More desperate moves by the UN Pension Board Chair to circumvent Fund Regulations in the appointment of an Acting CEO by the Secretary-General, 24 December 2018

Yesterday, the General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for “unfaltering accountability” of the UN Pension Board, and requiring that (para. 16) that “the Pension Board ensure timely and proper succession planning for the positions of Chief Executive Officer and Deputy Chief Executive Officer to allow adequate time for their competitive selection based on pre-established procedures that ensures integrity and fairness.”

Instead, the Board Chair has been working assiduously to circumvent Fund Regulations in requesting the Secretary-General to appoint an Acting CEO about whom questions have been raised about competence and experience in Fund functions. Read the details in an earlier article here:

http://unpension.blogspot.com/2018/12/tripping-over-its-own-feet-un-pension.html

It seems that his illegal email poll of Board members (the subject of a formal appeal to the Standing Committee by a UN Participant Representative, a protest by the UN Participant Representatives, and questions from a Specialized Agency) is not the Chair’s only devious action.

In this email to Specialized Agencies (below) the Board Chair justifies his rush to push through the appointment of the Acting CEO, by illegal means as he apparently sees fit, on the basis that otherwise "no pensions can be certified for payment". The bizarre implication is that our 70 year-old Fund lacks the institutional capacity to appoint an Officer-in-Charge, as happens in every UN office to carry out such essential functions until an appointment can be made based on, as the Assembly requires, "pre-established procedures that ensures integrity and fairness."

The Chair also refers to to a three-page letter to the Secretary-General that he’s prepared for signature by Board Members in all categories, except the UN Participant Representatives “as it is clear what their view will be.”

Quote: “To expedite this, and to make the point that the majority of the Board is four-square behind the decision, the attached 3-page letter has been prepared, covering all constituencies from all the Specialized Agencies with voting seats. A separate letter along similar lines will be prepared for the GA reps and maybe the S-G’s own reps. Such a letter may not be necessary for the UNSPC Participants Reps as it is clear what their view will be.”

Perhaps instead of this misspent energy on devious and undemocratic actions aimed at bypassing Board members – specifically, the UN Participant Representatives, of 85,000 Fund participants (active UN staff) -- Levins could propose to the ASG for Human Resources, Martha Helena Lopez, Chair of the Standing Committee and the Secretary-General's representative on the Staff Pension Committee, to call a Standing Committee meeting by video teleconference. 

But that level of logic and transparency clearly eludes him.

The Board Chair has been unable to resist boasting in his email about “our friends on the SG’s delegation taking the lead” (the delegation is led by Jan Beagle, USG, Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance) in lobbying the SG to appoint an Acting CEO in circumvention of the Fund’s regulations. Yet he forgets that those Regulations were established by the GA and bind the SG. At least the Assembly was able to remind him of this in its resolution yesterday.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

20 Dec. 2018,17:26, John LEVINS

Dear Specialized Agency Colleagues,

We need you action on the attached, and need it now.

As you can imagine, there has been an awful lot of work going on to ensure that the Fund has an Acting CEO from 1^st January 2019:

         The Succession Planning Committee/WG made its recommendation on the 12^th.

         The Bureau reviewed this and passed it to the Fund on the 13^th.

         It reached the Executive Office of the Secretary-General on the 14^th.

Since then , the politics has been intense, with our friends on the S-G’s delegation taking the lead.

The risks of the appointment not being made in good time are huge, mainly, I believe that no pensions can be certified for payment. It also reflects poorly on the Board.

To cut a long story short, later today I should receive officially a letter dated yesterday (19^th) from the S-G’s Chef de Cabinet, Maria Luiza Viotti, asking me to ascertain whether the Board wishes to maintain its decision, made at the 65th regular session of the Pension Board, to have the recommendation of a candidate for appointment as Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Pension Fund submitted to the Secretary-General by the Board’s Succession Planning Committee through the Board’s Bureau, and endorses the candidate put forward.

This decision is set out in paragraph 395(b) of the Pension Board’s report (A/73/9), as attached for your easy reference.

Ms. Viotti’s  letter will further ask to receive the outcome of my enquiries at the earliest, in order to ensure that we can achieve clarity about the leadership of the Pension Fund before the new year begins.

Pursuant to this, a note has been drafted from me to ALL members of the Board, asking for a response to me, cc to Paul Dooley and Gedma by CoB 24^th December 2018.The Fund Secretariat is presently reviewing this note.

As you can further imagine, the S-G would most likely have approved the appointment without further comment had it not been for the intervention on 14^th December 2018 of a minority of Board Members,

This puts the Fund in a very precarious position. I cannot say whether that is the intent of those who intervened, but that cannot be excluded. It means that the appointment could not be made before Christmas, and perhaps not until the New Year,

As such, as a matter of the utmost urgency, I should very much like to put the S-G in a position where he can make the appointment before CoB NY time tomorrow. This may give Paul at least some chance of having a structured handover with the new Acting CEO.

To do this, it appears that the S-G will need assurances that a majority of the Board (ideally a large majority) do in fact wish to maintain the decision that we all made at the Board. By ALL, I refer also to ALL our colleagues on the UNSPC. The note prepared for me to send to proposes a rather messy arrangement whereby you would all reply YES or NO to the question.

To expedite this, and to make the point that the majority of the Board is four-square behind the decision, the attached 3-page letter has been prepared, covering all constituencies from all the Specialized Agencies with voting seats. A separate letter along similar lines will be prepared for the GA reps and maybe the S-G’s own reps. Such a letter may not be necessary for the UNSPC Participants Reps as it is clear what their view will be.

I should be most grateful if, before CoB today (or at the earliest opportunity if you are ahead of Central European time), on the assumption that you do agree, you would sign this letter, scan the signature, and send it back to me. It may be helpful if you also sign on a white and blank piece of paper so that I can snip, copy and paste the signature into the letter.

If you cannot sign and scan (for example, if you are off on holiday already on some place with no scanner), please provide me with e-mail of advice of your decision (hopefully yes) and I will indicate that in the signature block.

The most important thing is that VOTING members sign. If they are not available, then Alternates can of course sign for them. But I am also allowing space for Alternate to sign in their own right, as this will add to the moral authority of the letter.

There were only 31 Members at the Board. So 16 will be a majority. There are 19 SpAg Members (one each missing from IAEA (GB) and ILO (EH). The four S-G delegation members are, I believe in favour of maintaining the decisions. That’s 23. Same for the GA delegation. That’s 27.

Best Regards,

John

John Levins AM, MBE, CA(ANZ)