|
|||||
UN Performance Problems UN Management Accountability Struggles Where is the Rule of Law? Inadequate UN Oversight Recent Developments
|
|
SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS --
OHR (Mis-)management
-OIOS: The (half-hearted) first five
years
-Poor succession, and the second five
years
-Investigation efforts: Is the OIOS a fig
leaf? -The third five years of the OIOS begin, in
turmoil
-A small, outdated unit in a big, fast-changing
world
-Can a non-performing JIU go on
forever?
-- Other Multilateral Accountability
Struggles Management
accountability must be accompanied by oversight mechanisms to provide an
independent check on performance and a firm stimulus to improvement. In
the case of the UN, this includes the human resources department for
personnel policy and accountability issues (OHRM), the internal oversight
body (the OIOS), and an external body (the JIU). In addition,
legislative oversight is provided by the General Assembly and its Fifth
(Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, and various "expert bodies".
Further, large modern organizations are becoming more and more alike, and
it is useful to compare UN management accountability, oversight, and
governance struggles with those of multinational corporations and with
other major international organizations. Both groups have encountered
severe accountability problems, but in general they seem to be responding
better to these challenges than the UN. These sections, unlike
the chronological quotations in the performance problems section, combine
excerpt quotes with brief IO Watch commentary and summaries, in order to
piece together a "story line."
This connective material is required primarily because the UN's
lack of serious attention to management accountability, transparency,
corruption, and oversight issues means that relevant "needles" must be dug
out of the UN information "haystack" and then linked together. This situation of course
underscores a long-standing UN aversion to proper performance,
accountability, and reporting processes. As was true for the
management accountability struggles section, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides useful overall guidance. The OECD, again, is a group of 30
member countries committed to democratic government and the
market economy. It has
extensive publications and statistics activities; a global reach through
active relationships with some 70 other
countries, NGOs and
civil society; and a prominent role in fostering good
governance in the public
service and in corporate
activity (for further information, see http://www.oecd.org/home/ .) In 2001 the OECD and
the Organization of American States (OAS) organized a forum in Brazil with
the common aim of building accountable and transparent public
administrations that serve their citizens' needs. An Annex in their report presented
an OECD policy brief on building public trust. It described what makes an
effective and comprehensive ethics management policy, and suggested policy
directions to build its further use in public institutions, under the
following headings: "Core values underpin public
service Standards of behaviour set
boundaries for conduct Putting values into effect starts
with communication Ensuring integrity in daily
management Monitoring
compliance Taking action against
wrongdoing Citizens trust public institutions
if they know that public offices are
used for the public good
" "Annex
I: OECD public management policy brief on building public trust: Ethics
measures in OECD countries," in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Public sector transparency and accountability: Making it
happen, OECD, Paris, 2002, pp. 189-194. On the last three of
these OECD subheadings, the policy brief offered very useful overviews of
principles which are discussed throughout this IO Watch section on
accountability and oversight efforts: "Monitoring
compliance Sound ethics management not only
sets standards of behaviour but also monitors compliance with these
standards. Internal
control is widely used to detect individual irregularities and systemic
failures in OECD countries.
Internal control is accompanied
by independent scrutiny. This scrutiny keeps public
servants accountable for their actions
In virtually all countries, the
legislative branch undertakes reviews of public service activities. Other common types of scrutiny
range from external investigation by the Ombudsman or the Inspector
General to specific judicial or ethics reviews.
Reporting
misconduct by public servants
is either required by law and/or facilitated by organizational rules in
two-thirds of OECD countries.
A growing need to protect whistleblowers in the public service is
also visible across OECD countries.
the most commonly provided
safeguards are legal protection and anonymity. In two-thirds of OECD countries
citizens have access to services, such as complaint procedures, an
Ombudsman or Inspector General, and help desks or telephone lines,
enabling them to expose wrongdoing by public
servants." "Annex
I: OECD public management policy brief on building public trust: Ethics
measures in OECD countries," in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Public sector transparency and accountability: Making it
happen, OECD, Paris, 2002,
p. 192. "Taking action against
wrongdoing "Taking action against
violation of standards is the shared responsibility of managers and
external investigative bodies.
OECD countries recognize that disciplinary actions against a breach
of public service standards should be taken within the organization where
the breach occurred. All
governments have developed a general framework for disciplinary procedures
that both allows managers to impose timely and just sanctions and
guarantees a fair process for the public servants.
Although public service managers have the primary responsibility for initiating disciplinary measures in their agencies in a timely manner, they may also receive assistance from specific external institutions. These external institutions are the primary instruments for investigating and prosecuting misconduct in the public service. These bodies have the power to bring suspected cases of corruption directly to court in all OECD countries. Moreover, two-thirds of countries have procedures and mechanisms to enable the public to signal wrongdoing to bodies exercising independent scrutiny on public service activities." "Annex I: OECD public management policy brief on building public trust: Ethics measures in OECD countries," in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Public sector transparency and accountability: Making it happen, OECD, Paris, 2002, p. 192. [emphasis added] "Citizens trust public
institutions if they know that
public offices are used for the public good
Lessons from the OECD survey
suggest the following steps for building trust in public
institutions: ?
Defining a clear mission for the public service.
?
Safeguarding values while adapting to change.
?
Empowering both public servants and citizens to report misconduct.
?
Co-ordinating integrity measures: a precondition for success.
?
Shifting emphasis from enforcement to prevention.
?
Anticipating problems.
?
Taking
advantage of new technology.
?
the following steps are necessary
to build a consistent system of supportive mechanisms, namely the Ethics Infrastructure:
?
Communicate and inculcate core values and ethical standards for
public servants in order to provide clear guidance and advice to help
solve ethical dilemmas. ?
Promote
ethical standards by preventing situations prone to conflict of interest
and rewarding high standards of conduct through career
development. ?
Monitor
compliance and report, detect and discipline
wrongdoing." "Annex
I: OECD public management policy brief on building public trust: Ethics
measures in OECD countries," in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Public sector transparency and accountability: Making it
happen, OECD, Paris, 2002,
pp. 193-194. Unfortunately, UN
actions on these matters, as
discussed in other sections of this archive and in the following
subsections, fall woefully far short of meeting the basic criteria. The UN Secretariat has spent
considerable time talking about them, but has not yet provided the
professionalism and commitment required to ensure proper oversight to
combat corruption and
mismanagement, with severe negative consequences for the
Organization.
The following abbreviations of
major UN organizations and entities appear throughout this archive: ACABQ
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
ACC
Advisory Committee on Coordination (heads of UN system
agencies,
recently retitled "Chief Executives Board for Coordination")
Board of Auditors of the United
Nations CPC
Committee for Programme & Coordination
DAM
Department of Administration and Management (recently retitled the
Department of Management, DM) DPI
Department of Public Information DPKO
Department of Peace-keeping Operations ECOSOC
Economic and Social Council Fifth Committee
(Administrative and Budgetary) of the General Assembly
ICSC
International Civil Service Commission
JIU
Joint Inspection Unit
OIOS
Office of Internal Oversight Services
OHRM
Office of Human Resources Management UNCTAD
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNHCR
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNFPA
United Nations Population Fund
UNICEF
United Nations Children's Fund
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
WFP
World Food Programme
|
|||
