An "Open Post" to Secretary Blinken
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Greetings!
I write to you today to ask for your assistance addressing a number of issues that have arisen and that no doubt are holding up my starting date. I also write because despite several emails to your office and senior staff at State, I have yet to get a response.
The following is the body of the a recent letter I wrote to you. As a professional courtesy, I am removing certain names and removing information that is inappropriate to share in public - for now. Appendices are not shared here. A postscript is added.
April 7, 2021
The Hon. Antony John Blinken?
Secretary of State
&
The Hon. Ambassador Carol Zells Perez?
Under Secretary (Acting)
Under Secretary for Management &?
Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Global Talent
&
Suzanne A. George
Chief of Staff
&
Thomas D. Sullivan?
Deputy Chief of Staff
&
Mr. Gregory B. Smith?
Director and Chief Diversity Office
U.S. Department of State?
Harry S. Truman Building?
2201 C Street, N.W.
Room 7226
Washington, D.C. 20520
Re:??????Public Affairs Position – Bureau of Arms Control, Verification & Compliance; Office of Verification, Planning and Outreach (AVCVPO)
Dear Mr. Secretary, Ambassador Perez, Chief of Staff George, Deputy Chief of Staff Sullivan, and Director Smith:??
It is my sincerest wish that this letter will find you in the best of health and happiness.?
INTRODUCTION
I am currently undergoing a background investigation for a (deleted) clearance and awaiting a starting date for a Public Affairs Specialist position in the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification & Compliance; Office of Verification, Planning and Outreach (AVCVPO).
Reason for Letter?
I write to bring to your attention the hardships and the maltreatment I am encountering as a candidate. There are two issues I wish to share with you:?
1.?????The unfairness of the background security check process and
2.??????An extremely inappropriate and unprofessional telephone conversation I had recently with (deleted), (deleted), AVCVPO.?
Ask
Both of these most unpleasant experiences have left me despondent, distraught, discouraged and distrustful of the system and of the potential leadership I might be working for.?
As such, I ask that you review the background process and address the miscommunication issues in the Bureau regarding my candidacy. As a last resort, I’d be willing to have you consider me for another position – of similar status, clearance level, pay and promotional opportunity – elsewhere in the Department.?
BACKGROUND?
For context, allow me to provide a timeline on both issues. I’ll reference a number of germane email exchanges.
I.??????????????Security Background Process?
As I noted, I’m finding a different – more stringent – application of rules being applied to my situation than for others. This disparity – inequality – is troubling, if not bordering on illegal.??
Meeting with Tom DiNanno?
On March 17, 2020, I with then Senior Bureau Official and Deputy Assistant Secretary?for Defense Policy, Emerging Threats, and Outreach, AVCVPO, Tom DiNanno and his Chief of Staff, Janey Wright, in his office, there at the Department (Appendix 1).
I left that in-person meeting with the impression that I had a position in that office.[1]
Between that meeting and July 15, 2020, a number of email exchanges occurred, and I provided requested and supplemental information.[2]
Human Resources Job Offer and Discussion of Salary
On December 2, 2020, I was advised that I had “been deemed qualified for the Public Affairs Specialist reassignment position with AVC/VPO. Please confirm if you accept or decline”?(Appendices 2a&b). I accepted the offer.[3]?A number of other emails would follow requesting additional documentation, which I proved.[4]
Of particular interest to these discussions is the email of December 10, 2020, where the discussion about an interim clearance was raised.[5]??
Background Check – (deleted) Clearance?
On December 15, 2020, I received a Tentative Offer Letter email. That same email advised of the request for an eQIP and (deleted) Clearance (Appendix 3a&b).?
Not having a confirmed in-person meeting with an investigator scheduled, I advised the Department of the hardship this long process was having on me (Appendices 4&5).?
On February 19, 2021, I was contacted by an investigator from the Office of Personnel Security and Suitability for the scheduling of an in-person security clearance interview (Appendix 6a). We met on February 26, 2021, for nearly 5 hours, at my residence. Prior to that encounter, I was asked for and I provided additional information (Appendix 6b).?
After the meeting, I was again asked for and I complied with a request for further information, including a signed copy of the “Agreement Not to Exercise Rights of Foreign Citizenship without Prior Notification.”?Furthermore, in that email, I took the liberty to address a number of points that arose during our conversation. Lastly, I also underscored a number of individuals that had been granted (deleted) clearances – individuals with dubious pasts (Appendix 6c).[6]
I was so outraged that I composed a letter to you, Mr. Secretary, on March 6, 2021, asking for an interim security clearance (Appendices 7a&b). Although reassured that “We will ensure this receives appropriate attention,”?I never got an answer.[7]
On March 10, 2021, I was asked to respond to a number of “Additional Questions.”[8]?I promptly replied the same day (Appendix 7c).
I followed-up with an email on March 19, 2021.[9]?Yet again, I enumerated the number of other individuals in possession of (deleted) clearance, this included another insurrectionist who took part in the attack on the U.S Capitol on January 6. Worst yet, he was a veteran Marine who worked on Marine One. As if this were not disconcerting enough, I also shared information about the double standard with clearances at the White House.?
On March 20, 2021, I was even more incensed after learning of more information about the discriminatory nature of the background security clearance process (Appendix 7d). The focus of that email was:[10]?
1.?????Clearances granted to Department employees with tarnished reputations due to their involvement in criminal behavior;??
2.?????Politico article: “Foreigners in their own country: Asian Americans as State Department confront discrimination”
3.?????The same article notes that “Top ranks are aware of discrimination.”
Upon hearing of the Department’s policy –?Investing in Diversity and Inclusion as State?– I acknowledged that in an email of March 21, 2021. It was heartening to read of the Administration’s and of your – Mr. Secretary’s – commitment to diversity.[11]
That reassurance was short-lived. On March 27, 2021, I was contacted again for a second in-person interview (Appendix 8). Like the first meeting, we met at my residence but for a much shorter meeting – about an hour – on March 31, 2021.?
I was not concerned about another meeting?per se, nor the topics the investigator wanted to discuss. I followed-up with an email on March 29, 2021, outlining my concerns. These being:[12]?
1.?????Items outside of the scope of the timeline indicated on the eQIP;
2.?????The continued non-response to the request for an interim security clearance;
3.?????Claims from others of a “discriminatory” and “inconsistent and unfair” process
There were a few “get backs” from the meeting of March 31, 2021, which, as usual, I readily provided. Moreover, being that the discussion turned into one comparing the work environment at previous employment positions with that at my last employer, in addition to the complimentary documents that I shared with the investigator, I also provided a link to a RAND Study on harassment and discrimination at FEMA. As I pointed out, this study corroborated my reason for an involuntary resignation.[13]???
领英推荐
Just yesterday, April 6, 2021, I responded to another and on-going email exchange with the Clearance Coordinator (Appendix 9). Page two of that email highlights the issues – noteworthy to the point about the inequality of the clearance process – is my comment on the two Department employees: Mr. (deleted) and Mr. (deleted).?
The status quo is regrettable, needs corrections and discourages long-time and former federal employees from continuing in public service.??
II.????????????(deleted) Phone Call?
I was elated to receive an email from (deleted) on March 31, 2021 to “have a conversation about your situation” (Appendix 10). More so when the subject line of the email was “Your Candidacy.”?
The eternal optimist that I am, my immediate thought was that this was probably the notice I have been waiting for – when can you start? But the more I thought about it, that type of communication would come from Human Resources.?
So, my other thought that this was a “meet and greet” discussion being that I have never met the AVCVPO team (with the exception of Janey Wright).?
My last thought was that perhaps this was about my request for the approval of the interim security clearance.?
We confirmed a call for April 2, 2021.?
As the 30-minute call continued, I felt perturbed, despondent, disillusioned and incredibly disappointed. It was one of the most surreal employment-related conversation I have ever had. Not diplomatic at all.?
The undertone of the conversation was, “don’t hold your breath on being hired.” Mr. (deleted) sounded upset by something. He was not welcoming at all. Needless to say, at the completion of that call, I was depressed for the next several days. He raised my anxiety level about slim prospects for employment in a position – in an historic office – I wanted to be a part of and have dedicated so much time and effort to securing.?
The more thought I have given the conversation, and despite of the time that has lapsed, after reviewing my copious notes of the discussion of that day, now I am incredulous by that call. What follows are the comments that were made and my responses – part of which I shared with (deleted) and part that I’m relaying now.?
I’m not sure how that’s my fault. If there were miscommunication problems in that the Department and at the Bureau, that’s beyond my control. He gave me the impression that there were internal conflicts and tensions between the previous and current leadership in the Bureau. Again, something I have nothing to do with.
I have known the Secretary General for years and worked with the Obama Administration to garner support for his then candidacy.?
On my dual citizenship, the United States has no restrictions on that. Moreover, it was obtained before I was offered this current position. Furthermore, I have voluntarily agreed to abide by Department rules as outlined in the “Agreement Not to Exercise Rights of Foreign Citizenship without Prior Notification.” Lastly, I have detailed my relationship with the investigator working on my clearance.??
I explained how I had had a very close professional relationship with his former boss, Mr. DiNanno, at DHS/FEMA. Tom and I worked very well together, despite our political ideologies. I thought that showed a strength on my part – that I can work with individuals with differing political ideologies from mine. Furthermore, I reassured him that I have worked well with previous Administrators at FEMA under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.[14]
I thought discussing my political ideology was totally inappropriate with a potential employer/supervisor. I think that’s against the law.?
Again, I followed the guidance I received from the Department. If something was done that did not comport with policy, I had no control of that. That’s an internal matter.?
That question was a sort of the “writing on the wall.” I felt unappreciated and unwanted. I told (deleted) that I felt like I was in the “crosshairs,” between the previous and new administration. I told him I was not “feeling the love” from this conversation. I told him I was feeling “very uneasy” about my future prospects for employment with the Bureau. His reply was a very frigid – “you should be.” Again, what did I do wrong??
What’s there to talk about? I was offered and accepted a position. I am besides myself. This is just unreal.
Given what transpired on this call, I think it is probably best that I not work for nor report to Mr. (deleted) directly. He’s made it clear, wrongly and improperly, that I’m not welcomed, for whatever reason.?
CONCLUSION
I lament that I have to compose and share this letter but after well over a year of waiting and being a qualified applicant, I think, I deserve a process that is fair and just; and leadership with a more diplomatic approach in their dealing with potential subordinates.?
Both of the topics I have written about do not comport with the high standards President Biden[17]?set and you, Mr. Secretary, have embraced and pledged to uphold.[18]
In your nomination testimony, Mr. Secretary, you said, in part:?
“If confirmed, three priorities will guide my time as Secretary. First, I will work with you to reinvigorate the Department by investing in its greatest asset: the foreign service officers, civil servants, and locally employed staff who animate American diplomacy around the world. I know from firsthand experience their passion, energy, and courage. … they deserve our full support. If I am confirmed as Secretary, they will have it. … I am committed to advancing our security and prosperity by building a diplomatic corps that fully represents America in all its talent and diversity. Recruiting, retaining, and promoting officers with the skills to contend with 21st Century challenges and who look like the country we represent. Sparing no effort to ensure their safety and well-being. Demanding accountability – starting with the Secretary – for building a more diverse, inclusive and non-partisan workplace.”[19]
I have no doubt that making you aware of the issues I am encountering with my candidacy is the correct thing to do. I know that you will not tolerate what I have described. I ask that you intervene and take corrective action on the two issues discussed in this letter.?
I am at your disposal to discuss the content of this letter and the “ask,” at your earliest convenience.
I hope to make your acquaintance in-person in the near future and have the opportunity to make a positive contribution to you, the Department and the American people.?
I thank you for the attention to this matter and look forward to your response.?
Most respectfully,?
Frank Ferreira / Mário Francisco da Costa Ferreira?
[1]?Appendix 1.
[2]?Ibid.?
[3]?Appendix 2.?
[4]?Ibid.?
[5]?Ibid.
[6]?Please see page 3.
[7]?Appendix 7a?– page 1.
[8]?Appendix 7c?– page 4.?
[9]?Appendix 7c?– page 1.?
[10]?Appendix 7d?– pages 5 and 6.?
[11]?Ibid, pages 5 and 6.
[12]?Appendix 7d?– pages 1and 2.
[13]?Appendix 8?– page 2.
[14]?Appendix 1?– pages 1 and 2.
[15]?Appendix 2?– page 2.
[16]?Appendix 2?– page 2.?
[17]?President Biden recently issued a warning to his appointees that a hostile workplace will not be allowed in his administration:?
[18]?Testimony of Secretary Blinken:
[19]?Ibid.?
Postscript
I accepted this position knowing full well of the need to submit myself to a vigorous background check - as it should be.
However, what is disturbing - insulting - to me, is the bias I have encountered. There is a double standard in hiring practices. I have shared example, after example with the Department of people who have been hired with extremely shady - criminal pasts.
Just today, I shared these two articles with the Department:
As a tax-payer and an American, I won't stand for this.
###