Brand new AFICS/NY pension committee members (six were accepted and one was rejected); the brand new member of the FAFICS* delegation to the Pension Board; the brand new FAFICS “expertise pool”; Fund auditors under duress; and “private debt”?
Brand new members of the AFICS/NY Pension Committee
Among six new members, the AFICS/NY pension committee just admitted are (note: refresh your memory by clicking the link below each name):
Sergio Arvizu, former UNJSPF CEO
Janice Dunn Lee, former UNJSPF Acting CEO
https://unpension.blogspot.com/2019/01/un-pension-fund-rules-are-guidelines.html
Kingston Rhodes, former chair of the International Civil Service Commission
https://www.passblue.com/2019/01/06/another-un-harassment-case-quietly-disappears/
Rejected because she “joins unions”
The pension committee rejected Michelle Rockcliffe because, they said, she “joins unions” which represents a “conflict of interest”!
Michelle, as many of us know, is a former staff representative to the Pension Fund, former UN participant representative to the Pension Board, currently CCISUA adviser on pension, and currently a candidate for the AFICS/NY Governing Board, and has worked tirelessly for UN staff and retiree interests, particularly pension rights.
We may not all know that Michelle recently won a UNAT judgment concerning actions by fund managers related to her whistleblower activities.
The managers include two of the brand new AFICS/NY pension committee members recently i.e, Arvizu and Dunn Lee. The judgement included an order to pay Michelle the maximum, two years net salary.
https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/unat/judgments/2022-UNAT-1207.pdf
We, the fund members and owners, are paying for their mismanagement while they endeavor to return to making decisions about our pensions.
The newest member of the FAFICS delegation to the Pension Board
Suzanne Bishopric, former Director of Investments, UNJSPF, who held a string of private investment jobs after her UN retirement and is now listed on LinkedIn as “Managing Partner at Global Sovereign Advisors” chairs the AFICS/NY pension committee.
https://www.cfany.org/speaker-organizer/suzanne-bishopric/
Bishopric has already found her way on to the FAFICS delegation to the pension board.
http://www.fafics.org/FAFICS_Federation_Officers_E.htm
Conduit to the pension board
The AFICS/NY pension committee is being nurtured as a conduit to the FAFICS standing pension committee (for which no terms of reference exist) but according to the FAFICS website is chaired by Gerhard Schramek, with vice-chair/rapporteur Warren Sach, and onward to the Pension Board..
How are representatives to the Pension Board chosen?
According to the FAFICS rules of procedure, the members of the FAFICS representatives to the pension board shall consist of the FAFICS president, the chair of the FAFICS standing committee.
And then the president shall consult with the bureau to choose the other representatives and alternatives from the “expertise pool”.
What’s the “expertise pool”?
Just approved on 9 February 2022, the brand new FAFICS rules of procedure now include an “expertise pool” (article 4)
http://www.fafics.org/FAFICS-Rules%20of%20Procedure%20Final-2022.pdf
The pool is established by the Council, from names that the membership associations are invited to submit, to serve as members of working groups and standing committees “with a view to rotation, succession, and capacity-building.”
Conflicts of interest
Consider where the various conduits and culture of nepotism might lead the brand new members of the pension committee. Consider a board additionally burdened by the potential conflicts of interest surrounding the current new member of the FAFICS delegation to the board, Bishopric, and any of the chosen three who might be contemplating following in her footsteps.
Increasing obstacles to holding FAFICS accountable
It's not new that holding FAFICS accountable has always been a challenge. These new developments demonstrate that the obstacles to doing so may only be increasing.
http://unpension.blogspot.com/2019/12/un-pension-fund-challenge-of-holding.html
Turning to auditors under duress and “private debt”.
Auditors under duress
What could be behind reports of UN auditors under duress regarding the 2020 investment audit of the fund (A/75/215)?
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N20/190/99/PDF/N2019099.pdf?OpenElement
Could it have anything to do with a conflict of interest whereby "Entity A" did pro bono work for the Fund (para. 67)
The auditors raised questions about the independence and objectivity of the benchmark optimization exercise, given that the fund received free services from Entity A.
Entity A, an external investment manager, had carried out the benchmark study, free of charge, without a contractual agreement, while having submitted a bid for a UN procurement exercise, for which it was later selected.
Is it possible that Entity A figures into the outsourcing plan that Guterres recently put on hold and there’s whitewashing of the 2020 audit underway?
Private debt
Finally, do Fund members have any idea of the nature of “private debt” as described in the investment audit (A/75/215, page 74)?
The auditors note that that while the investment policy statement disclosed the new strategic asset allocation, allocations for “sub-asset classes”, 2 per cent for infrastructure and private debt, and 1 per cent for hedge funds and timberland” were unspecified.
The auditors said that given that such investments are controversial and tend to lack transparency, “It is important that stakeholders be fully aware of the target allocations for such sub-asset classes”.
An internet definition of “private debt” is “debt from private companies acquired by another source.”
Which private debt has the Fund acquired and why?
These are all important questions for Fund stakeholders to consider, and yet more evidence that non-transparency is only growing and so too must our vigilance if our Fund is to remain sustainable.
*FAFICS -- Federation of Associations of Former Internatonal Civil Servants
http://www.fafics.org
