Showing posts with label Joseph M Torsella. Show all posts

Saturday, June 15, 2013

SCANDAL: UNDP pays its staff 30% more than American market (Amb. Joe Torsella earns less than a UNDP Programme Officer - P5)

U.S. Government Accountability Office fails to obtain access to UN/UNDP's way of calculating staff remuneration.

The nonpartisan watchdog arm of Congress estimates that U.N. salaries, which are theoretically supposed to rise roughly in tandem with U.S. federal civil servants, are as much as 30 percent higher than their U.S. equivalents, depending on the assumptions used to calculate the ratio. That is without a variety of allowances, extra vacation time and other perks that U.N. civil servants enjoy -- not to mention that their salaries, unlike their U.S. counterparts, are tax free.

Read full story here on Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/13/us-tries-but-fails-to-discover-how-un-calculates-its-expensive-salaries/#ixzz2WIOemJ4N

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

U.S. to U.N. diplomats: stop getting drunk during budget talks

un_drinking_problem

Posted By Colum Lynch Monday, March 4, 2013 - 5:51 PM

The U.S. ambassador for management and reform at the United Nations, Joseph Torsella, scolded his U.N. colleagues today for excessive drinking during delicate budget negotiations.

The unusual censure reflected lingering American frustration with its counterparts' conduct in budget negotiations in December, which one U.N.-based diplomat compared to a circus.

"There has always been a good and responsible tradition of a bit of alcohol improving a negotiation, but we're not talking about a delegate having a nip at the bar," said the diplomat who recalled one G-77 diplomat fell sick from too much alcohol...

Remarks by Ambassador Joseph M. Torsella, -- On Agenda Item 130: Standards of Accommodation for Air Travel

Click here for this in full @ USUN: http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/205608.htm

Ambassador Joseph M Torsella
U.S. Representative for UN Management and Reform

New York, NY

March 4, 2013

AS DELIVERED

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The United States would like to thank Under Secretary General Yukio Takasu for introducing the Secretary General’s report on air travel and the Chair of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), Mr. Carlos Ruiz Massieu for introducing the Committee’s report on this subject, as well as Mr. David Kanja of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) for introducing the OIOS report.

Mr. Chairman,

There is no question that frequent, long, and complex travel by UN staff and representatives is a necessity. Ensuring that they are properly accommodated during their official travel is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do.

However, what recent reports taken together reveal is deeply concerning. The 2010-11 Budget included $72.5 million for travel. In fact, the OIOS reports that for UN Headquarters, Offices Away from Headquarters, and the regional commissions, the UN spent a total of $575 million in travel-related expenses in the 2010-11 biennium. In addition, from July 2009 to June 2011, the UN spent $194 million on peacekeeping travel-related expenditures.
So actual total travel expenses paid by member states during the biennium was $769 million, and the portion funded in the UN’s Regular Budget of $575 million is approximately eight times that amount identified for “travel” in the budget documents we approved.
This raises an important issue, Mr. Chairman, of transparency – or lack of it – in the current UN budget process, which is something we all share responsibility for. But let’s put those numbers themselves into perspective for a minute. $769 million is approximately equal to the cost of a major peacekeeping mission like UNMISS ($840 million), more than one year’s worth of funding for all SPMs ($570 million), nearly as much as the two-year budget for all international and regional cooperation for development ($1 billion), and nearly equal to the entire two-year budget of FAO ($1 billion).
Three quarters of a billion dollars spent on travel over two years warrants close attention, period. When travel composes nearly 11% of the UN’s regular budget, it would be irresponsible for us to not review rules and policies carefully and adjust as appropriate. To his credit, the Secretary-General has proposed a number of recommendations to improve the UN’s policies on standards of accommodation for air travel. Regrettably, however, the General Assembly was unable to agree and make the responsible and urgently needed decisions in the 66th Session.
We have let this languish for far too long and we can no longer afford to talk about the problems; we need to begin solving them. And that is simply a question of our will here in the Fifth Committee, since much of the information needed to take action has been before us for over a year.
So what do we need to do?
First, the policies and rules governing the UN should be harmonized with those found in the civil services of national governments like the United States. For example, my government allows business class only when international journeys exceed 14 hours in total. As you know, the U.S. federal system is the comparator for UN compensation, and we should not pick and choose: if that’s a reasonable comparator for salaries and benefits, it should also be a reasonable comparator for limitations on those benefits. We don’t see any reason why the UN’s current 9-hour rule should not be increased to 14 hours to comport with the U.S. civil service. UN employees, unless there are extenuating circumstances, do not need to fly business class to Vienna or Brindisi, nor do the family members who accompany them on home leave trips.
But the issue is not just about which class the UN’s staff and representatives should travel on. We have known for quite some time now that the UN has a number of very generous and obsolete policies and rules governing the various benefits afforded to its travelers, such as the provision of the so-called “daily subsistence allowances” for flight time. In plain English, what that means is we’re paying to reimburse employees for meals and hotel costs while they’re 30,000 feet in the air. Current UN rules allow for four hours of connection time to be included in the calculation of total trip time, so adding a stopover to a five hour flight can get one an upgrade to business class. And the lump-sum payments alternative, based on a fare class that no longer even exists, has resulted in direct payments to travelers of, on average, nearly twice the actual cost of travel. We cannot afford, and should not tolerate, these egregious and wasteful distortions. The loopholes enabling them should be closed immediately.
To do so requires a comprehensive revision of the UN’s policies, rules and guidelines to its staff, and the Secretary General’s recommendations are an excellent starting point. However, changing the rules is the first step; we also need to give the Organization’s leadership guidance and tools needed to better manage air travel.
First, the Secretary-General needs to do a better job of collecting and analyzing UN-wide information on travel so that he can better set policies to control expenditures and improve services. While we understand the Organization’s management information system shortfalls can make this challenging, we cannot wait for UMOJA or other long-term efforts to fix this problem. The OIOS has repeatedly raised this as one of the most critical gaps that prevents the Secretary-General from executing UN-wide changes effectively. He cannot generate better group purchase policies and strategies and refine air travel rules without a solid understanding of current trends.
To this end, the dashboard the UN Office in Geneva has set up to follow trends in air travel appears to be an excellent practice. UNOG deserves kudos, but this practice should be implemented immediately and system-wide in every other UN office. The provision of online booking tools for UN staff for commonly traveled and standard routes can also assist with providing the lowest fares to UN staff and cut down on red tape.
Furthermore, such tools can help management by benchmarking trends in air travel and providing some of the missing data on air travel patterns. Yet, as the OIOS report notes, the UN is currently not using the online booking tools to which it is contractually entitled.
The recalibration of lump sum payment policies based on actual utilization rates and current market practices, as well as tracking and actually collecting refunds to which the UN is entitled from cancellations and changes are two further areas to seek savings. And with over thirty different travel agent contracts, consolidating UN-wide – or even system-wide –travel requirements to take advantage of economies of scale is critically needed.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we share the concerns voiced in the ACABQ report regarding the Secretary-General’s latest report on air travel, which shows that the UN has been granting many exceptions to its already very generous rules on travel standards. The Secretary-General reports between July 2010 and June 2012 the UN granted 529 exceptions for its staff and representatives to travel in business or first class instead of economy, nearly 60% more exceptions than in the previous two years. These increasing exceptions simply send the wrong message to the UN system and to the taxpayers who fund it.
Mr. Chairman,
The United States reiterates the importance of the Secretary-General’s leadership on this issue and encourages him to continue to find ways to more efficiently and effectively utilize air travel resources. We call on the General Assembly to approve the changes, proposed by the Secretary General, that have been before us for over a year now. And we look forward to working with colleagues to get the greatest value from limited travel funds, and to have UN personnel and Member States set an appropriate example at a time when so many of our people around the world face economic hardship. Thank you.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

FOX NEWS: - Jens Wandel of UNDP leads HLCM into - "taking actions despite not having mandates from member states"

Read this in full @ FOX News: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/06/as-financial-backers-get-impatient-un-officials-urgently-work-on-yet-another/#ixzz2MmD27HrE

Alarmed at a concerted push-back by member nations who are getting tired of funding the bloated and ineffectual United Nations, top U.N. managers are urgently trying to figure out a reform plan to repair at least some of their credibility over the next few years.

The exhortation to think big and look beyond the normal endless talk sessions came in a consultative “non-paper” at a two-day closed-door meeting of senior U.N. officials in Turin, Italy, in mid-January. The discussion document also proposed a new propaganda campaign to convince governments and sympathetic legislators that their money was being well spent.

The meeting was intended to brainstorm ideas for a managerial plan to guide the organization over the next three to four years, according to the document.

A copy of the 19-page “non-paper” was obtained by Fox News, which reported last month that wealthier member states were increasingly questioning the way their money is being spent by the U.N.

That impatience was underlined once again on Monday by the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. for management and reform, Joseph Torsella. At a meeting of the U.N.’s finance committee, he noted that the world organization had spent about $769 billion just on travel-related expenses in 2010-2011, “nearly as much as the two-year budget for all international and regional cooperation for development” which is about $1 billion, and “nearly equal to the entire two-year budget” of the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization ($1 billion).

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Joe Torsella of USUN admits failure: "United Nations is at 8.6% overbudget"

Friday, October 26, 2012

US Ambassador Torsella goes after UN Salaries - argues with Ian Richards on twitter

-------

Friday, October 12, 2012

Joe Torsella of USUN worried about his latest performance at United Nations (blames discounts on developing countries for sharp rise in US contributions)

5 Oct

‏@USJoe_UN

1/3 The U.S. pays 22% of the #UN regular budget, more than the next 2 largest contributors, Japan and Germany, combined. #UN101

Heritage Foundation: U.S. Should Hold the Line on U.N. Salaries

Click here to read this in full at Heritage.org: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/united-nations-us-should-hold-the-line-on-un-salaries

By Brett D. Schaefer

Personnel costs, including salaries, comprise nearly three-quarters of the U.N. regular budget, and increases in U.N. salaries have significant budgetary implications for the member states. Over the past few years, the U.N.’s International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) has recommended salary increases despite the fact that some member states, including the U.S., have been forced to freeze their government salaries in response to significant fiscal crises. As a result, U.N. compensation—already more generous than that paid by the member states to their own civil servants—has grown even more lavish.

Surprisingly, the ICSC recommended a temporary freeze in U.N. salaries in July. However, unless the General Assembly (GA) decides otherwise, a salary increase will go into effect in January 2013 and will apply retroactively to August 2012. The U.S. should oppose the proposed increase in U.N. salaries and urge the GA to update its 1985 instructions to the ICSC and demand a salary freeze until U.N. net remuneration falls to match that of the U.S. federal civil service.

Lavish Salaries and Benefits
In order to attract and retain qualified staff, the U.N. has long operated under the Noblemaire principle, which states that professional staff salaries should be determined by comparison to those of the civil service of the member state with the highest civil service pay levels. Ever since the U.N. was founded, this has been the U.S.
U.N. professional categories, however, do not line up neatly with U.S. civil service grades. To address this, the ICSC calculates equivalencies between the two as a basis for determining compensation. According to the ICSC, U.N. compensation significantly exceeds that of the U.S. equivalent.[1] Specifically:

The seven U.N. professional or higher categories in New York receive net remuneration between 26.6 percent and 44.2 percent higher than the net remuneration of U.S. federal employees based in Washington, D.C.
On average, weighting for the number of U.N. employees in each category, U.N. net remuneration is 31.3 percent higher than that of their U.S. equivalents in Washington, which is up from 29.5 percent in 2011.[2]
Even after applying its own cost-of-living adjustment for New York, which is significantly higher than that used by the U.S. government, the ICSC reports that the average net remuneration of U.N. employees was 17.7 percent higher than the U.S. equivalent.
Based on the 2012 ICSC report, the most numerous U.N. professional grade (P-4) earned an average net remuneration in 2012 of $136,351, versus $104,704 for the U.S. equivalent.

In addition to these lavish salaries, U.N. employees enjoy generous benefits and allowances, including a rental subsidy of up to 80 percent above a specified threshold; education grants for staff serving outside their home country amounting to 75 percent of tuition (up to $32,255 per annum), payable through the fourth year of college up to the age of 25; and annual vacation of 30 days, 10 official holidays, 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, and four to eight weeks of paid paternity leave.[3]

Time for Revision and Restraint
The ICSC operates under an instruction from resolution 40/244 adopted by the GA in 1985 to maintain U.N. net remuneration between 110 percent and 120 percent higher than the U.S. equivalent. The ICSC asserts that the pay discrepancy is “necessary to compensate for specific elements relating to expatriate service.”[4] Considering that many of the U.N.’s generous benefits are specifically intended to address these challenges, the salary premium above U.S. civil service salaries—the highest of any member state—is not justified.
Moreover, the U.S. instituted a pay freeze for federal workers in 2011 and 2012, but the GA approved a salary increase of nearly 3 percent in 2011. Ambassador Joseph Torsella, U.S. Representative to the United Nations on Management and Reform, sharply criticized the 2011 decision, announcing that the U.S. “calls for a freeze on pay for United Nations staff while the comparator salaries, those of the United States federal civil service, are frozen. We also repeat our call for repealing the nearly 3 percent raise given to New York based employees through the cost of living adjustment in August, and we urge the General Assembly to act on this matter.”[5]
The GA did not rescind the pay increase, but it did instruct the ICSC in resolution 66/235 to “explore the feasibility and suitability” of reflecting the pay freeze for the U.S. civil service in U.N. salaries, to determine whether the ICSC has the authority to implement such measures, and to “exercise such authority, as appropriate.”
In its July report to the GA, the ICSC determined that various factors should lead the GA to approve an average cost-of-living post adjustment increase of over 2.2 percent for U.N. professional and higher categories in New York. The ICSC decided to temporarily “defer” implementation of the adjustment “in view of the financial situation of the United Nations as described by the Secretary-General.” Unless the GA acts otherwise, however, the salary increase will “be promulgated on 1 January 2013 with a retroactive effect as of 1 August 2012.”[6]

The Need to Rein in U.N. Compensation
As stated by Torsella, the U.S. should urge the GA to prevent this retroactive salary increase:
The ICSC’s recognition of the need to control staffing costs in a time of global financial crisis is a first step in the right direction. And it is hardly a radical step, especially compared with the actual job losses and salary cuts—not just freezes, but cuts—borne by the citizens and civil servants of many member states. It is now up to all of us to rise to the occasion, to match the ICSC in responsible governance, and to adopt this sensible—and modest—recommendation.[7]
But additional steps are necessary to bring U.N. salaries into line with U.S. civil servants. The U.S. should urge the GA to:

Reject the salary increase proposed by the ICSC in its post adjustment for 2012 and maintain salaries at the 2011 level;
Rescind the instruction to the ICSC in resolution 40/244 to target U.N. net remuneration at 110 percent to 120 percent of the U.S. equivalent and replace it with an instruction that U.N. net remuneration should match that of the U.S. civil service;
Instruct the ICSC to use the U.S. Office of Personnel Management locality pay adjustment for New York rather than its own cost-of-living calculations, which are significantly higher; and
Instruct the ICSC to freeze salaries and the post adjustment until U.N. net remuneration falls to match that of the U.S. civil service.

Hold the Line on U.N. Budgetary Constraint
Governments around the world have to implement austerity measures to meet budgetary necessity, including salary freezes. As a composite of the world’s nations, the U.N. should not be insulated from this reality.
—Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation and editor of ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009).

Click here to read this in full at Heritage.org: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/united-nations-us-should-hold-the-line-on-un-salaries

Saturday, June 30, 2012

UNDT/NY/2009/044 - USUN's Joe Torsella hails this week ruling on the UN Whistleblower, calls it: "UN Whistleblower world" - UNDT/2012/092

For those who haven't seen the ruling yet click here to read it :

http://www.un.org/en/oaj/files/undt/judgments/undt-2012-092.pdf

Thursday, April 5, 2012

FoxNews Video: U.N. violating own sanctions on North Korea?

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO ON FOX NEWS

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Joe Torsella of USUN fails in his attempt to have internal audits published for the public (nice try Joe...you'll do better next time....in 2 years)

Andrew Mitchell - says Helen Clark is up to no good!

1. UNDP’s partnership with the World Bank needs to be more effective, particularly in fragile and crisis-affected countries. 2. UNDP’s near universal mandate means its technical resources are spread very thinly. The Board does not provide strategic direction. HR management is weak. It has a weak results chain. 3. There is limited evidence of active senior management consideration of cost control. Country evidence points to mixed progress on demonstrating cost-efficiency. 4. The Executive Board is politicised and there is a lack of consensus on the key areas for reform. It is not clear that current plans for change will deliver the required depth and breadth of reform. 5. Evidence gathered at country level was highly critical of UNDP’s ability to deliver results. Its delivery can be undermined by staffing issues and bureaucratic processes. 6. Its performance in fragile states is mixed. It has reasonable training and a range of guidance and analytical tools but struggles to fill posts. 7. There is no evidence that the Climate Strategy was directly guiding resource allocation decisions

H.E. Dirk Niebel - German Development Minister

"I take the accusations made in the media concerning corruption and breach of fiduciary duty at the Global Fund very seriously and I am sure that the Fund will clarify the matter without delay. Germany is one of the biggest donors to the Global Fund. I have therefore seen to it that a special review will be held. I have frozen all further disbursements to the Fund until matters have been fully clarified, and I will ask a representative of the Fund to come to the BMZ to discuss the matter."