Thursday, December 3, 2015

Goldman Sachs Blacks Out Basic Info From Its GE Capital Federal Reserve Response, Inner City Press Appeals Under FOIA


By Matthew R. Lee
NEW YORK, December 2 -- The lack of seriousness in US bank regulation grows from the relatively smaller to the largest banks, with Goldman Sachs the most recent example. 
Goldman is trying to speed through Federal Reserve approval to buy $16 billion in insured deposits from GE Capital, and the Fed, documents  released to Inner City Press under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show, is inappropriately bent on helping, including by closing its comment period. 
 Now on December 2, Goldman Sachs has sent Inner City Press a heavily redacted copy of its submission to the Federal Reserve. Inner City Press has put it online, here,and immediately submitted this under FOIA:
"This is a FOIA request for the entirety of the December 2 submission in connection with the 'Application by Goldman Sachs Bank USA for the Acquisition by Purchase and Assumption of Certain Deposit Liabilities and Certain Very Limited Non-Financial Assets of GE Capital Bank,' of which a heavily redacted copy was sent to Inner City Press, as a timely commented, by Goldman Sachs' outside counsel past 10 pm on December 2. On the cover letter, referring to a “Confidential Application,” much is redacted; four exhibits are withheld in full. Given this, ICP contests and is hereby request all of this information.  On Response 1, after the words “Strategic Plan,” there are heavy redactions. Later, Goldman Sachs tries to withhold even what is seeks to acquire. Exhibits A, B, C and D are withheld in full. ICP is requesting all of them."
  Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch also immediately commented on this to the Federal Reserve.
 On November 19, Goldman Sachs submitted a purported reply to the Federal Reserve, stating among other things that "Certain Comment Letters express concern with the contact between GS Bank and Board staff prior to GS Bank submitting the Application. GS Bank respectfully submits that the contact was both appropriate and ordinary in the context of the Board’s own guidance on pre-filing communications.11 Additionally, the allegations of contact are not germane to the scope of the statutory factors set forth for Board consideration under the Bank Merger Act."
  The 2012 Fed letter Goldman Sachs cites was meant to benefit smaller banks - and did not envision Additional Information letters before the public was even notified of the proposal. The misuse of small bank "regulatory relief" by the likes of Goldman Sachs casts new light of legislative riders being considered for the US spending bill due December 11.
 Going forward, KeyCorp is trying to buy First Niagara, and NY Community Bank wants to buy Astoria; there will be opposition. 
  As to Goldman Sachs, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch filed a supplement comment on October 30 including Goldman's new and troubling settlement with the NYS Department of Financial Services regarding a former Federal Reserve employee impermissibly using Fed information for them. Public hearings and an extension of the comment period are needed.
 As detailed below, the Federal Reserve's General Counsel Scott Alvarez solicitiously agreed to weekend phone calls with Goldman's outside council Rodgin "Rodge" Cohen at Sullivan & Cromwell, and the Fed submitted its "Additional Information" request to Goldman in July, a full month before any application was submitted or the deal publicly announced.
  Thus there was no way for the public to be involved in the Fed's review, which is required by the Bank Merger Act (and the Administrative Procedures Act). The Fed began trying to essentially pre-approve some applications with a 2012 letter to banks, here - but it said no major issues could be addressed this way, and the interchanged would be subject to FOIA.
  In this case, though, where Inner City Press submitted its FOIA request as soon as it became aware of Goldman's GE proposal and application, none of the information would have been available until after the comment period was set to close on September. It has been extended to October 30, due to requests from ICP and other NCRC members, but the Fed is still withholding portions of its communication with Goldman in the face of the FOIA Appeal Inner City Press immediately filed. (ICP has also submitted a timely additional comment on these issues.)
  Inner City Press has previously litigated FOIA requests with the Fed and won, at least in part, for example in obtaining subprime lending information the Fed wanted to withhold, here.  But this should not be necessary in order for the public to have this basic information, during the comment period. Will members of Congress and other chime in? Watch this site.
  This process began by overbroad withholding of basic parts of Goldman's application, click here to view, whichGoldman in an October 14 submission to the Fed, here, says has been cured (it has not been).
  Now the Federal Reserve has belatedly responded to Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch's September 2 FOIA request, with some of its internal documents, many heavily redacted. FOIA letter here; FOIA documents released to ICP here, and embedded below.
 While Inner City Press is appealing, even as released the documents show that Goldman Sachs through its law firm Sullivan & Cromwell reached out to Fed General Counsel Scott Alvarez in May 2015 about the transaction, and was largely able to vet it with the Fed's staff by July, even receiving an "additional information" request before any application was filed.
  Since the public cannot comment or ask questions before a transaction is announced, this "pre-review" by the Fed in essence cuts public review and transparency out of the process. The Fed's rules against ex-parte communications can't be triggered before there is an application. But should Fed review be held, and apparently completed, before there is any public notice?
  The documents Inner City Press has obtained under FOIA show that on May 14 and May 18, Goldman Sachs and its outside counsel Rodgin "Rodge" Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell told the Fed and its General Counsel Scott Alvarez of their plans for GE Capital Bank.
 On May 28, the Fed met with Goldman which presented a "deck" of information about "Project Apple," much of it still redacted as provided to Inner City Press (which is appealing under FOIA).
  As precedents, Goldman Sachs cited Capital One - ING and RBC - City National (see below). 
 This was followed by a May 29, 2015 letter from "Rodge" to the Fed's Scott Alvarez, asking for confidential treatment of everything including the letter, and including from any Governmental inquiry. (Page 28 of FOIA response to ICP.) A similar letter was submitted by Cohen on June 16, attaching a letter the Fed has redacted in full from Goldman Sachs' Esta E. Stecher.
  Scott Alvarez took the conversation onto the telephone, not subject to FOIA, on June 16. His accompanying e-mails, as redacted, only say "Thanks! Scott."
 On June 26, the Fed' Alison Thro wrote that "Rodgin Cohen was in today briefly to discuss, among other things, GS’s plans to acquire the deposits of GE’s ILC. He asked what the next steps might be." What were those "other things"?
 On July 13, the Fed sent Cohen a "request for additional information concerning the proposal by GS Bank to purchase certain assets and assume the deposit liabilities of GE Capital Bank."
  A request for additional information is usually what the Fed sends a bank or bank holding company after it has submitted an application; a commenter would get a copy. Here, the Fed was pre-reviewing Goldman Sachs' proposal, entirely outside of any public scrutiny. (The later public questions are as if by rote: the fix was already in.)
  On Friday, July 17 the Fed's Thomas Baxter wrote to Scott Alvarez that the transaction would be public announced the next Monday -- AFTER the Fed's "additional information request" -- based on a long voicemail from Harvey Schwartz of Goldman Sachs. (Page 59 of FOIA response to ICP). Alvarez was on the phone with "Esta of GA and Rodge Cohen."
  Alvarez said he was willing to talk with Goldman Sachs on Sunday, July 19. Cohen had written to Alvarez:
"In view of the various communications on Friday and the intended announcement of the deposit assumption transaction on Monday, GS believes that it must decide over this weekend whether it can proceed as scheduled and, as a matter of fairness and transparency, what it can tell GE. As we have discussed, this transaction appears to be a centerpiece of the GE restructuring. We would therefore most appreciate the opportunity to have a conference call as soon as possible over the weekend to obtain as much clarity as possible as to timing and other relevant matters.
We apologize for intruding into your weekend and thank you your consideration of this request." (Page 65 of FOIA response.)
   The reference to "fairness and transparency" was apparently without irony. But Goldman stood the Fed up. 
  But this announcement was postponed. Alvarez wrote on July 20 that "Rodge just sent a note that GS wants to postpone signing the deal with GE and the announcement for 2 to 3 weeks." More review continued, outside of public scrutiny. Alvarez made himself available on Sunday, July 26. But to no avail. 
 The deal was publicly announced on August 13 and Goldman Sachs on August 18 submitted the apparently pre-approved application. Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch submitted a comment and FOIA request (delayed until now); the end of the FOIA response has a redacted reaction to the "public comment." Now others have commented and a campaign has begun. But has the Fed already made up its mind?

 On October 20, the Federal Reserve asked Goldman Sachs five questions, but not on the predatory lending issues raised:
"October 20, 2015  This letter relates to the proposal by Goldman Sachs Bank USA (“GS Bank”), New York, New York, to assume certain deposits and acquire certain assets of GE Capital Bank (“GE Bank”), Holladay, Utah, pursuant to section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Based on staff’s review of the current record, the following additional information is requested. Please provide responses to all of the following questions, including those in the confidential annex. Please provide relevant supporting documentation as appropriate. Further information may be required as staff continues its review of the proposal. 
1. Explain how the proposed acquisition of GE Bank’s retail deposit platform is consistent with GS Bank’s 2015-2016 Strategic Plan (“Strategic Plan”) and specifically which parts of the Strategic Plan the proposed acquisition would facilitate. Also, explain the aforementioned in the context to GS Bank’s ongoing business plans. Provide a copy of the Strategic Plan. 
2. Discuss how GS Bank’s level and composition of assets and funding would change over the next three years. Provide a table that depicts the asset and funding types and respective amounts for years ending in 2016, 2017, and 2018. In addition, provide annual balance sheet and income statement projections for 2016, 2017, and 2018. 
3. Discuss how GS Bank’s customer base would change over the next three years. 
4. Provide a description of the general backgrounds, and roles and responsibilities of the GE Bank employees to be hired by GS Bank. 
5. Indicate the approximate number of retail accounts to be acquired from GE Bank and a general description of the types of accounts. Provide an estimated number of retail accounts that GS Bank expects to have by year-end 2016, 2017, and 2018."
  Inner City Press still had its pending Freedom of Information Act request; Fair Finance Watch and others, including NCRC, asked the Fed to extend its comment period, which has now been done, until October 30, with the Fed's FOIA response to Inner City Press due on October 16. But as of October 17, no response from the Fed, despite this letter:
"Re:       Freedom of Information Act Request No. F-2015-0336

Dear Mr. Lee,

On September 2, 2015, the Board of Governors (“Board”) received your electronic message dated September 2, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for the entirely of the “Application by Goldman Sachs Bank USA for the Acquisition by Purchase and Assumption of Certain Deposit Liabilities and Certain Very Limited Non-Financial Assets of GE Capital Bank,” and for all records reflecting FRS communications with Goldman Sachs for the past twelve (12) months. On September 3 and September 9, the Board provided you with the public portions of the application.

Pursuant to section (a)(6)(B)(i) of the FOIA, we are extending the period for our response until October 16, 2015, in order to consult with two or more components of the Board having a substantial interest in the determination of the request.

If a determination can be made before October 16, 2015, we will respond to you promptly.  It is our policy to process FOIA requests as quickly as possible while ensuring that we disclose the requested information to the fullest extent of the law.

Very truly yours,

/signed/

Jeanne M. McLaughlin
Manager, Freedom of Information Office"
 But even by October 16, no response from the Fed. Only this from Goldman Sachs, only snail-mailed by its counsel:

 On October 13 Inner City Press published the Federal Reserve's communications with the CIT Group's outside counsel, which shows how the release of public documents is allowed by the Fed to be delayed. CIT made disingenuous requests for confidential treatment of information that could not be withheld, without any repercussion. They were rewarded with FOIA appeal denials by Fed Governor Jay Powell; now Goldman is trying to withhold information that should be public. Will there be any repercussion or accountability? Watch this site.

 After requests from Fair Finance Watch, NCRC and other NCRC members, the Federal Reserve belatedly responded:
 Comments regarding this application must be received..  on or before October 30, 2015."
  Just last week, the Fed told Inner City Press a comment it submitted on Goldman Sachs, with new Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data, was "untimely" --

"Dear Mr. Matthew Lee, Executive Director Inner City Press/Fair Finance Watch

We acknowledge receipt on September 22, 2015 of your email dated September 22, 2015  ("Comment Letter"), commenting on the application filed by Goldman Sachs Bank USA... The public comment period for this application ended on September 19, 2015. Since your Comment Letter was received after the end of the public comment period, it will not be made a part of the record of this application unless the Board in its sole discretion determines to consider your late comments. However, you previously submitted timely comments that have been made part of the application record that the Board will consider."
 Now it must be. Inner City Press made a similar request to the New York State Department of Financial Services and on September 25, some information was released -- not enough -- and the NYS comment period was extended for 30 days. 
 NYSDFS Senior Attorney George Bogdan wrote:
"Dear Mr. Matthew Lee: Your FOIL request has been granted in part. My response letter and 2 Goldman Sachs documents are attached to this e mail. Also note that the comment period for the Goldman Sachs application has been extended by 30 days. An official notice for the extension will be posted online in the DFS Weekly Bulletin for the week ending September 25, 2015."
  While Inner City Press prepares a FOIL appeal, why hasn't the Federal Reserve even ruled on its FOIA request, and extended the comment period like its state counterpart? We'll have more on this.
  On September 22, 2015, the Federal Reserve belatedly released the 2014 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. A quick review of the lending of Goldman Sachs Bank USA in the New York City Metropolitan Statistical Area shows the Goldman Sachs focus which should require publish hearings in this case. 
  Fair Finance Watch, hours after the data was released, has commented to the Federal Reserve at the highest level that "in the New York City MSA in 2014, for conventional home purchase loans (Table 4-2), Goldman Sachs Bank USA made 45 such loans to whites, only two to African Americans and only one to a Latino. For refinance loans (Table 4-3), Goldman Sachs Bank USA made 16 loans to whites and NONE to African American or Latinos. This is inconsistent with the demographics of the New York City MSA and with other lenders' records; it further militate for the timely requested public hearings."
  Goldman Sachs has purported to respond to the comments of Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch by releasing a small amount of the withheld information, and arguing that what the wider Goldman Sachs does cannot or will no be considered by the Federal Reserve on this Bank Merger Act application by Goldman Sachs Bank. We've put Goldman Sachs' response online, here. It says:
“FFW states that the audio released by examiner Ms. Carmen Segara requires an extension of the comment period and a public hearing... GS Bank believes the issue is outside the scope of the statutory factors for Board consideration under the Bank Merger Act... Goldman Sachs Bank USA ('GS Bank') hereby submits its response to the three comment letters, submitted on September 2, September 3 and September 9, 2015 (the 'Comment Letters'), by the Inner City Press's Fair Finance Watch ('FFW')....
"FFW makes accusations of 'predatory practices' in the 'mortgage field' and 'municipal finance,' and states that there are a number of compliance settlements that must be reviewed in connection with the Application. FFW references several articles related to lawsuits, settlements and other events, all but one of which involve Goldman Sachs but not GS Bank. GS Bank respectfully submits that such comments are not substantiated by specific arguments or facts. GS Bank notes that none of the articles relate to GS Bank itself, and believes these issues are outside the scope of the statutory factors for Board consideration under the Bank Merger Act.”
  Goldman Sachs is arguing that the acts of a parent company cannot be considered when its bank applies to buy ($16 billion) in insured deposits, an absurd argument. FFW has submitted another comment to the Fed, including that 
"ICP has received by mail from Goldman Sachs' counsel a purported response which claims that issues ranging from conflict of interest and under-regulation by the FRB (evidenced for example by the audio leaked by whistleblower Carmen Segarra) is not cognizable under the Bank Merger Act - an absurd argument. The FRB would be the decision maker, therefore such issues must be addressed.

 "Goldman Sachs cavalierly states that since it withdrew some of its indefensible requests for confidential treatment of its application, that issues is resolved. It is not - too much is still being withheld. Significantly, Goldman Sachs has offered no explanation of the specious requests for confidential treatment it made, denying commenters access to information during the comment period. As others now argue, the comment period would be extended and hearing held."
  Inner City Press will be covering this wider National (Community Reinvestment Coalition) protest, in which it joins; it has also submitted more comments to the New York State regulator, in a proceeding currently slated to come to a head on September 28, the first day of the UN General Assembly debate.

 As Inner City Press exposed last month, Royal Bank of Canada jumped the gun and began doing business with City National Bank without any Federal Reserve approval (see Los Angeles Times, here.)
 Now, even as New York regulators says their comment period on Goldman Sachs' GE Capital proposal extends at least through September 28, Goldman has published fine print notices in the New York Post and a newspaper in Utah saying the Federal Reserve will stop listening on September 19.
  Really? After the Fed made Goldman Sachs a bank holding company with no public comment period at all, so Goldman could get a bail-out? After the Fed's coziness with Goldman Sachs was again demonstrated, by the audio taped by then-Fed examiner Carmen Segarra?
  Inner City Press immediately submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all of Goldman Sachs' GE Capital application and related records. The Federal Reserve has provided a heavily redacted copy, on which Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has commented to the FRB in Washington:
"Among many other things, Goldman Sachs believes it can withhold the volume of deposits it seeks to acquire from GE Capital Bank, WHAT is seeks to acquire (and what not to acquire) from GE Capital Bank, its number of employees in Utah, the contact people on its application, the number of non profit organizations it tells the FRB it serves on the board of -- presumptively public -- and even the NAMES of the exhibits it seeks to withhold entirely. This is abusive and unprecedented and the FRB must, in response, have the comment period begin again. Otherwise, applicants only benefit by making absurd and abusive requests for confidential treatment. There is much more to be said, including at the public hearings ICP is requesting, but it is imperative that the Board act on this as quickly as possible."
  
  When Goldman Sachs became a bank holding company literally overnight in 2008, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch and others including NCRC asked the Fed how this was done with no public comment period at all. 
  The answer, it seems, is to be found in the audio leaked by Carmen Segarra of the Federal Reserve, showing further Fed favors for Goldman Sachs.
 With this history, and Goldman's history in predatory lending with Litton Servicing and as an underwriter, see Occupy Wall Street video here, and UN / migration connection here, it seems clear that the Fed must hold public hearings on Goldman Sachs' GE Capital application, when it is filed. 
  But with the Federal Reserve, you can never be too sure, or too careful.
  When Community Bank System of upstate New York filed with the Fed nine answers to questions asked after Inner City Press' challenge, it tried to withhold fully eight of the nine responses. More here.
  Inner City Press immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the whole submission - and even the Federal Reserve saw through Community Bank System's absurdly -- and tellingly -- overbroad withholding, releasing all but one part of one of the eight withheld responses. But since then, all the Fed has done is seek a mere antitrust control commitment.
  Here's is the Federal Reserve's letter to Inner City Press granting most of its FOIA request:


We'll have more on this.
Background: The largest bank merger recently proposed, that of Royal Bank of Canada and affluent-focused Los Angeles-based City National Bank, has since April been the subject of a Community Reinvestment Act challenge by Fair Finance Watch.
  The LA Times has reported on the "letter from the Fed [which] asks the banks to respond to questions raised in written comments by [FFW]. Spokesmen for the banks declined to comment.... Fair Finance Watch, a New York advocacy group for minorities, questioned a deal between the banks in a June 11 comment letter to the Fed."
  Inner City Press first put that Fed letter online, here; then Canada's National / Financial Post reported without credit it had "obtained" it. 
  By contrast, in the pending proposal of Community Bank System - Oneida, the Syracuse Post-Standard disclosedthat "Inner City Press forwarded the letter to news outlets. Some of the Fed's questions focus on whether Community could improperly control matters at Oneida in advance of the acquisition. Community is working on Fed's questions, said Hal Wentworth, Community's senior vice president for retail banking."
  One common theme is that non-control (and therefore antitrust) laws are being violated. One difference is that Community Bank System does comment to the media -- if only to blame the messenger -- while larger RBC and CNB do not. Arrogance?
 On Community Bank System's blaming the messenger, FFW has commented to the Fed that it will "will comment again when Community Bank System I has provided a copy of its response to the FRS' questions of July 13. Beyond the CRA and impermissible “control” questions raised therein, we wish at this time to raise the issues that, in a public response to ICP's comments, Community Bank System's SVP for retail banking said the following, in a prepared statement no less:
'In a statement today, Hal Wentworth, Community's senior vice president for retail banking, said that Inner City Press is not a local group and pointed out that letter was the only one filed on the Oneida deal. "This activist does not do business with either Oneida or Community Bank."'
If it would be inappropriate for Community Bank System to comment on or disclose information about its customers, in this context the same applies to the above-quoted, which, separately, is reminiscent of human rights abusing countries emphasizing where the rights groups who study and report on them are based."
   Now Community Bank System is trying to withhold eight of its nine responses; Inner City Press is challenging this under the Freedom of Information Act, comparing Community Bank System's outrageous withholding at the Fed with other banks, and with Community Bank System's to the OCC, more here.
Posted by at

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Inner City Press Asks UN What Indicted Sheri Yan's GSF Gave for Slavery Monument, When Audit, Mulet



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 2 -- The UN's expanding corruption scandals clouded even the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery on December 2, given that indictee Sheri Yan's Global Sustainability Foundation paid at least $60,000 for the UN's memorial. Inner City Press on December 2 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: today is the International Day of Remembrance of the end of transatlantic slavery.  So, I wanted to ask, there's the Global Sustainability Foundation, one of the two entities, I guess, are being subject to some kind of a review by OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services].  They contribute… I found the document.  They contributed $60,000 to the memorial that's out in front of the GA [General Assembly].  I wondered, one, do you have… in terms of the… given that the founder of the organization has been indicted for bribe… use of that organization for bribery, do you have any comment on that?  And what's the status of the OIOS review of the two organizations' interactions with the UN?  And, is Mr. [Edmond] Mulet the head of the task force?

Spokesman:  That is still ongoing.  The work that was being done by the Chef de Cabinet's office will continue by… with the Chef de Cabinet… with the new Chef de Cabinet, Mr. Mulet, who was sworn in today.

Inner City Press:  Is there a deadline for the OIOS review, given the… I mean, there was a lot of heat around the issue and…?

Spokesman:  Not that I'm aware of.  Obviously, they're trying to do this as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Inner City Press:  And when they finish, will we know or… from you?

Spokesman:  I hope to know, because I would like to know.

But will Ban Ki-moon, canceling the December 3 noon briefing to take question at the stakeout, accept a question about this UN scandal?

Back on October 20 as the scandal unveiled in the corruption chargesagainst former UN General Assembly President John Ashe, Ng Lap Seng, Francis Lorenzo of South South News and others continues to expand, the compromised position of the UN Correspondents Association has come to the fore.

 In 2011 until now, Inner City Press has exposed UNCA for taking funds from Ng Lap Seng vehicles, to which it gave awards, and arranging Ng Lap Seng photo op(s) with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. UNCA has not provided any explanation; the UN through Ban's spokesman has said for example that many people get photographs with Ban. But people like Ng previously found in US Senate reports to have made irregular campaign contributions, and co-owning hotels links to prostitution?

 On October 20, Inner City Press asked UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq about Ng, and about how much money the Global Sustainability Foundation gave for the UN's “Ark of Return” (anti) slavery memorial. Haq wouldn't give the dollar figure - it's at least $60,000 -- and seemed to says it doesn't matter where the UN takes money from, only how the UN uses it. Video here. From the UN's October 20 transcript:

Inner City Press: I wanted to ask one question about Global Sustainability Foundation, one about Mr. Ng Lap Seng.  Seems that the Global Sustainability Foundation held a luncheon for and raised funds for this Arc of Return, it's a monument to the recollection of transatlantic slavery.  And I wanted to know, one, I mean, pending… this just seems it's a fact, it's on their website they basically present themself as a major sponsor of the monument, which isn't really my understanding, but can you find out without, it's not an audit.  It's just a financial question.  Did they, in fact, give money to it, and why did they sponsor the luncheon for it?  What was their, in what capacity did they do that?

Deputy Spokesman:  Again, this is one of the topics for which we expect any relevant information will come out through the audit, so we would await that…

Inner City press:  Can't you answer just a simple financial question…

Deputy Spokesman:  No, I'm not going…

Inner City Press:  This is a monument for which the Secretary-General raised funds…

Deputy Spokesman: I'm not going…

Inner City Press:  …how much did they give?

Deputy Spokesman:  I'm not going to do the work that the auditors are doing.  We're waiting for the auditors to go about their work, and we'll see what they have to say.  If there's any additional avenues we need to pursue after that, we can do that at that point.

Inner City Press:  Okay.  I want to ask you another question.  Mr. Ng Lap Seng, who's now out on $50 million bail, it seemed he sort of penetrated the UN system, including several photo ops with Ban Ki-moon against a blue background in Cipriani's, I wanted to ask you, a major financial newspaper, just on cursory research, said he's a co-owner of the Fortuna Hotel, which has… quote, this is all from their promotional material, table dancing by strippers, boasted attractive and attentive hostesses from China, Singapore and Korea, and erotic girls from Europe and Russia.  And I wanted to know, given, given everything that's said from this podium about UN Women and the need to take these issues seriously, how is it possible… how is it possible that this, an individual engaged in these activities, came… came to such a position of prominence and, and, and closeness to the Secretary-General?

Deputy Spokesman:  Matthew, we do not speak for David Ng Lap Seng or his group or his business holdings.  Any questions on that have to go to his organizations.  The United Nations does not deal with any of the, of the entities, with entities like the ones that you've described.

Inner City Press:  The money from it was donated to various UN causes.  That’s why I'm asking you to respond to this pending, this unending audit, what do you think of this?

Deputy Spokesman:  The nature of corporations is that any corporation can have many, many different holdings.  I'm not going to comment on all of the holdings of different groups, depending upon what they do with the UN.  What we're trying to monitor is how the funds from these groups affected the UN and the dealings with the two entities that we've been talking about.  That's being audited, and we'll follow up on that.  But the group's activities as a whole, that's an issue for other authorities.  It's not…

It's not an issue for the United Nations…

Inner City Press:  I understand what the audit is…

Deputy Spokesman:  It has nothing, it actually has no actual relevance to the work we've done.

Question:  It's just how the money is spent by the UN, not where the money came from?

Deputy Spokesman:  The audit is designed to follow up on what effect, what impact, the activities the groups and of the monies that they spent have and that's what we're following up on... 

Inner City Press: Is it, are you, is the Secretariat yet viewing the… Secretariat viewing the charges of the Southern District of New York as mostly or entirely related to the PGA [President of the General Assembly]?  I guess I'm asking this because things like South-South News...  Yesterday, I'd asked Stéphane at the founding of the Global Sustainability Foundation, there was Mr. Nambiar.  There was the spouse of the Secretary-General.  There was not Mr. Ashe anywhere to be seen.  So I just want to be clear.  Is this an audit about two… merely two entities, but as relates to the UN Secretariat or just to the PGA's office?

Deputy Spokesman:  No, no, it's as we have, it's as we described in the statement before.  It's about the UN as a whole.

Background: Ng Lap Seng was found to have brought the same bags of cash later deployed at the UN into the US earlier, in the late 90s, when his Fortuna hotel was linked to organized crime and even human trafficking.  From the WSJ:

“Who is Ng Lap Seng, and what did he want? According to several well-informed sources in Hong Kong and Macau, Mr. Ng is a mysterious figure with extensive business in China, where he also held a minor post as a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in his hometown of Nan Hai in Guangdong province. In Macau, his most visible interest is his ownership of the Fortuna Hotel, a garish high-rise in the gambling district, featuring a 20,000-square-foot nightclub with 'table dancing' by strippers, as well as a massage parlor and, according to its brochure, 'over 30 independent karaoke rooms, all luxuriously decorated with the most advanced sound system for any one interested in performing his favorite songs.' The brochure also boasts 'attractive and attentive hostesses from China, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia and Burma together with erotic girls from Europe and Russia, certainly offer you an exciting and unforgettable evening with friends or business associates.'”

So what does UN Women, which has still to comment on UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous linking rapes to “R&R,” same about Ban's UN (through UNCA) accepting “pimp and trafficker” Ng Lap Seng into the UN, and into UNCA's Cipriani ball for photos with Ban and his spouse? We'll have more on this.

 Just as UNCA "leaders" from Voice of America and Reuters(censorship bid here) tried to use the UN to get the investigative Press out, now the UN responds to questions about UNCA selling Secretary General Ban Ki-moon photo ops to Ng Lap Seng by suggesting that the questioner, because present, "condoned" the sale.

  Now, with UNCA still silent on its links with South South News and other Ng Lap Seng vehicles, here is video Inner City Press published in December 2011 of UNCA's murky photo ops for Ban at Cipriani, which UNCA seeks to reproduce this coming December.

  
  Even then in December 2011, Inner City Press' accompanying story reported that it

"filmed what it could of the photo op -- those arranging it kept telling the Press it had to leave -- and afterward several in Ban's circle said they had no idea who the businessmen had been. There was dark talk about one David Ng, a businessman who has bankrolled 'vanity' media projects given awards that night -- people funded by Ng used the word "vanity," so we use it here."

 Inner City Press published that in December 2011 about Ng and South South News; it quit UNCA and with another Executive Committee member who quit in disgust co-founded FUNCA, the Free UN Coalition for Access. UNCA continued taking funds from South South News. We'll have more on this.

While UNCA does not represent all journalists accredited to cover the UN -- Inner City Press for example quit the group in 2012 with another Executive Committee member and co-founded the new Free UN Coalition for Access -- the UN gives it a privileged position, a large clubhouse on the third floor of the UN and, automatically, the first question at press conferences.

  But is that appropriate, given that UNCA received money from South South News, “NGO 1” in the filing against Ashe? Not only did UNCA receive money from South South News: it gave the group an “UNCA award” at a ceremony at the high-ceilinged Cipriani's restaurant on December 15, 2011.

  Inner City Press, which did not quit UNCA in fully ripened disgust in 2012, was present in December 2011 and witnessed, when Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came into Cipriani's, him being shepherded into a side room for photographs with Asian men in business suits who Inner City Press did not then recognize -- but now does.

 UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, when Inner City Press asked on October 13 about what it had seen, said perhaps Inner City Press had "condoned" it. Video here. But Inner City Press quit UNCA afterfinding conflicts of interest in it, and being "ordered" to not report on this.  From the October 13 transcript:

Inner City Press: I want to ask inevitably about the revelations about Mr. [John] Ashe and Frank Lorenzo and others.  And just as you… as the lead Spokesman, a person that travels around with the Secretary-General, how… what would you say to the photos that exist of the Secretary-General with David Ng, who was since indicted, and Frank Lorenzo and, particularly, in instances where it appears that groups that receive contributions from the two and then put them in a room to have photographs with the Secretary-General?  Is this something that… how does the Secretary-General view this in retrospect, and what's going to be done in the future?

Spokesman:  First of all, a photo of the Secretary-General with any individual should in no way be interpreted as a sponsorship or agreement.  It's just a photo.  The Secretary-General is very much a public figure, attends a lot of public events where there are a lot of people.  Sometimes people come up to him and ask to have their photo taken.  And it's done within the… within, obviously, the security constraints that need to be had.  I think whether it's the Secretary-General of the United Nations or anyone in leadership position, you will find when you travel with them that a lot of people want to have their photo taken with them.  Inasmuch as that is… we try to control that, sometimes it's difficult to do so.  I think the Secretary-General is as shocked as anyone in this building at the charges that were levelled at these two individuals.  And he's very disappointed at the accusations towards the United Nations.

Inner City Press:  obviously, to business interests having an actual kind of formal handshaking one, I guess I'll just say that that is worth something to them.  That's why they…

Spokesman:  I'm not… I'm not debating that point… [cross talk]  I'm just saying that having a picture of the Secretary-General with any individual should in no way be seen as a sponsorship, approval, making them BFF's or anything.

Inner City Press:  I guess I just want to be more specific.  If an event… and there's one that actually, as it turns out, I witnessed in Cipriani.  If the Secretary-General enters a large space and is then taken to a smaller space for such photographs, what's the basis for that, as opposed to people with selfies?  I mean, I understand what you're saying…

Spokesman:  I think, you know, if you were there, then maybe you condoned the event as well.  The issue is the Secretary-General attends a lot of events.  Sometimes there is a VIP reception.  None of it should be construed as anything as the Secretary-General having his picture taken with anyone.

Inner City Press: it's been a number of days now; I'm assuming that, if not you, OLA [Office of Legal Affairs], someone has read through this long FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] affidavit.  And I want to just ask you again, because in it, it says that, after the… the… the official UN document about the Macau centre was procured, there was a separate payment to Mr. Ashe, separate communications with a UN official number one, who reissued the document as a… amended… revised for technical reasons, with the name of the company in it.  And it seems to me, even before you waiting for an OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] investigation, the scope of which wouldn't touch that, who in the UN is actually… how does it work, first of all?  Who… which part of the UN amends documents after they're released?  Is it DGACM [Department for General Assembly and Conference Management]…?

Spokesman:  Listen, I'm not going to talk about the specifics of the case.  But it is clear that if the President of one of the legislative bodies in this Organization which controls the agenda, or a sponsoring country for resolution, asks the Secretary-General to amend a text, we serve as the Secretariat.  It's not… it's… it doesn't entail sponsoring of what's inside that text. 

  While Inner City Press' answer to the spokesman's "if you were there, then maybe you condoned the event as well," is that Inner City Press quit UNCA
 after finding conflicts of interest in it, and being "ordered" to not report on this, we'll have more on this.


On October 13, Inner City Press asked this follow up:

Inner City Press: I just want to directly ask you about the idea that it's sort of people struggling to get photos with the UN officials.  There was a… there was a peacekeeping day concert that was… for which solicitation of… you know, sponsorship was sought by a group called World Harmony Alliance, and it had nothing… the group has nothing to do with peacekeeping, but they paid for day.  They… they… in fact, the funder complained that he didn't get the promised photograph with Ban Ki-moon, but I wonder, what was… what's the UN's understanding when they take outside financial sponsorship for such a day?  I mean, former UN official [Ibrahim] Gambari was seen with the same group taking photographs on the fourth floor in the Millennium Hotel.  What's it all about?  What’s happening?

Spokesman:  What former officials do in hotels is really not of my purview.

Inner City Press:  Sure.  What about UN peacekeeping?

Spokesman:  I would take a look at that actual programme, but I would expect every part of the UN to do due diligence when it partners with an outside organization.  And just…  I'll leave it at that.

   On October 12, Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq, video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: in light of these charges against John Ashe, Frank Lorenzo, and others, it's emerging that the Secretary-General, if not met, had staged photo opportunities with a number of the individuals charged.  And I wanted to know, in looking at this, do you have some kind of a comment on how these occurred, particularly in instances where they may have been arranged by a third party, been arranged by an organization that invited Ban Ki-moon and then received funds from South-South News or others and then put the two together on photograph?  Was that appropriate?  And what would be your response to… to OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] looking at that or otherwise?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, regarding that, as you're aware, the Office of Internal Oversight Services will do an audit.  They've been requested to do that, and so we'll be able to see whether there was any effect from either the relationship with these various groups, these two groups, the Sun Kian Ip Group and the Global Sustainability Foundation, and any of the monies received.  So, we'll await what they have to say about any of this.

Inner City Press:  But, given that Mr. Frank Lorenzo has been charged and he's now out on $2 million bail, he was head of South-South News, which spread $12 million, according to the documents, throughout the UN system.  So, what was, how, what was the criteria used to choose these two NGOs and not either South-South News or International Organization for South-South Cooperation or South South Steering Committee on Sustainable Development?  It seems like it's a very limited inquiry and…

Deputy Spokesman:  It's not really an inquiry.  It's an audit, and this is initial step.  If OIOS feels like there is something… there's a direction which they need to go as a result of these initial results, they're certainly free to do that, but we needed to get the ball rolling and have an initial step forward so that we can look into what exactly is the impact of the monies and the relationship with these groups.


John Ashe at UNCA with former president, after and before Pioli
click photo for source / credit

  Back in December 2011, shepherding Ban for this (compensated) photo op with dubious businessmen was Giampaolo Pioli, then as now the president of UNCA. South South News interviewed Pioli that night, bragging of the UNCA award it got / paid for, screenshot from video here.

    (For context it must be noted too that Pioli rented one of his Manhattan apartments to Palitha Kohona then granted Kohona's request as Sri Lanka's Ambassador to screen his government's war crimes denial film “Lies Agreed To” in the UN's Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium: this precipitated Inner City Press quitting UNCA, in full disclosure.)

   How can UNCA be given first questions to ask about a scandal involving South South News, from which UNCA took more then to which it gave an award? And what are the other implications?

  (In terms of Mr. Ng's desire for photo ops, Inner City Press is informed that he separately wanted a photo with US President Obama, and paid six figures to a middleman - who disappeared with the money. UNCA on the other hand, one wag noted, delivered Ban Ki-moon for photos at Cipriani's.)

  UNCA, it should be noted, has been and is open to business interested beyond Mr. Ng and South South News. Another UNCA awards ceremony was sponsored by a company called “Acoona;” the Italian oil company ENI pays the group money.

But UNCA's South South News connection, given what has been disclosed and charged this week, should at a minimum and as a first step disqualify UNCA from first questions from the UN, and from the continuation of its role.

 Consider: if it gave rise to criminal charges that South South News paid Ashe to get a GA document for Ng to show off in Macau, who about South South News paying UNCA, and UNCA delivering Ban for a photo op with Ng, that Ng could use for related purposes? We'll have more on this.

Wider, and going forward in this series, limiting UN investigation to OIOS - whose director of investigations Stefanovic has resigned, Inner City Press hereby exclusively reported on October 9 - looking at only two NGOs is laughable. The scandal is expanding: there is a pattern here, pattern and practice. Watch this site.
Posted by at

On DR Congo, Inner City Press Asks UN of Fighting ADF Without Gov't, FDLR Left Alone



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 2 -- Amid reports the UN in the DR Congo is fighting the ADF without the government's support, while refusing to similarly fight the FDLR, Innner City Press on December 2 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, transcript here:

Inner City Press:  there are very detailed quotes from South African military officials saying that the Government said, “Don't do it,” and that the Government is trying to use non-cooperation or orders against the attack on ADF as leverage to both reduce the troop strength of MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] and to get the war… generals accused of war criminals to participate in UN war activities.  So, it seems like you should… like, is that not the case?  Do you maintain that the Government is fully cooperating with this…?

Spokesman:  I think what I'm telling you is that the UN operates its… fulfils its mandate in these particular instances in support of the Government.  As for operational or tactical details, I don't have those.

Inner City Press:  Just the one follow-up on that would be, if it's, as seems to be, at least, South Africa is stating, the UN feels comfortable taking military actions that it thinks is in support of the Government without the Government's full support.  Why hasn't it taken any of those against the FDLR [Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda], where the lack of Government cooperation is used as the excuse?

Spokesman:  I think each operation has its own… is sui generis, and I'm not going to second-guess the military decisions taken by the commanders on the ground."

 Inner City Press on October 7 exclusively reported the MONUSCO mission's use of 76 rockets and 400 rounds of ammunition near Pinga, which sources told Inner City Press resulted in civilian death, which Ladsous' DPKO then reflexively denied or covered up. Inner City Press raised this within the Security Council's P3 members as well, so far without effective response or reform.

 Now Le Monde belatedly chimes in -- with a storyagreeing that MONUSCO is failing, but also trying to say that Ladsous' DPKO is being falsely accused. If so, they have only themselves to blame: rather than respond to Inner City Press' October 7 noon briefing question with details, the UN had a carefully worded statement which remains at odds with what Inner City Press is informed as said at the internal DPKO / DFS meeting about the incident.

  And why WAS Ladsous' DPKO deploying this amount of force against a "minor" group and not the FDLR? Inner City Press has previously noted Ladsous' role in 1994, including this memo. We -- but perhaps not Le Monde -- will have more on this.

   Sources tell Inner City Press of a DPKO meeting concerning an excessive use of force by the UN Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO), through its Force Intervention Brigade, using 76 rockets or missiles and up to 400 rounds of ammunition near Pinga in Eastern Congo, ostensibly against the Mai Mai Cheka group.

   But at least one civilians was killed. There was no impartial investigation, the sources say. Rather, Ladsous' DPKO went in itself, and conveniently “discovered” a gun near the killed civilians, much like  some police departments “drop a piece” after a questionable shooting.

   Inner City Press is informed, by different sources, that this has been discussed among senior officials in Ladsous' DPKO, at the DPKO / DFS Directors' meeting on the morning of October 7.

   So why wasn't this said at the Security Council and stakeout where Kobler bragged to Inner City Press about the “zero tolerance” policy (while Ladsous has, on camera, linked rape to “R&R”)?

What is the mechanism to disclose the killing of civilians under Ladsous' DPKO? We'll have more on this - and on Ladsous including one of his meetings during UN General Assembly debate week. Ladsous' spokespeople, far from answering questions, go so far as to direct UNTV boom microphone operators to avoid Inner City Press, evenpreventing the Press from asking any questions to Mali's Foreign Minister Abdulaye Diop last week. We'll have more on all this.
Posted by at

On Haiti, With UN Accused of Electoral Fraud, ICP Asks, UN Says File Complaint


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, December 2 -- Amid allegations of electoral fraud in Haiti, including allegations against the UN, Inner City Press on December 2 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, UN transcript here:
Inner City Press: I want to ask about Haiti and also about the memorial to slavery, given it's the… what day it is.  In Haiti, you're probably aware of this, that a number of academics, professionals, and also elected… deputy elected official have accused the UN and UNOPS [United Nations Office of Project Services] of being involved in electoral fraud in the 25 August election.  They've written a long open letter signed by many people.  What is the UN's response?  And, what was UNOPS’ role during the election?  And, why do so many people believe that it was engaged in fraud?

Spokesman:  I'm sure the letter was addressed to the UN Mission.  They will respond.

Inner City Press:  It was a public letter.

Spokesman:  This was also a Haitian-led process.  There are procedures through which people can appeal or file complaints through the national election bodies, and we would encourage them to do so.

Inner City Press:  Against… can they file complaints against the UN?

Spokesman:  They can raise issues as to the conduct of the elections.  
 We'll see. Back on October 14, five years after the UN brought cholera to Haiti, and on the morning the UN Security Council is poised to renew its MINUSTAH mission's mandate without taking any responsibility for cholera, the portraits of the diseases (and the UN's) victims were placed outside the UN's 43rd Street entrance. 
Inner City Press tweeted a photograph, witnessed the Security Council extending the mandate of its MINUSTAH mission in Haiti 15-0 with no comments before or after, then went at noon and asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric this:
Inner City Press  I want to ask about Haiti and Central African Republic.  On Haiti, I'm compelled to ask you.  I'm sure you saw the people with the portraits of victims outside.  I understand it's taking place outside Geneva and Port-au-Prince.  And I wanted to ask you, the number they're using is 9,000 people killed, 745,000 people sickened by cholera they say the UN brought negligently to their country and there's been no accountability.  And I wanted to know, now that Mr. [Pedro] Medrano seems to have been decommissioned and wasn't replaced, what is the UN's response to… to this sort of being called to task for total lack of accountability and families left without breadwinners, etcetera?

Spokesman Stephane Duajrric:  I think on the legal issues, our stand has not changed.  Obviously, on a more personal level, if you let me speak, I would refer you to what the Secretary-General said when he met victims… families of victims of cholera when he went to Haiti just about a year and a half ago, I believe, or two years ago.  And those feelings still stand.  The work that Mr. Medrano had done on mobilizing resources to take… to help support the sanitation system and the… dealing… and helping Haiti deal with the aftermath of cholera has continued under the auspices of the UN country team.  So it's not as if the UN is not active on this front.

Inner City Press:  I guess my… if… if on the issue of sexual abuse and exploitation there's a move towards setting up a trust fund to compensate victims?  In this case, the families that were supported were left with nothing, so I'm wondering, has the UN done anything in that regard?

Spokesman:  The UN country team and Mr. Medrano had tried to raise funds to deal with the aftermath of the cholera.

Inner City Press:  Only the water issues.

Spokesman:  What's your CAR question?
  For the record, the CAR question was and is about peacekeepers raping civilians.
   On a daily basis across from the UN's 43rd Street entrance stands a Haitian journalist; Inner City Press' requests to the UN including former spokesperson Michele Montas to get him re-admitted fell on the UN's deaf ears. Now he wants to know the prospective Haitian military force's size.
  Ban Ki-moon dodged service of legal papers; his spokespeople answer every Press question with the same answer, “Our position hasn't changed.” Well, it should. Now Ban is embroiled in a corruption scandal in which business interests from Macau were able to purchase revisions by the Secretariat in official UN documents. But the UN's Haitian victims are outside the gate. 
   Joseph Dade Guiwil, a cholera survivor whose portrait is featured at the UN, said in an embargoed statement, “Every family in my community lost something because UN peacekeepers gave us cholera. I say to the UN: give us justice.”  The embargo was broken by Associated Press. There will be more reporting, and questions, including in connection with the mandate of UN Peacekeeping's Herve Ladsous' MINUSTAH mission - which despite repeated requests refuses to send its press releases, such as they are, to Inner City Press. This is today's UN. We'll have more on this.
When UN envoy to Haiti Sandra Honore took questions outside the UN Security Council on October 8, Inner City Press asked her about the upcoming electoral run-off, the high profile resignation of Nehemy Joseph, and cholera. Video here.
  Honore put the best face she could on the elections, and on Nehemy Joseph's resignation, saying he would be replaced. She did not respond to Inner City Press' question on cholera, but to her credit did stay at the stakeout when Inner City Press asked what the UN is doing for and about those being ejected from the Dominican Republic. Supporting the Haitian government, was her answer.
Back on June 16 with mass deportations threatened from the Dominican Republic to Haiti, Inner City Press asked the UN, who deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq called it "hypothetical." A day later, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio issued a statement of concern about the threatened deportations. 
 On June 18, Inner City Press again asked the UN about the deportation threat, and if the UN might follow Jose Ramos Horta's advise that it compensate victims of the cholera it brought to Haiti:
Inner City Press: On Haiti I think it's, I guess, on Tuesday, I'd asked you about this planned repatriation from the Dominican Republic.  And now that a variety of… the Mayor of the City of New York has spoken on it and most poignantly the President of Haiti, Mr. [Michel] Martelly, had said they won’t accept individuals that were not born in Haiti, which would stand to leave a lot of people stateless; meaning, Haitians… “Haitians that were born in Santa Domingo”.  And I've also read that UN was attending meetings planning for what was to happen, so what is the UN's position on this?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  What I can say on that is the Dominican Government has given assurances that it will apply due process standards on an individual basis and will protect individuals against unlawful deportation.  The United Nations urges respect for international law and humanitarian principles.  In the event of an increase in the scale of deportations, the United Nations calls for close coordination between the Haitian and Dominican Governments to ensure an orderly and transparent process open to observation by the UN and the international community.  The United Nations remains commits to resolve the problems of the people who are deprived of nationality as a result of the 2013 ruling of the Dominican Constitutional Court.

Inner City Press:  Thanks.  Also on Haiti, I wanted… I meant to ask you this yesterday, but I'll ask today, José Ramos-Horta of the panel in this room on Tuesday, on cholera in Haiti, said that he said he would believe, you know, I'm going to paraphrase here, that the UN should have paid compensation and he brought up as two examples peacekeepers in Timor-Leste, upon knowing that death had been caused inadvertently, they just offered to pay one individual, paid his salary over his remaining deployment there.  I wanted to know, given he is a highly respected person to be the head of the panel, you know, not as a “gotcha”, but is there some response to the approach, the way that he laid it out, that making victims whole comes before any kind of legal argumentation?

Deputy Spokesman:  Basically, of course, as you're aware well aware, he is essentially expressing his personal opinion on this.  His panel's work was not on the question of Haiti.  We have heard, as you know, a wide range of opinions over the years and have respected a wide range of views on this.  The Secretary-General has tried as hard as he can to make sure that the situation of cholera in Haiti is resolved.  As you have seen from the efforts of Pedro Medrano, what we are trying to do is coordinate efforts with the Government of Haiti and the international community to see what can be done to bring this cholera epidemic to an end.  And so, we will continue with those efforts and we respect the views of people around.  On the legal question, our position remains as it was.
What is wrong with this picture?
UN official Herve Ladsous, who has openly refused to answer Inner City Press question and was abetted in this by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson in his last press conference, used that to brag about ostensibly declining numbers of sexual exploitation and abuse complaints against his UN Peacekeeping: 51 worldwide for a whole year.
  But now it emerges that in Haiti alone, the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services documented 225 women sexual exploited by Ladsous' peacekeepers. This is a cover up; Ladsous should answer or go. On June 10, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric,video here, transcript here:
Inner City Press: I want to ask about sexual abuse. I'm sure you've seen AP's report on the OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] report on sexual exploitation and abuse, particularly in MINUSTAH [United Nations Stabilization Mission] in Haiti, saying 225 women testified that they were exchange — you know, asked by peacekeepers to exchange sex for money or food or whatever.  So how do you square this with the report made here by the Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous that only 51 cases of sexual exploitation or abuse were alleged worldwide, 51 as opposed to 225 in one country?  And what's going to be done to square what seems to be a dramatic underreporting by the UN?
Spokesman Dujarric:  I think the — first of all, the report that you referred to in the Associated Press filing, as far as my understanding is concerned, it's still a draft report.  There's still comments going back and forth, as usually there are between the concerned department and OIOS.  So I'm not going to go into what's said in the report.
Obviously, the issue of underreporting is of concern.  Every case needs to be looked into.  Every case of sexual abuse needs to be looked into.  The Secretary-General is determined to continue on the zero-tolerance policy.  I think if you look at the special measures report that was issued earlier this year, I think it outlines a number of steps that were taken.  And obviously, you know, all sorts of things are looked at in terms of prohibited conduct, discouraged conduct and others.  So, you know, the report's still in draft form.  I don't have any information on the specific cases you mentioned.
Inner City Press:  Maybe the number will somehow be reduced, but what I did want to ask you is, can you say from this podium that peacekeepers requesting sex in exchange for money or food does constitute sexual exploitation and abuse, for the purposes of this 51 figure that was thrown out in this room?
Spokesman Dujarric:  Again, I'm not go into that.  I think if you look at the Secretary-General's special measures report, I think it outlines those things and it answers your question
 This resistance to saying that eacekeepers requesting sex in exchange for money or food does constitute sexual exploitation and abuse is part of the problem. We'll have more on this.

 On June 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric first about the French forces' non-inclusion in Ban's Children and Armed Conflict list, then about the whistleblowers, video here, transcript here:
Inner City Press: it seems like the abuse the UN was aware of in the Central African Republic by the French Sangaris forces, was there any consideration of including them and if so, why not?

Spokesman Dujarric:  On the CAR [Central African Republic], the situation in the CAR, part of the CAR was drafted with the information available at the time of the writing of the report.  As you know, the… we do hope to announce soon the external independent inquiry which will shed light on the process.

Inner City Press: I'm sorry to reiterate this.  I'd sent you these questions but wanted to ask you.  I asked the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights who said that Mr. Kompass is going to be extended, although he also said it's not Geneva's decision; it's up to New York.  And there are several Member State who believe he's not being extended--

Spokesman:  No, I have no indication whatsoever that his contract will not be renewed.

Inner City Press:  It does apparently expire in one month.

Spokesman:  Right.  No, as I said, I have no indication whatsoever that his contract will not be renewed.

Inner City Press: ]OHCHR] had said something about contracts being automatically extended if a person is under investigation.  Is that your understanding?

Spokesman:  I think that is very likely a policy but as I said, for Mr. Kompass, I have no indication that his…

Inner City Press: The other thing I asked you is about Miranda Brown who was an… worked with Mr. Kompass and has since been terminated.  I know that she wrote a letter to the Secretary-General dated 23 May saying she's willing to participate, but not if she's fired by the UN and has no immunity.  Has the Secretary-General’s responded to the letter?

Spokesman:  I don't believe there has been a response.  I don't know if it was received.  I don't believe she was terminated, I think her fixed-term contract was not renewed.

Inner City Press: What would you say to those who say if you actually want to know… this was a person who was number two to Kompass at the time involved.  What arrangements were being made to try to get her evidence?

Spokesman:  I think we would have to leave that to the panel once it's named.

 As Inner City Press analyzed below, there is a history of UN panels being used to cover up.

Now Code Blue has these three recommendations:

"First, this must be a truly external and independent inquiry.  No member of existing UN staff should be appointed to investigate nor to act as the investigators’ secretariat.

"Second, it must be understood that top members of the Secretary-General’s own staff will have to be subject to investigation. This must go right up to the level of Under-Secretaries General. No one can be excluded, whether the Director of the Ethics Office or the USG of the Office of Internal Oversight Services or the Secretary-General’s own Chef de Cabinet. It would appear that all of them and more acted inappropriately in response to the dreadful events in CAR.

"Third, the reference in the Secretary-General’s announcement of a review to ‘the broad range of systemic issues’ is crucial to the inquiry. What happened in the Central African Republic was an atrocity, but the fact that the UN stood silent for nearly a year after its own discovery of widespread peacekeeper sexual abuse (even if by non-UN troops) is itself a bitter commentary on the Secretary-General’s declared policy of ‘zero tolerance’."

  Inner City Press would add, past UN staff and offiicals as well. Consider these past panels, as put together and at the end analyzed by Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access:

The "Ahtissari Panel" (2003) --

On 22 September 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland, to chair an Independent Panel on the Safety and Security of UN Personnel in Iraq.

The "Walzer Panel" (2004)

Panel finds senior officials lax in ensuring UN’s safe return to Iraq

The Volcker Panel (2004)

The priority of the Independent Panel’s investigation of the “oil-for-food” programme was to “get after” allegations of corruption and misconduct within the United Nations itself and, more broadly, the question of the maladministration of the “oil-for-food” programme, stated Paul A. Volcker, Chairman of the Independent Panel, in a press conference at UNHQ.

The Munoz Panel (2009)

The UN Commission of Inquiry, appointed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the request of the Pakistani Government, reached no conclusion as to the organizers and sponsors behind the attack in which a 15-year-old suicide bomber blew up Ms. Bhutto’s vehicle in the city of Rawalpindi on 27 December 2007.  The three-member panel, which was headed by Chilean Ambassador to UN Heraldo Muñoz and included Marzuki Darusman, former attorney-general of Indonesia, and Peter Fitzgerald, a veteran official of the Irish National Police, urged the Government to undertake police reform in view of its “deeply flawed performance and conduct.”

The Palmer Panel (2011)

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established the Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident on 2 August 2010. The Panel received and reviewed reports of the detailed national investigations conducted by both Turkey and Israel.

The Marzuki Panel (2011)

On 22 June 2010, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of a Panel of Experts to advise him on the implementation of the joint commitment included in the statement issued by the President of Sri Lanka and the Secretary-General at the conclusion of the Secretary-General's visit to Sri Lanka on 23 March 2009.

  What exactly has the UN done about Sri Lanka?

And here is the UN's June 3 announcement, and Inner City Press' immediate questions, here.

 Meanwhile UN staff advocates have written to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, his chief of staff and Ladsous, among others, demanding resignations. On June 2 Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who Banned any Inner City Press question to Ladsous on May 29, what Ban Ki-moon DID, once he learned in March about the rapes.Video here and embedded below.

 Dujarric said he had nothing to add to his previous answers. Huh?

 Inner City Press asked Dujarric, in light of OHCHR Zeid using a private email address for UN business, what the UN's record retention policy is. Dujarric said the policy must be available somewhere. To this has the UN descended.

  Dujarric said the investigation by Lapointe's OIOS, discredited in the leaked emails, will "lead where it will lead." But Lapointe has told OIOS invstigators to not go beyond what they are asked to look at -- in this case, only the whistleblower. This is called a cover up.


Many are asking why UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid, while emailing with the UN Ethics Office and OIOS, was using a private Gmail address, and not his work account.

 When Hillary Clinton used the UN Security Council stakeout to belatedly answer questions about her own use of private email while US Secretary of State, it was described as an accident of scheduling, or attempt to use the UNSC backdrop to convey gravitas. But the echo now with Prince Zeid also using private email for presumably public business raises similar questions.

  But will the questions be asked, much less answered? Reuters, typically, ran a piece on May 30 repeating Zeid's press release, withlittle analysis of his role, or use of private email, or Herve Ladsous, who has now been emailed staff advocates' call for resignations.

  Anders Kompass was asked to send his side of the story -- to a private email address, but wisely declined.

Beyond the treatment of Kompass himself, the documents show pressure brought to bear on lower-level staff to make and thereby launder the high officials' desire for an investigation of Kompass.

  Most directly, it is asked, what UN staff member will now report fraud or misconduct, knowing that OIOS and the Ethics Office will then discuss the accusations with their boss? This is a question Inner City Press on May 29 asked UN Spokesman Staphen Dujarric, who BannedInner City Press from putting a single question to Ladsous - the question has yet to be answered.

    UN staff advocates have written directly to Ban Ki-moon and his deputy, Ladsous and Atul Khare and others, demanding resignations. They are offended by the exposure of lack of independence at the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services and UN Ethics Office, and question whether the US should cut off funding under the 2014 U.S. Consolidated Appropriation Act, section 7048(a)(1)(B). After reading those leaked documents, how exactly can the U.S. Secretary of State (or anybody else) certify that the UN's whistle-blower policy fulfils the Act's requirements? Is there any "independent adjudicative body" in this chain? Evidently the Ethics Office and OIOS are not."

  The staff notice Ban's appearance at another softball soccer game, among those who are supposed to hold him and the UN accountable. The call for Ladsous to resign out be fired has spread from the African Group to Latin America and GRULAC...
  On May 7, Inner City Press asked more questions about this - including to Herve Ladsous himself.
  After a long closed-door consultation meeting of the Security Council, Ladsous emerged. Inner City Press asked him, based on Paragraph 9 of the UNDT ruling, Why did you ask Kompass to resign?"

  Ladsous stopped and said, "I deny that." Inner City Press put the handheld video online, here.
Posted by at

On UN Peacekeeping & Rapes, Inner City Press Asks Ladsous, He Denies 2-Tier, No Update on Central African Republic Rapes



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 2 -- After a screening of a film about UN Peacekeeping, “Last Station Before Hell,” which portrayed missions in Lebanon, DR Congo and Central African Republic, Inner City Press on December 2 asked UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous two questions.

 The first question was why French and other European troops serve alongside but not with UN peacekeepers, in Mali (including Germans and Slovakians now replacing French), Cote d'Ivoire and CAR. The second was for an update on the rape allegations against French and UN peacekeepers in CAR. Video here and embedded below.

  Ladsous, who has repeatedly outright refused to answer Inner City Press questions in the UN, did respond to the first question, denying there is a two-tier system and describing what some view as a vestige of colonialism: he listed the UK having a special interest in Sierra Leon, like France has in Mali, and a desire to serve under its own command.

Ladsous pointedly did NOT answer the request for any update on the sexual abuse allegations against Sangaris and MINUSCA, something pointed out afterward by a number of those in attendance at the International Peace Institute.

  One also noted this: while Ladsous trumpeted a number of female SRSGs in UN Peacekeeping, only that day one of them, Ellen Loj, was confined to speaking behind closed doors after Ladsous' public speech, and then followed his pattern of no comments to the media afterward, a come-down from her predecessor Hilde Johnson and even her own previous appearances. (Johnson, sources say, pursued the Somalia SRSG post that was given to Michael Keating.)

  One of Ladsous two fellow panelists at IPI, Lise Morjé Howard, an Associate Professor of Government, Georgetown University, answered Inner City Press that the French troops are not really peacekeepers but more akin to counter-insurgency forces.

Ladsous called France “the country I know best.” He is listed in UN Dispute Tribunal documents as having tried to fire, then to retaliate against, the whistleblower who revealed the allegations of child rape by French soldiers in CAR.

There's talk, even about the P5, of Ladsous being a liability who shouldn't remain even during Ban Ki-moon's remaining time. His non-answer on sexual abuse on December 2 is particularly noteworthy given his Septembr 11 on-camera linking of the CAR rapes to “R&R,” video here. We'll continue on this.
Posted by at

On Syria Chemical Weapons, Inner City Press Asks UN's Kim Won-soo of Airstrikes' Impact



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 2 -- The Security Council proceeded on Syria with a briefing about the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) on the use of chemicals as weapons Syria on December 2, after which the UN's acting High Representative for Disarmament Kim “Mr. Jim” Won-soo spoke to the press. Periscope video here, InnerCityPro.com fast transcript below.

 Inner City Press asked if there'd been any impact of the increased airstrikes on Syria on the JIM's work.

Kim Won-soo replied, "Their work has already started. Because their work is building on the work done by OPCW fact finding missions. So fact finding missions have already submitted their report, and it will be transferred to the JIM. And we will build up fact finding mission’s  work to get additional information."

 Here's more from InnerCityPro.com's fast transcription:

Kim Won-soo: They are now contemplating a visit to Damascus first, now that they are fully operational from November 13.

Q: So they haven’t been to Damascus yet?

Kim Won-soo: Not yet. But they will.

Q: Before Christmas?

Kim Won-soo: Pretty soon.

Q: The team will be from OPCW, Interpol?

Kim Won-soo: They're professional investigators, drawn from all the partner organizations like OPCW, WHO...

Q: How many are there?

Kim Won-soo: The total strength is around 25 but professional investigators about eight.

Inner City Press: Any impact of the increased airstrikes on Syria on their work?

Kim Won-soo: Their work has already started. Because their work is building on the work done by OPCW fact finding missions. So fact finding missions have already submitted their report, and it will be transferred to the JIM. And we will build up fact finding mission’s  work to get additional information.

Q: You said there was going to be somebody from the JIM based in Damascus?

Kim Won-soo:  As a liaison, embedded in the political mission. We have already mission there, so…

Q: Is that a UN mission?

Kim Won-soo: Yeah, UN mission. We have a Special Envoy, somebody from the JIM will be embedded in the UN mission in Damascus.

Q: And on top  of that, the investigators are going soon to Damascus?

Kim Won-soo:  Because they now begin their substantive work. Depending on their work, they will decide where they will visit and how their work will proceed. But now, they are doing analytical work of the findings provided by the fact-finding mission, and also they are now starting consultations with the member states.

Q: When will the [Security] Council get a report?

Kim Won-soo:  Already three reports by OPCW fact finding missions have been circulated.

Q: But I’m talking about the JIM.

Kim Won-soo: JIM will submit the first report, 90 day report, so it’ll be February 13, 2016. Because they became operational November 13. So the first report to the Council will be made February 13, 2016.

Q: And the visit to Syria would be to do what?

Kim Won-soo:  Well, now Status of Mission agreement is the first thing to be concluded. So it is almost being now finalized. So based on that agreement, the modus operandibetween the Syrian government and the JIM will have to be sorted out. Cooperation has already started. We don’t foresee any problem in finalizing the SOMA agreement.

  And here, from Kim Won-soo's October 7 appearance, transcribed here by InnerCityPro:

  “On Syria chemical weapons, the Security Council has been briefed by High Representative for Disarmament Kim Won-soo. He has informed that the process of dismantling and destroying the Syrian chemical arsenal, as declared, is almost successfully completed, more than 98 percent.

  “Now the efforts are concentrated in investigating and establishing responsibilities for alleged attacks, using chlorine. These attacks are unacceptable, in the view of international legislation and the Security Council resolutions, inter alia 2118 and 2209. The Council members welcomed the nomination of Ms Virginia Gamba as head of the joint investigative mechanism, and expect that this mechanism will be fully operational soon.

  “Mr. Kim reaffirmed that his office is committed to have the JIM mechanism fully in function hopefully as soon as possible. He assured that he is working in coordination with OPCW to select the most appropriate staff to guarantee a professional and independent mechanism. Mr. Kim requested support of the UN members to ensure the necessary funds to make the JIM fully operational. He insisted on two occasions on this need.”

   Roman Oyarzun Marchesi was asked about the Russian draft resolution - he said he had been in the consultations all day - and Inner City Press asked if in the Central African Republic consultations UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous had given any update on the allegations of sexual abuse by peacekeepers in CAR. No, was the answer. Periscope video here.

Back on August 7 after long negotiations between the US and Russia, the UN Security Council on August 7 adopted a resolution to establish a so-called accountability mechanism for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Outside the Council before and after the unanimous vote on August 7, Russia's ambassador Vitaly Churkin referred to a Presidential Statement he said may be adopted early next week, to support UN envoy Staffan de Mistura's work.

  Inside the Council after the vote, Syria's Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari began his speech with a reference to the 70th anniversary of the US dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. He went to to say the UN never investigated the use of chemical weapons, by rebels he said, in Khan al Asal.

   In its resolution the Security Council “recalls that in its resolution 2118, it decided that the Syrian Arab Republic and all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations.” It seems doubtful that ISIS will cooperate.

   Churkin in his post-vote speech inside the Council said that “the existing mechanics of the UN and OPCW do not have a mandate to identify those participating in such acts. Moreover, we became witnesses of the many politicized statements in this regard, which were clearly meant to be propaganda. It was necessary to eliminate this gap, which was done with the adoption of today’s resolution... Any efforts in the Syrian area must be in line with assisting a search for a political solution to the conflict.”

   Inside the Council, US Samantha Power delivered this speech. At the stakeout, questions were given to Reuters, Al Hurra (really, France 24, by mistake), and Voice of America. (We'll have a separate piece on Power's response to the Press' final question about Burundi. For now, here'sprevious stakeout, sit-down.

   After the meeting ended, on the steps leading out from the UNSC stakeout, Churkin said “I hope it will translate into our continued joint work on the political front. We are working, I think very well, on a PRST [Presidential Statement] in support of Staffan de Mistura’s efforts. I hope it will be adopted...” More on InnerCityPro.com.
Posted by at

US Samantha Power Answers Press on South Sudan into 28 States, UNMISS Reporting



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 2 -- The UN Security Council met about South Sudan, amid reports of ceasefire violations and unilateral moves to re-divide the country into 28 new sub-divisions, on December 2 and afterward US Ambassador Samantha Power, president of the Council for the month, emerged to take questions.

  Inner City Press asked Power about President Salva Kiir's move to establish 28 states in South Sudan.  Power responded that the proposal has given rise to strong views in the country and said diplomatically that it was a decision that should be taken by the Transitional Government, not before.

  While Inner City Press has repeatedly asked the UN Spokesperson's Office to confirm from its podium ceasefire violations which are confined to internal UN Mission situation reports that Inner City Press obtains, Power said that in the closed consultations UN envoy Ellen Loj had detailed many such violations.

 In the past Loj spokes in the open Chamber, and herself took questions at the media stakeout afterward. This time, only Herve Ladsous spoke in the Chamber - and refused questions on the way in and on the way out of the Council - and Loj took no questions. Ladsous was scheduled to take questions across the street from the UN, including about the Central African Republic. We'll have more on this.

   Power began her stakeout with words about the then-ongoing shooting incidents in California, and with words of remembrance for Sandy Berger. On whether the next meeting on Syria might take place in New York on December 18, she said that the date and venue were not yet known. For now, Periscope video here.

On December 1 when US Ambassador Power held a press conferenceabout the Council's work in December, when she will be president, Inner City Press asked her about two items on her Program of Work: the use in Yemen of troops from Sudan.

 Inner City Press also asked Power about one item not yet listed on the month's Program: the twice-delayed UN report into how allegations of rape by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic were handled by the UN.  Video here and embedded below.

  Power spoke with passion about the latter topic, saying that during her recent trip to India she devoted a third of one of her speeches to the topic. Power said that the UN must repatriate accused troops, and that the troop contributing countries, including where applicable the US, must investigate and prosecute the allegations as if they had taken place in their own countries, against their own citizens.

   The report on CAR was announced on June 22 and was supposed to take ten weeks. Then it was delayed past the General Assembly high level debate week into November, then delayed again into December. Power said the US would like it taken up in the Security Council, whether considered in connection with CAR in the December program of work, or in January if it is not released until then.

   On the Saudi-led coalition's use of troops from Sudan in Yemen, Power said that it had to be acknowledged that Sudan's military violated the laws of war in South Sudan, in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, and in Darfur. She said the Saudi-led coalition was asked to be discerning. Inner City Press didn't have time to ask, but there are increasing reports that the United Arab Emirates is employing mercenaries from Colombia in Yemen.

We'll have more on this. For now, below is a fast transcription byInnerCityPro.com:


Inner City Press: I wanted to ask you about two things. On the program of work you have Yemen, and you also have Sudan ICC, so I wanted to ask about something that brings them together, which is, the use of Sudanese troops in Yemen by the Saudi-led coalition. Some people have said it’s sort of strange, given their record and the fact that the government of Sudan is under ICC indictment, for the use of these troops in Darfur; it seems like a funny part of the coalition in Yemen. So I wanted your thoughts on that.

And also, during the month of December, the long-delayed report on sexual abuse in CAR is supposed to come out. Do you think the Council, given the importance of this issue of peacekeepers and accountability, will the Council take it up? And what do you think, either personally or nationally, should happen?

Ambassador Power: On the issue of sexual abuse and exploitation, I did travel all the way to India and did give a speech, a third of which was dedicated to that topic because it is clear that whatever the notional zero tolerance policy that exists here, the spate of allegations is extremely disturbing and the loss of trust that results when civilians who are counting on the UN for protection begin to view them as predators, cannot be overstated. I think the Secretary General has taken a series of steps now that are aimed at filling some of the gaps that have existed. Fundamentally, if we don’t do what I sought to do on my visit overseas, and what we are now talking about bilaterally around the world, which is elevate the issue of accountability in capitals, every capital, including if US personnel were accused of carrying out these kinds of abuses. Where the accountability needs to exist in the first instance is of course at the UN, individuals need to be repatriated and an investigation needs to be launched. But fundamentally it is the member states that are going to need to take ownership of what their troops are doing in other countries, as if it was happening in one’s own country.

I don’t really have a comment on CAR. I don’t yet know in terms of how we will take it up. We do have, as I mentioned, a lot happening related to CAR. It’s possible we could combine discussion of the report. I think it depends on the precise timing. But if it isn’t in this month, it certainly is something that the United States will support discussing at the earliest possible occasion.

On Sudan and Yemen, first of all underscore that under the leadership in Khartoum the Sudnaese government has fought in a manner, whether it was against the South Sudanese people for many many years, or in Khordofan or Blue Nile over the last couple of years, God knows in Darfur, the manner in which Sudan has employed force has consistently ignored or violated international humanitarian law. There’s just no way around it. It is the use of indiscriminate weapons of war, and seemingly scant regard for civilian life. So we would be very concerned that any units that were involved in the kinds of atrocities we have seen in Darfur, on the ground or from the air, or those in other parts of Sudan, if they were involved elsewhere, and have encouraged the coalition to be extremely discerning and to make every effort to ensure that anything they are doing in Yemen is in compliance with IHL." [International Humanitarian Law]

   On Syria, Power said among other things that there are procedures in place to adjudge which groups are terrorists and which are not (State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner earlier in the day twice said that Al Nusra is a terrorist group).

  On North Korea, Power said that as much light as possible should be shed from outside the country. One wanted to ask, what could a trip by Ban Ki-moon at this time accomplish, but time did not allow.

   Inner City Press has been reporting extensively on Burundi, and on this subject Power said that a Security Council trip is still in the planning stages, but is unanimously supported by the Council's members. Yesterday Inner City Press reported, based on sources in the Council, that Angola expressed the position at least that a visit in December might be too soon.

Power answered about her trip to India, and mentioned her visit to Sri Lanka which came after that. Inner City Press hear from Lankan sources that a film crew accompanied Power into certain meetings; one awaits the broadcast.

  On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, as it did with last month's president Matthew Rycroft and his predecessors, Inner City Press asked Power to hold question and answer stakeouts after Council closed door consultations, “so we can learn what went on inside.” Power quipped that it is not all that interesting, which may most of the time be true. But at least we can ask. And we will. Watch this site.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)