Posted on 05/15/2007 6:03:50 AM PDT by Kitten Festival
What actually happened in the summer of 2005 has now been mostly obscured under the lobbying and partisanship that has buffetted Paul Wolfowitz and his presidency of the World Bank in recent weeks. But yesterday's report by a panel of seven World Bank executives, the so-called "Ad Hoc Group", claimed to present a version of events that was based on "a strong and largely undisputed documentary record". Its conclusions were as follows:
He violated the code of conduct
The code of conduct for board officials at the World Bank requires members to "avoid any conflict of interest, real or apparent". At the time of his appointment to the World Bank in May 2005, Mr Wolfowitz informed the board that he had a pre-existing relationship with Shaha Ali Riza, one of the bank's Middle East experts.
He suggested "recusing myself from any influence over personnel decisions involving Ms Riza" but was told that his proposal did not go far enough. By later ordering Xavier Coll, the bank's Vice President of Human Resources, to accept Ms Riza's demands for a transfer to the US State Department, two promotions and a pay rise, the panel found that Mr Wolfowitz "engaged in de facto conflict of interest".
He broke the staff rules
Ms Riza's new contract, whose contents was directed by Mr Wolfowitz and not vetted by World Bank lawyers, broke staff rule 6.01 with its pay increases and guarantees of promotion.
He automatically ordered her promotion to staff level H, a move which Ms Riza claimed that she had been denied because she was Muslim and a woman, and raised her pay from $132,660 to $180,000. Under the rules, Ms Riza was eligible for a pay increase
(Excerpt) Read more at business.timesonline.co.uk ...
I never liked him anyway. Watching him squirm is a pleasure. But I sure as heck don’t want any other nation run it, except for Australian, or maybe a Puerto Rican. ha ha.
By by, Wolfie, the dinner dates will be drying up soon. Backstabbing, Kofi-copy, ship-jumping SOB. Then you can find out if you have true love with your gal pal, or was it financial love.
Why would wolfowitz’s version of events be more credible? He’s the one who’s on the hot seat, he should be listened to as any guy in the dock should be, but he obviously has a strong interest in keeping his job and therefore might have a reason to slant the facts to ensure that he keeps it. That he got a plum job in the bush administration doesn’t make him a paragon of virtue. He had a lot of problems in the pentagon always thinking he was right and dismissing the concerns of generals. I think he’s misplaced in his current job.
Exactly. The World Bank is more corrput than the UN, if that is possible. The criminals saw there was a new sheriff in town, and they wanted to get rid of him. They created a series of legal hoops to jump through that would make Rube Goldberg burst with pride. Then, they declared him guilty.
I took the issue to the Ethics Committee and after extensive discussions with the Chairman, the Committee’s advice was to promote and relocate Ms. Shaha Riza.
I made a good faith effort to implement my understanding of that advice, and it was done in order to take responsibility for settling an issue that I believed had potential to harm the institution. In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations. I made a mistake, for which I am sorry.
IOW: He said he was sorry for trusting the Ethics committee.
I view the personal attacks on Riza, made by those with an agenda, as irrelevant.
And yes, Riza could sue, in International court.
You don’t have to read very far on that site to see that it’s all sour grapes from leftist Euro-trash morons. Just read a few of the other items linked on the right. If you take that site seriously then you might be happier at the DUmpster than on FR.
p.s. What should happen at the World Bank is a complete housecleaning: the entire Ethics Committee should be dismissed, since THEY had this matter in their hands from the beginning, and THEY bungled it. All of the UN/Eurotrash leftists should be dismissed. IF there has to be a World Bank for development aid, it should be thoroughly purged of the all the corrupt and depraved leftists who dominate. Anyone who’s picking on Wolfowitz for a problem that he identified to the board BEFORE he ever signed a contract with them is not operating in good faith or honesty.
You really don’t think she was doing all that conniving they say she was? From my own experience, this stuff sounds pretty credible. No, she could not sue in an international court, the only recourse she had was the WB’s own tribunals.
I take it you are not a member of the spelling police.
Why is your screenname the very French ‘enchante’ if you cannot stand Europeans? You aren’t the arbiter of my ‘happiness’ and by the way, you don’t want it anyway, so I’ll stay here, si’l vous plait.
Aww, leave her alone, that was too easy, she’s a sweetie!
Second, he specifically attempted to deal with this issue before accepting the position.
Third, after he took the position, the ethics board changed position and demanded that she be separated from the World Bank because of the relationship that pre-existed his employment, so she was to be fired because they hired him.
Forth, subordinates negotiated a raise and transfer deal so that she would not be damaged by being forced to leave.
Fifth, as the Chief Executive, the salary committee demanded that he approve the settlement.
Then his enemies immediately started pumping this charge of misconduct, because they don't want him there.
The whole deal is a framed up crock of crap. At some point there is no way to do something right.
In the mean time, the rest of the Board of the World Bank are happily lining their own pockets.
Nothing you posted changes the simply fact that nothing good comes from banging an employee. It doesn’t matter how the relationship came about.
If nothing else, your post demonstrates they both should have known better to begin with, given their established relationship.
This is ‘bloodsport’ and they left themselves wide open to this unfair attack by their own actions. Given the hysterical rants about anyone associated with the Bush Administration, not to mention the corruption of the World Bank and its politics, this was the end result of poor choices by both of them.
Just my opinion. I have no axe to grind with Wolfowitz or his girlfried. But the results are predictable, under the unique circumstances found at the WB.
My solution disband the World Bank, it is rotten to the core.
What the hell is the State Dept. doing running a false front political foundation?
Money laundering?
Bribery?
Payoffs?
This isn't about "Banging an Employee" it is about a cynical series of moves by folks who wanted to discredit Wolfowitz. This is all about the terms for her termination. Which are governed by law as well, she cannot suffer just because of the relationship either or this can be construed as Harassment just the same.
The Lefties set a bear trap and he walked into it thinking he had secured his hind quarters and with an eye on cleaning up this corrupt institution. They probably approached him to say, now we have you and he said nothing doing. So the crap hit the fan.
“This isn’t about “Banging an Employee” it is about a cynical series of moves by folks who wanted to discredit Wolfowitz.”
Really? Funny, if he wasn’t banging the employee, there wouldn’t be an ‘ethics investigation’....on this topic. There would be ‘something’ but not this.
I understand the motivations by those in the WB that want to destroy Wolfowitz and his girlfriend.
What I’m trying to point out is they gave them the knife they find themselves impaled upon.
One more time...Banging an employee always ends badly.
Chief Executive points out existing relationship with existing employee.
Offer made under terms of Employment agreement with recognition of relationship
Ethics Committee decides that the relationship is unworkable under any circumstances and demands existing employee be terminated for pre-existing relationship, creating a potential cause of unfair employment practices by the lady being terminated.
A committee assigned to negotiate this termination recommends giving her raises which she was due before hiring the chief executive and then assisting her in finding a position outside of the company.
There is no scandal here, and though there was a period where she was working at the same place, the issue is about how her termination was handled.
These folks essentially accept your position and acted to resolve the situation, but now that all of the players played by the rules, folks who want to destroy the new CEO are misrepresenting the facts so as to create a perception of unethical behavior.
You are not being reasonable or fair, you are just spouting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.