WatSan pre-training - Final: Ken Gibbs

Really?

For readers hoping to find something more entertaining, here is good news:  This is the last in this series.

For those who found that employment should come with a sympathetic administration – they soon realised that not only was the administration not sympathetic but was staffed by those who saw any questioning of their ‘rules’ and ‘regulations’ as a direct affront to them.

And so it was with the private sector engineering company for which I worked in 1975, that sent me to Malawi to undertake a survey of the ‘Head-pond’ for the proposed hydro-power station at the ‘Nkula Falls’ on the Shire River.  I had been selected for this because I had been born in Zimbabwe so was expected to know where Malawi could be found on a map.  Oh, and that I could spell ‘engineer’.

My knowledge was – to put it politely – pretty basic but one thing I knew for certain was that one should avoid contracting malaria.  I thus sought the advice of the London School of Tropical Medicine (sometimes known as ‘The Ross Institute’) about which prophylactic I should use.  I was immediately told “Take ‘Daraprim’ if travelling to - or working in - Malawi”.

So, I took leave of my family and flew to Blantyre which was the closest town to the Nkula Falls, having started the Daraprim pills for a three week stint.  What could possibly go wrong ?

Less than one week after my departure from the UK, The Ross Institute phoned our company in the UK to tell them that Daraprim had just been taken off the list of appropriate prophylactics because of chloroquine resistance, and that a different pharmaceutical must now be taken.  This information was dutifully filed in head office, and I was not told.

The Ross Institute’s research was accurate.  Also, my company had asked me to continue for close on to 3 months as opposed to the 3 weeks originally planned as may be read in https://xunicefnewsandviews.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-hippo-has-baby-ken-gibbs.html   and, yes, I contracted malaria.

*****

I was allowed a day or two to recover and be treated, and then shipped back to the UK where I voiced my disappointment at the Ross Institute’s lack of advice until someone ‘remembered’ that there had been a phone call from them soon after I had left.  The company’s reaction remains etched in memory – were they supposed to have passed on this information ?

*****

I joined UNICEF mid-1980 and was posted to Bangladesh where I was preparing to have my family join me as soon as I had settled in.  It was raining, as normal.

In line with my letter of appointment which had been prepared in New York, I elected to stay in an upmarket hotel because it would provide everything I needed for my first 30 days, so maximizing my time for becoming accustomed to my new posting.  I knew exactly how much I would have to pay out of my ‘Settling-in-Allowance’ for this to happen.  I was, after all, an engineer who could calculate simple arithmetic.

It was when I came to claim for my full settling-in-allowance that things went wrong.  Admin told me that I had stayed at an hotel that was not available to staff – despite my Letter of Appointment clearly showing that it was one of my options.  I protested.  Staff Admin, NYHQ, were adamant despite having the evidence which they, themselves, had produced originally indicating otherwise.  I protested again and mentioned to our Representative that I was being put in a corner which NYHQ had to have known was wrong.  Had I followed their later advice or instructions or demands, I would have been around US$ 2,000 poorer.  What a way to start employment in the United Nations; and was this part of my pre-training ?

The Representative said the best way to deal with this situation was to submit the case to the UN Legal Division for a ruling and accept whatever they ruled.  I agreed – though I was concerned that there might be a mafia in New York.  The ruling came back, very quickly, in my favour.  Staff in NYHQ Admin/Finance were really quite upset. . . . . .but it marked the start of me being singled out for challenging idiotic rules/regulations or, as later nearly had me fired, for an opinion based on – well – nothing but egotism.  Welcome to the club !

*****

My colleagues keep telling me that UNICEF has changed substantially since those days – and I keep asking myself whether the leopard can change its spots ?  Does anyone dare venture an opinion on this, I wonder ?

*****

As a post-script, some 17 months after my ‘separation’ from UNICEF, I received a bill for US$7,599.27¢ from the New York Finance Officer (who will remain nameless) which was deducted from my final account with UNICEF.  The letter was dated 4th December, 1997 – and I had left UNICEF at the end of June 1996.

In line with my reputation for questioning admin actions which were inexplicable, I asked for details.   The response was sent by email, 2½ months later.  The records stretched back up to nine years before my separation.  Under normal circumstances, final accounts were supposed to be submitted no later than 6 months after rotation or separation.

I should explain that having been separated from UNICEF as being ‘surplus to requirements’ (or perhaps insufferable ?), I was re-employed by UNICEF just 30 days after separation, to join the Northern Iraq UNICEF office as a WASH consultant to assist in what became known as the Food for Oil Programme (SCR – Security Council Resolution - 986), which, at the time, was the single largest sectoral programme being handled by UNICEF, globally.  

I wrote a rebuttal to the Finance Officer concerned, and as there was no response by mid-May, I copied my rebuttal to The Comptroller dated 19th May.  I eventually received the requested details which were chaotic.

I still have all those details on file.  By following code numbers and dates, I was able to show that the vast majority of claimed ‘owings’ to UNICEF were nothing of the sort; being debited to the wrong staff member; or the wrong office; or even when I happened not to be in the noted duty station or equally incorrect data; and a number of ‘Travel Advances’ which should have been credited to me rather than to the Organization.  On 14th October, I became sufficiently incensed that I wrote to the UN Legal Division and the Comptroller.  I never received an acknowledgement from the Legal Division but I am guessing that the Legal Division had a quiet word with the Comptroller, maybe suggesting that UNICEF’s reputation might be at risk ?

I eventually managed to trim that original US$ 7,599 down to US$ 1,598 before I decided that it wasn’t worth my while carrying on the debate any longer.  During this period in Erbil, the town was attacked by Saddam’s forces and there were times when I had to continue work under the concrete stairs with tank shells being fired over us.  Comparing my own life with the US$ 1,598 allegedly outstanding. . . . . 

Arithmetically, this computes to near 80% totally incorrect data.  This leads me to wonder how many resigned or retired or otherwise separated ex-staff were treated in the same way as I was.  Unlike DT, I do not consider myself unique, so there must have been others in much the same position post exit from UNICEF staff positions.  Why haven’t we heard their stories – or is the sweeping under the carpet syndrome still operating ?  Anyone. . . . .?

*****