Saturday, 1 December 2007
http://letterstogabriella.blogspot.com/
Bitter and twisted old men
The Laurel and Hardy of the Development world, messrs. Kemal Dervis and Ad Melkert has sent a very clear message as to exactly what they think of Office of the Under Secretary for Management at the United Nations in its efforts to improve internal oversight and transparency.
On 19 December 2005 when the Secretary-General issued the bulletin “Protection against retaliation for reporting misconduct and for cooperating with duly authorized audits or investigations” (SGB/2005/21), it seemed as if the United Nations was finally on track in applying common sense best practices in whistleblower protection.
However, since that time, UNDP senior management has made it apparent that they believe quite clearly that they can opt out of the whistleblower protection policy and reject Ethics Office findings, thus causing serious concerns regarding the effective implementation of the policy.
In a letter to the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) expressed these concerns:“The “UN Delivering as One” initiative cannot be achieved with each unit applying a different set of ethical standards, nor can “One UN” be implemented at the country level if led by a UNDP that insists on its own institutional autonomy in the face of General Assembly resolutions.”Instead of Ban Ki-moon using his authority to point out to the UNDP management that the bulletin (SGB/2005/21) was issued in accordance with a General Assembly instruction to apply to the whole of the UN system, he allowed UNDP to come up with its own set of rules.UNDP promptly instructed their feather weight Legal Support Office to come up with an Updated “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With Un Standards Of Conduct” dated 20 September 2007.
GAP responded in some detail to this amateurish piece of nonsense but failed to reiterate clearly enough that above all else it is a document that is functionally illegal.The one issue that is particularly revealing of the prevailing mentality of UNDP’s top management is contained in “Section 2 - Scope of Application” specifically point “2.2 - To Whom The Present Document Does Not Apply.”It goes on to state that “6. The present document does not apply to:” and then excluding all seconded staff members, independent contractors, employees under Service Contracts, interns, volunteers, employees without a UNDP letter of appointment, independent contractors under Special Service Agreements and some locally recruited staff.In other words, excluding exactly the sort of people most likely to raise concerns. Only regular staff can rely on any sort of protection. As a rule regular staff at UNDP only become regular staff once they have amply demonstrated that they are compliant and unlikely to complain.
The report also imposes restrictions on external disclosures, in favour of disclosure directly to the Administrator, thus turning this person into judge, jury, prosecutor, defended and executioner all in one. It also promotes the fallacy that the Director of the Office of Audit and Performance Review (OAPR) would actually and impartially investigate reports of wrongdoing.I have no experience of this office doing any such a thing – ever.
As part of its pious promises the report suggests that:“27. In the event that the staff member fears retribution or retaliation as a consequence of reporting to his or her supervisors, he or she should report the matter to OAPR (by email: hotline@undp.org ; or by telephone: UNDP fraud hotline voicemail system: ((Worldwide)) +l 212 906 5050).30. Except when an allegation is made anonymously, the individual reporting the allegations will receive an acknowledgement from the office to which the allegations were reported.”Therefore I wrote to this office. The least I could hope for was an acknowledgement from the office that they had received my correspondence, as promised:
From: Leon Kukkuk Sent: 26 November 2007 09:02
To: 'hotline@undp.org'
Cc: 'Ellen Gardner'; 'matthew.lee@innercitypress.com'
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Defamatory use of online service: http://www.publishedauthors.net/leonkukkuk/events.html]
Failure by UNDP to adequately address the habit of its staff to lie, threaten and deceive.
Dear Madam/Sir,
Please refer to the message from Stephen Kinloch at the end of this correspondence.I had responded to Stephen Kinloch in substantial detail regarding the issues that he had raised and requested clarification regarding the action he intends taking.
More than a year has now passed since his threat of “severe measures” and he still has neither followed up on this nor provided an explanation for his threats. A brief promise of a much belated OIOS investigation also failed to produce the slightest hint of a possible solution.
This is an issue that remains relevant for the following reasons:
- · The actions taken against me by UNDP staff has been devastating and the consequences are ongoing to the present day.
- · The same criminals that I had identified as involved in fraud remain employed with UNDP and continue to fail to adhere to the “highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity.”
- · Fraud and corruption within UNDP remain systemic, systematic and co-ordinated.
Even though I believe the making of threats to be grossly inappropriate behaviour by international civil servants, I nevertheless expect them to either follow through on these threats or provide an explanation or apology for having made them.Stephen Kinloch has done neither.UNDP has provided no explanation for this behaviour by one of its managers.
I do not consider the fact that UNDP employs cowards and condone cowardly behaviour as sufficient justification for this attitude.Could I request you to please correct the present state of affairs?
Best Wishes.
Leon Kukkuk
-------- Mensagem Original --------Assunto: Defamatory use of online service: http://www.publishedauthors.net/leonkukkuk/events.html
Remetente: stephen.kinloch-pichat@undp.org
Data: Fri, 24 Novembro 2006 00:03
Para: leonkukkuk@publishedauthors.net
Dear Mr. Kukkuk,
It has just come to my attention that my name, together with that of several colleagues who either work or have worked for the United Nations (UN) and the United Nations Devlopment Programme (UNDP) in Angola or elsewhere, is mentioned in hidden (but searchable and readable) text, together with defamatory terms such as 'fraud' or 'corruption' in your webpage:http://www.publishedauthors.net/leonkukkuk/events.html
As you are probably aware, the use of a computer or online service to defame a person carries with it severe potential liability, including for any related claims, proceedings, damages, injuries, liabilities,losses, costs, and expenses.
Therefore, I would like to kindly request you to immediately and completely delete all personal reference, whether hidden or visible, to my name and that of other colleagues from the above mentioned website, and any other website that you may have published.I have already alerted PublishedAuthors.Net.
In order to avoid further measures, I would appreciate your acknowledging receipt of this email and confirming that you have made taken appropriate corrective action.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Kinloch
Advisor,
Strategic PlanningOffice
of the Resident Coordinator
United Nations - Port-au-Prince
_________________________________
To date no acknowledgement had been received from this office. Makes one wonder what they think of their own rules, or more pertinently, of people who have the audacity to complain.
The Purpose of the “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With Un Standards Of Conduct” has absolutely nothing to do with dispensing justice.It is simply a roundabout way for UNDP management to declare that at UNDP there will be no justice –ever.Management will continue to lie, delay, intimidate and threaten.
If this does not work then, quite simply, the feather weight Legal Support Office will be co-opted to come up with yet another new set of “rules.”At UNDP the management has obviously sat down and done a cost/benefit analysis.
They realised that no matter how embarrassing their stonewalling tactics are, how much it harms their credibility, it is still preferable to allowing the full extent and scope of UNDP dysfunction to become public.
Consider “Section 4 - Prohibition of Retaliation against Outside Parties:”“50. Any retaliatory measures (including threats) against a contractor or its employees, agents or representatives, or any other individual engaged in dealings with UNDP because such person has reported allegations of wrongdoing by a staff member will be considered misconduct that, if established, will lead to administrative and/or disciplinary action.”
Imagine the following, very typical, scenario:
You are a senior manager at UNDP, in charge of some outpost somewhere about which you know absolutely nothing and in whose culture you have no interest whatsoever.
For a number of months you had designed all manner of convoluted and complicated programmes and projects. They all involve a staggering number of UN agencies, NGO’s, businesses and government departments.
Their complexity belies the fact that accounting and audit procedures are either non-existent or at best inadequate.
A labyrinth of duplicate and often contradictory reporting procedures quickly create even more confusion.
None of the senior managers have any clarity with regard to their mandates or responsibilities.
Lies, delays and obfuscation further prevent anybody from asking too many questions.
One or two compliant local staff members with political connections keep nosey local politicians at bay, either through intimidation or by paying them off.
You are convinced that nobody will notice the steady steam of public funds flowing into your bank account in Panama.
Neither will they notice the number of sub-contracts issued to companies and NGO’s that just happen to belong to your wife, family or close friends. Granted things do not always run smoothly.
In 2005 the UNDP administrator, the very sympathetic and supportive Mark Malloch Brown, departed suddenly to go and hold the hand of his friend Kofi Annan, embroiled in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Much is being made about the fact that Mr. Brown is being replaced by a real development professional, Kemal Dervis.Real development priorities may prove somewhat problematic for your own carefully constructed projects, in which you had invested so much effort.
Then, no sooner had Kemal Dervis indicated that at UNDP it is business as usual when the impetuous new Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, promised an independent review of all Programmes and Funds.Fortunately even this potential threat soon passed as the independent review was reduced to only an audit of North Korea before dissipating altogether.Imagine now that out of the blue there appears some UNV or independent contractor asking all manner of pertinent and impertinent questions.
Do you:
- Graciously refrain from taking any retaliatory action against this individual since you are kindly requested to do so by the “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With UN Standards Of Conduct” or
- Retaliate against this individual since the same “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With UN Standards Of Conduct” makes it quite clear that this individual has no protection or recourse under UNDP rules?
Posted by Leon Kukkuk @ http://letterstogabriella.blogspot.com/
1 comment:
It is gratifying to note that UNDP staff has finally decided to crack the edifice of silence and the illusion of legality at the heart of the corruption and lack of accountability within UNDP.
My own struggle with UNDP goes back to the late-1990’s and is still not resolved. For many years there were absolutely no mechanisms – either within the UN or outside of it - to deal with the abuse that UNDP managers hand out in response to complaints. Things have improved somewhat – GAP, IO Watch and others nowadays provide much needed attention to these issues but are still doing far from enough. The Ethics Office is also potentially a positive, but still inadequate step in the right direction.
However, it is the responsibility of the staff at UNDP, as much as it is our collective responsibility, to ensure that International Organisations are held accountable to the highest possible standards. If UNDP does not want to operate according to sensible rules then all of us are fully justified in finding alternative ways to voice our concerns.
The UNDP Watch Blog is an important step in the right direction. In the first few months it did not do much apart from reposting information already within the public domain. Over the last few weeks it has become a lot more hard-hitting, more appropriate and an initiative worth supporting. It seems to concentrate very much on UNDP activities in New York. It also looks as though it may be quite busy in exposing just Head Office scams.
To this end I am setting up two additional sites:
The purpose of these sites are to compliment the work that UNDP Watch is already doing, by providing a wider platform on a wider range of issues as well as the opportunity for more people (staff as well as close observers) to come forward in a manner that is safe from retaliation and will protect their identities if they so require, whilst still being able to get important information out in the open, where it belongs.
http://undpoperationswatch.blogspot.com/ Concentrates on UNDP operational activities, Country Offices, sub-contracts, projects connected to NGO’s and businesses.
http://unmanagementreview.blogspot.com/ Concentrates on manoeuvrings of the various senior managers to cover up their more disreputable activities and those of the organisations that they represent.
The success of these sites will depend on the contribution of as many people as possible. The more people come forward the safer each individual will be from retaliation.
Throughout history it has always been ordinary people that make important changes happen. The dishonest and corrupt have built their empires on the quicksand of their own deceit and lies and can be undermined, quite easily through a co-ordinated effort.
Wars are not won by fighting to rescue one victim at a time or exposing one crook at a time. Wars are won only when generals exploit weaknesses in systems, armies, strategies and philosophies - not in individuals.
Further explanations, their aims and how to contribute are available on the respective sites.
Post a Comment