GAP Responds to Critique of United Nations Ethics Office Statistic

by Shelley Walden on August 03, 2012 ( The Whistleblogger / 2012 )

It has come to GAP's attention that lawyers from the United Nations have questioned statistics that we compiled regarding the record of the UN Ethics Office, which is charged with reviewing retaliation complaints and safeguarding the interests of UN whistleblowers. Specifically, in the Respondent’s Reply in UN Dispute Tribunal case GVA/2011/090, the UN claimed that GAP’s statistic was “entirely incorrect and unfounded.”
GAP takes such accusations seriously. As soon as we became aware of the UN’s critique, we double-checked our numbers and issued an official response, which first appeared on the UNJustice website and can be read below. We hope that these clarifications will help whistleblowers who currently have cases pending before the UN internal justice system.

Dear UN Justice,

Thank you for contacting the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and for giving us a chance to reply to the statement made by the UN’s lawyers regarding the record of the UN Ethics Office (in paragraphs 20-23 of the Respondent’s Reply in Walter Gehr v. Secretary-General of the United Nations). We appreciate the opportunity to double check our numbers and clarify the discrepancies.

Let me explain how GAP arrived at these statistics and where the discrepancies between our numbers and the UN lawyers’ lie. In our initial blog on this issue (which has since been revised) we stated that “According to Ethics Office reports to the Secretary-General, from August 1, 2007 to July 31, 2010, a prima facie case of retaliation was found in 1.5% of the requests for protection from retaliation received by the Office (2 of 134 cases).” This was before we located the 2006, 2007 or 2011 Ethics Office reports, so it only uses statistics from the 2008, 2009 and 2010 reports. Our analysis was limited to those reports because they were the only ones that we were able to locate at that time (we’ve since located all of them and have started quoting a new statistic incorporating every annual report).

Here is how we arrived at our initial numbers mentioned in the Respondent’s Reply:

According to paragraphs 48 of the 2008 report, “From 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008, the Ethics Office received 45 complaints of retaliation” and found 0 prima facie cases. According to paragraph 52 of that report, the two prima facie cases from 2007 were not substantiated by OIOS, so retaliation was ultimately not found. We did not count those two cases, as the prima facie determination was made during a previous reporting cycle (the 2007 report, which we had not yet located) and would have been counted in the 2007 report.  

According to paragraph 60 of the 2009 report, 64 requests were received. Paragraph 62 says that 0 prima facie cases were found, but paragraph 65 says that one was found from the cases left over from the previous cycle.  

According to paragraph 33 of the 2010 report, “from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010, the Ethics Office received 36 requests related to protection against retaliation.” According to paragraph 35, it found 0 prima facie case in these new cases, but according to paragraph 37 it found one prima facie case from the leftover cases from the previous cycle.”

GAP unfortunately did make an error, as there were 145 requests for protection against retaliation during this time, not 134. We would like to apologize to Mr. Gehr and other whistleblowers for this mistake. But, the mistake was ironically in the Ethics Office’s favor. So, the number should be 2 prima facie cases out of 145 complaints of retaliation, which is an even worse record for the Ethics Office (1.4%). This number has been corrected on our website (although for GAP’s 2012 blog entries, we use a new statistic that incorporates all annual Ethics Office reports).

Now, in paragraph 22 the UN lawyers distort this statistic because for some reason they decided to add 2011, even though that was clearly not included in GAP’s statistic. So they added another 55 cases (see para. 26 of the 2011 Ethics Office report) and made it seem like those should have been included in GAP’s statistic, even though ours focused on a different time period as we had not yet located the relevant report. We believe that the reason that they included the 2011 report was because in that year, the Ethics Office found 3 prima facie cases of retaliation (1 in para. 26 and 2 in para.28), so they can now claim in paragraph 23 of the reply that they have found 5 prima facie cases.

Since GAP now has all of the Ethics Office reports, we have recently added in the 2006, 2007 and 2011 numbers and have started using this broader statistic in our correspondence. According to paragraph 54 of the 2007 report, the Ethics Office received 52 complaints of retaliation and found 2 prima facie cases of retaliation. According to paragraph 45 of the 2006 report, the Ethics Office received 45 complaints of retaliation and found 1 prima facie case. If you add in the 2011 numbers and our previous statistic, this brings the total number of complaints to 297 and the total number of prima facie cases to 8 or approximately 2.7% of retaliation complaints.

GAP’s numbers are based on retaliation complaints received. We did not subtract those cases that were withdrawn, involved advice or were outside the mandate of the Office. One reason for this is because we have been informed by some whistleblowers that the Ethics Office advised them to drop their cases, so we think that those numbers should be included in the overall statistic. Another reason is that there has been some confusion over the years regarding what the actual mandate of the UN Ethics Office is. For example, in 2007 the Ethics Office considered some cases from the funds and programmes, which it no longer does (provided that those funds have an Ethics Office). Finally, we wanted to have an overall picture of how many complaints the Ethics Office receives and how many of those inquiries ultimately result in a whistleblower receiving relief. 

The really interesting thing to look at is what happened to those 8 prima facie cases. After all, a prima facie decision is meaningless if retaliation is not ultimately substantiated after the OIOS investigation and the whistleblower is not protected. Some of the reports clearly say that certain cases weren’t substantiated, though some are a little vaguer. Only once does a report say that retaliation was ultimately substantiated and that the Office “issued recommendations pertaining to disciplinary actions and corrective measures to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General and the Department of Management, pursuant to ST/SGB/2005/21.” (see paragraph 31 of the 2011 report). So, it appears that of the 297 requests related to protection against retaliation received by the Ethics Office since its launch in 2006, only one resulted in the Ethics Office ultimately substantiating retaliation and recommending relief. But even that one whistleblower has not yet been completely protected from retaliation.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions or would like any clarifications.

To be fair, we should also mention that in 2011, under a new director, the record of the Ethics Office has improved, as there were three prima facie findings that year and one case that was ultimately substantiated (versus five prima facie cases total from 2006-2010, with apparently no ultimate findings of retaliation). Also, the Ethics Office has informed us that some of the dismissed cases were not whistleblower cases (i.e. claims in which the staff member was not a whistleblower and merely wanted to contest a performance review). They also include cases in which someone requested advice regarding the protection against retaliation policy, but did not submit a complaint.
Nevertheless, GAP remains extremely concerned that apparently no whistleblower at the UN has been fully protected from retaliation since the Ethics Office was established. It is our hope that in the future, rather than wasting its energy on nitpicking our numbers, the UN will instead take action to actually address the problem by protecting credible whistleblowers.
If you have any questions about these statistics or would like more information, please email shelleyw@whistleblower.org.

Shelley Walden is International Officer for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.

UN-JUSTICE: Failure of leadership in protecting whistleblowers at the United Nations has led to a request for disciplinary action against the head of the UN Ethics Office

2 August 2012

The persistent requests for an effective implementation of the UN whistleblowing policy could face more protests unless appropriate attention is paid in high places to the needs of those who “risk their jobs, professional lives and livelihood by courageously seeking to expose wrong-doings within the Organization” -to use the words of the recent UNDT ruling in the case of Ms. Vesna Dzuverovic (UNDT/2012/105).

Despite increasing efforts to tackle the problem and growing public outrage, UN whistleblowers continue to claim retaliation and that their rights are not being protected by UN appropriate authorities. 

Last month the UNDT found that Mr. Robert Benson, the former Director of the UN Ethics Office, had failed to meet his obligations with regard to Mr. James Wasserstrom, an American diplomat and former UN staffer who had been illegally arrested for reporting possible corruption within the UNMIK (UNDT/2012/092). 

Now, in an application under consideration before the UNDT filed by Dr. Walter Gehr -the esteemed lawyer and former UNODC staffer whose contract was not renewed after his complaints of misconduct against UNODC management, the UN court has been requested for the first time “to refer [the current Director of the UN Ethics Office] Ms. Joan Elise Dubinsky to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible action to enforce accountability pursuant to Article 10.8 of the UNDT’s Statute”, because “she allows this Office to be dysfunctional”, he argues.

However, legal documents before the internal UN court reveal that lawyers representing the Secretary-General are attempting to convince the judge that, similarly like in the case of Mr. Wasserstom, Dr. Gehr’s complaint of retaliation falls outside the jurisdiction of the UNDT because “as the Secretary-General does not have effective control over the Ethics Office, the actions or omissions of the Ethics Office cannot be attributed to the Organization” -an interpretation that is contrary to a prior UNDT ruling  which found that when a claim relates to issues covered by the UN Secretariat’s whistleblower protection policy “a staff member is entitled to certain administrative procedures and that if he or she is dissatisfied with the outcome, he or she may request judicial review of the administrative decisions taken” (UNDT/2011/063).

According to UN lawyers, the UN Ethics Office was established by the Secretary-General pursuant to actions by the General Assembly which called for the Office’s independence, therefore it is the General Assembly who endorsed the responsibilities for preserving and strengthen the work of the Ethics Office, “if there is indeed a lacuna in this respect, then it is for the General Assembly to address this matter”, they write. 

 

For the records, it took 10 months for the Ethics Office to dismiss Dr. Gehr’s complaint of retaliation through a decision which it transmitted two weeks after Dr. Gehr sued the Secretary-General before the UNDT because of the Ethics Office’s lack of action (UNDT/2012/069). According to the UN whistleblowing policy, the Ethics Office should have completed the preliminary review of a complaint of retaliation within 45 days of receiving the complaint -the UN lawyers have told the UNDT that the 45 days rule should be considered only as “an aspirational requirement.”

They further dismiss the statistics on UN whistleblowing policy by the GAP -the US's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization, used by Dr. Gehr to tell the court that the UN Ethics Office’s record of protecting UN whistleblowers from retaliation is abysmal by saying that “Gap allegation that the Ethics Office lacks credible record of protecting whistleblowers are entirely incorrect and unfounded.”

With a view to clarify this important issue, we have asked for a comment from Ms. Shelley Walden, International Program Officer at the Government Accountability Project. She has kindly provided us with a detailed response which we are publishing here below in the hope that no others UN whistleblowers will be paying the price for an "independent" UN Ethics Office.

 

From: Shelley Walden, The Government Accountability Project (GAP)

To: UNJustice

 

                                                                             1 August 2012  

Dear UNJustice,

Thank you for contacting the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and for giving us a chance to reply to the statement made by the UN’s lawyers regarding the record of the UN Ethics Office (in paragraphs 20-23 of the Respondent’s Reply in Walter Gehr v. Secretary-General of the United Nations). We appreciate the opportunity to double check our numbers and clarify the discrepancies. 

Let me explain how GAP arrived at these statistics and where the discrepancies between our numbers and the UN lawyers’ lie. In our initial blog on this issue (which has since been revised) we stated that “According to Ethics Office reports to the Secretary-General, from August 1, 2007 to July 31, 2010, a prima facie case of retaliation was found in 1.5% of the requests for protection from retaliation received by the Office (2 of 134 cases).” This was before we located the 2006, 2007 or 2011 Ethics Office reports, so it only uses statistics from the 2008, 2009 and 2010 reports.  Our analysis was limited to those reports because they were the only ones that we were able to locate at that time (we’ve since located all of them and have started quoting a new statistic incorporating every annual report).

Here is how we arrived at our initial numbers mentioned in the Respondent’s Reply:

• ·     According to paragraphs 48 of the 2008 report, “From 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008, the Ethics Office received 45 complaints of retaliation” and found 0 prima facie cases. According to paragraph 52 of that report, the two prima facie cases from 2007 were not substantiated by OIOS, so retaliation was ultimately not found. We did not count those two cases, as the prima facie determination was made during a previous reporting cycle (the 2007 report, which we had not yet located) and would have been counted in the 2007 report.
•       According to paragraph 60 of the 2009 report, 64 requests were received. Paragraph 62 says that 0 prima facie cases were found, but paragraph 65 says that one was found from the cases left over from the previous cycle.  
•       According to paragraph 33 of the 2010 report, “from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010, the Ethics Office received 36 requests related to protection against retaliation.” According to paragraph 35, it found 0 prima facie case in these new cases, but according to paragraph 37 it found one prima facie case from the leftover cases from the previous cycle.”

GAP unfortunately did make an error, as there were 145 requests for protection against retaliation during this time, not 134. We would like to apologize to Mr. Gehr and other whistleblowers for this mistake. But, the mistake was ironically in the Ethics Office’s favor. So, the number should be 2 prima facie cases out of 145 complaints of retaliation, which is an even worse record for the Ethics Office (1.4%). This number has been corrected on our website (although for GAP’s 2012 blog entries, we use a new statistic that incorporates all annual Ethics Office reports). 

Now, in paragraph 22 the UN lawyers distort this statistic because for some reason they decided to add 2011, even though that was clearly not included in GAP’s statistic. So they added another 55 cases (see para. 26 of the 2011 Ethics Office report) and made it seem like those should have been included in GAP’s statistic, even though ours focused on a different time period as we had not yet located the relevant report. We believe that the reason that they included the 2011 report was because in that year, the Ethics Office found 3 prima facie cases of retaliation (1 in para. 26 and 2 in para.28), so they can now claim in paragraph 23 of the reply that they have found 5 prima facie cases.

Since GAP now has all of the Ethics Office reports, we have recently added in the 2006, 2007 and 2011 numbers and have started using this broader statistic in our correspondence. According to paragraph 54 of the 2007 report, the Ethics Office received 52 complaints of retaliation and found 2 prima facie cases of retaliation. According to paragraph 45 of the 2006 report, the Ethics Office received 45 complaints of retaliation and found 1 prima facie case. If you add in the 2011 numbers and our previous statistic, this brings the total number of complaints to 297 and the total number of prima facie cases to 8 or approximately 2.7% of retaliation complaints. 

GAP’s numbers are based on retaliation complaints received. We did not subtract those cases that were withdrawn, involved advice or were outside the mandate of the Office. One reason for this is because we have been informed by some whistleblowers that the Ethics Office advised them to drop their cases, so we think that those numbers should be included in the overall statistic. Another reason is that there has been some confusion over the years regarding what the actual mandate of the UN Ethics Office is. For example, in 2007 the Ethics Office considered some cases from the funds and programmes, which it no longer does (provided that those funds have an Ethics Office). Finally, we wanted to have an overall picture of how many complaints the Ethics Office receives and how many of those inquiries ultimately result in a whistleblower receiving relief.  

The really interesting thing to look at is what happened to those 8 prima facie cases. After all, a prima facie decision is meaningless if retaliation is not ultimately substantiated after the OIOS investigation and the whistleblower is not protected. Some of the reports clearly say that certain cases weren’t substantiated, though some are a little vaguer. Only once does a report say that retaliation was ultimately substantiated and that the Office “issued recommendations pertaining to disciplinary actions and corrective measures to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General and the Department of Management, pursuant to ST/SGB/2005/21.” (see paragraph 31 of the 2011 report). So, it appears that of the 297 requests related to protection against retaliation received by the Ethics Office since its launch in 2006, only one resulted in the Ethics Office ultimately substantiating retaliation and recommending relief. But even that one whistleblower has not yet been completely protected from retaliation.

Related information:

Urgent Appeal, UNODC: Dr. Walter Gehr (10 December 2011

UNDP ETHICS SCANDAL: Rebeca Grynspan's advisor mismanaged funds at IADB while still employed at UNDP' Spanish Fund (Spain Tribunal investigate $$)

U.N. ethics guru has mysterious ethics lapse in his past

By George Russell

Published March 01, 2012 | FoxNews.com

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY ON FOXNEWS

(http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/01/un-ethics-guru-has-mysterious-ethics-lapse-in-his-past/)

EXCLUSIVE: Bernardo Kliksberg is one of the most famed anti-poverty intellectuals inLatin America and a tireless cheerleader for government-led anti-poverty efforts. He has been a consultant for a wide variety of United Nations agencies. His more than 40 books circulate widely; several have been published by UNESCO and the U.N. itself. They include such titles as "Toward an Economy with a Human Face"; "More Ethics, More Development"; "Latin America’s Pending Ethical Agenda"; and "Ethical Values and Daily Life."

It also appears that Kliksberg, 71, has had some ethical issues of his own with one of Latin America’s biggest anti-poverty institutions, the Washington-based Inter-American Development Bank, or IDB, according to documents obtained by Fox News.

In a letter dated October 24, 2007, and sent to government officials in Canada and Norway, the Washington-based IDB declared that it would reimburse $109,000 to a special Social Capital, Ethics and Development Fund that the two countries had financed, because “the former Technical Advisor for the Fund violated certain provisions of the Bank’s Code of Ethics.” The violation: he had “used employees hired with Fund resources to perform work in furtherance of his personal endeavors.”

The technical adviser was Kliksberg.

The $109,000 represented about 50 percent of the money the two countries gave to the fund in 2006 for use by its secretariat, the IDB letter said. It was the estimated amount of paid time that the adviser and his assistants devoted to his non-Bank activities. In addition, the letter said, “based on these conclusions, the Bank did not renew [the adviser’s contract] and his employment with the Bank has, therefore, ended.”

“We deeply regret the events that occurred,” the letter states, “and have taken the necessary steps to rectify the situation and to prevent something similar from happening again.”

A copy of the letter was provided to Fox News last month [February] by Norway’s foreign ministry. Kliksberg himself, in response to queries from Fox News, confirmed his role at the Social Capital, Ethics and Development Fund, even as he denied ever having heard of most of the charges in the IDB letter, or that any ethics decision had been taken against him at the bank.

Click here for the bank's letter.

“I was not dismissed, nor was my contract terminated, by the Inter-American Development Bank,” he declared -- a statement that did not contradict anything the bank said about his employment in the letter to Norway and Canada.

“I left the Bank to take a position at the United Nations in New York, where I could be closer to my children,” he told Fox News.

As for the bank’s $109,000 reimbursement, Kliksberg told Fox News, “This is the first time I am hearing this claim. Neither I, nor anyone I have contacted regarding this matter, has communicated that the IDB refunded any money to the fund.”

As it happens, the new job that Kliksberg took after leaving the IDB made him much more than an advocate for more “ethical” social and economic development. It also made him a major international figure in helping to ladle out U.N. development cash.

From 2007 to 2010, Kliksberg, a native of Argentina, was director for UNDP of an important trust fund financed by the government of Spain, which gave more than $700 million to the U.N. development agency during Kliksberg’s tenure. Kliksberg’s portion of the Spanish largesse was worth some $63.9 million, and was devoted to Latin American development projects.

At the same time that he served as the Latin American fund’s director, he also was a consultant to UNDP’s regional bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean. Kliksberg still works as a part-time consultant for UNDP’s bureau for development policy.

Figuring out what exactly transpired at the IDB before Kliksberg took up his bigger UNDP responsibilities is something of a mystery, entwined in denials, conflicting statements, and a stonewalling culture of institutional secrecy about disciplinary proceedings at one of the Western Hemisphere’s most important anti-poverty institutions.

Like the United Nations, the Washington-based IDB is protected by a curtain of diplomatic immunity and confidentiality that make its inner workings unknown to outsiders and off-limits to outside investigators, unless the IDB wants them to know. The bank has its own internal justice system, which is also immune to external systems of law.

In response to queries from Fox News, the IDB declared that “administrative proceedings concerning our employees are confidential and we do not comment on individual cases.”
At the same time, a bank spokesperson added, “We can assure you that the Bank has a well-developed systems for considering and addressing allegations of employee misconduct.”

The mystery of the alleged abuses of the Social Capital and Ethics trust fund surfaced in another way last summer, in an obscure whistleblower case brought by a former IDB employee, Ada Piazze, who had worked at the Social Capital and Ethics fund under Kliksberg.

According to a published decision by the IDB’s internal Administrative Tribunal, in 2006 Piazze brought evidence to the bank’s attention that her boss, the fund’s “General Coordinator,” --described in the Tribunal’s judgment only as “a person well known and respected in the field of developmental ethics”-- was “engaged in fraud and misconduct” by using not only trust funds, but money from the bank itself, “for his own personal benefit.”

Piazze’s claim was that she had been promised continued employment at the bank before she brought additional evidence against the “General Coordinator” to light under the bank’s whistleblower protection rules. When Piazze was subsequently let go by the bank, she eventually appealed to the Tribunal, and was awarded $300,000 in damages.

Piazze declined to comment to Fox News regarding the case.

Until queried about the Administrative Tribunal judgment by Fox News, Kliksberg said, he knew nothing about it, and had never seen the decision that granted his former subordinate $300,000 in damages.

Click here for the tribunal judgment.

Kliksberg said that only after being approached by Fox News did he investigate, and could confirm he was the person mentioned in the decision. He added that he considered the accusations mentioned in the decision to be overblown.

“The allegations in the Piazze case were grossly exaggerated by Ms. Piazze and her attorney in their pursuit of financial gain,” he told Fox News. From his own investigations, he said, he had learned that “I was accused of allowing members of our team to voluntarily participate, in their free time, in Ethics and Development initiatives (in which I was a consultant) that were not in the scope of their duties at the IDB. I was also accused of using my office computer and other equipment for Ethics and Development-related projects outside of my assignment at the IDB. As for the ‘misuse [of] funds,’ as a part-time consultant, I was not able to directly authorize the use of funds.”

Kliksberg subsequently added that “I can confirm that the Bank conducted a thorough investigation and made a decision on this issue: to take no action, other than ask that the IDB Human Resource Department be consulted in the event that I applied or was considered for a future engagement at the IDB.”

Kliksberg’s reconstruction of events differs considerably from the way the issue was discussed in the Inter-American Development Bank’s letter to Canada and Norway. It also raises additional questions of its own. How “allowing” employees to use their free time in any voluntary fashion would be the basis of an ethics charge by an employer such as IDB is something of a puzzle. Why the IDB would conceivably pay $109,000, as the Bank’s 2007 letter indicates, for such a difficult-to-imagine infraction is even more of a brain-twister.

Moreover, the notion that the IDB could conduct a “thorough investigation,” as Kliksberg describes, and come to a “decision” without informing him, appears to be a huge contradiction of the 2006 procedures for the IDB Ethics Committee that were in effect when the alleged infraction occurred -- and also of a new set of procedures that went into effect in December 2007, two months after the Bank wrote its $109,000 apology to Norway and Canada.

According to the 2006 procedures, once the Ethics Committee decides that a violation of the bank’s Ethics Code has occurred, it must “promptly notify” the accused employee both of the substance of the charge, the fact that the Committee is taking jurisdiction, and the steps it intends to take to investigate. Even if those actions are delayed to safeguard an investigation, they must take place a minimum of 30 days before the Committee holds a hearing on the issue.

Moreover, if an investigation by the bank’s watchdog Office of Institutional Integrity (OII) takes place the accused employee must be given a copy of OII’s final report, as well as all supporting evidence, prior to any hearing and Ethics Committee decision, no more than five days after the Committee gets the report. The IDB’s letter to Norway and Canada states categorically that both an OII investigation and an Ethics Committee decision took place.

The bank’s safeguards also apply to the hearing itself, where accused employees can be represented by legal counsel, present opposing evidence and offer the testimony of witnesses.
The right to such a hearing, however, can be waived by the accused -- which would be tantamount to deciding not to contest the results of any investigation.

Significantly, however, according to the Bank’s procedures, any decision made by the Ethics Committee that concludes an ethics violation has taken place, is sent in the bank’s Human Resources Department files, and is also subject to appeal “to the Bank’s internal grievance system” -- which has at its apex the same Administrative Tribunal that heard the Social Capital and Ethics Fund whistleblower case.

In other words, Kliksberg was supposed to be informed of any action involving the Ethics Committee that was negative toward him, to protect his right of appeal.

In responses to questions from Fox News, the IDB declared that Kliksberg’s contract “expired prior to conclusions regarding any allegations concerning his conduct as an employee.”

But nothing in the bank’s ethics procedures suggests that the right to appeal -- and the right to be informed of any actions taken as a result of investigation -- lapses if the employee leaves the bank. Indeed, the terms of jurisdiction of the bank’s Administrative Tribunal are explicitly extended to former employees.

Whatever the circumstances, by the time the Bank made its admission to Canada and Norway about the misuse of their donated funds, Kliksberg was well-established as director of UNDP’s vastly more valuable Spanish-financed trust fund, effective January 2, 2007, a UNDP spokesman confirmed.

There is one small wrinkle: a copy of the IDB’s letter of agreement with Kliksberg regarding his last one-year contract extension, which was examined by Fox News, says that his IDB assignment would last until January 8, 2007.

According to a UNDP spokesman, Kliksberg “has informed UNDP he was an [IDB] consultant from April 2002 to December 31, 2006.” Kliksberg also told Fox News that his employment at the bank ended in December 2006.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter@GeorgeRussell

Click here for more stories by George Russell.

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY ON FOXNEWS

(http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/01/un-ethics-guru-has-mysterious-ethics-lapse-in-his-past/)

Is it OK for a U.N. bureaucrat to accept a holiday bottle of booze?

CLICK TO VIEW THE FULL ARTICLE AT TURTLEBAY.FOREIGNPOLICY.COM

By Colum Lynch

"To receive or not to receive."

That is the choice the U.N. ethics office put before U.N. staff members as the organization confronts another holiday season, and the awkward question of whether to accept a gift from a U.N. diplomat or contractor doing business with the world body. Like most things at the United Nations, there is no easy answer.

"The holiday season and the New Year are around the corner!" the ethics office counseled in a message posted on the U.N.'s intranet. "It is that time of the year when exchanging gifts and showing hospitality is the order of the day for many cultures and customs. As we revel in holiday cheer, let us take a moment to reflect on our shared values and status as international civil servants."

"As UN staff members, we may be offered gifts from governmental and non-governmental sources alike," the note added. "While the values of the gifts can vary, and the intentions behind them pure, we should be mindful that giving or receiving gifts and hospitality can give rise to potential conflicts of interest. Accepting or giving a gift can create on-going obligations which could undermine our independence and impartiality."

UNDP's Belated Disclosure Policy Undercut By Harassment, Diamond Smuggling and Conflict Allegations

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, -- A year late and not yet fully formed, the UN Development Program on Tuesday afternoon sent out a policy on financial disclosure, under which senior UNDP official will at some still-undefined date file some forms in some still-undefined place, to be reviewed by parties unknown.

The policy, e-mailed out by (or from the account of) Administrator Kemal Dervis to all staff, and from there to Inner City Press, is reproduced below. Unlike the policy in place for more than a year within the UN Secretariat, UNDP's belated version does not provide for review by any outside accounting firm. It fails to address the specifics of UNDP -- for example, it appears that some UNDP country directors, those at the P-5 level, would not be required to file disclosures.

On May 14, Inner City Press formally inquired, as yet without response, about one such country director, based on UNDP staff complaints, asking if he

has been accused of sexual or other harassment during his posting in [country redacted for now]; if the alleged victim is now being considered for promotion; whether [he] has a Joint Appeals Board case against him from any previous posting... and if so, where and whether it concerns sexual or other harassment.

With regard to the upcoming Executive Board meetings, please explain why on results-based budgeting, only an "oral decision" is being sought from the Board.

Also, please confirm or deny that UNDP is considering moving its Center in Bratislava to Istanbul and if so, describe any and all involvement by Kemal Dervis in such planning.

Inner City Press' questions from eight days ago [including aboutUNDP Georgia] remain entirely unresponded to.

At UNDP's last press conference in Room S-226, it was requested that UNDP come at least weekly. What is the response? And when Mr. Dervis came to S-226, he said he would return regularly. It is now May. When will Mr. Dervis hold a press conference? And what of the press availabilities at UNDP concerning One-UN? And of the One-UN opening in Albania?

Also, as arose at the UN's noon briefing on Friday, please describe any investigation of UNDP's role in the diamond industry and diamond smuggling in Zimbabwe, and please confirm, yes or no, has the UN (through a UNDP-funded entity called AMSCO or any other entity), provided any financial or in-kind support to the "River Ranch Limited" diamond mine in Zimbabwe, one of whose directors one of whose directors is on a sanctions list?

Please explain and/or comment on the statement that the DPRK "Informed UNDP that while the audit exercise could be held in DPRK for other UN agencies, UNDP could not expect Government to agree to an audit of UNDP programs" -- does UNDP still not expect the DPRK Government to "agree" to an audit of UNDP programs? How could a legitimate audit be completed without such agreement? What did the DRPK tell UNDP on March 26?

This last question, Inner City Press subsequently asked the Spokesperson for the Secretary General at Tuesday's UN noon briefing. From the transcript:

Inner City Press: Also, you’ve got this document where UNDP’s Bureau for Asia and the Pacific states that the North Korean Government told them on 26 March that UNDP could not expect the Government to agree to an audit of UNDP programs. This is a letter the UNDP circulated to its own Executive Board. How does this relate to the idea that if they wanted to go they could go? This seems to make pretty clear that UNDP was told by the Government that they wouldn't "agree to" an audit.

Spokesperson: This should be addressed to UNDP.

Inner City Press: I have a question pending there for eight days. That’s why I’m asking you.

And still no response, including on Inner City Press' question from May 11 about the UN Secretariat's second-highest legal officer's reported letter confirming an investigation into UNDP in Zimbabwe.

Disclosure at UNDP?

In the light of such stonewalling, these late-announced, still detail-less financial disclosure policies seem like a fig leaf, or a band aid. That said, because a UNDP staffer sent them to us and there are not, for whatever reason, on UNDP's web site, here they are, followed by portions of one sample staffer's comments:

From: Kemal Dervis

Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:15 PM
To: UNDP Global Staff
Subject: Policy on Financial Disclosure, Declaration of Interest, and Impartiality Statements (FDP)

15 May 2007

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to announce that UNDP will be implementing the policy on Financial Disclosure and Declaration of Interest (FDP) that was mandated by the Secretary- General in his bulletin of April 2006.
The General Assembly approved an amendment to Staff Regulation 1.2(n) through resolution 60/238 of 23 December 2005. By this amendment, the obligation of filing a financial disclosure statement is extended to all staff at the D-1/L6 level and above and "other staff as deemed necessary in the interest of the Organization". This General Assembly resolution also expands the scope of the financial disclosure requirement to include the spouses and dependent children of the above-mentioned categories of staff.
In response to this resolution, the Secretary-General issued a Bulletin ST/SGB/2006/6) on Financial Disclosure and Declaration of Interest statements, which became effective 1 May 2006. This bulletin requires UN staff who are at the in D1/L6 and above levels, and also those who are engaged in procurement or investment functions, to file financial disclosure statements or declare their interests in outside activities. It has been decided that UNDP will implement this policy by requiring that categories of staff as listed below file financial disclosure statements:

a. All staff at the D1/L6 level and above;

b. All staff who are procurement officers, or whose principal occupational duties are the procurement of goods and services for UNDP with Buyer and Approver roles in ATLAS in UNDP;
c. All staff whose principal occupational duties relate to the investment of assets of UNDP, or any other investment accounts for which UNDP has fiduciary or custodial responsibility;
d. Other staff members whose direct access to confidential procurement or investment information warrants the filing of a financial disclosure statement;
e. The Chairperson and the alternate Chairperson of either the Advisory Committee on Procurement at headquarters, and the Chairperson and the alternate Chairperson of the Contracts, Assets, and Procurement Committee (CAP) in country and regional offices.
Staff who meet any of the criteria listed above and work on $1 per year appointments or serve on appointments of short duration, have the obligation to file a declaration of interest statement instead of a financial disclosure statement.
As part of the UNDP Policy on Financial Disclosure, Declaration of Interest, and Impartiality Statements, staff who are voting members of any advisory committee on procurement will be asked to file a declaration of impartiality statement.
I have asked Ms. Akiko Yuge, Assistant Administrator and Director of the Bureau of Management, to lead the implementation of this policy. She will communicate directly with all of you and provide instructions on how staff should comply with the financial disclosure policy.
Regards,

Kemal

And now, from a portion of one sample UNDP staff member's response:

The letter of Kemal Dervis, while it comes with one-year delay from the day it was approved across the street (UN Secretariat), still stops short on identifying the following:

- This to-be Policy Paper should ensure and mention all levels of higher up management, starting with Kemal Dervis and Ad Melkert, and down with ASG, Regional Directors and Thematic Directors at HQ, Resident Coordinators and Resident Representatives, Country Directors, as well as all those that fall under the categories of Head of Procurement, Head of Human Resources and Head of Finances, with Approval authorities;

- This to-be Policy Paper fail to introduce and clarify the process of disclosure and whom within the organization will be the leading as well as the recipient of such disclosures and decide on whether staff has/have potential conflict of interests. In the absence of an Ethics Officer (missing since the arrival of Ad Melkert - maybe he considers himself as one), as well as an ad-hoc external contractor like Deloitte or another who could be entrusted to check and vouch on these disclosures, the process remains unclear as well as chaotic. Who should start and lead by example should be Kemal Dervis and Ad Melkert followed by Akiko Yuge, Bruce Jenks and the Shah family (director of finance Darshak Shah and his wife Aruna Thanabalasingam of the Office of Human Resources) who together own both the money and the gate to enter into UNDP.

- This to-be Policy Paper is very general and fails to provide clear instructions as well as consequences of failure from staff to do so...

Again, because a number of Inner City Press' UN sources go out of their way to express commitment to serving the poor, and while it should be unnecessary, Inner City Press is compelled to conclude this installment in a necessarily-ongoing series by saluting the stated goals of the UN agencies and many of their staff. Keep those cards, letters and emails coming, and phone calls too, we apologize for any phone tag, but please continue trying, and keep the information flowing.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

UN Office: S-453A, UN, NY 10017 USA Tel: 212-963-1439

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540