Melanie Verwoerd's controversial dismissal from Unicef Ireland has rippled beyond these shores and is distracting attention from the charity's appeal for aid to Somalia, writes MARY FITZGERALD
THE TIMING could not have been worse. Earlier this month, just as Unicef was gearing up for one of its biggest international appeals for the crisis in famine-stricken Somalia, tensions between the board and executive director of its Ireland arm came to a head.
Last weekend the news that Melanie Verwoerd had been sacked after four years as head of Unicef Ireland, during which time she oversaw the doubling of its income, raising €6.9 million for Unicef programmes worldwide last year, seeped into the media.
Verwoerd, a former ANC parliamentarian moved to Dublin in 2001, when she was appointed South Africa’s ambassador to Ireland. She says that misgivings over continuing publicity about her relationship with the deceased RTÉ broadcaster Gerry Ryan were the reason for her dismissal by the board of Unicef Ireland, which includes the former Fianna Fáil adviser PJ Mara, businessman Paul Connolly and the solicitor Ivor Fitzpatrick. Sources close to Verwoerd say documentation, including minutes of meetings with board members, bears this out.
Verwoerd – whose ex-husband, Wilhelm, was the grandson of Hendrik Verwoerd, the man considered the architect of apartheid – first met Ryan in early 2008. They started a relationship after the broadcaster separated from his wife of 26 years, Morah. Verwoerd discovered Ryan’s body in his Dublin apartment in April last year.
Since then, their relationship has been kept in the headlines by revelations from Ryan’s inquest that he had taken cocaine before his death; media interest in his €1.3 million will; and Verwoerd’s exclusion from Ryan’s anniversary Mass.
The story of Verwoerd’s dismissal gestated for several days in the media before Unicef Ireland issued a statement, and only then after it emerged that some of the organisation’s celebrity goodwill ambassadors – actors Liam Neeson, Vanessa Redgrave and Roger Moore – were publicly declaring their opposition to its treatment of Verwoerd.
The statement refers, in vague terms, to a “significant impasse” between Verwoerd and the board over concerns relating to “the future profile and positioning” of Unicef in Ireland. “The board decided that the differences could not be resolved and, acting in the interests of the organisation as a whole and, most importantly, its mission, it decided unanimously to end her contract,” the statement adds.
It also says that, contrary to reports, Verwoerd “was not dismissed by email, arbitrarily or without notification that this course of action was a possibility”. It adds that Verwoerd was paid two years’ salary in respect of the settlement, a sum believed to be about €200,000. The statement says Verwoerd conditionally accepted the terms and sums through her solicitor, and that the settlement cheque has been cashed.
It states that the charity is “bigger than one person” and apologises for the manner in which the story became public.
The same day it emerged that not only are Neeson and Redgrave pledging their support for Verwoerd, they are also pulling out of prior commitments to Unicef, including a field trip by Neeson to Mozambique, in protest at what they describe as her “profoundly disturbing” sacking. In their view, Verwoerd had been hounded by the Irish media but her commitment to Unicef had been unwavering. They add that it is a “profoundly damaging loss” to the agency.
Other Unicef goodwill ambassadors are steering clear of the row. A source close to golfer Rory McIlroy, who travelled to Haiti with Unicef earlier this year, says: “Rory feels it’s an issue between the board and Melanie. He’s only interested in helping the children.”
The public distancing of Neeson, Redgrave and Moore from Unicef has seen the story rippling beyond Ireland. The controversy has featured in the US-based Chronicle of Philanthropy and is drawing the attention of Unicef headquarters.
In a statement, Unicef’s regional headquarters in Geneva says it respects the decision by the Irish board to appoint a new director. “We appreciate Melanie Verwoerd’s many contributions during her time with [Unicef Ireland] and are grateful for her long commitment to children. We hope the transition will be amicable for the sake of the children we serve.”
On the protest by Neeson, Redgrave and Moore, it says: “We regret the current situation. We very much respect and value the longstanding commitment and contributions of goodwill ambassadors to the cause of children. Again, we reiterate our hope that the transition is amicable, because what matters most are the children, so many of whom are presently at such great risk.”
Sources close to Unicef Ireland say the actors’ statement had caused some surprise. “Do the three goodwill ambassadors have all the details? Do they know the full story? It would seem not,” one adds. The same source criticises what he describes as the “extraordinarily speculative” media coverage of the case and queries what agendas might be at play given how much certain media outlets have pursued the story.
But many believe Unicef Ireland, despite employing the services of the PR firm Slattery Communications, has mishandled an unseemly public row that may now have an adverse effect on donations.
“If the rationale for Melanie Verwoerd’s dismissal . . . was the fear of negative publicity, then it is unfortunate the somewhat messy handling of this action has so far misfired from a public-relations perspective,” says Michael O’Keeffe, the managing director of Pembroke Communications.
Hans Zomer, the director of Dóchas, an umbrella organisation of more than 40 Irish aid agencies and development organisations, says the episode underscores the need to adopt best practice in corporate governance. Dóchas has drawn up a code of conduct for its members, he says, to ensure its organisations are “responsive to the demands of all the people that are interested in, or affected by, their work”. Unicef Ireland is not a member.
“Ireland has a very strong and professional development NGO sector,” he said. “And that sector’s efforts to help eradicate extreme poverty depend on the public’s support and understanding. And they depend on the certainty that the organisations’ resources are well managed, along professional standards.
“Which again underlines why Dóchas members attach such importance to corporate governance,” he says.
Like others in the sector, Zomer notes the way Unicef Ireland dragged its heels in responding to media reports of the circumstances surrounding Verwoerd’s dismissal. “Communications experts will tell you that it is not enough for an organisation’s leadership to focus on the problems at hand but that an important part of crisis management is the way the public perception of that crisis is handled,” he says.
“The nature of the crisis may vary, but when it comes to communication about the crisis, there are a few rules of thumb that organisations should keep in mind. Essentially, these are that the organisation’s leadership must be visible, open and timely, to avoid a rumour mill arising. Rumours are often much more damaging than the reality. Whatever the facts, public perception is crucial. Especially so for not-for-profit organisations that depend on the trust and support of the general public.”
Verwoerd claims there were a “number of inaccuracies and untruths” in Unicef Ireland’s statement and says she will be responding to these in due course. She confirms she will be taking a case against the organisation at the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Unicef Ireland says it would defend any such action.
