UN retirees: Step Up on Pension Issues! 30 March 2019

INFORMATION IS POWER: WHY MORE UN RETIREES NEED TO BE INFORMED ABOUT PENSION ISSUES AND WHY EACH OF US NEEDS TO DO OUR PART (including engaging our local retiree associations and reaching out to other retirees)

This post is in response to some of the comments on the discussion thread on my post of the summary of the recent UN Pension Briefing by UN Participant Representatives to the Pension Board, who represent active UN staff and also advocate for the interests of UN retirees. It's an important topic and one that's worth considering. Specifically, for the sake of the continued health of our Fund, we need the reforms in General Assembly resolution A/73/274 to be implemented.  Pushback is intense from the Pension Board, which includes some key members of the UN Administration, the Fund Secretariat management, and FAFICS, the UN retiree representative body, on many of the major reforms contained in the resolution, including on  direct election by retirees of our Pension Board representatives, and necessary adjustments to the composition of the Board. 

Why do many UN retirees remain uninformed about issues concerning our Fund? OIOS governance audit A/73/341 states in para. 22 that "[FAFICS represents only 18,500 beneficiaries (approximately 25 per cent) of a total beneficiary population of 74,788 as at 31 December 2016". (Note that of the 74,788 beneficiary population, about 54,000 are retirees and some 20,000 are their dependents). The president of FAFICS, Marco Breschi, is on record as stating in this connection, "that In my mind [retiree non-members of FAFICS] are simply people who feel adequately protected by our action and don't feel the need to go the extra step to register with their local AFICS /FAFICS"!! (His response to Lowell Flanders dated 19 October 2019). It's certainly a peculiar perspective, and one that's emblematic of FAFICS' approach to the issue of political representation!

If we consider retirees only and not their dependents, the approx. one-third (18,500) of UN retirees world-wide who are members of FAFICS, are minimally, if at all, more informed than the almost two-thirds (approx. 36,000 plus) of retirees who are not FAFICS members. FAFICS has worked strenuously to keep vital information from its members, including from the leadership of its 60 plus associations around the world. With a very few exceptions (there are one or two) there’s no indication that the leadership of most of these associations are abreast of the issues, or that they’re making any effort to keep their members informed.

Pension information session - summary, 28 March 2019

                                                                                                                     Photo by Lowell Flanders

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.)

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.

Pension information session, Tuesday, 26 March, UNHQ New York, mark your calendar

DIRECT WEBCAST LINK FOR TOMORROW'S PENSION INFORMATION SESSION:  http://webtv.un.org/watch/cr8-en/5707157274001

MESSAGE FROM THE UN PARTICIPANT REPRESENTATIVES TO THE PENSION BOARD

PENSION INFORMATION SESSION
Tuesday, 26 March 2019
1.15 to 2.30 pm
Conference Room 8, UNHQ New York

"Dear Colleagues,
Following questions and concerns from many of you, we are organizing a pension fund information session on Tuesday, 26 March 2019 in Conference Room 8 from 1:15 pm to 2:30 pm. The session is open to all staff and retirees.

During the session we will address the following questions:
What changes to our pension fund has the General Assembly asked for and why?
What are we doing to ensure your fund is well governed?

Panel
Michelle Rockcliffe, UN Staff Pension Committee member
Ian Richards, UN Staff Pension Committee member
Moderator: Aitor Arauz Chapman,

We look forward to seeing you next Tuesday."

"Our Work to Promote Integrity at the Pension Fund and Make Our Pensions Safer", 20 February 2019

MESSAGE FROM THE UN PARTICIPANT REPRESENTATIVES TO THE PENSION BOARD (In English and French)

Quote: "The General Assembly agreed a landmark resolution .....but the Board is pushing back....We wrote to the Secretary-General) outlining the importance of the resolution and asking for his support in persuading his six representatives on the Board to uphold it...."

Note: Pay careful attention to the UN Participant Representatives' letter to the Secretary-General dated 24 January 2019, linked in their message.

"From: BROADCAST United Nations
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 4:55:45 PM

Subject: Message from your participant representatives: How we are promoting integrity at the Pension Fund and making our pensions safer

|Promouvoir l’intégrité de la Caisse des Pensions et assurer la sécurité de nos pensions

Our work to promote integrity at the Pension Fund and make our pensions safer

Dear UN Colleagues,

We would like to update you on big changes at the Pension Fund, and what we are doing as your representatives on the UN Pension Board (which plays a vital role in governing your Fund) and Staff Pension Committee, to make your pensions safer and promote integrity in how the Fund is governed.

The General Assembly agreed a landmark resolution...

We are pleased that last December the General Assembly agreed a landmark resolution https://bit.ly/2V3WHZJ to fix problems at the Fund. (More on the resolution is in the box at the end of our message.)

In summary it allows a fairer representation for UN staff and retirees around the world on the Pension Board (as they have a strong interest in safeguarding the Fund), encourages decisions that need to be taken in between Board sessions to be done legally through the mechanism of the Standing Committee (reversing current practice), requests measures to prevent conflicts of interest between the Board, management and the FAFICS retiree federation, calls for integrity at the Fund (which is indicative) and requires better management of costs.

UN Pension Fund: How many rules can a Board break with total impunity? 12 January 2019

Now that General Assembly resolution A/73/274 (linked below) calls for sweeping reforms of UN Pension Fund governance, and for a Pension Board working group to “adhere to the tripartite structure of the Board, to consider the issues of participation, rotation and equitable representation on the Board” (all related to OIOS findings and recommendations rejected by the Board),  Board Chair, John Levins -- "the Chair's duties are over until the next Board meeting or intersessional Board meeting" --  is again circumventing Fund Regulations to stack the working group with some of the usual suspects to ensure the desired results of blocking any meaningful improvement in governance intended by the resolution.

The answer to the question of "how many rules can a Board break with total impunity" may have something to do with the fact that "The Chair of the Standing Committee –refuses our requests and shirks her responsibility to request the Secretary to convene  a meeting of the  Standing Committee  to discuss this important GA resolution and the way forward."

Note for information: The Chair of the Standing Committee is the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management.

See full note below from Michelle Rockcliffe and email to Board members from John Levins.

Note dated 10 January 2019 from UN Participant Representative to the Pension Fund Staff Pension Committee, Michelle Rockcliffe

Excerpt: “The Chair’s duties are over until the next Board meeting or intersessional Board meeting – which according to the Rules of Procedure  must be decided upon by the Standing Committee, along with the Terms of reference (TORs) for the group – which is the actual established practice. We have all already experienced the failure that occurs when a group is established without TORs – as happened in the failed selection of the Deputy CEO in 2018.”

Full message:

Title: How many rules can a Board break with total impunity?

UN Pension Fund - the "rules are guidelines" new Acting CEO, 11 January 2019

“Rules are guidelines” – Janice Dunn Lee, Acting CEO, UN Pension Fund

Responding today to Pension Fund staff concerns, including about complicity in paying a disability entitlement to the former CEO that was “not legally authorized” (reportedly approved through the IAEA SPC [Staff Pension Committee] rather than the UN SPC), the new Acting CEO Janice Dunn Lee (former IAEA) states, in effect, that rules are guidelines. And she’ll ensure staff are a good fit for the Fund. Buckle up.

Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 6:36:26 PM
Subject: Meeting between staff representatives and Acting CEO Janice Dunn Lee

Dear Colleagues,

Today we had a courtesy meeting with the new Acting CEO, Janice Dunn Lee, in our capacity as staff representatives for New York and Geneva.

During the meeting, which was of an introductory nature, we covered the following:

· A recent history of the Fund including attempts to remove it from the UN.

· The importance for the Fund secretariat to return to being a rules-based organization that would return it to serenity after the difficulties of the past. Pension benefit administration is essentially a rules-based exercise. To this end we noted that the fact that the former CEO’s disability entitlement was not reviewed by the UNSPC meant unfair pressure would be placed on fund staff as they would be asked to calculate and make payments for a pension that was not legally authorized - in effect becoming complicit in that decision.

· The need to depoliticize the secretariat so that it would not be seen to be taking sides in Board disputes, as this called into question the secretariat’s impartiality, impacted the Board’s respect for the secretariat and had a broader demoralizing effect on staff.

· The need to restore the executive office and its staff in line with the OIOS recommendations and GA resolution. We added that duplicating the executive office was using GTA funding that could be consolidated and used to finance staff working in other areas where there may be priorities.

Ms. Dunn Lee promised to consider our points going forward. She commented that rules acted as guidelines and sometimes needed to be interpreted flexibly. It was also important to ensure that staff are a good fit for the pension fund. She added that she would demand accountability from her staff.

As this was an introductory meeting aimed more at values and vision, it was agreed that quarterly staff-management meetings would be set up in line with ST/SGB/274 (www.undocs.org/st/sgb/274). To this end please write to us about your concerns so that we can bring them to the table.

Kind regards,

Michelle Rockcliffe, Alternate Staff Representative for New York

Ian Richards, Staff Representative for Geneva

More desperate moves by the UN Pension Board Chair to circumvent Fund Regulations in the appointment of an Acting CEO by the Secretary-General, 24 December 2018

Yesterday, the General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for “unfaltering accountability” of the UN Pension Board, and requiring that (para. 16) that “the Pension Board ensure timely and proper succession planning for the positions of Chief Executive Officer and Deputy Chief Executive Officer to allow adequate time for their competitive selection based on pre-established procedures that ensures integrity and fairness.”

Instead, the Board Chair has been working assiduously to circumvent Fund Regulations in requesting the Secretary-General to appoint an Acting CEO about whom questions have been raised about competence and experience in Fund functions. Read the details in an earlier article here:

http://unpension.blogspot.com/2018/12/tripping-over-its-own-feet-un-pension.html

It seems that his illegal email poll of Board members (the subject of a formal appeal to the Standing Committee by a UN Participant Representative, a protest by the UN Participant Representatives, and questions from a Specialized Agency) is not the Chair’s only devious action.

In this email to Specialized Agencies (below) the Board Chair justifies his rush to push through the appointment of the Acting CEO, by illegal means as he apparently sees fit, on the basis that otherwise "no pensions can be certified for payment". The bizarre implication is that our 70 year-old Fund lacks the institutional capacity to appoint an Officer-in-Charge, as happens in every UN office to carry out such essential functions until an appointment can be made based on, as the Assembly requires, "pre-established procedures that ensures integrity and fairness."

The Chair also refers to to a three-page letter to the Secretary-General that he’s prepared for signature by Board Members in all categories, except the UN Participant Representatives “as it is clear what their view will be.”