It’s official: Chief Executive Officer of the UN Pension Fund Secretariat, Sergio Arvizu, will separate from the UN on 7 January 2019.
This was predictable, given that he's been on sick leave for almost a year and a half.
It wasn’t a matter of if; but of when he could negotiate the
best exit package for himself. According to a well placed source, the Acting CEO passed Arvizu's case through the IAEA Staff Pension Committee, against Fund rules, and it was approved. Warm letters
of gratitude (and self congratulation) have been received by Arvizu's enablers on the Pension Board and in the retiree organization, FAFICS (Federation of Associations of Former International
Civil Servants).
We bid Arvizu adieu and wish him well. What’s next for our Fund, not acrimony for damage done, should concern us. And make no mistake: any remedial action depends solely on the General Assembly and the Secretary-General. The Pension Board and the Arvizu cabal among the Fund Secretariat management have shown themselves time and again to be solely concerned with preservation of their own self-interested prerogatives, including by their rejection of the most crucial recommendations in the OIOS (UN Office of Internal Oversight Services) comprehensive governance audit called for by the General Assembly, such as adjusting the imbalance in Board seats among member organizations; separating the functions of the CEO and Board Secretary to avoid conflicts of interest and collusion; and direct election of retiree representatives to the Board, in the interest of democracy and transparency (A/73/341).
Much damage has been done to our Fund by Arvizu and his cabal in the Fund Secretariat, who remain and still operate on his behalf. Arvizu didn't act alone, although as CEO he was ultimately responsible for the actions of his management team. Much damage is still being done as well by his supporters on the Pension Board, including FAFICS, and dotted among the UN administration, who have shown by their vigorous pushback and denigration of the audit's major findings and recommendations that they have zero intention of learning from what their incompetence and lack of oversight have wrought.
Much damage has been done to our Fund by Arvizu and his cabal in the Fund Secretariat, who remain and still operate on his behalf. Arvizu didn't act alone, although as CEO he was ultimately responsible for the actions of his management team. Much damage is still being done as well by his supporters on the Pension Board, including FAFICS, and dotted among the UN administration, who have shown by their vigorous pushback and denigration of the audit's major findings and recommendations that they have zero intention of learning from what their incompetence and lack of oversight have wrought.
What do we, the owners of the Fund, have to
look forward to in terms of Fund management, unless the GA comes through with
radical changes at year end, and the Secretary-General steps in where necessary to correct course? The Pension Board requested the SG (who we doubt
knew this particular background) to appoint an Acting CEO who was the subject
in 2006 of OIOS ID case No. 0543/05, concerning actions related to the awarding
of “nine contracts, without competitive bidding”, for a total value of
$1.893,450.38 to his supervisor in a job he held prior to joining the UN.
Before that the Board, which has abjectly failed to do succession planning, circumvented its own procedures in a process mired (according to OIOS as stated in the governance audit) in “deviations and arbitrariness” in selecting a candidate for Deputy CEO who reportedly didn’t meet the requirements of the job and ended up withdrawing his candidacy. If this is the "succession planning" we have to look forward to, we're definitely not out of the woods, given that the same Board members, and FAFICS, our intrepid retiree organization, are searching for a new CEO and a new Deputy CEO.
Before that the Board, which has abjectly failed to do succession planning, circumvented its own procedures in a process mired (according to OIOS as stated in the governance audit) in “deviations and arbitrariness” in selecting a candidate for Deputy CEO who reportedly didn’t meet the requirements of the job and ended up withdrawing his candidacy. If this is the "succession planning" we have to look forward to, we're definitely not out of the woods, given that the same Board members, and FAFICS, our intrepid retiree organization, are searching for a new CEO and a new Deputy CEO.
It’s past time for the Arvizu cabal to move on and we call on the Secretary-General to take the necessary action. In fact, without a clean sweep of the Arvizu loyalists in the Fund Secretariat management, the Pension Board, and the FAFICS retiree representatives on the Board, installing a capable CEO and deputy will only partly solve the problem, if at all.
If our hopes are realized, the Pension Board has miscalculated in not only rejecting the most important OIOS audit
recommendations, but in going a step further and trying to discredit OIOS with baseless accusations including that the audit process was
“flawed and unprofessional.”
It's difficult to recall a UN document
where the words "This statement is not true" appear once, let
alone several times, as is the case with OIOS responses (link below) to the Pension Board's
comments on the governance audit (link below). It's a
shameful display of irresponsibility and recklessness by a UN body, and particularly one charged with oversight of
the life savings of active UN staff and retirees.
The Fifth Committee of the GA is currently
holding informal consultations in which the OIOS audit is on the agenda, and a draft resolution is
expected by 23 December 2018. The Pension Board Chair http://unpension.blogspot.com/2018/08/un-pension-board-chair-lacking.html
is reportedly using his speaking time to defend Arvizu's record while FAFICS representatives to the Pension Board are reportedly camped outside the conference room door in a last ditch lobbying effort.
If past experience holds, there is reason to hope that the upcoming GA resolution will vindicate OIOS ' findings and recommendations by calling for constructive action to counter the current dysfunction in the relationship between the Pension Board and the Fund Secretariat.
is reportedly using his speaking time to defend Arvizu's record while FAFICS representatives to the Pension Board are reportedly camped outside the conference room door in a last ditch lobbying effort.
If past experience holds, there is reason to hope that the upcoming GA resolution will vindicate OIOS ' findings and recommendations by calling for constructive action to counter the current dysfunction in the relationship between the Pension Board and the Fund Secretariat.
No comments:
Post a Comment