Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un6subsidymichel072508.html
UNITED NATIONS, July 25 -- Outgoing UN legal chief Nicolas Michel was asked Friday about his reasons for leaving, which he had previously ascribed to not being able to rent "appropriate" housing for himself and his family on the salary, large by New York standards, that the UN provided him. Michel's answer was that UN pension plans are not flexible enough to recruit the top people. He did not address or make any proposal about the UN's restriction on its employees taking money from outside sources.
Some were surprised: if he felt it was okay to take money, as he did, from the Swiss government, why not defend the practice and try to opening legalize it on the way out? While saying he was flying out of the U.S. that afternoon, he also said he will remain in charge until September 1 -- August being a paid leave, apparently. Perhaps after September 1 he will further explain himself.
Back on September 12, 2006, Inner City Press asked Michel about the legality of accepting money from a government for housing. Video here, beginning at Minute 44:17. Michel answered by reading out a written statement:
"I can simply confirm that, constantly if I am well informed, applicable rules and regulations have been interpreted and implemented in a way that reflects the view that in specific situations and for particular reasons, the Secretary-General can give a special authorization for a government to give housing subsidies. Now this has to be in line with rules and practice. That is to say, I repeat, there is a need for a special authorization from the Secretary General, the housing subsidy has to be disclosed in the Financial Disclosure Form, and of course the staff member has to behave in such a way that is in accordance with Article 100 of the Charter."
Michel refused to disclose at that time that he, in fact, was the reference UN official relying on a waiver from then-Secretary General Kofi Annan from otherwise applicable rules, that UN employees cannot take money from outside sources, particularly governments. The UN Charter's Article 100 requires all UN staff to "refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization."
Inner City Press later reported that Michel was receiving housing subsidies -- which he only acknowledged more than a year after he was asked -- and that he had not included this pertinent information in his public financial disclosure form -- on, he said, a ruling by the UN Ethics Officer, who in the UN hierarchy is subordinate to him. Inner City Press asked both the Swiss Mission to the UN and Michel how much money had changed hands for housing subsidy, but neither would provide the information. After that, Michel refused to answer any questions, even on topics unrelated to housing subsidy or public financial disclosure.
Against this background, Inner City Press at Michel's "farewell" press conference on Friday -- other portions of which, particularly Michel's Office's provision of information to the International Criminal Court in the now-suspended case against Congo militia leader Thomas Lubanga are covered elsewhere on this site, see article here -- broached the topic as diplomatically as possible, asking if Michel had any proposals to change UN rules, or to increase salaries. Michel to his credit didn't refuse to subsequently speak, but what he said cannot legitimately be called responsive. He did not mention housing subsidy nor the amount of money he received. Rather, he again said that the UN should make its pension plans more "portable" -- a fine suggestion, but in context, an evasion. Others are foregoing some pension contributions they might otherwise receiving, including for example outgoing head of Safety and Security David Veness, slated to leave on August 15 (although some say he'll remain through the late September meetings of the General Assembly).
Perhaps Michel's silence means that the issue is dead, that no more waivers will be given and UN officials will have to live on their salaries and savings. If so it would be good to know that. If there is an argument to have done what Michel did -- take money from the Swiss government, then not include it in his public financial disclosure form, nor reveal the volume of contributions in response to press inquiries, it would have been good to hear it. Perhaps after September 1.
And see, www.innercitypress.com/un6subsidymichel072508.html
