Report of the Ombudsman 2009

2.
LETTER
FROM
THE
OMBUDSMAN
Dear Colleagues,
If there were a 15 del mes quotation to introduce this fourth Annual Report from the Office
of the Ombudsman, it would surely be: Sero sed serio – late, but in earnest. 2009 had in common
with 2008 the many distractions and challenges of trying to manage two Ombudsman offices
simultaneously, PAHO’s in Washington and WHO’s in Geneva. This inevitably required triage, and
it is fair to say that I gave priority to people over report-writing. Our commitment is that the 5th
report – for 2010 – will be issued before the end of this year, by which time we will have caught up
with the calendar. This Report reflects the divided attention, multiple responsibilities, and demands
for energy and organization which were required by the expanded coverage.
One change and one new feature appear for the first time here. First, with due respect for
the financial and budgetary limitations the Organization is facing, we decided not to publish a print
version of this document. It appears, as do the three preceding Reports, on the Office’s website, in
English and Spanish; a limited number of CD-ROMs will be produced for distribution. The
innovation is the Office’s first report card, based on confidential responses to a User Evaluation
given to visitors at the conclusion of their cases. This first formal evaluation of the Office by those
who have used it appears in chapter 10.
One main theme of this report is reflected in the title, Values and Courage. While we are
mindful of PAHO’s stated values – Equity, Excellence, Solidarity, Respect, Integrity – putting those
values into practice, seeing them reflected in our work and relationships, is often a challenge. The
comments that appear under “Accountability” (chapter 9) are an effort to invite reflection and
encourage dialogue about the courage required to uphold those values and how we as individuals
can strengthen the Organization’s work on behalf of health for all in the Americas.
As always, your reactions and opinions are welcome and appreciated.
Respectfully,
Wallace Meissner
Ombudsman
2

3. VALUES
AND
COURAGE
REPORT
OF
THE
OMBUDSMAN
PAN
AMERICAN
HEALTH
ORGANIZATION
2009
Wallace
Meissner
Ombudsman
525
Twenty-­‐third
Street,
N.W.,
Washington,
D.C.
20037
3

4. “Courage is the first among human qualities because it is the one on which all others
depend.”
Aristotle
[El valor es la primera entre las cualidades humanas porque de él dependen todas las demás.]
HOW
TO
CONTACT
THE
OFFICE
OF
THE
OMBUDSMAN
Wallace Meissner (202) 974-3587
Ombudsman
meissnew@paho.org
Mobile (Missions) (202) 330-2946
Harbey Peña Sandoval (202) 974-3586
Assistant to the Ombudsman
penasand@paho.org
More Information: Digital Magazine:
Organization of American States
1889 F Street, N.W. (corner of 19th & F Streets, N.W.)
Room OAS 310
4

5. CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction 6
2. An Overview: Roles, Principles and Tools of the Office
of the Ombudsman 8
3. Terms and Terminology 10
4. Profiles: Visitors to the Office of the Ombudsman 12
5. Issues: Why Have People Consulted the Ombudsman? 17
6. Contacts with the Office of the Ombudsman 28
7. Outcomes 29
8. Additional Ombudsman Activities 31
9. Commentary and Recommendations 34
10. User Evaluations – Office of the Ombudsman 41
11. Acknowledgements 47
APPENDICES
A. Office of the Ombudsperson: Appointment and
Terms of Reference 49
B. International Ombudsman Association (IOA):
Database Reporting Categories (Version 1, 2006) 54
C. IOA Code of Ethics 56
D. IOA Standards of Practice 58
E. User Evaluation – Office of the Ombudsman 61
F. 15th of the Month: Aphorisms, Proverbs and Saying from the
Office of the Ombudsman (January – December 2009) 64
5

6.
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Ombudsperson shall issue an annual report on
his/her activities to the Director and to the Staff
Association. The report will contain statistical
information on the number of cases or problems, their
nature, whether or not an intervention was required and
their current general status in terms of resolution. It will
also contain an overall assessment of the work done, and
may include general comments, feedback and
recommendations on aspects of the Ombudsperson’s
functions and factors affecting staff morale and well-
being as observed during the period covered by the
report. This annual report will be made available to all
staff.
- Office of the Ombudsperson,
Terms of Reference, Section 7
This is the fourth Report issued under the current Terms of Reference for the Office of the
Ombudsperson. It covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2009. Consistent with the
requirements of Section 7, this Report is being published electronically in English and Spanish, and
will be available on the Office’s website to everyone who works in a PAHO workplace throughout
the region.
For the first time, this report provides a three-year comparative analysis, in graphic figures as
well as text, for 2007, 2008 and 2009. It is important to note that during the second half of 2008
and the first half of 2009, the Office served WHO and related organizations (see Letter from the
Ombudsman) as well as PAHO, which had a substantial impact on the year-to-year comparisons due
to the combination of WHO and PAHO cases. While the total numbers (visitors, contacts, issues,
outcomes) do present an accurate description of work undertaken during those years, the data
should be understood to include both PAHO and WHO matters.
This Report includes:
• An overview of the principles, roles and tools of the Office of the Ombudsman;
• A definition of the terms and terminology used in the Report;
• A summary of visitor profiles, issues presented, actions or interventions undertaken by the
Ombudsman to address visitors’ concerns, and outcomes;
6

7. • A description of additional activities of the Ombudsman in 2009;
• Commentary and recommendations;
• A summary of User Evaluations of the Office collected through 2009; and,
• Various appendices.
As with the three earlier Reports, this document presents a statistical picture of the Office’s
casework through a system developed by the International Ombudsman Association, Database
Reporting Categories. In nine (9) broad categories and dozens of sub-categories, this framework
helps organize and describe the different issues and concerns that bring people to the Office.
This Report uses the original Version 1, created in 2006. A second, Version 2, was
published in October 2007; however, to facilitate accurate comparisons, the original version has
been retained, and appears as Appendix B.
Also, please note that throughout this Report the words Ombudsman, Ombudsperson and
Ombuds are used interchangeably.
7

8. 2.
OVERVIEW:
PRINCIPLES,
ROLES
AND
TOOLS
OF
THE
OFFICE
OF
THE
OMBUDSMAN
The Office of the Ombudsman represents a commitment by
PAHO to the well-being of its employees and to improvements in
Much
like
the
the policies, rules and practices that affect the workplace lighthouses
that
environment. While the Office of the Ombudsperson: Appointment and stand
on
shore
to
Terms of Reference (see Appendix A) provides a detailed picture of the
Organization’s specific guidelines for the Office, it may be help
protect
those
worthwhile to outline again the most important principles defining at
sea…
the Ombudsman’s role at PAHO.
The following four concepts or ethical principles (International Ombudsman Association
Code of Ethics, see Appendix C) are the foundation for the Office of the Ombudsman:
• Confidentiality – No disclosures are made without explicit consent of a visitor; no records
are kept, and all notes are destroyed when a matter is concluded; the only exception being in
a case that presents “imminent risk of serious harm.”
• Neutrality/Impartiality – The interests of individuals as well as the Organization are kept
in mind; “sides” are not taken, and no one person or group is favored over another; the
Office does not provide legal advice or representation.
• Independence – The Office of the Ombudsman functions outside of the formal
organizational hierarchy and has its own budget, space and identity; no traditional reporting
relationship is maintained between the Ombudsman and PAHO’s Administration.
Administrative (budget and financial) support is provided by the Office of the Deputy
Director.
• Informality – The Ombudsman is not a decision-maker; rather, the Ombudsman attempts
to address problems at the earliest opportunity and lowest level of conflict; serves as a
sounding board, devil’s advocate, agent of reality, coach, mediator and facilitator; conducts
only informal investigations; provides appropriate referrals; may influence others to take
action while specifically lacking the authority to make decisions himself regarding those
actions; and neither acts as agent for, nor accepts notice on behalf of, the Organization.
Much like the lighthouses that stand on shore to help alert, advise and protect ships at sea,
the Office of the Ombudsman has several analogous functions, including:
8

9. • First Watch – The Office sends a signal of protection to the Organization at large; serves as
an advocate for important institutional values and principles such as fairness, respect, justice,
civility, integrity; and promotes the fairness of processes.
• Safe Haven – The Office makes every effort to be an accessible resource, with as few
barriers as possible, to help staff members address workplace issues in a safe, supportive and
private setting. Access is everyone’s right and recourse is voluntary.
• Early Warning System – The Office acts as an observer and forecaster, providing timely
feedback to prevent avoidable harm to individuals and to the Organization. It flags and
reports critical issues and multiple incidents, identifies and surfaces possibly hidden
concerns, and notifies managers and administrators of urgent situations before they worsen.
• Change Agent – The Office notes discrepancies between individual and organizational
goals and practices, the difference between what we say and what we do; identifies recurring
issues, trends or concerns of a structural nature; makes periodic recommendations for
constructive systems change; and tries to help the Organization expand its capacity to
acknowledge and face inevitable problems.
While everyone working at PAHO is entitled to assistance from the Office of the
Ombudsman, it is also important to note that the Ombudsman also has direct access to all
personnel, including the Director and other officials. He also has access to personnel records, with
the exceptions of protected medical records and records of an ongoing investigation before its
completion.
Through voluntary, confidential and informal meetings, much of the Ombudsman’s work
simply involves honest and direct conversation. The Ombudsman tries to identify issues and
interests – what is important to a visitor and why – in order to facilitate discussions that explore
solutions and strategies to improve a wide variety of situations. When all parties involved in a
dispute are interested and willing, it is often possible to foster useful dialogues, help improve
communication, mediate disputes and disagreements, and help people move forward constructively.
At other times, and only with the knowledge and consent of a visitor, the Ombudsman
shares information with those officials who have the authority to make decisions or bring about
change. The Ombudsman serves as a liaison between individuals or groups for communication of
important messages to the appropriate level of management or the Administration.
Above all, the Ombudsman listens to and considers all concerns and problems that
employees wish to share.
9

10. 3.
TERMS
AND
TERMINOLOGY
Albert Einstein reportedly had a sign in his office that read: “Not everything that counts can
be counted. Not everything that can be counted counts.”
We have done our best to keep this cautionary advice in mind. In all of the Reports
submitted to date, it has been our policy to present statistical information that meaningfully
describes the work of the Office, without overwhelming the reader with data that do little to
enlighten or clarify. In reviewing statistical information presented in this Report, as well as the
commentary and recommendations, it is important to understand the methodology behind the
calculations, that is, what the numbers represent. Accordingly, certain key terms which appear
throughout the Report are defined below.
Case
A case is a person who has brought an issue to the Ombudsman’s attention, often referred
to in this Report as a “visitor” to the Office of the Ombudsman. One case often involves more
than one issue. Conversely, when several people approach the Office together to discuss the same
concern, several cases may be connected with one issue.
Issue
Issues are those concerns about which the Ombudsman is consulted for advice, information
or action. The issues reported here are only those issues for which the Ombudsman provided
information or for which possible solutions were explored.
In reality, there are few cases that can be accurately defined by a single issue. By way of
example, in a hypothetical case involving a disagreement between a supervisor (first level) and
someone supervised by him or her, the latter might appear at the Office of the Ombudsman
complaining of harassment (Database Reporting Category 5.c), suffering from stress-related
symptoms (6.i), and objecting to the supervisor’s recent performance evaluation (2.d). Inquiry over
time may indicate that there is poor and infrequent communication between them (2.m), that each
feels a lack of respect on the part of the other (2.k), that there have been ineffective or unsuccessful
efforts by the manager to address the situation (2.f), and that the departmental climate is considered
generally unpleasant (2.e).
In such a case (or two cases, if the supervisor is contacted and participates in efforts to seek
a resolution), it is impossible, and seems inappropriate, to assign only one or even two database
categories to the scenario. Accordingly, all issues that emerged from cases in 2009 are documented
10

11. in this Report, without any attempt to decide whether, for example, the issue of respect is more or
less important than the issue of communication. Approaching issue-identification inclusively is
intended to provide a fuller and more nuanced picture of the atmosphere in which so many
concerns and problems come to light. So while the number of cases is indicative of the level of
activity of the Office during 2009, the number and kinds of issues might be considered a better
qualitative measure of “conditions of employment, working conditions and relations between
supervisors, supervisees, colleagues and working groups.”1
In this Report, 356 issues are identified for 107 new cases opened in 2009.
Post/Contract Classification
For purposes of this report, and to avoid any risk of compromising the privacy and
confidentiality of visitors, distinctions among the many types of contract mechanisms and post
classifications have been simplified. Therefore, the reporting categories are divided into three broad
groups: (1) Director (D) and Professional (P) categories; (2) General Services (GS) category; and (3)
“Other,” which includes National Professionals (NAP), National Officers (NO), National Staff
(CLT), National Staff Local Conditions (CLT Temp), Short Term Consultants (STC), Ministry of
Health (MOH), Agency in Field Offices (AGNF), When Actually Employed (WAE), Instituto de
Nutrición de Centroamérica y Panamá (INCAP), Interns, Volunteers, Retirees, etc.
Contacts
Contacts are communications or interactions with the Ombudsman or Office staff in
person, by telephone, by e-mail or by any other written communication.
1 See Appendix A, Terms of Reference, Section 3.4 (a)
11

12. 4.
PROFILES:
VISITORS
TO
THE
OFFICE
OF
THE
OMBUDSMAN
As in 2008, the statistical profile of visitors to the Office of the Ombudsman during 2009
was considerably affected by the appointment of the PAHO Ombudsperson as Staff Ombudsman,
a.i., for the World Health
Organization in Geneva, beginning
in June 2008. Upon the retirement
on 31 May 2008 of the WHO Staff
Ombudsman, David Miller, WHO
formally requested that PAHO
provide ombudsman services while
selections were finalized for the two
ombudsman posts resident in that
office. While it was anticipated that
this coverage would last for a period
of 6-10 weeks, unfortunately, neither
recruitment was successful. A
renewed recruitment process was
initiated, and as a result my With
Colleagues,
Donna
Douglass
Williams
(WHO),
Arturo
Pesigan
(WPRO)
assignment in the WHO office and
Athanase
Hagengimana
(WHO),
8th
Annual
UNARIO,
Meeting,
Bangkok
continued until June 2009.
WHO’s Office of Staff Ombudsmen, as described in Dr Miller’s final Report (Unfinished
Business, 2007), “is relatively unusual in its design and mandate, insofar as it is effectively a multi-
agency office operating as a shared resource by a very scattered constituency.” Offices covered
include:
WHO Headquarters, Geneva WHO SEARO
UNAIDS globally GFATM Geneva2
IARC Lyon WKC Kobe
ICC Geneva WWB Washington
WAC Addis Ababa WDC Washington
WEU Brussels WMC Tunis
WUN New York
2 The administrative agreement between WHO and the Global Fund, which ended 31 December 2008, effectively removed GFATM employees
as a group covered by the WHO Office of Staff Ombudsman.
12

13. I made several week-long visits to Geneva during the second half of 2008, while services
related to WHO constituencies were provided by phone and e-mail while I was in Washington. In
order to accurately present the Office’s 2009 activity, this Report includes a separate category, under
“Location”, labeled “Other”, to incorporate visitors from the WHO-related offices listed above.
The data from those cases are included together with those from PAHO matters and categorized in
the same way.
In 2009 the Office of the Ombudsman received 107 new visitors from Headquarters,
Country Offices and Centers, and WHO and related offices. As would be expected, some cases
remained pending from 2008. 356 issues were identified, a mean of 3.3 per case. As in the Office’s
earlier Reports, geographic origin of cases by specific Country Office, Center, or Area has been
omitted in order to safeguard the confidentiality of contacts with the Office.
The following illustrations identify visitors by location, gender, type of post (grade) or
contract classification, and method of first contact with the Office.
LOCATION
Figure 1 shows the breakdown of
visitors by location, and distinguishes those
visitors from PAHO Headquarters (31%),
Country Offices and Centers (38%), and
WHO and related offices served by the
Office of Staff Ombudsman (31%). As in
2008, nearly one-third of the case activity
(31%) in 2009, 33 cases in all, involved
WHO-related matters. For PAHO-related
cases only, there was a decline in total cases
from 100 to 74. While PAHO Country
Office/Center cases remained nearly
constant on a percentage basis (from 39% in
2008 to 38% in 2008), as did cases
originating from PAHO Headquarters (29%
to 31%), the number of cases from each
location declined. The 2008-2009 statistical
comparison, shown in figure 2, clearly
reflects the significant demands placed on
the Office’s resources as a result of the
WHO/HQ commitment.
13

14. INITIAL
CONTACTS
With our principal office situated in
Washington and fully two-thirds of PAHO
colleagues living and working elsewhere,
communication is both challenging and
indispensable. In 2009, approximately half
(52%) of the initial contacts with the Office
were made in person. The remainder was fairly
evenly divided between contact by e-mail (26%)
and telephone (22%). Figure 3 illustrates the
majority of initial contacts made in person
during 2009, and Figure 4 provides a year-to-
year illustration for 2007-2009.
The Office continues to address privacy
and confidentiality concerns faced by potential
visitors, both in Washington and in the
countries. Before arriving at Country Offices or
Centers for informational missions, the Office
sends a general pre-arrival message to all staff,
with a copy of the Terms of Reference, inviting
any interested people to make contact with the
Office in advance of the Ombudsman’s departure. The confidentiality of all contacts is stressed.
During visits, and frequently at Headquarters in Washington, appointments are arranged at
locations away from PAHO offices. This helps to ease concerns about being observed or talked
about by colleagues mindful of a work environment still too often saturated with speculation, gossip
and misinformation. The Office’s Blackberry (202-330-2946) helps enable communications after
business hours and on weekends. And during missions away from Washington, the Ombudsman
welcomes meetings at any time and place that visitors prefer.
GENDER
Figure 5 provides a breakdown of 2009 visitors to the Office by gender. The breakdown
was 32% male (34 visitors) and 68% female (73 visitors).
14

15. These numbers have remained nearly
constant over the period of the Office’s four
Reports. The 38% male/62% female
division in 2007 was followed by nearly
identical percentages, 36% male/64%
female, during 2008 (Figure 6).
Of the 1783 total employees working
at PAHO as of 31 December 2009, 40 per
cent were male and 60 percent female, so
users of the Office are reasonably closely
aligned with their proportions within the
Organization.3 It is important to the Office
that, regardless of the gender of the
Ombudsperson, all PAHO employees find
the Office accessible in a way that they feel
comfortable making contact. To date, this
seems borne out by user survey data (see
chapter 10).
POST
/
CONTRACT
TYPE
The Office appears generally to be a
trusted resource for visitors who contact it,
regardless of their contractual affiliation with
PAHO. Among those with UN contracts,
staff in the Director and Professional grade
category continued to be the most frequent
visitors to the Office, slightly more than half
(47%) by percentage, a decrease of 6 per
cent from the year before (which reflected a
6 per cent increase from the year before).
Those visitors in the General Services
category increased by an identical 6 per cent in 2009, from 17% to 23%. And as shown in Figure 7,
the Office’s visitors listed under “Others” (which includes those employees who are locally
recruited, National Professionals (NAP), Special Services Agreements (SSA), those assigned by
3
As of 31 December 2009, HRM/HQ reported 1783 active employees of PAHO (Headquarters, Country Offices and Centers, all categories
and contract types), 1061 female, 721 male.
15

16. Ministries of Health or recruited by local employment agencies, etc.), remained the same as the year
before, 30 per cent of the total. The comparisons between 2007, 2008 and 2009 appear in Figure 8.
16

17. 5.
ISSUES:
WHY
HAVE
PEOPLE
CONSULTED
THE
OMBUDSMAN?
Figure 9 illustrates the
collection of 356 issues assigned
to the 107 cases opened in 2009,
a mean of slightly more than
three (3) issues per case. Figure
10 provides a comparison with
issues presented in 2007 and
2008. All nine broad categories
that comprise the International
Ombudsman Association (IOA)
Database Reporting Categories
system (see Appendix B) are
included in this Report. They
appear graphically in descending
order of magnitude for 2009.
It is important to remind
the reader that the aggregated
data reported here include all
cases handled by the Office in
2009, both PAHO as well as WHO. Because nearly one-third of the total cases were WHO-related,
the analysis and commentary below should be understood to apply collectively to both
organizations.
The same three categories whose aggregate represented 69% of all issues in the first Report,
Work in Progress (2006), 68% in the second, Building Trust (2007), and 68% again in the third,
Commitment (2008), combined to produce 67% of all issues connected with visitors’ concerns during
2009. Those three categories are:
• Evaluative Relationships (121 = 34%)
• Organizational, Strategic and Mission-Related (74 = 21%)
• Career Progression and Development (43 = 12%)
The consistency over four consecutive years is noteworthy and suggests that both the Office
and the Organization would do well to consider the meaning of the preeminence of these issues
that seem to affect employees the most. In 2009, the fourth and fifth largest categories were Peer
17

18. and Colleague Relationships (9%); and, Employee Compensation & Benefits (8%). In all,
these five most prominent categories represented 84% of all issues recorded.
Each broad category
contains detailed sub-categories
which provide a more specific
picture of the workplace issues
addressed by the Office of the
Ombudsman. The following
eighteen (18) illustrations show
breakdowns for each of nine (9)
broad categories reported, in
descending order based on the
frequency of their appearance
in 2009. Percentages refer to
the sub-categories within the
nine broad categories.
Following each of the nine
category charts are illustrations
reflecting comparisons with the
prior two years (2007, 2008),
where applicable.
EVALUATIVE
RELATIONSHIPS
Consistently throughout the past four years, relationships between supervisors and those
reporting to them have been the source of more concern and contentiousness than any other area.
In one respect, this is probably unsurprising – no doubt PAHO is similar to many of its sister
agencies and organizations and, indeed, other workplaces worldwide. A summary of this category
in figure 11 reveals 121 of the total issues reported in 2009 (356), or 34%. Five areas stand out in
the frequency of their appearance among concerns presented to the Office: Supervisory
Effectiveness (in 22 cases), Respect/Treatment (17), Performance Appraisal/Grading (13),
Departmental Climate (12), and Equality of Treatment (11), almost two-thirds of all issues
involving supervision. To repeat a hopeful perspective regarding ways to address this aspect of our
workplaces, it remains the view of the Office that “each and every one of these five areas is
susceptible to thoughtful exploration, analysis and improvement. These are areas where well-
intentioned individuals can work together to improve conditions through good faith efforts aimed
18

19. at understanding, improvement or
change.”4 Figure 12 provides a detailed
comparison of sub-issues collected for the
past three years, 2007-2009.
The Office continues to encourage
and applaud those managers who use the
Office of the Ombudsperson strategically,
as a sounding board, to discuss
complicated or difficult supervisory
matters before they have become serious
problems. For the Consultation sub-
category, there were 9 instances in 2009
(compared with 11 in 2008, 14 in 2007),
and we hope that more managers and
supervisors will feel comfortable raising
issues as a preventative measure.
These numbers also suggest that
the Organization would benefit from a
multi-faceted analysis and discussion
(including EXM, the Staff Association,
HRM, ETH, IES and OMB) of how it is
addressing the topic of supervisors-
supervisees, with an eye toward designing
ways to improve the harmony and
effectiveness of these relationships.
Having collected data over four years, and
with the recognition that this area of
concern consistently represents the most
prevalent among the nine categories, the
subject is addressed in greater detail later
in this Report as one primary theme (see
Commentary and Recommendations,
chapter 9).
4
Commitment, Report of the Ombudsman, 2008, p. 16.
19

20. ORGANIZATIONAL,
STRATEGIC,
AND
MISSION-­‐RELATED
A significant 21% of the issues in 2009 issues were covered by the category, Organizational,
Strategic and Mission-Related (74), twice the percentage from 2008 and close to the percentage
reported in 2007 (19%). Figure 13 provides a breakdown of this cluster of issues that generally
reflect visitors’ concerns about the Organization as a whole, its structure, or some major part.
Comparisons to 2007 and 2008 appear in Figure 14.
“Organizational Climate,”
which is defined in the IOA database
categories as “issues related to
organizational morale and/or capacity
for functioning,” deserves a few
additional comments. As reflected in
figure 14, this concern has been
consistently raised by visitors to the
Office (2007=27, 2008 =20, 2009=19)
and is generally connected to anxieties
about the direction we’re headed and
morale in general. It is sometimes
difficult to identify one specific source
for this sub-category – it may in some
cases have to do with dismay over a
particular selection for a management
or supervisory position; perhaps
dejection about general tendencies or
20

21. changes in duties or program structure; non-recognition; a lack of confidence in procedural fairness,
such as performance evaluations or effective measures to address misconduct – often it simply
reflects a general feeling of malaise.
CAREER
PROGRESSION
&
DEVELOPMENT
The category of Career Progression
and Development, depicted in figure 15,
contributed the third largest number of
issues (43) in 2009, with the 11 cases
related to Tenure/Position
Security/Ambiguity being the most
prevalent, followed by Career
Development/Coaching/Mentoring
(9). One-quarter (11) of the 43 issues
counted here in 2009 were WHO-related.
Figure 16 shows the three-year
comparison, 2007-2009.
21

22. PEER
&
COLLEAGUE
RELATIONSHIPS
Peer & Colleague Relationships
occupied the fourth largest category of
issues in 2009, 31, or slightly less than 9%
of all issues counted. As a percentage,
2009 was nearly identical to 2008. Figure
17 provides a description of the sources of
these difficulties in peer relations. There
was a fairly even dispersal of causes for
conflict involving peers (non-supervisory
relationships), among Priorities, Values,
Beliefs (6), Respect/Treatment (6),
Trust/Integrity (5), Communication (6),
and Bullying/Mobbing (6). Figure 18
contains the comparative analysis from
2007 to 2009.
22

23. EMPLOYEE
COMPENSATION
AND
BENEFITS
Cases arising out of
compensation and benefits questions
or concerns continue to represent a
small but consistent group, as shown in
Figure 19 below. The 30 issues in 2009
were comparable in number with
previous years, 22 and 34 in 2008 and
2007, respectively. There were 12
benefits-related issues in all three years,
reflected in the comparative
presentation in Figure 20.
VALUES,
ETHICS
AND
STANDARDS
In spite of a smaller number of total visitors in 2009 (107), it is interesting to note that those
issues described by the category Values, Ethics and Standards (20) have remained essentially
constant in number during the past three years (2007=19, 2008=19). Figure 21 presents the 2009
issues, while Figure 22 offers the three-year comparison. Most of the visitors for whom these issues
applied consulted the Office regarding interpretations of PAHO’s Code of Ethical Principles and
23

24. Conduct, or the application of the Organization’s Staff Rules and Staff Regulations. Often the Office
is able to clarify these or quietly obtain information or opinions from the Ethics Office or Human
Resources Management, especially when visitors wish to remain anonymous.
LEGAL,
REGULATORY,
FINANCIAL
AND
COMPLIANCE
After the notable increase in 2008 of cases described by the category labeled Legal,
Regulatory, Financial and Compliance (from 11 in 2007 to 41 in 2008), there were far fewer of these
issues reported in 2009. Figure 23 shows the five sub-categories capturing 18 issues reported.
The sub-category for Harassment again invites a brief additional comment. There were 9
such cases reported which, while fewer than the 15 cases in 2008, represented a significant fraction,
8.4%, of total cases (107) addressed by the Office. While I have purposely avoided reporting
separately those matters that emanated from PAHO and those from WHO (and related agencies
24

25. and organizations) in this Report, it is fair to note, for information and accuracy, that all nine (9)
harassment-related cases in 2009 originated from WHO. Figure 24 provides the comparative
illustration for 2007-2009.
As mentioned previously, the Others
sub-category includes certain cases involving
consultations about legal matters unrelated to
the workplace (e.g., landlord/tenant,
immigration, separation and divorce). While
the Ombudsman can not provide formal legal
advice to individuals, it is the Office’s policy
to provide information and assistance
whenever possible, and to refer visitors
appropriately.
SAFETY,
HEALTH
AND
PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT
Figure 25 presents the 11 issues in 2009, as compared with 14 in 2008 and 17 in 2007,
included under the broad category described as Safety, Health and Physical Environment. Figure
26 shows the year-to-year comparisons, which indicates a noticeable decrease in reported cases
from 2007 to 2009. While this area remains small numerically, it continues to attract attention
25

26. especially because of the sub-category
(6.i) dedicated to Work-Related Stress
and Work-Life Balance issues. There
were 6 such cases reported in 2009, a
fairly significant decline from 11 in 2008.
However, that number still represents
5.6% of the total cases, as compared with
more than 7% of the cases received by
the Office of the Ombudsman in 2008.
SERVICES
/
ADMINISTRATIVE
ISSUES
This category appears for only the second time in this Annual Report for 2009. Its 8 issues
are the fewest of the nine broad categories. The types of concern covered by this category include
primarily Administrative Decisions and Interpretation /Application of Rules, represented in
figure 27 by only 3 of 8 issues reported. The 5 remaining issues, falling under
Responsiveness/Timeliness, generally relate to frustrations encountered by employees seeking
26

27. information or clarifications regarding their conditions of employment or entitlements. Figure 28
shows the two-year comparison, 2008-2009.
27

28.
6.
CONTACTS
WITH
THE
OFFICE
OF
THE
OMBUDSMAN
Figure 29, Contacts with the Office, illustrates the number of visits, conversations or
written communications connected with each of the 107 cases opened in 2009. To some extent,
this graphic offers a descriptive portrait of the relative complexity and demands of the many
different kinds of issues and concerns
that bring visitors to the office. As
would be expected, some
consultations are necessarily brief,
such as a request for information
about a rule, regulation or policy, or a
simple request for a referral, while
more complex matters frequently
require six or more contacts,
interventions or follow-up before
they can be concluded or resolved. In
2009, 57% of the total cases (107)
required only one or two contacts,
43% three or more.
Data for 2009 reflected a decrease not only in total cases (2008 = 148, 2009 = 107), but also
a significant decrease in the number of cases that involved six or more contacts, 22 in 2008, 10 in
2009, a number much more in line
with 2007 (12). The comparisons
are shown in Figure 30. Also
apparent is the steady decline in
cases requiring only one contact –
41 in 2007, 28 in 2008, 23 in 2009.
Inevitably there is a certain
randomness in these statistics,
because “every case takes as long
as it takes,” to state the obvious,
and there is no relationship
between the time demands for
cases of unrelated visitors. Time
and patience are an Office’s
common currency.
28

29. 7.
OUTCOMES
Figure 31 presents outcomes
for 107 cases opened during 2009,
including those considered
completed/resolved (90 = 84%), those
referred to some other PAHO/WHO
resource or outside office (16 = 15%),
and the remaining one (1) case
resulting in a formal appeal or
grievance. No cases remained pending
at year’s end. Figure 32 offers
comparative information for 2007 and
2008.
The rate of completion in 2009
was almost identical to that in 2008,
which was 86%. Then as now, it is
important to restate an explanatory
note, from section 7 of the 2008
Report, Commitment:
“Completed and resolved are
conjoined as completed/resolved for a
reason: many cases that reach the
Office can be convincingly described
as completed when the visitor whose
file has been closed would not in the
least consider his or her matter
resolved, for the simple reason that
many workplace problems and puzzles
are insoluble from the standpoint of leaving all parties satisfied with outcomes and pleased with the
practical results that they take away with them. In many of such “completed” cases, a candid visitor
might say that things had improved slightly, tensions had eased, or perhaps that he or she felt better
able to cope with a situation that remained essentially unchanged. Other visitors, such as
disappointed candidates who questioned the fairness of a selection process, might well have
appreciated the Office’s informal investigation of the selection committee proceedings but still be
frustrated or dubious about the outcome. Still, such cases are unequivocally completed from a
statistical perspective. Semantic distinctions are important here.
29

30. “It also bears repeating that the Office views “successful” (as well as “completed”) outcomes
as those in which the equity or fairness of a process has been confirmed; or when the Office has
served as an effective advocate for organizational values; or when systemic, structural or policy
issues are reviewed, reconsidered or given priority by Executive Management (such as contract
reform or a review of the internal justice system); or when a crisis of potentially significant risk to
the Organization or to an individual has been averted. Parties may remain less than satisfied, so one
might characterize such outcomes as, ‘completed, if not resolved, but slightly better than before.’ ”
Actions and interventions by the Office included:
• Providing information or clarification of rules, policies, procedures and practices;
• Informal investigation and communication of relevant information;
• Assistance to insure a fair process, regardless of outcome;
• Voluntary facilitated discussions between colleagues facing difficulties in relationships;
• Bringing matters to the attention of managers or administrators with authority to act, while
preserving confidentiality of contacts;
• Informally monitoring specific actions (e.g., selection processes, appointment confirmations,
performance evaluations) when concerns about bias, unfairness or prejudice have been
raised;
• Developing effective strategies by exploring a range of available options with a visitor;
• Immediate, urgent attention to critical situations involving harassment, bullying or abuse of
authority; and,
• Serving informally as sounding board, devil’s advocate, agent of reality, or coach.
The Office of the Ombudsperson, functioning within the Organization’s Terms of
Reference, and consistent with the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of the International
Ombudsman Association, has an array of tools at its disposal and many ways to be helpful to
individuals and to contribute constructively to the betterment of PAHO. Our aim is to serve as a
resource helping colleagues prevent, manage, limit and resolve workplace concerns and conflicts at
the earliest opportunity. Put another way, while the Office can not be “all things to all people,” it
can, and should be, “some things to all people.”
30

31.
8.
ADDITIONAL
OMBUDSMAN
ACTIVITIES
Much like 2008, calendar year 2009 was unusual for the Office of the PAHO Ombudsman
due to the Ombudsman’s continuing duties as Staff Ombudsman, a.i., for the Office of the Staff
Ombudsman at WHO/HQ. As mentioned in the introductory letter, the responsibilities and
demands of that assignment for the first half of the year (January-June 2009) affected the plan of
work, missions to Country Offices and Centers, report writing, and general availability. On 14 May
2009, WHO announced the appointment of two new Ombudsmen to staff its office in Geneva; and
on 15 July 2009, the last files for WHO-related cases were transferred to the newly-arrived
colleagues there.
Another significant development in 2009 was the Office’s relocation in July from PAHO’s
Virginia Avenue building to space in the Organization of American States headquarters building,
1889 F Street, N.W. (corner of 19th & F Streets, N.W.), Room 310. This occurred as one result of
the Organization’s Office Space Study, initiated in June 2008. Notwithstanding the ordinary human
aversion to packing and moving, the new space provided at OAS turned out to be far superior to
that previously occupied in the Viriginia Avenue building. The principal advantage is increased
privacy due to the five block separation from PAHO’s headquarters building. The Office joined
colleagues from Procurement and the Staff Association in making the move.
Principal activities in 2009 included the following:
• PAHO Headquarters Office Space Study, Steering Committee member
• International Ombudsman Association, 4th Annual Conference, Montreal (April
2009)
• 8th Annual Meeting of the Mediators and Ombudsmen of the United Nations System
and Related International Organizations (UNARIO), United Nations Conference
Centre, Bangkok (September 2009)
• Human Resources Focal Points meeting, Washington, D.C., Presentation (September
2009)
• Orientation Program for newly appointed PAHO Representatives, Presentation
(October 2009)
• The Skilled Facilitator: Intensive Workshop, Roger Schwarz & Associates, Inc.,
Washington, D.C. (26-30 October 2009)
As a member of the Organization’s Integrity and Conflict Management System (ICMS), the
Ombudsman regularly attended meetings with colleagues and contributed as much as possible to
the development of ideas leading to new or revised policies and procedures, such as the Policy to
31

32. Protect Against Retaliation for Reporting Wrongdoing or Cooperating in an Investigation or Audit
(“Whistleblower”), which became effective in November 2009.
The Office’s WHO commitment limited the scope and number of missions to visit PAHO
Country Offices and Centers in 2009. These visits remain a priority for the Office of the
Ombudsman, and are intended to accomplish the following objectives:
• Introduce the Ombudsman personally and describe the services of the Office of the
Ombudsman to staff members in the countries;
• Acquaint the Ombudsman with issues of importance to staff in the Country Offices
and Centers and learn more about the work and atmosphere in offices outside of
Washington, D.C.; and,
• Make the Ombudsman available for private consultations with staff members,
individually or in groups, in or outside the PAHO offices.
Missions to PAHO workplaces in 2009 were:
• Honduras (Tegucigalpa, January 2009)
• Trinidad & Tobago, CAREC and PHCO (Port of Spain, March 2009)
• Bahamas and United States-Mexico Border Office (Nassau and El Paso, June/July
2009)
8th
Annual
UNARIO
Meeting,
Bangkok,
September
2009
32

33.
UNARIO
Colleagues,
Donna
Douglass
Williams
(WHO),
Doris
Campos-­‐Infantino
(IDB),
Emmanuel
Liapakis
(ICAO),
John
Barkat
(UN)
and
Fred
Temple
(World
Bank),
Bangkok,
September
2009
33

34.
9.
COMMENTARY
&
RECOMMENDATIONS
Among those things that have not changed since the appearance of the first Report from the
Office (Work in Progress, April 2006-March 2007), one is a persistent hope that these publications
will serve as “a long and open conversation between the Office of the Ombudsman and everyone
who works for PAHO.” Within a relatively solitary, private workspace, and circumscribed by a
pledge of confidentiality, these reports are one of the most effective ways for an Ombudsman to
describe the level of activity of the Office and to communicate with the Organization at large on an
annual basis.
Through this section of Commentary and Recommendations, the Report is also an effort to
promote change over time and to initiate discussion and debate within the PAHO community that
can support an honest and critical self-examination. It is a way to collect and synthesize
impressions and conclusions based on listening to many distinct voices throughout the
Organization, and to convey a sense of the concerns that seem most important. Other objectives of
this section are:
• Follow-up: review recommendations from previous Reports and note responses,
progress or delays;
• Share good news: note successes, organizational accomplishments, improvements;
• Discuss concerns regarding the issues, policies, practices and trends that affect the
entire Organization, while protecting visitors’ privacy;
• Note discrepancies between the Organization’s values/goals and actual practices –
the difference between what we say and what we do; and,
• Make recommendations to prevent recurring problems, reconsider existing policies
and improve systems.
CREDITS,
ACCOMPLISHMENTS,
ADVANCES
As highlighted in the 2008 Report (Commitment), a telling feature of an Ombudsman’s office
is the fact that we only see those visitors who choose voluntarily to talk with us, that is, a self-
selected fraction of the Organization’s population. We make inferences and draw conclusions
34

35. based on experiences with those visitors, and the reader will find a detailed picture of these in the
preceding pages of statistical information.
During any year at PAHO (or WHO), there are also many events, initiatives, changes,
experiments and opportunities that also describe the state of the Organization during that period.
In an effort to balance the portrait drawn in these Reports, beginning with the second (Building
Trust, 2007), I have included a section entitled “Credits, Accomplishments and Advances.” Two
such examples from 2009:
• “When Disaster Strikes, Safe Hospitals Save Lives”, World Health Day, with
panel including Dr. Ruth Berggren, Director, Center for Medical Humanities
& Ethics, University of Texas Health Science Center, 7 April 2009
The Panel assembled for the day’s program, which included Milagros Kennett (Staff
Architect, Risk Reduction Division, Mitigation Branch, FEMA) and Chris Van Gorder (CEO and
President, Scripps Health), was impressive, and Dr. Berggren’s address – regarding the days
immediately following Hurricane Katrina and her work in the HIV/AIDS ward at Charity Hospital
in New Orleans – was captivating and inspiring. The combination of speaker, topic and occasion
was very moving and represented a superb opportunity to connect PAHO’s mission and work with
recent events.
• “Performance Management for Supervisors”, WHO department of Global
Learning and Performance Management (PML), Workshop
• “Would I Hire Me?” and “PMDS Interview” videos, created by WHO Staff
Association
One of the incidental benefits of the year’s experience as Staff Ombudsman, a.i., for WHO/HQ
was the opportunity to learn more about parallel and complementary activities in WHO that might
usefully be incorporated at PAHO. Two initiatives, which involved collaborations between an
administrative department and the WHO Staff Association, were impressive displays not only of
cooperation but of a joint effort to improve performance management and to foster career
development opportunities.
The Global Learning and Performance Management department offered 4-hour workshops for
“staff who supervise other WHO staff,” to “assist supervisors to have quality dialogues when
setting performance objectives, selecting competencies, setting priorities and formulating plans for
developing staff.” Even a glance at this year’s record for issues involving Performance Appraisals
(13) and Supervisory Effectiveness (22) would suggest the usefulness of such workshops at PAHO
as well.
From the Staff Association side, videos were produced to help staff members appreciate and
develop skills necessary for successful interviews. At WHO as well as PAHO, internal candidates
35

36. are frequently disappointed or disillusioned by the difficulties they face as candidates for vacancies.
In a video titled “Would I Hire Me?”, notable for its humor and straightforwardness, Staff
Association members tried to capture some of the many ways in which candidates’ behaviors might
be self-defeating.
Another video prepared by Staff Association actors depicted a PMDS [PPES at PAHO] session
which highlighted how not to conduct such a conversation. Again, humor was used as a tool to
engage viewers and encourage both supervisors and those they supervise to consider how these
encounters can be more useful and less stressful. I encourage readers to explore these, and HRM to
consider adopting these ideas.
The following section of this Report focuses on three areas considered by the Office to be
worthy of comment, discussion and action. Specific recommendations are included, at times
echoing recommendations from earlier Reports.
• Planning, Scheduling and Notification
• Mentorship and Career Development
• Accountability
PLANNING,
SCHEDULING
&
NOTIFICATION
The Office’s second Report, Building Trust (2007), contained this recommendation, under the
heading, “Planning & Notification”:
Anticipate and facilitate change – personnel, policy, organizational – through
strategies that provide for better notification and greater accountability. (p. 17)
The commentary included this paragraph:
“For example, one can not help noting that many events are announced with very little
advance notice, some on the same day they take place. Certainly many of these events have been in
the planning stages for weeks, even months, yet announcements and invitations have appeared 1-2
days prior to the event. Not only does this cast the event with an air of unimportance, but it often
leads to lost opportunities: many of these programs are very worthwhile and potentially of interest
to staff, but when announced (even repeatedly) at the last minute, many employees are by then
36

37. unable to participate due to scheduling conflicts. If the intended message is, “This is important!
Your participation is valued!”, then we need to be better and earlier informed.”
The Office could not help but notice that, on at least one occasion in 2009, we did not seem
to have made significant progress in this area. On a Tuesday at 10:00 a.m., a Bulletin was sent
inviting HQ staff to join the Director “tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. in Room A for a special
event…” (at which honored guests included Ambassadors and high-ranking health officials).
Sixteen minutes later, at 10:16 a.m., a Correction was sent to announce that the event was in fact
taking place “today at 10:30 a.m.,” or 14 minutes away. A second “Correction” went out at 10:29
a.m. No doubt we can do better; the image of PAHO deserves it.
Finally, a comment on the planning and scheduling of mandatory town hall-type events
which are presented from time to time in Room A. One example was a 90-minute training on the
International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) for which attendance was required. The
presentation was followed by a mandatory e-quiz for all staff “to assess understanding of IPSAS.”
While I sincerely believe that we should all be encouraged to expand our knowledge and
understanding in areas outside of our day to day work, it seems fair to ask whether such a massive
commitment of time and effort, and a mandatory one at that, reflects the soundest policy and the
best use of time.
MENTORSHIP
AND
CAREER
DEVELOPMENT
“Mentor: Someone whose hindsight can become your foresight.”
Anonymous
[Mentor: persona cuya mirada hacia atrás puede transformarse en tu mirada hacia adelante.]
Anónimo
Encourage career development and advancement by offering coaching workshops
for serving staff who may compete as internal candidates. Foster a mentorship culture by
acknowledging efforts in PPES reviews and through creation of a staff Mentor Award.
A frequent complaint of a number of visitors to the Office concerns various difficulties they
face with career progression and development. Opportunities to apply for positions with more
responsibility or at a higher grade can seem infrequent. And in fact there have been periods when
budget and financial considerations have slowed or frozen vacancy announcements for established
posts. Both in the General Services as well as the Professional categories, staff members express
frustration with limited hopes of advancement. There is a persistent feeling among some candidates
that somehow external applicants have an unspecified advantage over internal ones, who feel that
37

38. being a “known quantity” works against them in selections. This dilemma is magnified
exponentially for locally-recruited, agency and Ministry employees in Country Offices and Centers
whose chances of securing a U.N. contract are slim.
There are a number of ways the Organization can work to address these concerns. One
might be for HRM to develop a “coaching workshop” for internal candidates that would help them
better understand the selection criteria and process, advise them how to present their candidacies
more effectively, and coach them on interview techniques. Another might be to develop (by HRM
or, as at WHO, in collaboration with the Staff Association) videos or training modules that illustrate
some of these lessons and practices.
In the area of mentorship, a recent project from the Canadian Coalition for Global Health
Research (2007) described such relationships as “an important contributor to building capacity
within organizations and among individuals. There are many definitions and types of mentorship.
Mentorship can be spontaneous or formal, direct or indirect, and short or long-term.” One
suggestion to strengthen the “culture of mentorship” at PAHO is to establish an award at the
annual Awards Ceremony to recognize those colleagues who have demonstrated the generosity,
commitment, accessibility and responsibility that characterize true mentors.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Let our values – Equity, Excellence, Solidarity, Respect and Integrity – guide not
only our conduct, but also management’s responses to situations which challenge,
contradict or defy those values. Encourage, train, support and expect senior managers to
set an example as ethical role models. Evaluate, recognize and promote staff accordingly.
During the course of 2009, I received a letter (e-mail) from a colleague seeking confidential
advice about how to handle a specific interaction with his/her supervisor. S/he was near the end of
a 12-month contract and wrote to the Office of the Ombudsman in the form of “a plea to the
Organization.” In conclusion, s/he wrote: “…it’s entirely up to [the Organization] what it tolerates
and expects from employees. But to allow him/her to supervise others is really a destructive and
irresponsible action on the part of the Organization.”
There are many frustrating and dismaying moments in the work of an Ombudsman. Some
are connected with our limitations in terms of authority and role. Some have to do with limits
imposed on us by visitors’ insistence on absolute confidentiality. Frequently, one is disappointed
not to be able to act more forcefully to uphold the values and policies of our organization. This
matter fell under this category – after making some suggestions about the particular interaction
about which the writer had consulted me, I could only offer these observations:
38

39. “I think you are quite right to say that ‘it’s entirely up to [the Organization] what it tolerates and expects
from its employees.’ To be candid, my experience…leads me to say that it tolerates far too much and expects far too
little, especially from its managers, administrators and supervisors. I don’t think we will ever arrive at the day when
workplaces are free from harassment, abuse of authority, incivility and bullying, certainly not in organizations as
large, complex, transient, political and diverse as [these]. However, that begs the question what organizations are
willing to do by way of responding appropriately to monitor, prevent, identify, intervene and, when necessary, sanction
improper behavior and misconduct. Will the Organization have the strength or courage of its convictions? …
Because management responses are often weak or absent, too often people in positions of authority achieve impunity
due to a failure to act…”
Accountability comes in many forms and descriptions. There is, of course, the kind of
accountability described by IPSAS (above). There is accountability provided by the Office of
Ethics (ETH) and the Office of Internal Oversight and Evaluation Services (IES). There is the sort
of accountability associated with meeting deadlines, adhering to policy, following rules and
regulations consistently, and communicating in a timely way. The accountability I am concerned
with here has to do with personal and organizational responsibility for reinforcing stated values and
refusing to tolerate unacceptable behavior. There are many reasons why some people appear to
operate with impunity – favoritism, management paralysis, a sense of entitlement or privilege (male,
etc.), a perception that some have somehow achieved “untouchable” status, etc. There are also
many reasons why there is often a “failure to act” – conflict avoidance, fear, lack of interest,
imminent retirement or reassignment, anxiety about appearances, passivity, unwillingness to face
possible consequences (complaints, grievances, gossip), even simple bewilderment. Too often,
wrongs go unaddressed and the guilty or the bullies carry on as before.
Some time ago, a valued colleague and PAHO/WHO Staff Association officer forwarded
me an interesting article titled “Somebody I Look Up To:” Ethical Role Models in Organizations.5
There is a powerful anecdote related at the beginning of the article which describes the kind of
accountability I am talking about:
“Several years ago Kathryn Reimann, senior vice president of global compliance at American
Express Co., was faced with the challenge of bringing together two teams that had experienced
friction among some team members in the past. Near the end of one meeting, the level of
antagonism among some participants became obvious and personal, and made others
uncomfortable. Kathryn interrupted the meeting and said: ‘You guys may have thought this was an
acceptable meeting. I did not. I will not lead another meeting where I feel like I need to hide the
scissors in the room. You guys go and do whatever you need to do to hammer out your
differences, or figure out how to keep them out of our meetings. If you can’t do that, you will not
be part of my team, because I will not accept people treating one another like this.’ Her invitation
to do whatever was necessary to deal with past hard feelings, together with the assurance that
disrespectful behavior would not be tolerated, proved to be very helpful in bringing this team
together as a productive and satisfying work group. In reflecting on this experience, Kathryn
believes that she gained some of her confidence for acting with such boldness from having watched
5
Gary R. Weaver, Linda Klebe Treviño, Bradley Agle (Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 313-330, 2005).
39

40. the actions of a highly respected senior executive she worked with very early in her career. When
he received and verified reports that another senior manager – a very strong performer in a very
competitive environment – was not treating people well, he publicly fired him and let it be known
that no amount of success provided an excuse for mistreating people.” [emphasis added]
The contrast between this response and that experienced by the visitor mentioned at the
beginning of this section could not be clearer. And certainly it is this kind of response, and the
ethical role modeling it implies, that distinguishes accountable work groups and organizations from
institutions where people suffer in silence and evil triumphs. The authors’ study is aimed at
achieving an “understanding what it is about someone that makes that person an important,
positive influence on the ethical behavior of another at work.” And in the end, while it may be
unusual and difficult for us to be such individuals, it is probably not terribly complicated:
“Ethical role models are ethical, caring and personable individuals who value relationships
and treat people fairly.”
Finally, it is encouraging to end this section of Commentary and Recommendations on an
optimistic note, namely, to acknowledge a sign of progress in 2009 regarding reform of the internal
justice system at PAHO. This topic, prominently mentioned in the Office’s initial report6 and
reprinted in the second, was discussed by the ICMS in November 2009, when serious substantive
discussions about system reform got underway.
As the composer John Cage said, “Begin anywhere.”
6
Work in Progress: Report of the Ombudsman (April 2006-March 2007), p. 21.
40

41.
10.
USER
EVALUATIONS
–
OFFICE
OF
THE
OMBUDSMAN
An Ombudsman’s office is in some ways unique but in others quite like any other office or
organization – we want to know how we’re doing, and hope to continually improve. Beginning in
2008, the Office created and began distributing a User Evaluation to all visitors at the conclusion of
their cases. The form is included as Appendix E.
The Evaluation contains 23 questions, including two which invite written comments and
suggestions. This 4th Annual Report is the first to include data from those evaluations completed
and returned to the Office between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2009, a total of 55. Graphic
representations of the responses appear below.
41

42. TABLE
1
USER
EVALUATION
OFFICE
OF
THE
OMBUSDMAN
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly N/A
Question / Answer in Percentages Agree (%) (%) (%) Disagree (%)
(%) (%)
8. The role of the Ombudsman was clearly explained to me when 74.5 23.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
we first met.
9. I was able to have an appointment within a reasonable period 78.2 12.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 7.3
of time.
10. Meeting with the Ombudsman took place in a safe, private 74.5 18.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
and confidential setting.
11. I trusted that our discussion were - and continue to be - 76.4 14.5 1.8 3.6 3.6 0.0
confidential.
12. The Ombudsman stayed in touch with me (in person, by 52.7 25.5 1.8 7.3 5.5 7.3
phone or by e-mail) regarding matters discussed during our
meeting(s).
13. Sufficient time was provided to talk about my concerns. 72.7 23.6 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0
14. Throughout the process, I was given the opportunity to 40.0 34.5 7.3 3.6 3.6 10.9
participate in resolving the problem.
15. I felt comfortable discussing my concerns with the 69.1 23.6 3.6 1.8 1.8 0.0
Ombudsman.
16. I felt that the Ombudsman was neutral throughout the 63.6 16.4 9.1 3.6 1.8 5.5
process and did not take sides.
17. The Ombudsman helped me identify and consider a range of 54.5 21.8 12.7 0.0 3.6 7.3
options to address my concern.
18. As a result of meeting with the Ombudsman, I felt that a 36.4 25.5 14.5 7.3 5.5 10.9
positive outcome was achieved.
19. As a result of my experience with the Office of the 32.7 27.3 21.8 3.6 1.8 12.7
Ombudsman, I feel I developed skills or learned approaches or
strategies that might help me to address workplace problems in
the future.
20. I would use the office again in the future if I had a work- 50.9 29.1 7.3 7.3 3.6 1.8
related concern or problem.
21. When necessary, I am comfortable communicating with the 47.3 34.5 7.3 3.6 3.6 3.6
Ombudsman by e-mail or telephone.
I think most of the statistics speak for themselves and require little commentary from the
incumbent. One area that clearly could benefit from improvement is follow-up. Compared with
other questions, the response to item 12 (“The Ombudsman stayed in touch with me [in person, by
phone or by e-mail] regarding matters discussed during our meeting(s).”) was low, at 78% either
“strongly agree” or “agree”. The Office may need to do a better job at the initial meeting with
visitors to create reasonable expectations that are mutually understood and agreed to. Doing so
might in the future preclude the disappointment experienced by 7 respondents in 2008-2009.
Of special interest to me as an Ombudsman are the confidential, qualitative suggestions and
comments elicited, especially items 23 and 24.
Question 23: “What might you have done about your concern or issue if you had not visited
the Office of the Ombudsman?” A sampling of responses:
42

43. Probablemente seguir trabajando con HRM.
No hubiera resuelto mis inquietudes.
Asociación del personal
Reunirme con el PWR.
Talk with my boss.
Worried, stressed, may have acted negatively and made matters worse.
File harassment claim or abandon ship.
Grievance Panel.
Ask for a transfer.
It festers.
Nothing.
Sue PAHO.
Worry.
El apoyo del Ombudsman o mediador es una necesidad, él es la persona en la cual uno puede conversar
siendo neutral y super confidencial. Yo no conversaría con nadie más.
El mediador siempre me ha sugerido lo correcto, creo que es la mejor alternativa..
Not sure he really helped me figure out what to do.
Ninguna porque las demás instancias no me inspiran confianza.
I do not know. Fortunately the Ombudsman is there!
To write a letter to second level supervisor explaining my concerns (I did it in 2005) to talk to the director
explaining my concerns.
I would have not wasted my time with meeting with the Ombudsman because it has not only been my case
that he lacks action to help solve or mediate situations.
To go to HR.
43

44. Question 24: “In the space below, please provide any additional comments, observations or
suggestions that may help to complete your assessment or to improve the functioning of the Office
of the Ombudsman.” Among the responses, in reverse order of receipt (the last comment was
received 23 September 2009; the first, 10 March 2008):
Creo que la figura del mediador es crucial en una organización como PAHO, ya que brinda al personal la
oportunidad de tratar temas delicados y complejos en un ambiente 100% confidencial. El mediador facilita el diálogo
y mantiene la objetividad en situaciones extremadamente complicadas, así como aporta sabios consejos y diferentes
posibles soluciones.
Es necesario y muy importante que las recomendaciones que el Ombudsman realice a las PWR luego de sus
visitas sean consideradas y evaluadas en la respectiva gestión de los PWR.
Sería bueno tener visita del mediador al menos una vez al año para el buen funcionamiento de la
representación y así mejorar el trabajo en equipo de toda la representación.
Mi felicitación al trabajo del Dr. Meissner y sobre todo por sus recomendaciones de su informe del 07/2008.
The Ombudsman responded positively to our invitation to participate in our staff retreat, and was an asset to
the event. He was consulted (e-mail) for an opinion on what [was] essentially an HRM issue and responded
empathetically.
Entiendo que el mediador llevó la inquietud planteada a la instancia correspondiente, salvo que el problema
sigue aunque hay mejoría. Estoy conforme con el trato del mediador y sobre todo porque se retroalimentó de lo tratado
al grupo que planteó el problema. Hay que dar seguimiento a ver si se avanza más. Felicitaciones es muy amable
estar con usted.
Considero que un mediador es muy necesario en toda organización y sus aportes son importantes para darle
solución a un conflicto. Debe visitar con mayor frecuencia a las representaciones y sus informes sean conocidos en el
país que fue visitado.
I sense that there is a bias to protect the organization and not the individual.
The experience was very positive overall. I just wish that there had been some follow-up. Especially of the
agreements that were made during the session.
Yo creo que debe mantenerse separada e independiente de la Oficina de Etica.
Maybe some more advice on how to deal with the kind of issues that we go to talk [about]. But overall, I
think the Ombudsman is doing a very ethical and professional job.
44

45. I feel the Ombudsman is great, however our organization structure is such that little can be changed.
Unfortunately I have to say, that after contacting the Ombudsman I was called by my area manager and my
first level supervisor to answer about if it was true that I have presented a concern in your office.
I think the report that was issued by that office a few months ago was extremely interesting. But I wonder if
upper management and managers in general paid attention to the outcome to change or adjust their behavior and
management style?
I have no suggestions for improvements. My experience was extremely satisfactory, useful and productive.
The existence of the Ombudsman’s office is a vital safety valve at PAHO.
Siempre he recibido el apoyo que he necesitado por lo que no tengo inquietud alguna.
It works very well, been very helpful.
Wallace helped me to identify the issues and possible solutions to next steps to resolve the issue. I am very
grateful to him for his help and willingness to listen and offer advice.
Desde que el mediador no puede estar físicamente en las oficinas de país, se hace difícil que pueda realizar su
gestión como mediador a la distancia. Su presencia en los países una vez al año, al menor es muy importante
Sincerely, I knew that he could not resolve my problem, that he would make some suggestions, that he would
“study” my problem, but I think he did not go so deep as he should into it. In my case, I did not see any good result
at all, and if he pointed out the errors in my case to the director, she did not want to see it! Sad!
The Ombudsman helped me in making my own decision regarding the issue affecting me. This made me feel
in control and had a positive effect in the outcome.
To change the Ombudsman that is currently working at PAHO. He is not neutral and he is a puppet of
HR. He really is not going to do anything to help, as it was my experience, his string ties with HR make him not be
an ethical Ombudsman.
When the evaluations are sent to visitors whose files have been closed, the envelope contains
a note from the Office (which also appears in Appendix E). The most important description of the
evaluation process explains that “the questions are designed to help us understand your experience
with the Office and to help us determine how we can improve our services. As described in the
2006-2007 Report of the PAHO Ombudsman, “if we [Ombudsmen] are to offer commentary and make
recommendations, we should invite the same for our own development and improvement.”
45

46. The many different comments, suggestions and opinions reprinted above can speak for
themselves. Some are flattering, others not. However, the Office takes this process of evaluation
very seriously, and appreciates the time and effort that respondents have taken to participate.
46

47. 11.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report, like its predecessors, owes a debt of thanks to many colleagues who played
some part in the work of the Office of the Ombudsman in 2009. The organizational commitment
to the success of the Office has been substantial, beginning with the Office of the Director. Doctor
Roses has consistently supported the needs of the Office and this was especially so during the year-
long period in 2008-2009 when PAHO’s Office served concurrently as the Office of Staff
Ombudsmen in Geneva. The Office of the Deputy Director and the PAHO/WHO Staff
Association also reinforced the work of the Office.
It would be impossible to overstate the professionalism, enthusiasm and warmth that
Catherine Michel-Baussay brought to her position as Assistant to the Office of Staff Ombudsmen
in WHO. After many years elsewhere in the Organization, she adapted to a new and challenging
position during a year of unusual demands, and with an Ombudsman almost entirely in absentia (in
Washington) during 2009. The Office was maintained and its diversely-located visitors were served
through a lively, continuous communication link, telephone and e-mail, and by Catherine’s
dedication to the Office and Organization and her commitment to colleagues in need. Much of the
work reported here only took place as a result of her graceful interventions and skillful
management. Merci infiniment!
Once again I thank Leo Alvarez-Espinal of HRM for his generous assistance with database
issues that make possible the accurate reporting of statistical information and graphics. And it is
only fair to express my appreciation to the fifty-five visitors to the Office who, at some point in
2008-2009, took the time candidly to complete and return the User Evaluations, and whose
opinions are contained for the first time in this Report. The Office is committed to honest self-
evaluation and improvements based on constructive feedback from visitors. I gratefully
acknowledge the visual and cover design improvements for this Report created by the artful
contributions of Vivian Zanatta in KMC.
Finally, the work of Harbey Peña Sandoval has been indispensable. Harbey began his
collaboration with the Office as a summer intern in 2010 and has since joined the Organization as
Assistant to the Ombudsman. Well before his first day of employment, he graciously helped to
collect the data and present them in graphic form, in addition to many contributions to the layout,
design, accuracy and completeness of this Report. The Office has grown and improved
immeasurably as a result of the care and dedication he brings to his work. We are delighted to have
him as a colleague.
47

48.
APPENDICES
48

49.
A.
Office
of
the
Ombudsperson:
Appointment
and
Terms
of
Reference
Section 1 - Establishment of the Office of the Ombudsperson
The Office of the Ombudsperson has been established by the Director to make available the
services of an impartial, neutral and independent official to address the employment related
problems of staff members. The Ombudsperson shall be guided by PAHO’s Staff Rules and
Regulations and policies as well as by the principles of justice, fairness and ethics.
The Office of the Ombudsperson shall have its own operating budget that will provide the
Ombudsperson with the resources that are necessary to fulfill its mission in Headquarters, country
offices and centers.
Section 2 - Appointment of the Ombudsperson
2.1 The Ombudsperson shall be appointed by the Director, after considering the
recommendation of the senior staff selection committee, which includes participation of the Staff
Association. The post will be announced and a competitive selection process conducted in
accordance with PAHO’s recruitment policies and procedures. Due to the importance of this
function, the Organization shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the post is continuously
staffed.
2.2. The Office of the Ombudsperson is functionally independent but reports to the Deputy
Director for administrative purposes.
2.3 The Ombudsperson shall serve for an initial two-year renewable period that will not
exceed a total of five years. Upon appointment, the Ombudsperson will be subject to a one year
probationary period after which his or her appointment may be confirmed by the Director after
consultation with the Staff Association. Once the period of service has been completed, the selected
candidate may not be re-employed by PAHO for a period of time corresponding to his or her prior
services as PAHO Ombudsperson.
2.4 The Director, in consultation with the Staff Association, may remove the Ombudsperson
from office for cause and following due process.
2.5 In the event of temporary absences of the Ombudsperson or in the case where the post
is vacant, the WHO Ombudsman shall assume temporarily the role of PAHO Ombudsperson.
49

50. Section 3 - Terms of reference of the Ombudsperson
3.1 Role and Purpose - The Ombudsperson is an independent and impartial official who
provides confidential, informal conflict resolution services for PAHO personnel who experience
work-related issues, challenges and problems.
The Ombudsperson also assists the Organization in achieving its goals by:
a) Recommending preventive actions, reporting and analyzing issues and providing
feedback to senior management and to the Staff Association regarding trends and
general issues that affect the work environment. Early intervention by the
Ombudsperson encourages optimal personnel practices and promotes organizational
and operational efficiency.
b) Encouraging dialogue and facilitating the exchange of information across the
Organization to improve workplace climate and a healthy work environment.
c) Encouraging persons who are experiencing work-related problems, when possible, to
address them directly with the other party and with their direct supervisor.
d) Providing PAHO personnel with the skills and tools to address issues and conflict in
a constructive way,
e) Minimizing risks and serving as an early warning system that identifies potential
sources of conflict, and
f) Providing a safety net when formal systems fail or are perceived as inadequate.
3.2 Authority and Scope of Intervention - The Ombudsperson has the authority to receive
complaints, initiate inquiries and informally address problems raised by PAHO personnel located in
headquarters, country offices and centers.
The Ombudsperson will be functionally independent of any organizational office or entity
for the purpose of exercising the duties of the post, but shall not have decision making powers.
The Ombudsperson will function within the scope of the existing Staff Rules and Regulations,
manual provisions and policies.
The Ombudsperson may decline to consider direct intervention over individual problems or
cases that can be remedied only by actions affecting staff at large or cases that have not been
brought to his/her attention in a timely fashion.
3.3 Access to Persons and to Information
a) The Ombudsperson shall have direct access to the Director, as needed, for the
performance of his or her functions.
b) The Ombudsperson will also have unrestricted access to officials and all personnel.
All persons who work for PAHO are expected to cooperate with the Ombudsperson.
50

51. c) In order to carry out the duties and responsibilities of his/ her post, the
Ombudsperson shall have access to all records concerning personnel. The exceptions
to this are medical records that are not available without the express consent of the
person concerned and records of an ongoing investigation until all formal
proceedings have been completed and a decision taken.
3.4 Responsibilities of the Ombudsperson
a) The Ombudsperson shall receive inquiries and take appropriate action on issues and
problems regarding conditions of employment, working conditions and relations
between supervisors, supervisees, colleagues and working groups;
b) In matters brought to her or his attention, the Ombudsperson will try to ameliorate
conditions and to bring about reconciliation among the parties through the use of
mediation, dialogue, consensus building, and fact-finding, coaching, training and
other conflict resolution interventions.
c) For problems that are not resolved by mutual agreement, the Ombudsperson may
present a report with recommendations for resolution to the parties involved and/or
their supervisor or to the Director depending on the circumstances of the case and
the persons involved. These reports and recommendations constitute an informal
approach towards conflict resolution, are of a confidential nature, and cannot be
disclosed or used by anyone as evidence during any formal proceeding, including
PAHO’s Board of Appeal, Grievance Panel, the International Labour Organization
Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) or any other internal or external administrative or
judicial proceeding.
d) The Ombudsperson will identify and report trends and pervasive or potential
problems and will make recommendations on systemic issues to ensure best practices
and prevent recurrence of similar conflicts.
e) The Ombudsperson will prepare and conduct orientation sessions and trainings to
create awareness across the Organization regarding appropriate behavior, issues of
mutual respect, diversity, inclusiveness and understanding how conflict can be a
positive element for progress and improvement.
3.5 Limitations on the Ombudsperson’s Authority
The Ombudsperson shall not:
a) Make, change, or set aside a policy or administrative decision;
b) Make binding decisions or determine rights
c) Compel any individual to implement the Ombudsperson's recommendations;
d) Conduct an investigation that substitutes for administrative or judicial proceedings;
and
e) Intervene in a matter issue that is currently pending with an internal grievance body
unless all parties and the presiding officer in that action explicitly consent.
51