Posted on 04/19/2007 9:26:06 PM PDT by the Real fifi
Those interested in the success of the World Bank should be under no illusion as to what is really motivating the staff revolt now playing out and what the consequences are likely to be. Many are opposed to Mr. Wolfowitz's anti-corruption emphasis, some on the good faith basis that he is placing disproportionate emphasis on the issue at the expense of other development priorities. Others, however, are opposed on the selfish basis that elevating anticorruption and governance considerations will result in lower lending levels and more difficult negotiations with borrowing governments. Still others may fear exposure of corruption among staff itself and possible adverse donor reaction if widespread corruption appears to plague Bank operations. Regardless of the fates of Mr. Wolfowitz and the anticorruption initiative, the Bank faces an existential financial problem because of the combined effect of its declining relevance and attractiveness as a funding source for many middle-income countries like China, India, Mexico and Russia, and an annual administrative budget exceeding $1 billion. It's a positive development that many countries no longer are dependent on Bank lending, but the income consequences to the Bank need to be addressed because the administrative budget is a serious burden on the world's poor and donor taxpayers.
The most important cost drivers are staff salaries and headcount, and it is here where some of the most pernicious effects of the staff association's union characteristics are felt.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Good piece, thanks for posting.
Looks like Wolfowitz has been making some waves and the good old boys don’t like it so there going to do anything they can to get rid of him.
Hang in there Wolfie!
You’re welcome—turn over rocks and scorpions scurry out.
Is it possible there are two scandals, but one is much more important than the other? Or am I mistaken about that?
TO my mind the bigger scandal is the widespread unaccountability, corruption and incompetence of the bureaucracies of the International agencies..if that’s what you mean.
“Wolfowitz and the lies about him.”
I’ve been working so hard I haven’t been able to keep up with the news. My impression is that he has a girlfriend who used to work at the World Bank before he arrived; the World Bank had ethics guidelines that wouldn’t permit both of them to work there; the ethic’s board recommended she be placed in another agency with a promotion/raise to compensate her for the interuption in her career; and Wolfowitz proceeded to give her a large raise that’s raised eyebrowes, and did so on his own without consulting with the board.
Is that right, or have I been misinformed?
If someone’s lied to me I’d really like to know.
That’s exactly right. Add that the snakes who refused to allow him to recuse himself from the matter, outlined the terms she should be offered and directed him to get involved in settling the matter with her, cleared the agreement and then let him hang when the issue arose..
That is right. She could have sued for terminating her career, etc.
I get that. So when you talk about the “Real Scandal”, you mean only to suggest there’s a bigger and more significant scandal than one which might concern the raise Wolfiwitz gave to his girlfriend, but you’re not suggestion there couldn’t possibly be a second scandal. Is that right, or have I misunderstood you?
“That’s exactly right.”
Then I’m wondering what the lies are. It sounds like a run-of-the-mill corporate issue about whether a boss sought appropriate oversight before giving his girlfriend a raise.
Both these assertions are untrue.
L
He didn’t give her a large raise?
Wow. I have a bone to pick with the person who told me it was a $60,000 raise and that she’s currently working in the State Department and making more than the Secretary of State.
Yes, you do because that raise was a settlement to her for forcing out of her position for matters not related to her performance and compensating her for the loss of future compensation and benefits. Does it seem munificent? Well, so are the salaries, benefits and virtual lifetime emplyment bank staff gets.(Oh, and those terms were essentially set by the Bank, not Wolfowitz.)
Oh, and the bank jired outside counsel to review the proposed settlement and found it appropriate, the ethics committee reviewed it and found it appropriate.This is all best set out in the Monday WSJ editorial as to which there is a FR thread.
Wait a minute. Are you saying she WAS given a $60,000 raise and DOES make more working at the State Department than the Secretary of State herself? Because in that case, I wasn’t misinformed and you should let Lurker know the only fact in dispute is whether he acted with proper oversight.
“Oh, and the bank hired outside counsel to review the proposed settlement and found it appropriate, the ethics committee reviewed it and found it appropriate.This is all best set out in the Monday WSJ editorial as to which there is a FR thread.”
Thank you. I’d be interested in seeing that. If you could post a link I’d be grateful.
Yes, if you go to this article there are hyperkinks to the four key articles in this case. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818554/posts
The Fox article there has hyperlinks to the key documents and the details about outside counsel.
Here is a new article on the Dutch hack Melkert who was the key figure in this incident used to slime Wolfowitz.http://www.nysun.com/article/52896?page_no=1
Here is more on the leader of the pack against Wolfowitz:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902360.html
He didn't give her a raise.
I have a bone to pick with the person who told me it was a $60,000 raise and that she’s currently working in the State Department and making more than the Secretary of State.
A quick look at the Federal Pay Scale would prove the falsehood of that assertion.
So yes, you have a bone to pick with that person.
L
Thank you. The first link was just commentary on the second. I gather from the second that the ethics board gave only broad guidelines not a dollar figure, and that he didn’t ask his board to sign off on the dollar figure he came up with, which is the usual way a CEO covers his ass.
So, once again, isn’t this just a run-of-the-mill issue about whether a boss sought appropriate oversight before giving his girlfriend a raise? Would it be crazy for someone to think a CEO should get his board to sign off on giving his girlfriend a $60,000 raise? I don’t get the reluctance to say “Yeah, there’s an issue there.”
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.