Dear colleagues,
We wish to make a clarification regarding the remarks made by the Ethics Advisor during the Joint Commission’s session yesterday. We recall that ISAU had condemned in its oral statement the refusal of the Ethics Office to authorize ISAU to submit its written comments on Document 214 EX/20, even though the document closely and above all relates to UNESCO staff. However, the Ethics Office justified its refusal by referring to its wish to guarantee its independence. Let us begin by rejecting this argument by pointing out, precisely, that ISAU, which acts as a whistleblower, would obviously be the first to defend the independence of the Ethics Office if it were ever threatened. Moreover, in what way and how would written comments of the staff associations call into question or infringe upon the Ethics Office’s independence? This question, also raised by a Member State, whose intervention we commend, must be answered.
The Ethics Advisor suggests that staff associations make their comments in their oral statement or as part of their comments on documents related to human resources. Does it fall within the Ethics Advisor’s authority to decide how the staff associations should intervene? This proposal is not serious. With our speaking time being restricted to five minutes, it is obvious that we cannot comment orally on the Ethics Office’s document, given that such a document deserves a profound analysis and our oral statement must cover all questions related to human resources. Furthermore, commenting on the Ethics Office’s report in a document related to another subject, such as the human resources strategy, would be neither relevant nor constructive. It is important that Member States, who read and take into consideration staff association’s comments, be able to take note of our observations in order to obtain clarifications and answers from the Ethics Office regarding issues that are of concern to staff.
Finally, we would like to highlight that, for the 209th and 211th sessions of the Executive Board, the report of the Ethics Office was indeed part of the list of documents submitted by HRM to the associations for written comments. It is hard to understand the turnaround of the Ethics Advisor who, by demonstrating such arbitrariness, is tarnishing the reputation of an UNESCO’s entity which, more than any other, must be exemplary with respect to the principles of accountability and transparency which spearhead in our Organization. Moreover, it is not up to the current Ethics Advisor to reconsider this long-standing practice. Let us recall that her mandate, both limited in time and non-renewable, does not allow her to lightly introduce precedents that would undermine the reputation of the Office entrusted to her by the Director General.
The associations’ deprival of their freedom of speech on questions of ethics, which primarily concern the staff, is not just an absurdity, but also a contempt for the staff we are representing. Through ISAU’s comments, our colleagues, especially those working within UNESCO Field Offices and often ignoring the very existence of the Ethics Office, could have been made aware of its mandate and work. It is disappointing that the Ethics Office chose to not seize this opportunity and to disregard the magnitude of the political and ethical consequences of its decision. This situation is not boding well and leaves little hope for reinforcing staff confidence in the Ethics Office, which is already at a low ebb.
We appeal to the wisdom of the Ethics Office to reconsider its position.
Maxime BUN
ISAU President
