After
30 Year Workers Fired at UN, Protest Targets Kane Words &
Ban's House
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
May 19 -- The elevator operators fired at the UN on May 1
demonstrated on Thursday directly across First Avenue from Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon's office.
“The
UN talks about labor rights,”
one of them told Inner City Press, “and then they fire people who
worked there for thirty and forty years.”
A
week ago, Inner
City Press asked the
head of UN Management Angela Kane why the UN had
switched from a union to a non-union contractor for the elevator
operators. She replied that the union status was not a criteria in
the UN's selection process.
Kane's
statement
was repeated at Thursday's demonstration, with disdain. A
representative of the well-known New York Local 32-BJ suggested
coming back to the UN, and even going to Ban Ki-moon's house.
The
flier for the
demostration suggested calling the Chief of the UN Procurement
Division, Dmitri Dovgopoly. But it is not clear who decided to
separate the elevator operator contract from the wider cleaning
contract, and to award the former to the non-union A-1 Offices
Services.
Protest on May 19, Ban Ki-moon and his house not shown
Afterward,
Inner
City Press asked UN Controller Jun Yamasaki walking on First Avenue
about the protest. “Is that why the police are here?” he asked,
pointing at police cars. Actually, the protest was entirely
peaceful, punctuated with drum and flute Latin music the organizers
links to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues meeting inside
the UN building.
“You heard what
Angela said,” Yamasaki said. Yes, Inner City Press heard it. And so
did the union members, and it seems they are not convinced. Watch
this site.
Footnote: Local 32BJ
is not the only union Ban's UN has trouble with. In March, the New York
AFL-CIO wrote to Ban about his administration's ongoing attempt to
eliminate union positions for broadcast engineers. Inner City Press has
repeatedly asked about the letter, with the UN each time saying it is
"studying" the letter. It's a mere page an a half long....
* * *
UN
Says
Syria
Has Paid in Full, US Owes $1B, Of Contracts & Union Busting
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
May
13 -- The UN's top management official Angela Kane
congratulated North Korea, Syria and some 20 other countries on
Friday for having paid in full what they owe to the UN.
Meanwhile
Kane's colleague Controller Jun Yamasaki told Inner City
Press that the
United States owes the UN $400 million for peacekeeping, and $700
million on its “regular assessment.”
Inner
City
Press
asked Ms. Kane about findings of
procurement irregularities in the
UN's contracting with PriceWaterhouseCoopers for its so-called
“UMOJA” technology project. Despite the clear language of the
UN's own investigative audit, which Inner City Press was first to publish,
Ms. Kane called the irregularities only “procedural.”
When
Inner
City
Press asked her about the even more damning findings of nepotism and
the hiring of friends by UMOJA chief Paul Van Essche, Ms. Kane said
that investigation is still ongoing.
There
are
mounting
charges against the UN for being anti-labor. Inner City Press asked
Kane about the elimination
of union jobs for broadcast engineers, and
outright firings of the UN's elevator operations.
Ms.
Kane said of
the latter that the UN chooses the low bidder, and that the
unionization status of a bidder is not a factor. Inner City Press
asked, why not hire child labor then?
UN's Ban & Kane over left
shoulder, CMP Alderstein at right, action on OIOS on ERP not shown
On
the broadcast
engineers, Ms. Kane said they are free to re-apply for their jobs in
a non-union status. The UN has yet to respond to a March 23 letter
from the AFL-CIO of New York State, continually telling Inner City
Press that it is “studying” the letter.
Studying, it
seems, until
the June 30 expiration of the union contract. And so it goes at the
UN.
Footnote:
Kane
said
that at the UN, audits are public. If that's true going
forward, it would be an improvement. Kane's predecessor Alicia
Barcena openly discussed implementing a Freedom of Information policy
at the UN, but it has yet to happen.
* * *
Despite
Scathing
Audit
of
PWC Wrongly Selected, UN Claims All Fine With Umoja
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March
5
-- Even in those instances when the UN is
forced to catch itself in irregularities, in overpaying for services,
hiring friends and cronies, rather than answer questions or take
action, it makes accusations of error and clings to the status quo.
A
year ago, Inner
City Press wrote
and asked
Secretary
General
Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin
Nesirky about a pattern of hiring fraud, including the doctoring of
resumes to omit previous supervisory relationships, documented in
resumes leaked to Inner City Press by a whistleblower.
While
there
was
not
definitive answer at the time, an audit by the UN's Office of
Internal Oversight Services verified all of these irregularities,
resume doctoring and more, including overpaying
PriceWaterhouseCoopers for a contract for the UN's Enterprise
Resource Management, called UMOJA.
Inner
City
Press
asked
Nesirky for a response, but received more. Finally last week
Inner City Press exclusively published
the complete
OIOS audit -- click here to view
-- and
on the morning of March 1 asked Nesirky in writing:
Paragraph
73
of
the
OIOS
audit states that Angela Kane accepted responsibility
for identifying who should be held accountable for procurement
irregularities relating to her department's award of a contract to
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The same paragraph states that her office
agreed to issue a report within 30 days, the deadline of which would
have been September 24th, 2010. So the question is, did Angela Kane
identify who was responsible for these irregularities by September
24, 2010, and who, if anyone, was held accountable? Does Angela Kane
still believe that Paul van Essche is the right man for the job, and
did she know Mr van Essche prior to his appointment as Umoja chief?
Nesirky
didn't
respond
to
the question, or even acknowledge receipt of the e-mail.
So at the noon briefing, Inner City Press in person asked
him:
Inner
City
Press:
on
OIOS, I had wanted to ask this; it has been a long
time brewing. Almost a year ago there was this, issues arose about
the hiring within the Umoja project, about Paul van Essche hiring
friends and colleagues in violation of rules. And now the OIOS
report itself has become public, and in it, it says, it’s pretty
damning, it talks about PricewaterhouseCoopers not being a low
bidder; talks about all the hiring, and it says, Angela Kane said
that she would respond to this report and take action in some way on
accountability by 24 September last year, 2010. So, I am wondering, I
know you didn’t; I am not sure if you have issued some kind of a
statement about this yet, what action has been taken on this OIOS
report about systematic problems within the $300 million Umoja
project?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Two
things:
One is that we’ve answered at length and on
more than one occasion on this topic, and I don’t really have
anything to add except, for a second point, which is that some
aspects of the audit report are being still closely studied, to look
at what action may be needed. And that is all I have to say on it.
Inner
City
Press:
But
I mean, if it paints a picture of hiring
irregularities, and is PricewaterhouseCoopers, given this report, do
they still have the contract? What, I just want, I know that you
have issued something, but I am not sure as to the two main
components, the head of Umoja and PWC; what’s happening?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
We’ve
issued
quite a lot of detailed responses to
questions on this from you and from others, and I don’t have
anything further to add.
Inner
City
Press:
But
I haven’t really seen the response.
Spokesperson
Nesikry:
I
don’t
have anything further to add at this point,
Matthew.
Later
on
March
1,
Inner City Press e-mailed Nesirky asking to see these supposed
previous answers:
“What
answers have you previously provided to the media inquiring about the
OIOS audit of Umoja, and what's the basis of your statement today at
noon that you have provided extensive answers to such questions.
Please provide the answers you referred to.”
The next day,
Nesirky sent this:
From:
UN
Spokesperson
-
Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2011
at 10:56 AM
Subject: Your questions on Umoja
To: Matthew.Lee
[at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Martin Nesirky [at] un.org
Hi
--
you
had
received the following answers on Umoja on 14 February; we
have nothing to add at this time.
[Q]
Last week you said you were still developing a response to the WSJ
story about OIOS having found serious irregularities concerning Paul
van Essche's management of the Umoja project. In March of last year,
you confirmed in response to my question that OIOS was undertaking a
separate investigation of van Escche's role in concealing his prior
relationship with a subordinate he hired for the project.
Now
it
is
reported
that “Van Essche... hired one official, who had been
turned down for a lower post, to a more senior position when he took
over the project, the report said. This official was hired after he
changed his CV to remove Van Essche’s name as his supervisor in
three previous jobs, the report says.”
Question
1
Please
this
morning
provide an update about these two investigations -- what
were the results of them, and what action is the SG taking, if any?
And does the SG still believe that Mr Van Escche is the right man for
implementing the Umoja project?
The
questions
raised
relate
to issues that were reported in August 2010
in an internal audit conducted by OIOS. As part of that audit
process, management responded to the findings and recommendations. In
some cases the recommendations were accepted and implemented and
in other management undertook to conduct further examinations in
order to close the recommendation. This examination by management
is still in progress and we have no further comment to make at this
stage.
Question
2
Also,
please
confirm
that Ludovic van Essche, who worked for the UN, was
Paul Van Escche's father, and that Paul Van Escche's mother knows and
visited Angela Kane recently. Also, please state the status of Ms.
Kane as head of the Department of Management, and when she will give
the next of her promised briefings.
The
UN
Secretariat
is
not aware of any person by the name of Ludovic van
Essche being a UN employee. Ms. Kane does not know Paul van Essche's
mother and has never met her.
But
back on
February 15, Inner City Press had asked a follow up question, which
Nesirky never answered or acknowledged:
In
light
of
yesterday's
van Essche family answers, please see
http://news.rootsweb.com/th/read/BELGIUM-ROOTS/1998-10/0909790152
and
http://bit.ly/gXn2BG
Is
this
Paul
van
Essche's father? Does Ms. Kane not know him? Again,
what is Ms. Kane's status as head of the Department of Management?
When will she belatedly give a briefing?
Not
only has
Angela Kane not given a briefing, Nesirky has not even acknowledged
the repeated request that she give one. In the interim, after Inner
City Press' exclusive publication of the OIOS audit, in connection
with a meeting of Kane's Department of Management, the following
e-mail was widely sent out in the Department of Management by a
whisteblower or reformer, including the OIOS audit as
exclusively published by Inner City Press
From:
[
]
@gmail.com
Today,
Ms.
Kane
is
conducting a Town Hall on Accountability in the UN. What
a hypocrisy? Attached is an audit report of a division reporting
directly to her. What has she done about it? Nothing!!! Any other
person doing half of this would have been immediately suspended or
fired. According to OIOS, there before has there been a single
person who violates as many serious rules and in such a short time.
Ms.
Kane,
accountability
is
not lip service. It is through actions –
direct and indirect. And also appearing to be accountable. Leaders
set examples for everyone to follow; not set up different rules for
themselves and their friends.
Many
attendees
forwarded
this
e-mail to Inner City Press, and reported on growing
questions about Ms. Kane and more senior UN leadership. Finally,
after refusing to answer or acknowledge questions or requests for a
briefing by Ms. Kane, on Friday March 4 Nesirky's office sent the
following, which despite substantial contradiction by the OIOS report
itself, we publish in full:
From:
UN
Spokesperson
-
Do Not Reply [a] un.org
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011
at 10:56 AM
Subject: Response to your reporting on the Umoja
project
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Cc: Martin
Nesirky [at] un.org>
In
response
to
your
queries related to the Umoja project I would like to
share some clarifications:
The
article
of
the
Inner City Press entitled "UN
Corruption Scandal
in ERP Extends from Hiring & PWC to Capital Master Plan",
dated 28 February 2010, contains a number of errors.
There
is
no
"corruption
scandal" related to the Umoja project as
the title of the article erroneously suggests.
No
vendor
was
favoured
over other bidders during the selection process.
Bids were compared on a like-for-like basis rather than at face value
to ensure a common factor for evaluation. The evaluation was
conducted on an overall best value for money basis, and PwC received
the highest combined score.
Prior
to
the
awarding
of the contract, the case was referred to the
Headquarters Committee on Contracts for review to ensure adherence to
the UN Financial Regulations governing procurement. The Committee
examined the summarized technical and financial evaluations of the
proposals received from vendors and concluded that no breach of UN
financial rules occurred in the procurement process.
The
allocated
budget
for
project design services has not been and indeed
cannot be exceeded, as the contract and the UN financial rules
prevent any expenditure from going above the budgetary limit. So
under any circumstances, the vendor cannot bill the Organization
above the specified budgetary limit. Payment under the contract is
contingent on the actual delivery of services.
The
OIOS
report
that
you refer to is an audit report that was prepared as
part of regular programme of work of the Office of Internal Oversight
Services. As per standard practice, accepted audit recommendations
have been referred to the substantive areas and are at various stages
of implementation.
Umoja
maintains
a
"zero
tolerance" policy, insisting on 100 per
cent compliance with the UN's rules, regulations and ethical
directives. It is an initiative that is fundamental to the
Secretary-General's ability to provide an efficient, transparent and
service-oriented Secretariat. Umoja will enhance accountability,
transparency and internal controls for all types of resources.
While
we
publish
this
in full, it should be compared to the OIOS audit
itself, and to
the timeline above. Among many others, this question remains
unanswered:
Paragraph
73
of
the
OIOS audit states that Angela Kane accepted responsibility
for identifying who should be held accountable for procurement
irregularities relating to her department's award of a contract to
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The same paragraph states that her office
agreed to issue a report within 30 days, the deadline of which would
have been September 24th, 2010. So the question is, did Angela Kane
identify who was responsible for these irregularities by September
24, 2010, and who, if anyone, was held accountable? Does Angela Kane
still believe that Paul van Essche is the right man for the job, and
did she know Mr van Essche prior to his appointment as Umoja chief?
This
UN
does
not
appear to be accountable or well run, including to many
of those who work within it and of the wider public. Watch this site.
, 
