Open letter to Ms.
Heidi Mendoza, Under-Secretary-General, United Nations Office of Internal
Oversight Services, from UN Beneficiaries/Retirees of the United Nations Joint
Staff Pension Fund
5 March 2018
Ms. Heidi Mendoza
Under-Secretary-General
Office of Internal
Oversight Services
United Nations
Subject: Audit of the governance of the Pension Board: Representation
of retirees/beneficiaries on the Pension Board
Dear Ms. Mendoza,
We are writing with respect to paragraph 8 of General
Assembly resolution GA/RES/72/262 adopted on 24 December 2017 as follows:
“Requests the
Secretary-General to entrust the Office of Internal Oversight Services with the
conduct of a comprehensive audit of the governance structure of the Pension
Board, including a review of the checks and balances between the Board and the
leadership of the Fund, and requests the Office to submit a report with key
findings to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session, to be considered
in the context of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.”
Legitimacy of representation
As UN retirees (also known as beneficiaries) of the United
Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund, our interests are purportedly represented on
the Pension Board by four representatives and two alternates (for a total of
six non-voting positions) from the Federation of Associations of Former
International Civil Servants (FAFICS).
Many UN retirees are not members of FAFICS, whose governance
is controlled by members selected by independent and local Associations of
former International Civil Servants (AFICS). Many retirees have no desire to
become members of their local AFICS, nor should they be required to be a member
of a particular federation in order to have their interests represented on the
pension board of their pension fund, to which they have contributed their whole
careers.
By definition, one cannot be represented by an organization
of which one is not a member, raising questions about the legitimacy of FAFICS
as the representative of UN retirees on the Pension Board.
Equitable representation
Participant
representatives (of active staff) to the Pension Board are selected through
direct election, whereas retiree representatives, who caucus with participant
representatives, are appointed without any election process. As a matter of principle, and in order to
ensure consistency and equitable representative of participants and
beneficiaries, it would be logical that retiree representatives should also be
selected by direct election.
Moreover, while participant representatives, who are
directly elected, enjoy voting rights on the Board, it should be noted that the
equivalent of FAFICS for active staff, the staff federations, are only given
observer status in deference to directly elected representatives. A comparable situation would be that retiree
interests are represented on the Board by our directly elected representatives,
with FAFICS holding observer status.
Risks of using a single federation instead of directly elected
representatives
Related to the issue that many retirees are not members of
FAFICS, many of us who are, have longstanding concerns about non-transparency
and undemocratic practices within FAFICS.
As an example, we have no direct say over FAFICS
representation and how FAFICS policy positions are devised and presented to the
Board. Additionally, FAFICS considers
documents denominated “Restricted” as confidential, and therefore, does not
share them with retirees. The Pension board is a subsidiary body of the General
Assembly. Documents submitted by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly
are publicly available. Retirees have the right to know the issues being
discussed at the Board, and the policy positions taken by our representatives.
While
our concerns with FAFICS are outside the scope of your audit, we nevertheless
wish to identify the risks that using a particular federation instead of
directly elected representatives can carry.
This is compounded by the fact that UN retirees who are represented
by FAFICS, through membership in local AFICS (Association of Former
International Civil Servants) have no voice in the selection of their
representatives appearing before the Board.
Among the concerns, FAFICS’ rules of procedure note that nominations
for inclusion in the delegation to the Pension Board are made by AFICS
associations. The FAFICS president personally selects the members of the delegation.
The degree of
representativeness of the individual members of the FAFICS delegation is
therefore highly doubtful.
Further it is unclear from recent events whether FAFICS has
been representing the interests of retirees or those of the Fund leadership.
In this regard, we note the email communication from the
FAFICS president to OIOS dated 1 June 2016 discouraging the conduct of the scheduled
audit of the backlog in pension payments
(see attached).
Another example is the “update” by the FAFICS president
addressed to FAFICS members and associated members dated 8 January 2018,
containing distorted information including about the conduct of Executive Board
members and UN participant representatives to the Board, disseminated by email
by the Fund on 21 January 2018 (see ‘update’ and mail attached). It is unclear that the manner in which this
email was published, via the Fund secretariat, demonstrated clear separation of
roles between FAFICS and the Fund leadership.
General issues of
transparency and composition of the Pension Board
On a general issue of non-transparency of Pension Board
proceedings, the recent introduction in the rules that meetings are held in
private is not in the regulations and violates the principle of transparency.
The Pension Board has changed its composition three times in
the past. The Board has matured over the past 68 years and changes are needed
in the structure to reflect the two-third ratio of UN participants and the
increased number of retirees, currently around 80,000.
Given that of the 200,000 participants and retirees, about
40 per cent are retirees, the latter should be full members of the Board.
In summary, given the importance of the issues at stake, we
wish to request that OIOS in undertaking the audit referenced in the above
General Assembly resolution, consider including a proposal that the current
system of UN retiree representation at the UNJSPF Pension Board be reviewed in
terms of legitimacy, equity, and risk mitigation and that consideration be
given to direct election of retiree representatives to the Pension Board.
As retirees, we welcome the General Assembly resolution
requesting an audit by OIOS of the governance of the Pension Board. We consider
the resolution as an affirmation that the Assembly has full confidence that the
audit will be conducted with the highest level of professional competence and
impartiality and will provide the governing body with recommendations that will
ensure the effective functioning of the Fund for many decades to come.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
UN retirees/beneficiaries of the UNJSPF (list of 297 signatures
below)
c.c. Ms. Ms. Jan Beagle, USG/DM
Ms. Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Chef de
Cabinet
Ms. Marta
Helena Lopez , ASG/OHRM
List of attachments:
1.
List of 297 signatories of UNJSPF
beneficiaries/UN retirees (not listed here)
2.
The FAFICS President’s “update” dated 8 January
2018 (posted on the blog)
3.
Email from Linda Saputelli to OIOS dated 1 June
2016 (see below)
4.
Email from the Pension Fund to beneficiaries
dated 21 January 2018 (see below)
ATTACHMENT 3: Email
from Linda Saputelli to OIOS, dated 1 June 2016
From: Linda Saputelli
To: OIOS, cc multiple addressees
Date: Wed, June 1, 2016 at 10:31PM
Subject: Re: Meeting request in assistance with audit planning
Subject: Re: Meeting request in assistance with audit planning
We would like to thank [the group] (redacted) for including
Warren Sach and me last week in your consultations related to your ad hoc audit
of pension delays by the UNJSPF. On reflecting on our meeting, however, we
remain puzzled as to the need for this exercise at this particular juncture and
would hope that going forward it will be fully coordinated with the Audit
Committee of the Pension Board as to scope, timing and content. For us,
the timing alone seems problematic. One concern is that an audit at this
particular time will require a great deal of work and effort (e.g. interviews,
data production, etc.) on the part of Pension Fund staff at the very moment
when they need to be concentrating full time on operational priorities, and
indeed may already be demoralized by the criticism coming from the staff unions
and others. Another is that because you do not anticipate completion of
your report until the end of the year, it would have little impact.
Because of the foregoing and other concerns, we felt it necessary to provide you with our views in writing. Timely pension payments do not depend on the Pension Fund alone, as you well know. Before the Fund can even begin to calculate a pension, there are a number of essential preliminary steps that must be carried out in a timely manner by the future pensioner and the separating organization. Many retirees believe that the Fund is aware of their retirement date when in fact it is not and becomes informed only when the separation documents begin to arrive. Statistics on the time for organizations to complete dossiers show that this often takes several months, yet those months during which files remain incomplete are being counted by retirees waiting for their pensions in the delays.
Because of the foregoing and other concerns, we felt it necessary to provide you with our views in writing. Timely pension payments do not depend on the Pension Fund alone, as you well know. Before the Fund can even begin to calculate a pension, there are a number of essential preliminary steps that must be carried out in a timely manner by the future pensioner and the separating organization. Many retirees believe that the Fund is aware of their retirement date when in fact it is not and becomes informed only when the separation documents begin to arrive. Statistics on the time for organizations to complete dossiers show that this often takes several months, yet those months during which files remain incomplete are being counted by retirees waiting for their pensions in the delays.
We are further disturbed by reference to a backlog when it seems
that there is no common understanding of the term. Terms such as delays
and backlogs have been increasingly tossed around without being properly
defined or communicated. Indeed, this may be as much the fault of the
Pension Fund itself as it is of other voices. It is clear that some
pensioners may be experiencing a wait of several months before receiving a
pension. What we do not know is why, but we do know that the reasons in
every case are different and individual and while some may be the Fund’s fault,
not all of them are.
Further, it appears that there is no coordinated data on the numbers and reasons for the delays which is why much of it remains largely anecdotal. This has not prevented the staff unions from calling it mismanagement on the part of the UNJSPF’s CEO and petitioning the SG to terminate him. We feel that the noise from these sources has clouded the issue and served only to spread fear and anger. Early last summer, the Pension Fund informed staff nearing retirement that in August, 2015 it would be implementing a new IT system, IPAS, which would be run in tandem with the old one to ensure timely payment; it also advised them to set aside extra funds in the event the new system caused undue and unexpected delays. In fact, IPAS went off without a hitch for existing retirees who continued to receive their pensions in a timely manner and which is now processing payments at a much higher rate than in the past. For new retirees it appears that any delays in the early months of IPAS implementation were not solely the fault of IPAS. The UN Department of Management (DM) has been working closely with the Pension Fund for the past months to establish deadlines for payments, as DM is fully aware that its own role in providing the necessary separation documents is critical. In his address to the AFICS/NY Annual Assembly on 19 May, the Secretary-General confirmed that he expected all pending cases to be dealt with by the end of this month.
AFICS/NY attaches the greatest importance to the timely payment of pensions. That is why we have been in close contact with the Pension Fund management since the current problems and criticism first began to appear last year. We have not refrained from candid and open criticism where it is due, but have strongly rejected any false assertions whatever the source. We feel that this is a matter that must be treated on the basis of facts and unassailable data alone and that the noise and commotion that have been stirred up is out of order. Lastly, let me say only that we could have had more fruitful consultations had we been privy to the scope of your study in advance. When it is ready we would appreciate being apprised as it may bring to mind further comment. Please be assured that we remain available for future discussion.
Further, it appears that there is no coordinated data on the numbers and reasons for the delays which is why much of it remains largely anecdotal. This has not prevented the staff unions from calling it mismanagement on the part of the UNJSPF’s CEO and petitioning the SG to terminate him. We feel that the noise from these sources has clouded the issue and served only to spread fear and anger. Early last summer, the Pension Fund informed staff nearing retirement that in August, 2015 it would be implementing a new IT system, IPAS, which would be run in tandem with the old one to ensure timely payment; it also advised them to set aside extra funds in the event the new system caused undue and unexpected delays. In fact, IPAS went off without a hitch for existing retirees who continued to receive their pensions in a timely manner and which is now processing payments at a much higher rate than in the past. For new retirees it appears that any delays in the early months of IPAS implementation were not solely the fault of IPAS. The UN Department of Management (DM) has been working closely with the Pension Fund for the past months to establish deadlines for payments, as DM is fully aware that its own role in providing the necessary separation documents is critical. In his address to the AFICS/NY Annual Assembly on 19 May, the Secretary-General confirmed that he expected all pending cases to be dealt with by the end of this month.
AFICS/NY attaches the greatest importance to the timely payment of pensions. That is why we have been in close contact with the Pension Fund management since the current problems and criticism first began to appear last year. We have not refrained from candid and open criticism where it is due, but have strongly rejected any false assertions whatever the source. We feel that this is a matter that must be treated on the basis of facts and unassailable data alone and that the noise and commotion that have been stirred up is out of order. Lastly, let me say only that we could have had more fruitful consultations had we been privy to the scope of your study in advance. When it is ready we would appreciate being apprised as it may bring to mind further comment. Please be assured that we remain available for future discussion.
Kind regards,
Linda Saputelli and Warren
Sach
Linda Saputelli
President
AFICS/NY
DC1-580
Linda Saputelli and Warren
Sach
Linda Saputelli
President
AFICS/NY
DC1-580
ATTACHMENT 4. Email
from the Pension Fund dated January 21, 2018
“From: DoNotReply <donotreply@unjspf.org>
Date: Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:59 AM
Subject: FAFICS Letter
To:
Dear
Beneficiaries,
This is
a “comprehensive update” sent on behalf of FAFICS.
Thank
you and Regards
UNJSPF”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE USG/OIOS FROM THE FAFICS PRESIDENT
Linda
Saputelli
President of FAFICS on behalf of the
FAFICS Bureau
UNJSPF”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE USG/OIOS FROM THE FAFICS PRESIDENT
4 March 2018
Dear Ms. Mendoza,
It has come to our
attention that two retirees who have no official standing in any UN body are
circulating an “Open Letter” and “petition” to you calling for signatures of UN
retirees both by personal email and on a social media blog. The letter (attached here for your
information as you have not yet received it) asks you to exceed the terms of
reference mandated by the General Assembly for the current, ongoing audit of
the governance structure of the Pension Board.
It is unfortunate that retirees and staff are being so blatantly used
and misled by these two individuals who have been pursuing their personal
agenda against FAFICS for several years now.
We would like you to know
that FAFICS firmly rejects the content of the “Open Letter” which maligns,
distorts and questions the legitimacy of the FAFICS governance structure as
officially constituted through ECOSOC.
Both the FAFICS Statutes and Rules of Procedure have been formally
adopted by the FAFICS Council and are posted on the FAFICS website (www.fafics.org) where they can be viewed.
Since the authors themselves admit in their letter to you that their “concerns
are outside the scope of your audit”, foreseen by the General Assembly, we can
only conclude that their real aim is to use the “Open Letter” to you as a
platform to air their grievances.
We will not respond to the
many improper statements made in the letter or the numerous false premises on
which false conclusions are drawn.
However, we do feel compelled at this point to reply to and correct the
most salient misrepresentations so that you are fully and correctly informed.
Legitimacy of
representation
In 2014, the Pension Board
made the following statement in its report under Other business:
“(i)
FAFICS
1.
A member of the Executive Heads recalled the long-standing discussions on the need for
appropriate representation of the retirees and beneficiaries on the Board,
given the long experience and institutional memory
that the retirees
and beneficiaries brought
to the Board. It was noted
that FAFICS is currently allowed to send four representatives and two alternates
to the Pension Board, and that
representatives are accorded all the rights of members, except the right to vote.
FAFICS is also contributing to various consultations and working groups.
While FAFICS has many common
interests with the Participants’ Group and often attends their meetings, it was noted that FAFICS should also feel free to join the other two groups. The Board recognized
the valuable contribution of FAFICS.”
Another recent example of the Pension
Board’s recognition of FAFICS occurred at the last Board session in 2017, when a
FAFICS representative was appointed as Chair of the Board’s Budget Working
Group.
Democratic representation
The statement that retiree
representatives on the Pension Board “are appointed without any election
process” is false. Both FAFICS and the
61 individual AFICS associations which comprise FAFICS hold regular and duly
constituted elections to select those who represent them. FAFICS representatives to the Pension Board
are elected at the meetings of its annual Council, a process that is common
operating procedure for numerous governing bodies, corporate bodies, boards,
etc.
Direct elections
This issue is not new and
was raised by some Participants’ Representatives in 2006, in the context of the
Working Group on “Size and Composition of the Board”. The CEO was requested to prepare a study on
“Possible Process for the Election of Retirees Representatives”. This study was submitted to the Pension Board
in 2007 and considered by the Board at its 54th session in 2007. The conclusion of the Board was:
“After debating the convenience of holding elections for
retiree representatives to the Board,
the Board decided to defer consideration of the question of whether and in what
manner to conduct elections of
retirees’ representatives to the Pension Board. The CEO was requested to communicate to retirees, in his annual
letter, the Board’s decision to maintain
the current arrangement for FAFICS participation in meetings of the Board and its Standing Committee.”
Direct elections of retiree
representatives to the Pension Board, envisaged to be held independent of AFICS
associations and of their Federation, FAFICS, would deprive electors of the
opportunity to assess candidates and issues in the context of their
deliberative councils and committees.
Present arrangements for elections ensure that all questions of
substance are the subject of informed consent about retiree matters at the
levels of AFICS associations and FAFICS.
Direct elections would in fact impoverish the contribution which
retirees are currently able to make to UNJSPB governance processes.
It is also not true that the
FAFICS President “personally selects the members of the delegation” to the
Pension Board. FAFICS has a defined consultative procedure, approved by its
Council, for the nomination and selection of representatives who are submitted
to the Council for discussion and/or approval.
Even if it were true that the FAFICS President alone “personally”
selects the individual members, as alleged by the petition authors, there is no
basis to say that would make “the degree of representativeness of the
individual members of the FAFICS delegation …highly doubtful”. For your information, the procedures followed
require,
inter alia, that FAFICS
representatives be well versed in pension matters and be familiar with the
procedures and structure of the Pension Board.
Other matters
For a number of years, a
few retirees have been insisting on access to all Pension Board documents so that they can formulate their views
and have them transmitted by FAFICS to the Pension Board. FAFICS has agreed to share with relevant
AFICS members only those documents which strictly affect retirees since, as the
petition authors correctly point out, Pension Board documents are indeed
“Restricted”. FAFICS does not have the
authority to release Restricted Pension Board documents and cannot be
responsible for how they might be further disseminated. Restricted documents are a fact of UN life
and relate not only to the Pension Board, but also to a number of other UN
consultative bodies.
Statements in the letter to
the effect that FAFICS discouraged “the [2016] conduct of the scheduled audit
of the backlog in pension payments”, and also that the January 2018 Update by
the FAFICS President contained “distorted information” are both untrue,
irrelevant and without bearing on the argument to extend the ToR of the OIOS
audit.
Further, the attempt to
impute some sort of conspiracy to the distribution of a FAFICS message by the
Pension Fund is simple ignorance on the part of the authors who are apparently
unaware that this is a legitimate and permitted recourse taken by FAFICS when
needed to reach large numbers of retirees whose contact information is in the
possession of the Fund. It also reflects
extreme bias as the authors find it perfectly acceptable on the other hand for
the United Nations to permit the critics of FAFICS to use the UN Broadcast
system to bash and defame the Pension Fund and FAFICS.
We will let matters rest
here for now. We trust, in light of this
information that you will not allow OIOS to interfere in the individual
governance of a respected retiree body.
We would appreciate a prompt reply from you to confirm that the ToR will
not be extended and to inform the authors of the “Open Letter” of same, as allowing
the signature-gathering process to continue poses a threat to the 61 AFICS
associations world-wide and to FAFICS, and does not serve the best interests of
retirees.
In closing, I would like to
assure you of our fullest cooperation in your challenging work and the current
audit. Since we have not yet had the
pleasure of a personal meeting, I will call your office to schedule an
appointment.
Thank you for your
attention and kind regards,
cc. Ms. Maria Luiza
Ribeiro Viotti
Ms. Annick Van Houtte Mr. Sergio Arvizu
Mr. Paul Dooley
No comments:
Post a Comment