Brungardt Law's Lagniappe
A little extra perspective from Brungardt Law conveyed through conversations with individuals of various backgrounds exploring the interplay of practices, policies, and laws with decision making and leadership. An opportunity to learn how to navigate towards productive outcomes as well as appreciate the journey through the experiences and observations of others.
Brungardt Law's Lagniappe
Diplomatic Security: A Conversation with Todd J. Brown
"Send a text sharing your thoughts about the episode."
Welcome to Brungardt Law's Lagniappe! In this episode, Todd J. Brown, former Acting Assistant Secretary, Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State, shares with us his experiences and observations from his entry into the Foreign Service as a special agent, time overseas, and vantage point leading the men and women providing a safe and secure environment for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy.
This podcast is hosted by Maurice A. Brungardt.
Welcome to the first episode of Runner Lives Land. Exploring what makes for effective practices and policies, enabling productive decision making and leadership. Today's conversation is with Todd Brown, former Acting Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, the law enforcement and security arm of the U.S. Department of State. He is currently the president of the nonprofit Diplomatic Security Foundation. Welcome to the program. Thank you, Maurice. Nice to be with you today. Appreciate you coming. So again, give us a little background, because at the time you joined DS, that was interesting times. 1987, Ronald Reagan was president of the Cold War. We recently had the Omnibus, Diplomatic Security, and Anti-Terrorism Act. So you were effectively sort of a new generation of DS agents.
SPEAKER_01:I was, Maurice. I came on under the big hiring spurge with the Omnibus Diplomatic Security Act, primarily from the bombings in Beirut in the early 80s, and saw a need to professionalize that service and make our personnel safer overseas. So I came on with a lot of other agents. It was a career ultimately, I think, that fit my interests very well. It was at a time I was in grad school at the time, but I had graduated with a political science degree. I come from a background of family members in law enforcement, but I was not in law enforcement. I have told this story. My grandfather was a sheriff in a small, small town in Illinois, and as a really young boy, I remember he lived in the house where the jail cells were. So I was, I'd be over at the house and there'd be prisoners upstairs, and my grandmother would feed the prisoners basically what she cooked for the family. So it was pretty interesting growing up there, and other family members were in federal law enforcement and state police and others. So I grew up around law enforcement and the stories of law enforcement, and certainly the you know, around guns and hunting and things like that. So it was a as a political science major with a sort of an interest in law enforcement. DS came along at a at a great time for me, and I saw immediately that that was something I wanted to do. I might add I wasn't well traveled, you know, that I'm joining the Foreign Service. Um I think I had been in three states by the time I was 17, had maybe taken uh two commercial flights by the time I was 22. So I didn't bring a lot of uh overseas travel with me to DS. But uh I had that interest in cultures, I had no fear in going to places. Anytime I was able to travel, I took advantage to see things, and so it was just a really good fit. And and then I got married pretty soon after joining DS, and fortunate uh to my wife also liked that experience, and and so off we went. And uh and 35 years later, and I've been retired for about two years now, but I look back and it's it's nice here to sort of reminisce with you a little bit today. Uh it was an enjoyable time for the most part, not without its significant challenge, and maybe we'll touch on a few of those as we go through this.
SPEAKER_00:Well, that's quite interesting. I can only imagine when you were filling out the background investigative questionnaire, you know, associations with folks with criminal records, how you fit the jailhouse residential experience into that. Um when you joined, what was the department like back then? What was the DS cadre like back then? Your peers, but also the people already employed at that time as special agents?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, trying to think back at that time. I think a lot of us had the similarities of where we came from. Um, you know, I didn't bring military or law enforcement experience with me. I think that's changed over the years. It's kind of hard to get your foot in the door these days without that experience. So I came on with a group, and there were actually, I think there were three classes of agents going through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at the same time. So there was a bunch of us. So we compared. There were there were certainly people that brought former military and there were police, but it was quite a balance of private sector positions and military and police, and I think all of us were a little bit of the unknown, what lay what sort of lied ahead. We certainly knew adventure, you know, when you start talking about overseas assignments and the training was very good. And so, yeah, you know, we we looked forward to that first day. So where we were gonna go and what we wanted to do. So there was a lot of anticipation. I think we took the we all took it very seriously. Uh just a you know, a great mix of people, and I and I hope we don't get away from that. And I because I look back on my class and I don't think there was any one sort of trader background that that sort of dictated success in the future. In fact, I just I saw people that came in from perhaps selling computers that were very successful in in DS. So, you know, that that gives you pause about what makes a successful DS agent in terms of the skill set. You know, are you better off bringing somebody on that has those skills already? I think that that's helpful and we like that, but at the same time, do you want somebody that's receptive to training, willing to learn new things, willing to listen, perhaps a bit humble in terms of you know, their expertise and things and uh and see where it goes. And I think we've we've seen that. Now, as far as you know, the the agents ahead of us, different time period, um, you know, DS was you know codified a lot of the security procedures around us through the Omnibus Diplomatic Security Act. But I think the agents that came before us were quite accomplished for the most part. You know, we all look at DS through the years, and I think we've probably said, how in the world did that person get hired? I mean, I think all government agencies experience that, but I'd say for the for the most part, DS was bringing on good people, even before sort of that mid-80s um hiring uh splurge that that took place. So um yeah, it was a it was a great time to come on. Um a lot of colleagues that I related to at the time and still are in touch with, and and I think the organization has certainly uh progressed to more professionalism, we're better equipped, we're better trained, we're better funded, all of those things that took place. Is our voice louder? I mean, perhaps that's also a topic we can talk about. How much how much weight our voice carries in terms of decision making within the department. Um certainly there with a lot of that has been dictated by tragic events through the through the years at our embassies overseas and certainly 9-11.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. Um regarding those times and the agents that were already employed, naturally any organization, any individual evolves over time, and uh the idea is to become adaptive and to integrate new resources, practices, so on and so forth to become a better organization, a better individual. However, what would you say were things from back then that have withstood uh the the test of time, so to say?
SPEAKER_01:Well, I think I kind of touched on it. I think really the things that withstand are bringing on people that that have integrity and that have honor and that have a willingness to learn, that sort of embrace the opportunity to explore new things and take on new adventures and hardships and overcome tragedies and lead through crisis and all of those things. I think those things do serve, you know, those things survive in people, and those are what you bring on, and those do withstand uh the sort of the the test of time that good people build good organizations. And I think DS has done that. I think we we sell ourselves, we have a lot to sell in terms of what we offer. It's not for everyone. I think you know, you know you know that it is difficult, it's rewarding, but it's difficult. It's an adventure, but it's also a job and a career, and it's made tougher by all the moves. And looking back, I think I counted up, I've moved 27 times in different places over a 35-year career. That's packing a lot of furniture and and uh and whatnot. And I just did that recently, and I'm hoping it's probably for the for the last time, but you know, those aren't easy. Uh separations are not easy. I was married for all my overseas experience, and um it was I went through two evacuations, uh Medevac of family members, so those long separations are are very difficult. Um I met my wife in Chicago, which was my first assignment, and uh she still tells the story that uh she learned she was going to Pakistan when somebody from the State Department called her and said, When are you coming in for your physical? And she said, What physical? I said, Well, you know, you know you're going to Pakistan. She said, What? I know that story's been embellished through the years a little bit, but she does like to tell that story. And you know, we were, like I said, I was not well traveled, but I was willing to go places and and was eager to do so and and saw an opportunity. It was tough to get overseas at that time, also. The jobs were were not easy, and that's where the action was. That's where you started your career. And so I think I raised my hand to to go to Pakistan, and a lot of people weren't so eager to go there. And and it turned out really to be a great introduction, not without some challenges. We we flew in, my wife and I flew into uh Islamabad. We were picked up at the airport by my my boss, and of course, you know, we went through the you know the Southeast Asia airport and the smells and everything else that comes with a new adventure, a new culture, and everything else. And he dropped us off at our new residence, and it was sort of this dank duplex that no one had lived in for, you know, eight or nine months. And we walked inside, my wife burst out crying, you know. I thought, oh my god, what have I done? You know. But you know, quickly we rebounded and and we, you know, we dug in, and it really was a good experience. Worked with great people, and it was just a good introduction and had good leadership, and and so it was really kind of what launched my career, I have no doubt about that. So uh it was, you know, uh maybe a bit lucky that it turned out that way for me. I know it hasn't for everybody that goes off, either for whatever reason didn't experience good leadership or whatnot. But you know, I was fortunate that way to get a great introduction to Foreign Service life, and that's attributed to the people I worked with and far in Embassy Islamabad.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. Um at the time that you joined DS, and then when you were at the Chicago Field Office, were there any women in your group or in the office?
SPEAKER_01:There were not many females in DS at the time. I'm trying we had a class of 45, and I think we had two females that went through that training. Other classes might have had similar, maybe a few more. You know, so it was we did not have a large number of female agents. We had some really talented ones at the time, and I think that's changed over the years. I think we've been able to show that it offers a great career opportunity for for women. And that certainly has has changed over the years. We have more women. I don't know where we stand in terms of that number. I think law enforcement in general probably has fewer women than men, no doubt. And so it's always going to be perhaps a challenge there, but I think we've shown that women can be very successful in DS, and they have been. And so that's that's improved, and I think we're recruiting high-caliber female officers who have done well, and no doubt we'll have female assistant secretaries and directors and senior positions filled by women.
SPEAKER_00:And out of curiosity, when you joined DS, how did you originally hear about that?
SPEAKER_01:Well, I read a it was an article in the St. Louis Globe Democrat newspaper, and it was a big block, kind of like we're recruiting. And I was like I mentioned, I was in graduate school. Now I had previously, after college, I had worked in the the oil field in Oklahoma. So again, I had no experience in what I was going into. I had no travel background, but um I had worked in the oil field in Oklahoma on drilling rigs and building drilling tools and such. Then I was in graduate school, but as I mentioned, you know, I had an interest in law enforcement, had had a political science degree, which sort of speaks to my interest in government and things like that. So there was a, you know, an advertisement. We're looking, and I immediately seized on that. I mean, I'm like, that is me. I mean, I really and I think others were kind of the same way. They saw that and go, wow, travel, guns, uh, law enforcement, security. I mean, that's perfect, you know, and and for me it was. And and so I I flew off to Chicago, which was I think my second commercial flight I ever took. And um, I grew up in southern Illinois, so Chicago was a world apart. I had maybe had been there once before, but uh interviewed, and at the end of the interview they told me I would I had passed. I mean, I was just thrilled, you know, I really was. Uh so I went into this job, you know, with with great anticipation, a willing to learn. I I didn't bring any baggage in terms of I know better or this or that. I mean, I, you know, I could shoot, I could do things, I played sports, I was physically fit, and things like that. But beyond that, you know, I knew I had a lot to learn. So I was kind of one of those that maybe kept their head down a little bit and and and listened and learned and followed and and and that launched me to a to a good career. And I think I've always been a little bit that way, and I think that's helped me through the years. You know, we offer so many opportunities. We offer language opportunities, we offer advanced degree opportunities, we offer training opportunities, whether it be contracting, different things. I always tried to take advantage of those things. I mean, sometimes it was forced on us, you know. We had to take, you know, whether it be high threat training or things in our in our skill, skill code that we required, but there were other periphery things that that I always took advantage of, even when I didn't have to. You know, I took some French when I went to NATO. I didn't have to have it. Got hired without speaking fluent French, but I thought it'd be good to have a little French, you know, and I was able to get into FSI and take some French. I took a year of Arabic, and I've often said that was perhaps the hardest assignment I ever had in DS was studying Arabic for a year. So, but you know, I fought through it. I wasn't a natural linguist by any stretch, but I liked the idea that I was learning another language, and I worked hard at it and did the best that I could. And I got my tutu at the time, is what I had to get. And so thank thank God it was, I was glad it was over. But, you know, in Spanish, I went off to Arizona for, I think it was an eight or ten-week course to learn Spanish, and they even sent us down into Mexico, and I lived with a with a Mexican family for a week and uh to speak it uh, you know, kind of force-fed speaking. But but again, another another great experience. So, you know, I think that was just part of my nature to to take advantage of all the things that were offered, and it wasn't it wasn't done with the purpose of oh, this will get me promoted or anything like that. I just really had that desire to improve myself, and and it did build a resume. And I think it did make me more competitive for things in the future.
SPEAKER_00:But you were open-minded and hungry.
SPEAKER_01:I think I was, yeah, I think I was, and I think uh, you know, that gets into that situation. You know, now I think almost I'd say maybe 80-90 percent of those new agents that come on have military or law enforcement. I could be wrong about that, but it's much, much higher than it was. And oftentimes people in DS, and I'll hear them say, Wow, if I was trying to get in DS today, I'd never I'd never get hired, and you know, these these new agents, you know, are so much better. And I don't know that that's necessarily true. They do come in with more skill set uh that in terms of related to law enforcement and security, but I'm not necessarily sure that that translates to success down the road in in all cases, just looking back in terms of how I see people in DS that have done well and the people I respect and their backgrounds, and they just come from such a wide variety that uh you know there's there's no formula that necessarily uh means you're gonna succeed or reach highest levels. And and that also brings up the topic, you know, what is a what is a good career, you know, what grades, what promotions do you need? And and I think you know, somebody uh had asked me, did you think of yourself becoming the director one day? I never really focused on, I'll be the director. There are always some that you thought, I think that person wants to be the director. You know, it's a long race. Uh some people get out in front early, sometimes then they flatline a little bit and they're past, but it is a long race to wherever you want to end up. But certainly if you're a strong investigator and that's what you like to do, and or maybe your family situation or your personal situation doesn't really allow you to go overseas and take three-year assignments, you know, and that might harm you in terms of promotions down the road, but that doesn't mean you can't contribute significantly to the organization. So, you know, there's no one size fits all.
SPEAKER_00:I think exactly. And I think sometimes uh we have a tendency to equate, say, success with simple vertical uh, you know, progression. I think so. Uh and no, success is more than that. Uh but in terms of sort of that formal progression and positions of leadership uh that come with additional responsibilities, uh it always seemed to me that in a position of leadership, you don't necessarily have more responsibilities than those under you, uh, for lack of a better expression. You have a different set of responsibilities. And over your career, what do you think contributed to your uh ability to make effective decisions to your leadership development?
SPEAKER_01:Good question, Maurice, and trying to think about-I mean, I first of all, I sought positions from one to the next that were always a little more challenging to some degree. Um I think that's natural. If I served in a smaller embassy, I'd want to then go to a larger embassy after that, if you could certainly get the assignment, or if you served in headquarters in this job and you supervised five people, that maybe it was time to supervise more people, but you still wanted to be doing things that, you know, to the best you could that you enjoyed. But even with DS, those those assignments are, you know, maybe two to three years. You can tolerate perhaps a bad assignment because you know it's gonna change as far as leadership and decision making. I I certainly experience matters in that was I a good decision maker? I I I think so. I think I was a good decision maker. I certainly utilized talent around me effectively. I've never been one to walk into the room and think I had to say something so profound that people immediately knew I was the smartest person around. I never thought of myself that way. But I also I always thought I was pretty good identifying who the people were that could help me solve an issue. And and I think I always made people feel valued. Um that's a leadership skill. I don't know that I knew that was good leadership. I think that was kind of the person who I was and am. So I, you know, I valued team building. I I wanted people to be comfortable in their environment and all of those things and feel valued and have the ability to speak up and raise questions and talk through issues. I knew the decision were was mine to make, but I certainly was not going to make it without all the information. And sometimes that person is, you know, three rows back in the in the meeting room, and I was always pretty good about knowing kind of who had worked issues and what they had said, and I often would lean to people, even in meetings, uh, you know, in backbenches and such for their their opinion. Uh, even as a director, I wasn't opposed to sending emails to to colleagues fairly far down the chain, but I knew I knew they were sharp, I knew they understood an issue, and I'd ask them to clarify a point. Now, I didn't I didn't do that and jump over supervisors and made people you know uncomfortable, but I wanted them to know I knew who they were, and I always made a point to to know people's names. That kind of came natural to me. But leadership, you know, are leaders born? Do or do they sort of evolve into great leaders? I'd say the most part you bring a great value foundation with you, and that's that's the best starting point you can have. Colin Powell, I think, was the first secretary that really focused on leadership. We never had a formal leadership training. We I think Bill Miller as director, and to Bill's credit, really start focusing on leadership and the tenants and to get people thinking about what are the areas, and you'd look at them, you go, okay, I have honor, I have integrity, and those kind of go without question that you need that. But in other aspects, you know, whether it be team building and other things, you'd look at am I doing a good job there? Am I mentoring my people? And there are things that you think, well, I could do better there, and I think that's where the value comes from understanding what a good leader is. You can think about leadership. Um, you know, there are different, there are certainly different styles, and we can see that in today's world and our in our own leaders, and you know, as a leader, uh, you know, a CEO might lead different in terms of managing his senior staff than a person who sort of is a visionary and has ideas and puts that out. Um is being a sort of a confrontational style leader a bad thing? I don't think necessarily. You don't have to be, you know, the greatest, nicest person in the world to be a good to be a good leader. I think people do have to respect you. I think ultimate can catch up with you if you mistreat people, but at the same time being being direct, but understanding the mission and bringing people, oftentimes a person might say, you know, I didn't like that person at first, but I really did see the value at the end. I think we have leaders like that. So there are different styles, and and I think situations require different kinds of leaders. Obviously, Winston Churchill was a great wartime leader, less effective, you know, after after the war and such. Does that mean he was a, you know, he was the right person at the right time with the right value set and and that ability? So leadership can vary. I think some things, honor and integrity and those types of things go without question, but other other traits can can be a little more difficult maybe to define. So decision making, you know, you evolve through the years, you get comfortable, you understand the mission. I think when you understand the mission, the culture, and all those things about the organization, that that maybe decisions come a little a little easier, not always, but uh and and we hire talented people, and you'd be silly not to utilize the the talent around you that's available if you're in a senior, more senior position.
SPEAKER_00:Do you think there's perhaps in today's uh environment an overemphasis on leadership? And we're getting caught up in say more of a cliche at times, uh, and losing sight of perhaps more fundamental characteristics that will actually lead, no pun intended, to good leadership, such as, well, you need to be able to communicate, uh, you need to be able to enable people, you have to trust folks. Um do you think that perhaps we're putting the carriage before the horse?
SPEAKER_01:Well, that's possible. I mean, I you certainly need to have that trust. I mean, you have to believe that your organization and the people around you, and the people that provide background to you are are capable, and you need to convey that, and they need to feel that they are valued and that their um their opinions and things like that matter and and can sway decision making. I think that's in that's important. Uh is the cart before the horse. You know, I don't know. We're at a time that we're seeing, you know, leaders do things that we would have never, you know, and never thought in the past. And you know, I'm not shying away from it. You know, President Trump has a different leadership style than perhaps other presidents have had in the past. We went from Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, to Anthony Blinken. Two completely different styles of leaders, you know, one more direct in terms of uh Secretary Pompeo, uh, Secretary Blinken a little more gentlemanly, maybe, maybe fit more the profile of the of the State Department. Maybe they responded better to that leadership. I don't know. I thought they both were people I respected and and worked well with. So, you know, I again I I'm not I'm not certain beyond the characteristics of having honor and having integrity and having the good of the organization as your primary goal, that those other things get a little more difficult to define of what exactly you need to have. I mean, again, I think the the CEO is, you know, is as opposed to the vision, the CEO who manages a boardroom as opposed to a CEO maybe a visionary or two different styles of leadership and both can be very successful for an organization.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, there is no perfect formula, basically speaking.
SPEAKER_01:I don't think there is. I beyond what I said, just that you know, I think there are some value characteristics that I think we need to have that that in the long run will serve your organization well, that if you don't have those, it'll catch up with you. So, you know, I think that goes without saying.
SPEAKER_00:Do any particular moments in time lessons learned come from uh your career, those that led you, or those that you were leading that have remained with you to this day?
SPEAKER_01:Well, I think you know, through the years, you know, I've been involved in a lot of uh significant decision-making moments in time in terms of you know whether we evacuate or not evacuate an embassy. Um while I was at NATO, you know, I I think I was the first time I was really confronted to take a contrary position on a pretty significant issue. We had the U.S. mission wanting to build another uh bureaucra, I thought more bureaucracy and build another directorate at the expense of the I was the uh director for the Office of Security, didn't think it was a good idea. The U.S. mission thought it was a good idea. I was on the NATO staff, so I wasn't beholden to. As an American, I certainly have allegiance to U.S. uh desires, but I just didn't think it was a good idea. The council met, I spoke, I spoke what I thought was the best way forward. The U.S. ambassador spoke what he thought the best way forward was, and this was what the nations at the time, 28 nations, and and I think a lot of nations appreciated that the Americans could have somebody speak contrary to what their own mission was was looking to do. But I just felt it was the right thing, and ultimately the ambassador and I became we were good friends, and he spoke, he pulled me aside, and he goes, I respect you having that decision. And and so I yeah, I don't think you can compromise those values. And I think maybe that's harder today in where we are with government in terms of being able to speak up and how you navigate that terrain. I don't envy the position that some are in now and how you can sort of look at a look at an issue, uphold your own value system, and how's that sort of work with your your career and staying employed and all of those types of things?
SPEAKER_00:Well, I make a connection to, and it's an established practice within the State Department, and it's written into you know the Foreign Affairs Manual, uh, but dissent. And so we have the value of dissent as a practice, uh, the value of dissent as an actual procedure. Uh comment on that, if you wouldn't mind, from a security perspective, leading uh the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but also as just part of an organization in general.
SPEAKER_01:Well, I think organizationally, not necessarily from a security perspective. The State Department has always placed great value on the dissent channel, if you will, and it's always been a big part of it. I I would caution that it not be promoted in a sense, yeah, I mean, we want to reach consensus. If you're at a, we'll say it's overseas and and there's someone who disagrees with a policy going forward, you would hope that through discussion and that you can bring everybody on board. If it's a topic that you just can't and somebody feels strongly, I think a dissent capability within an organization is is constructive, and particularly in government. And so I I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that. I I I do worry a little bit that we reward people, oh, they use the dissent channel, and if it's if it brings about praise, you hope that it wouldn't become, well, if I use the dissent channel, I'll look like this sort of dynamic leader who stands up on principle to things when perhaps it didn't need to go that far. So I I won't say it doesn't come without some concern, but ultimately I, you know, I think we all want people to voice their concerns. But this, you know, the dissent in the State Department is a long-established procedure. I don't know where it stands now in terms of encouragement. But um, you know, I know in the past it's always been something that we've, you know, the the department's been quite proud of. Security-wise, I don't know that it's much different. If I was a leader and one of my team members disagreed and then they went through a dissent, I mean, I probably wouldn't necessarily care for that. But if that's how this, you know, if that's how the system is structured and that's their likelihood, I would hope that okay, that let them say their say their blessing and then move on. I wouldn't fear it. I think you'd have to be comfortable in your own decision making.
SPEAKER_00:But well, let me also kind of rephrase things. So not so much actually exploiting the dissent channel per se, but just the value of dissent, that it's important that we hear different perspectives. Uh whether we are the leaders or we're the subordinates, it's good to have that sort of contrarian uh vantage point presented to one because then I think it allows individuals to consider factors they may be completely overlooking.
SPEAKER_01:Well, I don't think you can argue with that at all, Maurice. I mean, I think we've we've had decisions within you know the last 25-30 years, you know, that that had perhaps we listened to to some people speak up, whether it be in, you know, in Iraq or Afghanistan or other places, you know, we should encourage, we should encourage that, particularly in those significant decisions that are going to impact national security and lives and treasure and all of those things that we want that. And as a leader, I I don't think you should be uh afraid of that, you know. In fact, you know, if you have if you build teams that you trust and you build teams that you've allowed to be confident in their abilities, you're you should get that. Absolutely. You know, I think I had it, I mean I've had several instances of that. I mean, I've um I think it was in China we had China in Mexico City, they wanted to change the or kind of rebrand the RSO name to something a little different. I think it was something mission, and and and I immediately kind of shot it down. I was the director's acting assistant secretary at the time, but you know, as I thought about it, you know, these two they're working at it at a huge at maybe our two biggest traditional type embassies, and and it put them on stronger ground with colleagues within the building. And and as I thought through it, I thought, you know what, I think maybe they're actually right about that. So I turned that decision around and actually applauded them in uh in a leadership meeting for working it. And I, you know, I'm not afraid to admit mistakes either, and I don't know that that's wrong as a leader at the time. And I think they appreciated the fact that I that I changed course on on that. You know, I always thought sort of our our brand we didn't want to mess with, this is who we are, but I think it ultimately that elevated our brand and put them on on a little more solid ground with their colleagues at the embassy. So, you know, that was I guess an example where uh a leader would recognize perhaps they didn't make the right decision and go back. And as I related at NATO, I took a I took a uh position contrary to the to the U.S. mission while I was assigned to the uh the NATO staff, and I still think I was probably right about that. But ultimately, um ultimately reached a consensus that didn't harm sort of my office structure as much as it had originally been planned, and so I think we we met somewhat in the middle. Um and I think had I not pushed back, it would have decimated the the Office of Security and weakened NATO as a you know as a whole, in my opinion. So, you know, stand up for what you believe, don't be afraid to take it on. I think generally people respect that.
SPEAKER_00:In terms of mistakes at an individual level, um your observations over the course of your career, and then having occupied the seat at uh the much higher levels running DS, where do you think agents have you know made a bad choice? Uh do you see recurring themes uh that gets them in hot water that they could just easily avoid?
SPEAKER_01:Uh I I'm sure there are some. I'm I'm trying to think, Maurice, uh avoiding and what mistakes and you know, I think it's generally how you carry yourself and jobs and how you work within the mission. You know, a lot of this seems to kind of relate to the overseas work at the embassy and how you relate within the within the mission and how you carry yourself. I always thought that an effective leader overseas, particularly in our profession, should be very approachable. And and I know we have personnel that sort of avoid uh they don't, you know, a lot of people have great ideas and we really don't want to hear them all the time. Because we're we're we're in that, you know, we're we're in that that job that everybody can kind of have an opinion on. And it's it's kind of easy to you know fall prey to walking down the halls or sitting in the cafeteria, and people come up and say, Hey, did you do this, or have you thought of this? And you know, how you can sort of uh how you can manage that. And I think we've had people that that I can understand it, but don't avoid it, you know, don't avoid it. And be somebody that people can come up to. I think it will also serve you well, and and be responsive. So those are kind of those are always kind of my key key thoughts. Be approachable, walk down the halls with your head up. I couldn't stand it when people would not look up, not make not want to make eye contact. I don't know if it's our people, it's you know, human nature, you know, not but you know, walk with your head up and then be responsive. If you say you're gonna do something, do it. If somebody sends you an email, answer it. You know, I'm a big believer in that. Deliver bad news if that's what it is. Tell them why, you know, don't shy away from it. So I don't know that that's as that's maybe answering your question or making it too simple. Those are just sort of qualities, perhaps again, back to back to leadership, but avoiding mistakes, maybe being overly sensitive to things, you know, that I could go back to my office and maybe holler amongst the team, but I didn't I didn't ever want to show that outside the office at all. And I think it served me well. And I think people generally come around, you know. For those that that might be listening that don't understand sort of embassies, you know, we're kind of like a small town in some cases, are we not?
SPEAKER_02:We have that's true.
SPEAKER_01:We have personalities that you know that are that run the gamut. We have issues that that certainly come up whether you're you know in a in a small town or not, you know. And personal overlaps with the profession. Yeah, I always thought if I could throw five people out of post, my job would be a lot easier, you know. But that's that's not gonna happen. And um, you know, and so so it's navigating, you know, personalities and working with people, and I think sometimes people come around, you know, if you kind of work with them, kind of show that you're interested, respond to their great ideas in a fashion that, you know, maybe sets them down easy or whatnot, or thanks them for thinking about it. Um, you know, you gotta have a little bit of politician in you, perhaps, and in some of these positions in terms of how you deal with people and and things, and I think that will serve. So if mistakes are made, maybe some of that's a little bit of an inability. Maybe it's, you know, I'm the I'm the federal agent, I'm the security officer, this is how it's gonna be, and it's the delivery that might not always work for some of some of those uh people that might try that.
SPEAKER_00:Well, I would say the underlying uh trait there, it's communication. And communication is a two-way street, uh, one of those ways being receptive. And when you mentioned the word approachable, you actually reminded me of a time when uh I with others conducted a post-security program review, uh, and it came up with a particular individual at post uh who managing the program uh but in terms of interpersonal skills is a little lacking. Uh and as an example, it came up as to whether uh the individual attended uh some of the social activities that were being sponsored, whether by the MSGs or the clo, and you know, hey, did you go to the softball game? And the response was no, that's not my job. I'm here to run the security shop. And a colleague of mine had basically uh communicated to the individual if people don't think they can talk to you on a softball field, how do you think they're gonna follow you in a crisis?
SPEAKER_01:Good point. No, I think that's a that's an excellent point, and particularly for our jobs, you need to be out there, you need to be seen, you know, you need to get a the State Department. I I think, and you've probably experienced this, you could probably rise up to the ranks, and maybe this isn't so much security, this is other offices, but if you're a good writer and you can sit in your cubicle, your office, and write well, you could probably shoot up the promotion boards because we put a lot of value on the written word in the State Department. And but if you lack personality and the ability to get out and talk to people, are you not missing out on a on really what the job's about? And I'm I'm hopeful that's less and less. But I, you know, I've worked with people, I like you never see them outside their office, you know, but they are wonderful writers and they come from elite universities, and but they lack the you know the the social skills that that I think in diplomacy you almost have to have. And if you don't have that, how effective can you be? And and uh and maybe that's changed to some degree now. You know, going back to uh uh many years, you know, I came on in what what do we say, 87 and was overseas in 90, 91, 90, 91 in Pakistan. And when when I got there, we didn't have internet. There was no um no television, other than I think we got one hour of CNN International. I mean, it was just a different time. I mean, the world has changed significantly since then.
SPEAKER_00:And State Department cables back then were actually much shorter in content, having been privy to those.
SPEAKER_01:And it was a different environment in embassies. You relied on one another for entertainment and in different ways. You know, we all brought VHS tapes that we recorded movies and we watched those. We didn't get sports scores, you know. Sometimes they they cabled them out through the, you know, and you could you could read, but I was desperate for for sports scores, and uh, and I used to drive to a little newsstand in in Islamabad, and I would get like oh anywhere from four or five-day old USA-to-day newspapers, which I would overpay for just to read the box scores. I once drove through a tear gas uh the the riot had pretty much ended at the Indian embassy, but uh the tear gas remained. But I was desperate for that stuff. You know, my mom once sent me a uh I know I'm regressing, I apologize, Maurice. No, no, please. These are memories, these are memories. Uh my mom recorded a football game for me, Eagles and the Bears. And uh I didn't know the score. The game was obviously played weeks before. Did not know the score, so I was so happy to get that. I was watching that game, it went into overtime and the tape ran out. Oh so uh I mean that's that's those are the things we relied on back then, and it was, I think, a good thing. Obviously, that's changed. Now you go online and find out if your high school team won on Friday night, you know, as as it occurred. So it's it is a different place now. Maybe that's the biggest change in terms of information flow and the immediacy and emails, and you can send an email and not go out of your office, and you really don't have to have a conversation, you just go back and forth with with email with people, and and so I don't know if that's good or bad. In some cases, obviously, it's good that you can get information out quickly in terms of for our profession, but um it's that that's probably been the biggest change in terms of uh how we do business that I experienced, and of course, those that came after me have not experienced that, but that was a pretty interesting time to to well.
SPEAKER_00:I would say those times and environment, uh having been somewhat a part of that professionally, um one thing it does is because you don't have information readily available, immediately available, you then deal much more with uncertainty. You have to make decisions based on what you do know and you have to have the confidence to make that decision. And so perhaps in today's day and age, there's greater likelihood people are not making effective decisions because they're waiting to get that one more piece of information because they know the information is readily available, immediately available. Do you do you see things that way?
SPEAKER_01:Well, I I think you're probably right. I think I think maybe maybe even the alternative though is we oversaturate the the need to have every piece of information analyzed and made available, and we overcomplicate things to some degree. So there's perhaps that that piece as well. But you're right, I think ultimately uh you know we can get to things quickly now, and we can farm it out and have different people working on it immediately, and they can get it to them with time change and everything that goes into place that that we can get it more quickly and and readily. But certainly there's there's no excuse probably to have decisions that are made with not all the information that's available back to you if it if it if it is in fact available.
SPEAKER_00:Um regarding uh touching briefly upon how we move people up the ranks, and you know, you had indicated if you're a good writer in the department, uh, and it's not to begrudge or you know, undermine or critique anybody that has risen to the ranks that it's exclusively on writing skills, but we're both aware that writing plays a big part in it, specific to special agents uh in diplomatic security and the department. Do you think because and it's written into the Foreign Affairs Manual, there should be a separate or an additional evaluation aspect when looking at agents and considering them for promotion since they are held to a higher standard being law enforcement officers. If if you know, again, if we were king for the day, so to say, uh, should there be an additional aspect or a completely different process?
SPEAKER_01:Well, I hate to I hate to add to the process because they're cumbersome. You know, the the department basically shuts down when it's evaluation season. You you know that. They are so cumbersome, so detailed, but is there a is there a better way to replace it? You know, I've talked to people in other agencies and they check boxes and different things. I can't imagine that's that's necessarily better. You know, so we what do we do?
SPEAKER_00:We have some people have mentioned like even a peer review process. Do you think that would work?
SPEAKER_01:Well, I'm not certain, you know. Again, peer review and who knows who, and we're a small agent, you know, organization. I uh perhaps it would. I mean, I'm not opposed. I mean, I I've gotten to where I you know I I just dreaded EER season. I dreaded dreaded my own and dreaded writing, you know, nine or ten EERs that are, you know, pages of of narrative, and and you owe it to that person, obviously, to write a you know, a an evaluation that captures what they've done. And I don't think any other organization in government comes close to what the State Department does in terms of the demands of the evaluation. Is it the best out there? I don't know. I think they try to be, but it is it is judged on writing ability. Now, now we write a big piece of it ourselves. And um, you know, writing about your accomplishments. I think it does, you know, it does put you out there to show, one, can you write, which, you know, but two, do you understand, do you understand the mission and have you contributed to it? And what did you see that you did did contributed to contribute to that? I think that is important, and that's a good judge of you know how a person's done, I think. Obviously, your rating officer is important, and hopefully you're fortunate to get a person that one values what you contribute, and two can put it down in paper, and also has a work ethic that makes them want to put the time in to do a good job. Not everybody's gonna get that, you know, and hopefully throughout a career there's that balance. Do I think the best people rise to the top in the State Department or even in government? Um, I think ultimately they get it pretty close, but uh no doubt there are people that have been disadvantaged by poor writers, or are there effective officers that maybe just aren't as comfortable writing glowing things about themselves? That's not easy to do to sort of tout how wonderful you are. Yeah, and no system is perfect, and we have to accept that. No system is perfect. Ours is very complex in the Department of State. I'm not certain, you know, in the private sector, you know, how it's done, other than, you know, what did you achieve and was it significant to the overall goal? And and if it was, you move up and you put your time in. Uh, in the department, you know, taking a job overseas might allow you to be a little bit more creative in your evaluation and single yourself out as opposed to maybe somebody that's back in headquarters. But, you know, I mean, we have what we have. I think we've tried to make it work for us, but it's it's it's imperfect, but I'm not sure there's something out there better. You know, I had a oh, I was director, I had somebody come into my office, and they wanted me to say they should be promoted now. I mean, they argued vehemently that I used the word now, and I truly didn't think the person was ready for this, it was into the senior foreign ranks, and and you know, I came from you know a career progression where I think I call it checking boxes when small embassy, medium embassy, larger embassy, supervised people, went through crises, things like that, and and ultimately made it into the senior foreign service. This person hadn't really done any of that. And, you know, as the director, because he was on the staff there, wanted me to make this really definitive statement of promoting now. And I, you know, I did the person was just infuriating over not using that sort of direct language of promoting now. And I think to this day that probably he's probably still not not happy with me. So people are a little different these days. I had a a more um junior person who was in her, I think her first job, really, a civil servant, and I had rated you rate them a little differently in terms of ranks, and I think I ranked her at the top of almost everything except one category and notch down. She literally cried in the office, you know, and it was a strong, strong evaluation. So I think in, you know, there's so much on the line too with these promotions, and people live and die with them, and you know, you wait for your name to show up that it is a very difficult time. I don't know that everybody realizes that. But and the State Department has never made it, I don't want to say the State Department's made it easy, but it's it's harder to rate a bad person, uh a poor performance than a good performance. And sometimes we we overrate uh a mediocre performance better because we've not taken the time perhaps to document along the road, you know, how a person could be better and then capture that in the EER because everybody, you know, you've heard of this this sort of slogan, everybody walks on water in the State Department. Everybody moonwalks on water. Moonwalks on water. And uh I think there's some truth to that. We write these glowing evaluations. So, how do you sift through good evaluations and try to pick up little indicators that might be there that say, well, maybe this person is a little bit farther down, which may not have been the intent of the writer at all. So it's how the the panels then interpret and and and how they go into into their uh into the job thinking, how can we siphon through these things and pick up? Do you do you reward a real honest evaluation where maybe they point out something that's not entirely great, but then they capture something else. You're like, well, that's a real truthful. This person was really good over here, maybe not quite. I I think you need to value that in some way rather than that person that just does everything so wonderfully that you you could sort of say, well, I'm not sure how fair that was. But that gets tricky too. So, you know, I don't know. I don't know, Maurice, what the perfect answer there is. I know it's changed over the course of my career to some degree. We're still heavy into narrative and it's labor-intensive and all of that. But I think I think to some degree it works. If I had to put a if I had to calculate it 80% maybe is is on board through time. There are people that get promoted early that you kind of you might question, and then maybe over time it kind of evens out. Um, but no doubt there's some that are missed, and and people pay for that for whatever reason.
SPEAKER_00:So well, part of what I'm hearing, and you know, correct me if my observations are completely off, but it sounds like one, the devil you know is better than the one you don't. We have a system, we need technology, it's imperfect. Um but overall it works. Uh we know some people will be overlooked, some people uh will rise up when perhaps they shouldn't. Um and you know, that's just a part of life. I mean, it's not one that is justifiable, uh, but again, that's a part of life, it's a part of a professional career, and one might find oneself in that position where one could have been selected for a higher rank uh when one shouldn't have, and one could have been overlooked when one shouldn't have. But at the end of the day, one needs to make the best out of this system. Uh, I do think uh from my time in the department that one thing we could have probably done better is prepping supervisors their role in the evaluation process and that it actually starts before that April 15th time frame, uh, which would allow them to probably have the confidence to document poor performance. What do you think about it?
SPEAKER_01:No, I think that's exactly right. I think uh they have to know that's part of their own, that's that's part of their job, that that's what they can do to probably impact the the organization as it should be impacted in terms of getting the best people moving upward and the poor performers going in the other direction and maybe out, you know. And so that's so important to do. And if you don't take those steps or you wait too long, it can be too late. You can't capture it in an evaluation if you've not brought it up in you know in the past for somebody to improve upon. We all know that. You can't say it, it's it's it's not gonna fly through the the boards, they're not gonna allow it to go forward. So you have to understand the importance of taking you know on that role of of raider and and mentor and all of those things, and you have to point them out. And and you know, are you are you holding those regular meetings with your with your team and you're uh to talk about their performance and what they can do better, and then when it comes time to to write up the evaluation, in some cases you've got the ammunition available to point that out in an EER. And I don't think we've done a real good job in the past. Uh again, I'm not sure if that's improved, maybe it has now.
SPEAKER_00:Shifting a bit, speaking of the department, um you know, the department is a very unique culture. Uh, we've got a mix of Foreign Service personnel and for our audiences out there that are sort of unaware of how the department works. Uh, these are individuals who their career will take them through multiple assignments overseas. You have civil service personnel who they pretty much stay in one location uh unless they proactively seek out a different position. You have your locally employed staff who are the four nationals in a particular country where. We have diplomatic mission, we have personal services contractors who tend to be retired individuals, third-party contractors. Considering just the diversity of individuals in the department, do you find that there is equity across the board, or do you think there may be some uh disparities in treatment based on where someone is? Do the civil service personnel get a fair shake at things? Uh, or are they considered second class because they're not going overseas, as an example?
SPEAKER_01:I won't deny that there couldn't be some of that that that goes on to some degree. I think we in DS have always tried to sort of talk about the family aspect of the organization. Does that mean there isn't some consideration of, you know, we deal in overseas issues a lot, and so maybe we put value on the person. Well, I was in the Sudan, and you know, I bring this sort of background where a civil servant might not. And I I don't know. I I think you have to be aware that that possibility exists, and you and probably the only people that could shed light on, you know, how does the civil servant feel in the organization? And and it'd be interesting to hear sort of, and I know we've had those discussions in the past. I've always felt that we've done a pretty good job there, but it can only really be how how they feel about their value and and are their opinions uh, you know, accepted, and you know, are they part of the the feel part of the team and that they have value and all of those things. I I think we've certainly tried to make that occur. We're a we are a foreign um foreign affairs-driven organization to a large degree, and so the people that have served overseas bring a perspective that that might make their voice stronger, perhaps, um on some issues. It doesn't mean all by any stretch. But I'm not sure I can answer that in terms, I think we need to be aware of it that we have the sort of this diverse workforce that that I think brings value across the board in terms of the expertise, whether it be the civil servant, the third-party contractor. I think we're DS is what a 40 to 50,000-person organization spread out through the world. And so we certainly have different categories and and things like that. I I'm not sure, Maurice, other than I I believe people feel valued in DS. Do do they feel like perhaps they were overlooked on a promotion that went to somebody else that might have had, you know, the overseas experience? It'd be interesting even in, you know, amongst the the state officers or the foreign affairs by the civil servant, you know, and how that how that looks in terms of how they're promoted. Um so I don't know that I could entirely answer that question, other than we were always we've always been aware of it. We've always been very careful to acknowledge, you know, that diversity and point that out. Our civil servants, our third-party contractors, the value that they bring. Words mean little if they're if that the action's not there in terms of competing fairly and and and allowing them to express their opinion, and then those opinions and those those things are are weighted into decisions and hold value. I I think they are. I certainly have encountered some through my time, particularly in the last several years of of my time in DS, of the value that those different categories bring. And and so uh I think we do a pretty good job or have done a pretty good job, but I I can't entirely answer that question.
SPEAKER_00:Okay. We've commented a bit uh about you know what makes a good decision maker ultimately a good leader, honor, integrity, being approachable. Um for those that are listening out there, uh, those that are in the department, and specifically uh, you know, our former brethren, uh DS special agents, and those that are considering a potential career uh in DS or the department, from your observations, your vantage point. What makes for a good Foreign Service officer? What makes for a good DS special agent?
SPEAKER_01:Well, I think we've we've hit on some of those those themes. You know somebody obviously that that has a has an interest in in how the world works and wanting to play a role and in how the United States sort of navigates the international terrain, if you will, to have that sort of desire to be involved. I mean, um I I think you have to have an interest in cultures and and have to be respectful and you like to have sort of those opportunities to experience. I mean, I'm talking more about obviously DS and the Department of State and the foreign affairs side of it. But I think that's that's a needed aspect. Um it's a different world right now in terms of I want to go into the intelligence service, I want to go into national security and how you build a resume and how you sort of compete to break break into that. I mean, whether it's advanced degrees or getting experience in the military or law enforcement for DS, uh, learning other languages, you know, all of those things are are are going to be important. Um I mean, it's a wonderful career, uh, wonderful opportunities. Uh what would I tell somebody today if they're in college and they that had an interest in those things? I'd say start understanding the organization you want to join, be aware of how to interview for that job, you know, what they do, what kind of people they're looking for, what their requirements may be. You know, are there tests involved? How can I get better to pass that test? What kind of experience I'm gonna need to make myself competitive, to break into that. Um, you know, for us in DS, it is sort of heavy into law enforcement and security, so that's probably the best way to sort of start building your resume through military service or law enforcement, but doesn't mean it's entirely. I I'm a big believer in in recruitment, and I think you know, why we don't necessarily recruit directly out of universities, colleges and universities and such, I think it's in our interest to get out there and talk and so they understand what we do and get some of the brightest, best people that that might want to do that work thinking about it, and and how they can kind of get there. I don't even know what our I don't not sure what our average age of of new hires are, but I would suspect it's somewhere between 28 and 33, somewhere in there. So, you know, that period between after graduating university and maybe then looking to go into Foreign Service or government work or intelligence or DS, that you build, you know, you build a background that's gonna make you competitive, do things that are gonna make you stand out. I mean, that really hasn't changed so much over the years. Um and I assume we're you know, we've we're evolving, and I'm not sure where we stand in sort of new new classes coming on, but I hope that we continue to hire and maintain our our numbers to the best degree we can.
SPEAKER_00:And in terms of suggestions, as a former senior Foreign Service officer, um any suggestions for those that are still working in government that are serving at the highest ranks of government, uh any advice you would give them to consider as they're leading their people?
SPEAKER_01:Well, I think you know, these are challenging periods politically where we are, I'd say hold hold on to your values. Um, you know, I think some of the best advice I ever got. When I became the director, you know, I I literally I was a deputy assistant secretary for countermeasures, and the assistant secretary or the director was leaving to go in the private sector, so we had an opening. I didn't immediately sort of throw my name into consideration. I really was thinking about it, but it took a little time for me to kind of say, look, I'm if I'm comfortable in this job and I like it because I'm comfortable in it, I need to be competing for the next job. That I need, I don't think it was fair to coast out into the sunset on a job I was comfortable in. And so it really was after that, I thought, well, I'm gonna put my name in, and certainly I put my name in, I I I was selected, but it really was was driven by again, I I didn't feel it was honest to necessarily just coast out at a at a grade and do my time. And and I thought, and so when I got the job, I was like, that's taking on a lot. Am I gonna be good at this, you know? And and a friend of mine told me, and I think it's probably the best advice I ever got in terms of what kind of leader I was gonna be. And he said, just be yourself. And and I like that. Uh and I think I just tried to be that way, you know. I I didn't try to, like I said earlier, I didn't try to walk into a room and say something profound and everybody would cheer and go, Oh my god, this guy's brilliant. You know, I knew that I knew that wasn't gonna happen. But I but I also knew how I related to people, I knew how I valued the organization, I cared about how people did and how they moved up the ladder and all of those things, and I just kind of went about it that way. And I think it worked for me. I hope I was successful in the period that I was, you know, leading DS. Um, but I didn't try to, you know, I didn't try to do things that that weren't me. And whether I was putting out a video talking about, you know, where we were as an organization, what our vision was, it was all about how I felt and and and tried to make people feel uh their value and to create a workplace that was welcoming and and they understood who the leadership was and that they played a role and how we how the organization moved forward. I think all of those things, and I think that that worked for me and my style, and and that was good advice, just be yourself, and and that's that's all I did. And so I didn't try to be something I wasn't and hopefully it it worked out all right.
SPEAKER_00:Well, I appreciate the time you've given us. Any final thoughts or comments that you'd like to share with the audience?
SPEAKER_01:No, I I appreciate Maurice the chance to kind of walk down memory lane, you know. You start looking back on a on a career of 35 years and you know, lots of things that happened, and and and I think for me, I just kind of reflect on on the good things for the most part, and and I'd say most of them were, you know. I mean, I had, you know, we look back at what shaped DS and the security environment from 9-11 to Benghazi to Cobart Towers to the East Africa bombings, you know, all of those things were tragedies and lives lost, the evacuation of Kabul, and you know, things what you know could how they could have been done differently, and you know, and how we adjusted to things. I think sometimes we we overreacted, but that's what we do in in government, you know. We we some in politics we we build more, you know. We build after 9-11, of course, we you know, we built new government agencies, and you know, was that the solution? Was the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was that the solution to ensure that you know intelligence is always shared where it should and get to where it needs to go? Um I get why it was done. I'm not always a big proponent of building new bureaucracies and things like that, but um that's that's government. I I think we do need to look at government in terms of efficiency. I don't think that word should scare us at all, you know. Um, I know the the the doge word is is sort of a bad word, but the word efficiency is not. We work for the American taxpayer. Yes, and I think we need to take that very seriously, and we owe them a hard 40-hour work week or more. And it's you know, the the remote work, I'm not a big fan of that. I'm not a big fan of remote work. I get, you know, the COVID thing and people went home, and but I really think that the American people are served better by a government that comes into the office and puts their time in and works hard and everybody. And I do think ultimately or or or that I've experienced hard-working government servants. I think that really is what makes up the workforce. That doesn't mean it's everybody, but the American taxpayer does deserve that everybody is putting in hard work for the government, you know, for their tax dollars. And I think you know, we need to be able to define what we do and accomplish. And I don't think those are bad words necessarily to understand what you're doing and how it contributes to to things, and you should know those. I'm not saying we need to make people write down their accomplishments and send them in, but if you self-reflect, you should be able to think about what you do do during the week that contributes. I don't think there's anything really wrong with that. Supervisors need to think, what are my people doing that are contributing to the you know, to the to the mission and the American taxpayers does. They deserve that. And um have we gotten fat in terms of the government and and is it too large? You know, I I don't know. Um perhaps um, you know, a reset. Things have changed over the years, and some offices maybe do uh the the mission is more obsolete and and to clean those things up. This isn't, I'm not saying anything to promote sort of where the political landscape is now. I just think we don't necessarily need to be afraid of talking about efficiency and leanness and and doing things that make sense. Um at least have the discussion. Yeah, the discussion could be there. Yeah, I and I think those can be valuable discussions to have. But I am I am a proponent of of the government worker being in the in the office space to the best degree that they can. There might be some positions that that can work remotely. I'm not sure what those are, but perhaps there are. But when you have a clearance and and you have access to classified information and you need that to form opinions and to contribute to discussions, then I think that has to take place in the in the workspace, and I'm kind of glad to see that that that's that's coming back, and that we've we've gotten back to sort of our old habits of of working in the office space. So I'm glad to see that.
SPEAKER_00:Well, again, thank you for your time. Uh much appreciated. This was, you know, uh I'm extremely grateful for you uh giving me this moment of your life, and I'm sure our listeners are. Uh so again, here we were with uh former uh assistant secretary uh for diplomatic security, Todd Brown, uh, who's given us uh a moment of his life uh to share some of his observations. And we look forward to continued engagements uh with others, much like yourself, Todd. Thank you again. Thank you, Maurice.