UN PENSION BRIEFING BY UN PARTICIPANTS REPRESENTATIVES TO THE PENSION BOARD
26 March 2019, 1.15 to 2.30 pm, Conference Room 8, UNHQ NY
1. Elements of the statement by Ian Richards
2. Elements of the statement by Michelle
Rockcliffe
3. Elements of the Q&A
(Note: see links below to i) OIOS audit A/73/341; ii) GA resolution A/RES/73/274; iii) OIOS rebuttal to report of the Pension Board, A/73/9.)
(Note: see links below to i) OIOS audit A/73/341; ii) GA resolution A/RES/73/274; iii) OIOS rebuttal to report of the Pension Board, A/73/9.)
1. Elements of
the statement by Ian Richards
Background
The UN Participant Representatives to the Pension Board (4 representatives and 2 alternates), who
represent 75,000 to 80,000 active staff Fund members, were elected two years
ago at a time when the Fund was undergoing a number of challenges.
The problems included premature launching of the new IT
system, which the then CEO knew could lead to critical problems. The result was
that some staff waited up to nine months for their first pension payment.
The Pension Board attempted to change the staff rules with
the effect of removing the Fund from the UN, raising the specter of privatizing
the Fund and a related crisis of confidence.
There was a move to change the Fund’s financial rules at a
time when OIOS (the UN internal oversight office) was pointing out attempts by
the Fund management to circumvent the UN procurement system. Efforts were made
to change an MOU between the Fund and the UN with the goal of allowing changes
to UN rules regarding the acceptance of gifts and the hiring of staff.
The situation posed financial and reputational risks to the
Fund that could affect its sustainability. There was also the risk that Member
States might decide to change the current pension system to a 401K or other system.
When these concerns were brought to the attention of the
Pension Board, the Board did not act in the interest of Fund members. The Staff
Union received support for its efforts to block some of these actions from the
then head of the Department of Management, from the Secretary-General, and from
the General Assembly.
General Assembly’s request for a governance audit
These issues were brought to the attention of the General
Assembly with a request for a review of how the Fund was governed. General
Assembly resolution A/RES/72/264 asked OIOS
to conduct an audit of the Fund, which was published on the OIOS website
(A/72/341).
Some findings of the OIOS audit
The audit detailed conflicts of interest between Board
members, the leadership of the Fund and the federation that represents retirees
(FAFICS).
In particular, a conflict of interest existed in the dual
rule of the CEO as head of the Fund Secretariat and as Secretary to the Board,
whereby he controlled the agenda and reported on his own performance.
The audit raised questions about the composition of the
Board. Staff of the UN and its funds and
programmes contribute two-thirds of the payments to the fund and assume
two-thirds of the risk, but have one-third of the votes on the Board.
The question of the Assets and Liabilities Committee, created
for political reasons, and duplicating the work of the actuarial and
investments committees, was also raised.
Response by the Pension Board to the OIOS audit
The audit received a lot of opposition from the Pension
Board including because a change in its composition could lead to some UN
agencies losing their voting power.
The Board said that the audit should be referred to the UN
Independent Audit Advisory Committee. This recommendation was not endorsed by
the General Assembly..
Elements of GA resolution 73/274 in response to the audit
The audit report was presented to the General Assembly last
year and received universal support from Member States, with the exception of
one.
The GA resolution calls for the following (inter alia):
- Retirees to
elect their representatives to the Pension Board in order to have a direct
voice on the Board.
- The role of
the CEO to be divided into two separate positions: Pension Benefits
Administrator and Secretary of the Board.
- The Board’s
working group to submit recommendations for a fair and equitable adjustment
of the composition of the Board.
- The
proposal by the Board to sets its own rules and procedures should only be done
in line with the Fund’s regulations.
- The Board’s
proposal to remove the scope of its work from the jurisdiction of the
UNAT should be under further investigation.
- The need for the Assets and Liabilities Committee to be reviewed.
The General Assembly asked the Board to revert with
proposals this year (the 74th session). The UN Participant Representatives are
members of the governance working group that is considering these matters.
Members of the Board who are not supportive of the resolution
will try to push back. The goal of the UN Participant Representatives is to
ensure that the resolution is implemented.
2. Elements of
the statement by Michelle Rockcliffe
Terms of reference for Board members
The UN Participant Representatives recently submitted a
proposal to the UN Staff Pension Committee to define Terms of Reference for Pension
Board members as recommended by the OIOS audit (73/341), and as noted by the General Assembly and reflected in its resolution (A/RES/73/274).
The proposal highlights that the fiduciary duties of all Board
members are for the social security and exclusive interest of the beneficiaries
of the Fund while upholding the Regulations, Rules and other requirements of
the GA. The hope is that the proposal will be incorporated into the Board’s
proposal to the incoming GA 74 session.
Timely Information on investments
The UN Participant Representatives understand that the Fund
is in good health and that it continues to meet the long-term objective to pay
all members in accordance with their accrued entitlements. However, in the
interest of transparency, UN Participant Representatives continue to ask that
information regarding the value of the Fund be updated on the website in a more
timely manner. The figure of $65.5 billion currently displayed is as of 30
September 2018, a full six months ago.
ESG – environmental, social and governance regarding
investments
Information can be found on ESG on the UNJSPF website at
oim.unjspf.org by clicking on the Sustainable Development Goals link. A
townhall is planned for the near future to discuss these concerns.
Backlog in benefit payments
UN Participant Representatives continue to monitor the backlog.
The Pension Fund Secretariat has been reporting an improvement in the number of
cases being processed. However, UN Participant Representatives believe that
anyone who requested a benefit and hasn’t received it within three months has
been waiting too long and should be provided a partial payment. They continue
to urge both the Fund and UN Secretariats to simply decide to disconnect the
“check-put” process from the “pension separation” process and enable documents
to be delivered for faster processing.
Benefits placed on the write-off track
The UN Participant Representatives are also alarmed at the
high number of benefits placed on the write-off track by the Fund in the last
year – close to one thousand (1000) cases for more than USD10 million without,
in their view, sufficient effort to locate beneficiaries.
UN Staff Pension Committee
For at least 10 years the UN Staff Pension Committee has met
only twice per year to award and review disability benefits. The UN Participant
Representatives recognized the void and requested that the UNSPC meet on
governance issues such as the backlog, accountability of senior Fund
management, and equitable representation of the UN family on the Board, among
other matters. They hope to get the
number of meetings increased by two additional meetings per year.
Standing Committee
The UN Participant Representatives have requested meetings
of the Standing Committee of the Board to no avail. The Standing Committee is
authorized to make decisions when the Board is not in its one-week annual
session. Over the past dozen years, with a single exception, it has met only
once per year, either during, or two days prior to the Board, which violates
the rules of procedures and defeats its purpose, which is prompt, year-round, redressal
of issues. Instead, beneficiaries could wait more than a year depending on the
timing of the submission of an appeal.
A meeting has yet to be convened to make critical decisions
needed to help the Board work efficiently and satisfy mandates of the General
Assembly resolution.
This lack of leadership by the Standing Committee has
resulted in confusion in various ad-hoc working groups and committees, which
have neither the authority to make such decisions nor the necessary Terms of
Reference to quickly and efficiently get their jobs done. The UN Participant
Representatives continue to apprise Board members of this issue.
Activities of the Board Chair
The Chair of the Board’s 2018 session (which adjourned last
August) has been attending meetings of groups of which he is not a member,
making unlawful requests for ad hoc e-votes by Board members and unusual
proposals to the Board to increase the rights and privileges of a select few
Board members.
Under this guise, the current Chair visited several duty
stations promoting an idea to divide the UN Staff Pension Committee to
potentially exclude staff who have any knowledge of the Fund through their
responsibilities for Human Resources and Finance which may touch the area of
pension. The UN Participant Representatives view this as detrimental to the overall
administration of pension benefits and oversight.
Under-representation by the UN family on the Pension Board
UN family participants (more than 85,000) are under-represented
on the Board and the General Assembly has on several occasions requested that
the Board make membership equitable and in line with the numbers of active
participants, including in its recent resolution 73/274.
Need to facilitate the work of UN Participant Representatives
While the UN Participant Representatives have a voice, there
is little time release, no technical support for their periodic VTC meetings
and no budget that would allow them to meet face to face annually for a few
days to strategize, receive independent advice on technical issues and for
consultation with various constituencies in preparation for the Board meeting.
Last year at this time, the UNHQ staff union in NY provided supplementary
travel and DSA to facilitate a three-day meeting of all participant
representatives. Such an arrangement is obviously not sustainable. UN
Participant Representatives should have not have to depend on staff unions to
support their activities which are critical to meet their fiduciary duties.
3. 3. Elements of the Q&A
Questions raised by attendees, both in the room and viewers
of the webcast, included the following:
1.
Financial health of the Fund
2.
Disconnect between participant representatives
and retiree representatives
3.
How many Board members are there and how to
enforce their fiduciary responsibility to the Fund
4.
The extent of the backlog in pension payments
5.
Spousal benefits
6.
Unreceived benefits owing to bank and other
information changed by the Fund without authorization
7.
What were the prospects for progress on the GA
resolution when both the Board members and the management culture in the Fund
remained the same
8.
Is the early retirement age affected by the new mandatory retirement age of 65
The responses of the UN participant representatives included
the following:
Financial health of the Fund
The investment side of the Fund is under the direct
responsibility of the Secretary-General. While the Fund is currently in good
health, only through transparency can improvements be made in how the Fund is
managed to ensure its sustainability.
Disconnect between participant and retiree representatives
Two members of FAFICS (the federation that represents
retirees) were present at the briefing. Ian Richards was in close touch with
AFICS Geneva. UN participant representatives were willing and ready to meet
with the retiree representatives to foster a common understanding.
How many Board members are there and how to enforce Board
members’ fiduciary responsibility to the Fund
There are 33 Board members, but with alternates and others,
there were often 100 people in the Board meeting, all with the right to speak,
making accountability difficult.
Backlog in benefit payments
An accurate assessment was difficult owing to incorrect
data. Based on documentation received, it was estimated that there are between
8,000 to 10,000 outstanding cases, not including recalculation and death cases.
If the Fund were to update its reference tables, there would be no need for
manual calculations, and the process could be expedited.
The UNJSPF Chief of Client Services, who said she was
present at the briefing in her personal capacity, not as a representative of
the Fund, noted that the processing time for 80 per cent of cases was within 15
business days.
She also noted that benefits for surviving ex-spouses
were covered by Fund rules and regulations. The UN Participant Representatives undertook
to look into the issue.
They and the UNSJPF Chief of Client Services also undertook
to look into the situation of the Fund member who was not receiving his
benefits because of bank and other
information changed by the Fund without his authorization.
Is the early retirement age affected by increasing the
mandatory age of retirement to 65
For staff whose entry date is before 2014, the early retirement age is 55. For staff whose entry date is after 2014, the early retirement age is 58.
28 March 2019
Loraine Rickard-Martin
Links:
OIOS audit: Download in UN official languages:
https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/73/341&Lang=E
GA resolution:
https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/73/274
OIOS rebuttal to Pension Board report A/73/9:
Bzlau6P.pdfhttps://oios.un.org/resources/2018/11/bBzlau6P.pdf
Links:
OIOS audit: Download in UN official languages:
https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/73/341&Lang=E
GA resolution:
https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/73/274
OIOS rebuttal to Pension Board report A/73/9:
Bzlau6P.pdfhttps://oios.un.org/resources/2018/11/bBzlau6P.pdf
Excellent.
ReplyDelete