As UN Mendoza Flew Into Philippines Mission No Answer Now Insiders Seek Promotions From Guterres

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive follow up

UNITED NATIONS GATE, July 12 – At the UN, even the Security Council's website is a prize to quietly be given to a top official's spouse, with no competition or transparency. And the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, to which Inner City Press submitted this and other information including about Security-brutality by UN Lieutenant Ronald E. Dobbins, the role of Secretary General Antonio Guterres and his spokesman Stephane Dujarric and Communicator Alison Smale, does nothing. In fact, the head of OIOS Heidi Mendoza who has been on leave for some time. When Inner City Press Dujarric, before being roughed up and banned now for 374 days, he said he doesn't keep track of his colleagues' movements (Dujarric has since blocked Inner City Press on Twitter - no answer on that either).

  Now despite no answers from the totally corrupt Secretariat of Guterres, the ad has been placed to replace Mendoza. Photo tweeted by Inner City Press here. So they knew their investigator was gone and said nothing. They used the empty time to rob, steal and censor. And now the same team each seeks to move up a spot, by October 25: David Kanja currently Assistant SG and Officer in Charge in Mendoza's absence wants the job desperately and is lobbying hard, with his plan reportedly being to reward Ben Swanson with the ASG and Michael Dudley the D2 of investigations.  All of them were informed in writing that Guterres to conceal corrupt had Inner City Press roughed up and banned - and none of these investigators did anything. Now they want to get paid back - but may be disappointed if Guterres continues to pay off his debts to his sponsor China by giving the OIOS job to them. Guterres and his henchmen Dujarric - on vacation throughout July - and others are entirely corrupt.

Mendoza while still not back as OIOS chief has flown to New York for an event at the Filipino consulate. UNSG Guterres does nothing - he himself is concealing his financial link to convicted UN briber CEFC China Energy through the Gulbenian Foundation, and denying without explanation the 15 April 2019 application by Inner City Press to enter the UN to again ask questions.  UN Staff Rule 1.2 states  Honours, gifts or remuneration (k) No staff member shall accept any honour, decoration, favour, gift or remuneration from any Government. However, if refusal of an unanticipated honour, decoration, favour or gift from a Government would cause embarrassment to the Organization, the staff member may receive it on behalf of the Organization provided that it is reported and entrusted to the Secretary-General through established procedures.  (l) Acceptance by staff members of any honour, decoration, favour, gift or remuneration from non-governmental sources requires the prior approval of the Secretary-General. Approval shall be granted only in exceptional cases and where such acceptance is not incompatible with the interests of the Organization and with the staff member’s status as an international civil servant. If circumstances do not allow for prior approval or if refusal of an unanticipated honour, decoration, favour or gift, including a minor gift of essentially nominal value, would cause embarrassment to the Organization, staff members may receive it on behalf of the Organization provided that it is reported and entrusted to the Secretary-General through established procedures.  (m) The Secretary-General may authorize staff members to accept from a non-governmental source or a university or a related institution, academic awards, distinctions and tokens of a commemorative or honorary character, such as scrolls, certificates, trophies or other items of essentially nominal monetary value.   Did the Secretary-General give her permission IN ADVANCE to collect that award, and if so, why was she given that permission if she is not willing to actually turn up to work?  Why is OIOS not held to the same standards as the rest of the UN?  Or is it just USGs who don’t need to follow the rules?   Inner City Press at noon on 1 October 2018 asked Dujarric's deputy Farhan Haq, since Dujarric claimed on September 28 to be following USG Alison Smale's promise to answer questions, this: " October 1-4: Regarding Heidi Mendoza, USG of OIOS, and her recent public comments on politics in the Philippines: a) what is Ms Mendoza's current status with the UN? b) if she is on medical leave, is it paid leave? c) do the UN's rules about international public servants not getting involved in their countries' politics apply to those on such leave, or whatever type of leave Ms Mendoza is on? d) can the SG waive such rules? When and in what circumtances? Has he waived rules here? e) is there an Officer in Charge at OIOS? Who is it? f) does Ms Mendoza has any involvement in OIOS decisions while on leave?" More than a day later, while Haq was spoon feeding answers to other of Inner City Press' questions to his and Dujarric's favorite pro-Guterres scribes, no answer. Mendoza's conduct is contrary to the duties of an international civil servant, but it is the atmosphere that Guterres has created. Beyond his own self-interest, in Portugal and as we've reported Angolo, Sao Tomo, Timor Leste, Namibia and Cabo Verde - and Cameroon - Guterres benefits from a weakened, less credible OIOS. We'll have more on this. In May prior to being banned from the UN in July by Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Inner City Press was exclusively informed by whistleblowers that Department of Political Affairs chief of staff Kyoko Shiotani's husband John van Rosendaal has been brought in to run the Council's website, as if the UN and its Security Council were a small business suffused in nepotism. After its reporting, Inner City Press was approached by a senior UN person and told to drop the story, or else. Then, in the middle of a speech by Guterres on June 22, Inner City Press was pushed out of the UN by UN Lieutenant Ronald E. Dobbins and four UN Emergency Response Unit officers who, equipped with automatic weapons, refused to give their names. On July 3, after a written alert by Inner City Press to Guterres and his team including about "irregularities in even how the UNSC's website is run," a more violent ouster and 73 day ban since. (The ban was, without hearing or appeal, ostensibly made permanent by Guterres' head of "Global Communications" in an August 17 letter ruling that said written questions would still be answered.  So on September 13, Inner City Press asked: "September 13-4: Please confirm that the husband of DPA's chief of staff, of whom Inner City Press has previously asked you and reported, did not have his contract renewed - since your office said his employment was entirely legitimate, this update should be given - and state who has replaced him, the nationality and how selected." And on September 14 from Guterres' deputy spokesman Farhan Haq, this which we publish in full: "Regarding question 13-4, on the consultant, he was working on a project and his assignment ended. A position opened up to continue the project based on the work already done and there was an internal recruitment." From whistleblowers in DPA given anonymity due to fear of retaliation, this: "Love your blog. Keep it coming. Just to update you on what’s going on at DPA. The ordeal with the Security Council website continues and took an ironic twist. After you reported about the husband of the chief of staff getting the unnecessary P-5 job running the website, he is now apparently out. Word is that Di Carlo wanted the Dutchman gone, even after the spokesperson told you he was properly hired. Apparently, Di Carlo forced SCAD to hire an even less-qualified American, without interviewing that person. Di Carlo is American. So, DPA went from a Dutch scam to an American scam. There’s also still talk of getting OIOS or DSS to go after the people who leak(ed) to you, so be careful. A DPA staffer." We're always careful - anonymity assured, even as Guterres' guards rough us up.  Note that DSS - Guterres' Department of Safety and Security - has still not acted on Inner City Press' formal complaint to USG Peter Drennan about targeted harassment and assault by Lt Ronald E. Dobbins but is said to have a role, without transparency or accountability, in banning Inner City Press from covering #UNGA73 - this after Inner City Press has written stories based on leaked documents about Drennan, about Matthew Sullivan, and others. Today's UN is corrupt, and unaccountable: there is no due process or transparency, only abuses of power. Earlier information from sources about the UN website corruption: "Further to your article, let me inform you that van Rosendaal was hired at a P5 level (something that takes a lifetime for career UN staff to accomplish). And that he won't be even making the web site, that will be done by another department, he will just show up to meetings from time to time. He has absolutely no expertise in design or development of web sites and will not make any contribution to the actual web site. His contract was again extended, and will probably get another extension after the new year. Similar sites done by DPI in the past were done with internal resources, no extra cost and usually by lower P level staff or G level staff. In addition to this he is asking for additional money to hire external contractors that are suppose to do some of the actual work." Inner City Press, from the bus stop in front of the UN Delegates Entrance where is it working since banned by Guterres, asked a follow up question, as it cannot due to UN Spokespeople given Guterres ban: "what has USG Rosemary DiCarlo (or anyone else) done about this, since it was exposed?" The reply: "Nothing much was changed. I believe only you reported it and they don't consider that as much negative exposure. So pretty much business as usual. This project is financially supported by the Dutch government and John is Dutch so... The total cost with his P5, the other offices involved and external contractors that John is hiring could reach probably close to half million dollars" or, we're told, double that. So it was simple for Guterres' (and it seems DiCarlo's) UN: do nothing about the blatant corruption, just rough up and ban the Press which alone reported on it. Finally on July 30, with Inner City Press still banned from the UN by Guterres for the 27th day in a row, Guterres' deputy spokesman Farhan Haq after the noon briefing Inner City Press could not attend emailed this, which we publish in full: "If there are allegations of misconduct they should be taken to the internal oversight offices and mechanisms. Unfounded allegations do not constitute a formal complaint. Mr. Van Rosendaal was hired via proper channels in accordance with standard procedures. He is fully qualified for the job. The Security Council website has not been “given” to anybody. Mr. Van Rosendaal is the project manager for SCAD. Other UN offices are also involved in this project.  We will leave it up to the Member State to announce its involvement, but Mr. Van Rosendaal’s position is outside the budget provided by the Member State. His nationality had nothing to do with his hiring." So it seems that the information provided to Guterres and his team on July 25 was not even passed on by him or his team to OIOS. We'll have more on this OIOS - watch this site. Back on May 24, before it was banned from the UN noon briefing by Guterres,  Inner City Press asked his spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it. From the UN transcript: Inner City Press: people that work in your UN Department of Political Affairs (DPA) have been confused and surprised to see, according to them, that the husband of the Chief of Staff, Kyoko Shiotani, a John van Rosendaal, has been designated to run the Security Council's website.  They… they found it kind of strange because there was… there was no need for it.  He was brought in without any competition, according to them, and it seemed like a classic case of nepotism and affecting the Security Council itself.  So, I'm wondering… maybe you don't have the information at your fingertips, but can you find out how it is that… that it's… I've seen this thing.  He's now called a senior programme officer after being a self-employed consultant.

Spokesman:  I'm not aware of the case, and I'm sure all the rules were followed.  Carole?

Inner City Press:  How are you so sure?" This was not answered. On LinkedIn, van Rosendaal lists himself as “Strategic Communications Consultant at United Nations” as well as Self-Employed, Photographic Wanderings.

   Here is van Rosendaal's website, Photographic Wanderings dot com: “Professionally, I’ve worked as a journalist, media company manager and communications consultant. I plan to combine my passion and my expertise to build this site into something interesting, useful and entertaining. I’m originally Dutch but left Holland in 1989. Since then I’ve mostly lived in or close to New York, with stints in Switzerland, Cyprus and Austria.” 

 He's a communications strategist with 39 Twitter followers. Now he's to run the Security Council's website. Why not? 

  Inner City Press asks, how did this "self employed communications consultant" (with 39 Twitter followers) become, as his signature block now says, "Senior Program Officer, Security Council Affairs Division"? 

  This is the UN of Antonio Guterres. Rosemary DiCarlo has just taken over at DPA. Guterres and his spokesman Stephane Dujarric banned Inner City Press from covering the ceremony where Dicarlo presumably pledged to serve the public. It is impossible to know since UNTV did not film it and Inner City Press was then and now banned from its own livestream Periscope broadcast on Guterres' 38th floor. 

Now what will DiCarlo, or perhaps despite his spokesman's knee-jerk defenses of and evictions for anything the UN does Guterres who is already charged with overseeing cover ups of sexual harassment in the IAEA, do? Watch this site.

As CIT Group Says Wait For Its Community Reinvestment Act Plan, Federal Reserve's New Precedent?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 23 -- The US government's ongoing corporate bailout following the 2008 meltdown triggered by predatory lending continues to reverberate in one of the largest proposed mergers of 2014.

  On December 22, pressing for approval of its application to acquire OneWest, CIT told the Federal Reserve, "CITB and OWB are not yet able to provide specific details about the expanded Community Reinvestment Act portfolio because this will be based, in part, on input from CITBNA’s to-be-formed Community Development Advisory Board following the closing of the Transaction."

  That's basically saying, approve our merger (on which the Fed is required to consider CRA), and THEN we'll tell you about CRA.

  The Fed had asked CIT to "provide the final version of the document 'CIT Bank N.A. Community Reinvestment Act Plan,' the draft of which was included as Annex C to the letter responding to the public comments submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York."

  One question is, will the Federal Reserve Board in this case and in others coming up, and fast, require the actual submission for CRA plans and allow for public comment on them?

 On December 18 CIT gave the Fed statements from the FDIC, in essence not to worry about the Loss Share Agreements OneWest has won from the FDIC:

"OWB acquired assets from three failed banks — IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB ('IMFB'), First Federal Bank of California, and La Jolla Bank, FSB (the 'Failed Banks'). The FDIC entered into Shared-Loss Agreements with OWB in these acquisitions with respect to certain of the acquired assets."

  Now the regulators say, don't worry as CIT seeks to take these loss-shares over, although their value will not for now be disclosed:

“The FDIC's Division of Resolutions and Receiverships does not release shared-loss payment information on individual acquirers or assets because those records often contain material, non-public information, and their release could harm the negotiating posture of the acquirer with respect to a particular borrower or asset, thereby potentially increasing the amount of a covered loss to the FDIC.”

  This is called stonewalling, or a cover-up. We'll have more on this.

* * *

  Back on November 17, four days before a rare Senate hearing on the regulatory capture of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York posed a series of questions to CIT Group, trying to buy OneWest. 

  CIT provided Inner City Press with a copy of its answer to the Fed's November 17 questions (answers to the Fed's November 25 questions have not yet been provided.)

  CIT says "OneWest has discussed the Transaction with staff of each of FannieMae and FreddieMac (the 'GSEs') and will be filing an application in connection with the change of control of OWB in order for OWB to continue as a seller/servicer for the respective GSE. OneWest is now in the process of preparing the appropriate applications, which it expects to submit as soon as possible, and no later than year-end."

  But will OneWest provide notice of these applications to the GSEs to the groups which have timely protested its applications to the Fed and OCC? The OCC heard much about OneWest, and CIT, at a December 2 EGRPRA hearing in Los Angeles. Why not just hold public hearings on this proposed mega-merger? And on another one, announced but not yet applied for?

 On November 21, Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Dudley described anti revolving door safeguards and a desire for "good culture" at banks.

  Good culture? How then did the predatory lending meltdown take place? And anti-revolving door? How can it be, then, that a former Federal Reserve Legal Division supervisor is writing for BB&T's deals to those who used to work under her?

  As soon as Dudley left the stand, a more serious anti revolving door protection was proposed.

  Dudley was asked about Goldman Sachs' warehouses, and JPM Chase's abuse of the energy markets, but didn't directly answer.  Since then he has toured The Bronx - we'll see what if any difference it makes.

  The Fed on November 17 asked for answers to four questions it sent to the CIT Group, with a copy to Inner City Press.

  Inner City Press and others have challenged CIT's application to acquire OneWest; as previously set forth below, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has been challenging BB&T, showing the disparities in BB&T's lending record.

  On BB&T's application to acquire 41 branches in Texas from Citibank, Fair Finance Watch showed the FDIC for example that for conventional home purchase loans in the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2013, BB&T made 65 such loans to whites, and NONE to African Americans.

  The FDIC's Acting Deputy Regional Director for Compliance replied that "the FDIC deems your correspondence to constitute a protest."

  BB&T through law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz submitted a response which admitted that in Houston “the percentage of Mortgage Loans made to low and moderate income borrowers during the first six months of 2014 was also below the 2013 aggregate industry average.” BB&T Response at Page 11, which also notes at 10 that at least one of the Citibank branches BB&T seeks to acquire, it would shutter.

  And so on November 10 Fair Finance Watch submitted more extensive comment opposing BB&T's application to acquire Bank of Kentucky, including that bank's disparities in the Cincinnati regional area and BB&T's in the Louisville MSA, where in 2013 BB&T made 229 conventional home purchase loans to whites, and only 12 to African Americans and only six to Latinos, while denying 41.7% of applications from Latinos versus only 17.5 of application from whites, a disparity of 2.38 to 1.

   How will the Fed's precedent(s) on CIT - OneWest be applied?

  The secret recordings of then Federal Reserve examinerCarmen Segarra about Goldman Sachs and regulatory capture have given rise to calls for oversight hearings by at least two US Senators. Their hearing will now occur on November 21. Relatedly, BB&T's response from the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz is penned by a former Federal Reserve Board Legal Division supervisor.

 On November 7, Inner City Press was sent a redacted copy of CIT Group's "Cash Flow Projections" and "Risk Management" from its application to acquire OneWest and go above the $50 billion, Too Big Too Fail threshold. Inner City Press immediately put the partially redacted document online on its website, here.

  First, how could such information be withheld for a bank seeking to become Too Big To Fail?

  Second, how could the Federal Reserve insist that the comment period is closed, while information that was improperly withheld is belatedly released?

  On October 10, Inner City Press was sent heavily redacted copies of two letters from the CIT Group concerning its proposed acquisition of OneWest to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, supposedly in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act - nowuploaded to Scribd here and here. 

   On October 18, Inner City Press & Fair Finance Watch challenged these redactions under FOIA, and submitted  comments on CIT's mockery of the Community Reinvestment Act to both the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

  CIT sought to withhold even its CRA plan. Inner City Press raised the issue to Fed Chair Yellen in Washington - and on October 15, the Federal Reserve called Inner City Press and left a voice mail to say its request for extension of the comment period, because of the incorrectly withheld CIT documents, has been granted until October 22. 

   While appreciating the Fed's comment period extension, the context and public policy questions recently raised must be noted.

  For now, on October 18 Inner City Press & Fair Finance Watch submitted a fourth timely comment to the Fed, critiquing the belatedly released CRA Plan, and demanding release of still - withheld information:

   The CIT CRA Plan which CIT improperly withheld states, in Section III, that “the Bank has lending and support operations primarily located in Florida, New York and New Jersey” -- then states its CRA Program is in Salt Lake City, Utah and “the western United States.”

  This is makes a mockery of CRA, explicitly separating the bank's lending operations from its “CRA” operations.

  In Section IV, CIT makes claims about outreach and “public participation” in its CRA Plan - but in outreach and participation excluded the communities in which CIT has its lending operations (FLA, NY and NJ) and from which, on information and belief, it collects insured deposits.  

  This is makes a mockery of CRA, explicitly separating the bank's deposit taking from its “CRA” operations and outreach. See limited list of contacts in Appendix C, and proof of publication in (only) the Salt Lake Tribute and Deseret News.

  Even in its artificial limited assessment area, CIT's “New CRA Assets” are less than 1% of its Assets.

  While still improper, the above provide a motive for CIT's attempt to withhold its CRA Plan from the public...

  As to CIT's October 8 letter, ICP has already timely commented “there is also the question of the agreement the FDIC reached with IndyMac / OneWest, and whether wannabe SIFI CIT would assume it, as a windfall. These are important questions militating for both the required extension of the comment period, and for public hearings.”

  In the October 8 letter, CIT begins a sentence on page 3 “Clawback provisions exist for the First Fed and La Jolla portfolios [REDACTED.]” CIT also redacts, on page 6, information related to the OnWest / IndyMac Consent Order; HAMP (Page 7); deposits collected over the Internet (Page 8); Lending (Page 9); Governance and Risk Management (page 10-12); and Resolution Plan (Page 12). CIT also heavily redacts what it calls “confidential questions” (pages 14-16), and exhibits. This information must be released, and the comment period extended.  In an abundance of caution, ICP has submitted a FOIA request to this effect.

  The Fed's secrecy is endemic.  The head of the FRBNY since 2009, William Dudley, has insisted that supervision by the Fed and its regional banks is "completely in the public interest." He cites, in support of this, something he calls "horizontal" supervision, which to many has the context of being supine. 

  And the Federal Reserve Banks are, in fact, owned by the banks they ostensibly regulate. And as Inner City Press has previously reported, while merger applications go in the first instance to the Federal Reserve Bank, they have only the power to approve, not deny or even impose conditions, the applications.

  Horizontal, indeed.

  This horizontal position is the rule, not the exception. Inner City Press routinely submits Freedom of Information Act requests for communication between the Fed and banks applying for mergers.

  Most recently, the Fed has extended its deadline for responding to Inner City Press' request on CIT - OneWest, on which it purported to close its public comment period on September 24:

FOIA Request No. F-2014-00380

Dear Mr. Lee,

On August 27, 2014, the Board of Governors ("Board") received your electronic message dated August 26, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552... On August 28, 2014, the Board’s Freedom of Information Office made an interim production of responsive documents consisting of the public portion of the application by CIT Group Inc. and Carbon Merger Sub LLC to acquire and merge with IMB HoldCo LLC, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of OneWest Bank... Pursuant to section (a)(6)(B)(i) of the FOIA, we are extending the period for our response until October 9, 2014, 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 9, 2014, we will respond to you promptly.

How can the public be shut out before it has the basic information it has requested? Now, only because CIT mis-published public notice, the Fed's comment period has been extended to October 10. (A new Office of the Comptroller of the Currency comment period has opened, through October 24.)

  The Federal Reserve Board has asked CIT some questions, including “discuss CIT Group's plans to manage OneWest Bank's mortgage servicing assets and nontraditional mortgage loan portfolio." Nontraditional mortgages - that would be, subprime.

Tellingly, when lawyers leave the Federal Reserve's Legal Division, many go to white shoe law firms that submit bank merger applications to the same people they until recently worked with or supervised.

  Inner City Press, Bronx-based Fair Finance Watch and NCRC have repeatedly raised this to the Fed, without meaningful response.

So here's hoping that Carmen Segarra's courage, in secretly making the recordings and then releasing them, leads to increased oversight of and reform at the Fed. 

 The problem is, while some in Congress are willing to criticize the Fed, the real parties in interest here are the largest banks and investment banks in the country. Who in Congress will directly challenge those? Watch this site.

   

At UN, As Ban Ki-moon Signs Compacts, Feltman Not There, Ladsous Won't Disclose, Others Open on FSA & CAR

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 13 -- When UN Secretary General performed the annual ritual signing of the Compactswith his Under Secretaries General on February 13 amid the snow, three USGs were not present either in person or on video: Angela Kane, Joan Clos of HABITAT, and Jeffrey Feltman. 

  Given the recently leaked audio of US official Victoria Nuland recounting how Feltman "got" Ban to sent Robert Serry to Ukraine, it seems worth asking with all due respect: where is he?

  Those present posed for a group photograph, tweeted hereby Inner City Press, and then came up one by one to sign their Compacts and shake hands with Ban and his deputy, Jan Eliasson. For the first signer, former Egyptian Permanent Representative and now Special Adviser on Africa Maged Abdelaziz, Ban didn't stand up, so the handshake was repeated at the end.

  Ban, introduced by his chief of staff Susana Malcorra, made much of transparency, of making all this available through the press to the public. But a quick review of Ban's "financial disclosure" web site finds, for example, that Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous has refused to make any public financial disclosure, stating that "in accordance with General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/238, I have chosen to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed in my financial disclosure statement."

  Ladsous also refuses to answer Press questions, most recently on what the UN position is on Ugandan troops remaining in South Sudan, and before that about the mass rapes in Minova by the UN's partners in the Congolese Army. Video compilation here; UK coverage here.

  Ban's Children and Armed Conflict envoy Leila Zerrougui was there; by contrast, her Office made the inconvenient report that the Free Syrian Army recruits and uses child soldiers, and she has offered the Press an interview about it. Also there, on screen from Geneva, was Navi "Half Term"Pillay who had the honesty to report on January 20 that the French decision to first disarm the ex Seleka in Central African Republic put Muslim communities at risk.

  The UN should be open, and questions as with Feltman about a former diplomat's connection with his or her country cannot be off limits or considered "insinuation."

  Amazingly, though, when Ban this week did a question and answer session with 15 mostly Gulf and Western correspondents, afterward no tape or transcript was provided, despite a formal request from the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which is focused on opening up the UN to the press and public. And it was confirmed that none of the 15 even asked about Feltman, Ukraine and the Nuland leak. How not?

  Carman Lapointe of the Office of Oversight Services was there, even though the Secretariat says it can't speak for her of OIOIS, even refusing yet to say if OIOS is appealing the UN Dispute Tribunal decision which recounts that Michael Dudley of OIOS investigations acknowledged altering evidence after Inner City Press uncovered the distribution of Valium by UN Medical Service personnel with no New York State licensed. Is there immunity for that? 

 Has the UN received and accepted process of the legal papers for bringing cholera to Haiti? This was asked at the February 13 noon briefing. It will be a litmus test for accountability, and for transparency. Watch this site.

   

After Exposure by Inner City Press & UN Dispute Tribunal in "UNlicensed Valium" Case, UN Oversight Unit Spins, Censors Circle

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive / Follow Up

UNITED NATIONS, January 14 -- How does the UN work, or not work? Here's one example: in April 2009 Inner City Pressexclusively exposed that in the UN Medical Service "a group of largely unlicensed doctors and nurses are dispensing and in some cases taking and self-medicating with Valium, Diazepam, Demerol, Ambien and other controlled narcotics."

  While this exclusive, picked up with credit to Inner City Press in other media six days later, itself sparked a UN investigation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the UN's response to Inner City Press was to demand that portions of the expose be removed from the Internet.

  The investigation churned along, and last month the UN Dispute Tribunal issued an order finding misconduct in OIOS, reciting that

26. On 23 April 2009, an article outlining the allegations of misconduct being investigated by the Applicants appeared in the Inner City Press, a daily online media outlet that specializes in reporting on the United Nations.

  The UNDT order when on to find misconduct in OIOS. On December 31, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Martin Nesirky:

Inner City Press: there was a decision in the last week by the Dispute Tribunal on the Head… Acting Head of Investigations for OIOS [Office for Internal Oversight Services], Michael Dudley, and it seemed to… it was pretty damning and it said that evidence was altered and withheld in an investigation of the UN Medical Service. So, I wanted to know, now that that investigation, or the Dispute Tribunal process is finished, what is the thinking of OIOS in terms of a Head of Investigations that was found by a UN body to have altered it or withheld evidence?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I do not speak on behalf of the Office of Internal Oversight. As you know, it reports separately, so therefore, I will check to see if they have anything to say. But I do not speak on their behalf.

  In the two weeks since, Nesirky has not returned with anything from OIOS. But whistleblowers have provided Inner City Press with OIOS director Carman Lapointe's internal OIOS email:

Dear Colleagues:

A number of you and others have expressed concern about the possible fallout from this recent judgement and have asked what OIOS management is doing, if anything, in response.

First of all, as the judgement itself is subject to potential appeal, it would be inappropriate for me to comment publicly on a matter that cannot yet be considered final.

Nevertheless, management in OIOS is not doing nothing....Specifically with regard to the handling of reports of possible misconduct by staff of the Investigations Division, there are also developments ongoing. A formal group has recently been formed of representatives of investigative functions in the United Nations, its separately administered funds and programs and specialised agencies. While the draft Charter for the group is currently being consulted, its work has already begun. A formal mechanism has been outlined and proposed for the handling of complaints against staff members of the member organizations' investigative units. The mechanism will provide for independent investigation of such complaints to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest. This mechanism has already been operating informally, and will be formalised following review and adoption by member organizations.

Finally, as you are aware, we are currently working with an organizational development specialist to diagnose and hopefully improve the less than ideal work atmosphere, particularly in the New York office of the division. I hope that 2014 will be a turnaround year, where our competent and professional investigators will be able to direct their energies to their work and the important difference we make to transparency and accountability in our organization.

Despite all the changes that have taken place and are underway, rest assured that OIOS senior management is actively reviewing this judgment carefully to determine whether additional actions may be appropriate.

  Further action is clearly not only appropriate, but needed. Meanwhile an account by another media, that was nowhere on the UN Medical Service story, reports on the UNDT decision which specifically names Inner City Press by saying only that the story was was broken when "evidence was leaked to a blogger at the UN;" a Mission in the UN is trying similar strong-arming about another Inner City Press expose. This is why the new Free UN Coalition for Access is needed. Watch this site.

   

On Indian Diplomat Khobragade, UN Won't Say If It Told US Of Her Accreditation, Stonewalls on Dudley & OIOS, Bax & UNOPS

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 31 -- Back on December 26 Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's two top spokespeople to

"please confirm that Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade was accredited to this session of the UN General Assembly, that the UN accreditation runs through December 31, and state if such accreditation confers full diplomatic immunity."

  But for five days, the UN spokespeople provided no answer at all. So at the last UN noon briefing of the year on December 31, Inner City Press asked spokesperson Martin Nesirky in person about the immunity, and also if the UN had informed the US, as "host country," of Khobragade's accreditation to the General Assembly.

  Although he had the question in writing for five days, Nesirky said he'd have to check with the UN Office of Legal Affairs; he insisted the question is mostly or almost entirely between the Indian authorities and the US as host country. Video here and embedded below.

  Well, no - the question of whether the UN informed the US of of Ms. Khobragade's accreditation is for the UN to answer. And the UN should answer on that type of immunity being accredited to the UNGA provides.

  This dodging is more and more the rule: also at the December 31 noon briefing, when Inner City Press asked about a ruling by the UN's own Dispute Tribunal that its acting head of investigations Michael Dudley"altered and withheld" evidence about scandal in the UN Medical Service(which Inner City Press exclusively uncovered), Nesirky said he doesn't speak for the unit Dudley works in, the Office of Internal Oversight Management, but that he'd ask them for an answer. OK - but when? Next year?

Footnote: The UN Dispute Tribunal ruling on Dudley cites Inner City Press' reporting, and calls Inner City Press "a daily online media outlet that specializes in reporting on the United Nations." Inner City Press on December 31 also asked about another case it first exposed, that of David Bax of the UN Mine Action Service in Mogadishu sharing genetic information with US intelligence and other abuses. 

  The UN alongside trying to rehabilitate Bax tried to put the clamp on any follow up by saying the Office of Project Support is investigating. But it's been six months now. We'll have more on the UNOPS, and who will head it, soon. Watch this site.

   

With UN Chief Investigator Charged with Retaliation, OIOS Spins

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 31 -- While the UN refuses to answer Press questions about charges against its chief investigator Michael Dudley, on Monday the UN Spokesperson sent the press a defensive statement from the Office for Internal Oversight Services, disputing that there has been a fall off in cases pursued.

But Dudley himself in a case closing memo stated that outside contractors and even UN staff as soon as they retire are of less concern, to put it diplomatically.

More than a week ago, prior to the US House of Representatives hearing on UN corruption, including the issues surrounding Mr. Dudley, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky:

“Michael Dudley, the acting head of OIOS' Investigations Division, is under investigation, for among other things, retaliation and evidence tampering. Given that Ban Ki-moon says he prides himself on the transparency of his administration, what specifically are the facts surrounding the investigation process regarding Mr. Dudley, and will the UN be reassigning him to other duties during the investigation?”

After at first ignoring the question and declining to even acknowledge it, finally Nesirky's deputy Farhan Haq responded that “On Michael Dudley's case, the case is ongoing before the Dispute Tribunal and we would have no comment as it proceeds.”

But the question was, “will the UN be reassigning him to other duties during the investigation?” It is inappropriate for the UN to not answer that one way or another, particularly as regards its chief investigator.

For now we note that in connection with the House of Representatives hearing, GAP urged

“That the UN Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services appoint a qualified Director to the OIOS Investigations Division (OIOS/ID), the unit responsible for the investigation of misconduct and whistleblower cases. OIOS/ID has been without a permanent director for more than three years and the current acting director is under investigation for allegedly retaliating against two whistleblowers.”

Here is OIOS' statement sent out Monday by Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson's office, on which we will have more:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply ]at] un.org
Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:11 AM
Subject: Note to correspondents from the Office for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)
OIOS Response to PTF Caseload Follow-up Articles

With regard to recent misinformation appearing in the press on the matter of Procurement Task Force (PTF) cases transferred back to the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) following the expiration of the PTF’s mandate, the current Under-Secretary-General of OIOS, Ms. Carman Lapointe, has set the record straight, indicating that:

· The 175 cases handed back to OIOS translated into 162 cases, once duplications and consolidations were sorted out;

· Of the 162, sixty-two were closed within six months by a Transition Team established to ensure continuity—a team primarily comprised of eleven former PTF members;

· Fully 123 cases were closed by the end of November 2009, within eleven months of the end of the PTF;

· Today, only ten cases remain "open", all in the lowest priority category as determined by the PTF itself and subsequently confirmed by former PTF members on the Transition Team;

· No outstanding PTF investigation was closed by the Transition Team, or subsequently by OIOS, without justification for doing so being documented by the investigators and approved by OIOS management.

Furthermore, no cutback in the pursuit of investigations into corruption and fraud has occurred. All reports of any such activity continue to be investigated as a high priority, given their potential for financial loss and damage to institutional integrity.

Ms. Lapointe replaces former OIOS chief Inga Britt-Ahlenius, who has just published a book savaging Ban Ki-moon's leadership. One assumes that Ban's office is keeping a closer eye on OIOS and its new chief. So will we.

Inner City Press has received a number of anonymous telephone calls defending Mr. Dudley, and would be eager to hear more -- especially on the record. Watch this site.

As UN Corruption Hearings Loom, Ban Team Ignores Reform & Elections Questions

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 23 -- Two days before hearings about problems in the UN of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the US House of Representatives, Ban's spokespeople refused to answer basic questions about the case against the UN's lead investigator and Ban's admitted delays in reform.

Even on an African election Ban said he would be “following with anticipation,” his Spokesperson's Office refused to answer questions about the UN's role in irregularities in voting.

This followed a January 21 threat by lead Ban spokesman Martin Nesirky to no longer answer questions from the Press rather than state how the Ban administration enforces the UN's own rules.

Midday on January 22, Inner City Press submitted to Nesirky and a staffer basic questions including:

Ban Ki-moon is quoted by Bloomberg, which he sought out, that Congressional Republicans' "only complaint they may have is the lack of much faster progress than they might have expected.” What specific areas of "progress" was the SG referring to? Namely, which areas does the SG acknowledge not having met expectations and for which progress should have been made "faster"?

Michael Dudley, the acting head of OIOS' Investigations Division, is under investigation, for among other things, retaliation and evidence tampering. Given that Ban Ki-moon says he prides himself on the transparency of his administration, what specifically are the facts surrounding the investigation process regarding Mr. Dudley, and will the UN be reassigning him to other duties during the investigation?

Not only did Nesirky not answer these on January 22 - he and his deputy Farhan Haq also ignored the questions on January 23, when posed in relation to the upcoming House hearing, failing to even acknowledge the questions.

Nesirky's job description states that he “answers press queries in person, by telephone and e-mail, around the clock... including ability to present and defend difficult positions often in unanticipated situations.”

On January 21, after he left the briefing room amid unanswered questions, Nesirky's Office put out this statement, in his own name:

Statement Attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General: Elections in the Central African Republic

The Secretary-General will be following with anticipation the presidential and legislative elections due to be held on 23 January in the Central African Republic... The United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic (BINUCA) and the UN Country Team have been working with the Central African authorities to help consolidate peace in the country.

It is not clear under Ban and Nesirky what “following with anticipation” means. On January 23 Inner City Press asked Nesirky and Haq:

What is the UN's comment on, involvement in and action on the reported delays and irregularities at the polls in Central African Republic? See, e.g., http://www.minews26.com/content/?p=4457 & http://af.reuters.com/article/centralAfricanRepublicNews/idAFLDE70M09J20110123?sp=true

More than six hours later, the question about breaking news of irregularities in this election Ban was supposedly “following with anticipation” was not even acknowledged. This is the UN of Ban and his staff, including Nesirky. The hearings are brewing in DC. Watch this site.