At UN, As Ban Ki-moon Switches from S. African to Canadian As New OIOS Chief, Post-Ahlenius Rebellion Spreads, Sources Say

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive
www.innercitypress.com/ban1oios072310.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 23 -- Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, reeling from the damning exit memo of the outgoing head of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, may now get himself in more troubling in naming a replacement.

Earlier this year, Inner City Press reported that the new head of OIOS was slated to be an auditor from South Africa. This would conform to many member states' understanding that developed and developing countries would alternate atop the OIOS: Karl Paschke of Germany, then Dileep Nair of Singapore, then Inga Britt Ahlenius of Sweden. The next was slated to be from South Africa.

But diplomatic sources tell Inner City Press that on July 23, after facing questions for a week about his interactions with OIOS, Ban told regional groupings that instead of the South Africa, he would be appointing a Canadian.

This has triggered outrage among developing countries. It comes against the backdrop of ad hoc meetings to “revitalize the General Assembly” which are discussing requiring Ban Ki-moon to come before the GA to seek his second term, and not only the Security Council.

Specifically, under the heading “Selection of the Secretary General,” the draft “takes note of the views expressed at the Ad Hoc Working Group at the 64th session and bearing in mind the provisions of Article 97 of the Charter, emphasizes the need for the process of selection of the Secretary General to be inclusive of all Member States and to be made more transparent.. including through presentation of candidates for the position of the Secretary General in an informal plenary of the General Assembly.”

Interestingly, the marked up draft of this pending paragraph reads as follows:

“10. Affirms its commitment to continuing its consideration of the revitalization of the General Assembly's role in the selection and appointment of the Secretary General, including through (encouraging (Algeria / NAM: delete and add 'the') Russian Federation: retain) presentation of candidates for the position of Secretary General in an informal plenary of the General Assembly before the Security Council considers the matter (Russian Federation); Russian Federation: bracket entire para.”

10 Alt. Also encourages formal presentation of candidatures for the position of the Secretary General in a manner than allows sufficient time for interaction with member states, and requests candidates to present their views to all Member States of the General Assembly (Belgium / EU, US & Russia) (Algeria / NAM supports Islamic Republic of Iran proposal of retaining as OP 10 bis).”

In the Security Council, placating or giving patronage to the five Permanent Members would be enough to gain the second term. But if the GA and regional grouping get involved, Ban's snubs like that of Africa for the deputy post in the UN Development Program, and the devaluation of the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa, could come back to haunt Ban. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban1oios072310.html

UNder Fire, Ban's Hiring Staff Spin, Decline Myanmar Comment, Doss No Action

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/ban2ahoios072210.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 22 -- In purported rebuttal of criticism of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for lack of leadership on Myanmar, Darfur, Afghanistan and other issues, the UN on July 22 presented on camera two officials, neither with any political responsibility.

Angela Kane, the Under Secretary General for Management, told Inner City Press that she could not rebut outgoing official Inga Britt Ahlenius' criticism regarding Myanmar, where Ban allowed dictator Than Shwe to take part of UN aid in foreign exchange manipulation, because “in my current perch” as USG for Management it would be “inappropriate to comment on the political situation in one country.” Video here, from Minute 18:19.

Even as to human resources questions, Assistant SG Catherine Pollard evaded most of the questions, in essence blaming Ahlenius for not have set up her own Senior Review Panel to obtain the independence to which she and the Office of Internal Oversight Services are entitled.

Ban's Spokesman Martin Nesirky had begun by saying that for all UN posts at the D-2 level, there must be three candidates and at least one must be a woman. But as Inner City Press reported earlier this week, Horst Heitmann was removed from his Security Council Affairs post and parked atop the Middle East and Western Asia unit of the Department of Political Affairs, without any three candidates or woman.

Ms. Pollard said this was an exception, a lateral hire, but that the post Heitmann was removed from will be advertised and filled in the usual way. The usual pre-selected way? Sources say that Karina Gurlach, a favorite of DPA chief Lynn Pascoe, will get the post under a Temporary Vacancy Announcement, and then permanently.

Under the rubric of accountability, Inner City Press asked about the case of Alan Doss, who after initially being exposed by Inner City Press for pushing UNDP to show him “leeway” and hire his daughter, was the subject of a report of impropriety by OIOS that Ban let languish on his desk until Doss retired.

Pollard said that “G-2s and USGs are subject to the same rules” -- this despite Doss being allowed to bring his wife and children to “non-family” posts in West Africa and the Congo, as UN Volunteers -- and that the OIOS report “as presented” justified the “action” taken.

What action, Inner City Press asked. Ban's Assistant Spokesman Farhan Haq had said the Doss report was still being considered, and that the outcome would be announced.

No disciplinary action was deemed warranted, Pollard said. So: lack of accountability, and total lack of transparency, as to when and why this decision was taken.

Here is more on the issue of hiring rules to which the UN has sought to confine the story -- we present this without forgetting that Ms. Ahlenius herself tried improperly to get her friend Danielle Coolen hired, refused to answer questions about it, nor why she and Robert Appleton never investigated the UN's $250 million sole source contract with Lockheed Martin for Darfur “super camps” that were never built. Nevertheless:

Catherine Pollard cited an obscure Secretariat document called ST/AI/401 and claimed that Ahlenius never created the necessary "appointment panel" which would have allowed her to select her preferred candidate to head OIOS' Investigations Division.

When it was pointed out to her that it is actually the responsibility of the Secretary-General to create the panel, she dodged the question, saying maybe this will happen in the future.

According to ST/AI/2003/4, issued 21 March 2003, "the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, shall establish an OIOS Review Body to advise the Under-Secretary-General on the appointment, promotion and termination of all staff members up to and including the D-2 level.

When questioned about the actual provisions of relevant UN rules, Pollard deflected the question with mumbo-jumbo about an ongoing review of all Administrative Instructions.

ST/AI/401, titled "Personnel Arrangements for the Office of Internal Oversight Services", says that the Head of OIOS shall exercise "latitude and control" over personnel and resources of OIOS, and "shall have powers of appointment, promotion and termination similar to those delegated by the Secretary-General to the heads of programmes, funds or subsidiary organs enjoying special status in these matters."

Pollard was not able to adequately explain why the appointments within OIOS are thus not treated the same as the appointments within UNDP, where the SG does not exercise veto rights over the hiring of D-2. Helen Clark can hire whoever she wants, without her selections going to Ban's Senior Review Group for vetting and approval.

Also unanswered by Kane was the obvious conflict of interest inherent in Team Ban having in effect veto power over Ahlenius' personnel selection process. These would be the subject of future reviews by the Fifth Committee, ACABQ, and Internal Audit Committee, in a properly functioning organization.

Another document, ST/SGB/2002/7, titled "Organization of the Office of Internal Oversight Services", quite clearly establishes that "The Under-Secretary-General is responsible for all the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, as well as its administration." Team Ban didn't adequately explain this inconsistency.

The same document says that the OIOS executive office is responsible for "submitting OIOS appointment and promotion cases endorsed by the Panel to the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services for his or her approval on behalf of the Secretary-General."

So there is a clear indication that the head of OIOS is responsible for approving appointments "on behalf of the Secretary-General". Both of these documents -- ST/AI/401 and ST/SGB/2002/7 -- were prepared and issued by the Department of Management.

And so it seems that Team Ban did not have the authority to reject Ahlenius' proposed selection for the D-2 position in her Investigations Division. What story will they try to spin now? Another “senior UN official” is scheduled to appear later on July 22. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban2ahoios072210.html

At UN, Ahlenius Trashes Ban, With Dirty Hands Too Late, Full Memo Needed

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/ban1ahoios072010.html

UNITED NATIONS, July 20 -- At the end of a less than successful term as the UN's chief investigator, Inga Britt Ahlenius on July 16 delivered a 50 page “end of assignment report” trashing, largely deservedly, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. At the same time, and some media but not this one think by the same person, the memo was leaked to Turtle Bay, which published not the 50 page memo but only a three-page cover letter on July 20.

While few reporters went to that day's noon briefing to grill Ban's spokesman about the cover letter, as they did when Norway's deputy ambassador Mona Juul in a fully leaked memo similarly bashed Ban, some secondary coverage has emerged, largely siding with Ahlenius but concluding that a second term for Ban Ki-moon is nearly inevitable.

The first question, however, is why did Ahlenius wait until the end of her term to make her critique known? If leaving posts in her office empty was so debilitating, if investigations were impossible without Connecticut's Robert Appleton, why did Ahlenius stay quiet?

Repeatedly, Inner City Press and others asked for Ahlenius to come and take questions. For Inner City Press, this began when a whistleblower leaked an Ahlenius e-mail asking then Management chief Alicia Barcena to be sure to be on the selection panel and give a job to Ahlenius' friend Ms. Danielle Coolen. Click here for the story, here for Ms. Ahlenius' email.

Ahlenius never responded to requests to explain this presumptive nepotism. So much for accountability.

The review of l'affaire Ahlenius, then, is a plague on both their houses. Yes, Ban and his cardinal Kim Won-soo tried to undermine the UN's system of independent investigations. But Inga Britt Ahlenius accomplished less and less in each year of her tenure.

Purportedly heroic Appleton, who made his name by leaking to large American media outlets, never investigated the $250 million sole source Darfur contract that American UN official Jane Holl Lute awarded to Lockheed Martin for “super camps” that were never built. Because Appleton and Ahlenius were playing to a elite public, they never felt a need to explain this.

At the June 20 noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to substantiate claims in Vijay Nambiar's response, such as that Ban has somehow strengthened whistleblower protections.

Inner City Press asked, was Alan Doss held accountability, when action on a finding of wrong doing in asking for “leeway” in getting his daughter hired by UNDP is still being delayed, until after Doss' retirement?

Nesirky's response lurched around about climate change and gender balance, along with saying that perhaps Nambiar will come and take questions, which has never happened, even on war crimes issues.

Inner City Press threw Nesirky a softball, asking if opposition to Appleton didn't come from Singapore and Russia, the latter a Permanent Five member of the Security Council which could deny Ban a second term. Nesirky said he wasn't aware of that.

Later, several senior Ban administration officials told Inner City Press they thought this storm would pass, including in light of how few journalists showed up to ask Nesirky about it. But one reason for this is the continued non availability of the 50 page memo itself.

A person familiar with the memo has told Inner City Press that while on investigations Ahlenius has the conflicts of interest summarized about, some of the critique goes beyond it, to Ban's overall performance in “MONUC [sic - MONUSCO] and MINURCAT... Myanmar, Darfur, Afghanistan, Cyprus, G20.”

For Ms. Ahlenius and her Appleton, question whether their unwillingness to investigate the corrupt sole source grant of a $250 million dollar contract in Darfur to Lockheed Martin didn't contribute to UN loss of relevance. But there is and will be more. Watch this site.

From the July 20 UN noon briefing transcript:

Inner City Press: I’m sure you are aware of this controversy of the exit memo by Ms. Ahlenius and Mr. Nambiar’s response. At least as of now, Nambiar’s response to it says, makes various criticisms, but presents as a defence of the Secretary-General that he has been, among other things, on accountability, that he has strengthened whistleblower protections and held people accountable. Maybe you could describe what the strengthening of the whistleblower protections are, and state, for example, if Alan Doss, with an OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] report sitting on Ban Ki-moon’s desk for a while now, was he held accountable? Was Shabaan Shabaan, with a pending case, and the court decision, I guess, is there some opportunity, seeing now Mr. Nambiar’s response to the press on these issues, to dig into them a little bit and either have them come give a briefing, or to substantiate what is said in his memo? And also to get a copy of the 50-page Ahlenius exit? Only the cover page is online.

Spokesperson Nesirky: That’s presumably thanks to the journalistic endeavours of the Washington Post correspondent. There is the three-page summary there that you’ve been able to read.

Inner City Press: Nambiar’s thing is a public document, right?

Spokesperson: Mr. Nambiar’s, the Chef de Cabinet’s, document is out there, it’s also linked on the Washington Post and the foreignpolicy.com sites — as you quite rightly say, that this is the Chef de Cabinet on behalf on the Secretary-General, addressing specific points that had been raised by Colum Lynch in his researching and writing of the pieces that he did. So the response from Mr. Nambiar very specifically is geared to the questions that Mr. Lynch had raised. And as you also mentioned on accountability, there are any number of different measures that had been undertaken, not just by the Secretary-General. I think this is an important point, that this is part of a process that is constantly evolving. Accountability is something that has been there from the start, and successive Secretaries-General have sought to improve it, to strengthen it, in different ways. This Secretary-General came into office with precisely that aim, to strengthen accountability and transparency. He has been doing that; the specific examples that Mr. Nambiar has quoted speak for themselves. I will relay your request to him. He’s probably watching now and has heard it himself....

Inner City Press: It seems like a lot of this revolves around Robert Appleton, who used to be the head of the Procurement Task Force?

Spokesperson: One fifth of it revolves around that.

Inner City Press: This isn’t the softball I’m throwing you, Martin. Is it true that Russia and Singapore have opposed Mr. Appleton being considered for any post within OIOS? And if not, could this be, is the Secretariat aware of opposition by Russia, Singapore, and other countries investigated during Mr. Appleton’s tenure?

Spokesperson: First of all, we wouldn’t necessarily be privy to any country’s preference or opposition necessarily, I’m certainly not aware of that kind of pressure being brought to bear, and what I can say is that this one case that is repeatedly referred to, and as I said takes up a large chunk of this end-of-assignment report, which is an internal management tool; a very valuable management tool is the way that one likes to look at these end-of-assignment reports, when they are put together in the right constructive fashion. But what one also has to stress is that this is not one particular individual, this is about due process, about the rules for recruitment within the Organization as a whole, not just for one division, department, one part of the Organization. This is a standard rule that applies to all appointments throughout the system, within the different departments and divisions and so on, that there are. That’s the way it is.

Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/ban1ahoios072010.html

As All-UN Panel Praises Corruption Unit, Inaction on Child Porn and Waste, Questions Not Answered

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/oios1birthday101509.html

UNITED NATIONS, October 15, updated -- The UN's investigative body, the Office of Internal Oversight Services, had a standing room only 15th birthday party in a small room in the UN's basement on Thursday morning. OIOS chief Inga Britt Ahlenius, who has not held a press conference in more than a year, sat near Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, separated only by the New York representative of UN University, which sponsored and some say mishandled the event, with a UN-only panel in an overly small room.

In the audience were, among others, a bow tied representative of the U.S. Mission to the UN -- which under the new administration has removed copies of OIOS audits from its website -- a representative of the UN Staff Union, and the Capital Master Plan's Michael Adlerstein. The CMP is under fire, including by Mexico and the Rio Group, for budget chicanery. Adlerstein's name still surfaces in litigation about his past job in New Jersey.

Ban began by claiming that the Ethics Office is offering whistleblower protection. But the first high profile applicant for protection, the UN Development Program's security chief in North Korea who uncovered irregularities there, was deemed outside of the Office's protection. UNDP refused even to comply with the Ethics Office's finding it denied due process and should pay back wages. Since then, other whistleblowers have been rebuffed. So what whistleblower protection?

Ms. Ahelnius then talked up the so called transparency resolution 59/272. But her reports are generally withheld, and she refuses to answer questions from the press. Meanwhile, as simply a few examples, findings of procurement irregularities at the UN in Timor Leste and the UN's IT unit, of child pornography users in DESA and in the Department of Safety and Security, go unacted on.

Inner City Press has asked Ban's Spokesperson about these OIOS findings, and others in Myanmar and about $252 million unaudited at the UN's refugee ageny UNHCR, without any answer. So, what transparency? What oversight?

A simple sample case, in which Ban's envoy to the Congo Alan Doss was found to have in writing asked UNDP to show him "leeway" -- break to rules -- to give his daughter a job, which occurred in June 2009, is still as of October 14 "under OIOS investigation," despite Ban supposedly having expected a report on August 18. So what work is OIOS doing?

At the entrance to the event, to which Inner City Press had RSVP-ed and to which it arrived on time, a UNU representative said sorry, the room is full. Can the Press be present if and when questions are taken? He shrugged, and suggested Inner City Press go and sit in a translation booth. Once there, listening to Ms. Ahlenius and seeing inside the UN's own "state media," another UN official came in and said, you cannot stay, people are complaining. And there, on a panel ostensibly about fighting corruption, is transparency at the UN.

Update of 1 p.m. -- near the end of the event, a UNU staffer came through the cramped hallway outside the empty translation booths, where Inner City Press and others were standing trying to hear. Inner City Press asked how, having RSVP-ed, it was supposed to participate. The staffer said to go back to the front door, past a table of cookies and fruit, and try to get in. It was still standing room only, but at least entrance wasn't blocked.

The short question and answer session, which was cut off well before the listed noon ending time, involved a speech by a representative of the Joint Inspection Unit and of European OLAF, and questions from staff members in DESA, Office of Administrative Justice and and intern from Peacekeeping. This last asked what it being doing to protect peacekeepers in Somalia. Ms. Malcorra replied that it is a African Union mission, but that the Security Council is discussing it.

The intern was not convinced and went away muttering that it is a hybrid mission, and the 11 Burundian peacekeepers have recently been killed. While he may have been thinking of UNAMID in Darur as the hybrid mission, the lack of transparency about what the UN is and is not paying for in Somalia is a topic to which we will return.

Inner City Press asked Ms. Ahlenius and Ms. Kane about transparency, using two examples: $7 million overpaid in Timor Leste, and the DESA staff member who pleaded guilty to possession child pornography. Ms. Kane said that she cannot comment -- or apparently act -- because of due process. But the OIOS' own report recites that the staff member pleaded guilty. That is, his guilt is not in doubt.

Since there was no response to this at the UN event, at the day's noon briefing Inner City Press asked Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq about the case, or more generally the import of a guilty plea to the UN, whether there was any thought that this plea in Canada was coerced or involuntary. Haq would not comment; Inner City Press asked for a briefing by Ahlenius -- it's been more than a year -- and Kane on this topic. Haq said he would ask.

Inner City Press asked the OLAF representative about this agency's investigation, on behalf of the UN, into the missing hard drive of previous PTF chief Robert Appleton. No answer was given.

Asked twice about transparency, Ms. Ahlenius dodged the questions. The second time, Inner City Press asked point blank what harm if any came from the U.S. Mission in the past publishing investigative reports with the names redacted. Ahlenius merely repeated that the reports are given to member states. Afterwards another attendees said, "She didn't answer, that's disappointing." No she did not, and yes it is disappointed. To be continued.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/oios1birthday101509.html

At UN, Tales of Removed Hard Drive of Investigator Appleton Trigger EU Probe

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/oios1appleton062309.html

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 -- The removal of the hard drive from the computer of former chief of the UN Procurement Task Force Robert Appleton has given rise to an external investigation of the UN by the European Union's anti-fraud unit, OLAF, Inner City Press has learned.

While Mr. Appleton tells Inner City Press that the complaints that gave rise to the investigation and to a recent memo to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and others come from "a party opposed to me, the PTF and Ms. Ahlenius" -- Inga-Britt Ahlenius, the head of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services -- questions Abdallah Baali are raised by Ms. Ahlenius' reported insistence that Appleton be awarded a top OIOS job.

Previously, Ahlenius asked former Under Secretary General for Management Alicia Barcena to pay particular attention to a job application by a friend of hers. Given a pre-publication opportunity to explain the controversial email request for special consideration, Ahlenius did not.

Favoritism is particularly dangerous in an investigative body, one which rarely briefs the press. Who will watch the watchers? Questions exists about OIOS' purported exoneration of the UN Medical Service -- a day after Inner City Press was told by the UN that OIOS could not verify allegations that personnel without U.S. licenses were prescribing narcotics including to themselves -- and of dirty tricks in campaigns for reelection to the top posts at UNCTAD and the World Trade Organization. Click here for that story, here for the June 4 complaint to OIOS.

While some have hypothesized that the complainant's motive is wanting to same job that Appleton wants, and Ahlenius wants to give to Appleton, that is neither here nor there. Nor is the hypothesis that Appleton's hard drive was removed because the PTF and OIOS could not trust one of OIOS' senior officials -- this only makes more clear how dysfunctional OIOS is at present.

In this context, Inner City Press is publishing the e-mails below: the complaint to OIOS, a response to it which Inner City Press requested from Mr. Appleton, and the complaint's reply -- on which Appleton has not yet commented. If he does, we will update this space. Back on October 21, 2008 at the UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked for a briefing by Mr. Appleton and Ms. Ahlenius -- neither has briefed since.

Subject: Allegation of Corruption
From: [Name withheld in this format, but see below]
Date: May 28, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Mr. Ban, Ms. Ahlenius, Ms. Swift, Mr. Dudley, Mr. Dzuro, Mr. Baldini

Dear Sir,

I have been an employee of the United Nations and the Office of Internal Oversight Services for much of my working life and as such I have witnessed the very best and the very worst of what this organization represents.

For the most part, I believe that the United Nations management team acts in the best interests of the Organization, so it is with a heavy heart that I write to you in relation to an allegation of corruption involving the Under Secretary General for OIOS.

Most staff have lost confidence in Ms. Ahlenius's ability to lead the office. She has made many decisions, particularly with respect to hiring practices, that have left many staff dismayed and some wondering whether the poor woman is suffering the early stages of dementia. As you are no doubt aware, a number of these issues have been aired in the local and international media.

The Allegations:

In December 2008, the Procurement Task Force (PTF) was liquidated and responsibility for the investigation of procurement related fraud transferred to the Investigations Division (ID) of OIOS. Mr. Vlad Dzuro, a P4 investigator with ID, was given responsibility to lead a transition team to effect the transfer of cases and equipment to ID.

As part of his duties, Mr. Dzuro was required to check the PTF inventory to ensure that the equipment assigned to the PTF was fully accounted for in compliance with liquidation procedures. Mr. Dzuro attended at the offices of the PTF and attempted to verify the computer equipment assigned to the PTF. This was a rather mundane and straight forward exercise until he attempted to gain entry to the office formerly occupied by the head of the PTF, Mr. Robert Appleton. Mr. Dzuro found the office locked but after some time was able to gain entry and check the serial number of the computer located in that workspace. The number did not accord with the details of the computer assigned to Mr. Appleton as recorded in the PTF inventory. The computer assigned to Mr. Appleton was later located elsewhere in the PTF office. It was connected to the monitor and the local area network and for all intents and purposes it appeared to be a fully functioning computer. Attempts to start the computer proved fruitless and on closer inspection the hard drive was found to have been removed from the casing containing the CPU.

Inquiries conducted by Mr. Dzuro and Mr. Michael Dudley, acting director of ID/OIOS, revealed that AON Consulting had been instructed to remove the hard drive by Ms. Kelley Swift. Ms. Swift was formerly a PTF investigator but had recently obtained a P4 investigator position with ID/OIOS. Ms. Swift has a long professional association with Mr. Appleton that predates their UN assignment and acted as his defacto deputy at the PTF. Messrs. Dzuro and Dudley spoke to Ms. Swift who admitted that she had removed the hard drive at the request of Mr. Appleton. She also admitted that she had physically swapped the computer assigned to Mr. Appleton with a computer that had been assigned to another investigator who had already left the PTF. Ms. Swift subsequently refused to answer any additional questions and took three weeks sick leave citing work related stress. Ms. Swift recently returned to ID and she is now working as a P4 investigator in the Fraud Unit.

It should be noted that at this time that Mr. Appleton was not a UN staff member or contractor and had no mandate to direct ID/OIOS staff in the manner described. It should also be noted that Mr. Appleton was an applicant for the vacant director's position at ID/OIOS. In fact, Mr. Appleton had been selected for the post however the selection had not been verified by the Office of the Secretary General (OSG) due to perceived procedural flaws in the selection process. The failure to obtain ratification of his selection for the director position was a point of irritation for Ms. Ahlenius who had openly and repeatedly stated that Mr. Appleton would be selected regardless of the merit of the other applicants. OSG directed Ms. Ahlenius to conduct further interviews for the vacant director post. These interviews have now been concluded and Ms. Ahlenius has again told OIOS staff that she is determined to appoint Mr. Appleton to the position.

Messrs. Dzuro and Dudley were able to obtain the original hard drive and a copy was made for examination in accordance with investigative best practice.

In his capacity as the Acting Director ID/OIOS Mr. Dudley urged Ms. Ahlenius to initiate an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the removal of the hard drive from Mr. Appleton's computer. Ms. Ahlenius resisted any attempt to investigate and demanded that she be provided with the original hard drive and copy. These were subsequently given to her and I understand that they have now been destroyed.

There are a number of issues arising from this incident:

1. Why was the hard drive removed from the computer?

2. What was on the hard drive that Mr. Appleton did not want disclosed?

3. Why did Mr. Appleton direct Ms. Swift to remove the hard drive from the computer?

4. As a UN staff member why did Ms. Swift accede to Mr. Appleton's request?

5. Why was the computer with the hard drive removed configured to appear as if it was a fully functioning unit?

6. Why was Mr. Appleton's computer swapped with the computer of a former PTF investigator?

7. Why did Ms. Ahlenius refuse to initiate an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the removal of the hard drive?

8. Why did Ms. Ahlenius seek to cover up the allegation?

9. Why is Ms. Ahlenius so determined to recruit Mr. Appleton as the director of ID/OIOS?

Ms. Ahlenius has made it clear that she wants to recruit Mr. Appleton and it is widely believed that she sought to cover up misconduct in order to remove any obstacles to his appointment to the director's position. I have had very little contact with Mr. Appleton however I find his actions in this case to be incompatible with that expected of a UN staff member, let alone one who may hold a senior position in the UN's primary oversight agency.

I urge to you to initiate an investigation into the issues arising from this incident.

I also urge you to critically assess Ms. Ahlenius's suitability to perform the duties of the USG OIOS.

After obtaining the above on June 18, Inner City Press asked Robert Appleton to respond to it. To his credit he obliged:

Subj: Re: UN Procurement Task Force
From: Robert Appleton
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 6/20/2009 7:18:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

Dear Mathew:

Please allow me respond to this most unfortunate email. What is represented in this email is wholly inaccurate, and has in fact been sent in a fraudulent manner by a person using a fictitious name (as explained below). It is not legitimate, and fraught with false and misleading information, as well as failing to mention many significant and material facts.

With regard to questions about my computer:

1 I separated from the UN on 31 December 2008 at the conclusion of the Procurement Task Force, and have not had any involvement with my office space, my computer or the PTF or Investigations Division office premises since my departure from the United Nations. I had no involvement in the removal of the hard drive from my computer.

2 I never, at any time, gave instructions to Ms. Swift, or anyone else, to remove the hard drive. Ms. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has never received any instructions from me in this regard. The allegation in the anonymous email to the contrary is wholly untrue. Again, the fraudulent manner in which this email was sent also undermines the credibility of the representations in it. I would invite you to contact Ms. Swift about the circumstances of the hard drive removal, and this issue as well.

3 Please understand that the representations set forth in the email you received are designed to make the details of the incident appear much more ominous than they are, most likely from someone with an interest in the matter and perhaps a motive to malign at a sensitive time. My understanding, from learning later about the circumstances from those in the office space once occupied by PTF, is that the hard drive was removed to preserve and protect its contents, as the PTF/OIOS office space at the time was not secure and safe. Best practices are to preserve and protect sensitive information and data, including hard drive computers in office space occupied by investigators and to secure such information once an investigator leaves as it can contain sensitive case information. (The PTF shared office space on a floor with a UN department it was investigating). As I understand it, the representation that my office was locked is also false.

4 Contrary to the false assertions in the email message, the hard drive has since been preserved by OIOS, by packing it in a secure pouch and sealing it, and has not been destroyed. Outside professional computer experts were asked to forensically examine it. The results of the examination are that the drive had not been accessed, altered or tampered with since I left the UN. It still exists and has been secured and packaged in a sealed envelope, and is being maintained by OIOS.

5 Out of an abundance of caution, this matter was referred to OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office), chosen by the Department of Management, for an independent investigation. I understand there investigation has concluded, and I was interviewed as a part of it.

6 I have never had any objection to an examination of the hard drive, the computer or its contents, and I communicated my consent to review its contents to the investigators.

7 It is my understanding that OLAF’s investigation has completely exonerated me of any involvement in this matter, and categorically refuted any allegation that I caused the hard drive to be removed, altered or in any way tampered with, or have done anything improper.

8 Most importantly, the email was sent by individual purporting to be a UN staff member by the name Shiva Vishnu (narada.vishnu@gmail.com). There is no staff member employed by the UN by this name. I have never met anyone by this name, and no one by this name has ever worked for OIOS. Further, the email was not sent from a UN email account, but from a gmail account. The author’s assertion, therefore, that he is a UN staff member, is categorically false. Such falsity undermines his/her credibility, and the contents of the message. The email is fraudulent, and therefore not worthy of attention.

With regard to the vacant director’s position at ID/OIOS, the email’s statement that there were procedural flaws in the selection process is also completely unfounded. A panel of three external judges outside of OIOS was constituted, and as I understand it, unanimously recommended me to the Under Secretary General of OIOS for the post, after a full recruitment process in which more than 70 applications were submitted, and after all eligible candidates were interviewed and evaluated. Notwithstanding this, in order to ensure that the selection process was credible, and above reproach, there has since been a second full recruitment in which the post has been re-advertised, further applications encouraged and accepted, and a second panel constituted to review, interview and recommend a candidate. As I understand it, this process is still under way.

Finally, I find it most unfortunate that a party opposed to me, the PTF and Ms. Ahlenius, has resorted to anonymous, vicious ad hominem attacks without any basis in fact. It is clear that whoever sent this email is hostile to the goals of greater transparency and accountability within the UN, a goal my colleagues and I have tried so hard to pursue. I truly hope you will not allow this person to utilize you in furthering his agenda.

Sincerely yours, Robert Appleton

After receipt of the above from Mr. Appleton, Inner City Press sent it to the complainant, if there were any reply. There was:

Subj: Re: Allegation of Corruption
From: [Name withheld in this format, but see above]
To: Inner City Press
Sent: 6/22/2009 5:52:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

It is not best practice to remove and preserve a hard drive because it contains sensitive information. Sensitive information should be stored on the OIOS servers and secured with appropriate password/access protection.

OIOS has a secure server in Vienna that all OIOS/PTF staff use to store their investigative material. The server is accessed via Citrix software and each staff member is required to upload material to the server on on ongoing and immediate basis for review by OIOS management. This is also to ensure that links between cases can be identified and so that the material (where appropriate) is accessible to all investigators. OIOS/PTF does not store information on individual computer hard drives as it is contrary to OIOS instructions. If the material was not uploaded to the Vienna server there would be a substantial risk that the material would be lost should the computer suffer a permanent failure.

By their very nature the types of investigations conducted by OIOS are sensitive. It has never been the practice of OIOS to remove computer hard drives because of the sensitivity of the data contained within a drive.

Computers are routinely rotated out of OIOS as part of computer upgrades and normal maintenance. Old computers are replaced with newer models. When an individual staff member resigns their computer is returned to the ICT unit in the duty station in which they were working.

It would be totally inappropriate and a waste of UN resources to remove the hard drive when those hard drives can be cleaned using commercially available software. The use of this type of software is widespread throughout OIOS and is routinely used when computers are returned to ICT units.

For example OIOS has recently downsized the number of staff in the African peacekeeping missions and returned a significant number of computers (desk tops and lap tops) to the mission ICT units. These computers were cleaned and returned to the mission ICT units. No hard drives were removed.

The PTF investigations were / are no more sensitive than investigations conducted by the OIOS investigators in the field or in the other duty stations (Nairobi and Vienna).

Even if you accept that the hard drive was removed to protect its contents then,

Why wasn't the information stored on the OIOS Vienna secure server (with the appropriate level of security if it is so sensitive)?

Why weren't the hard drives of the other PTF computers removed?

Why wasn't the whole computer removed rather than just the hard drive?

Why did Ms. Swift take the hard drive home rather than secure it in a secure location on the UN building such as a lockable cabinet or safe?

Why was the computer set up to appear as if it was fully functioning (if not to deceive those who were examining the computer)

Why did Ms. Swift refuse to answer questions about the removal of the hard drive and then take sick leave citing work related stress? Ms. Swift is still on sick leave.

Who authorised the removal of the hard drive?

Why was OLAF called in?

Why does the hard drive need to be forensically examined if it was removed to preserve and secure sensitive information and data? The email you received states that the examination found that the hard drive had not been accessed, altered or tampered. But was the hard drive examined to identify the data that was so sensitive it couldn't be secured or deleted by any other means?

I stand by my belief that the hard drive and copy were destroyed. I don't know what the outside computer experts examined but it couldn't have been the original hard drive.

I also believe that OLAF was only called in recently because senior OIOS staff referred the matter to the Department of Management AGAINST the instructions of Ms. Ahlenius. Ms. Ahlenius was furious that the matter was referred to the DoM.

The content of the email you received also indicates that the author has made up his or her mind that there is no foundation to the complaint. This seems premature given that OLAF has not completed their investigation.

And the question still needs to be asked. What is the role of Ms. Ahlenius in this incident and why is she so protective of Mr. Appleton?

I hope you are able to pursue this case.

Inner City Press sought a reply to the above from Mr. Appleton, but as of deadline none has been received. If and when one is, it will be published on this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/oios1appleton062309.html