This article was first published on 6 July 2019 and updated on 8 July 2019.
Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Fund Secretariat, Janice Dunn Lee, moves to decapitate the Geneva office by transferring two of three senior posts to New York, continues the practice of misrepresenting the extent of the backlog in pension payments, goes along to get along with the Pension Board in its pushback against General Assembly reforms, and refuses to meet with Fund staff representatives at the departmental level.
While this article mainly focuses on dysfunction in the
Fund Secretariat, there is disconcerting information about the Office of
Investment Management (OIM) under the leadership of Representative of the
Secretary-General, Sudhir Rajkumar, who took up his duties in January
2018.
Update: Since first publishing this article on 6 July, additional, and contradictory, information of the situation in the OIM has come to light. This precludes an objective account of reports that include insufficient transparency in investment reporting and the sidelining of some senior investment officers, among other concerns. There will be more on this as the situation clarifies.
Update: Since first publishing this article on 6 July, additional, and contradictory, information of the situation in the OIM has come to light. This precludes an objective account of reports that include insufficient transparency in investment reporting and the sidelining of some senior investment officers, among other concerns. There will be more on this as the situation clarifies.
The “Rules-are-like-guidelines” Acting CEO
As reported on 11 January 2019 (link 1), Dunn Lee, who had taken up her post only days before, announced in her first meeting with Fund staff representatives that “rules are like guidelines”. Since then, she’s reportedly repeated several variations on the theme, signaling, in the minds of many, that things were not about to get better, and possibly worse.
Taking cues from former CEO Sergio Arvizu's playbook, and employing former Acting CEO Paul Dooley as her adviser, Dunn Lee continues to decline to meet with staff representatives at the departmental level on matters concerning Fund staff.
Pushing back against reforms
In her role as Acting Secretary of the Pension Board, Dunn Lee appears to be collaborating with the Board leadership’s foot-dragging on corrective actions and reforms made by the General Assembly in resolution A/RES/73/274 (link 2) in response to the comprehensive governance audit by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), A/73/341 (link 3). This follows the Board’s rejection of the OIOS governance audit’s findings and recommendations at its July 2018 annual meeting, and its attempt to discredit OIOS auditors (links 4 and 5).
As Dunn Lee travels back and forth to her old headquarters, Vienna, for Governance Working Group meetings, she’s joined there by members of FAFICS (the retiree representative organization), which the General Assembly in its resolution expressly excluded from the Working Group (para. 14 of resolution A/73/274: (quote) 14.“Further notes that the Pension Board established a working group, which should adhere to the tripartite structure of the Board…”, i.e, executive heads, governing bodies, participant representatives. The tripartite structure does not include FAFICS representatives, who are members without voting rights.
There, they collaborate with other members and will undoubtedly arrive at the same tired proposals they made in 2005 aimed at rendering as unworkable, issues included in the GA reforms such as adjusting the composition and size of the Board and implementing a rotating scheme to make Board membership more fair and equitable, and developing modalities for direct election by retirees of their representatives to the Board.
Backlog cover-up continues
Dunn Lee doubles down on the longstanding mantra of both the Fund Secretariat and FAFICS leadership that “there is no backlog” in pension payments. She’s taking forward the strategy initiated by Dooley and his cheerleaders in FAFICS, of downplaying the thousands of so-called “open workflows” (i.e, backlog cases). The spin is that only 780 are “real” cases of new retirees or separated staff waiting to be paid. And Dunn Lee doesn't bother to include survivor benefits.
An overly complex and boring analysis as delivered by Dunn Lee at last month’s AFICS annual meeting is apparently the chosen method to mesmerize her audience into silence or simply put them to sleep (see from minute 1:02:00 or minute 1:19:00 (link 6).
What the Acting CEO does not explain is that the more than 4,000 cases listed as “Article 32” are backlogged because the Fund has failed to process them. Thousands of other Fund members will not see a penny of their savings because the Fund cannot be bothered to follow-up on missing documentation or make the effort to locate them in a timely fashion. Another 1,299 separated staff in addition to the 780 are waiting to be paid. So the deliberate obfuscation continues.
Retaliation
To her credit, the Acting CEO reportedly admits that pension is not her line. Recall that the Succession Planning Committee didn’t try to hide that reality when she was selected (link 7).
Whatever pension skills she may lack, she clearly has the talent to continue the retaliatory actions of her predecessor. Arvizu was known for his practice of rewarding staff who applauded his questionable decisions, such as going live with IPAS (IT system) despite its lack of critical functionalities, and punishing those who resisted his self-preoccupied and erratic management style.
Decapitating the Geneva office
And retaliation goes hand in hand with the Fund Secretariat’s long-established practice of cronyism. Dunn-Lee’s proposed budget effectively decapitates the Geneva Office – moving two of its three senior manager posts (P5 and D1 levels) to New York, thereby finishing the job of its demolition started by Arvizu. This move was previously rejected by the Specialized Agencies which are almost entirely serviced by the Geneva Office.
The goals in gutting the Geneva office are apparently three-fold:
1) Retaliation against two Geneva Fund staff who are inarguably the most experienced and knowledgeable and are known to produce exemplary work.
2) Promoting the current P-5 head of Client Services in New York to the D-1 level at any cost, even if it means the decapitation of the Geneva Office and despite previous rejection of the proposal by the GA.
3) Create justification for a P5 post for a new Special Assistant brought by Dunn Lee from her previous stomping ground: the IAEA. Recall that the GA had in 2017 rejected the reclassification of the New York P4 post(ex-Woodyear) to the P5 level, citing the fact that the Geneva posts were already responsible for the outreach functions, and in view of their proximity to the Europe and Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Of course, the sensible thing would be for the Board to reject the proposals, for the major reason that the transfer from Geneva to New York of these senior posts would result in reduced supervision of the Geneva office, and a decrease in services to the Agencies, retirees and UN family participants. But the Board has distinguished itself by its sensible decisions.
Executive Office debacle
The General Assembly in paragraph 30 of resolution A/RES/73/274 “Decide[d] to reconstitute the Executive Office of the Pension Fund so that it is directly responsible for the provision of administrative services to both entities of the Fund, within existing resources.”
Arvizu had peremptorily shut down the Executive Office some years ago because its staff reportedly declined to bend UN rules according to his whims. Instead of the GA directive being followed, the Fund has a new email address “UNJSPF Executive Office” and the financial responsibilities for administration of the Fund – including the budget - have been moved to the Chief Finance Officer.
This not only flouts a General Assembly directive. It also diverges from the separation of duties principle by which an Executive Office provides for enhancement of internal control and reduction of conflict of interest. Instead of the re-establishment of the Executive Office, the word is that the P5 and P4 posts of the Executive Officer and Senior HR Officer were slated to be abolished
Manipulating the budget
The Budget promises to be another way the Acting CEO implements the agenda of those who picked her, including FAFICS representatives, such as creating a plethora of new temporary posts against which favorites can be placed (as was the practice under Arvizu) to promote them to posts previously rejected by the General Assembly for upward reclassification.
Tone at the top
The OIOS governance audit recommendation 10 states: “The Board should take effective measures to ensure that the Secretariat of the Fund sets the appropriate tone at the top with regard to integrity and ethical values.”
On June 14, 2019, in response to a pension blog article on whistleblower protection and accountability in the UN (link 8), concerning the UN leadership's reported failure to hold Arvizu accountable for three cases of retaliation against staff members, Dunn Lee posted a video of an iguana that she later deleted, seemingly thumbing her nose at both UN policy on these issues and her own role in setting “the appropriate tone at the top” (link 9)
The $65 billion question
As the next annual meeting of the Pension Board looms (July in Nairobi), the culture of cronyism in the Fund prevails. Many of us had our hopes pinned on positive change at the top with the departure of Arvizu from the Fund Secretariat and the arrival of Rajkumar to head the OIM.
We know that a healthy Fund depends on effective leadership on both sides, assets and liabilities. The report of the Succession Planning Committee on its choice of Dunn Lee did not auger well for positive change in the Fund Secretariat.
Update: On the other hand, the reports from OIM, which, as noted above, include contradictory accounts, are disturbing precisely because we continue to hope for improvements under the new RSG. Again, there will be more on this as the situation clarifies.
What accounts for the persistent toxicity and resistance by the Fund leadership to a much-needed change in culture? It’s a $65 billion dollar question. As participants and beneficiaries, we are the Fund’s owners. The Fund leadership on both sides must be reminded that they work for us and that we continue to watch, resist and act to ensure that the UNJSPF remains fit for the purpose of serving the needs of all former international civil servants, former, current and future.
Links:
Note: Links for UN documents will be
provided later because of an’infection detected’ message.
2. A/RES/73/274: General Assembly resolution
3. A/RES/73/341: Comprehensive audit of the governance
structure and related processes of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board
4. https://www.passblue.com/2018/08/27/the-un-pension-fund-board-rejects-an-audit-of-its-work/
4. https://www.passblue.com/2018/08/27/the-un-pension-fund-board-rejects-an-audit-of-its-work/
5. OIOS remarks on comments in the “Report of
the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board”
6. Video of AFICS/NY annual meeting: http://webtv.un.org/watch/association-of-former-international-civil-servants-afics-49th-annual-assembly/6042743481001
No comments:
Post a Comment