U.S. relations with its countries, encouraging\ngreater global engagement by our traditional partners, and fostering greater self-\nconfidence and assumption of responsibility among the new members of NATO and\nthe EU. Good communication within the office and the attention given to keeping\nstaff apprised of front office concerns contribute to its efficiency. The responsible\nDAS also attends office staff meetings, usually on a weekly basis. Both the office\ndirector and the DAS actively encourage strategic thinking. Despite generally good\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 15\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n communication with the front office, some officers noted a lack of feedback from\n seventh floor Principals\xe2\x80\x99 meetings and frustration that they often obtain readouts\n first from their foreign interlocutors.\n\n The Office of Central European Affairs is one of the largest offices in EUR, having\n been consolidated with the former Office of Austria, German and Swiss Affairs in\n 2008. As one of two regional \xe2\x80\x9cmega-offices\xe2\x80\x9d in the bureau (the other being the Office\n of Western European Affairs), it faces unique challenges because of its size and scope.\n Many officers wish they had more access to the director\xe2\x80\x99s knowledge and experience,\n but they recognize the demands on his time and hesitate to approach him despite his\n efforts to be accessible.\n\n A recent office restructuring resulted in four layers for an office of 17 persons. While\n the new arrangement gives more officers the opportunity for professional develop\xc2\xad\n ment through supervisory experience, it sometimes creates conditions time-sensitive\n material bypasses the person responsible for rating the drafter. This situation makes\n it necessary for both raters and rated officers to make extra effort to maintain their\n mentoring relationship.\n\n Office leadership has done an admirable job of integrating into office operations the\n two embedded PPD officers, as well as a Civil Service employee who is taking part in\n the innovative Civil Service Professional Development Rotational Program. Two first-\n tour ELOs face unique challenges shared by other ELOs who have been assigned to\n Washington for their first tour, including inadequate preparation for working in the\n Department\xe2\x80\x99s bureaucratic environment.\n\n\n Office of Nordic and Baltic Affairs\n The Office of Nordic and Baltic Affairs is a well run office responsible for eight\n countries \xe2\x80\x93 five Nordic (Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) and three\n Baltic (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania). The office\xe2\x80\x99s 11-member team consists of a\n director, deputy, three Foreign Service desk officers, two Civil Service desk officers,\n an embedded PPD officer, an officer on a temporary bridge assignment, a stay-in\xc2\xad\n school intern, and a Civil Service OMS.\n\n Office morale is very good. Officers appreciate the talented director\xe2\x80\x99s ability to stay\n on top of complex issues in all of their countries and to respond quickly to email\n inquiries. He keeps the office team informed on front office concerns through thrice-\n weekly staff meetings, in addition to constant email and personal contact. This is\n supplemented by the responsible DAS\xe2\x80\x99s weekly attendance at an office staff meeting\n and frequent email contact with the desks. The office staff meetings also benefit from\n frequent contributions from the Bureau of Intelligence and Research representative.\n\n\n\n\n16 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nThe Office of Nordic and Baltic Affairs is a high-energy, busy office with talented,\ndedicated officers. The portfolio distribution, however, is uneven. One mid-level offi\xc2\xad\ncer is responsible for two of the most demanding countries. At the time of the inspec\xc2\xad\ntion, an officer on a temporary bridge assignment was assisting with the portfolio.\nThis arrangement, however, is a temporary fix and not a solution. Office leadership is\nexploring permanent remedies. The OIG team supports these efforts.\n\nThe office leadership encourages a useful, bimonthly meeting of office staff with\ntheir interagency colleagues on thematic topics, to help drive the policy-making\nprocess on key objectives. During the inspection, the session focused on Muslim\noutreach and countering violent extremism. The office was also engaged in construc\xc2\xad\ntive efforts to revitalize the Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe, a policy\ncoordination forum with the United States, and to make it more results-oriented.\n\n\nOffice of Russian Affairs\nThe Office of Russian Affairs is a high-profile, high-pace, high-output office that\nprovides essential support to President Obama\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to reset U.S. relations with\nRussia. The office maintains daily contact and excellent relations with its primary\ncounterparts on the National Security Council staff and in offices at the Department\nof Defense, as well as at numerous other agencies and offices within the Department.\nIt also consults and coordinates closely with Embassy Moscow at all levels, through\nregularly scheduled, secure video conferences and phone calls, as well as unscheduled\ncommunications of all types. The office director is highly respected within and\noutside the office for his leadership and overall management abilities. The office\noperates with a regular complement of 16 staff, members, composed of Foreign\nService and Civil Service employees, one Schedule C employee, and one contractor,\nsupplemented by interns and exchange fellows.\n\nThe routine of high pace, high stress, short deadlines, long clearance lists, and long\nhours does have an impact on morale, however. (Notwithstanding the best efforts of\nthe PDAS to impose clearance deadlines, one briefing paper prepared in 2010 for the\nSecretary\xe2\x80\x99s use in a bilateral meeting required 48 clearances.) The office is adequately\nstaffed, provided it can maintain its full complement of officers. The office director\ncontinually has to deal with poaching of his talented staff. For instance, during the\nOIG inspection, which was a very busy period in Russian-U.S. relations, the deputy\ndirector and a political officer left on detail to the National Security Council. The\noffice successfully adapted to their departure by adjusting portfolios, but the loss of\ntwo up-to-speed officers increased everyone\xe2\x80\x99s workload.\n\nBeing periodically raided for its best staff by the National Security Council or\nseventh floor offices creates gaps that others in the office must cover while new\nstaff is being recruited. At the time of the inspection, the office had an Air Force\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 17\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n officer National Defense Fellow and a Franklin Fellow from the Council on Foreign\n Relations. These exchange officers were being used to cover gaps and complete\n projects. The deputy position was to be filled soon after completion of the inspection,\n and the political officer position was being filled temporarily by the Franklin Fellow.\n\n The reset in relations policy initiated by Presidents Obama and Medvedev in 2009\n has helped make bilateral relations less confrontational. The Office of Russian Affairs\n has supported, both directly and indirectly, important accomplishments in improving\n U.S.-Russian relations, including finalizing negotiations of the new Strategic Arms\n Reduction Treaty, establishing the Bilateral Presidential Commission with 18 work\xc2\xad\n ing groups, and substantially advancing negotiations for Russia to join the World\n Trade Organization. Preparing Department principals for bilateral meetings or phone\n calls is a continuous process, that often entails preparing briefing books with over 30\n detailed briefing papers.\n\n In the past year, the establishment of the Bilateral Presidential Commission led to\n the creation of a new two-person section within the office. Tasked with coordinating\n the work of the 18 working groups, the two officers reach out to many agencies in\n Washington and offices in the Department.\n\n\n Office of South Central Europe\n The Office of South Central Europe is responsible for the countries of the Balkan\n region. With the assistance of HR, it converted an OMS position into a regional\n coordinator position, resulting in significant contributions to the office\xe2\x80\x99s overall\n policy objectives. The office also benefits from the assignment of a Transatlantic\n Diplomatic Fellow (foreign diplomatic exchange program) to a country desk. Two\n ELOs also are assigned to the office, which is systematically familiarizing them to\n Department procedures and integrating them into office operations.\n\n The office director and deputy are experienced Balkan hands. The division of\n responsibilities had not been spelled out at the time of the inspection, due to the\n arrival of the deputy during the inspection. As a result, desk officers were uncertain\n about the division of responsibilities and unclear whether they should work all issues\n through both the director and the deputy director. The result, at present, is a flat\n structured office. The OIG team informally recommended that priority be given to\n delineating responsibilities between the office director and the deputy director.\n\n In addition, the newly appointed DAS supervises only the Office of South Central\n Europe, whereas the other DASes all supervise two or more offices. The DAS is a\n former South Central Europe office director, as well as an expert on Balkan issues.\n Although both he and the office director, who was the acting DAS for an extended\n period, are sensitive to the situation, there is a perception that the DAS is acting as\n\n\n18 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\na \xe2\x80\x9csuper office director.\xe2\x80\x9d Since all other DASes, including the PDAS, are responsible\nfor more than two offices, a reasonable adjustment could be made for more equitable\ndistribution of DAS office supervisory responsibilities.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 3: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should designate a second office to fall under the responsibility of the deputy assis\xc2\xad\n tant secretary responsible for the Office of South Central Europe. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\nOffice of Southern European Affairs\nThe Office of Southern European Affairs is a small, well-managed office, responsible\nfor three challenging portfolios: Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus. It consists of an office\ndirector, deputy director, OMS, four Turkey desk officers, two Greece desk officers, a\nCyprus desk officer, a stay-in-school intern, and an embedded PD officer. All posi\xc2\xad\ntions in the office are Foreign Service, except one Greece desk officer (Civil Service)\nand the OMS, who is a contractor in a Foreign Service designated position. One of\nthe Turkey desk officers also handles regional economic issues, and the junior Greece\ndesk officer handles regional political-military issues.\n\nThe office ably manages a heavy workload, while staying in close touch with overseas\nposts and maintaining high office morale. The office\xe2\x80\x99s recent accomplishments\ninclude its perceptive reporting on the spring 2010 Greek financial crisis; its continu\xc2\xad\ning support for negotiations over Cyprus; and its help in managing U.S. relations\nwith a key NATO ally, Turkey, whose view of itself and its place in the world is fast\nevolving.\n\nWork is equitably distributed among the three desks. The four Turkey desk officers\ninclude a capable, Turkish-speaking ELO who joined the office just as the inspec\xc2\xad\ntion was beginning. The time needed for training and mentoring this new officer\n\xe2\x80\x94 in terms of both her own time and that of the more senior, Turkish desk officers\nmentoring her \xe2\x80\x94 makes the total of four desk officers somewhat misleading. Given\nthe importance of Turkey in the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s strategic plan and the attention it gets in\nthe Department and throughout the U.S. Government, the four officers share a\nheavy but not excessive workload. On the Greece and Cyprus desks, the distribution\nof labor also seems about right. If the two-officer Greece desk occasionally has a slow\nperiod, the junior desk officer\xe2\x80\x99s work on regional political-military affairs, the largest\npart of it Turkey-related, more than fills the time.\n\nThe office director and deputy, under the leadership of a fully engaged and accessible\nDAS, have created a positive atmosphere in this high pressure environment, which\nenables staff members to put their best efforts into the office\xe2\x80\x99s work. In their effort\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 19\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n to promote morale, the office director and deputy make sure desk officers and other\n staff are not working unreasonable schedules or staying late in the office merely\n because they feel it is expected of them.\n\n The director and deputy also have sought training opportunities for employees\n at every level. They have encouraged staff, including the stay-in-school intern, to\n attend think tank presentations and other outside events whenever possible, to build\n their networks of contacts and broaden their knowledge of regional issues. Most\n importantly, the office director seeks to involve as many staff members as possible,\n consistent with each employee\xe2\x80\x99s specific responsibilities, in the office\xe2\x80\x99s main tasks,\n such as a series of high-level meetings with Turkish officials at the annual conference\n of the American-Turkish Council, which took place during the inspection. The office\n leadership\xe2\x80\x99s attention to morale is recognized and appreciated by the entire staff. Its\n contribution to the office\xe2\x80\x99s high productivity cannot be overestimated.\n\n As noted above, one PD officer is embedded in the office; the position falls organi\xc2\xad\n zationally under PPD. This officer also provides PD support to CARC. The officer\n is rated by the PPD deputy director, but her performance review is written by the\n Office of Southern European Affairs or the CARC deputy in alternate years. This\n complicated and confusing arrangement works imperfectly at best, in the Office\n of Southern European Affairs, as well as the other offices hosting embedded PD\n officers. (See the Office of Press and Public Diplomacy section for a more detailed\n discussion of embedded officers.)\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF UKRAINE, MOLDOVA, AND BELARUS AFFAIRS\n The Office of Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus Affairs is a small office of six Foreign\n Service officers and two support staff, covering relations with Ukraine, Moldova,\n and Belarus. The office is doing a good job of staying informed on developments in\n its countries, consulting frequently with our embassies in each country, and keeping\n principals in the Department up to date on developments. There is good morale and\n teamwork in the office; the travel budget and the staffing level are adequate.\n\n Bilateral relations with Ukraine are increasingly robust as the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic\n Partnership Commission, co-chaired by the Secretary, matures and the agenda for\n its twice-a-year meetings is broadened. Reporting and analysis on the local elections\n held in Ukraine during the inspection were comprehensive. There are two officers on\n the Ukraine desk with the office deputy director picking up issues as needed.\n\n\n\n\n20 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nMoldova is an active portfolio for the one desk officer, as the country strives to\nimprove its economy and democratic practices with a view to joining the EU. The\nUnited States participates as an observer in the 5+2 negotiations to resolve the break\xc2\xad\naway of the Transnistria area of Moldova. The desk officer staffs preparations for, and\naccompanies, the deputy assistant secretary, who attends the regular 5+2 negotiations.\n\nRelations between the United States and Belarus are chilled. Responding to actions\nby Belarus\xe2\x80\x99s throwback, Soviet style dictatorship, the United States imposed sanc\xc2\xad\ntions on individuals and companies and reduced its diplomatic engagement with\nthe Government of Belarus. Belarus retaliated by forcing the departure of the U.S.\nAmbassador and reducing the size of the embassy\xe2\x80\x99s American staff from 33 to only 5\ndiplomats. Officers regularly have rotated through the embassy for several weeks at\na time to fill staffing gaps. The desk officer monitors and provides advisory reports\non developments in Belarus, as well as on efforts by the EU the OSCE to pressure\nBelarus to make progress on democracy and human rights.\n\n\nOffice of Western Europe\nThe Office of Western European Affairs, with its 19-member staff, is responsible\nfor 14 countries: Andorra, Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the\nNetherlands, Malta, Monaco, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, the United Kingdom,\nand the Vatican. The staff of this busy office consists of a director, two deputies, 11\ndesk officers, 2 embedded PPD officers, and 3 support staff. Two of the officers are\nELOs. A highly capable director, whose advice was widely sought and valued, headed\nthe office until midway through the inspection, when she left to take up a position\non the Seventh Floor. Morale in the office is high, despite an often intense workload.\nThe office continues to attract talented and highly motivated officers.\n\nThe United States enjoys mature relations with all the Western European Affairs\ncountries. The office continues to deal with traditional bilateral issues, but broader\nglobal issues consume an increasing amount of officers\xe2\x80\x99 time. These extensive rela\xc2\xad\ntionships with partner countries, and the associated, heavy visitor schedule, all result\nin an enormous demand for papers from the office to the EUR front office and to the\nSeventh Floor. The director used the preparation of these papers to urge her staff to\nengage in forward thinking.\n\nThis heavy workload was compounded at the time of the inspection by the office\xe2\x80\x99s\ninvolvement with preparing for the imminent NATO and EU summits. Just weeks\nbefore the summits, and mid-way through the inspection, the gifted office direc\xc2\xad\ntor curtailed to assume a new position, thus adding an additional level of stress to\nthe office. It is a tribute to the acting director and the abilities of the staff that the\nsummit preparation moved forward smoothly.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 21\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n The director clears all papers prepared in the office. Because of the outside demands\n on the director\xe2\x80\x99s time, this frequently creates bottlenecks and slows the process down.\n The OIG team suggested to the director more clearance authority to the deputies to\n avoid the inevitable holdups created when so many papers must be cleared through\n one person.\n\n The Office of Western European Affairs also is one of the biggest offices in\n the bureau, the result of its consolidation in 2008 with EUR\xe2\x80\x99s Office of United\n Kingdom, Benelux, and Ireland. In such a large office, constant communication\n and feedback are essential for maintaining office morale and cohesion. Three times\n a week, the director holds staff meetings that are crisp, focused, and relaxed, and\n supplements the meetings with frequent email updates. At times, however, some\n officers have felt they were not receiving enough feedback on their work or on the\n results of high-level meetings. The OIG inspectors did not feel the situation required\n a recommendation, but the team counseled senior management concerning the\n importance of ensuring adequate information flow.\n\n\n Office of Press and Public Diplomacy\n A staff of 11 Foreign Service officers, 4 Civil Service employees, and 3 contract staff\n members constitute PPD. As noted earlier, eight of these employees are embedded in\n EUR policy offices; that is, they operate out of those offices, not from PPD. In addi\xc2\xad\n tion, the PPD director is charged with overseeing the Division of Press and Outreach,\n with its own staff of three Foreign Service officers, two Civil Service officers, and an\n OMS.\n\n PPD manages the use of PD resources to inform European publics and influence\n European views on U.S. policies and society. The most important of these resources\n are the embedded officers themselves. In addition, PPD more broadly coordinates the\n bureau\xe2\x80\x99s use of the full range of PD tools available from R, the Bureau of Educational\n and Cultural Affairs (ECA), the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP),\n and other Department offices. Beyond managing PD programs, PPD\xe2\x80\x99s role is to\n represent to EUR the PD initiatives and concerns of U.S. embassies in Europe, and\n to convey to the field PD guidance from EUR and R. In the last year, PPD helped\n the bureau gain European support for U.S. Government goals in Afghanistan; shared\n in interagency PD planning to roll out the administration\xe2\x80\x99s missile defense plan in\n Europe; implemented a PD strategy for the December 2009 Copenhagen conference\n on climate change; and had a hand in crafting EUR\xe2\x80\x99s communications strategy on\n Kosovo\xe2\x80\x99s declaration of independence.\n\n\n\n\n22 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nEMBEDDED OFFICERS\n\nThe eight PPD officers embedded in policy offices across the bureau are simultane\xc2\xad\nously responsible to PPD and their respective policy offices. They are rated by the\nPPD deputy director, and their evaluations are reviewed by the office or offices in\nwhich they are embedded. In addition, three of PPD\xe2\x80\x99s four Civil Service employees,\nwhose desks are located in PPD, also have assigned line responsibilities to certain\npolicy offices, namely RPM, ERA, and ACE. These three employees are informally\ncalled \xe2\x80\x9cvirtual embeds.\xe2\x80\x9d Their evaluations are written by PPD, but they may request\nadditional comments or input from the policy offices they support, if they so choose.\n\nThe debate about how to integrate PD officers into regional bureaus is an old one.\nEUR was the first bureau to receive PD officers, who moved over from the United\nStates Information Agency in 2000, following the agency\xe2\x80\x99s consolidation with the\nDepartment. These officers were not embedded, however, but rather constituted a\nnew, separate PD unit within EUR. In 2006, the bureau began to place PD officers\nin embedded positions, and by the following year the mix of embedded positions and\nthose located in a central PPD office assumed roughly the shape it has today.\n\nMost of the other regional bureaus also have experimented with embedding,\nalthough EUR, with the largest contingent of PD officers, has the longest experi\xc2\xad\nence with the arrangement. Nowhere has the process been entirely smooth. There\nare inherent tensions in a structure in which officers effectively are called upon to\nreport to two masters: the PPD office and the policy office where they are placed.\nSome of the placements are highly successful, with embedded officers designing and\nmanaging PD programs that are crucial to both PPD and the host policy office.\nOther placements are less successful. Some embedded officers, unclear about what is\nexpected of them, try to define their own jobs. In an effort to be helpful and share\nin the workload of their policy offices, they may take on tasks that are not clearly\nincluded in their work requirements. For example, some PD embedded officers help\nprepare press guidance, although this is not a core requirement of their positions.\nWhile this could be seen as a laudable initiative, it does not make for a consistently\nstructured assignment that is readily reproducible from one officer to the next in the\nsame position. The results can be frustrating and disappointing for all the parties: the\nembedded officers, PPD, and the policy offices hosting the placements.\n\nRegardless of the problems with embedding, the difficulties are outweighed by the\nbenefits of the arrangement, when it is successful. A case in point is the outstanding\nwork by one embedded officer on a PD strategy for the rollout of the missile defense\nplan for Europe, referred to above. Other embedded officers, as well as officers\nproviding support out of the central PPD office (the virtual embeds), have made\nnotable contributions as well. Much would be lost if the bureau were to return to a\nstructure in which PD was again separated from the policy offices.\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 23\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n The bureau should continue to look for ways to make the embedding arrange\xc2\xad\n ment work better. PPD and the policy offices that host placements need to manage\n expectations and agree on the role of embedded officers in their policy office bases\n \xe2\x80\x94 which does not always happen now. Work requirements statements vary, and they\n do not consistently reflect the expectations of supervisors at PPD and in the policy\n offices. Although the entire set of work requirements should be reviewed, the absence\n of clarity has most frequently caused problems on the press side, where it has not\n been clear what role, if any, the embedded officer is expected to play in preparing\n press guidance. At the start of each new assignment, PPD should obtain agreement\n on these core requirements from the various policy offices in which embedded\n officers will be placed. Doing so would help prevent misunderstandings about the\n embedded officers\xe2\x80\x99 roles that could jeopardize their effectiveness.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 4: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should instruct bureau policy offices and the Office of Press and Public\n Diplomacy to reach agreement on core work requirements for public diplo\xc2\xad\n macy embedded officers before they begin their assignments. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n Two embedded officers provide PD support to two different regional policy offices.\n One officer handles the Office of Russian Affairs and the Office of Ukraine,\n Moldova, and Belarus Affairs. Another is responsible for the Office of Southern\n European Affairs and CARC. In each case, the burden is too heavy for a single\n officer. PPD already is acting to establish a new embedded position in the Office of\n Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus Affairs, which will free the incumbent now covering\n that office to give his full attention to the Office of Russian Affairs. PPD should\n similarly divide responsibilities for the Office of Southern European Affairs and\n CARC, because the current arrangement places an excessive burden on the embed\xc2\xad\n ded officer who now is supporting PD activities in two busy directorates. PPD could\n use an available full-time equivalent position to establish a new embedded position in\n CARC, thereby leaving the incumbent with responsibility for the Office of Southern\n European Affairs only.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 5: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should create a new public diplomacy embedded position in the Office of\n Caucasus Affairs and Regional Conflicts, and leave the incumbent who is\n now covering that office with responsibility only for the Office of Southern\n European Affairs. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\n24 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nPUBLIC DIPLOMACY STRATEGIC PLANS\nIn early 2010, the Secretary approved a new Strategic Framework for Public\nDiplomacy, developed by R, which is preparing initiatives to achieve the goals\noutlined in this document. After some coordination with EUR and other regional\nbureaus, R communicates these initiatives, together with tasking instructions,\ndirectly to field posts. PPD is then responsible for following up on the taskings\nassociated with those proposals directed to European posts.\n\nThe Framework provides a broad, intellectual context for PD activities worldwide. It\nalso specifically guides the allocation of PD resources, including those supposed to\nbe under the direction of EUR\xe2\x80\x94making it an operational document, under which\nR initiates actions and tasks the bureau and European field posts. Thus, it has many\nof the attributes of a strategic plan and could potentially be in conflict with the PD\nportions of the BSRP. At the least, the Framework appears to establish a second set of\npriorities and instructions for PPD to follow.\n\nPPD has gone to great pains to ensure that its own planning is consistent with the\nFramework, and the OIG inspectors found no major disconnects between the two\ndocuments. However, the emphasis placed on certain themes and the resources\ncommitted to addressing them appeared different in the two plans. For example,\nwhile PD on Afghanistan has a high priority in both documents, it has been particu\xc2\xad\nlarly emphasized by R\xe2\x80\x94to the point of straining post resources to respond, in some\ncases. On the other hand, reassuring European audiences of the continent\xe2\x80\x99s continu\xc2\xad\ning importance to the United States was understandably more prominent in the\nBSRP than in the Framework, where such a theme was present only by implication.\n\nThe differences between these two plans affect other regional bureaus\xe2\x80\x99 PD plans, as\nwell, although this report looks only at EUR. On September 20, 2010, the Under\nSecretary for Management sent a memorandum to all Assistant Secretaries and the\nDirector General, directing that, \xe2\x80\x9cany bureau decisions regarding deployment or\nrealignment of PD financial or human resources should be cleared by R\xe2\x80\x9d [in] \xe2\x80\x9cclose\nconsultation with [the Under Secretary for Management], the Bureau of Resource\nManagement, HR and the affected bureaus.\xe2\x80\x9d This guidance fails to address the\npotential conflict between the Framework and EUR\xe2\x80\x99s own strategic plan for PD.\nDepartment policy assigns responsibility for strategic and performance planning to\nthe Bureau of Resource Management\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Strategic and Performance Planning.\nThe OIG team concluded that the Bureau of Resource Management, in coordination\nwith all the affected offices and bureaus, should review this recent development and\nprovide guidance on its implications for planning PD activities in EUR.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 25\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 6: The Bureau of Resource Management, in coor\xc2\xad\n dination with the Under Secretary for Management, the Under Secretary\n for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and the Bureau of European\n and Eurasian Affairs, should assess the implications of the new Strategic\n Framework for Public Diplomacy for the planning process for public diplo\xc2\xad\n macy activities in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. (Action: RM,\n in coordination with M, R, and EUR)\n\n\n PPD has a biweekly, expanded staff meeting with representatives from the\n Department\xe2\x80\x99s two principal PD offices, IIP and ECA, and others (such as the Bureau\n of Intelligence and Research\xe2\x80\x99s media reaction staff). This meeting serves a purpose,\n but it does not provide an opportunity to focus on high priority PD issues, nor does\n it engage IIP and ECA in developing strategies and marshaling resources to address\n them. The OIG team made an informal recommendation addressing this issue.\n\n\n\n\n DIVISION OF PRESS AND OUTREACH\n The Division of Press and Outreach does outstanding work, as recognized through\xc2\xad\n out the bureau. It consists of a division chief, two Civil Service senior outreach\n officers (one of whom acts as the office\xe2\x80\x99s deputy), two Foreign Service press officers,\n and a program support assistant.\n\n The division earns plaudits for its effectiveness in advising bureau officials on media\n engagement and public outreach. The division focuses primarily on the U.S. media\n and foreign correspondents residing in the United States. Its responsibility for facili\xc2\xad\n tating visiting European journalists\xe2\x80\x99 interview requests, often submitted by PD field\n posts, needs to be further clarified (see below). In its outreach activities, the division\n engages with academic and think tank audiences in Washington and across the\n country. It devises public affairs strategies on bureau priorities, and works with the\n Assistant Secretary and other principals to implement these plans. It also manages\n the daily press guidance process on behalf of EUR and is the first point of contact for\n members of the media with questions about U.S.-European policies.\n\n The press division works regularly with every other office in the bureau, and the\n quality of its work is widely recognized. However, the line separating the duties of\n the press division from those of the PPD embedded officers is sometimes unclear.\n There is also uncertainty about the press guidance clearance process. (See discus\xc2\xad\n sion of the PPD embedded officers\xe2\x80\x99 roles and press responsibilities, above.) There is\n a lack of clarity about which office \xe2\x80\x94 PPD or the Division of Press and Outreach,\n\n\n26 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nas represented by the embedded officers \xe2\x80\x94 is responsible for handling the visiting\nEuropean journalists\xe2\x80\x99 interview requests. The press division\xe2\x80\x99s standard operating\nprocedures state that the division facilitates such requests from foreign journalists\nbased in the United States, but it does not mention which office is responsible for\nrequests made by visiting reporters. This lack of clarity has caused some confusion\nand disagreement among the division, PPD, and policy offices with PD embedded\nstaff members. The press division should amend its standard operating procedures\nto make clear that it is responsible for facilitating all interview requests coming from\nEuropean media representatives, whether they are based in the United States or in\nEurope.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 7: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should amend the standard operating procedures of the Division of Press and\n Outreach, to make clear that the division is responsible for all requests to\n facilitate interviews in the bureau coming from European media representa\xc2\xad\n tives, whether they are based in the U.S. or in Europe. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nPolicy offices also sometimes make mistakes in the process of clearing draft press\nguidance between different EUR offices and those outside the bureau. According\nto its standard operating procedures, the press division is supposed to obtain such\nclearances. When other EUR offices obtain clearances themselves, it can lead to\nduplicated effort, confusion, and wasted time. The press division recently sent office\ndirectors revised standard operating procedures confirming the clearance process. In\naddition, press officers routinely reiterate these instructions to the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s new offi\xc2\xad\ncers, both at orientation sessions and individually. Nevertheless, the problem persists.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 8: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should periodically recirculate the press division\xe2\x80\x99s standard operating procedures\n via the \xe2\x80\x9cAll EUR\xe2\x80\x9d collective address and also should post them on the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s\n permanent intranet site where they will be seen readily. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nAs a final step before press guidance is delivered to PA each morning, the press\ndivision obtains clearances from the EUR front office. In practice, this usually means\nclearance is given by the DAS responsible for the country, region, or issue that the\nguidance addresses. At present, however, the DAS responsible for PD is almost never\nin the clearance chain.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 27\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n The work requirements statement for the PD DAS assigns this position special\n responsibility for helping shape views on U.S. policies toward Europe. Arguably, no\n activity does more to shape these perceptions than the guidance that is prepared by\n the bureau and conveyed to the press and public through Department spokespersons.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 9: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should include the deputy assistant secretary responsible for press and public\n diplomacy in the clearance process for all bureau press guidance. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n The press division falls organizationally under PPD, whose director rates the press\n chief. The division operates with considerable autonomy, however, and the PPD\n director exercises little direct oversight. Neither the PPD director nor either of the\n PPD deputies clears (or necessarily even sees) the daily draft press guidance, even\n though the guidance is the press division\xe2\x80\x99s principal activity. In addition, PPD does\n not directly oversee the press division\xe2\x80\x99s important outreach activities, including public\n affairs scheduling for the Assistant Secretary. Also, because of the concentration of\n activity in the press division during the morning hours, neither the chief nor anyone\n else from the division normally attends PPD\xe2\x80\x99s daily staff meetings.\n\n Good management practice calls for a reasonable measure of direct oversight by\n supervisors of offices formally under their charge, which is lacking in this case. The\n OIG team recommends that EUR/PPD/Press be removed from EUR/PPD and\n placed under the direct supervision of the PD DAS, who thus would become the\n rating officer for the press division chief. The DAS already has more regular deal\xc2\xad\n ings with the press division than does the PPD director. He attends daily senior staff\n meetings, for example, where the press chief regularly briefs attendees on important\n news developments and outreach planning. By contrast, the PPD director attends\n only some of these meetings. The DAS would gain an even better perspective on the\n press division\xe2\x80\x99s work if he routinely cleared the daily press guidance, as is separately\n recommended in this report. The PPD director, as noted, plays no consistent role in\n the clearance process.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 10: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should remove the Division of Press and Outreach from the Office of Press\n and Public Diplomacy, and place it under the direct supervision of the deputy\n assistant secretary responsible for public diplomacy. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\n28 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nRESOURCE MANAGEMENT\n\n\n Total\n Foreign Civil Total\n Agency Contractor Funding\n Service Service Staff\n FY 2010\n EUR Human Resources (FY 2010)\n EUR \xe2\x80\x93 Domestic 168 155 59 382\n EUR \xe2\x80\x93 Overseas 1,863 9,661* 11,524\n Totals 2,031 9,816 59 1,906\n\n EUR Budget Resources (FY 2010)\n Diplomatic and Consular Programs $265,931,000\n ICASS\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0 244,470,000\n Domestic operations 25,852,000\n Public Diplomacy (Diplomatic and\n 64,848,000\n Consular Programs)\n Representation 2,743,000\n Totals $603,844,000\n*3 Civil Service Employees on Excursion Tours\n\n\nEUR\xe2\x80\x99s chief resource concern is the projected budgetary constraints expected in FY\n2011 and beyond, and the resulting operational impact. Its FY 2012 BSRP identi\xc2\xad\nfies potential consequences, including the inability to provide EUR posts with the\nrequested 29 U.S. direct-hire positions.\n\nAs discussed in the IT section of this report, the consolidation of IT services under\nIRM appears to have diminished service quality in EUR, resulting in widespread\ndisatisfaction with IT operations and IRM support within EUR.\n\nThe bureau reports that over the past 5 years it has lost approximately 70 overseas\npositions. As noted earlier, as part of a 2008 streamlining effort, EUR\xe2\x80\x99s domestic\noperation merged the Office of United Kingdom, Benelux, and Ireland Affairs\nwith the Office of Western European Affairs, producing a much larger office. It\nalso merged the Office of Austrian, German, and Swiss Affairs with the Office of\nNorth Central European Affairs, creating a large, new office, the Office of Central\nEuropean Affairs.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 29\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES\n\n The bureau has instituted a number of management initiatives to address resource\n challenges and/or improve overall efficiencies in operations, including:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 P\n \t ost-to-Post Partnerships identify missions with strong resources and capabili\xc2\xad\n ties that can provide services to embassies with less capacity. For example,\n Embassy Podgorica receives human resources and financial management\n support from Embassy Zagreb, and facilities management support from\n Embassy Belgrade. It also receives classified IT support through thin client\n from Embassy Vienna. An International Cooperative Administrative Support\n Services (ICASS) mechanism is being tested that will allow the mission that\n provides support to bill the client mission for its services.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \tRegional Warehousing identifies areas where a regional warehouse could\n serve multiple missions. Embassies Vienna and Brussels are examples of two\n missions providing regional warehousing support to neighboring missions.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \tJust-in-Time Furniture delivers furniture to participating missions at the\n time they are needed in residences. As a result, furniture and appliances\n spend little or no time in warehouses. In exchange for their advanced plan\xc2\xad\n ning efforts, posts receive furniture and appliances in accordance with fixed\n replacement cycles. This initiative has enabled Embassies Athens, Tallinn,\n Vilnius, and Zagreb to shut down their leased warehouses; Embassies\n Copenhagen and Riga have reduced their warehouse space by half.\n\n\n\n\n JOINT EXECUTIVE OFFICE: OVERVIEW\n JEX is headed by the executive director, and two deputy directors oversee six divi\xc2\xad\n sions: post management, financial management, information management, human\n resources, general services, and the customer support center. The office is staffed\n by 21 Foreign Service officers, 50 Civil Service employees, and 17 contract employ\xc2\xad\n ees. For EUR alone, JEX supports 50 overseas missions and 31 constituent posts,\n including EUR\xe2\x80\x99s 1,863 U.S. direct-hire positions and approximately 10,000 locally\n employed staff members. Domestically, JEX supports about 500 positions.\n\n The executive director and two deputy directors of JEX, all newly arrived, are\n seasoned officers. Filling key positions and integrating JEX offices are among their\n highest priorities. Internal and external coordination by JEX is generally good,\n although information sharing could be improved among the divisions of human\n\n\n\n30 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nresources, financial management, and post management. In its process for making\nForeign Service assignments, JEX has fully embraced the Department\xe2\x80\x99s principles\nof consultative staffing,2 increased diversity, and Afghanistan-Iraq-Pakistan linked\nassignments.\n\nMorale in JEX is uneven. The formation of the office in 2006 from elements in EUR\nand IO, along with its designation as a Human Resources Service Provider in 2009\nand its resulting size, have left some employees feeling alienated. This problem was\nexacerbated when the information management division\xe2\x80\x99s portfolio was dissolved\n(due to IT consolidation) and the customer service center was broken off from the\ngeneral services division. As a result, JEX has not yet come together as a cohesive\nunit. The new JEX management is aware of this issue and is taking active steps to\naddress it.\n\nJEX generally performs well in supporting both EUR and IO bureaus. As a Human\nResources Service Provider working in concert with HR, JEX\xe2\x80\x99s human resources divi\xc2\xad\nsion also supports the Bureau of African Affairs, the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific\nAffairs, and the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs.\n\nThe inspection identified weaknesses in some operational areas. Improvements are\nneeded in controlling purchase card reconciliations and travel order and voucher\nprocessing. The office\xe2\x80\x99s financial management division needs standard operating\nprocedures for the overseas and domestic teams\xe2\x80\x99 processes and workflow.\n\nEstablishing standard operating procedures is especially important, given the turn\xc2\xad\nover in staff and staffing gaps the financial management division has experienced,\nStaffing gaps also plague the human resources division. The divisions are viewed\nthroughout the bureau as competent and engaged, but both are operating without\npermanent senior managers. EUR is taking appropriate action to remedy this situ\xc2\xad\nation. The topic of staffing gaps is further addressed in the management controls\nsection of the report.\n\n\nRegionalization\nThe Regional Support Center (RSC) Frankfurt is JEX\xe2\x80\x99s regional operation. It\nprovides on-site assistance in consular affairs and financial and human resource\nmanagement, to approximately 40 posts located in Europe, the Middle East, South\nAsia, and Africa. Training programs are conducted at the RSC and at supported\n\n2\n Consultative staffing is a process whereby functional bureaus with an interest in certain overseas posi-\n tions within their area of expertise are consulted and have an opportunity to participate in the assign-\n ments process.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 31\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n posts, mostly for locally employed staff. The Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs recently\n asked EUR for a stake in RSC Frankfurt; the two bureaus are in the process of\n discussing the details of such a cooperative relationship.\n\n\n\n\n HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION\n\n Domestic Section\n The human resources division\xe2\x80\x99s domestic section performs adequately, and its\n customers are generally satisfied. It is a Human Resources Service Provider for Civil\n Service and Foreign Service employees in its parent bureaus, EUR and IO, as well as\n for Civil Service employees in the Bureaus of African Affairs, East Asian and Pacific\n Affairs, and Western Hemisphere Affairs. For overseas missions, the section is respon\xc2\xad\n sible for position management and benefits, and it administers the awards program\n and the employer/employee relations program for Foreign Service and eligible family\n member employees. Domestically, the section creates vacancy announcements,\n administers employer/employee relations programs, and provides performance evalua\xc2\xad\n tion services for Civil Service and Foreign Service employees.\n\n In 2008, JEX became a Human Resources Service Provider, offering Civil Service\n classification and staffing services to client bureaus.\xc2\xa0The section still is adjusting to\n its new role and the Department\xe2\x80\x99s goal to shift delivery of human resource services\n from Washington to the service center in Charleston, South Carolina, which began\n processing benefits for the parent and client bureaus in October 2010. This is a very\n small part of the section\xe2\x80\x99s workload and will not result in staff reduction. Further\n service transfers and staff reassignments are anticipated, but nothing is on the\n horizon.\n\n Client feedback is mixed. Many aspects of service are well received by customers, but\n there are concerns. All client bureaus have been served under executed service level\n agreements, but two of the agreements have a 1-year term that has expired and has\n not yet been renewed. In one service level agreement arrangement, strong disagree\xc2\xad\n ments have emerged, and the parties seem unwilling to work out their differences. As\n a result, the service provider is frustrated that it cannot satisfy its client, and the client\n is troubled by the level of service. An operative written agreement and more commu\xc2\xad\n nication would go a long way to improve the relationship. (The OIG team made an\n informal recommendation addressing the level of service issue.)\n\n\n\n\n32 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 11: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should execute new service level agreements with clients for whom previous\n service level agreements have expired. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nMany in EUR see the need for a current, formal orientation program for all incoming\nemployees. Once a year, the bureau offers an informal orientation program, which\nreceived mixed reviews by newly hired employees. Many newcomers did not attend\nthe EUR orientation, at all, and those who took it found the program of limited util\xc2\xad\nity. In addition, most officers did not take the Foreign Service Institute Washington\nTradecraft course. The majority of those who did reported that it would have been\nmore useful if it had included more practical information. The OIG team informally\nrecommended that the bureau implement a general orientation program for new\nemployees, to familiarize them with the Department and EUR, and that it give all\nnew arrivals a checklist requiring them to visit each office director. In the course\nof the inspection, EUR management initiated actions in response to these informal\nrecommendations.\n\nThe human resources division receives strong oversight from HR\xe2\x80\x99s Civil Service\nhuman resource management office. In its recent human accountability reviews of\nrecruitment and staffing, performance management, training, and service delivery,\nHR found EUR\xe2\x80\x99s human resources division to be a well functioning organization.\nThe 2008 report addressed performance management issues which this report\ndiscusses in the management controls section. JEX uses these HR accountability\nreviews to ensure that corrective actions are taken.\n\n\n\n\nOVERSEAS DIVISION\n\nForeign Service Assignments\nThe human resources division\xe2\x80\x99s Foreign Service assignments section performs very\nwell. It represents EUR\xe2\x80\x99s and IO\xe2\x80\x99s staffing needs and assignment preferences to the\nOffice of Career Development and Assignments. Primary responsibility for Foreign\nService assignments rests with three individuals. The Foreign Service assignments\nteam leader is responsible for EUR senior- and mid-level political, economic and\nPD positions. Also, while the human resources division chief position is vacant, the\nteam leader handles chief of mission, principal officer, and deputy chief of mission\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 33\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n positions. One team member is responsible for IO senior and mid-level political,\n economic, and PD positions. The other team member is responsible for all EUR and\n IO management positions, including OMS positions.\n\n According to the human resources division, this section is a good partner in the\n assignments process and is willing to find workable solutions to problems. The\n human resources division has fully embraced consultative staffing. In the second\n year of implementing the consultative staffing program, functional bureaus were\n better prepared to participate in the process. They researched bidders and were added\n as points of contact \xe2\x80\x93 and bidders did make contact and actively lobbied for jobs.\n Consequently, the functional bureaus were better able to represent their staffing\n requirements.\n\n HR\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2010 target for linked Afghanistan-Iraq-Pakistan assignments is 170. As\n in past years, the human resources division will fully comply with the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\n linked assignments policy. Historically, EUR accounts for approximately 20 to 25\n percent of all linked assignments, so it can expect to have between 34 and 42 of these\n assignments in the 2011 open assignments cycle. Unlike in prior years, however, EUR\n is prepared to refuse linked assignments to a specific mission this year, once it can be\n demonstrated that the mission has done its fair share.\n\n EUR also is attentive to the Department\xe2\x80\x99s call for increasing diversity through work\xc2\xad\n force planning. The bureau held several brown bag lunches with diversity groups,\n to raise awareness about its goal to be more inclusive. It proactively reached out to\n missions, desks, and HR to identify qualified diversity candidates for the current\n assignment cycle.\n\n The bureau\xe2\x80\x99s positions are typically heavily bid, although it has eight historically\n difficult posts to fill. The human resources division assists these posts in a number of\n ways, but chiefly by encouraging bidders for positions in Moscow (who are Russian\n language speakers) to consider positions at one of these eight posts.\n\n\n\n\n POST MANAGEMENT DIVISION\n The post management division is made up of a supervisory post management officer\n (PMO), 10 PMOs, a coordinator for the PAE contract, an OMS, and a program\n assistant. By all accounts, the division is performing effectively. Morale is high and\n there is a high degree of camaraderie. Each of the PMOs is responsible for four to\n six posts, acting as the posts\xe2\x80\x99 liaison on management issues. Additionally, each PMO\n tracks and at times advances assigned functional areas. The EUR posts were generally\n complimentary of the support they receive from their PMO.\n\n\n\n34 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nThe complexity of PMO assignments in JEX is somewhat heightened by the number\nof noncareer chiefs of mission in EUR. Being new to the Department, they tend to\nrequire additional information, advice, and support.\n\nThe OIG inspectors identified several areas for improvement, which they discussed\nwith the supervisory PMO, who agreed with them. The areas included more struc\xc2\xad\ntured orientation of PMOs to their assignments; drafting and/or updating and use of\nstandard operating procedures; and clarification of PMO responsibilities for func\xc2\xad\ntional areas.\n\n The post management division expressed frustration with the limited information-\nsharing by the financial management and human resources divisions. This was\nparticularly evident in 2009, when the post management division and the financial\nmanagement division provided the executive director with differing end-of-year\npost funding priorities. An informal recommendation addresses the need for JEX to\nstrengthen communications and cooperation among its divisions.\n\nThe OIG inspection team was favorably impressed with the management and over\xc2\xad\nsight of the $7 million PAE contract, which provides approximately 76 personnel\nto work in sensitive areas of embassies in Europe and Asia. The vast majority of the\nwork is in Moscow. The coordinator is the contracting officer\xe2\x80\x99s representative for the\nEUR portion of the contract.\n\n\n\n\nEQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY\nThe bureau is attentive to and supportive of Equal Employment Opportunity goals\nand objectives, and it is hands-on in addressing these matters as they arise.\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL SERVICES DIVISION\nThe general services division performs its duties generally well. Its activities include\npurchase card services, asset management, work order execution, supplies, travel,\nspace management, and records service. The staff members are experienced and\nknowledgeable, and their customers praise their ability to identify areas for new\noffices and provide high-quality logistics support for renovating, furnishing, and\nequipping office space. Issues in the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s travel process, which cross different\nsections of the executive office and bureau, are discussed below and in the domestic\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 35\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n financial management office section of the report. Also, recommendations concern\xc2\xad\n ing the purchase card program are made in the management controls section of this\n report.\n\n\n Travel Process\n Arranging travel services for EUR and IO travelers is a complex process. It involves\n employees at every level, crosses various offices and bureaus, and includes systems\n that are both in and out of the Department. JEX\xe2\x80\x99s travel section, composed of three\n travel coordinators, resides in the general services division. Its function is mostly advi\xc2\xad\n sory, much like a travel help desk. The section\xe2\x80\x99s main focus is to link bureau travelers,\n travel arrangers, and the Department\xe2\x80\x99s automated travel system, E2 Solutions. The\n section also hosts training sessions for the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s travel program.\n\n Travel arrangers, typically OMSes, are assigned to the EUR 23 offices. They assist\n travelers in preparing authorizations and vouchers using E2 Solutions. Data that is\n entered into the E2 Solutions system (usually by travel arrangers) is used in a variety\n of ways, including to issue tickets and to record entries in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s account\xc2\xad\n ing system. For the process to be successful, it is critical that the travel arrangers\n use consistent data entry methods. Three groups approve travel authorizations and\n vouchers in EUR: the affected office, the travel section, and the financial manage\xc2\xad\n ment section. EUR has improved efficiency for office approvals by having three to\n five approvers in each of the 23 offices. However, this efficiency comes at a price:\n the wide variety of approvers\xe2\x80\x99 practices often results in errors that require additional\n processing.\n\n The OIG team found that the travel process for EUR and IO needs improvement.\n Many travelers complained that the process is time consuming and reimbursements\n are unreasonably delayed. Travel authorization and vouchering procedures, which\n encompass many sections and offices in and outside the general services division, are\n marked by lack of attention to detail. Employees do not always know their roles, and\n travelers do not know their responsibilities. At the time of the inspection, written\n policies and procedures for the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s traveler program.\n\n As a result of the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s failure to implement effective travel procedures, travelers\n often experienced lengthy delays in obtaining authorizations and expense reimburse\xc2\xad\n ment, and the bureau often committed resources that could have been put to better\n use. Also, the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s travel process had a negative impact on employee morale. In\n addition, E2 Solutions user errors have affected the finance office\xe2\x80\x99s ability to succeed\n in its travel program responsibilities. (See the domestic financial management section\n of the report.)\n\n\n\n\n36 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 12: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should establish a written travel policy, including procedures for managing\n travel authorizations and travel vouchers. The policy should include delega\xc2\xad\n tions of authority and the elements of a valid claim. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nSome delays\xe2\x80\x94such as those caused by voucher rejections\xe2\x80\x94could be prevented if\nboth travelers and travel arrangers were better skilled at their respective roles in the\nprocess. The financial management division rejects an estimated 40 percent of all\ninternational travel vouchers. Lack of receipts was the number one reason for voucher\nrejections. Another chronic problem was the lack of necessary skills among voucher\npreparers. For example, preparers routinely have difficulty converting currencies.\nDelays from these causes can be traced to the lack of training. EUR has not placed\nsufficient emphasis on E2 Solutions training.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 13: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should require employees to have formal travel program training in the bureau\n and also take E2 Solutions training at the Foreign Service Institute before they\n are assigned travel arranger responsibilities. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\nCUSTOMER SUPPORT CENTER DIVISION\nThe customer support center provides clients of JEX services their first point of\ncontact in JEX. Service provision is adequate. The division consists of a chief, two\nprogram specialists, a budget technician, and the three OMS rovers. It processes\nincoming employees to EUR and IO providing them with office space, phones, cell\nphones, and computers, and helping them obtain ID badges, visas, and passports.\nAdditionally, it manages the OMS rover program, which is intended to provide\ntemporary assistance to all Department-based EUR and IO offices. Most of the\nwork requests the division initiates are accomplished either by or through JEX\xe2\x80\x99s other\ndivisions.\n\nAs noted, this division currently has three OMS rovers, one of whom manages JEX\xe2\x80\x99s\nfront desk and occasionally performs OMS rover duties. The customer support center\ndivision is compiling data to determine whether additional OMS rover resources are\nnecessary. Anecdotal information obtained during the inspection suggests that this\ndata will support adding OMS rovers. One of the division\xe2\x80\x99s OMS rover positions\ncurrently is vacant.\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 37\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION\n The financial management division provides adequate services to EUR and IO\n domestic and overseas offices. It is responsible for managing the resources allocated\n to EUR for its programs and operations. Led by a chief budget officer supported\n by a staff of 11 full-time employees, the division\xe2\x80\x99s duties include preparing EUR\n budget submissions to the Bureau of Resource Management; developing funding\n requirements for EUR\xe2\x80\x99s BSRP; managing, allocating, and monitoring EUR\xe2\x80\x99s overseas\n and domestic allotments; and providing guidance to overseas posts on Department\n financial management policies and procedures. Much of the staff\xe2\x80\x99s work involves\n compiling and analyzing financial data. Office of Management and Budget guidance\n for FY 2012 not only instructs agencies to reduce spending across the board but also\n aims to restructure operations strategically. The financial management staff currently\n is engaged with EUR\xe2\x80\x99s front office to implement this guidance.\n\n The division is organized into three teams: overseas, domestic, and contributions.\n For FY 2010, it manages about $604 million: $25.8 million for domestic; $513.1\n million for overseas (which includes reimbursements received from other agencies\n for overseas management support); and another $64.8 million for PD. EUR receives\n representation funds of $42,000 for domestic use and $2.7 million for overseas use,\n as well as about $866 million in foreign assistance, most of which is implemented by\n USAID and other Department bureaus. EUR implements about $85 million, which\n is executed by the financial management division.\n\n This division is currently in flux. Its most pressing issue has been staffing gaps and\n absences over the past few years. Continuity and consistency in leadership positions\n also have been intermittent. These staffing gaps have especially plagued the overseas\n and domestic teams. As a result, relatively new employees were left on their own to\n learn about routine processes, Department regulations, and financial applications.\n Day-to-day work has been getting completed, but at a cost to the well being and\n morale of the staff, some of whom have worked long hours to keep up with demands.\n Attention to other important EUR initiatives and planning also has taken a backseat\n to responding to immediate taskings.\n\n Adding to the problem is that the division employees work with various Department\n databases\xe2\x80\x94including the global financial management system, ICASS global data\xc2\xad\n base, and various Bureau of Resource Management financial applications\xe2\x80\x94which\n require downloading data and reformatting to respond to frequent data calls from the\n Bureau of Resource Management, because standardized reports are not readily avail\xc2\xad\n able. Despite the understaffing and turnover, the financial management division\xe2\x80\x99s\n staff has good working relationships with other Department bureaus and offices,\n both internally and externally, and with EUR posts. However, the work could be\n done more efficiently and thoroughly if the staffing gaps were eliminated. Addressing\n\n\n\n38 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nstaffing gaps is critical to strengthening internal controls over operations and improv\xc2\xad\ning efficiencies and customer service; EUR management acknowledges this and is\ntaking appropriate action.\n\nJEX management addressed the lack of continuity in the division\xe2\x80\x99s leadership, by\nusing the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s Civil Service Professional Development Rotation pilot program to\nbring in a GS-14 foreign affairs officer from the Office of Policy and Global Issues to\nserve for a year as chief budget officer. The consistent leadership seems to be improv\xc2\xad\ning productivity and morale in the division. However, during the OIG inspection,\nthe deputy chief position unexpectedly became vacant, and the bureau once again is\nchallenged with filling another leadership position. Current JEX management has\nsought the Bureau of Resource Management and HR support in identifying and\nbringing on an experienced temporary duty deputy budget officer for 5 months, to\nfill the position until the next bidding cycle. The team also appears to be addressing\nlong- and short-term issues in the financial management section, recognizing that the\ndivision needs experienced personnel to plan for the immediate and projected budget\nrealities facing the Department. The OIG team agrees that EUR should continue\nthese efforts.\n\nOne area needing improvement in the financial management division is the lack\nof standard operating procedures for the overseas and domestic teams. This issue is\ndiscussed later in this report, in the Management Controls section.\n\n\nOverseas Team\nAn FS-02 deputy budget officer leads the overseas team, supported by three positions\n(FS-02 and FS-03 budget officers, and a GS-14 budget analyst). The deputy also fills\nin during the chief\xe2\x80\x99s absences. During the past year, two positions on the overseas\nteam have been vacant. The overseas team is responsible for providing support to\n56 EUR posts and 7 posts in IO. It also handles diplomatic and consular programs,\nICASS, and representation funding. Other duties include setting financial targets;\ndeveloping financial plans for EUR and IO; and issuing and tracking allotments,\nincluding cost of living allowances, educational allowances, and locally employed\nstaff wage increases. The team is in contact with post financial management offi\xc2\xad\ncers daily, dealing with a myriad of issues, such as handling locally employed staff\npension and medical benefit plans, funding new positions, reconciling Secretary of\nState and White House travel, and processing reimbursements from other agencies.\nThe team also regularly responds to requests from the EUR and IO front offices, as\nwell as from JEX and the Bureau of Resource Management. The current team has\nperformed these responsibilities adequately \xe2\x80\x94 but not without a toll on the staff, due\nto turnover and gaps in the section. The RSC Frankfurt staff has assisted the overseas\nteam throughout the year with some of these taskings. An experienced WAE senior\nfinancial management specialist will fill in the deputy position upon the departure of\nthe incumbent.\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 39\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n Domestic Team\n The domestic team, led by a GS-14 budget analyst supported by a staff of three,\n generally performs well in carrying out its duties. These duties include processing\n EUR and IO travel, EUR domestic representation, and other domestic expenditures\n totaling about $28 million. This team is also responsible for planning and executing\n EUR\xe2\x80\x99s special accounts, such as bureau-managed foreign assistance accounts, ICASS,\n Foreign Service national separation liability trust fund, and gift funds. The staff\n also handles funds held domestically for overseas posts (for example, for the Art in\n Embassies program or OSCE expenses). One shortcoming of this office is its lack\n of standard operating procedures, especially for the responsibilities of a long-term\n employee who will soon retire. In light of this division\xe2\x80\x99s recent staff turnover, it is\n important that it have standard operating procedures in place, particularly for this\n position. This issue is discussed further in the Management Controls section of the\n report.\n\n Another area needing improvement is the review of unliquidated obligations. The\n domestic team reviews the status of obligations reports on a quarterly, rather than\n monthly, basis and intermittently throughout the year. The OIG team informally\n recommended that the section review its unliquidated obligations and obligated\n balances more frequently. The section was short-handed during the last yearend\n push and found the period challenging. As the new budget analysts adjusted to the\n office, backlogs receded and accounts are now in reasonable shape. A number of\n unliquidated obligations relating to Department hiring contracts in ACE remained\n outstanding. These could easily be cleared. The financial management division needs\n to improve coordination between its domestic team and ACE. The OIG team made\n an informal recommendation addressing this issue.\n\n Managing travel obligations will always create a large workload, and it often will have\n to be given top priority. The section directs much of its energy to EUR\xe2\x80\x99s and IO\xe2\x80\x99s\n travel processes. The OIG team recommended informally that the financial manage\xc2\xad\n ment office could achieve greater efficiency by allowing analysts to telework, to focus\n exclusively on travel accounting. (See the Travel Process and Management Controls\n sections of this report for formal recommendations regarding travel process policy\n and procedures.)\n\n\n Contributions Team\n The staff of three on the contributions team processes payments from international\n organizations accounts to the respective international organizations. The team\n handles execution for about $2.2 billion in funds for U.S. contributions to United\n Nations (UN) peacekeeping activities, and $1.7 billion for U.S. contributions to\n the UN and approximately 47 other international organizations. It also processes\n\n\n40 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\npayments for about $390 million for voluntary contributions to multilateral organiza\xc2\xad\ntions and activities supporting U.S. priorities, including the UN Development Fund\nand the UN Children\xe2\x80\x99s Fund.\n\nThe contributions team performs its duties adequately. The experienced and knowl\xc2\xad\nedgeable staff members worked in these same positions in IO prior to the consolida\xc2\xad\ntion of EUR and IO, and they work well with other JEX staff. Their responsibilities\ninclude providing regular reports on the status of funds to the IO managers with\nwhom they work closely. The unit has standard operating procedures for its processes\nand the two databases it uses to manage payments. The OIG inspection team\ncould not verify checks and balances in IO, but EUR and the Bureau of Resource\nManagement appear to oversee the unit\xe2\x80\x99s general processes. Once the financial\nmanagement division is fully staffed and stabilized, JEX management should\nconsider cross training the contributions team on EUR\xe2\x80\x99s international organization\nappropriations allotments, to increase the section\xe2\x80\x99s knowledge and enhance career\ndevelopment. During the inspection, EUR discussed implementing this suggestion.\n\n\n\n\nINFORMATION MANAGEMENT\nThe information management division is making concerted efforts to be proactive\nand customer-oriented. Following IT consolidation in 2008, IRM has been provid\xc2\xad\ning desktop support services. EUR\xe2\x80\x99s information management division handles a\nwide range of roles related to IRM\xe2\x80\x99s provision of these services, such as coordinating\nIRM\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to meet bureau customer needs; conducting development activities for\nthe SharePoint environments; and acting as a liaison between EUR and the posts (for\ninstance, with regard to ordering equipment for the posts or reporting to IRM on\nsystemic IT issues at overseas posts).\n\n\nInformation Technology Consolidation\nTwo years after EUR\xe2\x80\x99S consolidation of desktop services with IRM, growing pains\nremain. EUR staff described a number of issues concerning IRM\xe2\x80\x99s customer service,\nincluding poor technical support, misrouted trouble tickets, excessive delays in resolv\xc2\xad\ning trouble tickets, and apparent limitations in the overall knowledge and technical\nability of the IRM technicians. (The OIG team experienced some of these difficulties\nfirsthand, when it experienced network access problems in its assigned work space.\nEUR had noted similar issues in during OIG\xe2\x80\x99s 2009 evaluation of the IT consolida\xc2\xad\ntion program.)\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 41\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n The misrouting of trouble tickets by IRM is fairly common. Each time a staff\n member receives a misrouted ticket, he or she must take time to research the issue,\n to reroute the ticket correctly. Moreover, there have been numerous instances when\n IRM technical staff have been unable to resolve relatively simple troubleshooting\n tasks, and instead have recommended replacing the equipment \xe2\x80\x94 whereupon out-of-\n scope information management personnel reportedly were called in to fix the prob-\n lems. They were able to do so with little ado; nevertheless, they were diverted from\n their primary responsibilities. EUR staff also questioned IRM\xe2\x80\x99s apparent practice of\n opening multiple trouble tickets on the same issue, such as when issuing a hard drive,\n and even suggested that IRM technicians are doing so solely to improve their perfor-\n mance benchmarks.\n\n Meanwhile, IRM has not been clear about defining which staff members have which\n information management responsibilities. For instance, information systems security\n officer duties are not clearly defined, nor are they understood by the relevant parties.\n (b)(2)(b)(5)\n\n\n\n\n The OIG team met with the IT consolidation representatives who are responsible\n for liaison between EUR and IRM. The IRM representatives were aware of EUR\xe2\x80\x99s\n concerns, and indicated they have taken several corrective steps. To address the issues\n with trouble ticket resolution and technician abilities, the current version 3 of the\n service level agreement between IRM and all consolidated bureaus is being revised.\n IRM has formed a working group that includes representatives from the information\n management division, to involve the bureau in developing customer service bench-\n marks. Also, IRM has revised its in-scope and out-of-scope responsibilities matrix\n to alleviate confusion. The IRM bureau liaisons also have coordinated several face-\n to-face meetings with EUR senior management to discuss the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s concerns and\n collaborate on determining corrective measures.\n\n One of IRM\xe2\x80\x99s overall goals in IT consolidation was to achieve economy of scale\n for information management staffing levels within the Department. However, as\n a consolidated bureau, EUR\xe2\x80\x99s information management staffing will show little\n change. As a result of consolidation, seven of EUR\xe2\x80\x99s information management\n division positions were moved to IRM; however, a recent study by the Bureau of\n Administration\xe2\x80\x99s Commercial Services Management team deemed EUR\xe2\x80\x99s informa-\n tion management office understaffed, identified two of the contractor positions as\n inherently governmental, and proposed an increase in personnel that would return\n staffing to preconsolidation levels. Thus, as far as EUR is concerned, consolidation\n efforts have resulted only in decreased personal attention to customers, a sharp drop\n in overall customer satisfaction, and the failure to realize savings.\n\n\n\n42 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nThe IT consolidation issues described by EUR staff echo many of those identified\nin last year\xe2\x80\x99s OIG evaluation report on the IT consolidation program.3 The find\xc2\xad\nings of that report ranged from the lack of timeliness in resolving trouble tickets to\ninadequacy of training and skill levels among IRM technicians and a lack of clarity\nof in-scope and out-of-scope responsibilities. Additionally, last year\xe2\x80\x99s OIG team found\ninconsistent sharing of information systems security officer duties and an overall lack\nof communication among parties. Clearly, these issues remain.\n\nThe 2009 OIG team made several recommendations in its evaluation of the IT\nconsolidation program. Specifically, it recommended that the chief information offi\xc2\xad\ncer revise performance metrics for its helpdesk service contracts, to address customer\ncomplaints on timeliness and resolution of issues. It also recommended revising the\ntraining program for IRM\xe2\x80\x99s technicians, and clarifying in-scope and out-of-scope\nresponsibilities for desktop services, information systems security officer duties, and\nasset management. The current OIG team concluded that IRM\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with\nthe recommendations in that 2009 OIG report would alleviate the problems still\nbeing experienced by EUR and other consolidated bureaus. Recommendations made\nin the 2009 report remain open and require IRM compliance actions.\n\n\nTelecommunications, Wireless, and Data Services\nEUR receives its voice and data connectivity from the Telecommunications, Wireless,\nand Data Services Division (TWD) within IRM. The relationship between TWD and\nEUR\xe2\x80\x99s information management office is strained. The OIG team heard numerous\naccounts of TWD\xe2\x80\x99s poor customer service and exorbitant monthly rates for items such\nas network switches.\n\nIn discussions with EUR and TWD personnel, the OIG team observed a lack of\nclarity about where responsibility lies for providing, maintaining, and documenting\nbureau telecommunications infrastructures. This lack of clarity includes diagrams and\nlocation documentation for data ports and circuitry, as well as access rights to switch\nclosets, and even which office moves furniture to allow access to data ports. Also, there\nwas confusion over whether connectivity was being initiated/terminated via electronic\nconsoles or physically at the patch panel, and by whose authorization. Both EUR and\nTWD have attempted to arrange meetings to resolve the confusion, but with limited\nsuccess. Toward the end of this inspection, the OIG team prompted TWD and EUR\nIM representatives to hold a meeting. This meeting helped promote communication\nbetween both parties; however, questions regarding processes and procedures remained\nunanswered, thus preventing a long-term resolution to the problems.\n\n\n\n3\n Evaluation of the Information Technology Consolidation Project at the Department of State, Report\n\n Number AUD/IT-10-11, January 2010. \n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 43\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 14: The Bureau of Information Resource\n Management should clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Bureau of\n European and Eurasian Affairs and the Bureau of Information Resource\n Management, with regard to telecommunications, wireless, and data services,\n including which entity is responsible for installation, wiring diagrams, access\n rights, and service change requests for all consolidated bureaus. (Action: IRM)\n\n\n The OIG team noted errors in voice circuit billing and poor billing formats that\n make reconciliation efforts exceedingly difficult. In the case of voice circuits, EUR is\n being charged monthly for several phone lines that are invalid numbers. Because of\n such errors, EUR undertook to identify anomalies in their monthly bills. The EUR\n general services division surveyed the bureau to identify active phone lines, then\n reconciled that list with the lines identified on its billing statements. So far, EUR has\n identified at least 365 lines for which it is being charged that are not currently in use;\n many of these discrepancies may be related to the numerous office moves the bureau\n recently has undergone. However, by identifying and rectifying these billing errors,\n EUR will save approximately $150,000 annually.\n\n EUR has not completed a comparable study for data circuits, but conducting such\n a study would be difficult for a variety of reasons. The data port billing statements\n are more complex and cannot be sorted easily. It also is more labor intensive to check\n the viability of data circuits than it is to confirm whether phone lines are active.\n Moreover, the billing statements detail only one data port per page, resulting in a\n 500-page monthly bill from TWD, which effectively acts as a disincentive to close\n scrutiny. In addition, although the bill is handled by the general services division, the\n knowledge of which ports are active is dispersed among various information manage\xc2\xad\n ment division staff, contractors, and IRM personnel.\n\n In accordance with 5 FAM 527, bureau executive officers should review monthly\n telephone service statements for accuracy of charges and to seek repayment for\n unapproved telephone charges. Further, executive officers should review telephone\n inventories annually to validate the need for equipment installed within their bureaus\n in attempt to eliminate unnecessary telecommunications expenses.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 15: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs,\n in coordination with the Bureau of Information Resource Management,\n should complete a thorough review of telecommunications circuit billing, to\n reconcile current charges against the actual, active infrastructure, determine\n any discrepancies, and take corrective steps as needed. (Action: EUR, in coor\xc2\xad\n dination with IRM)\n\n\n44 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nSystems Development Life Cycle\n\nEUR\xe2\x80\x99s information management office has neither established nor implemented a\nsystems development life cycle (SDLC) methodology. In accordance with 5 FAH-5H\xc2\xad\n210, the Managing State Projects or similar life cycle methodology should be\ndeployed to manage all IT system development projects with a systematic framework\nwith tailoring options and control gates for management review. While most of the\noffice\xe2\x80\x99s current development activities are performed within a SharePoint environ\xc2\xad\nment with an established structure, it is important to deploy a rigorous process. A\nproperly documented and enforced SDLC methodology would provide assurance\nthat all bureau-specific applications and systems are adequately documented, with\nproper management and security controls in place.\n\nDuring the inspection, the OIG team found that systems documentation was not\neasily accessible\xe2\x80\x94often because either the documentation did not exist, or the staff\nwas unfamiliar with particular systems\xe2\x80\x99 presence and purpose. A properly existing\nmethodology makes such documentation readily available. According to the unit\xe2\x80\x99s\ndirector, the information management division needs an SDLC process, and the staff\nis working on its development.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 16: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should develop and implement a systems development life cycle process.\n (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\nSECURITY PROGRAM\nThe JEX security program is administered by a bureau security officer, who is a Civil\nService employee in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security\xe2\x80\x99s division of information\nsecurity, programs, and applications. This individual is one of ten bureau security\nofficers directly supporting the Department\xe2\x80\x99s geographic and functional bureaus. The\nbureau security officer program was created in 2004 to provide subject matter experts\nin all matters concerning internal bureau security. The officers develop, implement,\nand advise on procedures and controls for safeguarding classified and administra\xc2\xad\ntively controlled information, and they enforce all associated security regulations. In\naddition, JEX has one principal unit security officer and 15 primary and alternate\nunit security officers at the directorate or equivalent level.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 45\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n The JEX bureau security officer takes a proactive approach to security, has the full\n backing of the executive office, and is well integrated into the JEX workforce. The\n officer sends out security directives via email, particularly before weekends and holi\xc2\xad\n days, to remind personnel to properly secure classified hard drives and check work\n areas for classified and Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) material.\n\n In general, EUR staff members take personal security awareness seriously. The unit\xe2\x80\x99s\n security officers enforce use of the \xe2\x80\x9cbuddy system\xe2\x80\x9d for double checks of colleagues\xe2\x80\x99\n work areas. The JEX director is immediately informed of any security violations\n discovered during after-hours inspections. JEX makes a team effort to keep viola\xc2\xad\n tions to a minimum: the bureau security officer is included in the JEX in- and\n out-processing procedures, so that Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)\n requests/transfers/debriefs are completed and mandatory security training is sched\xc2\xad\n uled. The bureau security officer also executes safety programs. During the course of\n the inspection, for example, the OIG team participated in a fire drill in the Harry S\n Truman Building and observed that EUR and IO evacuation plans are complete, and\n the exercise was conducted smoothly and without incident.\n\n\n Security Incident Program\n The JEX security incident program is well managed. As set forth in 12 FAM 553.1 a.,\n and 12 FAM 556 a., security incidents must be reported to the Bureau of Diplomatic\n Security for adjudication. Security infractions and violations have been declining, as\n shown by the following table:\n 2008 2009 2010 (to date)\n\n Infractions: 9 7 4\n Violations: 0 0 0\n Validated: 3 0 1\n\n The Bureau of Diplomatic Security determined that only one infraction was vali\xc2\xad\n dated, and it did not result in a possible or actual compromise of information. As the\n record attests, the bureau security officer has done an excellent job applying internal\n security controls to protect sensitive and classified material within JEX. Security inci\xc2\xad\n dents are processed and adjudicated expeditiously, in coordination with the Office of\n Information Security\xe2\x80\x99s division of programs and applications.\n\n\n Annual Security Refresher Briefing\n In accordance with 12 FAM 564.2, all functional bureaus within the Department\n must provide, at a minimum, annual security refresher training for personnel\n having continued access to classified information. This is one of many tools used\n\n\n46 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nto prevent personnel from becoming indifferent to good security practice. With the\nassistance of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, JEX conducts an annual, combined\nsecurity/counterintelligence refresher. Of the approximately 345 EUR and IO\ndomestic employees, 80 percent have completed the required training; JEX schedules\nmake-up classes to enable the bureaus to strive for 100 percent compliance.\n\n\nAnnual Review of Classified and Sensitive But Unclassified\nHardcopy Material\nThe JEX director has authorized downtime of 1 hour semiannually for all personnel\nto review and purge all accumulated SBU and classified material that is no longer\nrequired\xe2\x80\x94a process that is informally termed \xe2\x80\x9csummer cleaning.\xe2\x80\x9d This procedure\nreduces the likelihood of an inadvertent compromise of national security or sensitive\ninformation.\n\n\nSpecial Security Representative\nIn accordance with the Director, Central Intelligence Directive 6/1, Section 5.2,\na special security representative shall be appointed for any organization that has a\nsubordinate SCI facility. The special security representative will ensure that proper\nSCI security policy and procedures are implemented for SCI information and physi\xc2\xad\ncal security controls of the SCI facility itself. This information also must be provided\nto the special security operations division of Bureau of Diplomatic Security\xe2\x80\x99s Office\nof Information Security.\n\nAccording to the special security operations division, JEX has special security repre\xc2\xad\nsentatives on written orders for each bureau, all of whom are current in their special\nsecurity representative training. All EUR and IO SCI facilities are in compliance\nwith Director of Central Intelligence Directive 6/9, based upon the last inspections.\nTwo of EUR\xe2\x80\x99s facilities are currently due for their periodic inspection by the special\nsecurity operations division; the division will schedule upcoming inspections. IO is\ncurrently up to date on its inspections.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 47\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n48 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nMANAGEMENT CONTROLS\n\n\nEUR\xe2\x80\x99s management controls program is headed by one of JEX\xe2\x80\x99s deputy executive\ndirectors. On August 23, 2010, EUR submitted the Assistant Secretary\xe2\x80\x99s annual\nManagement Control Statement of Assurance, which identified specific, potential\nmaterial weaknesses and/or deficiencies at 12 overseas missions, along with the status\nof corrective actions. The submission did not identify management control weak\xc2\xad\nnesses in EUR\xe2\x80\x99s domestic operations, even though a recent risk assessment exercise\nhad noted several areas of concern. These concerns included (a) the need to create\nand use standard operating procedures, workflow charts, and schedules for preparing\nwork commitments, and (b) the need to enter this information into the ePerformance\ndatabase. The OIG team also identified these weaknesses, which are addressed in\nmore detail below.\n\n\n\n\nTRAVEL VOUCHERS\nProcessing travel documents has been a challenge for the financial management\ndivision. Since EUR and IO programs require extensive travel, the domestic team\nspends a lot of time on travel-related work. The previous yearend brought what one\nanalyst described as 50 pages of unliquidated obligations relating to uncompleted\ntravel vouchers. After a concerted effort by the financial management division and\nGSO travel section, this number was brought down to a reasonable level. However,\nmost travelers do not complete vouchers in a timely manner, and the bureau does not\nenforce the Department\xe2\x80\x99s standard that vouchers be completed within 5 days from\nthe travel ending date (4 FAM 465.1). As a result, the related obligations stay on the\nbooks longer than is necessary.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 17: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should disseminate a management notice reminding travelers of their respon\xc2\xad\n sibility to file travel vouchers within 5 days from the travel ending date and\n stating sanctions for late filers, and track compliance. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 49\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n PURCHASE CARD PROGRAM\n The executive director of JEX has not adequately assumed the role of coordinator for\n the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s purchase card program, as prescribed by the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Worldwide\n Purchase Card Program Manual. As a result, EUR\xe2\x80\x99s purchase card program does not\n comply with Department standards, and the bureau cannot be sure its transactions\n are free from error or misstatement.\n\n Monthly account reconciliations are a cornerstone of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s purchase card\n program. Although EUR\xe2\x80\x99s cardholders have prepared reconciliations, the approving\n official has not consistently submitted the monthly approval and reconciliation to\n central accounting, as is required by the Worldwide Purchase Card Program Manual.\n Nevertheless, the Bureau of Resource Management\xe2\x80\x99s central accounting office contin\xc2\xad\n ues to make purchase card payments. Further, the OIG team found no evidence that\n the bureau program coordinator has completed purchase card annual reviews. The\n review process monitors compliance with policy and procedures, enhances oversight\n to prevent fraud, and raises awareness by highlighting areas that need improvement.\n The failure to implement these control measures has persisted over a considerable\n period of time, which has impaired the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s control environment.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 18: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should disseminate a written policy for its purchase card program, underscor\xc2\xad\n ing the executive director\xe2\x80\x99s role as program coordinator and listing the roles\n and responsibilities of program participants. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 19: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should complete the approving official review of monthly purchase card recon\xc2\xad\n ciliations and transmit the records to the Bureau of Resource Management.\n (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 20: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should complete the purchase card annual review for fiscal year 2010. (Action:\n EUR)\n\n\n\n\n50 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nPERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT\nThe 2008 report of the human accountability review conducted by HR\xe2\x80\x99s Office\nof Resource Management and Organization Analysis cited a breakdown in EUR\xe2\x80\x99s\ndocumentation of performance evaluations for the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s Civil Service employees.\nThe bureau has made progress, but 9 months after EUR\xe2\x80\x99s documentation was due, 7\nout of 117 of the Civil Service performance evaluations were outstanding, and 5 out\nof 117 of the work commitments were outstanding. In addition, all completed evalua\xc2\xad\ntions were delivered to the central HR office after the deadline. The OIG team found\nsimilar problems with IO\xe2\x80\x99s Civil Service employee evaluations; some IO employees\nhad not even been assigned raters for the current cycle.\n\nThe performance evaluation function is important for administering a personnel\nsystem and building employee morale. The OIG team recommended informally that\nthe bureau remind employee raters that they are required to complete all evaluations\nand submit them in to the central HR office by the deadline. Reporting require\xc2\xad\nments for unreported and late Civil Service performance evaluations under 3 FAH-1\nH-2825.4 were not met.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 21: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should submit a delinquent raters list identifying both delinquent raters and\n Civil Service employees whose performance evaluation reports were late or not\n prepared. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\nSTANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES\nEUR lacks standard operating procedures for the financial management division\xe2\x80\x99s\noverseas and domestic teams. This shortcoming is longstanding and significant, given\nthe division\xe2\x80\x99s turnover in staff. In the 2001 OIG report, inspectors recommended\nthat EUR document standardized procedures for recurring financial management\ncontrol activities in the budget office. EUR responded that it was updating its hand\xc2\xad\nbook of standardized procedures, and the recommendation was closed. However,\nthe current inspectors found that standard operating procedures either were still\nin the early stages of development or could not be found. Financial management\ndivision staff attributed this problem to the turnover and gaps in office staffing and\ntheir need to respond to short turnaround requests while carrying out day-to-day\nresponsibilities.\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 51\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 22: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should establish written standard operating procedures for the financial\n management division\xe2\x80\x99s overseas and domestic teams. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\n52 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 1: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\nconduct a top-to-bottom review of functional portfolios, reducing their overall\nnumber and reallocating them accordingly among the relevant offices. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 2: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, in coor\xc2\xad\ndination with the Office of the Legal Adviser, should establish specific benchmarks\nin the resolution of Holocaust era-related issues that, when reached, would lead to the\nphasing out of the Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues and absorption of\nits remaining elements into other Department offices. (Action: EUR, in coordination\nwith L)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 3: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\ndesignate a second office to fall under the responsibility of the deputy assistant secre\xc2\xad\ntary responsible for the Office of South Central Europe. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 4: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\ninstruct bureau policy offices and the Office of Press and Public Diplomacy to reach\nagreement on core work requirements for public diplomacy embedded officers before\nthey begin their assignments. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 5: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\ncreate a new public diplomacy embedded position in the Office of Caucasus Affairs\nand Regional Conflicts, and leave the incumbent who is now covering that office\nwith responsibility only for the Office of Southern European Affairs. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 6: The Bureau of Resource Management, in coordina\xc2\xad\ntion with the Under Secretary for Management, the Under Secretary for Public\nDiplomacy and Public Affairs, and the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs,\nshould assess the implications of the new Strategic Framework for Public Diplomacy\nfor the planning process for public diplomacy activities in the Bureau of European\nand Eurasian Affairs. (Action: RM, in coordination with M, R, and EUR)\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 53\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 7: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n amend the standard operating procedures of the Division of Press and Outreach, to\n make clear that the division is responsible for all requests to facilitate interviews in\n the bureau coming from European media representatives, whether they are based in\n the U.S. or in Europe. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 8: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n periodically recirculate the press division\xe2\x80\x99s standard operating procedures via the\n \xe2\x80\x9cAll EUR\xe2\x80\x9d collective address and also should post them on the bureau\xe2\x80\x99s permanent\n intranet site where they will be seen readily. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 9: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n include the deputy assistant secretary responsible for press and public diplomacy in\n the clearance process for all bureau press guidance. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 10: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n remove the Division of Press and Outreach from the Office of Press and Public\n Diplomacy, and place it under the direct supervision of the deputy assistant secretary\n responsible for public diplomacy. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 11: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n execute new service level agreements with clients for whom previous service level\n agreements have expired. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 12: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n establish a written travel policy, including procedures for managing travel authoriza\xc2\xad\n tions and travel vouchers. The policy should include delegations of authority and the\n elements of a valid claim. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 13: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n require employees to have formal travel program training in the bureau and also take\n E2 Solutions training at the Foreign Service Institute before they are assigned travel\n arranger responsibilities. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION 14: The Bureau of Information Resource Management\n should clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Bureau of European and Eurasian\n Affairs and the Bureau of Information Resource Management, with regard to tele\xc2\xad\n communications, wireless, and data services, including which entity is responsible\n for installation, wiring diagrams, access rights, and service change requests for all\n consolidated bureaus. (Action: IRM)\n\n54 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 15: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, in coor\xc2\xad\ndination with the Bureau of Information Resource Management, should complete a\nthorough review of telecommunications circuit billing, to reconcile current charges\nagainst the actual, active infrastructure, determine any discrepancies, and take\ncorrective steps as needed. (Action: EUR, in coordination with IRM)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 16: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\ndevelop and implement a systems development life cycle process. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 17: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\ndisseminate a management notice reminding travelers of their responsibility to file\ntravel vouchers within 5 days from the travel ending date and stating sanctions for\nlate filers, and track compliance. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 18: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\ndisseminate a written policy for its purchase card program, underscoring the execu\xc2\xad\ntive director\xe2\x80\x99s role as program coordinator and listing the roles and responsibilities of\nprogram participants. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 19: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\ncomplete the approving official review of monthly purchase card reconciliations and\ntransmit the records to the Bureau of Resource Management. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 20: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\ncomplete the purchase card annual review for fiscal year 2010. (Action: EUR)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 21: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\nsubmit a delinquent raters list identifying both delinquent raters and Civil Service\nemployees whose performance evaluation reports were late or not prepared. (Action:\nEUR)\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 22: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\nestablish written standard operating procedures for the financial management divi\xc2\xad\nsion\xe2\x80\x99s overseas and domestic teams. (Action: EUR)\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 55\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n56 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nINFORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n\nInformal recommendations cover operational matters not requiring action by orga\xc2\xad\nnizations outside the inspected unit and/or the parent regional bureau. Informal\nrecommendations will not be subject to the OIG compliance process. However, any\nsubsequent OIG inspection or on-site compliance review will assess the mission\xe2\x80\x99s\nprogress in implementing the informal recommendations.\n\nCoordination and Clearance\n\nSome EUR offices feel that the Office of Policy and Global Issues\xe2\x80\x99 coordination of\nroutine legislative affairs actions (for example, the confirmation process) adds an\nunnecessary bureaucratic layer to the process. Items uniquely applying to an office\nshould have direct referral, with front office or Office of Policy and Global Issues\nfollowup, to the affected office.\n\nInformal Recommendation 1: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\nreview and reallocate coordination responsibilities for routine legislative affairs issues\ndirectly to the responsible office.\n\nOffice of Regional Security and Political Military Affairs\n\nRPM is the lead office on NATO issues in EUR. However, the Office of Policy and\nRegional Affairs has responsibility for NATO nuclear weapons posture and missile\ndefense issues. This overlap borders on duplication.\n\nInformal Recommendation 2: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\nclearly delineate the respective responsibilities of the Office of Regional Security and\nPolitical Military Affairs and the Office of Policy and Regional Affairs.\n\nOffice of South Central European Affairs\n\nThe office deputy director arrived during the inspection, and the DAS was also\nnewly assigned. When the office director resumed her former position, following\nseveral extended periods as the acting DAS, desk officers were unclear about lines of\nauthority and responsibility.\n\nInformal Recommendation 3: The Office of South Central European Affairs\nshould give priority to delineating lines of responsibility and supervision between the\noffice director and the deputy office director.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 57\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n Office of Press and Public Diplomacy\n\n PPD has a biweekly, expanded staff meeting with representatives from the\n Department\xe2\x80\x99s two principal PD offices, IIP and ECA. While this meeting serves a\n useful purpose, it does not provide an opportunity to focus closely on priority PD\n issues or to engage IIP and ECA in developing strategies and marshaling resources to\n address them.\xc2\xa0\n\n Informal Recommendation 4: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n organize small, targeted meetings or working groups among the Office of Press\n and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of International Information Programs, and Bureau\n of Educational and Cultural Affairs to develop strategies and marshal resources to\n address bureau public diplomacy priorities.\n\n Human Resources Division\n\n Client bureaus have been served under service level agreements that specify service\n levels and the roles and responsibilities. In one arrangement, strong disagreements\n have emerged, but the parties have not shown a willingness to engage for solutions.\n\n Informal Recommendation 5: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n instruct its human resources section to reach out to clients on service disputes and\n resolve differences.\n\n Orientation\n\n New employee orientation is informal in EUR, consisting mainly of filling out forms\n in the human resources section and leaving more central matters, such as touring the\n Department and meeting bureau principals, to a new employee\xe2\x80\x99s office.\n\n Informal Recommendation 6: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n develop and implement a centralized orientation program with specific steps that\n introduce new employees to the Department and all the elements of the bureau.\n\n Informal Recommendation7: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\n implement, as part of the new arrivals checklist, a requirement that each entrant pay\n an introductory call on his or her office director, and receive instruction from the\n staff assistants in the EUR front office on correct preparation of documents.\n\n Foreign Service Assignments\n\n The post management division is frustrated by the lack of information from both\n the financial management division and the human resources division in planning for\n new Foreign Service assignments.\n\n\n\n58 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\nInformal Recommendation 8: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\ntake steps to strengthen communications among the financial management division,\nthe human resources division, and the post management division.\n\nFinancial Management Division\n\nThe domestic financial management team does not periodically schedule, review, and\nanalyze obligation balances, and there are significant unliquidated obligations for\ndomestic allotments.\n\nInformal Recommendation 9: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs should\nreview unliquidated obligations monthly and prepare adequate working papers and\nschedules in a form suitable for review.\n\nThere are a number of unliquidated obligations relating to program contracts that\ncould easily be cleared. There is little coordination between ACE, which handles the\ncontracts, and the financial management office domestic team.\n\nInformal Recommendation 10: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\nshould take steps to improve coordination for clearing unliquidated obligations\nbetween the financial management section domestic team and the Office of the\nCoordinator of U.S. Assistance for Europe and Eurasia.\n\nManaging travel obligations creates a large workload for the domestic financial\nmanagement team and often requires priority attention.\n\nInformal Recommendation 11: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\nshould offer telework options when necessary, to enable budget analysts on the\ndomestic financial management team to work exclusively on travel accounting to\nachieve greater efficiency.\n\nSecurity\n(b)(2)(b)(5)\n\n\n\n\nInformal Recommendation 12: (b)(2)(b)(5)\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 59\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n Management Controls\n\n For 2010, 7 percent of work commitments and performance evaluations for Civil\n Service employees remained outstanding 9 months after the due date. Similar\n circumstances existed for IO Civil Service employees. Some employees had not been\n assigned raters for the current cycle. The performance evaluation function is impor\xc2\xad\n tant not only in administering a personnel system but also for employee morale.\n\n Informal Recommendation 13: The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\n should hold supervisors accountable for completing Civil Service performance evalua\xc2\xad\n tions and work commitments in their own performance evaluations.\n\n\n\n\n60 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nPRINCIPAL OFFICIALS\n\n\n Name Arrival Date\n (month/year)\nFront Office:\nAssistant Secretary Dr. Philip H. Gordon 05/2009\nPrincipal Deputy Assistant Secretary Nancy E. McEldowney 08/2009\nDeputy Assistant Secretary Thomas M. Countryman 10/2010\nDeputy Assistant Secretary Tina S. Kaidanow 08/2009\nDeputy Assistant Secretary Pamela G. Quanrud 08/2009\nDeputy Assistant Secretary Spencer P. Boyer 08/2009\nDeputy Assistant Secretary Daniel A. Russell 06/2009\nDeputy Assistant Secretary Elizabeth L. Dibble 10/2010\nSenior Advisor Jeremy Shapiro 11/2009\n\nOffice Directors:\nAssistance for Europe and Eurasia Dan Rosenblum 02/2009\nCentral European Affairs Alex Karagiannis 08/2009\nCaucasus Affairs and Regional Conflicts Ethan Goldrich 07/2009\nEuropean Union and regional Affairs Kathleen Doherty 07/2010\nExecutive Office James D. Melville 09/2010\nNordic, Baltic Robert Silberstein 01/2010\nRestitution and Holocaust Issues Douglas Davidson 04/2010\nPolicy and Global Issues Marc Ostfield 09/2010\nPress and Public Diplomacy Elizabeth McKay 08/2009\nPolicy and Regional Affairs Theresa Grencik 09/2010\nRegional Security & Political\n Military Affairs Brent R. Hartley 07/2010\nRussian Affairs Kyle Scott 09/2009\nSouthern Europe Affairs Jess Baily 08/2008\nSouth Central Europe Affairs Jennifer Brush 05/2010\nUkraine, Moldova, Belarus Affairs Lawrence Silverman 08/2009\nWestern Europe Affairs Maureen Cormack 06/2009\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 61\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n62 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nABBREVIATIONS\n\n\nACE Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance for Europe\n and Eurasia\nAEECA \t Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia\nBSRP\t Bureau Strategic and Resource Plan\nCARC\t Offi ce of Caucasus Affairs and Regional Conflicts\nDAS \t Deputy Assistant Secretary\nDepartment\t U.S. Department of State\nECA \t Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs\nELO entry-level\n \t officer\nEU\t European Union\nEUR \t Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs\nERA\t Offi ce of European Union and Regional Affairs\nHR\t Bureau of Human Resources\nICASS \t International Cooperative Administrative Support\n Services\nIIP \t Bureau of International Information Programs\nIO\t Bureau of International Organization Affairs\nIRM \t Bureau of Information Resource Management\nIT\t information technology\nJEX \t Joint Executive Office\nNATO\t North Atlantic Treaty Organization\nOIG\t Offi ce of Inspector General\nOMS\t offi ce management specialist\nOSCE \t Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe\nPD\t public diplomacy\nPDAS\t Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 63\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n PMO post management officer\n PPD Office of Press and Public Diplomacy\n R Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public\n Affairs\n RPM Office of Regional Security and Political Military\n Affairs\n RSC Regional Support Center\n SBU Sensitive But Unclassified\n SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information\n SDLC systems development life cycle\n SEED Support for East European Democracies\n TWD Telecommunications, Wireless, and Data Services\n Division\n UN United Nations\n USAID U.S. Agency for International Development\n WAE when actually employed\n\n\n\n\n64 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n EUR Bureau Organization Chart\n\n\n\n\n\n Assistant Secretary As of 12/09/10\n\n\n Executive Office\n ACE\n\n\n\n Special Assistant Executive Assistant\n\n Special Advisor\n Senior Advisor /Speechwriter\n\n\n PDAS DAS DAS DAS DAS\n DAS DAS\n\n\n\n OHI SCE CARC PRA\n CE\n PPD ERA\n\n\n PGI SE RUS\n\n NB\n WE\n EUR-Press\n RPM UMB\n\n\n ACE \xe2\x80\x93 Assistance for Europe & Eurasia PRA \xe2\x80\x93 Policy & Regional Affairs\n CE \xe2\x80\x93 Central European Affairs RPM \xe2\x80\x93 Regional Security & Political\n CARC \xe2\x80\x93 Caucasus Affairs & Regional Military Affairs\n Conflicts RUS \xe2\x80\x93 Russian Affairs\n ERA \xe2\x80\x93 European Union and Regional Affairs SCE \xe2\x80\x93 South Central Europe\n EX \xe2\x80\x93 Executive Office SE \xe2\x80\x93 Southern Europe\n NB \xe2\x80\x93 Nordic, Baltic UMB \xe2\x80\x93 Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus\n OHI \xe2\x80\x93 Restitution & Holocaust Issues WE \xe2\x80\x93 Western Europe\n PGI \xe2\x80\x93 Policy & Global Issues\n PPD \xe2\x80\x93 Press & Public Diplomacy Office Director\n Deputy Director\n\n\n(EUR also supports the work of four special envoys: an economic envoy to Northern Ireland; a\nEurasian energy envoy; an advisor for conflicts and the Minsk Group; and a special envoy on\nHolocaust issues.)\n\n\n\n\n OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 65\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\n66 OIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\nOIG Report No. ISP-I-11-22 - Inspection of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs - March 2011 67\n\n\n SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0cSENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\nFRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE\n\nOR MISMANAGEMENT\n\n of Federal programs hurts everyone.\n\n\n\n Contact the\n\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n HOTLINE\n\nto report illegal or wasteful activities:\n\n\n 202-647-3320 \n\n 800-409-9926\n\n\n oighotline@state.gov\n\n\n oig.state.gov\n\n\n Office of Inspector General\n\n U.S. Department of State\n\n P. O. Box 9778\n\n Arlington, VA 22219\n\n\n\n Cables to the Inspector General\n should be slugged \xe2\x80\x9cOIG Channel\xe2\x80\x9d\n to ensure confidentiality.\n\n\n\n\nSENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\x0c'