Open letter about our UNJSPF investments: What’s happening in our Pension Fund? By Michelle Rockcliffe, 16 December 2021

Open letter about our UNJSPF investments 

16 December 2021

Dear current and future beneficiaries, 

What’s happening in our Pension Fund? 

While there was no mention of any discussion of the matter in the UNJSPF Board Report (A/76/297), the Secretary-General and his representative in the Office of Investments Management (OIM) are preparing to outsource an additional 28% (twenty-eight percent) of our portfolio to passive external managers. 

This is the second year in a row that the SG has come up with a surprise plan without first sharing his intentions with the Board and beneficiaries. 

Since OIM’s response to ACABQ’s 2020 recommendations in the Board Report, cites proof that “managing each portfolio internally makes the Fund more efficient than its peers that manage externally”,1 the question is, what changed between July and October? 

This is substantial, unprecedented, risky and costly! 

If the entire fixed income (FI) portfolio were to be outsourced, this means that we lose control of our assets and allow big Wall Street firms to manage over 46.8 percent, or more than $41 billion of our $88 billion dollar fund. 

The internally managed fixed income portfolio is more than 26% of our fund which has historically maintained a mix of approximately 85% internally managed and 15% externally managed portfolios. On 30 September 20212 the mix was 82 percent internal/ 18% external – none of the fixed income is currently outsourced. 

Our Fund has minimized costs while controlling our assets and risks, and adhering to the principles of safety, profitability, liquidity and convertibility, in line with requirements of the General Assembly. 

It was fortunate that the attempt to outsource 25% (then $9B) of the Fund by a previous RSG back in 2007 failed, due to action by the NY Staff Union, as we were then able to mitigate losses during the crash of 2008 and our fund rebounded with active internal management of our portfolio, increasing by 32% of its value in 2009. 

UNJSPF Performance 

While the RSG has been emphasizing the OIM underperformance of the benchmarks at 1-3-5-7 and 10 years, the fund appears to be thriving and management boasts of the asset 

value of $88 billion+, has met its long term 3.5 percent objective, is fully funded and has an actuarial surplus. 

So, has a study been performed to see what the results would have been, were it not for the Fund’s “risk avoidance strategy”3 which prevented investments in certain bonds, weapons and tobacco and which made up a large portion of the market benchmarks to which OIM performance is compared? 

Were it not for the 2016 decision which prohibited portfolio managers from investing in sovereign negative-yield securities whose currencies then later appreciated against the US Dollar, would the FI portfolio still have underperformed? Possibly not. 

Conversely, we know that in 2019 a customized benchmark excluding weapons and tobacco and including a new universe of riskier assets was implemented. Even then the Fixed Income manager underperformed the market. 

OIOS in (A/75/215) highlighted several deficiencies in the management of the benchmarks4 and a toxic work environment. Did these factors have a negative effect on the current performance even though the 2019 Investment Policy had been amended to account for the pre-2013 and 2016 and other issues? 

In the end it seems the SG is assuming a “manager accountability avoidance” strategy and will instead outsource the entire $26 billion portfolio, costing us shareholders millions in transition costs and external management fees, and some staff their jobs. 

The Board of Auditors observed serious deficiencies in UNJSPF’s oversight of its external managers5. The ACABQ stressed the importance of the BOA recommendation that “the Fund finalize and publish its selection and evaluation criteria for external funds and discretionary investment managers” [emphasis added] 

Just more of the same. 

The continued lack of transparency and rush to implement new policies as observed by OIOS6 has persisted under this RSG since April 2020. The matter of derivatives was neither discussed with the Pension Board nor the Investments Committee prior to a request to the Fifth Committee in 2020 for approval to implement these new risky securities. 

Once again in 2021, just two months after the Board meeting, OIM advertised an opening7, for about 6 days - for a “Fixed Income Transition Strategy Consultant”. Just three (3) weeks later we hear of a plan to outsource the entire Fixed Income portfolio, even though OIM asked for additional posts in the 2022 budget, and asserted that our internal management is more efficient, only months ago. 

Coupled with the Board of Auditors observations for the last 4 years, regarding the deficiencies in OIM’s oversight of external managers, this rush to transition seems unwarranted and risky. 

Can the lack of transparency be justified in a public pension fund such as ours? 

When are we going to be informed - after the fact? Why is there such a rush to outsource our fund, again? If it’s such a great idea why the secrecy? How does this affect OIM’s Environmental Social and Governance policy? Is this another way to implement the controversial derivative investments? 

Will Unions have to rise to the challenge as they did in 2007 and 2014 to save us from the Wolves of Wall Street? 

 

Sincerely, 

Michelle Rockcliffe 

UNJSPF Beneficiary 

1 https://undocs.org/A/76/297 pg. 323- Annex V paragraph b) Actions taken to implement the [ACABQ] recommendations 

2 OIM Website https://oim.unjspf.org/investments-at-glance/internally-managed-assets/t

3 https://undocs.org/A/67/9 para 88
4OIM Governance Audit https://undocs.org/A/75/215 paragraphs 14, 65
5 https://undocs.org/A/74/7/Add.14 para 16,17 and http://undocs.org/A/72/7/Add.23 paras 43, 44 and 45 

6 OIM Governance Audit https://undocs.org/A/75/215 Recommendation 7 – page 24 

7 https://untalent.org/jobs/fixed-income-transition-strategy-consultant

  

Open letter to members of the UN General Assembly. As the UN pension fund grows to $90 billion it asks the General Assembly to reduce transparency and accountability, 29 November 2021

 

Dear Member of the General Assembly,

 

The UN pension fund is now worth $90 billion, a huge responsibility to manage and an important liability for UN Member States in case things go wrong. 

 

Overseeing the fund requires transparency, accountability and a strong legal framework. The General Assembly members and staff have been clamouring for this for several years. But a new so-called ethics policy and other proposals from the UN pension board that are under consideration by the General Assembly appear to be aimed at eroding those critical principles.

 

Designed in part to quash dissenting voices, the new ethics policy threatens to expel board members who raise concerns with General Assembly members or even speak with them. This is despite the board being a subsidiary body of the GA. The policies also block staff involved in pension administration from running for election to the board, thus depriving fund governance of vital institutional knowledge. 

 

Staff unions report that participant representatives (those who are elected by staff) have been instructed by the Secretary-General not even to report on their activities. 

 

These are the same UN participants who have worked hard in the past to highlight concerns about how the fund is managed, as all board members should, and who have seen their concerns consistently backed up by UN internal audits (the Office of Internal Oversight Services) and in many cases, by the General Assembly itself.

 

This is why elements of the fund’s management have been working hand-in-hand with certain old-timer pension board members to silence dissent and impose incrementally onerous confidentiality requirements on board members, the proposed ethics policy being the latest example. 

 

And this is not the first time. Just last year, UN participant representatives were hauled on the carpet by Martha Helena Lopez, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources,  for communicating their concerns to members of the General Assembly. https://www.passblue.com/2020/12/23/the-un-pension-funds-latest-flareups-and-hazards-to-whistleblowers

 

The UN Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) has twice had to block the strenuous efforts of this coalition to block individual participant representatives from taking their seats on the board. For this reason, the General Assembly has now been asked to remove the board’s activities from oversight by UNAT, leaving the fund with no legal regulation of its activities, something unknown for a modern, well-managed pension fund. 

And during all this time, the fund’s investments underperformed its comparators, not surprising given last year’s investments governance audit (A/75/215, 21 July 2020) that found serious management failures. The more recent human resources audit of the Office of Investment Management (OIM) (2021/038 dated 24 August 2021) raises continued concerns. This only increases worries by staff concerning resolution 75/246, by which the General Assembly authorized the Secretary-General to conduct margin trading on a trial basis for two years but requested more detailed proposals on the use of derivative instruments, engagement in margin trading, and participation in securities lending, as well as compliance measures. 

Other issues that could impact over time on fund performance include significant budget growth and apparent non-existent efforts to control costs.

  

Meanwhile there seems to be little progress on achieving transparency on the fund’s application of environmental, social and governance standards, including in light of recent media reports on the ubiquity of “greenwashing” and the limitations of ESG analysis. https://www.fastcompany.com/90698724/esg-investing-has-a-sustainability-blind-spot-supply-chains?fbclid=IwAR2lTgMeDwAuUwwkCTHj2ddxqVvXrlGtXfq9kyWZjcorDxOthvVq7lNgyMk  .

  

The elephant in the room this year will be the fund’s governance. 

 

Last year’s governance report, requested by the GA, and conducted  by an independent consulting company (Mosaic) cited variances (deficiencies) on every significant governance aspect between the UN pension fund and comparable funds. Notably, the report stated that board members were unclear about the meaning of their fiduciary responsibilities. 

 

A concern of the GA in requesting a governance review, relates to adjusting the board’s composition to make it more representative of its members (the UN makes up two-thirds of participants and therefore financial participation and liability but only has one-third of board votes); holding more frequent meetings; and reducing the number of people in the meeting room (last counted at 93).

 

Based on the GA’s request, the board agreed to restrict physical participation in the board to 33 members (of which only 12 are UN), and 4 members of FAFICS (the Federation of Associations of Former International Civil Servants), on the premise that reducing physical presence in the room allows more focused decision-making. All alternate board members except those of the GA would join virtually.

 

However, it did not address the GA’s request to rebalance the composition so as to reflect financial participation in the fund.

 

The removal of alternates has now exacerbated the imbalance as the specialized agencies did not agree that their 18 bonus representatives, who are in addition to their 22 members, would not participate physically but join virtually. This means that at the next board meeting there will be 15 people in the room for the UN versus 40 for the specialized agencies, which brings the UN share to 27 percent. This further exacerbates inequalities and makes it even harder for the fund’s main member organization, the UN, to maintain control of the fund’s activities and liabilities, or bring spending and other issues under control. The fact that the representatives are not voting does not matter as decisions are reached by consensus.

 

Hopefully the General Assembly will decide on the following this session:

·      That the 18 specialized agency non-voting representatives be required to join virtually so as to re-establish some balance in the meeting room.

·      That the ethics policy be revised to remove section 8, which prohibits contact with Member States, and to remove section 24 (e) which allows the board to expel its own members.

·      That Article 48 on UNAT and Article 6 on who can run for election to the Board not be modified.

·      To restrain budget growth.

 

 

The  $90.3 billion UN pension fund needs to be more transparent and accountable. However, its onerous confidentiality and ethics policy and its move to prohibit staff with pension administration experience from running for election to the board, both aimed at preventing board members raising concerns early on with GA members, added to severe imbalances in board composition, all hold significant risks to effective oversight and accountability. This is something the General Assembly, which would ultimately have to bail out the pension fund, simply cannot afford.

 

Sincerely,

 

Loraine Rickard-Martin

UNJSPF beneficiary

Admin: http://unpension.blogspot.com

 

Does the UN Pension Fund Really Need to Invest in Financial Derivatives? Passblue: July 19, 2021 by Lowell Flanders

Excerpt:

"Why is the fund considering switching to these risky investments? So far, its members have received no explanation from Guterres as to why he is endorsing derivatives..."

"In all, the Great Recession led to a loss of more than $2 trillion in global economic growth, or a drop of nearly 4 percent, between the pre-recession peak in the second quarter of 2008 and the low hit in the first quarter of 2009, according to Moody’s Analytics.

Yet derivatives and other alternative financial instruments may soon be coming to the United Nations pension fund. Secretary-General António Guterres, in his December 2020 report to the 75th session of the General Assembly, endorsed a series of measures that would significantly change the risk profile of the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund. Indeed, Guterres indicated that the UN Office of Investment Management “may use exchange-traded futures, swaps and foreign exchange forwards for the purposes of increasing the efficiency and lowering the transaction cost of implementing various investment strategies, as well as for risk management and hedging purposes.” All these instruments are considered derivatives.

In his report, he also asked the Assembly for authority “to engage in borrowing for the limited purpose of performing such transactions and to the extent that such borrowing is required as an adjunct to the securities and instruments otherwise traded or used by the Fund.” Guterres said that “any exposure of the Fund resulting from such borrowing would be adequately covered and collateralized by the assets of the Fund.” Thus, any losses caused by such borrowing would be charged to the fund’s assets held as collateral for the loans, meaning a direct financial loss to the participants and beneficiaries of the fund....

Why is the fund considering switching to these risky investments? So far, its members have received no explanation from Guterres as to why he is endorsing derivatives. In his report, he provided a boiler-plate message about the aim “to expand the range of instruments available to the Fund to more effectively manage its investments . . . over the medium term.” But there is no explanation for the increased risk that participants and beneficiaries are expected to bear."

Read full article here:

https://www.passblue.com/2021/07/19/does-the-un-pension-fund-really-need-to-invest-in-financial-derivatives/

 

If democracy is dead in Antionio Guterres’ UN – then where can it thrive? by Michelle Rockcliffe

By Michelle Rockcliffe, UN Staff Pension Committee Participants Representative.

The events of the last few weeks in decision-making in the UN Staff Pension Committee and the UN Staff Union/NY are proof that democracy is on life support given that it has been the United Nations which has touted and taught its benefits around the world.

What is more concerning is that when staff of the United Nations violate the UN Staff Rules in terms of the UN Charter, and Code of Ethics, which call for integrity, probity, impartiality, ethics and compliance with national laws pertaining to corruption, it appears that these staff may be given some sort of assurance that their jobs would remain safe and that there be no consequences, no disciplinary action, regardless of whether it is an ethical matter or whether fraud by the staff has been investigated, proven and even reported to the General Assembly.

CASE 1 – UNITED NATIONS STAFF PENSION COMMITTEE DECISIONS

The United Nation Staff Pension Committee is a tripartite group made up of elected representatives of the General Assembly (GA), the Secretary-General (SG)-appointed representatives and Participants’ Representatives (UNPRs) elected by the active staff of UN Secretariat, Funds and Programmes.

For example, at its 337th meeting on 27th May 2021 of the United Nation Staff Pension Committee – based on the suggestion of a GA representative - decided by consensus (there were no objections among the committee members themselves), that the UNSPC would support the Participants’ Representatives proposals from 2018 and 2019 and that the UNSPC should present to the 69th Session of the Pension Board the proposal for provisional payments to former participants or survivors who had not received their entitlement in 3 months after the due date.

To the dismay of the UN Participants’ Representatives when the delayed draft proposal was received from the Chair, an SG representative on 17 June, 3 working days before a deadline, instead of a “proposal to pay”, the proposal had been changed to a “feasibility study”. It should be noted that this was the third distinct time in 4 years that GA and SG representatives had reneged on the decision and allowed the Pension Administration to talk them out of payments due by saying it was “too much work”.

The final paper reneging on the decision was posted to the portal of the Pension Board on 29th June showing in effect that there was no consensus.

There is even concern among UNPRs that even when minutes are received for review sometimes months later, that decisions have been changed from time to time, especially when there has been disagreement about taking away disability benefits, from disabled orphans, or retirees who by definition of Article 33 remain disabled.

These acts are being committed at the highest levels of the organization – with impunity - and are the opposite of the fiduciary duty that is owed to beneficiaries of the UNJSPF.

CASE 2 – the UNITED NATION STAFF UNION in NEW YORK

Twice in the last two councils, 45th and 46th, we have seen blatant actions of individuals such as fraud in the case of the 2nd Vice President of the 45th Council and what appears to be ongoing collusion and possible fraud among the UNSU Executive Board, Chair, Polling Officers and Arbitration committee to overturn a vote, gerrymandering to increase by 1200 the number of votes by DSS, election rigging by holding unlawful meetings to change term limits during the election process.

It would appear that several officials in Mr. Guterres’ administration are playing a facilitating part in these matters.

It is still fresh in the minds of staff the standoff caused when the 2013 to 2017 Ban-Ki-Moon’s administration refused to provide the lists of staff members so that the UNSU could hold elections. This was “cleaned-up” just in time for Guterres’ first appointment. But now it seems as though his administration too sees the benefit of union-busting – right at a time with the President of the host country has given Unions back their rightful place in negotiation with respect to the welfare and the conditions of service of workers

This is mind-boggling, and even though these events seem to be a reflection of the world around us, isn’t the United Nations supposed to lead by example in these areas? What is Mr. Guterres and his administration going to do about this reputational and unethical mess?

UN Staff Pension Committee elections begin today! Vote for Ian, Mary, Ibrahima, Abolade, Egor, and Solomon! 24 June 2021

Elections begin today. Active UN staff: Vote for the representatives to the UN Staff Pension Committee with the experience, commitment, integrity -- and proven track record -- to fight for ALL our interests. Vote for Ian, Mary, Ibrahima, Abolade, Egor, and Solomon!

UN Staff Pension Committee elections: Democracy on the ropes, 21 June 2021.

(Plus read what's behind the emergency staff union meeting called for tomorrow, 22 June. More manipulation.) 

 Elections currently underway for UN participant representatives to the UN Staff Pension Committee are turning out to be a toxic stew of interference by the UN administration/Pension Board, discrimination against some candidates, manipulative behavior by a candidate, and combined forces that appear determined to disregard transparency and democracy. 

 Indeed, democratic principles and values have been under assault on a global scale during Covid-19, and now elements in the UN appear to be jumping on board this dangerous trend. 

Interference 

 In a bold move to interfere in the elections, the UN administration is funding the elections and tried and failed to block Pension Fund staff from running. Discrimination The polling officers thwarted this attempt to rig the elections by deciding to respect Fund rules instead, but the residue remains. 

They haven’t lifted the prohibition in their rules of campaigning against candidates who are Fund staff using Fund facilities or computers, while other candidates are allowed to use official facilities and computers. Membership in the Fund is mandatory for all staff members. 

Running for election to the Pension Board is an official activity; therefore, no candidate can legally be denied the use of official facilities or computers for campaign purposes. 

 And, there is no such restriction on other candidates' use of official facilities, computers, mailing lists or broadcasts for campaigning purposes, which makes this rule discriminatory. 

Manipulation 

 Then there’s the outgoing president of the UN Staff Union New York. She pushed just before the end of her term to move the New York union from the CCISUA staff union federation to UNISERV, where in a quid pro quo, she was immediately appointed vice-president of the federation. 

She also received UNISERV’s unconditional support for her candidacy to the UN Staff Pension Committee, despite having no pension experience. Every tenet of democracy appears to have been jettisoned in this gambit to move the New York union to UNISERV. 

Reportedly, when three separate votes failed to achieve a two-thirds majority, the Staff Council chair decided, contrary to the statutes, to overturn the decision and count abstentions as votes in favor. In what appears to be the latest ruse, an Emergency Staff Union New York was just called for tomorrow, 22 June, aimed at changing union statutes to allow current officers whose terms have expired, including the president, to run in upcoming elections! 

 *See response below to the call for an Emergency Staff Union meeting from Yogesh Sakhardande, candidate for leadership of the 47th Staff Council. 

Non-transparency 

 In a shameful display of non-transparency and undemocratic tactics, the administrator of a Facebook group called UN Pictures, also the UNISERV president, has posted a photo of the slate of candidates that includes the new UNISERV VP as the group’s photo, while refusing to allow campaign posts by other candidates. 

 The UN polling officers have cried foul about this seeming endorsement of a slate on behalf of one of the UN unions, instead of clarifying that it’s the personal preference of the group administrator. They have asked, to no avail, that social media groups allow all candidates to post on their sites. Democracy under attack 

 Whither democracy in the UN, the international organization that touts democracy around the world?

 In the simplest terms “democracy” means rule by the people, the ability of people to have a say in decisions and hold decision-makers to account.

 According to the Democracy Index 2020, “70 per cent of countries reported a drop in their democracy score in 2020 compared to 2019. Paramount among democratic principles and values that came under attack during Covid 19 were civil liberties, freedom of expression, accountability, and women’s equality. 

 Despite doing more than any other international organization to promote democracy around the world, the UN itself is far from being a bastion of democracy. 

 Consider the undemocratic and unrepresentative Security Council; or the closed-door white smoke process by which the UN Secretary-General, the ninth man in the UN’s 75 year history, recently re-elected to a second term; or the British colonial civil service that was the model for the UN Secretariat and its rigid staff hierarchy. 

 Now the UN appears to be getting on board with the global assault on democracy. 

Undemocratic Pension Board 

 Now, consider the undemocratic Pension Board with its imbalance of seats and voting rights, and its sustained attempts to resist reforms while intimidating and muzzling whistleblowers among the current UN participant representatives. 

Collusion 

 Finally, consider the UNSU NY president supporting the UN administration/Pension Board’s efforts by denying the UN participant representatives access to the Staff Union broadcast system to keep their constituents informed of pension activities, and then jockeying to unseat them in the upcoming elections. 

 Protect our Fund by voting for representatives who’ll fight for all our interests 

The UN Pension Fund as a defined benefit system is a dying breed. It cannot be taken for granted. Ignorance, self-interest, raw ambition and autocracy are active threats to our Fund. 

 These elections are crucial. Active UN staff, who are eligible to vote in this election must recognize the real risks of losing the gains of recent years in transparency, integrity, and efficiency and vote for those who are experienced, committed and with a proven track record of fighting for all our interests! 

 VOTE FOR IAN, MARY, IBRAHIMA, ABOLADE, EGOR, AND SOLOMON! 

 *"MORE SHAMELESS ATTEMPTS BY UNION LEADERSHIP TO RIG NY UNSU ELECTIONS BY CHANGING TERM LIMITS MIDSTREAM 

 Dear Colleague, 

 Vote NO. This is not a resolution adopted by the Council but by individuals attempting to retain power. By now you must have read a Staff Union Broadcast calling you to an Emergency General Meeting tomorrow 22nd June 2021. 

Staff Representatives have been hearing from colleagues and as one long-serving staff member wrote “This is the most outrageous case of election rigging I have ever seen.” 

Rigging of elections is a crime in any democracy, it violates UN Staff Rules and our UNSU Statutes and Regulations, both of which espouse democratic principles. Indeed it appears that current leadership is attempting to destroy our Union on its way out of office, by delaying elections and the start of the 47th Council. 

This is currently disenfranchising you, hundreds if not thousands of staff in unrepresented Units whose newly elected representatives cannot be lawfully seated at the Council until the election is complete. Not only is this move clearly unethical but additionally the UNSU regulations appear to have been violated. 

 Nowhere in the world are the rules of an election changed in the middle of the election. i. Once the Polling Officers announce the election – the rules cannot be changed. ii. Any new rules cannot be retroactive or “immediate” because in this case immediate is in the middle of an election for which rules were already distributed and most of representatives already chosen. 

This shameful act violates Article 5.11 of the Regulations which states that 

 i. The Emergency General Meeting must be in the “interests of the Union” and that means the staff members and not to further the interests of individuals - in this case the First and Second Vice Presidents of the Union and possibly the President herself. 

 ii. We have not received any proof that 300 members of the Union have requested this emergency meeting.

 iii. There was no decision for this Emergency Meeting by the Council

 iv. The fact that the Chairperson is “out of the office” is also interesting since he is apparently convening this meeting. The position paper put forward by Union President while drawing attention to the inadequacies of our Statutes failed to inform you of the following. 

 From 2017 to 2019 the current First Vice President led a group of Staff Representatives in an effort to draft amendments to the Statutes and regulations spending hundreds of hours on this task.

 At the beginning of the 46th Council Staff Representatives met to “finalize” the document, however due to the restrictions that would be placed on the current leadership the revised statutes were never brought to the staff-at-large.  

This amendment could have been made during the last two years. Over the last several months the leadership of the UNSU/NY has put the Council and this Union through the mill and left the staff in a precarious position – all in the interest of retaining power. 

April – unlawfully changing a vote so as to change affiliation of the Union from CCISUA to join UNISERV - [in Arbitration] Gerrymandering the Apportionment – A referendum was later held but without informing staff about the details Unlawfully attempting to change the information session last week to a General Meeting – it appears this was the reason. 

 Protect yourself, decry this shameful and corrupt act and save our Union from being destroyed in order for this leadership to stay in power. Rigging of elections is a crime in any jurisdiction and these actions will be pursued to the fullest extent. 

 Signed, 

Yogesh Sakhardande Candidate for Leadership of the 47th Council"

UN Staff Pension Committee: Elect knowledge, experience and integrity: vote for Ian, Mary, Ibrahima, Abolade, Egor and Solomon! 16 June 2021

  

Elections for UN Participant Representatives to the Pension Board will take place in June according to a four-year election cycle. As with everything related to the UN Pension Fund, it’s heavily politicized.

 

These are crucial elections. The UN Participant Representatives (four members and two alternates; one retired some time ago) have done their work of representing 85,000 UN staff in the common system (active staff) while advocating for the interests of UN retirees who have been failed by our purported and self-interested representatives, FAFICS (the Federation of Associations of Former International Civil Servants).

 

Three current candidates for election, Ian Richards (UN Geneva), Ibrahima  Faye (UNJSPF), and Mary Abu-Rakabeh (UNICEF) are incumbent UN Participant Representatives running for re-election. 

All Fund members -- active UN staff and retirees --owe a debt of gratitude to the UN Participant Representatives and to Aissatou Ndiaye and Michelle Rockcliffe who are not running for re-election. 

For the past  four years, this group of UN Participant Representatives has fought courageously and effectively against strong and determined opposition from other board members, to bring transparency, integrity and improved management to both sides of our Fund – benefits and investments.  

 

https://www.passblue.com/2020/12/23/the-un-pension-funds-latest-flareups-and-hazards-to-whistleblowers/

Not surprisingly, elements of the Fund management and Board leadership who labored unsuccessfully to deny two of them seats on the Board after the last election, and have consistently worked to intimidate and muzzle them, are working behind the scenes to rig the elections, including by trying to deny eligibility to Fund staff, a move that was thwarted by a recent decision of the polling officers..

 

http://unpension.blogspot.com/2021/06/un-pension-fund-polling-officers.html.

 

It’s important that active staff, in voting for their representatives on the UN Staff Pension Committee, keep their sights on the politics motivating the flurry of candidates, including the current UN Staff Union president, pushing to place themselves ahead of the slate that includes these experienced, trustworthy and committed incumbents.

 

There’s a lot at stake, as evidenced by a glaring break with tradition,  a sign of its determination to influence the election for its own self-interest, in which the UN administration is reportedly paying for the election, which has normally been funded by the UN Staff Unions.

 

Members of the New York Staff Union leadership, in solidarity with UN management, have also labored long and hard to oppose the current UN Participant Representatives, including  last year denying them  access to the Staff Union Broadcast system to report to their constituents on Fund activities.

 

Now a slate of incumbents including the outgoing president of the New York Staff Union, who recently led a successful effort to remove the New York Staff Union from the umbrella of CCISUA to UNISERV, is being touted as the pension champion of field staff, in a brazen move to pit one group of staff against another and in a bid to wield power in an area where she has zero experience.

 

There’s much at stake in this election to a body that has oversight of the life savings of the some  212,000 members of the fund, both active staff and retirees. The gains in transparency and efficiency in the operations of our Fund, largely due to the efforts to the UN Participant Representatives, serial audits by the UN internal oversight office (OIOS), and resulting General Assembly reforms, must be built on, solidified and increased, not reversed!

It’s critical that Fund members who are eligible to vote, active UN staff, not confuse raw ambition and self-interest with knowledge,  integrity, and experience. 

Vote for the slate of Ian, Ian, Mary, Ibrahima, Abolade, Egor and Solomon. They’ll work for ALL our interests!

 

UN Pension Fund elections: Vote for this slate!Ian, Mary, Ibrahima, Abolade, Egor, and Solomon and protect our defined benefit pensions, 15 June 2021

 I fully and strongly support and am reposting here Lowell Flanders' statement in FCUNS Facebook group regarding the people we need on the UN Staff Pension Committee:

"VOTE FOR THIS SLATE!

I don't get to vote in this election because I am a retiree and not a serving staff member, but I would urge every staff member who can vote to vote for this slate of candidates, because they have the experience and knowledge to protect the Pension Fund for both serving staff and retirees. Ian, Ibrahima, and Mary, who are current Participant Reps on the Pension Board have actively worked to defend our interests as retirees, even though that is not their specific remit. We retirees are supposed to be represented by FAFICS, but if you have any idea what the position of FAFICS is on any given issue, such as the Mosaic Report or financial derivatives, please let us all know, because it is a well kept secret. We need representatives on the Pension Board who are not afraid to stand up to the big wigs and say what has to be said. You can't send people to the Pension Board who have no prior experience with pension issues - they'll be eaten alive.Vote for the candidates who will protect your interests!" -- Lowell Flanders

Regional Pension Sessions: Global Staff Association with UN Participant Representatives to the UN Pension Committee, 15 TO 22 June 2021

 PENSION SESSIONS

GLOBAL STAFF ASSOCIATION WITH UN PARTICIPANT REPRESENTATIVES TO THE UN PENSION COMMITTEE

15 to 22 June 2021

*Note: tomorrow's event, Tuesday, 15 June, is also for staff in New York.

"Dear Colleagues, 

The Global Staff Association, in collaboration with the UN Participants’ Representatives to the UN Pension Committee, is pleased to invite you to the planned Pension Sessions, focusing on entitlements and benefits. This is your opportunity to get to know more, ask your questions and get the answers you want.

Below is the schedule planned per region, to give the opportunity to address issues and interact with your representatives. Each session will be facilitated by the Regional Staff Association Chairperson and is open to all UN colleagues. Please feel free to circulate and share the link with colleagues in all UN agencies. 

REGION

DATE

Time (NY Time EST)

Link to join meeting

FLORENCE, GENEVA, COPENHAGEN, BUDAPEST

15 June

8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

Please click this URL to join. https://unicef.zoom.us/j/99077617203

Passcode: 981499

ECARO & MENA

16 June

8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

Please click this URL to join. https://unicef.zoom.us/j/95470331364

Passcode: 673583

EAPRO & ROSA

17 June

05:30 a.m. – 07:30 a.m.

Please click this URL to join the meeting https://unicef.zoom.us/j/93957008756

Passcode: 808530

New York & LACRO 

18 June

8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

Please click this URL to join. https://unicef.zoom.us/j/96889544466

Passcode: 542646

ESARO

21 June

8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

Please click this URL to join. https://unicef.zoom.us/j/98478236495

Passcode: 094070

WCARO

22 June

8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

Please click this URL to join. https://unicef.zoom.us/j/99649945708

Passcode: 491430

Looking forward to interacting with you and answering your queries. 

Best regards,

Noma Owens-Ibie

Chairperson, Global Staff Association"