The UN: Where accountability and whistleblower protection are missing in action, 9 June 2019

In its  “Comprehensive audit of the governance structure and related processes of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board” the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) found several issues of mismanagement and conflicts of interest in the Fund Secretariat under the leadership of its former Chief Executive Officer, Sergio Arvizu, including that he had retaliated against three staff members. https://undocs.org/A/73/341

The UN Ethics Office established that retaliation had occurred and the UN Administration accepted (in writing) its findings in all three cases, and its recommendation of referral for possible disciplinary action.

The same UN Administration that determined that Arvizu (who was at the level of Assistant-Secretary-General) was guilty of retaliation had also formally defined retaliation as misconduct only a year earlier (para. 3.5(d) of Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2017/1).  https://undocs.org/ST/AI/2017/1

Therefore, by its own definition, the UN Administration had determined that Arvizu had committed misconduct. In the current UN environment of frenzied reform and accountability, one might assume that he would be held accountable. That was not the case.

Arvizu separated from the United Nations on January 9, 2019.  The exception by which Arvizu was granted a disability benefit through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is independent of the UN, was facilitated by Martha Helena Lopez, a Senior Leader in the newly reformed Office of Human Resources (formerly OHRM), whose mandate includes increasing accountability in the UN. 

Fund observers wonder why Arvizu’s case was not processed by the UN Staff Pension Committee as is the rule for UN staff members under the Fund’s regulations.

Last December, the Pension Board’s succession planning committee picked Janice Dunn Lee (former IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Management) notwithstanding that she had, it noted, limited technical and financial knowledge of pension funds.

And thus, the committee also noted,  senior technical management would need to be strengthened to support her. Former Acting CEO (Paul Dooley) was promptly recalled to work on January 10, 2019, ten days after his retirement, for this purpose. 

Dunn Lee wasted no time stating in her first meeting with Fund staff representatives that “rules are like guidelines”. It’s still unclear what she brings to the table that candidates with pension experience could not.

In February 2019, several weeks after Arvizu’s separation, and almost a year after accepting the referral for possible disciplinary action, the UN administration confirmed in writing that it had reviewed the matter and decided not to take action.  

As much as one would like to believe that the UN has changed since the days of whistleblowers James Wasserstom and Anders Kompass (links below), clearly it has not. The OIOS governance audit mentioned above, in reporting on the three cases of retaliation, also noted in para. 78: "Those instances point to the need for the [Pension] Board to restore confidence among staff and promote ethical conduct without fear of reprisal." 

In fact, the Pension Board has consistently done the opposite. It twice unsuccessfully sought to unseat a duly elected member who had also been a whistleblower, roundly rejected the findings of the OIOS governance audit at its annual meeting in Rome last July while pushing to discredit the auditors. https://www.passblue.com/2018/08/27/the-un-pension-fund-board-rejects-an-audit-of-its-work/.
It has key senior members of the UN Administration among its ranks,including Lopez (head of UNHR).

A 2018 report of the Joint Inspection Unit found deficiencies in the UN's whistleblower protection policy and notes that not a single participating organization met the requirements of five best practices criteria. 

So where do major donors among UN Member States that pride themselves as the protectors of UN values stand on this issue?  Some have published best practices for the protection of whistleblowers, including holding leaders accountable, the importance of the “tone at the top” and aligning stated organizational values with actions.

While the UN Administration was turning a blind eye to Arvizu’s misconduct, the Secretary-General continued to reiterate in various forms his reform platform and plans to hold senior managers accountable. https://news.un.org/en/story/2016/12/547612-taking-oath-office-antonio-guterres-pledges-work-peace-development-and-reformed, 
https://www.un.int/news/secretary-general-signs-compacts-senior-managers

Given this troubling indication that the UN does not practice what it preaches, interested Member States should press the UN leadership for answers.  

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-kosovo-whistleblower-idUSBRE92J1EY20130320

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/07/child-sex-abuse-whistleblower-resigns-from-un