GAP denounces the new SGB on Ethics

New UN Ethics Guidelines Greatly Misleading Whistleblower Retaliation Protections Weakened, Up to 15 Agencies May Enact Lower Standards

(Washington, D.C.) – The codification of ethics standards and policies for various UN agencies detailed in the December 1st bulletin issued by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon complicates and confuses the issue, creating an entirely new level of bureaucratic dispute, delay, cost and inefficiency for those who report corruption in UN operations and suffer retaliation as a result, in the opinion of the Government Accountability Project (GAP).

The policy in question is the United Nations System-Wide Application of Ethics: Separately Administered Organs and Programmes. The United Nations announced the new measure by stating: “Employees working in the Funds and Programmes of the United Nations are now covered by the same system of ethical protections and programmes as their colleagues in the UN Secretariat.” In fact, Ban Ki-moon’s new bulletin accomplishes exactly the opposite by effectively exempting the Funds and Programmes from the jurisdiction of the UN Ethics Office.

“This bulletin replaces a single Ethics Office, structurally independent of management in the Funds and Programs and responsible for applying a uniform set of ethical standards, with proliferating ad hoc internal ethics offices, operating at the pleasure of the heads of these agencies,” said Bea Edwards, GAP International Program Director.

In December 2005, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan issued a bulletin establishing an independent UN Ethics Office, with a staff responsible for receiving appeals from whistleblowers in need of relief from retaliation. As whistleblowers from UN Funds and Programs came forward, assuming they were protected by the 2005 bulletin, Ban Ki-moon allowed for ‘separately administered agencies’ to exempt themselves from the UN Ethics Office’s jurisdiction. Effectively the new Secretary General allowed agencies to opt-out of the agreed-upon ethical guidelines. Whistleblowers from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) who had reported serious corruption and fraud in their agency were badly hurt, as this inaction left them in legal limbo for nearly a year. Although the UNDP Administrator reports directly to the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon has behaved as if he had no authority over UNDP.

With this latest development, the Secretary General sets out a second policy explicitly restricting the established Ethics Office to cases originating in the Secretariat and the peacekeeping forces, and relegating cases from UN Funds and Programs to recently, or not-yet, established ad hoc ethics offices in each agency. These new offices will hear retaliation cases according to yet-to-be-elaborated ethical standards, which will then be ‘harmonized’ by a UN Ethics Committee.

“This bulletin states that a committee will now negotiate definitions of ethics to be applied system-wide,” said Edwards. “Such a dubious process could take years and does not bring justice to whistleblowers. Nor does it protect them from retaliation or address the issue of corruption.

”The new bulletin is flawed by glaring omissions. First, it sets out no parameters for establishing the new ethics offices. To ensure objectivity, a credible ethics officer must have legal training in the field, be recruited by an objective search committee from outside the institution, and have a secure position not subject to dismissal or harassment. The offices must be adequately staffed with similarly secure and trained officers. Above all, ethics personnel must be insulated from internal pressure and retaliation themselves.

The already operational UN Ethics Office was set up in this manner, and could therefore evaluate whistleblower cases from the Funds and Programs with genuine impartiality. The 2005 policy protecting personnel from retaliation when reporting fraud and corruption also provides protection for witnesses, assurances of confidentiality, measures of interim relief, and modern burdens of proof. The new offices, to be set up in the next three to six weeks, will operate under no such obligations.

The new bulletin does allow whistleblowers from Funds and Programs who claim unfair treatment from the new internal ethics offices to subsequently appeal to the UN Ethics Office. But any measure that adds cost and delay to the investigation and hearing process seriously damages the position of the whistleblower, who, in many cases, is dismissed, demoted, marginalized and harassed without relief.

The number of UN “separately administered agencies” that will establish separate ethics offices is unclear at this point, but it could be as many as fifteen. Already the UNDP and World Food Program (WFP) have appointed ethics officers (without impartial search committees), and UNICEF and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) have also moved in this direction. With at least two legal professionals and support staff and infrastructure, the minimal cost per new office would be US$300,000 per year. The UN system is poised to assume extra costs of about $4.5 million per year for the purpose of avoiding the application of meaningful ethical standards.

The understanding of Christopher Burnham, the Under Secretary for Management who wrote the 2005 bulletin with technical assistance from GAP, was that the bulletin applied across the UN system. Likewise, a panel of independent jurists evaluating the UN justice system in 2006 strongly recommended that the Ombudsman’s offices be merged into a single system-wide jurisdiction. But when the UN Ethics Office designated a UNDP whistleblower as a victim of retaliation, UNDP Administrator Kemal Dervis declared that the Funds and Programs were not subject to the UN Ethics Office, effectively evading any future investigation.

“By allowing Dervis to retaliate with impunity, Ban Ki-moon is now promoting a Potemkin Village of costly ethics offices throughout the system without independence, credibility or standards,” said Edwards.

A copy of the new UN bulletin can be found on GAP’s Web site here: http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/2007/BKM%20Bulletin.pdf Government Accountability ProjectThe 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 with offices in Washington, D.C. and Seattle, WA. #####

The Revolution is ON !!

Holding accountable a 6 billion dollars machine is not easy, it requires lots of efforts and lots of staff in order to hold UN's Ban Ki Moon and UNDP's Kemal Dervis accountable. But we are getting there.

Today the UNDP Watch is joining efforts with a reputable ethics and accountability fighter, Mr. Leon Kukkuk and his newest editions:

1. UNDP Operations Watch : http://undpoperationswatch.blogspot.com/
2. UN Management Review : http://unmanagementreview.blogspot.com/

UNDP Watch will continue to focus on exposing all internal UNDP corruption from top-to-bottom. Our Procurement series will continue on daily basis for almost 1400 days. Meanwhile, thanks to our friends at Human Resources, now UNDP Watch will also start a series of Human Resource Watch.

The Human Resource watch will focus on nepotism and irregular appointments at UNDP. We will explain with real evidence how outsiders makes it to enter from the "window at UNDP". We will expose all the "windows" and show you how to make it there. Just be patient.

We will show all National Staffers and Junior Professionals and UNVs around the world, how UNDP management have forgotten about them. We will show how racist the organization is when a National Staff or a UNV dares to apply for an international posts. We will show statistics on how many "outsiders" makes it to enter from the "windows" in positions that instead should be filled with National Staff, JPOs and or UNVs based on rotation policies.

Our ultimate goal is to :

(a) have all DRR positions filled with National Staff;

(b) have all ARR positions filled with National Staff;

(c) by end of January 2008 implement a freeze on external hiring and a clear policy within the UNDP on rotation of National Staff that have served for more than 2 (two) consecutive years at their home-duty-station.

(d) have all those at Headquarters who haven't served any country office duty be rotated by end of March 2008;

(e) have all those who are currently at D1 and above be re-evaluated through a transparent 360 degree evaluation - which gives subordinates to anonymously provide ratings for their supervisors;

To achieve all the above we call upon all UNDP staff ( at HQs and COs) to:

• start download all documents, programmes, projects and operations data you are involved with;
• check among them who are corrupt and who you think shouldn't be there;
• if it's clear corruption send it to UNDP Watch and/or UNDP Operations Watch;
• if it's about management corrupt behaviours and nepotism send it to UN Management Review;

All of us should contribute to make our work environment free of corruption and criminal managers. Therefore please copy as much as you can and bring it out so we can make it public. The tax-payers around the world need to know what UNDP is doing with their money. They need all data be made public now.

Don't be afraid of Kemal Dervis. The only way to win this war and restore credibility to our organization is to fight against these managers who think that the money bestowed on us is theirs and they can treat us and our Departments/Bureaux as their personal kingdoms.

Victory Nr. 1: forced by UNDPWatch undisputable facts - Kemal Dervis admits he lied about the servers

KEMAL DERVIS GO AWAY !! YOU ARE A LIAR !!

a Major Victory was achieved today towards holding United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) accountable. Thanks to UNDP-WATCH and the courage of the staffers who cooperate with us, the Kemal Dervis's spokesperson - David Morrison has finally come out and reneged in his first statements about the disappearance of the servers at FOX NEWS.

Today the FOX NEWS is running a Correction to the first story and reporting that Kemal Dervis and His Spokesperson David Morrison did lie about the content of those servers and how they were being handled.

Leave now Kemal Dervis and take with you all the corrupt officials you have around you.



------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314664,00.html
Correction: UNDP Accused of Coverup in North Korea Cash Funneling Scandal

Monday, December 03, 2007

In a Nov. 26 story entitled “UNDP Accused of Coverup in North Korea Cash Funneling Scandal,†UNDP gave incorrect information to FOX News regarding the contents of 11 computer servers that critics say are being disposed of as part of the alleged coverup. As reported in the story, UNDP spokesman David Morrison told FOX News that the servers, which UNDP has declared obsolete, had been used to host the organizations's "virtual directory" (phone book) and "contained no sensitive information."
After follow-up questions from FOX News, Morrison said that only one of the 11 servers hosted the directory. The others “were a combination of file/print servers and UNDP’s old intranet.†All information contained in the servers, he declared, “was migrated to other equipment to ensure that no information was lost.†The incorrect information, he told Fox News, had been provided inadvertently.
Click here to read the original story.

UNDP awards Public Tax-payers money to Private Incorporated Companies in India - KEMAL DERVIS RESIGN NOW !!

UNDP Funds Invested in NISG, a private limited company which does not come under Indian Parliament control procedures and NISG's non transparent Activities, raising serious concerns about the credibility of the UNDP in India.

—————–Forwarded Message:
Subj: UNDP Funds Invested in NISG, a private limited company which does not come under Indian Parliament control procedures and NISG's non transparent Activities, raising serious concerns about the credibility of the UNDP in India.

Date: 11/9/2005 9:43:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time

Mr. Kemal Dervis
Administrator
United Nations Development Programme One United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017 USATelephone: (212) 906 5317Fax: (212) 906 5364
kemal.dervis@undp.org

Dear Mr. Kemal Dervis,

Ref: UNDP Funds Invested in NISG, a private limited company which does not come under Indian Parliament control procedures and NISG's non transparent Activities, raising serious concerns about the credibility of the UNDP in India.

I am V. M. Kumaraswamy, a non resident Indian living in USA for the past 30 years. I am located in California, USA. I moderate India's largest e-governance yahoo-group under the title eGovINDIA.

You can reach this group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eGovINDIA eGovINDIA is a discussion group dedicated to promoting true e-governance in India, consisting of members from all walks of life from within INDIA and the World over. Many State Ministers and senior bureaucrats of India are members of this group. We do have lawyers, social activists, freelance writers and journalists in the group. The group is meant for serious activists only. Casual members are not allowed to join the group. The group is moderated by an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officer apart from me. As on date, the group has nearly 2200 members.

The focus of this group is true e-governance and use of open source technology in e-governance. The members of this forum have a passion to see a truly e-governed India, resulting in transparency and easy access to government services by the common man, notably the depressed class people (so called untouchables), women and people living in far flung and difficult areas of India.

Corruption is a stark reality in India. The recent reports put India in the worst category in corruption index. For the group members, e-governance means less corruption too.

The least we expect out of e-governance is transparency.

UNDP had come forward to promote e-governance in India in a large way. We are thankful to the UNDP's gesture. We are aware that UNDP had committed for the e-governance of India to the tune of $30 millions in the next three –four years. From the funds already provided by UNDP, a private limited company named National Institute of Smart Government (NISG) had been formed in a place called Hyderabad (nearly 1700 k.ms from Delhi). Under a Memorandum of Understanding between UNDP and the Government of India, the NISG had been formed. As per NISG's constitution, the company can never be a Government company. It would always remain a private limited company, away from the Controls of the Government.

So far, whatever money that had been used by NISG had come from UNDP only. No private partner had come forward to invest in it. NASSCOM, which is the largest private partner in NISG had not invested any amount in NISG, save for some software contribution which is unnecessary as open source software is available totally free of cost. UNDP had committed its $30 million to be spent only through the NISG. In short NISG means UNDP.

You must be aware that a private limited company in India cannot be supervised by the Indian parliament. For any Government sector company, the Indian Parliament has supervisory powers through its powerful Parliament Committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The Parliament's writ does not cover any Private limited company in India. Similarly any Government owned company comes under the supervision of Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (Federal Police). CBI is a powerful anti corruption police at the disposal of the Federal Government of India. But neither of these organizations has any role to play with regard to a private company such as NISG.

The Higher Judiciary, notably the High Courts and Supreme Court of India have writ jurisdictions in the case of State's roles. These are extra ordinary powers to check unlawful and corrupt activities where State's funds are involved. The higher judiciary's writ jurisdiction does not extend to the private companies.

In short NISG which had been formed under the auspicious of UNDP had been left free of any control mechanism in India to be handled by three – four bureaucrats in India.

Our concern with regard to NISG which is solely funded by UNDP goes beyond this.

True e-governance comes only through process automation based governance which calls for total involvement of the government machinery.

NISG had skirted this issue completely and has been championing the so called private public partnership (PPP). The PPP model promoted by NISG has been found to be a bill collection event so far, where the private partner collects the utility bills which does not involve any e-governance. This is tantamount to corruption in a sense as the funds meant for good governance / e-governance are being diverted for other purposes.

The PPP model goes against the egalitarian principle as this can never work in rural areas of India where 75% of India's population resides.

NISG had not commenced any effort so far in the last one year, involving process automation based e-governance which is the actual e-governance.

This is just one of our concerns and there are much more serious concerns pointing to corrupt activities involving NISG.
NISG is chaired by Mr.J.Satyanarayana, an IAS officer from Andhra Pradesh who had been found to be corrupt by an independent media – DATAQUEST.

Dataquest is one of the largest circulated IT magazines in India. This reputed magazine had found out that Mr.J.Satyanarayana had favoured only one company in majority of his decisions. The story goes back to his earlier days when he served as Secretary to Government in Andhra Pradesh. As Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mr.J.Satyanarayana had cooperated in a scandal called e-seva. The Comptroller and Auditor General had adversely commented about this project stating that the selection procedure was not transparent. Records indicate that Mr.J.Satyanarayana has been promoting the same company (M/s Ram Infotech / CMS consortium) in other states. Notable among them is the Bangalore One project for which Mr.J.Satyanarayana and his NISG acted as Project Managers. For Bangalore One Project Mr.J.Satyanarayana had selected the very same consortium by fabricating the tender documents. These are serious allegations which may bring disrepute to UNDP in the days to come unless immediate and impartial action is taken to do course correction.

I also wish to bring to your notice about the funding made by NISG from out of UNDP funds during July, last year (2004). NISG had failed to host the details of the funding in its website. For that matter NISG has been revealing very little about what it does with its funding. Good governance through such implementing partners cannot be obtained by UNDP.

In the absence of the voluntary information from NISG we get information that the entire funding or the major portion had been given to nondescript NGOs for promotion of "good governance". No one knows the outcome of such funding. India needs such funds for true e-governance activities. But NISG under Mr.J.Satyanarayana does not seem to be interested in true e-governance.

There is a valid doubt that Mr.J.Satyanarayana might have chosen the agencies which are either related to him or just friends.
There are substantiated allegations (through Dataquest report) that NISG under the leadership of Mr.J.Satyanarayana had rigged the tenders using UNDP's funds. The authors of this scam had no reply when Dataquest had sought their response quoting specific details. It had also been confirmed through this report that Mr.J.Satyanarayana has been promoting a company called Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PWC) in all his dealings, ignoring canons of justice and fair play.

More details are available in the Dataquest website itself:
http://www.dqindia.com/content/DQTop20_05/BestEmployers2005/2005/105090203.asp
NISG has been promoting yet another company under the leadership of Mr.J.Satyanarayana. The name of the company is C1 India Limited. This company bagged a contract for E-PROCUREMENT through Mr.J.Satyanarayana when he was Secretary to Government, IT Department in Government of Andhra Pradesh. The tender was finalized by PWC on limited tender basis which is illegal. Commerce One India which subsequently became C1 India Limited was hand picked by Mr.J.Satyanarayana and the entire tender procedure was an eye wash. There are allegations that PWC, the pet partner of Mr.J.Satyanarayana conducted the tender evaluation for this project in its Mumbai office without any representation from Government of Andhra Pradesh which is a gross impropriety. The ultimate case of deceit can be found from the fact that the very same consultant - PWC, after choosing C1 India as the implementing company had joined them in the execution of the project in Andhra Pradesh itself. Consultant cannot join the implementing partner at all. This is barred in any international scheme of things. This is not permissible in India too.

As on date, C1 India and PWC jointly bid for the e-procurement contracts with various state governments all over India.
NISG has started promoting C1 India Limited along with PWC in other States in the area of e-procurement. Our latest information is that NISG has been persuading the Government of Karnataka to accept this duo for implementing e-procurement system in that State.
As all of us in India knew that NISG means UNDP. Any bad reputation accrued to NISG is directly attributed to UNDP.
Does UNDP want to earn the tag "Corrupt" through NISG?

This is a serious question to be addressed by you when you are in India.

Failure to promote open source software but very proactive in promoting Microsoft's proprietary technology:
Unlike the rest of the world and against the proclamation of UNDP that it would promote open source software in governments and public services, NISG has been consciously promoting Microsoft products only at a huge cost. To our knowledge, as on date, NISG had not taken up even a single open source software project. This is matter for your inquiry.

I am sure you would see the scheme behind formation of NISG by the bureaucrats who are in the helm of affairs of NISG today both at Hyderabad and in New Delhi. The Joint Secretary of Ministry of IT and e-governance in Government of India who is in the governing body of NISG is Mr.Chandrasekhar IAS.,
Mr.Chandrasekhar IAS., was a predecessor of Mr.J.Satyanarayana in Andhra Pradesh Government in the same department.
The two of them control the NISG fully. The two of them have configured the NISG as a totally control free private limited company.
We are all aware that Mr.Chandrasekhar has the final say in permitting or not permitting UNDP to invest in developmental activities in India.

What are the reasons behind creating NISG in this way is a question that has to be looked into by you during your stay in India.
To part with, I wish to bring to your notice that the Government of India's budget for e-governance spending in the next five years is expected to be Rs.25,000 crores ( one billion dollars). The world bank had already committed US $ 500 millions recently. Right now it is expected that NISG would play a major role in spending this money!

Whose money is it anyway?

It is the public money that is proposed to be routed through NISG which is out of the controls of Government of India, save for the supervision of two or three bureaucrats whose integrity is grossly suspect.

So far, the officials of UNDP in Delhi had failed to look into the long term implications of these corrupt deviations in terms of the credibility of UNDP.

The very fact that the claim of the officials of NISG that they had looked into the complaints against them and found them to be unsubstantiated shows that things are not happening the way UNDP would like it to happen.

UNDP cannot be a mute spectator anymore.

UNDP has to seek withdrawal of its association from NISG. It would be just and proper for UNDP to realign with a Government of India organization such as National Informatics Centre (NIC) which is fully under the control and supervision of the Indian parliament.
This would save the name of the UNDP for the time being and in the long run too.

I hope I have made things clear for you to do the follow up.

Thanks.
V.M.Kumaraswamy, MBA
949-857-8578 and 714-357-0206

USEFUL LINKS for UNDP.

NISG has been incorporated as a not-for-profit Company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, at Hyderabad on the 28th of May 2002.

The following is the important corporate information.

• Memorandum of Association ( Click here to download )
• http://www.nisg.org/docs_pdfs_ppts/docs/MOA.docArticles of Association ( Click here to download)
• http://www.nisg.org/docs_pdfs_ppts/docs/AOA.docAuthorized share capital of NISG : Rupees Twenty Five Crores

Bitter and twisted old men (by Leon Kukkuk)

Saturday, 1 December 2007
http://letterstogabriella.blogspot.com/

Bitter and twisted old men
The Laurel and Hardy of the Development world, messrs. Kemal Dervis and Ad Melkert has sent a very clear message as to exactly what they think of Office of the Under Secretary for Management at the United Nations in its efforts to improve internal oversight and transparency.

On 19 December 2005 when the Secretary-General issued the bulletin “Protection against retaliation for reporting misconduct and for cooperating with duly authorized audits or investigations” (SGB/2005/21), it seemed as if the United Nations was finally on track in applying common sense best practices in whistleblower protection.

However, since that time, UNDP senior management has made it apparent that they believe quite clearly that they can opt out of the whistleblower protection policy and reject Ethics Office findings, thus causing serious concerns regarding the effective implementation of the policy.

In a letter to the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) expressed these concerns:“The “UN Delivering as One” initiative cannot be achieved with each unit applying a different set of ethical standards, nor can “One UN” be implemented at the country level if led by a UNDP that insists on its own institutional autonomy in the face of General Assembly resolutions.”Instead of Ban Ki-moon using his authority to point out to the UNDP management that the bulletin (SGB/2005/21) was issued in accordance with a General Assembly instruction to apply to the whole of the UN system, he allowed UNDP to come up with its own set of rules.UNDP promptly instructed their feather weight Legal Support Office to come up with an Updated “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With Un Standards Of Conduct” dated 20 September 2007.

GAP responded in some detail to this amateurish piece of nonsense but failed to reiterate clearly enough that above all else it is a document that is functionally illegal.The one issue that is particularly revealing of the prevailing mentality of UNDP’s top management is contained in “Section 2 - Scope of Application” specifically point “2.2 - To Whom The Present Document Does Not Apply.”It goes on to state that “6. The present document does not apply to:” and then excluding all seconded staff members, independent contractors, employees under Service Contracts, interns, volunteers, employees without a UNDP letter of appointment, independent contractors under Special Service Agreements and some locally recruited staff.In other words, excluding exactly the sort of people most likely to raise concerns. Only regular staff can rely on any sort of protection. As a rule regular staff at UNDP only become regular staff once they have amply demonstrated that they are compliant and unlikely to complain.

The report also imposes restrictions on external disclosures, in favour of disclosure directly to the Administrator, thus turning this person into judge, jury, prosecutor, defended and executioner all in one. It also promotes the fallacy that the Director of the Office of Audit and Performance Review (OAPR) would actually and impartially investigate reports of wrongdoing.I have no experience of this office doing any such a thing – ever.

As part of its pious promises the report suggests that:“27. In the event that the staff member fears retribution or retaliation as a consequence of reporting to his or her supervisors, he or she should report the matter to OAPR (by email: hotline@undp.org ; or by telephone: UNDP fraud hotline voicemail system: ((Worldwide)) +l 212 906 5050).30. Except when an allegation is made anonymously, the individual reporting the allegations will receive an acknowledgement from the office to which the allegations were reported.”Therefore I wrote to this office. The least I could hope for was an acknowledgement from the office that they had received my correspondence, as promised:

From: Leon Kukkuk Sent: 26 November 2007 09:02
To: 'hotline@undp.org'
Cc: 'Ellen Gardner'; 'matthew.lee@innercitypress.com'
Subject: FW: [Fwd: Defamatory use of online service: http://www.publishedauthors.net/leonkukkuk/events.html]

Failure by UNDP to adequately address the habit of its staff to lie, threaten and deceive.

Dear Madam/Sir,

Please refer to the message from Stephen Kinloch at the end of this correspondence.I had responded to Stephen Kinloch in substantial detail regarding the issues that he had raised and requested clarification regarding the action he intends taking.

More than a year has now passed since his threat of “severe measures” and he still has neither followed up on this nor provided an explanation for his threats. A brief promise of a much belated OIOS investigation also failed to produce the slightest hint of a possible solution.

This is an issue that remains relevant for the following reasons:

• · The actions taken against me by UNDP staff has been devastating and the consequences are ongoing to the present day.
• · The same criminals that I had identified as involved in fraud remain employed with UNDP and continue to fail to adhere to the “highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity.”
• · Fraud and corruption within UNDP remain systemic, systematic and co-ordinated.

Management at all levels continue to act in the best interest of the criminals employed at the organisation. As things stand at the moment the only way to deal with UNDP is to make public at every opportunity the nature and extent of criminality within the organisation and to continuously inform the public and donors about the real motivations behind UNDP management decisions.

Even though I believe the making of threats to be grossly inappropriate behaviour by international civil servants, I nevertheless expect them to either follow through on these threats or provide an explanation or apology for having made them.Stephen Kinloch has done neither.UNDP has provided no explanation for this behaviour by one of its managers.

I do not consider the fact that UNDP employs cowards and condone cowardly behaviour as sufficient justification for this attitude.Could I request you to please correct the present state of affairs?

Best Wishes.

Leon Kukkuk

-------- Mensagem Original --------Assunto: Defamatory use of online service: http://www.publishedauthors.net/leonkukkuk/events.html

Remetente: stephen.kinloch-pichat@undp.org
Data: Fri, 24 Novembro 2006 00:03
Para: leonkukkuk@publishedauthors.net

Dear Mr. Kukkuk,

It has just come to my attention that my name, together with that of several colleagues who either work or have worked for the United Nations (UN) and the United Nations Devlopment Programme (UNDP) in Angola or elsewhere, is mentioned in hidden (but searchable and readable) text, together with defamatory terms such as 'fraud' or 'corruption' in your webpage:http://www.publishedauthors.net/leonkukkuk/events.html

As you are probably aware, the use of a computer or online service to defame a person carries with it severe potential liability, including for any related claims, proceedings, damages, injuries, liabilities,losses, costs, and expenses.

Therefore, I would like to kindly request you to immediately and completely delete all personal reference, whether hidden or visible, to my name and that of other colleagues from the above mentioned website, and any other website that you may have published.I have already alerted PublishedAuthors.Net.

In order to avoid further measures, I would appreciate your acknowledging receipt of this email and confirming that you have made taken appropriate corrective action.

Yours sincerely,
Stephen Kinloch
Advisor,
Strategic PlanningOffice
of the Resident Coordinator
United Nations - Port-au-Prince
_________________________________

To date no acknowledgement had been received from this office. Makes one wonder what they think of their own rules, or more pertinently, of people who have the audacity to complain.

The Purpose of the “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With Un Standards Of Conduct” has absolutely nothing to do with dispensing justice.It is simply a roundabout way for UNDP management to declare that at UNDP there will be no justice –ever.Management will continue to lie, delay, intimidate and threaten.

If this does not work then, quite simply, the feather weight Legal Support Office will be co-opted to come up with yet another new set of “rules.”At UNDP the management has obviously sat down and done a cost/benefit analysis.

They realised that no matter how embarrassing their stonewalling tactics are, how much it harms their credibility, it is still preferable to allowing the full extent and scope of UNDP dysfunction to become public.

Consider “Section 4 - Prohibition of Retaliation against Outside Parties:”“50. Any retaliatory measures (including threats) against a contractor or its employees, agents or representatives, or any other individual engaged in dealings with UNDP because such person has reported allegations of wrongdoing by a staff member will be considered misconduct that, if established, will lead to administrative and/or disciplinary action.”

Imagine the following, very typical, scenario:

You are a senior manager at UNDP, in charge of some outpost somewhere about which you know absolutely nothing and in whose culture you have no interest whatsoever.

For a number of months you had designed all manner of convoluted and complicated programmes and projects. They all involve a staggering number of UN agencies, NGO’s, businesses and government departments.

Their complexity belies the fact that accounting and audit procedures are either non-existent or at best inadequate.

A labyrinth of duplicate and often contradictory reporting procedures quickly create even more confusion.

None of the senior managers have any clarity with regard to their mandates or responsibilities.

Lies, delays and obfuscation further prevent anybody from asking too many questions.

One or two compliant local staff members with political connections keep nosey local politicians at bay, either through intimidation or by paying them off.

You are convinced that nobody will notice the steady steam of public funds flowing into your bank account in Panama.

Neither will they notice the number of sub-contracts issued to companies and NGO’s that just happen to belong to your wife, family or close friends. Granted things do not always run smoothly.

In 2005 the UNDP administrator, the very sympathetic and supportive Mark Malloch Brown, departed suddenly to go and hold the hand of his friend Kofi Annan, embroiled in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Much is being made about the fact that Mr. Brown is being replaced by a real development professional, Kemal Dervis.Real development priorities may prove somewhat problematic for your own carefully constructed projects, in which you had invested so much effort.

Then, no sooner had Kemal Dervis indicated that at UNDP it is business as usual when the impetuous new Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, promised an independent review of all Programmes and Funds.Fortunately even this potential threat soon passed as the independent review was reduced to only an audit of North Korea before dissipating altogether.Imagine now that out of the blue there appears some UNV or independent contractor asking all manner of pertinent and impertinent questions.

Do you:

• Graciously refrain from taking any retaliatory action against this individual since you are kindly requested to do so by the “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With UN Standards Of Conduct” or
• Retaliate against this individual since the same “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With UN Standards Of Conduct” makes it quite clear that this individual has no protection or recourse under UNDP rules?

Posted by Leon Kukkuk @ http://letterstogabriella.blogspot.com/

Kemal Dervis your time is UP - Get out !

UNDP Watch is beginning a series of reviews of past UNDP Procurement decisions. Please be patient with us while we review each and every 2800 submissions to ACP. Since UNDP decided to put off-line all ACP submissions and their documentations - UNDP Watch will be publishing slowly everyday one full submission - for Public review, information and judgement. We know that it will take long, almost 1398 days, but don't worry it will be fun, and we all will learn from our own mistakes.

Today's Submission is : ACP/07/0520

Total Amount: 300,000.00 US Dollar
Status: Approved from Jocelline Bazile-Finley

On ACP Minutes that day - we read:

Additional details:

A short list of law firms from OLA was received and a direct RFP was sent to
the firms.
In in order to have wider coverage and transparency and due diligence, OLPS
made a search and looked for potential law firms on the law site, Legal500
for Law firms with relevant experience.
The RFP was also placed on the UNDP procurement notice. (See attached copy
of the notice)
While the direct email had the names of the parties involved, the
advertisement on the public site was done in a manner to avoid revealing any
information on the parties involved, the location and amount of the conflict
in order to avoid other legal issues.
7 proposals were received by the deadline from the following firms:

Warson Farley and Williams
Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP
Wilmer Hale
Baker Mckenzie
Dubarry Le Dourain
Shearman and Sterling
Reed Smith.

The evaluation criteria advertised in the RFP is the two staged evaluation
system whereby only firms who scored minimum of 80% in the technical
proposal will have their financial proposals opened.
At the end of the evaluation which was done by a team of Legal Experts,
3 firms, Reed Smith, Dubarry Le Dourain and Watson and Williams were rejected
as they did not pass the technical proposal.
4 Â firms, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Wilmer Hale, Baker Mckenzie and
Shearman and Sterling who passed the technical proposals score of 80% had
their financial bids opened.
Out of the four responsive proposals, Baker & Mackenzie had the lowest cost
and was thus recommended by the evaluation committee for the contract. (See
attached evaluation report for details)

But the truth is different - thanks to UNDP Watch insiders at the Technical Evaluation panel on this bid - we got the table of technical evaluation which reads completely differently. And as per the table the winner is not even close a REAL WINNER.

Ahlenius and Appleton of (Procurement Task Force) are now very silent. They don't even dare to raise their voice. Because Appleton's contract is at stake.

How can you Ms. Ahlenius and you Mr. Appleton, call yourself Untied Nations Staff with ethical standards and you have no .....guts to investigate the UNDP. Well you might say that UNDP doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of OIOS. But in this case this submission was evaluated from the UN Secretariat's OLA.

Not only this - but as you can see the evaluation was only signed by half of the evaluation committee - making this evaluation and submission and approval - NOT VALID.

How can you Jocelline Bazile-Finley approve such a submission which has not even half of the signatures on the evaluation sheet ? How can you approve such submission where the winner is ranked third in both technical expertise and value. In what ethics you call yourself a UN staff - and approve this? We thought you were different - from the rest at BoM (Bureau of Management).

But this is not your fall - you are all under the pressure of Kemal Dervis and Peri Johnson. They are directly responsible of these crimes committed with tax-payers money. With our money.

What is disturbing is the fact that United States Mission to the UN (USUN) is still silent. It seem that Mr. UNTAI - Mark Wallace - has lost his tongue. The USUN has a constitutional mandate to watch and monitor the United Nations on how they spend the US Tax-payers money. The failure to do so, will have extreeme implications and can and is affecting the US national security as well.

At the end the UNDP Watch Calls upon Tuzla Tersanecilik ve Turizm A.S. and their lawyers to bring this case to Federal Court of the United States of America as well as in Switzerland. We believe that now is a time for all those victims of the UN to join forces in a class-action lawsuit against the United Nations. the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should hear the voice of all those victims and allow the removal of UN Immunities so a Federal Court can hear these cases. Only then the UN can be held accountable and responsible - otherwise we should all stop out funds to this criminal organization.

Day Two Call: UNDP Watch Calls for immediate firing of Kemal Dervis and Peri Lyn Johnson on the ground of incompetency, false testimony and forging public documents and corrupt behaviour!!!!

But this is far from over - we have 1398 days to go from the end.

Akiko Yuge awards 4.8 Million $ contract on IP-PBX without competitive bid and against all rules

UNDP Watch is begining a series of reviews of past UNDP Procurement decisions. Please be patient with us while we review each and every 2800 submissions to ACP. Since UNDP decided to put off-line all ACP submissions and their documentations - UNDP Watch will be publishing slowly everyday one full submission - for Public review, information and judgement. We know that it will take long, almost 1400 days, but don't worry it will be fun, and why not we all will learn from our own mistakes.

Today's Submission is : ACP-07-0845 - IP-PBX (BOM/OIST)
Total Amount: $ 4.8 Million
Status: Approved from Akiko Yuge

Tens of millions of dollars have flown from UNDP headquarters and country offices to Vendor-C from 2004, based on an LTA (Long Term Agreement) that was reached without a competitive biding and on a Direct Review basis.

What's more scandalous is that UNDP renewed C-Vendor's LTAs in 2005 (for one year) and 2006 (for two years) again without any competitive biding.

While is the job of OIOS and OAPR to immediately investigate all current LTA status within the UNDP, our story of today is about the latest award ACP-07-0845 which is among BOM/OIST and Vendor for the IP-PBX.


Akiko Yuge the Asisstant Secretary General and Director of Bureau of Management, approved the waiver of competitive Bid for a value of 4.8 millions $. The question is that how a Chief Procurement Officer, like Yuge approves a contract that is based on (a) a non-competitive LTA, and (b) on services that are not described and included under the original contract with the C-Vendor dated 2004.

But the story doesnt stop here during the Krishan Batra's absence, Ms. Yuge - pressured from Shirine and OIST went along and signed the approved the contract.

The Head of ACP - Krishan Batra thinks that Akiko shouldn't have approved it. But being an indian, Krishan doesn't know how to say this to his Boss.

Questions: (1) who is getting bribed from C-Vendor ? (2) Is it Akiko Yuge ? (3) Is it Shirine or is Elsie Laurence Chounoune the head of CAP of OIST ?

UNDP Watch sent an email to OAPR and OIOS to request an immediate investigation on C-Vendor and OIST latest bid.

If Mr. Khoury and Ms. Ahlenius will not consider to investigate the ACP-07-0845 within 48 hours from today, the UNDP watch will make public all documents about this submission including all contracts with C-Vendor dated back to 2004.

Questions for Kemal Dervis: How many contract UNDP HQs have awarded to C-Vendor since 2004 ? How many contract UNDP COs have awarded to C-Vendor based on the fake LTA signed at HQs? What would be the market & public reactions if they would know the (a) totality of all contract awards to C-Vendor and (b) the modality under which the contract was awarded to C-Vendor?

** we will answer these questions on tomorrow's follow up story.

YOU ARE BEING WATCHED !!

Meanwhile UNDP Watch call upon all UNDP staff to clean-up all your C & D- Drives because BIG BROTHER is watching you since last monday. Kemal Dervis has installed a new software that goes thru every your email and search for meta-tags (words). Change your passwords every 3 days and dont use your childrens or wifes names - they have them on files.

Day One Call: UNDP Watch Calls for immediate resignations of Akiko Yuge on the ground of incompetency and corrupt behaviour!!!!

UNDP pulls the cord and delete $ billions from procurement accounts - no one's worried

This man - after serving for almost 7 years at the helm of United Nations, is now dictating the world body from his chair of the Minister for United Nations of Britain.

Yesterday the United Nations Development Programme has pulled the cord and disconnected the servers with data over billions of expenditure under the Mark Malloch Brown's watch. Exactly 3.6 billion dollars worth of bids saved under the servers of OLPS (Office of Legal and Procurement Services) are now vanished. Shirine (OIST) and Peri Johnson are busy preparing the legal grounds for the "action" and finding the right excuses for UNDP.

Even though all bids were public UN bids, internationally published and paid for from the UNDP budget which comes from Member states of the UN (like the US), now the public and the staff of UNDP will have no longer an opportunity to access those. While the procurement laws at the UN says that all official documents should be saved and stored for at least 7 years, these procurement which are from 2004-2007 will never again make it to become public knowledge.

It seems that this time Sir. Mark has found the formula - he has send an able negotiator and salesman, his former landlord, to negotiate with the US Representative at the UN a deal under which the US Government would not ask about the content of those files and let's say - "MOVE-ON".

But will the UNDP and Sir. Mark be able to defy the internal uprising in UNDP?? Would Khalilzad stad for the truth inside those files ??

Will see - the saga continue.

The landlord of Mark Malloch Brown met with Khalilzad: amids disappearance of his tenant's files from UNDP

a very very strange event took place early afternoon yesterday. Amids the disappearance of billions of dollars of UNDP's public bids and waivers of competitive bids, two very strange man with nothing in common met with each other to discuss ...what??

As reported this morning from FOXNEWS (click here) Sorros - the landlord of UNDP's Sir.Mark Malloch Brown and Chair of Open Society Institute met with George Bush's Representative at the UN, Khalilzad (not yet Sir.).

Question is what these two man - have to talk to each other ? ? Specifically yesterday ??

Will see..... we hope Khalilzad will tell the public what the too man discussed.

Extortion scheme at UNDP catapult Peri Lyn Johnson to the top of Legal pedestal

When Kemal Dervis came on board at UNDP from the Turkish government, one of the first actions he undertook (as a real Turk) was to revenge against all his Turkish adversaries. At about time when he came on board a Turkish company called TUZLA was hired from UNDP to clean-up the port of Basra from the remaining war wreckage. The Tuzla was represented from Mr. Oglu, a respectful Turkish businessman who happen to be as well a political adversary of Dervis back in his home country.

When TUZLA finished all work in Basra, they claimed their payments. But UNDP leadership denied them and dragged (to this day still) the right to get paid. All because Kemal Dervis didn’t want to pay his adversary. Some allege that Dervis is doing this because he wants Oglu to pay him a ransom for getting his payments. It’s a Turkish thing (it's a turkish thing don't get involved).

Anyhow this story is not about TUZLA, (we will come back to this one) but rather how Dervis manipulated the UNDP system and used (abused) staff in order to achieve his goal towards TUZLA.

At the time Dervis was looking how to block TUZLA’s payment the OLPS had already undergone thru extensive negotiations and arranged for final payments to be issued and the matter to be settled before going to arbitration. But Dervis wanted TUZLA not to get a penny. Therefore he ordered payments to stop. OLPS couldn’t stop. Angry with the then Director (Provenzano), Dervis takes all the files from him and appoints a junior officer at the time (Peri Lyn Johnson) to deal with the matter. Since Peri was from OLA, she was instructed to delay as much as she could the matter throwing it from OLPS (UNDP) to OLA (UN) in an endless discussion – only to please the High Priest – Dervis.

Dervis liked Peri’s subservient attitude and despite the fact that in the OLPS there were other staff senior to her (F.N) gave her full access to 21st floor, and made her personal legal advisor, bypassing all rules and regulations. Kemal Dervis and Peri don't give a damn that today the UNDP is paying out of their tax-payers contribution almost 400 Thousand Dollars for a private Legal Firm to represent UNDP in coming arbitrations with TUZLA. At the end UNDP will end up paying more - close to 5 times more than initial contract value. Some sick minded at UNDP even allege that this could be a scheme between Oglu and Dervis to raise up the price and make money out of UNDP once TUZLA get out of arbitration. But since no one looks inside UNDP - who gives a fuck !

When North Korea scandal broke in January 2007, he also used Peri instead of F.N (who was Legal HR). All this to justify his abrupt and unconstitutional decision to appoint Peri Johnson as Head of the newly constituted Legal Office in July 2007.

What is really strange is the fact that a so called lawyer like Peri Johnson, a proclaimed classmate of Barak Obama, allows herself to be used in an extortion scheme from Kemal Dervis.

Peri in 3 years jumps from P3-4 to L6. Even a Beatification process for becoming a saint takes at least 10 years. Maybe the Pope needs to talk to Dervis and get some lessons on how to fast track beatifications and cannonizations. Hopefully the newly appointed Ethics Officer Bhalla would look into this matter.

But who knows Peri – can testimony that she is not the person that will be used by others, rather the contrary. She is as mischievous as her boss Dervis. Just last week in order to get rid off of her old adversary in OLPS (F.N) she hired the wife of Head of Human Resources Ms. Rema Devi Purushothaman. (wife of Ramesh) Despite the fact that Ms. Rema Devi doesn’t have half of qualifications of (F.N), it doesn’t matter, Peri and Dervis have negotiated a deal - Ramesh takes F.N from Legal to Human Resources, and Peri takes Ramesh wives as her number 2 at Legal. So Peri's road to cannonization is clear now.


Ramesh be a man bro and tell your wife to get your last name - she might still qualify under spouse employement rules and regulations. Dont cheat the system, like Darshak Shah, you are definitely not as beautiful and shiny as Darshak is.



What a story - only at UNDP !

For your action - Ban Ki Moon !

Today Ban Ki Moon appeared from Annapolis, as if he was needed there and as if everything at the UN is in order and running smoothly.

Meanwhile, at the UN Kemal Dervis after reading the latest report of Claudia Rosett orders Steven Fridakis (UNDP's Chief Information Security Officer) to shut down immediately the UNDP's public procurement system (ACP online) where are stored 38000 documents corresponding to 2800 ACP contract awards from 2004 - 2007. Even staff at OIST (UNDP's Information Department), who's access was cut-off from Fridakis, found this decision as abrupt and non conform the UN rules and regulations.

From today the UNDP Staff worldwide and the public will be deprived from direct knowledge of what happen and how UNDP awarded 3.6 billion dollars worth of contracts (above 100 thousand dollars each). Out of these 3.6 billion UNDP's Mark Malloch Brown and Kemal Dervis have awarded 1.9 Billion in Waivers of competitive bids and Direct Reviews.

What's most disturbing is that United State Mission to the United Nations (USUN) is totally silent. Despite trumpeting UNTAI the USUN's Khalilzad has decided to not raise this issue and keep all the focus of the USUN to other important events. While Kemal Dervis is forging and deleting thousand of documents equivalent to 3.6 billion dollars of public funding, half of which comes from the US tax-payers, the silence of this diplomat cannot be explained.

How come the US Congress and Senate allow such crime to be committed. Why the US Government is not asking that within the next 48 hours (not a minute later) either the UNDP puts online all the ACP decisions in the past 3 years (with full documentation) or Kemal Dervis, Ad Melkert, Akiko Yuge and Krishan Batra to be expelled immediately for improper use (and abuse) of public funds.

If USUN or any other member-state of the UN would fail to demand such actions, than we are sure that UNDP staff will not tolerate this situation any further, but they would be obliged to find ways and means to let the public know where 3.6 billion dollars went.

UNDP Staff today call upon Ban Ki Moon and current President of General Assembly Srgjan Kerim to uphold the highest standards of UN Administration and denounce, investigate and enforce that Kemal Dervis and UNDP management immediately restore the UN property and give access to public to know what UNDP spend the money for in the past years.

The above doesn't require another Oli-for-food Investigation, but ACTIONS now or never.

FOX NEWS: UNDP Accused of Cover-Up in North Korea Cash Funneling Scandal

UNDP Accused of Cover-Up in North Korea Cash Funneling Scandal
Monday , November 26, 2007

By George Russell


ADVERTISEMENT
What’s happened to the trove of documents that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) promised to hand over to prove—or disprove— its innocence in funneling millions of dollars in hard currency to the North Korean dictatorship of Kim Jong Il?

Are they under UNDP safekeeping in North Korea? Or are they being picked over in a UNDP safe house in Beijing, before a sanitized version is offered up for inspection? And is that just part of a wider destruction of evidence?

Those questions became the subject of a storm of Internet accusations over the past week, as an anonymous blog associated with UNDP dissidents charged coverup, and then offered up photos of UNDP documents that it claimed were proof.

To see the accusations, go to undpwatch.blogspot.com.

For its part, UNDP has flatly denied the accusations.

The documents lie at the heart of a controversy that has reached boiling point several times since last January, when a U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Mark Wallace, used the conclusions of a series of UNDP audits to charge that the U.N.’s flagship development agency had funneled the hard currency to Kim regime officials in March in violation of its own rules, along with a variety of other major infractions. UNDP subsequently announced it had closed its office in March. A preliminary audit by the U.N. panel, without benefit of the documents, validated many of the U.S. charges last June.

The U.N. auditors were ordered at the end of June to make another attempt to investigate—and are still stymied. On Sept. 28, the chairman of the auditing board formally advised the U.N. that the Kim government had refused visas for his inspectors to examine the papers. He declared that the panel of auditors had been disbanded and returned to other duties.

To see the Board of Auditor’s letter, click here.

In response to Fox News questions a month later, UNDP spokesman David Morrison declared that his organization was "initiating steps" to bring the documents out of Pyongyang—something UNDP had long promised.

After that came silence—until the anonymous bloggers began posting their accusations. The first charge came on Nov. 21, when they claimed that Beijing staffers of UNDP said boxes of Pyongyang papers were "now located in the private residence of the UNDP Resident Representative in Beijing." (The Resident Representative is the highest-ranking U.N. official in a nation’s capital.)

The blog also claimed that a team of UNDP officials, as well as officials from the South Korean government, were on their way to vet the trove before any auditors saw it.

All of those charges were forcefully denied by UNDP spokesman Morrison in response to Fox News queries.

"No documents have arrived in Beijing or anywhere else," he declared. "We expect to be in a position to be in a position shortly to make all documentation available outside [North Korea]."

Over the weekend, however, the bloggers struck again, this time offering up cell-phone photos that claimed to show the contents of a small fraction of 59 boxes of UNDP papers in Beijing.

Only two photos were displayed. In one is a fragment labeled "Files Packing List Control Sheet," which carries a summary of monthly accounts from April 1999 to October, 2000. The control sheet carries the acronym for UNDP’s Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific, and is dated April 13, 2007.

The other snapshot shows the edges of a variety of files, and pieces of paper showing various stamps, signatures and an address label for the Resident Representative in North Korea, along with letterhead of what appears to be a Korean trading company.

Nothing in the photographs, however, directly linked them to a location in China.

But in the meantime, hints at an even broader UNDP coverup appeared on Sunday in the blog of respected independent journalist (and Fox News consultant) Claudia Rosett. She offered up internal UNDP documents dating from Sept. 24 that recommended the disposal of 11 email and other servers, for reasons of obsolescence or wear and tear. Purchase of two of the "obsolete" servers dated from 1998 and 1999, but all of the others were undated.

To see the documents, go to http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/claudiarosett

"We don’t know what’s on these 11 servers," Rosett declared. "But surely it’s worth finding out?"

UNDP spokesman Morrison issued yet another rebuttal. The equipment, he said in a written response to Fox News followup questions, had been used to host "UNDP’s virtual directory (phone book). They contained no sensitive information and nothing to do with UNDP’s operations in DPRK [the acronym for Democratic People’s Republic of Korea]."

In any case, he added, "All data is backed up before the hardware is destroyed."

A spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N. said officials there would look into the issue.

George Russell is executive editor of FOX News.