UN Whistleblower Wasserstrom to Speak in NY; Letter to be Sent Requesting US Government Withhold Funds

click here for this in full at: http://www.whistleblower.org/press/press-release-archive/2013/2613-media-advisory-un-whistleblower-wasserstrom-to-speak-in-ny-letter-to-be-sent-requesting-us-government-withhold-funds

on April 03, 2013

 

(Washington, DC) – Pioneer UN whistleblower James Wasserstrom will speak at a press conference next Monday, April 8, about a recent decision in his landmark whistleblowing case. Wasserstrom will travel from his post in Afghanistan to New York for the event. That morning he will also announce, and make available to the press, a letter addressed to Secretary of State John Kerry requesting the US government to withhold 15% of its funding to the United Nations in accordance with federal law requiring such if the organization fails to protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

The press conference will be held at 10:00 am in the Landmark Room of the ONE UN Hotel, 1 UN Plaza, 44th Street between 1st Avenue and 2nd Avenue, in Manhattan.

Shelley Walden, international program officer for the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a nonprofit whistleblower protection organization representing Wasserstrom on advocacy issues, will join the whistleblower to discuss the broader implications of the recent judgment for UN whistleblowers. Stated Walden, "The Wasserstrom relief decision is just the latest evidence that the United Nations is not serious about protecting whistleblowers or holding itself accountable. Instead, the organization is sending a loud and clear message to its staff: Keep quiet."

Wasserstrom's letter, which will be distributed to journalists who attend the event, will describe the UN's failure to meet the whistleblower protection criteria established in the 2012 US Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2055). The law requires a 15% withholding of the US contribution to any UN agency if it "is not taking steps to ... implement best practices for the protection of whistleblowers from retaliation, including best practices for legal burdens of proof, access to independent adjudicative bodies, [and] results that eliminate the effects of retaliation..." Wasserstrom's letter suggests potential steps that the United Nations could take to address these shortcomings, and will request that the US government advocate for the release of a UN report on internal corruption in the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). To date, the United Nations has failed to publicly release this investigative report, which is based in part on Wasserstrom's disclosures.

UPDATED 4/8/2013: You can read the letter here.

Background on Wasserstrom's Case

From 2002-08, Wasserstrom served with the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations as a senior official at UNMIK. In 2007, he alleged internal corruption involving UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Special Representative (SRSG) Joachim Ruecker, Principal Deputy SRSG Stephen Schook, and UNMIK Legal Advisor Alexander Borg-Olivier. After his whistleblowing came to light, he was detained by UNMIK police officers on trumped-up charges, his home and person were illegally searched, his photograph was posted on all UNMIK premises barring his entry, and the United Nations and UNMIK subjected him to criminal and administrative investigations.

In 2008, Mary Dorman, Wasserstrom's attorney, filed a case against the Secretary General in the UN's internal justice system. Specifically the complaint alleged that the UN Ethics Office, which has the responsibility to protect whistleblowers, and the Office for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which investigates claims of retaliation referred to it by the Ethics Office, failed in their responsibilities. In a June 2012 decision, the UN Dispute Tribunal agreed, calling his treatment "appalling." In a decision issued last month, the judge concluded that it is "difficult to envisage a worse case of insensitive, highhanded and arbitrary treatment in breach of the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." However, the Tribunal awarded a paltry $65,000 in damages and costs, or 2% of the amount sought by Wasserstrom. This amount does not address the full consequences of retaliation experienced by Wasserstrom.

"This low award will have a chilling effect for would-be whistleblowers, plain and simple," said GAP's Walden. "Wasserstrom's case exemplifies the persistent failure of the United Nations to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. This landmark judgment shows that even when UN whistleblowers win their cases, they still lose as they are left far worse off financially than if they had simply remained silent."

The Ethics Office's Dismal Track Record on Whistleblowers
Wasserstrom's letter will also detail the failure of the United Nations to protect whistleblowers. UN Ethics Office reports show that at least 343 protection-against-retaliation inquiries were submitted to the Office over the period from 2006-12. The Office completed a preliminary review in 87 of these cases and Wasserstrom's was one of only nine cases in which it found a prima facie case of retaliation. After further review, the Ethics Office found in favor of only one whistleblower, ultimately rejecting 99% of UN whistleblowers' retaliation claims, including Wasserstrom's. In 2011, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon tried to shut down whistleblowers' access to the justice system, but was unsuccessful.

For more information about the event or letter, contact GAP's Shelley Walden at shelleyw@whistleblower.org, or at 202.457.0034, ext. 156. Regarding the ongoing litigation, contact attorney Mary Dorman at mddorman@gmail.com or 646.230.7444.

Contact: Dylan Blaylock, GAP Communications Director
Phone: 202.457.0034, ext. 137
Email: dylanb@whistleblower.org

Government Accountability Project
The Government Accountability Project is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization. Through litigating whistleblower cases, publicizing concerns and developing legal reforms, GAP's mission is to protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate accountability. Founded in 1977, GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.

GAP report: - “Tipping the Scales: Is the United Nations Justice System Promoting Accountability in the Peacekeeping Missions or Undermining It?”

Click here to read this @ G.A.P - Whistleblower.org:  http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/gap-reports/tipping-the-scales

This GAP report analyzes the impact of the United Nations internal justice system on accountability practices in the UN peacekeeping missions. The GAP report, “Tipping the Scales: Is the United Nations Justice System Promoting Accountability in the Peacekeeping Missions or Undermining It?” is based on a review of two years of UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and UN Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) judgments, and 36 interviews with key UN personnel, external attorneys and whistleblowers from eight different peacekeeping missions.

"Virtually every person in a UN peacekeeping mission whom we spoke with raised disturbing concerns about fundamental shortcomings in the UN’s accountability mechanisms," said GAP International Officer Shelley Walden, one of the report's authors. "Most stated that they were afraid to speak-up about misconduct, and whistleblowers who did told us that they were subjected to intense retaliation as a result.”

A copy of the report's Executive Summary can be downloaded here.
A copy of the full report can be downloaded here.
Read the Press Release here.

Annexes to the report can be downloaded here:

• Annex I: Problems with the New Justice System (As Identified by Respondents)
• Annex II: What’s Working Well in the New Justice System & Recommendations for Improving It (As Identified by Respondents)         
• Annex III: Problems That Respondents Raised Regarding Whistleblowing
• Annex IV: Issues Connected To Discipline of Those Who Engaged In Misconduct in the Field & Suggestions for Addressing Misconduct in Peacekeeping Missions (As Identified by Respondents)         
• Annex V: Methodology
• Annex VI: UN Dispute Tribunal Judgment Chart from July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2011 (each year has a separate tab)
• Annex VII: UN Appeals Tribunal Judgment Chart from July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2011
• Annex VIII: UN Administrative Tribunal Judgment Chart from July 1, 2007 – December 31, 2009

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

GAP: UN Judge Asks Secretary-General to Reassure Whistleblowers

by Shelley Walden on July 19, 2012 ( The Whistleblogger / 2012 )

Last week, a United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) judge issued another extraordinary decision that demonstrates the Tribunal’s respect for whistleblowers. Like last month’s Wasserstrom decision, this judgment shows that UNDT - the court of first instance of the two-tier internal justice system through which UN employees contest violations of their rights – is committed to ensuring that UN whistleblowers are protected.

In Dzuverovic v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, the applicant, a former United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) employee, contested the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ (OIOS) refusal to investigate her disclosure of recruitment and procurement irregularities in UN-HABITAT. OIOS failed to inform the applicant of this decision until 2010, fifteen years after she made her initial disclosure. In the meantime, she was subjected to retaliation, including decisions that “proved to be to the detriment of her career,” (para. 72) and ultimately separated from service.

Unfortunately, Judge Nkemdilim Izuako was compelled to find that the case was inadmissible at the Tribunal, as Dzuverovic missed the UN’s ridiculously short 60-day statute of limitations for contesting an administrative decision. But, although the Judge dismissed the case, she took the extraordinary step of “RECOMMEND[ing] it to the Secretary-General for sympathetic review with a view to bringing substantive justice and closure to it” and pleaded for him to take “a compassionate view.” (Paragraphs 74 and 61,original emphasis) This appears to be the first time that a UNDT judge has made such a recommendation in a whistleblower case, and the fact that it is emphasized in the text of the ruling suggests that the judge expects this recommendation to be taken seriously. The judge also wrote that:

This recommendation is made bearing in mind the special measures that have been put in place with regards to the protection of whistleblowers who risk their jobs, professional lives and livelihoods by courageously seeking to expose wrong-doings within the Organization. The United Nations, being the foremost international Organization for setting standards for governments and other organizations, needs to review the case of this Applicant as this will serve not only the ends of justice but also to reassure whistleblowers that they are indeed protected. (paragraphs 75 and 76).

Amen!

UN whistleblowers could certainly use the Secretary-General’s reassurance. The UN Ethics Office, which is charged with reviewing retaliation complaints and safeguarding the interests of UN whistleblowers, has only found retaliation and recommended relief in one of the approximately 297 retaliation complaints that it has received since its launch in 2006. And that outlier whistleblower has yet to be fully protected from retaliation. The Secretary-General should take action in that case – and Ms. Dzuverovic’s – to ensure that justice is done.

In addition, GAP recommends that the UN General Assembly revisit the deadline for submitting a request for Management Evaluation and an application to the Tribunal. The 60-day statute of limitations is a major flaw in the UN justice system. According to best practice whistleblower policies from around the world, six months is the minimum functional statute of limitations for whistleblowers to become aware of or act on their rights … and one-yearstatutes of limitations are consistent with common law rights and are preferable. Also, a review should be done of the propriety of OIOS’ decision not to investigate Dzuverovic’s disclosures due to “resource constraints” and, if any of the alleged wrongdoers remain employed by UN-HABITAT, an investigation should be opened.

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

Is the Experience of “The Whistleblower” Typical? Yes.

by Shelley Walden on September 13, 2011 ( The Whistleblogger / 2010 )

As mentioned in a previous blog entry, GAP has been anxiously awaiting the release of "The Whistleblower," a movie that details the true story of the United Nations' complicity in the sex-trafficking industry in Bosnia. I recently had the opportunity to see this film and was blown away by the importance of whistleblower Kathryn Bolkovac's disclosures. As a critic for The New York Times wrote: "This earnest film may not be as dramatically coherent or as gripping as Serpico, All the President's Men, Erin Brockovich and Silkwood, ... But its revelations are, if anything, more devastating and far more immediate than the dirty deeds uncovered in those predecessors."

When Bolkovac stumbles upon a Bosnian club in which kidnapped girls are forced to work as sex slaves, she discovers photographs of customers –including UN peacekeepers – abusing the girls. As she attempts to gather enough evidence to free the women and prosecute the wrongdoers, personnel from the United Nations and contractor DynCorp International (changed to the pseudonym "Democra Security" in the movie) continually block her and turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing.

GAP believes that the movie accurately portrayed the six stages (see minute 17) of the whistleblowing process. These stages, as depicted in the film, include:

1. Discovery: Whistleblowers are usually excellent employees who, in the course of doing their jobs, stumble upon evidence of wrongdoing and feel compelled to address it. In Bolkovac's case, while employed as a U.N. International Police Force monitor in Bosnia (under contract with DynCorp International) she discovered that Eastern European women were being sex-trafficked into the country. She proceeded to unravel the complicity of the UN diplomatic corps and peacekeeping troops in rape, kidnapping and torture. As Bolkovac says in the movie: "I don't want a scandal. I'm just doing my job."
2. Disclosure: Whistleblowers then take their disclosures to third parties (organization higher-ups, the media, regulatory agencies) who are in the position to do something to address the problem. Typically, whistleblowers go through internal channels first. Bolkovac tried numerous internal channels, including sending an email to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
3. Isolation: Whistleblowers often find themselves isolated from their colleagues, who suddenly want nothing to do with them. The film illustrates how Bolkovac's roommate refuses to help her, and several colleagues betray her. At one point even the trafficked girls (understandably) abandon her, as they risk physical assault, sexual abuse or worse for speaking up against the traffickers. One colleague informs Bolkavac "you're on your own."
4. Retaliation: Often managers react to disclosures by attacking the whistleblower, rather than addressing the problem. In the movie, Bolkovac is terminated and ordered out of the mission soon after she blows the whistle to the UN Secretary-General. She is denied access to her office, which contains crucial case files, and escorted off the premises. Her reputation and mothering skills are questioned. Her home phone is bugged and she receives an anonymous phone call in which a man warns that "we're watching you and you better shut your mouth."
5. Solidarity: But doom need not be a whistleblower's destiny. Successful whistleblowers find support with family and friends. Their concerns can become the cause of advocacy groups, reporters, Congressional representatives, and others who can help them. This turns the tables, putting the bad guys on the defensive. The film shows how Bolkovac recruited allies, including Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights gender expert Madeleine Rees (played by Vanessa Redgrave), and the BBC, to help her speak truth to power.
6. Vindication: Hopefully, all of the wrongdoing and corruption exposed by the whistleblower is eventually recognized by the public. Bolkovac did receive some vindication: in 2002 she won her lawsuit for unfair dismissal in retaliation for her whistleblowing in a unanimous decision against DynCorp's British subsidiary. The United Nations subsequently took some actions – though not enough – to curb sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping operations, and DynCorp fired several employees. Bolkovac was able to raise awareness about her disclosure through the media, a book and this movie.

But Bolkovac's story doesn't have a Hollywood ending – those involved in the sex trafficking, rape and murder portrayed in the film escaped prosecution, and DynCorp was subsequently awarded U.S. government contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq, where it allegedly misused millions of dollars. And now, Bolkovac is working as an auctioneer, after repeatedly being turned down for police and security company jobs.

Overall, The Whistleblower does an excellent job of showcasing the basic stages that whistleblowers commonly navigate. The ending also illustrates the all too common fate for many whistleblowers who find themselves blacklisted for years. This is because most whistleblower protections are inadequate or not enforced.

Now, a decade after the events portrayed in the movie, UN whistleblowers still face retaliation for raising concerns about misconduct and corruption, despite the fact that former Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a whistleblower protection policy in 2005. Current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recentlyinformed the film's director that "due protections are firmly in place for those who 'blow the whistle.'" But these protections are rarely enforced, as described in my previous blog post. Fortunately, a bill has recently been introduced by U.S. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen that would require the United Nations to uphold its whistleblower policy and establish an "effective" ethics office. If the bill passes, the United Nations could lose a portion of U.S. funding contributions if it fails to meet these standards.

The Whistleblower will be screened at UN headquarters in October, in conjunction with a panel discussion addressing sex trafficking. I hope that the United Nations will also take this opportunity to discuss its treatment of whistleblowers and how it could better protect them from retaliation and act on their disclosures. The United Nations cannot afford to ignore these critical issues.

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