Introduction

On 27 October 1998, I informed Mr Guy Jannot, my Head of Department, of discrepancies in the accounts of an OIE Regional Representation.

On 26 February 1999, Dr Jean Blancou, Director General of the OIE, terminated my employment with the OIE, with the motivation that my services were not satisfactory.

Before reporting the accounting anomalies, no serious criticism had been made against my work. After reporting the anomalies, I was never told that my information was incorrect.

The following text outlines the sequence of events leading up to my dismissal. Links are provided to copies of all the correspondence.

At several occasions during 1998, I informed my hierarchy of the often dubious nature of expense report materials from the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas. After the third quarter of 1998, I observed that there appeared to be a problematic discrepancy between the Representation’s income-, expenses-, and holdings-balances. On 27 October 1998, I informed the Head of the Administrative and Financial Department, Mr Guy Jannot, of this situation. I was asked if I could find an explanation for the discrepancy. Unable to do so, I responded negatively and I informed the OIE's internal accountant that I could not sign-off on the quarterly report.

Immediately the attitude of my hierarchy towards me became noticeably less appreciative. An outside book-keeper was brought in and redid my verification for the Regional Representation. She confirmed my findings and identified several thousand dollars worth of receipts that indeed were of dubious nature.

During this period the nature of assignments given to me became more clerical compared with the work I had been doing throughout the year, stricter dead-lines were imposed on my activities, and in general the atmosphere became one of hostility. This unpleasantness lead up to a meeting with Mr Jannot on 26 November 1998, where I received a number of criticisms against my work and behaviour. Following this meeting, on 27 November 1998, I addressed a note to Mr Jannot in which I recorded the meeting and the instructions given.

Although I had in my note assured that I was prepared to follow the instructions received, my working situation continued to be hostile. On 7 December 1998, Mr Gary Sutherland, Mr Jannot’s Deputy, addressed a note to me, which he copied to both Mr Jannot and Director General Blancou, in which he expressed serious and tendentious criticism against both my work and professional attitude. In his note, Mr Sutherland employed untruths and presented events in a selective and damaging manner.

Considering that Mr Sutherland’s note seemed to be illegal within the framework of OIE Personnel Regulations (cf. Article 40.12, which prescribes both the form and the procedure to be followed as concerns professional evaluations - rules with which Mr Sutherland’s note did not comply), I decided to inquire if Director General Blancou legitimated the note before I responded to it. I addressed two letters to Dr Blancou to this effect, one on 8 December 1998 and one on 21 December 1998. To these letters I attached materials informing the Director General of my observations concerning the Regional Representation for the Americas.

On 23 December 1998 a reply was given that Mr Jannot would respond, and his note followed on 29 December 1998. Mr Jannot gave his version of our meeting on 26 November, legitimised Mr Sutherland’s note, and added two accusations: that I had translated and submitted a draft agreement to the Thai Government, and that I did not quite understand the “different aspects” of the finances of the Regional Representations.

On 13 January 1999, I responded in full to the various accusations made against me by Messrs Jannot and Sutherland. I proved that the accusations concerning Thailand were false and responded as best one can to accusations of the nature of those of Mr Sutherland. I encouraged Mr Jannot to explain what he meant by “aspects” of financial management with me. He has never seen fit to do so, nor have I ever been told that my observations concerning the financial situation of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas at 30 September 1998 were incorrect.

Never has there been a straightforward discussion about these matters. Never have any of my responses to accusations, proven to be false or tendentious, been contradicted or been given any constructive attention whatsoever.

During the period 14 January 1999 to 15 February 1999, my Annual Professional Appraisal form was completed. On this form the staff member first notes his observations. Then the Head of Department and the Director General make their observations. The form is returned to the staff member who may express agreement or disagreement with the judgement of his superiors.

In my form I struck an initial conciliatory note, conveying my often repeated desire for good working relationships and my willingness to conform with received instructions. On 15 February 1999, I received the note and found that Mr Jannot maintained his accusations on the Thai issue, maintained the legitimacy, in form and content, of Mr Sutherland’s note, and repeated his claims that my services in the field of financial follow-up were insufficient. In the appraisal the Director General questioned my continued employment with the OIE. I expressed my disappointment and concluded that I may have to draw the entire matter to the attention of other bodies.

I was called to a brief meeting with President Norman Willis on 18 February 1999, during which I described the situation in much the same way as in this text. Dr Willis decided to read through all the correspondence (from 27 November onwards), of which I provided him full copies, and we met the following morning. President Willis told me he would instruct Dr Blancou to receive me so that I may present all the materials supporting my position, as well as instruct him to ask me for a summary of my observations concerning the finances of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas at 30 September 1998.

On 22 February 1999, I received a note from Director General Blancou dated 19 February 1999, and I was summoned to a brief meeting with him. I was informed that the Administrative Commission had expressed its confidence in his position as concerned me, and he asked me for a note outlining my disagreement with the Annual Professional Appraisal and my observations on the Regional Representation. This note was to be submitted to the Administrative Commission for deliberation and decision.

I submitted this note on 24 February 1999. On 26 February 1999, the Director General handed me a letter informing me of his decision to terminate my employment with the Office International des Epizooties with immediate effect. The reason given for this decision was Article 8-1 of the Personnel Statutes: my services were not satisfactory.

You will understand my sense of outrage at the treatment that I have suffered during the past few months.

Although my career as an international civil servant may have come to a complete halt and my professional credentials have been seriously damaged due to my dismissal from the OIE, I consider this situation to be the result of the choices of individual managers of the Office and not of the organisation as such. Therefore, I, mindful of my obligation, due to Article 1.10 of the Personnel Statutes, to only have the interests of the Office in mind, direct this note only to the Delegates of Member States of the Office, to members of the OIE's Administrative Commission, and to those mentioned in this note or in any of the documents referred to.

That the Director General of the Office summarily terminates the employment of a staff member who has done his job, especially in the domain of financial control, can only be considered a wrongful and worrying act, for the Office in particular and the international civil service in general. Even more so when one considers the overall context and procedure of his act:

- The staff member suddenly becomes the target of professional slander and moral harassment after reporting accounting problems;
- The staff member’s replies to accusations concerning his work are completely ignored, even when the evidence he provides is solid;
- That obvious disregard of the personnel regulations by a senior member of management is legitimised;
- The staff member’s information on accounting problems has never been contradicted;
- That although the Administrative Commission of the Office is claimed to be in support of the decision, it is hard to believe that it had the time to consider the materials provided by the terminated staff member.

This web site provides you with this briefing on the matter, as well as links to all the relevant correspondence and a testimonial from a senior civil servant seconded to the OIE. I remain at your entire disposal to answer questions that you may have about the information given or statements made on this site.

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
former Administrative Assistant in the Administrative and
Financial Department of the OIE