Sign the petition by following this link: http://bit.ly/1nRdkVe

We would like to update you on the situation regarding the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund, where the CEO of the Fund is negotiating a change in rules that will increase costs, financial risks, the likelihood of inappropriate people being recruited to key positions in the $52 billion institution that provides for our retirement, and, as you will see below, the possibility of outsourcing to financial firms without advertising a tender first. All this should not come as a surprise. The current CEO was deputy when the fund last tried outsourcing. That time we thwarted it. Let’s do the same this time. Please sign the petition.

As you may recall, from the letter that the staff unions of the United Nations sent to the Secretary-General, the General Assembly requested in Resolution 68/247 for the Fund’s Board “to complete its review of the policies governing the recruitment, promotion and retention of staff of the Fund and to report to the General Assembly, no later than at the main part of its seventieth session, on the outcome of the review and any measures proposed.” This review took place, according to the fund’s submission to ACABQ, “in particular with regard to the recruitment, promotion and retention of Fund staff whose functions might require an advanced level of expertise in a technical field.” (A/68/Add.3 para 12).

Despite this, it looks like a far-reaching delegation of authority for all staff will be in place by June, meaning that the Board and the General Assembly will be presented with a fait accompli. Under this arrangement, Fund staff will no longer have Secretariat contracts and will no longer be protected by the safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the staff selection system.

When we pointed out that these actions were inconsistent with the resolution, we were told that the decision on how to delegate authority for the administration of staff of the fund, was the Secretary-General’s to make in his capacity as Chief Administrative Officer. It would seem therefore that the resolution will be disregarded.

Should the Fund’s management receive a delegation of authority to administer its own staff, we foresee the following impact:

Costs will rise
If the 230 staff of the Fund are administered by the Fund, we estimate, going by similar cases, that the Fund will have to create 15 human resources posts. As a small institution it makes more sense for the Fund to make use of existing resources in New York and Geneva.

Liabilities will increase
In case of downsizing, staff will no longer have Secretariat contracts and will not be accommodated internally within the Secretariat (6,500 posts in New York, 3,500 posts in Geneva). Therefore the risk of termination indemnities being paid will increase.

Increased risk of abuse
Staff selection rules in the UN Secretariat integrate a number of controls (central review bodies, eligibility requirements, screening by a third party). In case of delegation of authority, the CEO and RSG will not be constrained from bringing in friends and promoting them above more competent colleagues. Indeed, the draft delegation of authority allows the CEO to entirely waive the competitive recruitment process “when the requirements of the organization are so urgent or the situation so critical or sensitive, that carrying out a competitive process to fill a specific post would not be practicable” (see paragraph 117 of the recruitment and selection framework). The International Trade Centre a small organization with delegation of authority, has experienced a large number of problems related to abuse of authority. 

Increased financial risk
In a fund of $52 billion, any abuse in terms of recruiting inappropriate staff for risk control or investment positions, can quickly multiply financial risk and potential losses. Our pension fund, both by its size and its positive performance, has caught the eye of many in the financial sector and they would all like a share of the pie. For this reason we need strict controls to prevent recruitment of the type of person personified in Scorcese’s film, The Wolf of Wall Street. Delegation of authority will remove these controls.

In addition, the CEO is pushing for delegation of authority in procurement, allowing him to bypass all UN controls on the procurement process. Currently the Secretary-General can step in to prevent any outsourcing to financial firms. This will not be possible in the future and the controls on whom the contract is awarded to will disappear. Paragraph 105.23 of the proposed Financial Rules states that “tenders for goods and services shall be invited by advertisement, except where the CEO of the fund deems that, in the interests of the fund, a departure from this rule is desirable.”

Recruitment speed will not necessarily increase
The Fund’s CEO claims that OHRM and UNOG (for staff in Geneva) are too slow in creating or filling posts. The evidence we have is that it is the hiring managers at the Fund that have been slow to act and have sometimes deliberately sabotaged a recruitment process when it hasn’t favoured a certain candidate.

The Fund will not become any more attractive to recruits
Delegation of authority does not allow exceptions to the ICSC system of salaries and allowances. Thus the compensation package will be no more attractive. In any case, the growing headcount of the Fund shows that recruitment is less of an issue than made out. At the same time, should there be delegation of authority, the decrease in job security (mentioned above) will lead to the best staff leaving the Fund for the Secretariat. The question of mobility is redundant, as the Fund’s staff can be categorized as specialized and non-rotational if required.

It will not increase the “interagency nature” of the Fund
This has been the argument made to the specialized agencies, although the term “interagency nature” is a nebulous one. In any case, a G-5 benefits assistant will not do their work differently if on a Secretariat or Fund contract.

Increased conflict of interest
Over the last 50 years, the Fund has operated according to a design that rigidly segregates functions to eliminate possible conflicts of interest. The organization that administers the staff regulations and rules (the Secretariat) is different to the organization that administers the Fund’s regulations and rules. This letter, from a retired member of the Board, explains how important this is.