UNITED
NATIONS, April
9 -- Even when
the whistle
is blown in
the UN's lack
of effective
protection for
whistleblowers,
the UN's
response is
first to
refuse to
comment, then
to churn out
statistics
that experts
in the field
view as
misleading.
On
April
8, Inner
City Press
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
deputy
spokesman
Eduardo Del
Buey:
Inner
City Press:
There was a
press
conference
earlier today
across the
street by the
UNMIK [United
Nations
Interim
Administration
Mission in
Kosovo]
whistleblower,
Mr. [James]
Wasserstrom,
and he is
calling on
the US to
implement a
law which
would cut 15
per cent of
the funding
by the US to
the UN for
failure to
protect
whistleblowers.
And one of
the questions
that arose
that I would
specifically
want to get
your
response to is
whether in the
whole course
of his case,
which has
been pretty
widely
reported, the
Secretary-General
or his team
has
ever sought to
meet with GAP
[Government
Accountability
Project] or
with Mr.
Wasserstrom in
terms of
trying to
reform what
seems to be a
broken
whistleblower
protection
system? I was
told by GAP
that the
Secretary-General
has never
responded even
to letters
from them. So
how can that
be?
Deputy
Spokesperson
Del Buey:
Well, Matthew,
the only thing
I can say is
the
matter is
under
consideration
for appeal to
the UN Appeals
Tribunal,
and of course,
we cannot
comment on it
until the
litigation is
over.
Inner
City Press: He
was
complaining
this morning
that, despite
what he
called
retaliation,
what was found
to be
retaliation,
he was awarded
$65,000, which
doesn’t even
cover his
costs; he says
other
whistleblowers
won’t come
forward. Is
the
Secretary-General
trying
to reduce that
further or
does he also
feel that his
award means
that
whistleblowers
essentially
will just stay
quiet?
Deputy
Spokesperson:
Matthew, as I
said, that the
issue is under
litigation,
I cannot
comment on it.
The
next day,
April 9, Inner
City Press
asked Del Buey
a more generic
question: how
many claims of
retaliation
has the UN
Ethics Office
process, and
many has it
verified or
“established”?
Later
on April 9,
the UN sent
Inner City
Press the
following
statistics:
Subject:
Your
questions on
complaints
presented to
the Ethics
Office
Date:
Tue, Apr 9,
2013 at 3:40
PM
From: UN
Spokesperson -
Do Not Reply
[at] un.org
To:
Matthew.Lee
[at]
innercitypress
[dot] com
In
response to
your question
at the noon
briefing, we
can say that
from
August 2006 to
July 2012, the
Ethics Office
initiated 106
formal
retaliation
complaint
preliminary
reviews. Of
those 106
cases, 1
remained under
review and 18
were closed as
a result
either of the
complainant
having
withdrawn or
abandoned his
or her
complaint or
of
the case
having been
resolved
informally to
the
satisfaction
of the
complainant.
For the
remaining 87
complaints,
the Office
determined
that 9 had
presented
prima facie
cases of
retaliation
and referred
those cases
for formal
investigation.
Investigations
were completed
for five of
the cases,
after which
the Office
determined
that
retaliation
had been
established
for one of
them. Four
cases are
still pending
completion of
the
investigation.
Even
though, or
perhaps
because, Ban
Ki-moon has
not responded
to their
inquiries, the
Government
Accountability
Project are
among the
experts in
this field. So
Inner City
Press asked
GAP's Shelley
Walden
about the UN's
response. Here
is GAP's
reply:
“This
information
appeared in
the UN
Secretariat
Ethics
Office’s 2012
report (see
A/67/306,
para. 47). The
Ethics Office
says it
initiated
106 formal
retaliation
complaint
preliminary
reviews, but
if you add
up all of the
protection
against
retaliation
inquiries
mentioned in
the Ethics
Office’s
reports from
2006-2012, the
number comes
to
343...
“The
Ethics Office
says that it
completed a
preliminary
review in 87
cases
and ultimately
determined
that
retaliation
was
established in
one
case. But
whether you
use the 87
number, 106
number or 343
number,
the UN Ethics
Office has
still failed
to protect 99%
of UN staff
members who
have requested
protection
against
retaliation.
“The
reason that we
tend to use
the 343 number
is because we
don’t know
how many of
these people
had valid
retaliation
complaints
that the
Ethics Office
failed to
review, due to
lack of
jurisdiction
or for
other reasons.
We know, for
example, that
the Ethics
Office will
not
review
retaliation
complaints
from UN police
officers as
they have
concluded that
they are not
protected by
the UN
whistleblower
protection
policy when
they report
misconduct. So
those kinds of
cases are
reflected in
the 343 number
but are most
likely not
reflected in
the 106
number. To be
fair, the
Ethics Office
has
informed us
that some of
the 343 cases
were not
whistleblower
cases
(i.e. claims
in which the
staff member
was not a
whistleblower
and
merely wanted
to contest a
performance
review). They
also include
cases in which
someone
requested
advice
regarding the
protection
against
retaliation
policy, but
did not submit
a complaint.”
Still.
And what about
the UN's now
clear
retaliation
against the
Press,
going as far
as a
non-consensus
March 18 raid
of its office,
and
March 21
leaking to
BuzzFeed of
photographs of
its desk and
bookshelf?
We'll have
more on this
-- on the
retaliation
front too,
we hope. Watch
this site.
, 
