From the President of the Staff Association
(202) 458-6230- Fax (202) 458-3466
April 15th, 2011
SN-72/10-11 Original: English
DRAFT CODE OF VALUES AND ETHICS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL STANDARDS
The Staff Committee has been closely following the developments within the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs (CAAP) on matters of interest to the Staff Members of the Organization.
On April 5, 2011, the CAAP heard presentations by the Secretariat for Administration and Finance (SAF) on a Draft Code of Values and Ethics and on the Proposed Amendments to the General Standards.
Below you will find a summary of the discussions:
The Secretary of the Secretariat for Administration and Finance introduced the subject by explaining that the document is still a draft and that it is being currently reviewed by the Department of Legal Services. The Secretary further explained that the Ethics Code was prepared taking into consideration similar Ethics Codes from other Organizations (UN, PAHO, World Bank), as well as on provisions set out in the OAS General Standards and the Staff Rules. The proposal will be presented to the Secretary General (SG) after the legal review. The SG will then approve it through an Executive Order.
The Director of the Department of Human Resources informed the audience that her Department is preparing a training program on the Ethics Code. This training program will be initially targeted to the Secretaries and Directors, and then to Staff Members in general. An Ethics Committee will also be established. It will have the power to provide guidance as well as to sanction.
The delegations thanked the SAF for putting together the Draft Code. Some delegations suggested other issues to be included in the Draft Code, such as the prevention of discrimination based on sexual orientation; a maximum amount for gifts; a prohibition or at least a guideline regarding the employment of relatives in addition to a Staff Member’s spouse, such as siblings, children, parents, domestic partners, etc.; the fair treatment of household/domestic employees, especially those hired by OAS Representatives in Country Offices; and abuse of power. Another delegation noted that the Ethics Committee should be composed of independent/impartial members, such as the Inspector General.
The Secretary answered that the Ethics Code concept is similar to those at other International Organizations and that it was not intended to substitute the Staff Rules. It is a tool to call attention to rules already in place, such as those regarding the employment of relatives. He expressed that all suggestions presented would be reviewed and included, as appropriate. Finally, he reiterated that the composition of the Ethics Committee should guarantee its maximum independence and that the logical candidates would not be partial.
The CAAP took note of the document and asked that it be resubmitted to the Committee after legal review and additional modifications.
The Staff Committee is also awaiting the revised version of the document in order to provide its comments, while at the same time noting that ethics and conflict of interest rules are already established by the OAS Charter, the General Standards and Staff Rules, as well as on Executive Order 96-03 (currently in effect), which establishes the terms of reference of the OAS Ethics Committee (http://www.oas.org/legal/english/gensec/oej96-3.htm).
Changes to the General Standards
The Secretary introduced the document, and stated that the proposal was the beginning of a process, that the rules would be adjusted as the process continues, and that this would include further consultation with the Staff Association and the Permanent Missions. He also noted that any changes to the existing rules would respect acquired rights of current staff members.
The Director of the Department of Human Resources explained that the proposal included four main topics: (1) contracting mechanisms; (2) classification of posts; (3) performance evaluations; and (4) the grievance process.
One delegation supported the proposed changes, while another stated that the proposal had been sent to capital for further consultations. In addition, one delegation agreed with SAF that consultation with the Staff Association was a necessary part of the process. Finally, one delegation had a few questions regarding the proposal, such as: 1) why there was no inclusion of measures to ensure that the post of Inspector General (IG) does not remain vacant in the event of retirement or separation from service of the IG?; 2) Regarding the Secretariat-wide audit that is provided for in the rules, why, if the rules provide for such an audit, were individual reclassifications being carried out?; 3) With respect to the separation packages that were given out in the latter part of 2010, and which resulted in additional separation costs, he asked why these packages were given out when they lead to repatriation expenses, in light of the budget situation?
The Secretary responded to the observations mentioning that there is currently an acting Inspector General and they are preparing to issue a vacancy announcement to fill the post. They anticipate filling the post in the second half of this year. They stated that the additional questions raised by the delegates would be addressed with them directly.
The Staff Committee is currently reviewing the proposed modifications to the General Standards and it will provide its comments on the document soon, taking into consideration the need for the proposal to fully respect the acquired rights of current Staff Members and that careful consideration must be given to the proposed elimination of any of the protections established by the General Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- * -------------------------------------------------------------
http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2011/CP25941E-1.pdf