WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANT~
REGIONAL OFFICE FOR
THE WESTERN PACIFIC
BUREAU REGIONAL DU PACIFIQUE OCCIDENTAL
• REGIONAL COMMITTEE YTP/RC 1 5/7
25 June 1964 Fifteenth Session Manila 17-22 September 1964 Provisional agenda item 14 PROCEDURE FOR THE NOMINATION OF REGIONAL DIRECTORS ORIGmAL: ENGLISH
1.
RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
The Regional Director has the honour to bring to the attention of the Regional Committee resolution EB33.R42 on the "Proced.ure for the Nomination of Regional Directors ": '~e
Executive Board,
Having considered the report of the DirectorGeneral on the proced.ure .for the nomination of regional directors; and Believing that adoption of the proposal transmitted by the European Regional Committee at its tlTelfth session as well as of the additional suggestion of the DirectorGeneral might facilitate the consideration of candidacies for the important post of regional director, INVITES the attention of regional committees to the Director-General's report and. requests them to consider the suggestions contained. therein in regard to the procedure for the nOmination of regional directors. "
The report of the Director-General appears in the attached document EB33/32. 2. RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE REGIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE iiESTERN
PACIFIC In accord.ance with Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure of' the Regional Committee for the Hestern Pacific the present arrangement for the election of the Regional Director is as follOWS:
'?or the nomination of the Director, the Committee, at a private meeting, shall establish a list of candidates /whose names ...
WP/RC1 5/7 page 2 whose names shall be submitted by secret proposals from representatives at that meeting and presented in alphabetical order. The Committee shall then elect its candidate by secret ballot. For this purpose each representative entitled to vote shall write on his ballot paper the name of a single candidate chosen from the above-mentioned list. If no candidate obtains the majority required, the candidate who obtains the least number of votes shall be eliminated at each ballot. If the number of candidates is reduced to two, there shall be as many ballots as are necessary in order to secure a majority for either candidate. In the event of a tie betvleen the remaining candidates after three such ballots, the whole procedure established by this Rule shall be recommenced. The name of the person so nominated shall be submitted to the Executive Board. "
•
3. 3.1
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS MADE
BY (1)
the Regional Committee for Europe At each of its sessions, other than sessions convened und.er Rule 5, the Committee shall elect a person to act as nominations officer for the purposes of this rule and a person to act as deputy for the nominations officer in the event of his being unable to act. Not less than three months before the date fixed for the opening of a session of the Committee at which a person is due to be nominated as Regional Director, the nominations officer shall inform each Member of the Region that he will receive at a specified address proposals of the names of persons for nomination by the Committee as Regional Director. Any Member of the Region may propose the name of a person, who has indicated his willingness to act as Regional Director, submitting with the proposal particulars of the person's qualifications and experience. Such proposals shall be sent to the nominations officer, so as to reach him not less than six weeks before the date fixed for the opening of the session. the opening of the session copies of all proposals for nomination as Regional Director (with particulars of qualifications and experience) will be sent to each Member of the Region, and. to each representative appointed. to attend the session. /Further details
(2)
(3)
(4) Not less than four weeks before the date fixed for
WP/RC15/7 page 3 Further details are given in Annex 1 of doctunent EB33/32 attached. or
By the Director-General (1) The names of suggested candidates should be invited by and forwarded to the Director-General since, in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution, he is ex-officio secretary of all committees of the Organization. Provision for advance suggestion of candidate ( s) by a Member government, and circulation of the names together with curricula vitae, would not apply to an incumbent who would, of course, be considered, if eligible; unless he had. declared himself' not interested in further service. It Vlould appear reasonable that the regional
(2)
(3)
committees should normally submit the names of more than one candidate (for example, three) to the Executive Board. so as to permit the Board to exercise its responsibilities of making the appointment. Should the Regional Committee d.ecide to propose the re-appointment of the current incumbent to the exclusion of any other candidate, it could in this case put fOrV/ard a single name. Further details are contained in doctunent FJ333/32 attached.
EXECUTIVE BOARD Thirty-third Session
EB33/3 2 15 January 1964 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Agenda item 6.6 PROCEDURE FOR THE NOMINATION OF REGIONAL DIRECTORS
1.
Introduction
1.1 The Executive Board, at its thirty-first session in January 1963, having considered a proposal dealing with the procedure for the nomination of regional directors, referred to the Board by the Regional Committee for Europe at its twelfth session, adopted resolution EB3l.Rl7. l The proposal is described in the annexed excerpt from regional committee document EUR/RC12/4, Addendum 2, of 16 August 1962 (Annex 1). A summary of the action of the Regional Committee is reflected in the annexed minutes of the sixth meeting, thirty-first session of the Executive Board (Annex 2). In its resolution the Board requested the DirectorGeneral ''to study this question and to report to the Executive Board. at a future session ". The Director-General in the following paragraphs submits certain suggestions which he believes the Board may wish to consider. 2. Regional procedure for suggesting candidates
2.1 Although it ;re.s appropriate for the Regional Committee for Europe to refer this matter to the Executive Board because of its implications for other regions, the proposal itself deals with an element of procedure of the regional committees which it is within the competence of each regional committee to decide. For the practical reasons adduced by the sponsors of the proposal, it would appear that the advance notice envisaged would facilitate the consideration by the Regional Committee of candidates for the post of Regional Director. As to the recipient of suggested candidacies, it would be the correct arrangem,mt to provide that they be invited by, and forwarded to, the Director-General since, in accordance with the proviSions of Article 32 of the Constitution, he is ex-officio secretary of all committees of the Organization. 2.2 Provision for advance suggestion of candidate(s) by a Member government, and circulation of the names together with curricula vitae, would not a;pply to an incumbent who would, of course, be considered, i f eligible, unless he had declared himself not interested in further service. 2.3 Should the Board agree that the proposal, originating in the European Regional COmmittee, is a useful one for general application, it may wish to recommend to all regional committees that they consider its adoption. /3. Consideration .••
lHandbook of Resolutions and Decisions, 7th ed., p.245
I
EB33/3 2 page 2 3. Consideration of candidates by the Executive Board
3.1 In addition to dealing with this first part of the proposal, submitted to i t by the European Regional Committee, the Board may wish to take the occasion to consider another aspect of the procedure for nOminating regional directors. As the Board is aware, under arrangements up to this time the provisions of Article 52 of the Constitution are implemented by the regional committee's forwarding to the Executive Board a single name for its consideration. The Board is thus in the position of either having to accept or reject the sole candidate presented to it. Should the Board on some occasion not concur in the recommendation of a regional committee, a request for the submission of another name would need to be made. 3.2 Since it would appear from the text of Article 52 of the Constitution that its framers intended the major responsibility for decision to rest with the Executive Board,l it would appear reasonable that the Board request regional committees normally to submit the names of more than one candidate (for example, three) so as to permit the Board to exercise its responsibilities of making the appointment. Shoul.d the Regional Committee decide to propose the re-appointment of the current incumbent to the exclusion oJ: any other candidate, it could in this case put forward a single name. 3.3 The proposal contained in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 is in addition to the suggestions transmitted to the Board by the European Regional Committee. Should the Board agree that this suggestion might enhance the proper discharge of its responsibilities, the Board may wish to transmit it to the regional committees with the recommendation that they follow such a procedure in the future. 3.4 In accordance with the provisions of Rules 18 and 19 oJ: the Rules of Procedure of the Executive Board, the Director-General woul.d expect to make available to the Board any information in his possession relevant to the Board's consideration of the candidates presented, including such information as was available to him from the retiring regional director.
~ record of the discussion of this matter when the Constitution was fr8ll2d at the International Health Conference, and which appears in
otficial Records No.2, pp.63..66, is reproduced as Annex 3 to this document.
EB33/32
page 3 ANNEX 1
EXCERPI' FROM REGIONAL COMMITTEE DOCUMENT EURjRC12/4, ADDENDUM 2, pp. 2-3
DATED 16 AUGUST 1962 Amendments Rule 46: Substitute the 1'ollowing 1'or the present rule: '~. At each 01' its sessions, other than sessions convened under Rule 5, the Committee shall elect a person to act as nominations officer for the purposes of this rule and a person to act as deputy 1'or the nominations officer in the event 01' his being unable to act. The nominations officer and his deputy shall hold of1'ice until the election of their successors. Any subsequent re1'erence in this rule to the nominations officer shall be construed as including a re1'erence to the deputy acting in place of the nominations officer.
Comments Under the amended Rule 46, sOlIe changes would be made in the procedure antecedent to the nomination by secret ballot of the Regional Director. It is considered that the changes made would effect an improvement in the procedure. Under the present Rule 46, candidates for nomination as Regional Director are proposed at the meeting at which the balloting takes place. It can thus readily happen that some of the candidates proposed may not be known to all those who are voting. The main object 01' the changes proposed in the rule is to introduce a procedure under which there will be advance nomination of candidates, thus affording the representatives an opportunity of assessing their comparative qualifications and experience in advance. Brie1'ly, the revised rule would provide that the Committee would appoint a ''nominations officer" and that it would be his duty to invite nominations three months before the date of the appropriate session and transmit particulars of the nominations Which he had received to the representatives at least four weeks before the opening of the session. The revised rule would not make any substantial change in the present procedure for balloting, the only modifications made being that in paragraph 5 (d) J which c1arii'ies
2. Not less than three months before the date fixed for the opening of a session of the Committee at which a person is due to be nominated as Regional Director, the nominations officer shall inform each :t>imlber of the Region that he will receive at a specified address proposals of the names of persons for nomination by the Committee as Regional Director.
3. Any M:!mber of the Region may propose the name of a person, who has indicated his willingness to act as Regional Director, submitting with the proposal particulars 01' the person's qualifications and experience. Such proposals shall be sent to the nominations officer, so as to reach him not less than six weeks before the date fixed for the opening of the session.
FJB33/3 2 Annex 1
page
4
the position which might arise on a ballot where two candidates tied for bottom place.
4. The nominations officer shall) not less than four weeks before the date fixed for the opening of the session, cause copies of all proposals for nomination as Regional Director (with particulars of qualifications and experience) received by him within the period specified to be sent to each Member of the Region. Copies shall also be sent to each representative appointed to attend the session of the Committee. The nomination of Regional Director shall tal,e place at a private meeting of the Committee. The Committee shall make a selection by secret ballot from amongst the persons proposed in accordance with this rule, in the follOwing manner: (a) at each ballot, each representative entitled to vote shall write on his ballot paper the name of a single candidate chosen from those proposed in accordance with this rule; if a candidate obtains at ballot the majority required under Rule 39, he. shall be declared nominated; any
5.
Under the present rule it is provided that where there is a tie in the election which cannot be resolved by three further ballots, the whole procedure for nomination and balloting is recommenced. This would not be appropriate under the revised procedure suggested. Paragraph 6 of the revised rule accordingly provides that where a deadlock is reached, the two names will be forwarded to the Executive Board for selection of the appointee.
(b)
( c) if at a ballot no candidate obtains the required majority and one candidate obtains a lesser number of votes than any other candidate, he shall be eliminated and a further election ballot held; (d) if at any ballot no candidate obtains the required majority and two or more candidates obtain the same lesser number of votes than
FJB33/32 Annex 1 page 5
other candidates, the Committee shall decide by ballot as to which of the candidates obtaining such lesser number of votes shall be eliminated and, such candidate having been eliminated, a further election ballot shall be held.
6. I f the number of candidates is reduced to two and if' there is a tie between those two candidates after three further ballots, the na.n:es of both of those candidates shall be forwarded, for selection, to the Executive Board.
7. The name of the person or persons so nominated shall be announced at a public meeting of the Committee and submitted to the Executive Board."
EB33/3 2 page 6 ANNEX 2
EXCERPI' FROM MINUTES
OF THE THIRTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE EXECtJl'IVE BOARD (Document EB3l/Min/6 Rev.l, p. 167)
(As reported by the Regional Director ~or Europe) Among other proposals, the Committee had had bef'ore it the amendment proposed by the Government of' Ireland concerning the procedure for the nomination of a Regional Director. The proposal was, briefly) that nominations for the post of Regional Director should be submitted before the opening o~ the Committee's session and not, as at present, at the time of election. Moreover, it was suggested that should it prove impossible to reach a decision, the names of the two remaining candidates should be submitted to the Executive Board for final decision. The Regional Committee had considered that those proposals were outside the competence of the Regional Committee for Europe and that since the matter concerned other regions and the Executive Board it would be preferable to refer the matter to the Board. The Re.gional. Committee had indicated that it was favourably disposed in principle towards the adoption of the proposed amendment and that it desired to reconsider it at a later session.
page 7
EB33/3 2
ANNEX 3
EXTRACT FROM OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION NO. 2
Eleventh Meeting of the International Health Conference held on Tuesday, 16 July 1946 1. Resumwtion of Discussion on the Report of Committee V: Regional Arrangements
The CHAIRMAN recalled. that at the tenth plenary meeting discussion on sub-sections (b) and (c) of Article C, Section XII (Regional Arrangements) had been postponed.
These sub-sections read: n(b) The head of the Regional Of'fice should be the Regional. Director appointed by the Regional Committee subject to the approval of the Executive Board. "( c) The Regional Director should appoint the staff of the Regional Of':fice in accordance with the staff regulations to be approved by the Regional Committee and the DirectorGeneral. II Mr SANDIFER (United states of America) said that, i f the World Hea,l.th Organization were to be capable of dealing with health problems thro'lfghout the world) it IllUst be an organization which all the delegations could support. The attainment of that objective lIould require IllUtual concessions, made in a spirit of collaboration.
The United States delegation felt it especially important that all, or practically all, the members of the Conference should be in agreement on the proviSions contained in sub-sections (b) and (c), and for that reason he moved. that the text of those sub-sections be replaced by the following text:
"(b) The head of the Regional Of':fice should be the Regional Director, appointed by the Executive Board in agreement with the Regional Committee. "( c) The staff of the Regional Of'fice should be appOinted in a manner to be determined by agreement between the DirectorGeneral and the Regional Director. II Dr BUSTAMANTE (Mexico) said that the amendment of sub-section (b) proposed by the delegate of the United states of America was in essence what the Mexican delegation had been insisting upon, and the new wording suggested for sub-section (c) was likewise satisfactory. The loexican delegation therefore seconded the motion.
EB33/3 2 Annex 3 page
8
Dr VALIARlNO (panama) supported the proposaJ. by the United states delegation on the ground that it was just, and tended towards co-operation and co-ordination in the best sense or those words. Dr URIBE AGUIRRE (Colombia) aJ.so supported the proposaJ., ror the reasons advanced by the delegate or Maxico. Mr KAUNTZE (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdom delegation was actuated by the principle or supporting a single World HeaJ.th Organization. Its view on regionaJ. arrangements had been governed by the necessity of welding heaJ.th organizations throughout the world into a single whole. He considered that the anend.ments proposed by the United states delegation met very well the United Kingdom delegation IS wishes in that respect, and aJ.so provided the contact with the RegionaJ. Committees Which would enable them to take their share in the selection or the regionaJ. oUicers.
Dr KR<Y1.'KOV (Union of SOviet SociaJ.ist RepUblics) considered the motion of the United states delegation the best of all the proposaJ.s that had been presented. The formula could be fully and certainly accepted by the Soviet delegation. It did not in any way oppose the democratic principles of the structure of the Organization, and would eliminate the danger of the Organization I s becoming a gathering or members who, while respecting themselves, would have no comm.on discipline. He therefore fully supported the proposaJ.. Dr BUSTOS (Chile) added the support or his delegation, which considered the proposaJ. very just, and one that would make ror the best co-operation and co-ordination. Dr DE PAULA SOUZA (Brazil) felt that the motion made on the previous day to postpone discussion on sub-sections (b) and (c) had proved its vaJ.ue in saving time. There seemed to be generaJ. agreement with the amendments proposed by the United States delegation and he moved that they be accepted and the debate closed.
Dr GlNES (paraguay) requested the delegate of Brazil to withdraw the motion ror closure, as he wished to state his views. Dr DE PAULA SOUZA (Brazil) said that his intention in proposing closure of the debate had been the sound one of avoiding the expression by dif:ferent delegates of virtuaJ.ly the sane opinions. However, he did not wish the motion to have the effect or preventing anyone from bringing in new ideas. Dr GINES (Paraguay) regretted that he had. to oppose the proposaJ. of the tmited states delegation. The Latin-American delegates had. unanimously expressed their agreement on the necessity of creating a World BeaJ.th Organization. They had, on the other hand, repeatedly pointed out that there existed in the Americas a heaJ.th office that had been doing excellent worIt ror a very long period, and which had even greatly contributed to the growth of pan-American consciousness and solidarity. \
~
..
EB33/32 Annex 3 page 9
It must be borne in mind that that health office (the Pan American Sanitary Bureau) had come into being through legal action, through international agreements among the American nations, and it was specified in its rules that any agreement arrived at by nations signatory to the Pan American Health Agreement must be concluded through the Pan American Sanitary Bureau. The Paraguayan delegation, therefore, had originally proposed that the nations represented in the Pan American Sanitary Bureau should join the World Health Organization by speCial agreement, but through the common act of the Bureau. On that basis they would all agree even to merging with the \vorld Health Organization, even though that should reduce the efficiency and scope of the Bureau. The Conference bad a great responsibility, both from the point of view of the vast amount of work done in the past by the Pan Alrerican Sanitary Bureau, and from the point of view of the enormous future possibilities to be envisaged through the co-operation of all the peoples of the world. The Paraguayan delegation was responsible for notifying the authorities of its country of any contemplated decisions, and must make clear that the spirit underlying the Pan American Sanitary :Bureau would continue. Although, basically, the Latin-American delegations, like other delegations, wished to see a fraternal co-operation of all nations in the health field, he proposed that the Pan American Bureau should remain in their hands. It .ras intertwined in the happiness of a whole continent, and some change in the situation vlOuld profoundly affect the health of all the pan-American countries. An arbitrary termination of the Bureau would lead .to all kinds of difficulties; and he was sure that other regional offices that might be in existence would also hold the principle that an organization could not be brushed aside without due regard to the basis on which it had. been created under international agreements. The Paraguayan delegation maintained that the Director of a Regional Office should be appointed by the Regional Committee, and supported the proposal in the text as it stood., on the ground that it would assure the autonomy necessary to the regional offices for sound and efficient functioning. Dr THOMEN (Dominican Republic) agreed with the United States delegation I s proposal for sub-section (b). The proposal for sub-section (c), however, might lead to difficulties if there should not be agreement between the Director-General and the Regional Director. He suggested, therefore, the insertion of a proviSion that, if the Director-General and the Regional Director could not come to agreement as to the appointment of subordinate personnel, the Executive Board should have the last word in the matter. Specifically, he proposed the addition to sub-section (c) of the words:
EB33/32 .Annex
3
page 10
"m a case where this agreement between the Director-General and the Regional Director cannot be established, the .Executive Board will resolve the issue." Dr VASQUEZ (Ecuador) supported the proposal of the delegate of the Dominican Republic.
m reply to a question by the Chairman, Mr- S.A!'IDIFER (United states of America) said that he had no objection to the amendment proposed by the delegate of the Dominican Republic. Dr SANTAMARINA (Cuba) supported the United states proposal and expressed the hope that the democratic spirit underlying it would prevail in the future and lead to the establishment of a balance between the regional authorities on the one hand and the central organization on the other. He hoped that, in the future, the Regional Committee would not be favoured to the disadvantage of the central organization, and, by the same token, that special favour would not be given to the Executive Board and the Director-General. The Cuban delegation felt, however, that the appointment of the subordinate personnel of a regional office should be made by agreement between the Director-General and the Regional Director, without any provision to the effect that the last word might be with the Executive Board. If such a provision were added, it was possible that a principle underlying the United states proposal would be forfeited if, at some time in the future, a Director-General - not maliciously, but simply in an endeavour to extend his powers somewhat - should decide to oppose the Regional Director, because then the Executive Board would automatically have the last word in the matter. The Cuban delegation did not like that possibility, and therefore could not accept the motion of the delegate of the Dominican Republic. The CHAIRMAN asked those who had supported the amendment proposed by the delegate of the United states of America whether they concurred in the proposal of the delegate of the Dominican Republic.
The delegates of M:!xico, Panama and Colombia did not concur; delegate of the United. Kingdom said that he had no objection.
the
Dr THOMEN (Dominican Republic) withdrew his llK>tion, as it was not supported by the delegates who had supported the original llK>tion by the delegate of the United states of America.
At this point the CHAIRMAN stated that because of a commitment made some months previously it "TOuld be necessary for him to turn the Chair over to one of the Vice-Presidents. He invited Dr Krotkov to take the Chair. The CHAI.RMAN (Dr Krotkov) thanked the delegates for the applause with which they had. endorsed his taking of the Chair. As he wished to tal>e part in the discussion; however, he asked Dr Shen to assume the chairmanship.
EB33/3 2 Annex 3 page 11
Dr SHEN (China) said that he also wished to take part in the debate. The CHAIRMAN (Dr Krotkov) said he would therefore continue to
preside. Dr EVANG (Norway) felt that the text proposed for sub-section (b) by the delegate of the United states of America was perhaps the best compromise text that could be found in the circumstances. He was, however, much more reluctant to accept the text proposed by that delegation for sub-section (c). He himself advocated effective and strong regional offices, and he wondered whether the text, in its present form, was clear enough for that purpose. He felt it desirable to have on record and interpretation of the text, which he would endeavour now to give. The international public health service provided by the World Health Organization must be honoured and r:y£ high degree, the higbest service of its type, and one that would draw to it the best administrators, hygienists and scientists from allover the world.
Therefore, the expert staff - he was speaking only of the expert staff - must be built up in such a way as to utilize the experts who were available. For both tbe central and regional. offices, there must be no discrimination of colour, country or religion. The only things to count should be the qualifications of the man - his gifts, education, character, personality; in fine., his potentiality to fulfil an important function in the central office or one of the regional offices of the Organization. He felt sure that such an interpretation was in accordance with the spirit of a single World Health Organization. Dr SHOUSHA Pasha (Egypt) opposed. the proposal of the delegate of the United states r:y£ America and supported acceptance of the text as it stood in the report. He felt that the latter text would not impair in any way the solidarity of the Organization - the collaboration of the regional offices with the central office. The Egyptian delegation felt also that the Regional Committee was the adequate and appropriate authority to nOminate, in agreement with the Executive Board, the Regional Director. Dr ZWANCK (Argentina) supported the proposal of the United states delegation. It must be clear that the regional. offices should playa harmonious role with the central organization within the World Health Organization.
Furthermore, the Argentine delegation heartily approved the principle that the best experts should be chosen for the staff, on the basis previously outlined. He felt that a definite decision should now be taken.
"-
EB33/3 2 3 page 12 Annex
•
Replying to a question by the Chairman, Dr Zwanck said he was formal.ly moving the closure of the debate. He added that he was dOing so not in order to restrict freedom of speech, but because he was under the impression that the discussion had been exhausted and no new viewpoint could be expected to be put forward. The CHAIRMAN declared the motion for closure seconded and, there being no objection, declared it carried.
_ j -
L52 and I,
He then put to a vote the amendment of sub-sections (b) and (c) 59 proposed by the delegate of the United states of America.
i -
/
The amendDent was adopted by 41 votes to
7.
j
'/
The CHAIRMAN then put to a vote Article C L51, 52 and whole, as amended.
59 as
a
Article C, as amended, was adopted without a dissentient voice.