What Wolfowitz did wrong

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

So. This woman wasn't his employee. And unlike you, he doesn't and never did own the company. Its hard to cast a comparable situation for you. It would go something like. You decide to hire a manager because you are retiring but you don't want to sell your shares.

He says, my girlfriend is one of your current sales managers under your VP of Sales.. You still want to hire him because he is the best for the job and you do, then you decide, it just won't do to have them both working there.

Why you decide this is your own problem but you decide this and begin the process of terminating her. Now, terminating her under these circumstances is spectacularly unfair. It would have been also unfair if you had decided to terminate her before you made him an offer just the same. So you give her a raise and then help her find a comparable situation at a friends company. Situation handled.

How would you do this differently? Not hire the guy? Perhaps, that was the Decision for the World Bank Board, not his. The important difference between him and you having a relationship with an employee is that you are coming from a perspective of his having a choice other than to not accept the job. Is this your point? If immediately on accepting the position he had fired her outright and terminated the relationship, nothing about this situation would change, except she would have several causes of action against the World Bank.

Does this mean that if any two unmarried employees of yours start dating you fire one or both of them? It may be a good plan but I wonder how that would hold up in court. I don't even know if the policy is legal.

Any supervisor who starts a relationship with any subordinate is cause for grave concern and you are on firm ground taking action in this case, but what about to unrelated managers having a relationship. Now you have a promotion decision and this would cause you to place one of these managers in a supervising position over the other. Is it your position you should deny the promotion based this existing relationship? Or is it your position that you have to fire the manager who you are promoting the other over? What if you really need this person in that position because they are the best you can find? You don't want to have the situation where one is supervising the other, so you approach the lower manager with a severance package. Where is the scandal?

You raise some interesting views on this, and obviously you have given it quite a bit of thought. I’m impressed.

As such, I won’t dispute any of your assertions. I’ll just note one more time the following;

Banging an employee always ends badly.

As it has in this case, as it has in every case where I’ve heard of it happening.

I’m not a ‘Wolfowitz basher’. I honestly don’t care about the World Bank, outside of the fact its sucking taxpayer dollars away from this nation, and distributing to despots for no material or political gain.

You want to make an exception for Wolfowitz’s mistake(s) be my guest. Doesn’t change whats about to happen, doesn’t change the fact having sex with a co worker, no matter how you try to rationalize it, is just plain dumb, on multiple levels.

Doesn’t work at McDonalds, doesn’t work at the World Bank, didn’t work in the Clinton Whitehouse.

Something to clear the smog.

You don't clear the smog by blowing more fog on it.

Gee, the Board of thoroughly corrupt World Bank is accusing its accuser of "corruption"... Golly, who woulda thunk it!

He suggested "recusing myself from any influence over personnel decisions involving Ms Riza" but was told that his proposal did not go far enough.

The salary increase was due to transfer from her "position of conflict of interest" with Wolfowitz at the WB to DoS, with corresponding increase in salary which is not even exhorbitatnt relative to DoS or WB personnel. And there are at least to documents that show that decision was approved by WB Board members. Yet it took WB board and special "panel" 2 years to figure out that after recusing himself and declaring to the board existence of and removing "conflict of interest" which they asked him to do, he somehow was guilty of "conflict of interest".

The only thing Wolfowitz was "guilty" of is uncovering past and preventing further corruption at WB (not unlike UN's Oil For Food corruption that we hear so little about these days), so they are trying to cook up a distraction from real issues and project their own corruption on him.

Kitten, you are consistently wrong on this, and simply keep ignoring the real issues here - Europeans trying to stage a "coup" at WB and divert attention from their own, to say it mildly, "indiscretions" . Try reading some threads about WB / Wolfowitz matter, that are not posted by you and not from liberal or European press who, as is their habit, simply ignore the "inconvenient truth" and facts - just as a Board panel did - it truly may lift the fog. But if you are prejudiced against Wolfowitz from any other issue, I guess, you'd like to believe what they print to justify your own preconceived notions about Wolfowitz.

You raise some interesting views on this, and obviously you have given it quite a bit of thought.

Actually, it's not his "view", it's the facts he described, which are kept being ignored by the "get Wolfowitz!" crowd.

I’m impressed. As such, I won’t dispute any of your assertions. --- and yet you do exactly that, right in the next sentence --- I’ll just note one more time the following; Banging an employee always ends badly.

At no time she was his employee; he was, as you eloquently put it, "banging" her before joining WB, and specifically took steps to eliminate "conflict of interest" by notifying the Board, and trying to recuse himself from all matters involving her reassignment. The condition for his joining WB was her transfer to equivalent or better position somewhere else. They demanded that he put his signature on transfer agreement that they negotiated with her, specifically to avoid "conflict of interest" --- Mr Wolfowitz informed the board that he had a pre-existing relationship with Shaha Ali Riza, one of the bank's Middle East experts.

If Ms Riza's contract was "not vetted by World Bank lawyers" , it's the fault (or deliberate dereliction of duties) of the Board and Ethics Committee of WB, which in October 2005, four months after Wolfowitz joined WB, concluded that "conflict of interest" had been resolved. And in February 2006, in response to pseudonymous e-mail messages (no doubt from the disgruntled WB employees who didn't like the corruption exposed and gravy train stopping), WB Ethics Committee said "allegations did not appear appropriate for further consideration by the committee".

Here's more about Riza :
According to a profile of Wolfowitz published in the London Sunday Times of March 20, 2005, Riza "shares Wolfowitz’s passion for spreading democracy in the Arab world" and "is said to have reinforced his determination to remove Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime."

I’ll just note one more time the following;

Banging an employee always ends badly.

You must not get around much. I've known several instances where it led to much marital bliss. And others where the love birds simply walked away from their previous startched-shorts employers and started a very successful businesses of their own.

Always is a pretty big word to use when describing human interaction.

I was not saying there was an exception for Wolfowitz and I honestly think initially his ethics committee was doing a decent job except as they are composed of political hacks that where possibly rubbing their hands as they read him chapter and verse.

I am saying, that the way it was handled seems proper to me and that all things considered what happened was a proper outcome. My point is that this is an entirely manufactured scandal for the purpose of hurting Wolfowitz and the administration and protecting corruption at the World Bank.

I frankly believe that the World Bank is a hopelessly corrupt enterprise if Wolfowitz can't fix it. If he gets put out the door, the World Bank should be completely defunded and ejected from the United States. If the US wants to have an agency like this, we should fund it and manage it ourselves ALA the Federal Reserve.

“I frankly believe that the World Bank is a hopelessly corrupt enterprise if Wolfowitz can’t fix it. If he gets put out the door, the World Bank should be completely defunded and ejected from the United States. If the US wants to have an agency like this, we should fund it and manage it ourselves ALA the Federal Reserve.”

Yes, as George Will noted here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832409/posts the need for such institutions has long passed. Right now it only serves to launder and transfer US taxpayers’ money to corrupt regimes.

If they have no “confidence” in Wolfowitz’s leadership, who is to say that we should have any “confidence” in a demonstrably corrupt institution.

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.