SIX
“PINOCCHIOS” FOR MARCO BRESCHI, FAFICS PRESIDENT (FEDERATION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF FORMER INTERNATIONAL CIVIL SERVANTS), 20 October 2018
Respect
for facts is a prerequisite for any constructive "dialogue." There
are numerous examples in Marco Breschi's dismal response to Lowell Flanders that
demonstrate the consistent FAFICS approach of "Truth is not truth",
i.e., the Pinocchio effect.
To demonstrate, here are six "Pinocchios" identified in his letter and factual responses for each (ref. OIOS governance audit A/73/341. https://undocs.org/A/73/341
To demonstrate, here are six "Pinocchios" identified in his letter and factual responses for each (ref. OIOS governance audit A/73/341. https://undocs.org/A/73/341
Pinnochio 1: “I clearly stated that out of 13 provisional audit recommendations, FAFICS supported in varying degrees 7 while rejecting 6. No antagonism on our part.”
Fact: On the claim of “no antagonism”, FAFICS joined “The great majority of Board members [in expressing] serious concern regarding the process by which OIOS had conducted the audit, which many viewed as being flawed and unprofessional”, including claiming that the audit was "not based on fully verified facts" while, OIOS notes, "provid[ing] no evidence of factual inaccuracies." (Para. 88, table 3).
Fact: The six recommendations rejected are the most important in the audit, such as 1) The Board to submit proposals for a fair and equitable representation of member organizations and implement a fair and equitable rotation scheme; 2) Separating the dual role of CEO and Secretary of the Board to address conflicts of interest; and 3) Direct election of retiree representatives to the Board with voting rights “to ensure transparent and democratic representation of beneficiaries and their interests”; 4) Terms of reference for Board members; 5) Dissolving the Assets and Liabilities Committee. The ALM duplicates the work of the Actuarial and Investment Committees, and has Board oversight, but no GA oversight. It was established by the previous CEO as an attempt to consolidate his power by changing the bifurcated structure of the Fund, by bringing both assets and liabilities under the management of a single person, the CEO. The ALM is yet another avenue for conflicts of interest between FAFICS, as members of the ALM, and the Fund management.
In
addition, the Board merely “takes note” of
(in effect, rejects) recommendation no. 6) More frequent meetings of the
Steering Committee “to provide more effective oversight of the Fund’s
operations”; and also rejects recommendation.
Pinocchio 2: “FAFICS obviously never questioned the authority of the General Assembly or the Secretary General.”
Fact: Direct quotes from Former FAFICS’ president’s update note dated 8 January 2018 to AFICS associations:
“It may reasonably be questioned as to whether the General Assembly, without prior discussion in and substantive debate by the Pension Board, is indeed able to undertake a governance review of the structure of the Pension Board.”
Fact: “Although the Pension Board has sole authority for the appointment and renewal of the CEO, the Secretary-General has the administrative function to issue the contract.”
Pinocchio 3: “There is no " collusion" between FAFICS and the Pension Fund.”
Fact: There are several instances of conflicts of interest between FAFICS and the Fund management cited in the OIOS audit, of which the following are some examples: para 26: “The reports of the Fund’s internal and external auditors likewise raised concerns about delays and inefficiencies in pension processing, including at the understatement of the backlog as reported by the Fund secretariat. However, in a letter of January 2018 to beneficiaries, FAFICS stated that delays in pension processing were “largely a thing of the past”; and para. 27: “The circulation of such a letter by the staff of the Chief Executive Officer gave the appearance of collusion between FAFICS and the Fund secretariat to challenge the authority of the Secretary-General and the General Assembly in governance matters of the Fund….”
Pinocchio 2: “FAFICS obviously never questioned the authority of the General Assembly or the Secretary General.”
Fact: Direct quotes from Former FAFICS’ president’s update note dated 8 January 2018 to AFICS associations:
“It may reasonably be questioned as to whether the General Assembly, without prior discussion in and substantive debate by the Pension Board, is indeed able to undertake a governance review of the structure of the Pension Board.”
Fact: “Although the Pension Board has sole authority for the appointment and renewal of the CEO, the Secretary-General has the administrative function to issue the contract.”
Pinocchio 3: “There is no " collusion" between FAFICS and the Pension Fund.”
Fact: There are several instances of conflicts of interest between FAFICS and the Fund management cited in the OIOS audit, of which the following are some examples: para 26: “The reports of the Fund’s internal and external auditors likewise raised concerns about delays and inefficiencies in pension processing, including at the understatement of the backlog as reported by the Fund secretariat. However, in a letter of January 2018 to beneficiaries, FAFICS stated that delays in pension processing were “largely a thing of the past”; and para. 27: “The circulation of such a letter by the staff of the Chief Executive Officer gave the appearance of collusion between FAFICS and the Fund secretariat to challenge the authority of the Secretary-General and the General Assembly in governance matters of the Fund….”
Fact: The Board accepted OIOS
recommendation 4: "To establish appropriate mechanisms to avoid conflicts
of interest between representatives of FAFICS and the management of the
Fund" with its own wording of "between the management of the Fund and
the constituent groups of the Board."
Pinocchio 4: “Indeed we claim we are defending the interests of all UN retirees ( some 70,000) not just our paid-in members.”
Fact: Para. 22 of the audit: “FAFICS continues to sit on the Board in a non-voting capacity, even though it represents only 18,500 beneficiaries (approximately 25 per cent) of a total beneficiary population of 74,788 as at 31 December 2016. “
Fact: Para. 24 of the audit: FAFICS is a federation of 61 associations that currently represents approximately 25 per cent of all beneficiaries.”
Pinocchio 5: “Appointment of FAFICS representatives to the PB is an exclusive prerogative of the FAFICS Council and while the Bureau and the President have the role of proposing candidatures, the ruling is by the Council.”
Fact: FAFICS rules of procedures state: “1. The President of the Federation shall be ex officio the head of the FAFICS delegation. 2. The Chair of the FAFICS Standing Committee on Pension Issues shall be ex officio member of the FAFICS delegation. 3. The remaining two representatives and the two alternates shall be nominated by the President in consultation with the Bureau.”
Pinocchio 6: “Turning to the question as to whether FAFICS is representative of the entire UN beneficiaries population, you pointed out that " FAFICS membership covers about 18500" , the implication there being that the remainder 50000 retirees are not registered and AGAINST the Federation. In my mind they are simply people who feel adequately protected by our action and don't feel the need to go the extra step to register with their local AFICS /FAFICS.”
Fact: Lowell Flanders’ letter never implied that the “remainder 50,000 retirees are not registered and AGAINST the Federation.”
There are no surprises here. The former FAFICS president, the subject of the criticisms in the OIOS audit concerning conflicts of interest and the appearance of collusion between FAFICS and the Fund management, is still FAFICS representative to the Pension Board, and Breschi's appointed Adviser to the President.
Finally, "not feel[ing] at all in a hole", and the bizarre idea that 50,000 non FAFICS-member retirees and beneficiaries “feel adequately protected”, would be laughable were it not disingenuous -- and delusional.
Pinocchio 4: “Indeed we claim we are defending the interests of all UN retirees ( some 70,000) not just our paid-in members.”
Fact: Para. 22 of the audit: “FAFICS continues to sit on the Board in a non-voting capacity, even though it represents only 18,500 beneficiaries (approximately 25 per cent) of a total beneficiary population of 74,788 as at 31 December 2016. “
Fact: Para. 24 of the audit: FAFICS is a federation of 61 associations that currently represents approximately 25 per cent of all beneficiaries.”
Pinocchio 5: “Appointment of FAFICS representatives to the PB is an exclusive prerogative of the FAFICS Council and while the Bureau and the President have the role of proposing candidatures, the ruling is by the Council.”
Fact: FAFICS rules of procedures state: “1. The President of the Federation shall be ex officio the head of the FAFICS delegation. 2. The Chair of the FAFICS Standing Committee on Pension Issues shall be ex officio member of the FAFICS delegation. 3. The remaining two representatives and the two alternates shall be nominated by the President in consultation with the Bureau.”
Pinocchio 6: “Turning to the question as to whether FAFICS is representative of the entire UN beneficiaries population, you pointed out that " FAFICS membership covers about 18500" , the implication there being that the remainder 50000 retirees are not registered and AGAINST the Federation. In my mind they are simply people who feel adequately protected by our action and don't feel the need to go the extra step to register with their local AFICS /FAFICS.”
Fact: Lowell Flanders’ letter never implied that the “remainder 50,000 retirees are not registered and AGAINST the Federation.”
There are no surprises here. The former FAFICS president, the subject of the criticisms in the OIOS audit concerning conflicts of interest and the appearance of collusion between FAFICS and the Fund management, is still FAFICS representative to the Pension Board, and Breschi's appointed Adviser to the President.
Finally, "not feel[ing] at all in a hole", and the bizarre idea that 50,000 non FAFICS-member retirees and beneficiaries “feel adequately protected”, would be laughable were it not disingenuous -- and delusional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO BRESCHI'S (FAFICS PRESIDENT) REPLY TO LOWELL FLANDERS, 19 OCTOBER 2018
Dear Mr Flanders ,
I am pleased to respond to your email to FAFICS of 13 October. I
appreciate your closing sentence in which you ask me to accept your comments in
a constructive light as reflecting your own personal views. I'd like to respond
that I wish to share my own views in a constructive approach exclusively for
the good of our Federation and the UN retirees community.
In my response please allow me to follow the order in which you
presented your comments.
First of all I would like to thank you for your understanding of
the current situation while reassuring you that I do not feel any dismay in
taking over the leadership of this prestigious and successful Federation and I
do not feel at all in a hole and I have no intention to digging further but rather
to build an even stronger and, your words, even more thoughtful and effective
Federation. Within the boundaries of the Federations Rules and Procedures, and
with the concourse of my colleagues in the Bureau, I have the intention to
follow my own approaches, attitudes and management style, which may or may not
at times depart from those adopted by my predecessors. In this regard, I would
welcome any contribution you may wish to provide and I would appreciate working
together to achieve our desired results.
With regard to the " past history of antagonism to
OIOS" I would like to refer to my introductory remarks to the Chair of the
Pension Board which I read out in the 1 August session this year, attached to
the PB report, in which I clearly mentioned how FAFICS appreciated and adhered
to OIOS recommendations in the past and how much we value the important role of
the internal oversight function, the key guardian of the integrity, safety and
good health of our UN Pension Fund. In the same note I clearly stated that out
of 13 provisional audit recommendations, FAFICS supported in varying degrees 7
while rejecting 6. No antagonism on our part.
FAFICS obviously never questioned the authority of the General
Assembly or the Secretary General. All evidence in our institutional behavior
shows how cognizant we are of the sovereignty of these supreme organs and on
how any decision or recommendation by the Pension Board requires their final
endorsement/ approval in the form of a formal resolution. I will be happy to share
our views at the earliest opportunity.
There is no " collusion" between FAFICS and the
Pension Fund. There is yes, mutual respect, collaboration towards our common
goals and the good of the Fund's constituent groups. In particular I'd like to
agree with you here when you say that " FAFICS should be strongly reminded
by its members that its task is to protect, defend and advance the rights of
ALL (my emphasis) United Nations retirees". Indeed we claim we are
defending the interests of all UN retirees ( some 70,000) not just our paid-in
members.
Appointment of FAFICS representatives to the PB is an exclusive
prerogative of the FAFICS Council and while the Bureau and the President have
the role of proposing candidatures, the ruling is by the Council. I do not
believe that the Council in its wisdom is using questionable judgment.
Turning to the question as to whether FAFICS is representative
of the entire UN beneficiaries population, you pointed out that " FAFICS
membership covers about 18500" , the implication there being that the
remainder 50000 retirees are not registered and AGAINST the Federation. In my
mind they are simply people who feel adequately protected by our action and
don't feel the need to go the extra step to register with their local AFICS /FAFICS
. Let me say that in industrial relations often it is management that uses this
argument to undermine the representation of staff unions. I cannot avoid
finding particular odious that certain participant representatives use a
management argument to undermine their fellow retiree association ( FAFICS). UN
staff of today will become UN retirees soon.
There are many other topics I could mention here but for the
sake of brevity, I hope we will be able to review them together under that
constructive light you mentioned. I am all in for this . I promised John Dietz
that I will let him know as soon as I have a date for my next visit to New York
so that we can arrange several AFICS meetings.
I hope I will be able to meet you soon and have the pleasure to
know you in person. In the meantime we can continue our dialogue by email if
you wish.
Thank you for your attention and kind regards .
Marco Breschi
President
FAFICS
President
FAFICS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOWELL FLANDERS LETTER TO MARCO BRESCHI, 13 OCTOBER 2018
Dear Mr. Breschi,
Thanks for your email forwarding the OIOS Report on the
Governance Structure of the UNJSPB. I can well understand your dismay in
recently taking over the FAFICS leadership and finding you inherited a mess
from the previous leadership. If you find yourself in a hole, the point is not
to keep digging, but to look around and figure out how you got there, and
perhaps adopt new approaches and attitudes. I was particularly alarmed when on
26 July 2018 FAFICS put out a circular distributed though the Pension Fund
Secretariat to all retirees falsely proclaiming “Retiree Rights in Danger.” The
issue at hand had nothing at all to do with retiree rights, but rather OIOS
“recommendations regarding FAFICS.” When I initially heard some of the OIOS
recommendations, I greatly feared this would elicit the kind of exaggerated
reaction reflected in the mentioned circular given the direct criticism of the
FAFICS leadership. A more measured and thoughtful response was certainly called
for under the circumstances given the past history of antagonism to OIOS
involvement in the proposed review of Pension Board operations.
From the start, the previous leadership of FAFICS made
ill-advised comments challenging the authority of the General Assembly and
OIOS. The observations of OIOS regarding the actions of the FAFICS leadership
are indisputable because they were all recorded in correspondence. As the OIOS
report correctly states, FAFICS, in a letter dated January 2018, “questioned
the General Assembly’s authority to undertake a governance review without prior
discussion with the Board. It also stated that the Board had the “sole
authority” for the appointment and reappointment of the Chief Executive Officer
and that the Secretary-General had only the “administrative function to issue
the contract.” The Fund secretariat circulated that letter electronically to
all registered beneficiaries, the vast majority of whom were not members of
FAFICS. “The circulation of such a letter by the staff of the Chief Executive
Officer gave the appearance of collusion between FAFICS and the Fund
secretariat to challenge the authority of the Secretary-General and the General
Assembly in governance matters of the Fund, even though the Chief Executive
Officer was to be reappointed by the Secretary-General on the recommendation of
the Board, and would ultimately be accountable to the Assembly. In a letter of
February 2018, the outgoing president of a retiree association affiliated with
FAFICS indicated to members of that association that the leadership of FAFICS
‘should be strongly reminded by its members that its task is to protect, defend
and advance the rights of all United Nations retirees, not those of the Chief
Executive Officer …’. That statement is consistent with complaints from other
retirees that FAFICS was protecting the interests of the Chief Executive
Officer instead of those of retirees.”
Neither FAFICS, nor its member associations are well served by
the type of haughty and patronizing attitude expressed in these communications.
Moreover, it was inappropriate for an NGO in consultative status with ECOSOC to
make pronouncements regarding the legislative authority of the General
Assembly. One can now only imagine what message is conveyed when FAFICS
continues to appoint to the Pension Board a representative with such
questionable judgment. Some of our AFICS members here in NY were disappointed
that the FAFICS Council did not decide to make a fresh start and, at least,
appoint our currently serving AFICS President as a FAFICS principal on the
Board given his substantive experience with Pension Fund operations.
It must be stated with regard to Recommendation #3 that OIOS
never questioned whether FAFICS represents its own membership, nor did it
dispute that “every member attending the FAFICS Council is a democratically
elected member.” These were straw men erected in the “Pension Fund Alert,” to
make it appear that OIOS was making an “unwarranted attack,” on all retirees.
This was not the case. What OIOS raised, as a legitimate question, is whether
FAFICS is representative of the entire UN beneficiary population, noting that
FAFICS membership covers about 18,500 beneficiaries (25%) out of a total UN
beneficiary population of 74,788 people.
Now, we all know that no
representative system provides 100% coverage, no matter how democratically
organized, because some people just don’t participate. But the question is how
to react to such an observation? Is attacking the messenger, the best way to
go? If FAFICS wants to retain its role as the sole representative of
beneficiaries, it may wish to consider ways in which its member organizations
can work more effectively to expand their membership and to put in place a
policy making system that does not leave decision making to the last minute and
does not rely exclusively on one or two individuals to formulate positions
based on their individual preferences. The intervention of the FAFICS President
on the contract extension of the CEO, for example, should be, if not outside
the policy concerns of FAFICS, at least be something widely mooted in the
FAFICS Council and the member organizations. Otherwise, concerns about
reciprocal back scratching, if not collusion, could easily arise.
I find myself in complete agreement with OIOS Recommendation #8
given, not only the performance of the current incumbent, but the inherent
conflict of interest between the functions of the CEO and the Secretary of the
Board. Having these roles combined gives undue influence to the CEO to
structure the operations, options and discussions in a way that will overly
bias the Board’s decision making. An independent Secretary for the Board would
serve to ensure that all viable policy options are presented to the Board,
rather than just those preferred by the CEO.
I agree with you that we need a strong leadership for FAFICS,
but more than that we need a thoughtful and effective leadership, one that is
dedicated to, not disdainful of, the broader membership. I think the “difficult
situation” you speak of is something of our own making and requires new avenues
of approach and measured decision-making rather than more knee jerk reactions.
Certainly, launching an attack on OIOS for its report does nothing to enhance
the stature of FAFICS as a representative body.
Please accept these comments in the constructive light in which
they offered, and as my own personal views on the issues raised in the OIOS
report and your email.
Best regards, Lowell Flanders,
AFICS, NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO BRESCHI'S NOTE TO THE AFICS/NY GOVERNING BOARD, 9 OCTOBER 2018
Subject: OIOS audit report to the UNGA - Rapport d'audit du BSCI
à l'AGNU
Dear Colleagues,
The Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report is now
public and we are making it available to our members for ease of reference.
We encourage members to read it carefully and gain an
understanding of its far reaching implications, often regarded by FAFICS as
positive but in some cases extremely negative in particular for the future
independence of the Federation. Out of 13 recommendations, the Pension Board
accepted 7 and rejected 6.
I'd like to draw your attention to recommendations 3 and 8 which
impinge heavily on the life of FAFICS. You can rest assured that the delegation
strongly objected to them during the Board session and continued and will
continue to do so during the ensuing debate preceding the UNGA final ruling.
I trust you will appreciate the difficult situation we are all
in and the need for a united and strong leadership for FAFICS. Your support is
more important than ever.
Thank you
Marco Breschi
President
FAFICS
President
FAFICS
No comments:
Post a Comment