Letters that were originally in French have been translated into English by the official and links to French original texts have been provided. Copies of these letters can be presented upon demand. You can print all the correspondence at once or use the option to print them separately.

a Mr Patrick Reis-Ekelund, Administrative Assistant, to Head of Administration and Finance, 27 October 1998
b Administrative Assistant, to Head of Administration and Finance, 27 November 1998
c Deputy Head of Administration and Finance to Administrative Assistant, 7 December 1998
d Administrative Assistant to Director General, 8 December 1998
e Administrative Assistant to Director General, 21 December 1998
f Director General to Administrative Assistant, 23 December 1998
g Head of Administration and Finance to Administrative Assistant, 29 December 1998
h Administrative Assistant to Head of Administration and Finance, 13 January 1999
i Annual Professional Appraisal, 15 February 1999
j Director General to Administrative Assistant, 19 February 1999
k Administrative Assistant to Director General, 24 February 1999
l Director General to Administrative Assistant, 26 February 1999

Mr Patrick Reis-Ekelund, Administrative Assistant, to Head of Administration and Finance, 27 October 1998

From: Patrick REIS-EKELUND 
To: Guy 
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 9:33 AM
Subject: pre>gj: Gimeno’s expense report

Dear Guy,

I have completed the verification of the expenses(/income) of the Americas Representation. The quality of the receipts has improved noticeably since the last time and Dr Gimeno has used the Vouchers as requested. I find a total of expenses for the RR of 19 169.41 USD for the period (he indicated 19 168.61 USD, the difference is due to a minor posting error).

Before passing the documents to Jean-Pierre [Croiziers - the OIE’s accountant], I draw your attention to the following questions:

1. He says (Voucher 22) he has received 1 9000 USD in income/contributions from a number of pharmaceutical companies for the 4th Seminar on Harmonisation... There is no other documentation that the voucher. Does this pose a problem?

2. Considering the situation at the end of September (income from the Central Bureau and other, expenses of the period) the Representation should have had a deficit of 3 730 USD. The statement from the Bank of Boston indicates a positive balance of 1 588.24 USD. Does this pose a problem?

....

Patrick

Administrative Assistant, to Head of Administration and Finance, 27 November 1998

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
Administrative Assistant, OIE
19, Bd. de Belleville
75011 Paris

Mr Guy Jannot
Head, Administrative and Financial Department
Office international des épizooties (OIE)
12, rue de Prony, 75017 Paris

Paris, 27 November 1998

Note for the Professional File

Dear Guy,

Being most surprised and disturbed by the discussion held in private between us yesterday, at your request, and in order to avoid misunderstanding, I request that this summary of the discussion be placed in my Professional File ("Dossier professionnel"):

1. Procedural working matters

At your express instruction:

1.1 I am forthwith not authorised to sign any outgoing mail except for minor matters such as answering basic inquiries and providing simple information. All other correspondence prepared by me is to be ratified and signed by either yourself, the Director General, or your deputy, Mr G. Sutherland.

1.2 In future, I am to ensure that all documents submitted for decision or signature to you, the Director General or Mr G. Sutherland, should be presented with full background materials on the matter (previous correspondence, relevant documents, contracts, etc.).

1.3 I am at all times to conform with the "OIE standard" of presentation of such things as dates. All correspondence prepared for signature should be approved by Mr G. Sutherland in order to ensure conformity to the OIE standard of presentation.

1.4 In future, I am not to ask you or other staff questions concerning professional matters by e-mail, but to discuss matters orally.

I will, evidently, fully comply with these instructions. As I stated in our meeting:

· I have presented documents (with supporting materials as I have deemed relevant) in the same way ever since I first took up my position in December 1997 and that I am surprised that this has now become an issue after eleven months of service with the Office.

· Both yourself and Mr G. Sutherland encouraged me to assume my responsibilities and act independently when I first began at the OIE and I have only been acting upon the authorisation given.

2. My position and working manner

2.1 You questioned whether my position was completely full time and expressed disapproval that I have, supposedly, at times told people that I was too busy to perform services immediately.

· To this claim I formally protested and asked for examples; which you were unable to provide. I outlined some of the recent duties and projects I have been working on and invited you to come with me to my office so that I could give you a full picture of the situation. You turned this offer down.

· I made clear that I have never said that I would not execute instructions or tasks, but rather that I would not be able to perform the requested service within the time-limits demanded, given my existing workload.

2.2 You stated that you have the impression that I have troublesome professional/working relations with other members of staff. You also claimed that I am "brutal" and "threatening" in my approach to certain matters (this was linked to point 1.1 above); in conjunction with this you recalled that I was, for example, to be respectful to Dr E. Gimeno, who is not only the OIE Regional Co-ordinator for the Americas but also an honorary President of the OIE.

· I asked you to substantiate the impression of troubled professional relations with staff and your claims regarding my approach to certain matters; you were unable to provide any examples other than that mentioned above. I fully protested against your choice of words and assured you of the full professionalism in my attitude to all staff and co-workers. We, upon your initiative, agreed that good working relations do not necessarily require particular personal affinity.

2.3 You stated that my professional background was not substantial and that I should consider the OIE as an opportunity to gain experience for work elsewhere.

· I expressed my dismay at such an evaluation of my professional skills and requested clarification as to whether this meeting was to be considered formal or informal, with the addendum that if it was formal I reserved my right to respond in writing. You stated that it was formal but underlined that you did not consider your comments as criticism concerning professional fault on my behalf, but rather a matter of making observations and asking for modifications to my professional acts and behaviour. You added that you might elect to express these matters in writing, at which time I would have an opportunity to respond in writing.

2.4 I expressed my feeling that there has been a negative change in your attitude towards me following our discussion on my position and wage earlier this summer. Since drawing your attention to questions regarding the expense accounts of the Regional Representation for the Americas, there has been a clear change for the worse, with a marked increase of last-minute assignments and shortening dead-lines.

You dismissed such thoughts as unfounded and indicated that you are still willing to discuss the nature of my position and salary. You also stated that the fruitfulness of any such discussion depends on "successful" completion of the 1998 accounts of the Regional Representations on time, in January.

I also recalled that previous to our wage discussion, you had expressed complete satisfaction with my professional performance at the Office.

I assure you that I shall conform to these instructions to the best of my ability, and that I shall continue to perform my duties and the tasks entrusted upon me with the goal of contributing effectively to the activities of the Office.

Sincerely yours,

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
Administrative Assistant
Administrative and Financial Department

Deputy Head of Administration and Finance to Administrative Assistant, 7 December 1998

7 December 1998

Mr Patrick Reis-Ekelund

Re: preparation for meetings held in Paris on 13 November and in Vladimir (Russia) on 24 November

Dear Patrick

I wish to make several comments regarding your work and professional attitude with regards to the aforementioned meetings.

1. Meeting held in Paris on 13 November

The working documents prepared for this meeting did not conform to OIE practices nor did it meet OIE standards.

The documents in this file were not carefully prepared before photocopying. Pages in the fax copies received were out of order, and several tables were cut off (see, for example, the report from Armenia). In the case of the report from the Ukraine, the answers to questions 6 through 10 were missing. You should have asked the sender to re-send the document (or have those points translated from the Russian text).

All documents must be proof-read and cutting and pasting completed if necessary before photocopying.

2. Meeting held in Vladimir on 24 November

At the beginning of the week of 16 November, you were orally given instructions to prepare files in Russian and in English for the meeting on 24 November. I subsequently confirmed this in writing, specifying that it was your responsibility to complete the files by Friday, 20 November and that this task was to be considered a priority over your other duties.

On the day before the deadline, you had not yet begun compiling the files, even though the majority of the documents were ready. You therefore had to ask for the assistance of the receptionist in putting together the documents, to which I agreed.

You placed the photocopies on the receptionist’s desk without explaining what to do with them. You provided him with neither binders nor dividers. Your only parting words were that these were the documents for Gary’s meeting and that we should have secretaries to do such work.

The delegation of such a task to the receptionist in no way implies delegation of responsibility. The responsibility remains your until the final completion of the task assigned.

The meeting on 24 November was an OIE meeting held largely at the initiative of the OIE Regional Representation for Eastern Europe. Preparation was therefore clearly your responsibility. In no way did my participation in such a meeting discharge you of that responsibility.

In the context of preparation for such a meeting, you have certain secretarial tasks to fulfil which include photocopying documents, verifying that they are correctly presented and preparing working files. When such a task is assigned to you, you are expected to get it done.

Your absence on Friday 20 November denotes a complete lack of professionalism. Absence due to illness is of course a normal occurrence; however, you should have informed me directly. I expected you to show a certain concern for the work that you were not able to accomplish, especially if there was an imperative deadline, which was the case. I saw no such concern on your part.

Yours sincerely

Gary Sutherland
Deputy Head, Administrative
and Financial Department

CC: Mr Guy Jannot Dr Jean Blancou

Administrative Assistant to Director General, 8 December 1998

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
19, Bd. de Belleville
75011 Paris

Dr Jean Blancou
Director General
Office international des épizooties
12, rue de Prony, 75017 Paris

Paris, 8 December 1998

Request for clarification

Dear Sir,
 
 

It is with great regret that I am compelled to direct this note to you.

Earlier today, I received the attached note from the Deputy Head of the Administrative and Financial Department, Mr Gary Sutherland, in which a number of inexact, tendencious and, for me, potentially very harmful claims are made regarding my work and "professional attitude."

The nature and status of Mr Sutherland's note within the framework of the OIE's regulations governing staff matters is unclear. The note does not appear to conform to the criteria of a Professional Note (Note professionnelle), nor would it be reasonable to consider it as a mere sharing of thoughts or observations on my professional conduct as it has been copied not only to the Head of my service, Mr G. Jannot, but also to yourself.

This ambiguity leaves me at a loss regarding how to respond in a constructive manner - thereof this appeal to you: I would greatly appreciate your indications as to whether or not I am to consider Mr Sutherland's note as a matter involving the OIE's responsibility and your authority? If you do validate the note, I will of course respond to it in full, respecting the normal hierarchical channels.

I also seize the occasion to provide you with a copy of a note, following observations and instructions received during your recent absence. I feel that my position has been altered for the worse, due to no fault of my own, and that I have become the object of hidden and unwarranted disciplinary measures. I can only appeal to you to address these matters in a manner that permits me to fulfil my duties within the Office correctly and with serenity.

Sincerely yours,

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
Administrative Assistant
Administrative and Financial Department

cc. Head, Administrative and Financial Department

Encl. 1: Note of 7 December 1998 from the Deputy Head, Administrative and Financial Department
Encl. 2: Note of 27 November 1998 from PRE to the Head, Administrative and Financial Department

Administrative Assistant to Director General, 21 December 1998

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
19, Bd. de Belleville
75011 Paris

Dr Jean Blancou
Director General
Office international des épizooties
12, rue de Prony
75017 Paris

Paris, 21 December 1998

Dear Sir,

On 8 December 1998, I submitted to the Secretariat a note addressed to you. On 10 December you verbally informed me that I was going to receive a written reply. To this date, I have not received such a reply and I therefore, as a pure matter of form, send you this note by post accompanied by a copy of my previous note and its attachments.

Sincerely yours,

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
Administrative Assistant
Administrative and Financial Department

Encl. Copy of 8 December 1998 note with its enclosures

Director General to Administrative Assistant, 23 December 1998

Paris, 23 December 1998

The Director General

Ref. JB/SC 20.383

Note for the attention of Mr P. Reis-Ekelund

By letters of 8 and 21 December 1998 you have expressed a wish to know my position as regards a letter of 7 December 1998 that you have received from Mr Gary Sutherland, Deputy to the Head of the Administrative and Financial Department, concerning your services during the preparation of the meetings of 13 November 1998 in Paris and 24 November 1998 in Moscow.

I have already told you that you would soon be the addressee of a letter from your Head of Department, Mr Guy Jannot, which will follow-up on the meetings you have had with him regarding your situation and your manner of serving at the beginning of July and the end of November.

Furthermore, as you know, the habitual and official procedure of evaluating staff members will take place during January 1999.

So, it is after having received a copy of the letter of your Head of Department and within the framework of the normal evaluation procedure that I shall express my position.

Jean Blancou

Head of Administration and Finance to Administrative Assistant, 29 December 1998

Paris, 29 December 1998

Note for the attention of Mr Patrick Reis-Ekelund

I decided to hold a meeting with you on 26 November 1998. It seemed to be approriate to remind you of the working principles of an international organisation, particulary as they are determined by your job desription and the solemn declaration which you have signed.

I underlined your hierarchical position under the direct supervision of myself and the deputy head of service, and general of the Director General. This means that you are not authorised to send letters, faxes or electronic mail signed by yourself without direct instruction or for simple informations (1), that you are not to refuse a task based on your own appreciation of priorities (2), and that your contacts with your superiors can not be limited to electronic mail... I instruct you to submit all correspondence for my signature through the deputy head of service, accompanied by adequate background materials and to speak with me about them if necessary.

I also underlined the necessity of a less threatening style of correspondence towards the Regional Coordinators of the Office: your position was indeed created to permit the control of the Regional Representations by the General directorate but also and mainly to help them in their work.

In a general manner, it seems essential considering your responsibilities that you perform your functions in harmony with all the officials with whom necessary professional exchanges must be such as to favour the functioning of the department, and that the documents which you prepare are established in accordance with the habitual formats used by the officials of the OIE.

Summarising our discussion, I asked you to correct your manner of serving in line with the preceeding observations.

Following our meeting, you deemed useful to address a note to me. I have taken note of it, in a positive manner, as you affirm to want to conform to my observations. I must, nevertheless, respond to a certain number of claims which appear inexact to me (cf. annex).

Guy Jannot
Head of the Administrative and Financial Department

(1) In this context, I cited an example: having recently edited a draft reply regarding a modification to the draft Agreement between the royal Thai Government and the OIE, you translated and sent this text without letting me review and verify the translation.
(2) The preparation of the meetings of 13 and 24 November on the establishment of a buffer zone against foot and mouth disease presented obvious difficulties of which I have received a report from the Deputy head of Department through copy of the note which he addressed to you on 8 December.

---

Appendix

Reply elements to your note of 27 November

Working procedures

- The use of e-mail for internal communications is completely acceptable. My observation consisted in specifying that the working relationships between you and your superiors could not be mainly established by this means.
- Of course my instruction to append background materials to dossiers only repeated several previous occasional requests. The same applies to my instruction that you conform to the formats used within the OIE.
- If I always find it prepferable to leave a certain intiative to the officials of the Administrative and Financial Department, it is evident that all matters having a certain importance must be examined and signed by the Director General or myself. On this point all the the other officials of the Central Bureau grasp what falls under their own intiaitive or what belongs to their Heads of department. During our meeting I linked your attitude to a lack of experience of administrative life.

Behaviour

I confirm that you must have a more nuanced and less brutal attitude in all your professional relationships, with the personnel of the OIE and external persons.

Our meeting of early July 1998

You have written “I also recalled that previous to our wage discussion [early July 1998], you had expressed complete satisfaction with my professional performance at the Office.” On the contrary, during our meeting early July, I clearly indicated that it was premature to draw a conclusion on the question that you are satisfying. Effectively, the nature of the position is such that it is at the end of a budgetary and accounting period that I will be able to verify the good financial follow-up of the dossiers of which you are responsible (3).

At this occasion, the budgetary document that you had drafted early July 1998 to justify available budgetary means permitting a raise of your wages was incorrect (only the amount of your net salary was included in the costs, the important costs on the salary had been omitted!).

I decided to specify that at that time nothing justified a revision of the our contractual agreement established when you were hired: the duties given being in confomity with the job description. I also told you that it was not possible to foresee adapting the position created to your claims, were they based on the level of your degrees.

Finally, I did not think need to take into consideration the unclear observations that you made on the salaries of the other officials of the Central Bureau.

(3) Regarding the financial follow-up of the Regional Representations and the SEAFMD Program, I fear that you do not succeed in mastering completely the different aspects. At the time of our meeting on 26 November, in spite of my requests, the identification of transfers of funds between Argentina, the Central Bureau and the Regional Representation for the Americas, still remained muddled...

Administrative Assistant to Head of Administration and Finance, 13 January 1999

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
19, Bd. de Belleville
75011 Paris

Mr Guy Jannot
Head, Administrative and Financial Department
Office international des épizooties
12, rue de Prony, 75017 Paris

Paris, 13 January 1999

Note for the Professional File

Dear Mr Jannot,

I thank you for your letter of 29 December 1998, following my notes of 8 and 21 December 1998 addressed to the Director General. I have read your note with great interest and I repeat, yet again, that I shall of course conform with your instructions concerning my work and professional conduct.

My only wish is for a harmonious working relationship with yourself and members of our Department and the Central Bureau in general and I seize the occasion to express my happiness that we have, as have the Director General and I, decided to meet at least once a week to study the status of ongoing events, and I suggest we profit from these meetings to discuss operational matters continuously before time renders recollections unclear. On my side, in order to maintain clear records and in order to be able to constructively react to or build upon observations, I have set in place a system of maintaining records of instructions received and information passed on. I am confident that these improvements will avoid further misunderstanding and enable effective collaboration.

Understandably, due to time lapses and our respective work-loads, there are points where our recollections differ. Having taken your instructions to heart, I nevertheless feel obliged to respond to some of the points raised by yourself and the Deputy Head of Administration and Finance, Mr Gary Sutherland.

First of all, I wish to state that I regret that the observations made by yourself and the Deputy Head of Administration and Finance refer to events already "out of date" and are often expressed vaguely, which leaves me little possibility for reasoned explanation or, if called for, justification.

As regards the OIE-That Agreement:

Your affirmation that I have translated and transmitted to the Royal Thai Government a draft agreement is erroneous, as close scrutiny of the records shows. I initiated no changes to the agreement, made no translation of it, and certainly did not submit it to the Thai Government on my own authority.

The only article that was changed between the September 1997 version and the final document signed in November 1998 was article 6(a). The change to article 6(a) was proposed on 27 October 1998, after negotiations with the Thai Government, to the Director General by Dr Laurence Gleeson (1). On 28 October 1998 this proposed amendment was recommended by Dr Yoshihiro Ozawa (2).

On 29 October 1998 Director General Blancou wrote to Dr Ozawa, with copy to Dr Gleeson, expressing satisfaction with the progress made on achieving the OIE-Thai agreement. On 29 October 1998 Dr Gleeson wrote to me stressing the urgent need to finalise negotiations in time for the Director General’s mission to Vietnam and Thailand, scheduled for the period 24 November 1998 to 2 December 1998.

On 2 November 1998 I, upon your instruction, sent a message to Dr Gleeson in which you expressed satisfaction with the proposed change to the basic agreement text from September 1997. On Thursday 5 November 1998 Dr Gleeson asked me to provide, by the following morning by the latest, the redrafted version of the agreement to the Thai Delegate to the OIE, so that he and the OIE Regional Representative, Dr Ozawa, could discuss it. At the time, you were absent, the Director General had only just returned from mission, and I was not yet under the working restrictions currently in place. Therefore, in the interest of the Office and the South East Asia Foot and Mouth Disease Campaign project and mindful of our long-standing desire to conclude the agreement with the Royal Thai Government as well as of the approbations expressed by the Director General and yourself, I responded to Dr Gleeson’s pressing request.

It is therefore clear that I never, of my accord, made any changes to the agreement nor acted in a manner that contradicted the expressed instructions of my superiors. Furthermore, your satisfaction with this matter was clearly expressed in your note to me of 16 November 1998, and in that of 17 November 1998 of the Director General to the Thai Delegate.

The note of the Mr Gary Sutherland (3)

As regards Mr Sutherland's letter to me of 7 December 1998, I can only express great sadness that Mr Sutherland elected to make certain claims about my services in writing, instead of discussing matters with me immediately after the events causing him displeasure, and that you validate this letter which does not seem to have a place within the rules setting the framework of OIE staff management. Had Mr Sutherland shared his thoughts with me immediately after each of the meetings, I am sure you will agree, a more fruitful analysis of events could have been made in a more constructive spirit. It is difficult to consider receiving comments of such a nature and in such a form two to three weeks after the events, in writing and copied to my hierarchy, as a fair and constructive approach to resolving problems or making observations.

As you have validated this note, verbally and in writing on 29 December 1998, I shall present my recollections of the matter. Unfortunately, at the time I had not felt it necessary to keep detailed notes of instruction so I can not back these points up with paperwork and I fully admit to not having, either now or when I received the note, full and exact recollections of either the time, form or nature of instructions and inputs received. I do recollect that my involvement and responsibilities in the organisation of these meetings remained unclear and the assignments arrived on my desk in a last-minute fashion.

As regards the claims concerning the 13 November 1998 meeting held in Paris, I can only say that I have never been presented with a guide or manual on OIE standards or practices but that I would welcome the assignment to develop such guidance materials. I put together the meeting materials based on inputs and supervision of my hierarchy.

As regards Mr Sutherland’s claims regarding the 24 November 1998 meeting in Russia, I wish to state the following points: It is indeed correct that I was, early in the week of 16 November 1998, instructed to prepare the files for these meetings. However, before being able to perform these duties I needed to receive inputs for the meeting files from Mr Sutherland. I received the English version of the materials on 19 November, the Russian version not yet being ready. I feel it is grossly unfair to allude that preparations for this meeting were delayed due to action on my part. I am sure you agree that one can only get things done when provided with the tools and time to do so. The accusation of "complete lack of professionalism" due to my illness on 20 November 1998, I shall, in the interest of good working relations, leave aside.

Regarding the financial follow-up of the Regional Representations and other

It is difficult to respond to your statement that I do not fully understand the different financial aspects of these entities, and I would gladly discuss the matter with you at your earliest convenience. As regards supposed confusion on my side regarding transfers to the Regional Representation for the Americas and moneys received for the same representation, I can only state, as I did during our meeting on 26 November 1998, that I was in need of input from the Central Bureau accountant who detains information out of my reach and that he had not been in a position to respond quickly due to his considerable work-load.

I recall that we held two separate meetings in July. One where we discussed my services within the Department and the Office and during which you did indeed express complete satisfaction, and one some days later when we discussed my salary and you postponed the issue to after my first year of service with the Office.

I renew my assurance to you that I shall, mindful of all your instructions and observations, continue to perform my duties and the tasks entrusted upon me with the goal of contributing effectively to the activities of the Office.

Sincerely yours,

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
Administrative Assistant
Administrative and Financial Department

(1) OIE Senior Regional Coordinator in Bangkok
(2) OIE Regional Representative for Asia and the Pacific
(3) Deputy Head of Administration and Finance

Annual Professional Appraisal, 15 February 1999

1998 PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL

Name: Reis-Ekelund, Patrick

Post title: Administrative Assistant

A- Appraisal of the official of his duties:

My duties within the Administrative and Financial Department have been largely in line with my job description and I have enjoyed working with and being of service to the Regional Coordinators, outside parties, my hierarchy and colleagues. Unfortunately, I feel there has been a serious communications problem and that the responsibilities and status of my position have been diminished towards the end of the year (cf. our notes of 27/11/98, 7/12/98, 8/12/98, 21/12/98, 23/12/98, 29/12/98 and 13/01/99). I trust this situation has now been resolved and that my services will be appreciated and rewarded more commensurably with their value to the Office.

date: 14 January 1999 - signature: Patrick Reis-Ekelund

B- Appraisal of the Head of Department:

I confirm the observations expressed by myself and the deputy head of department at the end of 1998.
Regarding the note of 13 January 1999, I confirm, in reply, the following points:
- Thailand/OIE Agreement: Nothing justifies that a final version be sent without being reread by the Director General, myself or my deputy.
- Note of 7 December 1998 from the deputy head of service: I consider the written observations justified as they are necessary to avoid that such erring ways continue.
- Financial follow-up: the service provided by Patrick Reis-Ekelund remain insufficient. I recall that the position was created to avoid an overload of the accountant’s work. The official has prepared, or received copy of, all the transfers of funds executed.

date: 11 February 1999 - signature: Guy Jannot

C- Appraisal of the Director General:

The important difficulties underlined by the Head of Department put in question the future of Mr Reis-Ekelund within the OIE.

date: 12 February 1999 - signature: Jean Blancou

D- Observations of the official on B & C:

I am sad to note that my replies to comments and accusations made by Messrs Guy Jannot and Gary Sutherland, as well as my assurances that all instructions have been taken to heart, have gone completely ignored, and I am outraged that I have been the object of harassment ever since I reported obvious discrepancies in the accounts of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas at the end of the third quarter 1998. It is with regret I conclude that I may have to draw this matter to the attention of other bodies, within and outside the OIE.

date: 15 February 1999 - signature: Patrick Reis-Ekelund

Director General to Administrative Assistant, 19 February 1999

The Director General

Our Ref. JB/20.042

Paris, 19 February 1999

Note for the attention of Mr Patrick Reis-Ekelund

Following the various steps of the procedure of your professional appraisal and meetings that you have had with the Head of the administrative and financial department on 17 February and with the President of the International Committee of the OIE on 18 February, I have the honour to inform you that in conformity with article 40.12 (d) last paragraph the Administrative Commission has been involved.

The decision of the Administrative Commission is as follows: “regarding the professional appraisal of the Administrative Assistant: the Commission expresses its confidence in the position taken by the Director General.”

Furthermore, kindly submit to me for Tuesday 23 February a note on the evident anomalies found in the accounts of the Regional Representation for the Americas.

Jean Blancou

Administrative Assistant to Director General, 24 February 1999

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
19, Bd de Belleville, 75011 Paris

Dr Jean Blancou, Director General
Office international des épizooties
12, rue de Prony, 75017 Paris

24 February 1999

Annual Professional Evaluation and 30 September 1999 Accounts of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas

Dear Sir,

Following receipt of the Annual Professional Evaluation ("Note professionnelle au titre de 1998") (Encl. I) concerning my work within the Central Bureau, the meetings held between myself and Dr Norman Willis, President of the OIE International Committee, on 18 and 19 February 1999, your note of 19 February 1999 and the meeting held between us on 22 February, at which you instructed me to outline in writing my observations concerning my Annual Professional Evaluation and the income-expenses situation of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas at 30 September 1998, I submit the following:

Annual Professional Evaluation for 1998
As concerns Mr Jannot's, Head of the Administrative and Financial Department, point on the OIE-Thai agreement: Mr Jannot's claims concerning this matter were expressed in his note of 29 December 1998 (footnote 1) (Encl. II) and in my note of 13 January 1999 (Encl. III) I showed them to be erroneous, citing the relevant correspondence involving yourself, Mr Jannot and Drs Gleeson and Ozawa. It is outrageous that these claims are maintained in my Annual Professional Evaluation. Should you wish to receive copies of the correspondence relating to this matter, please do not hesitate to request them.

As concerns Mr Jannot's point on Mr Gary Sutherland's, note of 7 December 1998: Once again, I refer to my note of 13 January 1999, in which I responded to Mr Sutherland's accusations. It is saddening that Messrs Jannot and Sutherland, Head and Deputy Head of the Administrative and Financial Department, respectively, in what seems to be breach of Article 40.12 of the Personnel Rules, subject a member of the Central Bureau to professional criticism and pressure in this manner.

As concerns Mr Jannot's point on my supposedly inadequate services in the domain of financial follow-up: This criticism, vague as it is, was first levelled in Mr Jannot's note of 29 December 1998 (Annex, footnote 3). In my reply of 13 January, I expressed my desire for clarification and discussion. To this date, I have not been invited to discuss the matter with Mr Jannot.

My observations on the accounts of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas at 30 September 1998
Part of my job at the Central Bureau, as defined by my employment contract and operational instructions, is to order transfers to and verify the expenses of the OIE Regional Representations. Throughout the period from January to July, I reported that a number of receipts received from the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas were of dubious conformity with OIE Financial Regulations. These receipts mentioned no client name, no address, or mentioned another name or address than those of the OIE's Regional Representation. Early in the year notes from the OIE hierarchy to the Regional Representation encouraged it to ensure a better quality of submitted materials.

In October, I received the package containing the receipts of the Regional Representation for the period 1 July to 30 September 1998. I checked the materials and noted the following points:

1. I had been told that the Regional Representation, inaugurated in February 1998, had no funds at the beginning of 1998.
2. The Regional Representation had received a total of 91 900 USD from the Central Bureau or local donations during the period 1 January to 30 September 1998.
3. The expense reports and receipts indicated that the Regional Representation had spent 95 532 USD during the period 1 January to 30 September 1998.

According to points 1 through 3 above, the Regional Representation should, at 30 September 1998, be running a deficit of 3 632 USD, yet its 30 September bank statement indicated a positive balance of 1 619 USD. The 5 251 USD differential (Encl. IV, column PRE) struck me as noteworthy, and on 27 October I informed Mr Jannot, Head of the Administrative and Financial Department, of my findings. I was asked to investigate if the difference could be presumed to be due to not yet posted transactions, extra income or the likes. Unable, based on my information, to justify such an interpretation I responded in the negative.

In November and December 1998, an external book-keeper was brought in. She redid all my work for the entire year and reported a differential of 5 234 USD for the Representation at 30 September (Encl. IV, column PO). The external book-keeper also categorised the receipts received from the Regional Representation for the Americas according to their quality. She found that 7 781 USD worth of receipts mentioned a name or address other than those of the OIE. (Encl. V).

Should you, or the Administrative Commission, wish to receive copies of relevant spreadsheets, signed expense declarations, doubtful receipts or correspondence, please do not hesitate to ask.

Summary and request for your intervention
Ever since I reported my observations on the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas' financial situation at 30 September 1998, I have been subjected to moral and professional harassment, as evidenced in the exchange of correspondence between myself and the hierarchy of the OIE Central Bureau (Encl. VI) (1). This situation has now culminated with the slanderous Annual Professional Evaluation in which my employment with the Central Bureau is unjustly and threateningly put in question.

It is distressing to find that my responses to the various claims, accusations and innuendo levelled against me, my professional conduct and work, seem to fall on deaf ears and go ignored. This behaviour does not, in my view, confirm with just, rule-abiding and equitable treatment of staff members, or with the standards of conduct to be expected within the international civil service. I respectfully request that you put an end to this injustice and annul the Annual Professional Evaluation as it presently stands, and I hope that I will be permitted to perform my duties with integrity and without further attacks to my status and professional standing.

Throughout this period, I have stressed my desire for a harmonious working relationship with all members of the Central Bureau and my willingness to conform with instructions received, and I underline my assurance that this is still my goal. If this note is, as you have stated, to be submitted to the Administrative Commission, then I wish for all the enclosures to also be submitted, so that the members of the Commission may draw their conclusions with full information. Naturally, I remain at their entire disposal to answer any questions they may have.

Sincerely yours,

Patrick Reis-Ekelund
Administrative Assistant
Administrative and Financial Department

Encl. I: Annual Professional Evaluation Form for 1998 (1 page)
Encl. II: 29 December 1998 note from the Head of the Administrative and Financial Department to PRE (2 pages)
Encl. III: 13 January 1999 note from PRE to the Head of the Administrative and Financial Department (3 pages)
Encl. IV: Income-Expense summary of the OIE Regional Representation for the Americas at 30 September 1998 (1 page)
Encl. V: Outside book-keeper's list of problematic receipts (4 pages)
Encl. VI: 27 November 1998 note from PRE to the Head of the Administrative and Financial Department (2 pages)

(1) I note that I have never been told that my observations were incorrect.

Director General to Administrative Assistant, 26 February 1999

The Director General

Our Ref. JB/20.048

Paris, 26 February 1999

Mr Patrick Reis-Ekelund

Sir,

Following the observations that have been made to you during our different meetings or in writing, I have decided to terminate your contract in conformity with article 8-1 of the Personnel Statutes with the motive that your services are not satisfactory.

You end your functions as of this evening. You will receive the amount of salary corresponding to the three months notice period stipulated in your contract and which I excuse you from performing.

Yours sincerely,

Jean Blancou