The hearing in the Nguyen-Kropp & Postica case was held in October 2013. It lasted a week. I decided I should attend because by now I had been forced down my own road to the UNDT and even at that time, I knew just enough to understand that what I was experiencing more some similarities to what Ms. Nguyen-Kropp had experienced.
Considerable pressure was applied on OIOS staff not to sit in on the hearing, but being thoroughly disillusioned with the attitude of OIOS management by that time, I took a week of Annual Leave to attend. I wanted to know what was going on.
The childish spat that Micheal Dudley and his vacuous acolytes waged against Florin Postica was something that pre-dated my arrival in OIOS by several years and in truth I did not care at first. I did not know what had caused it, nor was I really interested.
When he returned to OIOS after an absence, I had already joined and was told, of course, that this man Postica was the very manifestation of evil incarnate. I found him to be quite the opposite; not only was he perfectly pleasant but highly intelligent and supremely professional. He never spread office gossip, but would sometimes come in to our room in the mornings to share some interesting legal development he had read about in the press or in some obscure European legal journal. (Nobody else did that.)
I knew he had a case about something pending before the UNDT, I just did not know what it was about because I never asked and he never volunteered the information.
Even so, the first time I approached him for advice on anything – indeed the first time I went to him to initiate a conversation with him about anything at all – was when I needed to ask someone about the PIP. Prior to attending the hearing, however, I knew nothing about what had happened in the 0052/09 case and the retaliation that followed.
To describe the evidence in that hearing as merely ‘shocking’ is to describe the Auschwitz–Birkenau camps as merely ‘unpleasant’.
I filled three notebooks with my contemporaneous notes of the evidence, and – though not easily surprised – I was genuinely shocked by the unethical, immoral and downright shameful behaviour that had occurred.
What is worth remembering, of course, is that the UN considers ‘accountability’ to be a core competency required of all staff members and in my Annual Appraisal, Vlad Dzuro had given me a rating of ‘requires development’ in accountability. Of course it would have been nice if he could actually point out to a single example of something that suggested I had failed to take accountability for anything I had done but let’s not get hung up on such inconveniences as reality or facts.
The Secretary-General can be relied upon to do a good sound-bite on the subject, but it was the hearing in the Nguyen-Kropp & Postica case showed me just what a travesty that really was.
Before discussing the hearing, however, there is a preliminary question to be asked, and that is why was the UN so desperate to defend the indefensible? The Nguyen-Kropp & Postica case is that it would, in any sensible jurisdiction, never have been necessary. It would not have been necessary because in any sensible jurisdiction the Defendant would have settled it rather than lose in open court.
The UN, of course, is not a “sensible jurisdiction” where the Defendant has to be concerned about adverse criticism from the judge. On the contrary, the UN has developed a system of what they call “justice” which is no more independent than my left leg, where the Organisation gets to write the rules, gets to interpret those rules, and when challenged will rely on the judges that the Organisation themselves appointed to come up with a ruling on a technicality so they have an excuse not to address the facts.
In the case of Nguyen-Kropp & Postica, Michael Dudley had even earlier admitted, to a Tribunal judge, that he should not be investigated for retaliation because of the “voluminous and critical documentation” that was evidence against him, so there was “no way of defending himself against it.”
This is a very curious argument for anyone to present in his own defence, made all the more incredible by the fact that Michael Dudley was not only a qualified lawyer but was also the Acting Director of the OIOS Investigations Division at the time.
One might be forgiven for thinking that a lawyer in charge of the Investigations Division should understand the implications of an admission of culpability. I used to think that myself too. The UN, however, prefers to simply ignore anything they find inconvenient…..
So what happened during the Hearing?
Ah well, once upon a time, in January 2009 a nurse working in the UN Medical Services Division in New York contacted OIOS and spoke to Michael Dudley. S he wanted to report that the staff in that Division – who did not hold the requisite medical qualifications – were dispensing drugs. (There were also allegations that drugs were being ‘written off’ and (allegedly) destroyed when they had not yet reached their expiry date.)
The complainant, being an American qualified nurse herself, was deeply concerned that this was illegal – at least in the United States. To support her misconduct report, she also sent pictures she had taken of the drug register.
She did precisely what UN staff members are supposed to do.
Dudley, who was acting Director OIOS/ID at the time, assigned the case to Mr. Postica and Ms. Nguyen-Kropp who were both investigators and they set about looking into it. Dudley did not, however, give them the photographs.
Mr. Postica and Ms. Nguyen-Kropp had no idea that any photographs even existed, until the matter was exposed by the blogger/journalist Matthew Lee in Inner City Press.
At that point, Postica asked Dudley for the pictures and Dudley …. prevaricated. He tried to claim that he no longer had them because more than three months had passed and they were “no longer available” on his computer.
The word ‘implausible’ may occur to you at this stage. It occurred to me ; my own office email certainly didn’t self-destruct after three months.
Who leaked the information to in Inner City Press? A good question. Nobody knows.
Logically it could have been the nurse who was the complainant, because she would have had the pictures. The Inner City Press article referred to the Ethics Office and the Ombudsman’s Office also being aware of the matter. That would imply that the complainant had also informed them, which is not impossible.
If the leak came from OIOS, it could only have been Michael Dudley because he was the only one who had the pictures. He was the only person in OIOS who even know the photographs existed.
Nobody knows how the information got to the press because when Florin Postica suggested that OIOS should open an investigation into who had leaked it; Dudley was against it.
Never mind that……. The important point here is that later, Postica complained that Dudley had withheld evidence.
In the investigative world, that is not good.
In the UN, of course, when anyone complains about anything one of the standard practices is transference. The complaint is immediately dismissed as invalid and responsibility for whatever is being reported is pinned on whoever is trying to report it.
If you have ever heard the expression “he who smelt it dealt it” you will get the idea.
In this case a nurse who had reported something to OIOS. She gave the information to Micheal Dudley. That was fine. She also gave some photographs to Micheal Dudley. That was also fine. In fact, she was under a legal obligation to provide OIOS with such information or evidence that would support a reasonable inference that misconduct had occurred….
So far so good.
Micheal Dudley then gave the information to the assigned investigators. That was great! We might even be making so
me progress here, boys and girls!
….. and the photographs?
No.
Dudley kept the photographs back, and later insisted in was the investigators responsibility to ask for the photographs they had no way of even suspecting might exist.
He, as the acting Director of OIOS and the person who had personally received the information from the complainant, did not consider he had to give all of that information to the assigned investigators.
This may be an appropriate juncture at which to stop and take a reality check. If still unsure of what you thought should happen to the pictures – try asking a random policeman. That should be amusing.
Those pictures were evidence of something that had to be investigated, and the acting Director of OIOS had withheld them. Worse than that, when directly asked if he would hand them over, he still tried to keep them from the investigators.
When eventually forced to hand over the photographs, he did not hand all of them over and some that he did had been changed. He had drawn red squared around some parts of them, presumably to either highlight that information or distract attention away from other names….
There is a legal term for this. It is called evidence tampering.
It is very serious. It is the sort of thing that has police officers arrested and slung in jail, though probably not in countries where corruption is the basis on which “law enforcement” actually operates – and clearly not in the UN either, as it happens.
Now, before getting on to that, consider what this meant; Michael Dudley – the Acting Director of OIOS/ID – had information about UN officials taking drugs like Valium, Demerol, and Ambien.
These are not over-the-counter pharmaceuticals that you might take for a headache. They are potentially addictive drugs that can be abused. These are drugs that have a “street market value” because druggies take them.
Consider something else; UN staff in New York have excellent and very comprehensive healthcare. If they are sick, they do not go to the Medical Services Division, they go to a regular New York doctor and Blue Cross/Blue Shield picks up the bill – but these drugs were being prescribed “privately” by the UN directly.
Am I alone in wondering what exactly was going on here?
Let’s not worry about that. My point is that Dudley knew about UN officials being on these drugs. .Really intuitive readers will already have leapt ahead and used the word ‘blackmail’ already. This is very naughty. Please don’t.) What you can think, of course, is that Michael Dudley had now done a big (and gratuitous) favour for at least one “somebody” senior….. so when Dudley is in trouble and in need of “protection”; these “somebody seniors” all owe him a favour. Quid pro quo? Corruption does not have to involve a bag of cash.
Leaving that aside, the material point here is that there were UN officials who had the best medical insurance available, and they were getting drugs from the UN Medical Services Division under circumstances that a US nurse believed was illegal, and Michael Dudley, the Acting Director of OIOS/ID consciously withheld that information from the investigators assigned to investigate the nurse’s complaint.
In fairness, if Dudley had simply blacked out the names from the photos of the drug register and then provided all of these censored photographs to the investigators, with a note explaining what he had done, he would have been justified in doing so on the grounds that the identities of the recipients of the drugs should remain confidential. Under the circumstances, that would have been the ethical thing to do. That was not, however, what he did. He tried to withhold all of the pictures. He failed to tell the investigators that the pictures even existed. When he eventually did hand over some of the pictures bit not all of them, he had cropped some and added red boxes to them too. That behaviour is indicative of some sort of intent. What was he trying to do? He certainly wasn’t trying to assist the investigation.
OK, so let’s not worry too much about that……
In any event, Postica and Nguyen-Kropp reported that Dudley had withheld and altered evidence in a case that attracted media attention, which had to be ‘misconduct’.
Micheal Dudley pitched a hissy fit. He complained that Mr. Postica and Ms. Nguyen-Kropp had also tampered with the evidence. Now, here is a particularly interesting bit – because I sat in that hearing every day for a week and I am still unclear on what basis there was for making the complaint against Postica, and in any event, after a week I still had absolutely no idea what grounds there were to made any complaint whatsoever against Ms. Nguyen-Kropp.
Be that as it may, Dudley made a counter-complaint against Mr. Postica and Ms. Nguyen-Kropp.
The hearing in October 2013 was a hearing on the conjoined cases, being UNDT/NY/2010/107 brought by Ms. Nguyen-Kropp and UNDT/NY/2011/004 brought by Mr. Postica. Both were administrative challenges to the decision by the then USG/Oversight Ms. Inga-Britt Alhenius to treat Dudley’s complaint against them differently from their complaint against Dudley.
It is rare that the outside world gets an opportunity to see “the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity expected of an International Civil servant in action” demonstrated for them, but that is what the Nguyen-Kropp and Postica judgement represents…..
Remember that that case was not a disciplinary matter per se. Nobody was “on trial” It was only an administrative challenge to the decision to treat Dudley’s complaint against Postica very differently from Postica’s complaint against Dudley.
It was in setting the scene for this decision that all the salacious gems of the vindictiveness of OIOS management were revealed.
During the hearing, it was also revealed that the nurse who was the complainant in that OIOS investigation case was herself also being investigated by OHRM for something else. Not only that but Dudley was also meeting with (his friend and protector) Catherine Pollard, who was the ASG/OHRM and discussing progress of the case at the time, but failing to record this in the case file..
Oh really? OIOS investigations are supposed to be confidential…… OK, let’s not worry about that.
It gets worse, because despite there being serious questions about the integrity of the 0052/09 investigation, OIOS then turned round and pursued the nurse who was the complainant in that case for having made a bad faith complaint.
That, of course, was in addition to whatever OHRM was investigating her for.
If anyone reading this is now considering the word ‘collusion’….. please don’t. That would be very naughty. Nevertheless, something is very very wrong here.
I worked for OIOS/ID for four years. How many cases can I recall where the complainant was then investigated for making a complaint in bad faith?
None!
Do I know of any cases where a misconduct complaint was made in bad faith? Actually, yes I think I do….. several! Michael Stefanovic, who was the Director OIOS/ID knows one too….
Oddly enough, both of them involved the same person, and Carman Lapointe was not willing to take action on any of these occasions and they all involved…. Roberta Baldini.
Now isn’t THAT a co-incidence?
So, the only case I know of where the complainant was themselves investigated for making a bad faith report is …..0052/09.
In any event, with the 0052/09 investigation safely closed, the Acting Director of OIOS/ID could focus on what the UN did best; inter-factional back-stabbing.
Dudley had demanded that the file not alleging he had tampered with evidence be removed from the case file.
Meanwhile, Alhenius just ordered that the two complaints be looked into, and to do that they fell back on that well-beloved, tried and tested tactic; an assessment.
Alhenius directed directed Suzette Schultz to do this, as she was in charge of the (so-called) Professional Practices Section, and gave a written instruction that they speak to both Dudley and Postica.
In this instance, however, the assessment was not called an assessment, and it was not called an investigation either, it was called a Quality Review.
Please don’t ask how the quality of a misconduct complaint has any bearing on whether or not there was actually any misconduct…. That is the sort of impertinent question that demonstrates disloyalty, incitement to rebellion and insurrection against the vested interests of the Status Quo and the Established World Order. Nobody will thank you for it either.
Now here is an interesting question; Had there ever been a “Quality Review” carried out by OIOS at any time before?
Actually, no.
Has there ever been another “Quality Review” carried out by OIOS at any time since?
Er, no.
What was a “Quality Review” anyway?
That is a difficult question. A much easier one would be how did they actually do this “Quality Review”? The answer to that one is a bit easier to answer, because they took the template for an OIOS Investigation report, deleted the words “Investigation Report” from the front page and inserted the words “Quality Review” instead.
Oh well, that’s really convincing!
More seriously, it misses the important and very obvious point; how could Suzette Schultz carry out either a “Quality Review” or indeed a fact-finding exercise by any other name, when Michael Dudley was her immediate supervisor?
This would be something which – in the rest of the world – is called a CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. Fortunately, the UN does not recognise such a thing…. except, of course, when it is convenient that they do…..
Oh dear.
This is where an old skeleton fell out of a closet.
Prior to joining OIOS, Michael Dudley had been in charge of the investigative unit in UNHCR. (He had been appointed to that post in June 2005, despite never having had any full-time investigation experience. (The ten years investigative experience one would ordinarily require for the job at the P-5 level appears to have been mysteriously if conveniently forgotten. Don’t worry about that….)
Less than 18 months later he was being highly recommended for the position of Deputy Director OIOS/ID, and again despite his lack of experience, he got the job.
In the period in between being offered the position with OIOS and actually arriving to take it up, a complaint was received from his boss in UNHCR, who was concerned about Dudley having been complicit in what appeared to be cheating in an examination
Dudley was – of course – cleared of any wrongdoing in this. There’s a surprise! The report of the panel that came up with that finding (the Lack-Hill-Langford panel) makes for very interesting reading; unfamiliar with the concept of ‘confidentiality’ they managed to invent a completely innovative way of conducting any sort of misconduct investigation! Leaving aside the actual story of their investigative creativity, UNHCR was only moved to do something after OIOS insisted that it was more appropriate that they themselves should investigate what happened.
Suzette Schultz had initially been asked to investigate Dudley’s involvement in the UNHCR exam cheating allegation, but very soon thought better of investigating someone who was going to be her boss, in the future. This, she worked out, was a conflict of interests…….
So here is the question; why did Suzette Schultz consider she had a conflict of interests investigating Dudley before he became her boss, but she did not consider she had the same conflict investigating him after he became her boss?
Florin Postica’s was legally represented by Mr. Thad Guyer. He put this question to her, Schultz could not answer. She spluttered and said it was confidential so Guyer should not know about it. Susan Maddox, being the best and the brightest that the Administrative Law Section could field was on her feet objecting, even if only to demonstrate her unfamiliarity with the laws of evidence in civil cases……
The judge had to point out that investigators find stuff out. That (notwithstanding my infamous PIP) is what they are supposed to do!
Grabbing the torch back from Maddox, Schultz then answered Guyer’s question about the difference between an actual conflict of interests and a perceived conflict of interests.
An actual conflict, she “explained” was where someone had a personal interest or motive that affected the decision they were required to make. A perceived conflict was where they might have a personal interest or motive that could affect their decision, but they were not actually influenced by it.
Oh really?
I do not know where Ms. Schultz got her law degree, but at my university, a first year law student who came out with an answer like that would not get the opportunity to become a second year law student.
The “Quality Review” that PPS produced was ever so slightly biased. It has been left to Beverley Mulley so conduct and she had interviewed Dudley (who was her Second Reporting Officer) and got his side of the story, but had never interviewed Florin Postica.
Before straying off the point too far; what did the “Quality Review” conclude? Oddly enough, it found some minor discrepancies in the file that were considered so serious that Mr. Postica and Ms. Nguyen-Kropp had to be investigated….. but Suzette Schultz cleared her boss of any wrongdoing.
Oh really?
How did that work? Well, in OIOS, there is no written policy or procedure or protocol that requires the person who receives a report of misconduct to put all the information on to the case file……. so therefore Dudley did not breach any rules and therefore he did nothing wrong.
Understand?
Good!
To be fair here, OIOS is unfamiliar with the expression “patently bloody obvious.” It is not in the Investigations Manual and nowhere in the Policies & Procedures is there a requirement to be cognisant of any such thing……
Please do not ask if OIOS investigators know not to go outside in the rain with just their socks on, or that the fast lane of the expressway is not an appropriate place for a barbecue. If there is not an official written protocol on the subject, I have no idea what someone might do.
We are expected to believe it was just a co-incidence that Dudley’s own staff not only cleared him of any wrongdoing but also did what he had demanded and removed the offending memo from the case file.
What Schultz and Mulley failed to do as part of this “Quality Review” however, is actually interview Mr. Postica or Ms. Nguyen-Kropp as they had been specifically directed to do by the Under-Secretary-General.
Audi alterem partem is not a legal concept that has come to the attention of OIOS yet.
When they were both in the witness box, Thad Guyer posed the same question to Schultz and Mulley, both of whom proudly claimed to be lawyers, and both were in the Professional Practices section, providing “quality control” to investigations.
The question was: When the USG told you, in writing that you should interview both Dudley and Postica, did you consider that to me compulsory or just optional?
Both answered without hesitation; it was optional.
This is a strange attitude towards Staff Rule 1.2(a) but and staff member accused of disobedience or even insubordination might like to bear it in mind.
What I find most amusing in all of this was that I was only sitting in the hearing because OIOS had tried to tell me that I needed to “improve my judgement”.
An excellent example of “good judgement” as far as Michael Dudley was the way in which he simply could not help himself, and insisted on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Postica was clearly a threat to his lust for power and to be confirmed in the directorship position permanently – but Postica had accepted another position in Europe and was leaving OIOS.
Dudley simply had to do nothing, and wait.
He couldn’t.
He shot himself in the foot with Ms. Nguyen-Kropp’s Annual Appraisal that year. Florin Postica was her First Reporting Officer and he had no problem with anything she had done. He gave her a good appraisal. Dudley was her Second Reporting Officer, and unsatisfied with the role of the SRO as defined in ST/AI/2010/5 he gave her a “needs development” rating for the first time in her career.
She consulted Postica about this, and together they went to see Dudley to ask him to reconsider. Dudley’s response was arrogant and dismissive; not only would he not listen to any argument, he threatened to make it a lot worse for he if she complained.
Now, at this point, the word ‘retaliation’ might leap to mind.
Perish the thought!
Under ST/SGB/2005/21 a UN staff member is entitled to protection against retaliation if – number one – they report misconduct and – number two – they suffer “detrimental action” because they reported that misconduct.
So, if Ms. Nguyen-Kropp had been party to the complaint that Michael Dudley had tampered with evidence in the 0052/09 investigation, and she received an unprecedented “requires development” rating in her Annual Appraisal form Dudley as a result, and Dudley threatened to make things worse for her if she challenged that poor rating….. one should not need the brains of a rocket scientist to see what was going on here.
Dudley’s impatience sparked off a chain of events that resulted in the judgement that the UN is so desperate to deny….
Still, that judgement was nothing compared to the hearing….
Other gems that came out in evidence included Byung-Kun Min (known as “Special” Min because he is (two USGs on) still the Special Advisor to the USG/Oversight) who was asked about Dudley having come into his office, and screamed and yelled at about how useless and incompetent his boss (Under-Secretary-General Inga-Britt Alhenius) was.
When asked if this was true, Min provided a comedic moment when he replied that he did not know it was public because the door was closed.
Dudley claimed – loudly and openly – she was such an imbecile that his five year old daughter could do a better job as Under-Secretary-General than Ms. Alhenius. He had also claimed – again loudly and publicly – that he had contacts in the UN Permanent Mission and he could have her fired if she did not renew his contract.
Oh really? In most organisations, the use of threats is not usually tolerated. Indeed, in most Organisations, having a loud and abusive rant where you insult and demean your boss in public is not the sort of thing that is advisable. In most organisations, a sound spanking would be administered. In most organisations, there are rules about harassment and there is a requirement to behave with civility. In fact, the UN has rules for exactly that purpose, and even goes further because there is even something in the Charter about staff reflecting the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity….
In most organisations, anyone who used threats to get their way, and who loudly abused, insulted and demean their boss in public would not only find yourself on the wrong end of a misconduct investigation, but would also find themselves polishing their resume with great speed, and considerable incentive.
In the UN, however – at least when your name is Michael Dudley – this behaviour is perfectly acceptable. The rules may exist, but they are never enforced. If, on the other hand, you are an ordinary staff member accused of some minor infraction by a supervisor who dislikes you, the only comforting words to be offered are God help you.
In the Foreign Policy article about OIOS in August 2015, Dudley lamented how he was never given an opportunity to “testify or comment” during those proceedings or to “contest” Judge Meeran’s findings as “factually incorrect and inconsistent with the principles of due process.”
I sat thought that hearing to opbserve the proceedings, nobody else from OIOS did, and Dudley’s statement as quoted in that article is what I shall politely call a misrepresentation of the facts.
Florin Postica was represented by Counsel; Mr. Thad Guyer.
On the opposing side, appearing for the Organisation was Susan Maddox of the Administrative Law Section. In fairness it was not a fair fight, but if the UN General Counsel believes that Susan Maddox is the sharpest knife in the drawer, I will not argue with point. All I know is that if any litigator in the private sector had presented the Organisation’s case as she did, they would be looking another job very quickly.
On no fewer than three separate occasions during the hearing, Mr. Guyer asked the Judge whether Michael Dudley should be made aware that his conduct was being discussed – very critically – in open court as he clearly had a reputational interest in hearing the evidence.
On three occasions, Susan Maddox leapt to her feet to object. She insisted that Mr. Dudley was not a witness, and should not be called.
Mr. Guyer never actually suggested that Dudley be called as a witness, only that he be told about the hearing, so he could have an opportunity to sit in the public seats and listen to this evidence if he chose to do so. Susan Maddox was having none of this; it was apparent that one of her objectives was to ensure that Michael Dudley was never called as a witness. (This appears to have been a factor in settling the Sirohi case as well.)
On the third occasion, Mr Guyer told the judge that Dudley’s office was just along the corridor on the same floor in the same building, and that he had even seen Dudley on several occasions “loitering about” getting coffee from the machine outside the door of the Tribunal. The evidence in this case was, he explained, such that it was having an impact on Michael Dudley’s reputation, and unless there was an objection, he volunteered to send Dudley an email himself – there and then – to let him know….
Susan Maddox was on her feet objecting vociferously before he even finished speaking.
If Dudley had any complaint, he should have directed it towards Susan Maddox for her handling of the hearing. He never did so.
This was, of course, the very same Susan Maddox as was the subject of a complaint by another of target of Dudley’s ire; OIOS/ID Mr. Michael Stefanovic. He was the subject of a groundless complaint by Roberta “15th out of 17 applicants” Baldini – and another fiercely supportive Dudley acolyte.
Of course, that case was settled so there would never be a hearing where facts would come out in public. Its a small world.
The Administrative Law Section would have you believe that is just another co-incidence and not part of any pattern.
They might also try to have you believe there are fairies at the bottom of the General Counsel’s garden.
From a theatrical perspective, possibly the biggest eye-opener (and the biggest embarrassment) was the behaviour of the witnesses, and the OIOS witnesses in particular. There were three of them.
The other OIOS witnesses were not much better. In fact, it would be fair to say that they made Special Min look good.
If there were prizes awarded for the best performance as a witness, none would have gone home with an Oscar for credibility, but something would have been said about Beverley Mulley’s performance, even if only as an example of how not to give evidence.
I have, over the years, sat in different courtrooms in different countries and have heard more than one fecund liar testify on matters civil and criminal. On numerous occasions I have heard Counsel say to a witness: “Now let me remind you that you are under Oath.” I cannot, however, recall ever having heard a judge interrupt the examination of any witness in order to say so.
On one and only one occasion however, I sat in a courtroom while a judge interrupted the proceedings to give the witness back the printed card from which they had earlier read the words of oath, and tell them it was a reminder of why they were there.
That was the UN Dispute Tribunal, and that was an OIOS witness.
That, ironically enough, was even before the high spot of the afternoon where, reflect the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity expected of an International Civil servant, and OIOS witness answered a question with a direct lie.
Excuse me? Someone lied when giving evidence? …. In most jurisdictions, that is possibly the only thing more likely to send an investigator to jail than evidence tampering; it is a very serious offence that starts with a letter P and rhymes with Marjory.
But the UN is not “most jurisdictions” – something which the ordinary UN staff member soon realises when they become the subject of an unjustified complaint, which is what happened to Ms. Nguyen-Kropp. As for me; I was only a spectator to the proceedings, but I was there because OIOS had the audacity to give me ratings of “requires development” under the heading of ‘integrity’.
Oh really?
The Nguyen-Kropp & Postica judgement – in which Dudley’s behaviour played no small part – did immense harm to any professional reputation or credibility that OIOS may formerly have had. For her part, Carman Lapointe insisted that nothing could be done about it. She, of course, was complicit in the retaliation suffered by Mr. Postica and Ms. Nguyen-Kropp, so how that squares with her being any sort of role model or how it reflects the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity expected of an International Civil Servant remains a mystery to me.
She has retired with the accolade of having been found by the Deschamps Panel, to have abused her authority, hardly the equivalent of a gold watch for someone supposed to have been in overall charge of investigating the misconduct of others….. but never mind that; she looked after her friends, she refused to hear any complaints against Dudley or any of his clique and she made sure that her investigators were sanctioned for asking questions just to satisfy their curiosity, even if nobody could point out a single occasion when they had done so.
The Nguyen-Kropp & Postica case showed the level of corruption within OIOS, exposing the office to comparisons to George Orwell’s Animal Farm; ‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.’
In George Orwell’s tale, the pigs in particular do very well. I, of course, and the only person to suffer any disciplinary action as a result. That may be straying onto a world of mixed metaphors but of course, I was the one who was to improve my writing skills so I like to throw my critics a bone every once in a while. It makes them feel better about themselves.
TO BE CONTINUED
Trust me… this lot barely scratches the surface of the evidence in that hearing.