{"id":377,"date":"2015-12-14T16:45:18","date_gmt":"2015-12-14T16:45:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peteragallo.com\/?page_id=377"},"modified":"2016-06-05T15:46:44","modified_gmt":"2016-06-05T15:46:44","slug":"the-meu","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/peteragallo.com\/?page_id=377","title":{"rendered":"The MEU"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Management Evaluation Unit is the UN\u2019s equivalent of the human appendix; it serves no useful purpose other than to cause intense pain and can kill you if you are not careful.<\/p>\n

One of many \u201cmake-work\u201d schemes in the UN, it\u2019s greatest success has been in creating posts to employ more staff. Unfortunately, none of these people impressed me very much and none of my experiences of the MEU suggest they reflect <\/span><\/span>the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity expected of an International Civil servant<\/i><\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Of everything I raised with the UN Dispute Tribunal, only one was actually important, and that was challenging the decision of the Rebuttal Panel who failed to actually carry out the one task they were given.<\/span><\/p>\n

I referred that to the MEU, and made a very serious error by assuming they would actually do their job. They did not. <\/span><\/p>\n

Instead, on a number of occasions the MEU assured me they were working on this, but they were busy and needed just a little bit more time. They came back to me in writing five times on this. Taking them at their word, I granted them that extra time. <\/span><\/p>\n

This turned out to be a deliberate delaying tactic, and by agreeing to their requests for extra time, and (foolishly) believing the MEU might actually address the problem, I delayed filing with the Tribunal until it was so late that it allowed the Organisation to argue \u2013 successfully \u2013 that the application was time-barred and should be dismissed as not being receivable ratione temporis<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In any other circumstance one would use the word \u2018mismanagement<\/i>\u2019 here, and might even use the word \u2018fraud<\/i>\u2019 to describe the Organisations actions. The Organisation was allowed to benefit from the duplicity or incompetence of the MEU.<\/span><\/p>\n

This should be a very valuable lesson to anyone making an application….. <\/span><\/p>\n

Does the MEU actually perform any valuable service? <\/b> <\/span><\/p>\n

The answer to that depends on whether you are:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. the Secretary-General (<\/span>blessed – as he is – with senior staff who believe that bureaucracy and an unfounded charge of \u201cleaking confidential information\u201d is more important that stopping the sexual abuse of vulnerable children<\/i><\/span>) or<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. someone being harassed, sexually abused or otherwise victimised by the UN. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Under ST\/SGB\/2010\/9<\/a>, section 10.2(a) the primary function of the MEU is \u201cconducting an impartial and objective evaluation of administrative decisions contested by staff members of the Secretariat to assess whether the decision was made in accordance with rules and regulations<\/i>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    In reality, however, this is interpreted to mean that the MEU will bend over backwards to use any technicality possible to ensure that any decision by any senior manager is updeld, no matter how patently ridiculous it may be. <\/span><\/p>\n

    Like many offices in the UN, the MEU consider their role to be one of a preliminary judicial body, except without even the pretence of impartiality. The MEU\u2019s role is to discourage challenges to bad decisions, thus protecting retaliatory, venal and incompetent managers.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The truth is out there \u2013 and in this regard it is demonstrated by the statistics for the most recent year 2014:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
    \n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    \n

    Total MEU requests filed in 2014 :<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    1,541<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Disposals:<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/td>\n\n

    Percentage<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Decisions reversed <\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    84<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    5.5%<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Decisions upheld <\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    417<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    27.1%<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Requests not receivable <\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    768<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    49.8%<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Requests moot<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    89<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    5.8%<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Requests formally settled <\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    5<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    0.3%<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Requests withdrawn<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    31<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    2.0%<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Requests misrouted <\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    8<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    0.5%<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Requests pending <\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    139<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    9.0%<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    Decisions appealed & decided by UNDT<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

    91<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    5.9%<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n

    Source: A\/70\/187. Secretary-General\u2019s Report on Administration of Justice at the United Nations for the biennium 2014-2015<\/a>. Table 1 on page 5<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    Every MEU evaluation request represents a staff member with a grievance. This table shows that (at least in 2014) the chances of the MEU finding in favour of that staff member is 20:1 against<\/b>, and that half of all MEU requests are rejected as \u201cnot receivable.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

    These \u201cnot receivable<\/i>\u201d cases are interesting. Every one of these request came from a staff member with a grievance, and this is the Organisations way of telling them that they can simply go to Hell in a hand-basket.<\/span><\/p>\n

    If the Department of Management was actually concerned about improving the standards of management in the UN, it would not be unreasonable for them to analyse every<\/i> evaluation request received by the MEU. That would actually identify managers who attracted the most complaints to see if the manager himself was, in fact, part of the problem. That would allow the Department of Management to focus attention on problem areas, and possibly even get rid of those incompetent managers…. but that would involve the Department of Management admitting that some senior staff were not actually very good at their jobs \u2013 and that would be heresy. <\/span><\/p>\n

    The MEU plays an important role in the UN \u201cjustice\u201d system. It is has nothing to do with \u201cfairness\u201d or \u201creasonableness\u201d and wash your mouth out with soap if you dare suggest it should have anything to do with \u201cjustice<\/i>\u201d – the role of the MEU is simply to protect management and nothing else.<\/span><\/p>\n

    This table also shows that the MEU can claim credit for ensuring that 94.1% of staff members grievances never make it as far as the UNDT. <\/span><\/p>\n

    I had the great pleasure of dealing with the MEU in no fewer than five matters, for which I received the following responses.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. MEU (704-13 Ethics Office) 26-Jul-13<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n
    2. MEU (820-13 Rebuttal panel) 21-Feb-14<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n
    3. MEU (071-14 Whiteboard) 10-Mar-14<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n
    4. MEU (250-14 Orig Complaint) 25-Jul-14<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n
    5. MEU (104-15 House Arrest) 10-Mar-15<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n
    6. MEU (024-15 Referral to OHRM) 17-Mar-15<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Sadly, I was never impressed. To understand the importance of how the MEU successfully sabotaged my UNDT application<\/b><\/a>, you have to understand that there are two time limits to be followed if you are considering submitting an application to the UN Dispute Tribunal.<\/p>\n

      First of these involves the MEU. they have 30 days in which to respond to a request for management evaluation, and you cannot make an application to the UNDT until the MEU have either responded or have had their full 30 days in which they had the opportunity to respond. So, if the day on which the staff member sends a request to the MEU is Day 1, then they cannot file an application with the Tribunal until either they have a response from the MEU, or Day 31, whichever comes first.<\/p>\n

      So far so good. Then at the other end, there is time limit under the UNDT rules, which states that an application to the Tribunal must be made within 90 days of the staff member receiving a reply from the MEU, or if they do not reply \u2013 within 90 days of Day 31.<\/p>\n

      OK, fine, so in diagrammatic form, the timeline looks like this:<\/p>\n

      \"MEU<\/a>The staff member cannot file an application with the Tribunal too early, nor can he file it too late. He has 90 days in which to think about the MEU\u2019s reply.<\/p>\n

      OK, no problems there….<\/p>\n

      What if the MEU respond early? What if they respond in say only 10 days?<\/p>\n

      In that case, the staff member still has 90 days \u2013 but only<\/i> 90 days. He does not get any additional benefit from the MEU being early because the 90 days for the UNDT starts running earlier.<\/p>\n

      \"MEU<\/a>OK, that is fair. The staff member has the same full 90 day opportunity to consider the response from the MEU.<\/p>\n

      The staff member cannot complain much about that.<\/p>\n

      So, what if the MEU respond, but their response is late<\/i>?<\/p>\n

      This is what happened in the case of Mohammed<\/a> when the Tribunal held (paras 17 & 18) that when computing time limits for the filing an Application when an MEU response is late \u201c<\/span><\/span>the Applicant cannot be penalized for MEU being dilatory in its obligations<\/i><\/span><\/span>.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span><\/span>In that case, the time limit was critical because although the MEU was late, the 90 day period for the UNDT had not yet run out \u2013 but it had by the time the staff member filed with the UNDT.<\/p>\n

      The UN argued that the staff member was time-barred. He should have filed with the UNDT within 90 days of Day 31.<\/p>\n

      Imagine, for example, the MEU respond on \u2018Day 60\u2019. Lawyers for the UN (who care only about having cases kicked out by any means possible<\/i>) argued that the 90 days for the UNDT started to run on \u2018Day 31\u2019, not on \u2018Day 61\u2019 when the MEU replied, because the staff member was still able to meet the 90 day UNDT deadline. It was just tough luck<\/i> that the MEU were late and that he didn\u2019t have the full 90 days…..<\/p>\n

      The Tribunal did not accept that argument, and held that when the MEU reply is received late, but it is still within 90 days of \u2018Day 31<\/i>\u2019 – then the MEU response resets the clock; the staff member still has fully 90 days to consider his options.<\/p>\n

      \"MEU<\/a>So far so good.<\/p>\n

      Everybody happy? Excellent.<\/p>\n

      So what would happen if the MEU was<\/i> so <\/i>late in replying that more<\/em> than 90 days had passed since \u2018Day 31<\/i>\u2019?<\/b><\/p>\n

      That, strangely enough, was the situation with me<\/u>.<\/p>\n

      I received something from a Rebuttal Panel which indicated they had not based their decision on the factors in front of them, and had failed to exercise their jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

      That sounds like a fairly basic \u2018procedural\u2019 question to me, so I sent it to the MEU. I sent it by fax on 30 September 2013. They have 30 days in which to respond. The MEU replied after 29 days, pointing out that one page of the fax had not come through. I apologised and rather than blow an o-ring, accepted responsibility for not having checked it properly at the time.<\/p>\n

      Accidents happen.<\/p>\n

      They then said they would need a little bit more time, and being a co-operative sort of individual; I agreed.\u00a0 The reason they needed a bit more time was apparently because the OIOS Executive Office had not responded \u2013 and because there had been a page missing from the application.<\/p>\n

      Hold on a minute, did they not notice there was a page missing earlier, when they had first looked at it and contacted the OIOS Executive Office? Let\u2019s not go there.<\/p>\n

      In any event, the MEU came back to me in writing a second time, and said they needed a little bit more time, and of course I agreed, and they came back again a third time, and then a fourth time, and in total they came back to me in writing five times<\/p>\n

      Then, on 7 February 2014, Ms. Arielle Silverstein of the MEU called me, and said that she was very sorry that it had taken this long to deal with my request.<\/p>\n

      She had been off work, she said, because she was having a baby. Well, that is all very nice, and I am sure everyone was very happy about it – but it had absolutely nothing to do with me! That the MEU \u2013 which of course is part of the Department of Management \u2013 lacks the managerial ability to manage their workload, comes as no surprise but that also has nothing to do with me.<\/p>\n

      So, once again neatly side-stepping the merits of the question; when this got to the UNDT, the Administrative Law section argued \u2013 successfully – that the application was time-barred.<\/p>\n

      \"MEU<\/a>The MEU had managed to delay their response so long that the clock was NOT re-set.<\/p>\n

      This means that the Organisation is not only allowed to benefit from their own delaying tactics; they are actually rewarded for them!<\/p>\n

      Before getting too excited about that, consider the more interesting question; what did the MEU actually say after 153 days? <\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

      Ah, now that was even more interesting. \u201cVery sorry<\/i>\u201d they said, \u201c<\/a>this is \u2018not receivable.\u2019<\/i>\u201d<\/p>\n

      Not receivable<\/i>? Oh really? Well, if it was \u2018not receivable\u2019<\/p>\n

        \n
          \n