At
UN, Officers
Contest
Austerity, CMP
"Scam"
Contracts,
Chief Bongi in
the Dock
By
Matthew
Russell Lee,
Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
June 16 -- Two
weeks ago
Inner City
Press exclusively
reported
on a UN
Dispute
Tribunal
preliminary
injunction
which
confirmed
criticisms
long made of
fairness in
the UN
Department of
Safety and
Security by
whistleblowing
Security
officers and
Inner
City Press.
After
two weeks of
further
testimony,
summarized
below, now
chief David
Bongi is being
hauled in
front of the
UNDT or "in
the dock" as
some in
Security put
it.
It
all began, in
a sense, with
a leaked
master plan of
promotion
which
Inner City
Press obtained
and published
in 2009
entitled Possible
Transfers
and
Assignments /
Reassignments." The
list
undermined the
credibility of
interviews
that were
being
conducted,
implying that
some decisions
have already
been made.
And
so a Panel was
set
up, in UN
style, to
investigate.
But chief
Bruno Henn
refused to be
interviewed by
the Panel,
Inner City
Press learned.
Inner
City
Press then
covered Bongi
along with
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, Under
Secretary
General Greg
Starr, failing
to back up UN
Security after
they were
beaten by
guards for
Turkey's
Ergogan.
Inner
City Press
covered
Bongi most
recently after
exposing the
cover-up of 14
kilograms of
cocaine in the
UN mail room.
Both of these
stories were
stolen
without credit
by big media
at the UN, who
now after
Inner City
Press
complained
have set up
their own
Panel to seek
to expel Inner
City
Press. The UN
Dispute
Tribunal
probably can't
take that
case: but a
real court
could.
Anyway,
since the
preliminary
injunction,
our reporting
/
whistleblower
reporter finds
that
The
officers
are contending
that they are
not hired
under Capital
Master
Plan budget as
claimed by the
Chief of
Service and if
at all they
were, this was
not disclosed
to them at any
point prior to
the Town
Hall meeting
the Chief held
in February
2012.
The
officers
also testified
to the fact
that the
examination
and
competitive
panel
interview
planned by the
chief to fill
the vacant
regular budget
post was
unlawful as
there was no
other
department in
the UN that
practiced this
before renewal
of contract.
The
officers
testified that
contracts are
renewed based
on
satisfactory
performance
and obtaining
the necessary
licenses and
weapon permits
as stipulated
in the
original
vacancy
announcement
and as also
contained in
the original
letter sent
out by Dianna
Russler.
They
contend
that if at all
the service is
faced with
budget or
financial
issue that the
standard rule
of thumb
should have
applied which
is
1st in last
out.
So
what will
Bongi say?
Claimed
austerity
hurts.
Here
is from the
UNDT
decision of
late May
45.
Thus,
there are
significant
doubts whether
the reason for
the
proposed
exercise is
bona fide as
it appears
unsupported by
the
facts. If this
exercise were
due to the CMP
budget
limitations,
then
the 24 regular
budget posts
would not be
included in
the list of
posts open for
vacancies.
Furthermore,
the existence
of an actual
restructuring
plan, as
submitted by
the
Respondent, is
doubtful. No
evidence of
the existence
of an actual
restructuring
plan has been
provided. The
only remotely
relevant
record
provided to
the Tribunal
is an undated
document
“Basic
information on
evaluation
criteria
for the
Security
Officer
selection
process”,
which
generally
explains the
proposed
assessment
process.
However, the
status and the
authorship of
this document
have not been
explained to
the Tribunal.
Further, the
internal
vacancy
announcement
issued in
April 2012
does
not indicate
how many posts
are being
advertised. In
addition,
although the
Respondent
submits that
the funding
for the
Applicants’
posts will no
longer be
available, he
does not state
when exactly
such funding
will cease—in
fact, it
appears that
CMP-related
funding may be
available at
least until
2013 (see
Report of the
Secretary-General,
“Associated
costs related
to the capital
master
plan”,
A/63/582 (3
December
2008),
providing
estimated
costs for
2008–2013). It
is unclear on
what basis the
Respondent
submits that
“cutbacks
demand a
reduction from
85 Security
Officer
positions to
49 Security
Officer
positions”.
The sole
document
proffered in
support of
this
proposition—A/63/582—
does not
appear to
contain
this
information.
Thus, in view
of the factors
above,
substantial
doubts exist
with the
lawfulness of
the proposed
exercise.
56.
The
Tribunal gave
serious
consideration
to the issue
of the
duration
of the
suspension and
finds that, on
the
information
before it, the
exercise in
its present
form cannot
continue and
the suspension
on
the exercise
in its current
parameters
will remain in
place until
this case is
disposed of on
the merits.
There is
obviously a
need to
have some form
of resolution
of the
situation in
SSS, and the
present
judgment
should not be
interpreted
otherwise.
Whatever
process is
going to be
eventually
applied, even
in the absence
of a properly
promulgated
administrative
issuance, such
process must
be conducted
in compliance
with the basic
standards of
fairness and
reasonableness
and it must be
properly
documented.
Order
57.
The
decision
requiring the
Applicants to
undergo a
competitive
process
announced in
the SSS
bulletin for
6–9 April 2012
being
found prima
facie
unlawful, the
Tribunal
orders
suspension of
the
implementation
of the
decision to
carry out the
said
competitive
process until
the present
case is
disposed of on
the merits.
Watch
this site.