“As you may be aware, elections
took place in early April for the UN Staff Pension Committee, whose members,
called participant representatives, will also be on the Pension Fund’s Board.
Four members and two alternates
were elected from 43 candidates. You may recall that those elected as well as
other candidates made clear references in their campaign materials on:
- the Fund’s failure to meet its performance targets;
- the Fund’s inability to pay retirees on time;
- the Fund’s weakening relationship with the UN; and
- a controversial proposal to renew the CEO’s contract for a further five years.
- the Fund’s failure to meet its performance targets;
- the Fund’s inability to pay retirees on time;
- the Fund’s weakening relationship with the UN; and
- a controversial proposal to renew the CEO’s contract for a further five years.
Possibly
unrelated to this, the Secretary of the Staff Pension Committee, Sergio Arvizu,
who is also the Fund’s CEO, refused for almost two months to recognize those
elected. Staff unions therefore launched a petition on Monday 29 May: https://secure.avaaz.org/…/Pension_Fund_CEO_Sergio_Arvizu_…/
Four days
after the petition was published, the CEO recognized four of the six elected.
On the same
day, the Chair of the Board, Mr. Vladimir Yossifov, wrote to staff. We believe
his message and the CEO’s position to be incorrect both in form and substance.
The Chair
stated that as the remaining two representatives work at the Fund they would be
ineligible, based on a legal opinion from 1992, to be members of the SPC.
The reality
is that there is no rule preventing staff working at the Fund from being
elected to the Staff Pension Committee of their own Fund. The legal opinion
from 1992, which doesn’t bind the Fund, was overturned shortly after (the Chair
neglected to mention this) on the basis that Pension Fund staff cannot be
deprived of their rights, and the rules were therefore never changed.
Recognizing this, we proposed, based on discussions with the Ethics Office, to
work with the CEO to develop guidelines to ensure those representatives do not
face a conflict of interest. Our offer remains and we are disappointed that
neither the Chair nor CEO has not responded to this.
The Chair
noted that the Fund had made the polling officers aware of the legal opinion
and they should not have allowed the candidates to run.
The reality
is that the Fund never notified the polling officers of the legal opinion, nor
did it provide a rule by which the candidates could be prevented from running,
as no such rule exists.
The Chair
announced that the Board’s standing committee (which meets when the Board is
not in session) would make a final ruling on the matter.
The reality
is that neither the Chair nor the Board or its standing committee has
jurisdiction to rule on this issue. The Fund’s rules are clear that only UN
staff, through elections, can choose their representatives, and they have, and
in full knowledge that those two representatives were staff at the Fund.
We
therefore reiterate the importance of recognizing the choice of the 18,000
staff who voted and the rights of the UN’s 85,000 staff.
Within this
we reiterate our offer to work with the Ethics Office to ensure that the
participation of elected representatives is above reproach. At the same time,
we believe this isn’t the only issue at the Fund for which oversight by the
Ethics Office would be advisable. Indeed, the attempts by the CEO and Chair to
interfere in the implementation of the election results is also regrettable and
may represent a conflict of interest.
The
petition remains valid and we encourage you to sign it so as to ensure that
your voice is heard on the Board of the Pension Fund. It is your retirement
income at stake and there are serious problems to be fixed.”
No comments:
Post a Comment