|
Minutes of the Special Staff Assemblies
The Committee has
convened its annual meeting for Monday 25, at 12:00 p.m., Rubén Darío
Room.
On October 5, 2004, and March 7, 2005, the Committee convoked a Special
Staff Assembly
in permanent session. The attached minutes contain the proceedings of
these meetings and shall be adopted at the annual meeting of July 25.
Therefore, we recommend that all staff read the minutes and make any
observations thereon at the meeting on Monday, so that the minutes can
be duly adopted.
SA/MIN. 01 Ext.
(10/04)
October 5, 2004
Original: Spanish
MINUTES
OF THE FIRST
SPECIAL OAS STAFF ASSEMBLY
I. Convocation
The
Special OAS Staff Assembly was convened by its President, Clara Estrada,
in the Padhila Vidal Room on October 5 at 3:00 p.m.
II. List of
Participants
The following members of the Committee attended the meeting:
Clara Estrada (President), Gladys Berly, Francisco Coves, James
Kiernan, Miguel Ángel Merino, Michael Thomas, Stella Villagrán,
Christina Cerna (alternate), Ana María Lemos (alternate) and Daniel
Perna (alternate representative of the Retirement and Pension Fund
Committee). About 220 staff members were present, exceeding the quorum
required to hold the meeting.
III. Agenda
1.
To Inform staff about steps taken by the Committee before
the Secretary General
The President opened
the meeting by saying that there was not much to report since she had
not yet received the comprehensive restructuring plan requested from the
Secretary General. She indicated that she might receive it later that
day or the following day. The Committee had been working on the various
implications of the restructuring process and therefore was not in a
position to make any deliberation or recommendation on how to vote in
the referendum. However, the President stated that depending on how the
situation unfolded, everyone’s cooperation was needed to organize
working groups to study and work on the different topics. She also
emphasized the need to hear staff members’ questions and concerns.
The President
indicated that the only information she could comment on was the letter
sent to the directors on September 15. That letter mentioned a staff
and budgetary ceiling. At a meeting with Donald Monroe, advisor to the
Secretary General, the Committee expressed its concern regarding the
subject and he informed the Committee that he was reviewing the issue of
CPRs. In addition he indicated that contracts from both the Regular
Fund and specific funds, ending on September 30, were being reviewed.
With respect to the deadline given to directors–October 15–to submit
their proposals to the Secretary General, he stated that the date was
not decisive, but was only a requirement with some flexibility.
The President
continued by saying that there would be another meeting with staff once
she had received the requested information and she pointed out that the
issue of freezing salaries and of the possibility of declassifying posts
were of great concern.
At that moment, the
meeting was interrupted to welcome the Assistant Secretary General,
Luigi Einaudi, who came to placate the rumors surrounding the
accusations made against the Secretary General.
Assistant Secretary General
– After greeting staff members and indicating that the current situation
could not have taken place at a less opportune time, the Assistant
Secretary General requested that all staff adopt the same attitude as
that of the Permanent Council – to support the Secretary General. He
stated that no political proceedings had been initiated regarding the
issue and that there was a great deal of media and political hype.
Then, since he believed that everyone knew about the letter sent by the
Secretary General to the President of Costa Rica, Abel Pacheco, he
proceeded to read it, after which he stated that the letter would be
posted on the Intranet at the disposal of all staff. He also said that
the OAS is an organization that has for the most part a legal base and
that we who love this Organization want to harmonize the laws of our
countries and therefore we should not allow ourselves to make any
prejudgments on the situation. He commented that he had received a call
from a high level official asking him whether someone is only shot
before a trial. The Assistant Secretary General stated that he had
confidence in the Secretary General’s dignity and honor and hoped that
in the end he would not only think of himself and his family but also
about us and the Organization. He was sure that if the situation would
be harmful to us, the Secretary General would make the right decision.
In the meantime we had the duty to ourselves and to the Organization to
carry on with our work.
He then added that
this could not have happened at a worse time. It was a very difficult
situation. There had been consensus in his consultations with the
permanent representatives. They began by expressing their admiration
for the efforts made by the Secretary General and his team to place the
OAS on a sound footing. Every Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., they examined the
restructuring process, demonstrating their continued work in spite of
the recent events. The Assistant Secretary General went on to say that
there are very transparent mechanisms within the Organization and both
the Secretary General and the Assistant Secretary General were
accountable to the General Assembly. The Permanent Council could
convoke a special session of the General Assembly. If all these
processes were to be applied, a serious situation for everyone would
ensue. No process was in place at this point in time; there was only
panic and politics. We have to be sufficiently courageous to face the
situation.
As soon as he had
completed his presentation, the Assistant Secretary General left the
meeting and the Special Assembly continued. The President requested
that the Assembly continue in permanent session. James Kiernan made the
motion, which was seconded by the staff members present. The President
declared the Assembly in permanent session.
Martha Braga – returned to
where the meeting had left off, prior to the presentation by the
Assistant Secretary General, to refer to the subject of declassification
of posts. She stated that it would be very dangerous to have another
audit despite the fact that there should be an audit every five years,
according to the United Nations Parity plan.
Anna Chisman – referred to
the classification standards with UN parity which mentions not only
salary increases but also rights and benefits. We do not want parity
that only meets us halfway.
Manuel Metz – said that he
had been involved with the majority of changes regarding parity and
nonparity. He stated that a remunerations freeze would mean a loss of
parity. He recalled that there was parity from 1968 to 1976. After the
loss of parity there was a state of chaos until 1995 when parity was
reinstated. The comparator system (1976-1995) was by no means
satisfactory. Now we are being asked to accept a salary freeze for two
years. We hope that the administration will clarify on what terms that
could be done. Post levels are established in accordance with levels at
the United Nations. Judgments 37 and 64 were important because no
unilateral change could be made without the approval of staff. Now we
have this proposal; we do not know whether in two years’ time the member
states would agree to repay the funds or continue the freeze
indefinitely. It is very clear that the Organization will go on
shrinking so long as it persists in operating on the same budget. He
stated that from 1978 to present, the number of member states have
greatly increased, that is why he does not understand how they cannot
increase their contributions in the same way as other international
organizations. In 1975, before parity was abandoned, the General
Secretariat had 1,536 staff members. In December 1982, before the
comparator system entered into force, that number had fallen to 1,061.
By December 1994, prior to the resumption of parity, it had fallen
again, to 678 and has been more or less maintained at that level. (The
presentation by Manuel Metz was distributed in the room and is more
extensive than this summary, so a request was made to include it as an
appendix).
Alejandro Aristizábal – After
stating that he had been on CPR for seven years, Alejandro said that it
was cruel to continue with such a contracting system. He then
recommended distributing the document showing the status of quota
payments by member countries, in which it transpires that some countries
have not made payments for 10 years. He then referred to the fact that
we do not have the same benefits as United Nations staff – as an
example, he referred to the system in which staff can work an extra hour
every day and therefore have a Friday off every two weeks.
The President
– stated that the Committee
had several issues under study and suggested that anyone with ideas or
concerns should forward them to the Staff Association. That way, if we
all lend a hand, we will be able to do a better job.
Gillian Bristol – expressed
her concern that this process had begun as she considered it a mistake,
since an audit process had already taken place.
The President
– said that we needed to pay
closer attention to the whole process of parity with the United Nations
and since there was no proposal, there could be no response. She then
referred to the survey being conducted by
LatinInsights and pointed
out that she was aware that some people had been called for interviews
or to participate in working groups, and advised staff not to answer
such sensitive questions as those related to salaries and work.
Manuel Metz – requested the
floor for a second time and referred to the appointment of James Harding
as representative of the Secretary General on the Retirement and Pension
Fund Committee and the Medical Benefits Trust Fund. He pointed out that
since he joined the Organization in 1996, Mr. Harding’s outlook has been
marked by a clear, consistent, and at times malicious antilabor
attitude. Mr. Metz then made four points to substantiate his
statement. Finally, he requested the Staff Committee to make known its
displeasure regarding this appointment by the Secretary General. (The
entire page-and-a-half statement should also be appended to these
minutes.)
The
President
– in response, said that
at the meeting with Donald Monroe, advisor to the Secretary General, on
September 24, staff concern on the subject was mentioned and Mr. Monroe
replied that he would accompany Mr. Harding to the meetings. The Staff
Assembly acknowledged and supported the concern expressed over Mr.
Harding’s appointment and agreed by consensus to forward a written
statement to the Secretary General.
Saul Hahn – said that it was
necessary to appoint an attorney with experience in labor law and
international organizations to advise us on the subject and he suggested
that an additional contribution to the Legal Fund be requested.
The President – replied that
both issues – appointment of a lawyer and additional contributions to
the Legal Fund – had been considered. Bob Wallace who had worked on the
previous judgment had come to mind.
David Vieira – expressed his
concern with the financial deficit and cited figures to that effect.
The President – said that
this issue was also raised with the advisor, who replied that it was
based on the estimated increase in salaries, 1.3 for the Permanent
Council, considering that member states could contribute an additional
3%.
Anna Chisman – suggested that
Judgments 37, 64, and 124, as well as the documents related to parity
that were forwarded to the Secretary General be posted on the
Association’s Web page so that staff could have better access to that
information.
Arturo Garzón – began by
congratulating the Committee and staff present at the meeting for
supporting the Special Assembly. He then stated that there was a long
history regarding staff remuneration: salary increases and parity is not
fully parity, but “light.” In other words, some benefits under the
United Nations system did not exist within the OAS system. He believed
that it was very important for staff to familiarize themselves with that
history. At this time the most important issue was work-related
consensus. We did not know either the guarantees or the details.
However, he was not sure if this was a good time to contract a lawyer.
He would have liked to draw on the knowledge of fellow staff members and
believed that it would be necessary to consider the possibility of
preparing a resolution for presentation to the member states.
Martha Braga – supported Mr.
Garzón’s idea.
The President – commissioned
Arturo Garzón and Martha Braga to prepare the draft resolution. Before
ending the meeting, she stated that as soon as she received the
restructuring plan from the Secretary General, she would call another
meeting.
Decision – The Special Staff
Assembly was declared in permanent session. Arturo Garzón and Martha
Braga were assigned the task of preparing a draft resolution to be
forwarded to the member states.
Gladys Berly
Secretary
************************
SA/MIN. 02 Ext.
(03/04)
March 7, 2005
Original: Spanish
MINUTES OF THE SECOND STAFF ASSEMBLY
IN PERMANENT SESSION
I. Convocation
The
Special OAS Staff Assembly, in permanent session, was convened by the
President, Clara Estrada in the Cafeteria of the F Street building on
March 7, at 9:15 a.m.
II. List of
Participants
The following members of the Committee were present: Clara
Estrada (President), Gladys Berly, Francisco Coves, James Kiernan,
Fernando López, Miguel Angel Merino, Michael Thomas, Stella Villagrán
and Ana María Lemos (alternate). There were enough staff members
present to form a quorum for the meeting.
III. Agenda
1.
To inform staff about the letter sent to the Acting
Secretary General in which several issues affecting staff were brought
to his attention
Unfortunately a copy
of the letter to the Acting Secretary General dated February 24, 2005
was only sent to staff that morning. That letter outlined the different
staff concerns as a result of two directives in two memorandums, one
from the Office of Human Resource and Services (Policy
for Filling Vacant Posts) and the other from the Department
of Administration and Finance (Budget
Guidelines for 2006). These documents contained a request to
downgrade post levels and to reduce the number of staff as a result of a
reduction in force no later than April 1, 2005. The Committee had to
wait for a response from the Acting Secretary General to provide staff
with that information. On March 3, the Committee was able to meet with
the Acting Secretary General on the subject.
The
President
– opened the meeting with an apology for holding the meeting in the
cafeteria but this was because all other meeting rooms had been taken
and the Committee did not want to postpone the meeting again. She
invited staff present to prepare their questions for the Acting
Secretary General.
The
Vice President
– said that we were in a rather unique situation because of the
Executive Order left by Secretary General Miguel Ángel Rodríguez. He
stated that as a Committee, it was very important to communicate with
staff on the current situation and to know what chance there was of a
reduction in force and whether it would be on a small and or a large
scale.
Bruce Rickerson
– asked if this reduction in force was as a result of the 2006
program-budget which the Acting Secretary General was to present to the
Permanent Council that afternoon. That question was not answered since
the Acting Secretary General arrived at that moment.
Acting Secretary General
– apologized for the
limited time he had for the meeting since he had a commitment at 10:00
a.m., the 2006 program-budget presentation in the afternoon, and he was
traveling later that day to Buenos Aires in preparation for the Summit
meeting. He said that the high level of staff attendance at the meeting
was indicative of existing concerns. He recalled that the last time he
met with staff he had indicated that we were faced with a restructuring
process, a sign that the Organization was still alive. Then he had
worked on the corrigendum of the Executive Order which came out in
December. Three months had lapsed after the correction of the Executive
Order. His reaction was that the restructuring process was complete and
working well. He had made some appointments but would leave things as
they were until the arrival of the new Secretary General. Frank
Almaguer was appointed to replace James Harding. The Acting Secretary
General felt that the role of the OAS was more relevant than ever. The
Organization was restructured and in good condition. He had had to make
some decisions so that staff could be paid at the end of the month. He
referred to the 2006 program-budget and pointed out that it was quite a
challenge and he had tried to minimize the damage to current staff of
the Organization. He did not want to commit to closing offices
arbitrarily nor to continue with the policy of cutting equally across
the board. Cutting positions seemed unjust since some areas were already
at a greater disadvantage than others. He had decided not to make
drastic decisions and had tried to demonstrate a sense of order,
priority, and values. He stated that member countries would have the
last word. In order to reach the budget ceiling, it was necessary to
eliminate 22 positions, a decision that was made with extreme caution,
with an acceptance of the possible cuts and losses. The decision to
take those steps is against the norm. Eliminated positions will be
filled by other vacancies but in the end five positions will be cut. To
alleviate the situation, a voluntary retirement program will be
offered. Finally, he referred to the Rodriguez Plan, indicating that it
was only carried out in principle and that it was intended to compress
not only high-level posts, but also those of the remainder of the
staff. The future will depend on the member states and the revision of
quota payments.
He indicated that the
Director of the Department of Legal Affairs and Services was on hand to
answer questions from staff.
Director of the Department of Legal Affairs and Services
– After mentioning his OAS experience, the Director referred to his
participation in various reductions in force in the Organization. Then
he indicated that only five positions would be eliminated and it was
possible that these positions could be filled by those staff members who
choose voluntary retirement. Next he referred to the confusion
regarding continuing contracts and said that those positions were
renewed automatically and they were guaranteed the same indemnity as
staff in the career service in the event that the post is eliminated.
However, continuing contract staff did not have the same bumping rights
as career service staff.
Francisco Coves
– requested the floor to refer to the Rodríguez Plan, which he said
should not be so named because it had already been accepted by the
member states. He recalled that when parity had been accepted by staff
members, it had been done through a referendum. He also pointed out
that if the downgrading of posts without an audit began now, we would be
moving away from parity with the United Nations. He asked if the
General Secretariat would be prepared for a new referendum. Then he
referred to the competition process for continuing contracts and
indicated that a list of qualifying staff members should have been
published, but that was yet to be done.
Director of the Department of Legal Affairs and Services
– chose to answer the
second question first and said that he knew that the list would be out
soon. With regard to the competition, the percentage of approved posts
for competition was still below the 40% requirement.
With regard to the
compression of posts, he acknowledged that it was indeed the case for
high-level posts but lower-level posts were under review. As for the
situation of P-5 directors supervising P-5 specialists, it was not such
a ridiculous situation since it was common practice within the
Government of the United States. He expressed his confidence that it
was possible within the United Nations classification system and stated
that job descriptions had not yet been revised but that it would be
forthcoming soon.
Director of the Department of Administration and Finance
– The new director of the Department of Administration and Finance,
Ambassador Frank Almaguer requested the floor to say that he was very
impressed with OAS staff competence and added that the Organization was
in a serious financial crisis. He indicated that the work of the OAS
was vital in the Hemisphere and felt that member states should not make
decisions that would impede the work of the Organization. He himself
wanted to assure staff that during his term as a director, he would like
to carry out his duties with a humane approach (cara
humana) and with transparency. He said that the budget
exercise had given him a very clear idea of what the Organization is
about. Lastly, he indicated that he would always have an open door
policy towards staff.
Bruce Rickerson
– acknowledged that several rumors were abounding and that everyone was
concerned. He hoped that there would be more open communication now
since, after all the recent events, the Organization needed to remain
calm.
Anna Chisman
– referred to the letter to be sent to the Acting Secretary General
regarding the downgrading of posts, which, although it was still
hypothetical, was possible. She added that in order to be effective,
the terms of parity with the United Nations needed to be considered.
She requested the Staff Committee to discuss the subject with a legal
representative, on the basis of that hypothesis.
The
President
– pointed out that the Committee had already contacted attorney Robert
Wallace, who had defended staff on other occasions.
Janelle Conaway
– asked about the impact the 2006 program-budget would have on CPRs.
The Director of the
Department of Administration and Finance answered the question and
stated that that impact depended on how lucky the Acting Secretary
General would be in convincing member states to increase their quota
contributions.
The
meeting ended at 10:45 a.m.
Gladys Berly
Secretary
|
