Integrity at the United Nations                                                                                                                October 2004

United Nations workers are subject to many rules and regulations intended to insure that their behavior is beyond reproach, including a responsibility to report and combat corruption. But do they take this responsibility seriously? This question has gained prominence as a result of the possible involvement of UN officials in the now defunct Iraq oil-for-food program where billions of dollars are alleged to have been diverted in kickbacks and overcharges. Did UN staffers know about such corruption? If so, did they do anything to combat it? No one knows the answers to these questions but a UN commissioned study of the attitudes and perceptions about integrity among UN staff is suggestive.

The UN survey canvassed all UN staff and leaders in the Secretariat, a population of 18,035 to find out what they thought about a core UN value, integrity. One-third (6,086) of the employees responded. The results indicate that staffers are very satisfied with their work and committed to the organization's goals. This is the good news. The not-so-good news is that many are reluctant to become whistle blowers or report misconduct.  The report states "staff members feel unprotected from reprisals for reporting violations of the codes of conduct." Not surprisingly, staff members are uncomfortable about approaching their managers with ethical concerns and many do not feel that their supervisors and colleagues regularly discuss ethical issues that arise in the workplace.

Integrity at the United Nations? Perhaps--perhaps not. Find out for yourself. The survey is on-line at www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/integritysurvey.pdf

 

---

Post Script regarding the September column:

The reader may recall that the September column described a situation in which the county sheriff had to decide what to do about a sergeant who had falsified 144 documents, failed to follow standard operating procedures, and engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the sheriff's office. The sheriff was about to retire. The county's disciplinary review board recommended that the sergeant be fired. The sheriff placed the officer on a 20 day suspension without pay, banned him from working off-duty assignments for two years, and ordered him not to coordinate any off duty work for the rest of his career.  More details are reported in the Tampa Tribune, June 9, 2004, Metro p. 2.