Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN
www.innercitypress.com/sgb711benson120307.html
UNITED NATIONS, December 3 -- Three and a half months after the UN Development Program disputed the jurisdiction of the UN Ethics Office to continue investigating the case of a UNDP whistleblower, a Secretary-General's Bulletin was released Monday which formalizes this fragmentation, while saying that common "principles" will apply. UN Ethics Office chief Robert Benson, who in an August 17 memo first publicized by Inner City Press found a prima facie case of retaliation by UNDP, was the new policy's defender in a UN press conference Monday. Inner City Press asked him point-blank if when he took the job, he thought it included jurisdiction over the whole UN system. Yes, he said, "on the application of ethics, I did consider that the UN is the UN when I came in the front door. But then someone in my office told me there are separate funds and programs and I said, ah. okay... Short answer, I expected the whole UN." Video here, from Minute 30:14.
Benson was far from the only one who through that the UN Ethics Office covered the whole UN. But when UNDP administrator Kemal Dervis objected, it set up a stand-off that led to the policy announced on Monday: not One UN but a collection of fiefdoms in which every chieftain is his or her own judge. Inner City Press asked Benson if he is satisfied with how UNDP has handled the Tony Shkurtaj whistleblower case it fought to wrestle back from him, concerning irregularities in UNDP's operations in North Korea. Benson repeated that he does not comment on particular cases, adding that it is his understanding that the case is now before an "Independent Panel established by the [UNDP] executive board." Video here, from Minute 58:26. Inner City Press asked him if that panel was established by the executive board or by Kemal Dervis himself, with a wink and a nod from Board chairman Carsten Staur.
On November 29, Inner City Press asked Mr. Staur about the status of the panel's review of the whistleblower's case, and Staur indicated that the review might continue into January 2008. Asked if and when UNDP will make copies of internal audits available at least to member states, who contribute the money to UNDP, Staur indicated that the issue is still developing, and said he wasn't sure if it would require additional voting by the UNDP Executive Board. There has seemingly been no progress on this issue. Staur said that despite North Korea having barred the UN Board of Auditors from visiting that country to perform the audit that as called for, the mandate of the Panel has not been expanded.
Inner City Press asked Benson if he has spoken with and passed the information underlying his finding of retaliation to the Panel. Yes and no, he answered. Yes he spoke with the Panel, but he did not pass on any information. Rather, he went back and ask those who spoke with him during his inquiry, and some but not all consent to have their names given to the Panel.
Benson repeated that it is his understanding that the composition of the Panel was voted on by the Executive Board of UNDP. "I may stand to be corrected, but that is my understanding." Action by the Executive Board is not noted in either DP/2008/2 nor DP/2008/1. Some start for the independence of UNDP's in-house ethics system...
Benson made much of a so-called safety valve in which the director of a fund or program could voluntarily refer a matter to Benson's office. Inner City Press asked Benson if in cases where an agency's head or deputy head is the alleged retaliator, he or she should refer the case to the central Ethics Office, as a form of recusal. They "could," Benson said. "Should?" Inner City Press asked again, on the theory that even an Ethics Officer stripped of much of his jurisdiction can still provide guidance. "Could," Benson repeated.
The one possibly saving grace, the seeming right to appeal to the UN Ethics Office if the fund or program does not "consider" a case in 45 days, or after an adverse decision, still involves "consultation with the Ethics Committee," which will include a representative of the underlying agency, with no automatic recusal specified in the bulletin. This bulletin, three and a half months after the issue was squarely raised when UNDP's Dervis rebuffed Benson's jurisdiction, does not even take into account the danger of agency's in-house ethics offices delaying action on requests for protection against retaliation until after the complainant's G-4 visa has expired and they've had to leave the country. Some start for stripped-down powers, limited as to funds and programs to an ill-defined appeals process, of the UN Ethics Office... We will continue to follow these issues; watch this site.
