A US State Department report on its embassy in Dublin looked into complaints by two senior officers, Mr John Treacy and Mr Tom Callahan, about their treatment by the US Ambassador, Mrs Jean Kennedy Smith, and her deputy chief of mission.
The 26 page report, dated December 29th 1995, was compiled by a four member inquiry team from the Office of the Inspector General. This followed dissent by the two senior officers over the ambassador's decision to support a US visa for Mr Gerry Adams in January 1994.
The officers alleged reprisals by the ambassador "as a result of their dissent from their recommendation that Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams be granted a visa despite his long standing in eligibility as a result of his organisation's terrorist activities".
The report concluded "After careful analysis of all the facts and circumstances, the inquiry team finds inescapable evidence of retaliation in a number of areas against both as a result of their participation in the dissent channel cable. Because the inquiry team found a clear pattern of retaliation engaged in by both Ambassador Smith and Deputy Chief of Mission, the team recommends that officials in the department review this report to determine the appropriate disciplinary action warranted by the facts established."
The ambassador told the inquiry that four officers in the embassy had dissented, and that "if there was retaliation against complainants Treacy and Callahan, why was there no reported or known retaliation against the other two signatories of the dissent cable?"
The ambassador, in arguing that actions taken against the two were irrelevant to the dissent message, "cites the favourable treatment she accorded the two other officers who participated in the message. She urged promotions in both officers' valuation reports". She also denied discouraging dissent as allowed in State Department rules.
The report, which refers to the Sinn Fein leader in one place as "Jerry Adams", stated that the dissenters claimed "that from an initial reaction which did not evidence anger, the ambassador became increasingly upset and hardened in her unhappiness toward them after discussing the cable with a United States Senator, who reportedly viewed the incident as insubordination".
The senator was identified as Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut.
The inquiry team agreed with the complaint of the two officers that "they were virtually excluded from the ambassador's official representational events after January 1994, some of which would clearly have been considered relevant to their job performance. The inquiry team's review of the ambassador's guest list confirmed their exclusion.
The inquiry team also found "despite their assertions to the contrary, that the ambassador and the DCM pressured ... consular officers to disregard US visa law and regulations. They clearly exerted improper and inappropriate pressure on Callahan and his section to issue visas in support of their efforts to achieve a reduction of the visa refusal rate so that Ireland might qualify for the visa waiver programme. The dilemma for consular officers sworn to apply the law and regulations ... was clear. The ambassador's increasing frustration with officers ... who did not join her effort to change US immigration law only added to the sense of isolation and intimidation felt strongly in the consular section."
The report stated "The ambassador acknowledged to OIG [Office of the Inspector General] that she told the consular staff that visa applicants should be given the benefit of the doubt. This view contradicts the presumption in US immigration law that applicants are presumed to be intending immigrants unless and until the consular officer is satisfied to the contrary."
The report stated that "eligibility for the visa waiver programme at the time was two consecutive fiscal years of refusal rates below 2 per cent with additional conditions that had to be met. The ambassador and DCM urged consular officers to give visa applicants the benefit of the doubt, in an attempt to reduce visa refusals, so Ireland would qualify for the waiver programme.
It said that, during a dinner with Irish parliamentarians, Mrs Kennedy Smith proposed a joint parliamentary delegations the review visas applications which some staff members felt was inappropriate. One officer who "got on board" became a conduit for visa referrals and was reported to have overcome most refusals to bring the visa refusal rate dawn.
The report found "An embassy management style antagonistic to collegial, open and professional discourse" "Misguided efforts, including inappropriate pressure on the consular section, to promote a change in US visa policy toward Ireland and reduce the number of visa refusals" "Actions which purposely sought to undermine the authority of the Consul General and the integrity and the discipline of the consular section" "And repeated, inappropriate, improper and retaliatory references by the ambassador and the DCM in complainants' performance evaluations."
The report states that "many embassy employees told OIG that they saw the embassy under Ambassador Smith as more attuned to Irish rather than US interests" but acknowledged it did not attempt "to evaluate the ambassador's policy emphases".
"The inquiry team found a troubled US mission in Dublin," it states. "OIG found that the front office management style changed significantly at embassy Dublin under Ambassador Smith ... Moreover the ambassador's heavy travel and entertainment schedule involved very few embassy staff. The result of the ambassador's perceived management style was a sense by a staff of a distant, aloof and uncaring Chief of Mission. Several officers reported that when the ambassador was in the embassy she was very demanding and the staff was constantly nervous, tense and edgy."
The report states that one of the officials was told point blank by the ambassador that she could not abide disagreement in any form with her decisions. He claimed that the ambassador's perceptions of his loyalty were formed by his dissent on the Adams visa.