press conference by director of ethics office on Secretary-General’s new bulletin

The Secretary-General’s new ethics bulletin extended the same ethics-related protections to employees of United Nations funds and programmes as those already afforded to Secretariat staff, Robert Benson, Director of the United Nations Ethics Office, said at a Headquarters press conference today.

He said the bulletin, the result of a 26-27 October meeting of the Chief Executive Board, created a framework within which a unified set of ethical standards and policies would be established by the United Nations Ethics Office and applied as of 1 January 2008.  If a fund or programme had not designated an ethics officer by that time, the Ethics Office would take on the matter.

Where a fund or programme had established an ethics office, he said, that office would be mandated to function independently; provide confidential advice; administer a financial disclosure programme and a “protection from retaliation” policy; and develop standards, training and education on ethics issues.  The offices would function independently and report directly to the Executive Heads.

He said that, as Chair of the Ethics Committee, he would provide “functional leadership” to ethics officers so as to ensure consistent delivery of ethics-related services.  An “Ethics Safety Valve” -- a governance model seen in both the private and public sectors -- would allow the head of the ethics office in any fund or programme to seek guidance from the Director on ethics-related matters.  For their part, staff members could request the Ethics Office to look into a matter if the fund or programme office concerned had not provided advice within 45 days, or formally considered a request for protection from retaliation.  They could also seek protection from the Office of the Director in instances where a fund or programme lacked a protection-from-retaliation policy.  They also had the right to appeal to his Office in such cases.

Regarding oversight, he said the United Nations Ethics Committee would review the annual reports issued by the ethics office of each fund or programme and make recommendations, which would be included in the annual reports of the Executive Heads of the funds and programmes to their Executive Boards.  To ensure transparency, the Secretary-General’s Ethics Office must include a summary in its annual report to the General Assembly of cases referred to the Ethics Committee.

Asked how many funds or programmes had established ethics offices, or whether he expected most to use his Office in the Secretariat, he said the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Food Programme (WFP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) had designated ethics officers.  A fund or programme could initiate the drafting of an ethics policy, which must be approved by the Ethics Committee to ensure consistent application.

To a question about funds and programmes that had not yet established an ethics committee, he clarified that there was only one United Nations Ethics Committee, of which he was Chair.  Committee membership would comprise ethics officers appointed by the Executive Heads of the funds and programmes.

He added that he was in a D2-level position and did not know the level of those to be appointed ethics officers, as the budget for those positions would not be attributed to his Office.  As for problems investigating senior-level officials, there would be no difficulty dealing with issue that the Director was mandated to address.  As there was no appeal course to override the Director’s decisions, he would ensure he had all the facts in any case brought to him.

Asked whether he was satisfied with the response to his 14 August letter to Kemal Dervis, UNDP Administrator, and whether he had thought he would have had responsibility over the entire United Nations system when assuming his job, Mr. Benson responded that applying ethics to an organization required knowledge of the machinery.  In seven months on the job, he had undergone “an intense learning curve” vis-à-vis the different organs and specialized agencies, and had been informed that some funds and programmes were administered separately.

He noted that the UNDP case was under review, as mandated by the Programme’s Executive Board, and the accountability established for it was with an independent panel.  A mechanism to seek appeal from the Ethics Office had been built into the terms of reference of that panel.  As to whether rules taking effect in 2008 would apply to previous cases, retroactivity would be examined on a case-by-case basis.

On the logic of the safety valve, and whether a UNDP ethics officer, for example, might refer a case to his Office, he said the bulletin allowed him to provide “functional leadership” to those entities, adding that maintaining independence, confidentiality and the best interests of the Organization was of paramount importance to being an ethics adviser.  The ability of ethics officers to refer cases to the Chair of the Ethics Committee was a model used in the public sector, often in relation to financial activities, and it was a good development vis-à-vis United Nations policy.  Alleged retaliation by the head of a fund or programme was an example of when the safety valve could be used.

With regard to the number of staff who had complied with the Secretary-General’s call for voluntary public disclose their finances, he said financial disclosure, as mandated by the General Assembly, was to be in confidence.  The Ethics Office had developed a voluntary public disclosure policy, approved by the Secretary-General, for the Under-Secretary-General and Assistant Secretary-General levels, and needed their consent to allow PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) to release their information to him so he could prepare the public disclosure document.  No one had yet made public disclosure of their finances, as information was still being collected.

Asked whether there should be one unified Ethics Office for the entire United Nations system, he said ethics was a fluid subject and the Secretary-General’s bulletin had moved the Organization’s ethics situation forward.  The idea to have system-wide application of the Ethics Office had been incorporated into the Secretary-General’s annual report and was before General Assembly.

As for the problems that had made ethics reform necessary, he said a case had been brought to his attention of an individual seeking protection against retaliation.  After examining the matter, he had written a letter to the Executive Head of UNDP, which had ultimately made its way into the media.  Having reviewed the information available at the time, if he had had jurisdiction to proceed, he would have ascertained the existence of a prima facie case of whistleblower protection.  However, due to a lack of jurisdiction, he had not been able to proceed further, and it had been clear at the time of writing the letter that he did not have jurisdiction.

Asked if it had damaged his Office when UNDP, having seen his recommendation, had ultimately followed up on the case independently, he pointed out that some good had come of the situation with the Secretary-General’s bulletin, which addressed the issue of jurisdiction.  He had no problem performing his mandate and would act in the best interests of the United Nations, not of management, staff counsel or individuals.  It would be in the Organization’s best interests to get to the bottom of staff problems.

On the involvement of PriceWaterhouseCoopers with the United Nations, he said that under the financial disclosure programme, confidential information about an individual’s assets and liabilities, and those of their spouse and dependants, was given only to the company, which would identify any potential conflicts and advise on resolving them.  Should a disagreement arise in that process, the Ethics Office would review the information.

Clarifying differences between the word “fund” used by his Office and “organ” used in the bulletin, he said the Office of Legal Affairs had changed the term to “separately administered organs” and both terms referred to United Nations funds.

In response to other questions, Mr. Benson said his experience as a lawyer at the United States Department of Justice would help him identify legal issues easily, but he would need to seek expertise to ensure that the right answers to such issues were found.

On whistleblowers protection and the Organization’s internal administration of justice, he said that even within the current protection-from-retaliation policy, legitimate mechanisms must be recognized.  Details depended on each case.

He said that in defining the Organization’s interests, he would use the United Nations Charter as a starting point, and “work down” from there to General Assembly resolutions and any policies and programmes developed in line with them.  It was important to look at the “panoply” of the legislative framework.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record