Inner City Press Asks UN Why Only Uses UNpaid Interns, Favoring Rich, General Assembly Blamed - But Has Ban Ki-moon Ever Raised It?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 11 -- Amid mounting questions about the UN using only unpaid intern, favoring the most affluent, Inner City Press on August 11 asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it, video here, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: I'm sure you've seen this story about the New Zealand intern at the UN in Geneva living in a tent.  I want to ask sort of a more fundamental question, which is that what would the UN say to those who say that by having so many entirely unpaid internship, it basically, it… it limits this possible career step of learning to only the most affluent people…?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I think it's a very valid point.  The debate around the payment of interns is one that's been going on for some time.  We are not in a position to pay our interns.  It's too bad in a way, because I think it does limit the opportunity to those who are able to pay their own way and house themselves.  Unless the General Assembly changes those rules, there is no change in sight.  What's important is that any internship be used as a learning opportunity for the intern and not be used as, you know, as free labour or as a substitute for work done by staff.

Inner City Press:  Okay. Is that something that the Secretary-General has ever raised to the GA [General Assembly] or…?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I'm not aware of that.

    Back in May 2013 an internship in the UN was auctioned off, ultimately for $26,000, in a processextensively covered and questioned by Inner City Press. The UN said it was embarrassed by the auction or the "optics," and resisted Inner City Press' questions about the sale.

After Inner City Press asked several times about it, the description of the internship being auctioned was"amended," as the UN spokesman put it, to read:

"Take advantage of this exclusive opportunity for a 6-week internship in NYC working for Bruce Knotts, Chair of the UN-NGO Committee on Human Rights. You will gain inside knowledge of just how the UN really operates and have tremendous opportunities to make invaluable connections. This truly is the ultimate internship opportunity for any college or graduate student looking to get their foot in the door!"

The auction, on CharityBuzz.com, said it was to benefit the RFK Young Leaders. Press inquiries to that entity and its parent, the RFK Center, did not yield any answers. But today, at least, we have a detailed answers about how such internships or grounds-passes work, from the Director of the UN Department of Public Information's Outreach Division, Maher Nasser.

  Inner City Press, along with another DPI question to which it is still awaiting the answer -- why was UNTV shut off while Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat was giving a speech on Monday morning -- asked Nasser, "I heard when you told DPI-NGO orientation that it makes the UN look bad, and that the UN is not obligated to let the person ('m. alam') who purchased the internship into the building. Is that the case? And you could keep me informed on this, when the purchased internship is to begin and what the UN / DPI does?"

  To his credit, Nasser provided Inner City Press with the most detailed UN response to date on the auctioned internship:

Subject: Question re the auctioned internship, thanks
From: Maher Nasser [at] un.org
Date: Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com

Hi Matthew, On the internship issue, as you know from the relevant website, this was for an internship with an NGO, not an internship at the UN. The optics of it and use of the UN's image implied otherwise, which is why I flagged it in the orientation with newly associated NGOs as something that hurts the UN and is not acceptable.

Every NGO associated with DPI is entitled to only six yearly passes, two of which are for youth representatives. The names to whom the passes are issued are provided by the president/head of each NGO. By providing the names, the NGO certifies that these names represent the NGO concerned. Up till now, we have had no reason not to grant a pass to people designated as representing an NGO. An old system of temporary passes issued throughout the year was discontinued by DPI several years ago.

With reference to the six names provided, and as I said above, this has not happened in the past, if we find out that someone had to pay or buy a slot on that list, we would take it up with the concerned NGO and depending on the feedback, not endorse that name for a pass.

In view of the case of the auctioned internship, we are preparing language to be added to the forms to be completed by DPI associated NGOs to avoid such possibilities in the future.

  So at a minimum, the "m. alam" on whose behalf $26,000 was bid for this internship might not be endorsed for a pass to actually enter the UN. Would they get a refund? And what do the UN-NGO Committee on Human Rights and the RFK Center have to say? Watch this site.

Footnote: While we await another division of DPI's promised answer to the Free UN Coalition for Accessabout how and why UNTV shut off during Saeb Erakat's speech, we note complaints received about the press corps move-back to the Secretariat building, particularly among broadcasters about special charges, special deals, special inquiries. The DPI official in question is aware of several of these complaints; watch this site.

At UN, Censorship Alliance Wants Less News, Exclusion of Outside Journalists, Even A Booklet Co-Signed with Ban Ki-moon

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 23 -- Press access at the UN has continued to decline under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. 

  During the General Assembly debate week in late September, Ban's chief of peacekeeping blocked a Press camera (Vine here), and the French mission ordered all non-French journalists to leave a briefing by President Francois Hollande in the UN Press Briefing Room.

   The new Free UN Coalition for Access actively opposed both of these, as well as restrictions on getting to the General Assembly stakeout and on taking photographs from the General Assembly photographers booth. After making the latter complaint to UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric on October 17, Dujarric's office two hours later promoted a meeting ostensibly to discuss "access problems," by the UN Correspondents Association a/k/a UN's Censorship Alliance.

  Now the UNCA "minutes" and partial list of grievances have been provided to FUNCA. They are laughable. The ejection of non-French journalists from the UN Briefing Room is not mentioned, nor the physical blocking of filming.

  Instead, UNCA under figurehead Pamela Falk and sidekick complains that there is too much news during the General Assembly -- they want fewer side events -- and apparently too many journalists at the UN: they want a private wi-fi password leaving the current open wi-fi only for "guests and others."

  Tellingly, one of the UNCA proposals is for a booklet co-signed by Ban Ki-moon and UNCA.

  With this bogus list and presumably seeking that booklet, they say that the UN's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit proposes to meet only with their Executive Committee. This is akin to a fake wrestling match, in which the two sides pretend to fight, for an audience.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has told MALU, but repeats: if they even aspire to legitimacy, the UN must reach out to all journalists, at the UN and ideally beyond, and not that subset which pay UNCA money. That is a decidedly partial subset: a fake wrestling match. 

  UNCA has become the UN's Censorship Alliance, having tried to get theinvestigative Press thrown out of the UN and, for example, attempting on October 24 to confine information about one of the lawsuits against the UN for bringing cholera to Haiti to a non-webcast session for those which pay it money.

  During the October 16 UN General Assembly session to elect five new members to the UN Security Council, the UN's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit came into the GA photographers' booth and said that only "wire service" photographers could remain.

  But MALU has not offered any definition of "wire service," in this new media age. The new Free UN Coalition for Access has demanded such a definition, most recently of Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric at the October 17 UN noon briefing. Video here. 

 Dujarric, saying he was quoting a Supreme Court justice on another topic, said, What is a wire service? I know one when I see one. 

   This is, as it were, the definition of arbitrary.

 The UN while throwing out media from workspace gives its UN Censorship Alliance a large room, which it then limits to those that pay it money in dues. Here's how it works: a new media at the UN is told, from the pinnacle of the UN's Censorship Alliance, to pay UNCA $90 and UNCA will get the UN to give the media UN office space. 

     Today's UN Censorship Alliance is unlikely to get any meaningful media access problem addressed -- members its Executive Committee have, in fact, caused or colluded in many of the decreases in access. They drafted a rule with MALU to eliminate journalist workspace at the Security Council stakeout; they withheld audio tapes and transcripts of a Ban "interview" with them, even from their own members.

   During last month's General Debate, journalists weren't even been able to go to the General Assembly stakeout without an escort from MALU -- an escort that often did not come on time, or come at all.

  There was, as well, substantive censorship. Most recently of October 16, media photographing the UN General Assembly vote for new Security Council members were ordered NOT to photograph the tables of the voters. Inner City Press for FUNCA resisted, and discussed this issue along with the elections (and Cambodia) on Huffington Post Live's "World Brief" on October 17, here.

On September 27 while Inner City Press filmed from within the GA stakeout area, UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous came over and blocked -- or Banned -- the filming, demanding to know what it was for. Vine here. Then Ladsous canceled the scheduled public Q&A stakeout on Mali.

  While the new Free UN Coalition for Access challenged this censorship, on September 27 at the stakeout and following up the next week, the old UNCA has done nothing about it. In fact, UNCA big wigs have been happy to takeprivate briefings from Ladsous and others, as access at the UN for less "insider" correspondents has continued to decline.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access targeted these censorship practices in aSeptember 29 flier, online, in the UN including on the "open" bulletin board it got the UN to install (the flier was torn down, one can only imagine by whom, but has gone back up.)

   Now, in a typical UN charade, the very UNCA which oversaw this decrease in access belatedly says it is concerned and conducts UN-promoted meetings that are akin to faux, scripted wrestling matches with fake punches. This is the UNCA that played softball soccer with Ban, promoting and allowing him a photo op.

  Many of these promotions are signed by UNCA figurehead Pamela Falk of CBS, nowhere seen during noon briefing fights about media access. Meanwhile the UN Spokesperson's office is promoting a for-pay event for UNCA, by taping a flier for it on its counter. This is the UN's Censorship Alliance.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access has told the UN, again on October 16, that it must address and reverse its blocking of press access, and that if it needs input it must hold a meeting open to all journalists who cover the UN, not just its chosen UNCA -- the UN's Censorship Alliance -- which has become akin to a company-created and supported union. 

   Ban's spokesperson's office declined to criticize the September 27 censorship, nor Ladsous' spokesman subsequently asking another media to confirm that it would not air an on the record interview with Ladsous' deputy Edmond Mulet about the UN bringing cholera to Haiti. Video here.

  In fact Ban's Spokesman played a part in, at least defending, a French-only briefing in the UN Press Briefing Room.

On September 23, the entourage of French President Francois Hollanderepeatedly but unsuccessfully ordered the UN accredited Press to leave theUN's Press Briefing Room.  Video here.

  On September 25 when the Free UN Coalition for Access asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who peaked out from the VIP / Green Room behind the Press Briefing Room, about the incident, he said sometimes countries try to reserve the Room.

   Asked if other countries had done so during this General Assembly, Dujarric said yes.

   Inner City Press then asked Dujarric which other countries, beyond his native France:

“based on your answer at today's noon briefing, please state which countries during this UNGA have used the UN Press Briefing Room for briefing not open to all UN correspondents, other than France at 11 am on September 23. Also, what was your role on September 23 around 11 am in the room behind the Press Briefing Room podium?”

 This has been Dujarric's response:

Subject: please state which countries..
From: Stephane Dujarric [at] un.org
Date: Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:06 PM
To: Inner City Press
Cc: funca

I don't have the information on the first point for you. On the second, I'm not sure that I understand it except that I was just looking into the room. I tend to be a curious person.

Stephane Dujarric (Mr.)
Spokesman for the Secretary-General
United Nations Headquarters

   FUNCA is left wondering: ARE there any other countries? The question has been asked again by FUNCA, elsewhere. And it has been on HuffPost Live, here. Watch this site.

Footnote: as noted the old UN Correspondents Association, which is given privileged status and set-aside first questions nearly always used for softballs, has done nothing in recent years to improve or even defend press access. In fact, members of UNCA's Executive Committee have tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN, and there have been no reforms since. It's become the UN's Censorship Alliance. They provide Ban Ki-moon with photo ops playing soccer with them. This is today's UN - and FUNCA is fighting to hold the UN to its stated principles.

   

On Ukraine, UN General Assembly Resolution Passes But 58 Abstain, 11 Against, 100 For; Ban Ki-moon's Spokesperson Overrides

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 27 -- When the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution rejecting the Crimea referendum, it was far from unanimous. There were 100 countries for, 11 against and fully 58 abstaining.

  Afterward, Inner City Press asked Russia Ambassador Vitaly Churkin about citation in the meeting of Kosovo as a precedent, and about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon having met the leader of the Svoboda Party.

  Churkin took issue with a high US official claiming there was a referendum in Kosovo, and expressed concern about Ban meeting with a party deemed among other things anti-Semitic.

   Inner City Press ran, before 12:10 pm, to the UN noon briefing in order to ask these and other questions. But Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq had begun and ended the briefing before 12:09. 

   This contrasts to Ban's Spokesperson's Office having, for example in October 2013, delayed the noon briefing so that a(nother) country's speech could be covered, click here for that.

  When asked on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Accesswhat the Spokesperson's Office policy is, Haq said, "You want a policy where it's all about you." We'll have more on this.

  In the GA meeting beyond Kosovo, Nicaragua cited the Honduras coup as an analogy. St. Vincent's cited Grenada, saying the positions are reversed but abstaining because the Ukraine resolution is about the principals, not the principles.

  Uruguay cited Kosovo and also the referendum carried out in the Malvinas / Falkland Islands. UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant was in the room, and tweeted at; if there's a response we'll publish.

   Earlier it was 4:25 am in New York and Washington when theInternational Monetary Fund announced its preliminary agreement for a $14 - $18 billion loan program with Ukraine. 

 Inner City Press asked the IMF to confirm or comment on reports that the Ukrainian "increase the price of natural gas for household consumers by an average of 50%" is attributable to the IMF. 

  At the IMF's 9:30 am embargoed briefing, IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out the question then said that the program has five components, including energy sector reform.

  He said Ukraine will reduce subsidies to the energy sector, and that current prices in Ukraine are two to three times lower than in neighboring countries. He said, as it did to other questions, that responses were given in a press conference in Kyiv.

 In New York at the UN, a General Assembly meeting started at 10 am. Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin recounted history and said radicals "called the shots" in the change of government. We've noted that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with the leader of the Svoboda party while in Kyiv.

  In Washington later on March 27 the US Congress is expected to act on a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine, but not on the IMF changes the Obama administration requested. Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement welcoming the IMF preliminary deal, concluding that "We also remain committed to providing the IMF with the resources it needs – in partnership with Congress – to provide strong support to countries like Ukraine as well as reinforcing the Fund’s governance to reflect the global economy."
  
  Two weeks ago on March 13, the day after several US Senators argued that International Monetary Fund quota reform would have to be approved by Congress to enable the IMF to meaningfully assist Ukraine, Inner City Press asked IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice if this is true. Video here, from Minute 12:05.

  Rice genially said several times that the question couldn't or wouldn't be answered while the IMF mission is “in the field” in Ukraine. He initially gave the same answer to Inner City Press' question that had nothing to do with Ukraine: is it true, as Russia reportedly argued at the most recent G-20 meeting, that quota reform could be accomplished without US approval, under some set of rule changes?

  Rice during the briefing repeated this could not be answered while the mission is in Ukraine. Later it was conveyed that the reform is not possible without US approval. The answer is appreciated: a benefit of asking in person. But Inner City Press (and the Free UN Coalition for Access) hope to make the online asking of questions work better from now on. 

 And on March 27, for example, IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out this question from Inner City Press:

"On Zimbabwe, please confirm IMF is re-opening its office and respond to Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa saying part of the deal included cutting Zimbabwe's wage bill from 70 percent of the budget but this pledge will not be met, 'addressing it overnight would mean very drastic measures which I indicated to them (IMF) I am not prepared to take. That would mean retrenchment of civil servants.'"

  On March 27, Murray said he would not comment directly on what the Finance Minister said, but pointed to a press release we will add a link to.

  Back on March 13 in another non-Ukraine question, Inner City Press asked Rice about a book published earlier this week in Hungary, that the then-economy minister in 2011 told Goldman Sachs that the government would be going to the IMF for a program. Since much currency trading ensued, Inner City Press asked if the IMF has any rules limiting its government interlocutors from trading on or sharing insider information.Video here, from Minute 31:12.

  Rice said there are confidential provisions. But are those only for the contents of communication and not the existence of communications or negotiations? We'll see.

  

Exclusive: At UN, JPMorgan Chase Slammed for Closing Accounts, High Fees, GA Resolution Coming?

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, March 18 -- JPMorgan Chase came up as a topic, and target, in a closed door meeting at the UN of the Group of 77 and China on March 18, several Permanent Representative told Inner City Press.

The ambassadors complained that while JPMogan Chase is moving to deny many of their missions bank accounts, the bank also overcharges them when for example they pay or get paid by UN Peacekeeping.

The idea discussed is to draft and vote on a General Assembly resolution on the topic. The US government is required, under the UN Host Country Agreement, to try to ensure banking services for countries' diplomatic missions.

It is worth noting that the US on March 18 ordered Syria to close its embassy in Washington. And while the US has several times offered assurances to ambassadors at the UN, the problems have grown worse, effecting more countries.

JPMorgan Chase was centrally involved in the 2008 predatory lending meltdown that hurt the economies of countries around the world, as Inner City Press has covered in depth. Now, belatedly, there may be fight back in the UN General Assembly, on the issue of bank accounts and fees. Watch this site.

   

In DR Congo, UN OK With Jamming M23 Rebel Radio, Silent on Sudan Hostages & Who's Excluding Press from General Assembly

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 13 -- Rather than having a single standard, the UN picks and chooses which free speech it will speak up for, when it will speak including about attacks on it and who, when push comes to shove, gets excluded. All this was on display at the UN's August 13 noon briefing.Video here and embedded below.

  In the morning, Inner City Press reported that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the UN provides military support to the Joseph Kabila government, a parliamentarian was arrested for insulting Kabila on a radio station.

  Then at noon, Inner City Press asked for the UN's comment on this, and on the Kabila government jamming the new radio station of the M23 insurgents. Does the UN view this as a free speech or press issue, or as just an attack on an armed group the UN wants to disarm?

  UN spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey chose and repeated the latter: it's an attack on an armed group we want to disarm. Is that what UNESCO would say? And what of the arrest of a non-armed parliamentarian?

  The UN itself stays silent, for example on the taking hostage of three of its staff members in Darfur for more than a week now. Inner City Press, after reporting the story, asked Del Buey what the UN's policy is, of speaking up about attacks on it in some places and not others. 

   Are there other UN hostages being held but not disclosed by Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson's office? Del Buey said he would not comment on that.

  With protests scheduled for Bahrain tomorrow, and reporters and bloggers being harassed in advance, Inner City Press asked what the UN is doing. Del Buey repeated a general statement about the right to protest. One wondered, is Ban's half time envoy Terje Roed-Larsen telling that to the Bahraini royals?

  Finally, on an issue Inner City Press asked and wrote about yesterday, the elimination of all 53 press seats at the upcoming General Debate week, and the exclusion of civil society from the General Assembly for the entire time it is in the North Lawn building, Del Buey still had no answer. He said first the delegates have to find space. Is that the only priority? Given what Ban has said or mouthed about civil society?

  Before asking at the briefing, the Free UN Coalition for Access had asked the question of who decided for a second time to the Department of Public Information's Stephane Dujarric, by twitter since he uses it, and by e-mail to two other DPI officials, one above and one supervised by him, who do not. One of these is away from another week; the other is "looking into it." Watch this site.

   

With Press & Public To Be Excluded from UN General Assembly in September, UN Won't Even Say Who Decided

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 12 -- During the UN General Assembly's debate week this September there will not be a single seat for the press or public, it was confirmed Monday at the UN. Who has made this decision is not clear.

  The interim General Assembly Hall will have 1000 seats, a UN Security official estimated, compared to 1,800 in the old Hall now under repair. Countries' delegations are being given an addition 560 seats in an adjacent overflow room.

  But for the press and public, which used to be able to witness the proceedings from the fourth floor mezzanine, nothing. Not a single seat. (Also, a media stakeout by North Lawn Conference Room 1, available and used last year, is slated for elimination.)

  The new Free UN Coalition for Access has protested this to the UN Department of Public Information since at least June 10. Commitments made at that time by DPI official Stephane Dujarric, about the working conditions in the six small booth through which camera-persons could watch from above the GA floor, have yet to be acted on.

  Yet DPI is acknowledging that this exclusionary GA Week is coming, holding a pre-GA briefing on August 12. There, when Inner City Press asked a DPI staffer who was responsible for the decision of no seats for the press or public, the answer was the "probably" the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management -- a Department that has not held a press conference in years.

   To be sure who is responsible, the Free UN Coalition for Access asked the UN Spokesperson, through@FUNCA_info. Then the same question was put to Dujarric, through @InnerCityPress since Dujarric is behind a move to ban FUNCA and its questions, even threatening to suspend or withdraw Inner City Press' accreditation for hanging aFUNCA sign on the door of its shared office while UNCA, which leaked internal anti-Press documents to Dujarric, has no fewer then five signs, and a big UN room in which it holdspoliticized events publicized only to those who pay it money as dues. 

  (UNCA's 2013 president Pamela Falk of CBS was not present for Monday's pre-GA briefing. As noted, increasingly she just uses, or tries to use, UNCA, to spread or even create corporate CBS content. Nor was her first vice president, Louis Charbonneau of Reuters, who leaked the internal UNCA documents to Dujarric immediately after promising not to. Story here, audio here, document here.)

After a detailed briefing about how live broadcasts shots can be obtained, this year on the lawn in front of the UN rather than the old Press Island, Inner City Press for FUNCA asked how the day's "Stress Test" of the UN's audio - visual broadcasting system had gone. Click here for Inner City Press' curtain raiser on the test.

While the results are not yet in, Inner City Press confirmed on Monday that in a Town Hall meeting on July 15, DPI's chief acknowledged to DPI staff the problems with the new "MAMS" system, blaming them on firewalls and saying that it was being dealt with through Department of Management chief Yukio Takasu. So who is responsible? Watch this site.

Footnote: DPI's chief at the July 15 town hall meeting made much of new technology, social media, responsiveness. So it is striking that Dujarric and DPI have actually become less responsive to press access issues politely but publicly raised through social media. This UN is closing in on itself; FUNCA will continue to oppose that.

   

At UN, Skanska Worked Before New $66.8M Contract, Which It Calls $65M, Follow the Money

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 5 -- How does the UN choose to whom to pay money, and how much to pay?

Amid hoopla at the UN about its UMOJA computer system upgrade in Lebanon, Inner City Press reported on whistleblowers' complaints that PriceWaterhouseCoopers got contract after contract without things ever going out to bid again.

  On July 1 when UMOJA launched in Lebanon, Inner City Press began to ask about UMOJA and this at the noon briefing, but this was disallowed despite the brevity of the noon briefing.

But on July 2, Inner City Press managed to ask about another strange contract:

Deputy Spokesperson: Matthew, last question?

Inner City Press: I got a couple on Sudan; one about money. Which do you…?

Deputy Spokesperson: Money.

Inner City Press: All right. Skanska announced today and put out a press release that they have been awarded $65 million contract for the renovation of the General Assembly Building. But the timing seemed strange, because it’s already been fenced off and people thought that they’d already been given this whole contract. So is there some way to know, did they release a second contract to Skanska and was it done competitively? And if it wasn’t done competitively, why wait until now that it is already fenced off? Isn’t Skanska already working on the building?

Deputy Spokesperson: We’ll have to find out for you, Matthew; I don’t have that information with me.

  It took a couple of days, but an answer did come in today, unlike on the UN Mine Action Service chief in Somalia David Bax sharing information with US intelligence, or which Congolese Army units Herve Ladsous' UN Peacekeeping supports:

Subject: Your question (from 2 July) on Skanska
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:49 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

The United Nations, on 2 July 2013, signed a contract for a portion of the renovation of the General Assembly Building with Skanska USA Building Inc. The value of the contract is $66.8 million. (Please note that the news release you based your questions on quoted $65 million as the value of the contract. That number is not correct.)

The United Nations selected Skanska USA Building Inc. as Construction Manager for the Capital Master Plan in July 2007 in a competitive bidding process. For each phase of the renovation of the UN Headquarters the UN negotiates separate guaranteed maximum price contracts with the Construction Manager. The UN has the option to negotiate contracts with other construction companies, if it disagrees with Skanska’s pricing.

The General Assembly Building was closed for construction on 31 May 2013. Work performed by Skanska before the signing of the contract was authorized in the form of task orders, which was funded outside of this guaranteed maximum price contract.

  This seems to be the way PriceWaterhouseCoopers kept getting UMOJA contracts -- the UN could have gone back to market but said it wasn't required to. What triggers actual competition? Tellingly, Skanska began to work and get paid before the new contract was agreed to.

Here, Skanka's own press release says $65 million; the UN says $66.8 million. What's $1.8 million between friends? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

  

As UN Banned Staff Union Views in Mexico City Talks, Seeks to Ban Dissent in UNHQ

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, June 19 -- In the aftermath of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's labor negotiating team rebuffing the Staff Union requests at a meeting that collapsed last week in Mexico City, there are called to go beyond the already in-place "no confidence" in Ban Ki-moon resolution adopted earlier this year.

  Outraged staff have exclusively told Inner City Press about a meeting of Ban's Senior Management Group held in the UN before the Mexico City fiasco, at which they say management decided they don't need anything from the staff, even to listen.

  The more manicured version of this position is in a posting they tell Inner City Press went out on June 17 -- when Inner City Press formally asked about the Mexico City melt down, after first publishing the story the day previous -- and then was, they say, quickly replaced by a post by Ban's head of management Yukio Takasu:

Letter from the Secretary-General to all staff on Staff-Management Committee

Posted: Monday 17 June 2013, New York | Author: Secretary-General BAN Ki-moon I am concerned to learn that discussions at the Staff-Management Committee meeting in Mexico City (SMC-II) ended prematurely on Friday with many important matters of concern to staff remaining to be discussed. These include downsizing, mobility, implementation of travel policy, administration of justice, the competency framework, roster management, local salary surveys and performance management. I place great importance on consultations with staff on all issues related to staff welfare, and remain committed to the harmonious and consensual resolution of all staff-management issues.

Regrettably an impasse arose related to the role of the Committee itself. In 2011 I promulgated a new Secretary-General’s bulletin on the Staff-Management Committee (ST/SGB/2011/6) to strengthen mechanisms for staff-management consultations by establishing a forum for staff and management to identify, examine and resolve issues by consensus. However, the General Assembly requested that it be revised in line with existing staff regulations. A revised bulletin was shared with members of the SMC to facilitate consultations at this year’s Staff-Management Committee. It better aligned the role of the Committee with staff regulation 8.2, stipulating that the Committee would advise the Secretary-General on human resources polices and general conditions of staff welfare but removed the requirement for consensus.

Understandably, Staff Union representatives at SMC-II felt the 2011 bulletin better supported the SMC and should be retained. They called for management “to withdraw the proposed changes and send a clear message to the General Assembly that it supports the current SMC process as key to ensuring constructive staff-management dialogue, in line with the Staff Rules and Regulations and General Assembly resolutions. The unions believe that withdrawal of the proposed changes and reaffirmation of the current SMC process are required for an agreed outcome of SMC II.”

While recognizing the importance placed by staff representatives on retaining the current Secretary-General’s bulletin, the position of Member States, taken after months of discussion, is clear. I therefore do not consider it fruitful to revisit the issue with the General Assembly. Regrettably staff representatives at SMC-II were not prepared to discuss the many other important agenda items - in-spite of the meeting's agenda having been rearranged specifically to allow for a full extra day of discussion on this matter - until the issue of the revised SGB was concluded, the draft was withdrawn or its consideration was postponed until the next SMC in 2014. Under these circumstances, and with no possibility to complete the other agenda items, it was not possible to continue the meeting.

While I am very disappointed at these developments, I continue to value the contribution of staff and their representatives. With so many significant reform initiatives under way, this is particularly crucial. I remain committed to constructive dialogue and maintaining continuous contact and communication with staff. I sincerely hope the present impasse can soon be resolved through flexible and constructive discussions. This is in our shared best interest.

  Ban's UN does not like dissent, even if productive and constructive, it seems. Another symptom of this is the fixation by Ban's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit indemanding the take-down of even a sign of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which is advocating to maintain pre-Ban precedents to cover the Security Council and General Assembly, while trying to leave up two signs of UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance with which Ban partners.

 The joke is that Ban wishes he could find a faux union like UNCA. Watch this site.