VOL. 67, NO. 3 - AAFI-AFICS, Geneva - UNOG

4.9 As a second point, Mr Hanus reported that he had been playing an active role on pension matters
since 2003 in the Federation of Associations of Former International Civil Servants (FAFICS). As a result of
these efforts, proposals concerning the adjustment of pensions had been before the UN Pension Board
since 2005. They might be discussed in 2008 by the Board, but it was not certain that they would be taken
up. Matters concerning retirees were being dealt with by the Board with extreme slowness. Whereas he
considered that the Board should be giving priority to questions related to retirees, such matters were only
considered every second year. FAFICS was not facilitating things – FAFICS was extremely satisfied with
obtaining observer status on the UNJSPB. As long as retirees did not have full membership in the UNJSPB
with voting rights, their representatives could not be effective, as demonstrated by the very limited results of
their action over the past 24 years.
4.10 In 2007, the UNJSPB had decided to proceed with direct elections for retirees’ representation on the
Board, that opened a path to full voting status. Mr Hanus said that this had been sabotaged by FAFICS. He
considered that FAFICS had been too timid to request voting status on the UNJSPB. The AAFI-AFICS
General Assembly was the body which should insist that FAFICS forcefully request (1) direct elections for
retirees’ representation on the Board, (2) voting status for FAFICS on the UNJSPB. As a way for the
General Assembly to express support for his views, he proposed that there be a US$ 1 reduction in the
contribution paid by AAFI-AFICS to FAFICS. This would give a signal to the AAFI-AFICS Committee.
4.11 Mr Chevron indicated that Mr Hanus’ interpretations of the Pension Board’s decision-making process
were erroneous. While Mr Hanus had stressed that since 2005 decisions as to benefits for retirees had been
delayed from one year to the next, this was through no fault of FAFICS. Both governments and
administrations had actually decided to concentrate on investment questions, thus postponing the
consideration of other important items. Participants and retirees could only protest. FAFICS’ objections in this
respect were on record and FAFICS would continue to follow up on this matter. The retirees’ representatives
at the UNJSPB had all rights, except voting rights. These had been refused by governments, administrations
and participants alike, not wanting to break the tripartite structure of the Board by adding a fourth group. He
objected to Mr Hanus’ criticism of a lack of action by FAFICS. The Federation had consistently reaffirmed
that its objective was to be granted full voting status. At any rate, the number of retirees was steadily
increasing and one could expect that it would be become obvious in the future that they be fully recognized
as an autonomous group.
4.12 Mr Chevron observed that one phrase in the pensions section of the Report had led to a
misunderstanding with the Geneva Office of the Pension Fund, reported by Mr Hanus. It was the one in
paragraph 14, which referred to some difficulties in the management of cases due inevitably to the transfer of
the Office and changes in personnel. The number of complaints which had been made known to AAFI-
AFICS and other associations had led the Committee to comment on the matter in its Annual Report. It was
unfortunate that the management of the Geneva Office had taken this as a criticism of the competence and
devotion of the staff – whose work, to the contrary, was very much appreciated by the Association – when it
was merely intended to acknowledge a temporary lapse in some procedures. AAFI-AFICS would do what
was required to assuage this misunderstanding and this would be reflected in the March 2008 issue of the
Bulletin. It must be clear to everyone that the AAFI-AFICS Committee wished, above all, to continue to
pursue the harmonious relations, based on mutual confidence, which had always existed between the
Pension Fund – both in Geneva and New York – and associations of former international civil servants.
4.13 Mr Anders Tholle informed the Assembly that he had been in contact with the President of a retirees’
association in India, who reported cases of retirees wishing to switch from the dollar track to the local
currency track. There were communication problems with the New York UNJSPF office. Individual retirees
would receive an acknowledgement of receipt of their communication and an undertaking that they would
receive a reply in due course -the latter, however, could take several months. He stressed that AAFI-AFICS
had nothing against colleagues in the Pension Fund offices in either Geneva or New York -it just wanted to
bring to their attention what did not work, such as abnormally lengthy procedures for replies or notifications
of actions to be taken.
4.14 Mr Juan Amunategui suggested that FAFICS should repeat its request for direct representation at
the UNJSPB every year, as the exclusion of retirees was an injustice. Mr Jamshid Anvar considered that
there was no need to be an insider to see that there were problems with the UNJSPF offices. Apologizing
for his bluntness, he stated that, speaking with first-hand knowledge he was shocked that after 30 years the
question of direct membership of retirees’ representatives on the Board had not been resolved - retirees
were the main object of the creation of the Pension Fund. While in service, he and George Saddler had
33