White_Male_Canada
05-18-2007, 01:02 AM
(AP) - Embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz will resign at the end of June, his leadership undermined by the generous compensation he arranged for his girlfriend.
His departure was announced late Thursday by the World Bank board.
Wolfowitz's departure ends a two-year run at the development bank that was marked by controversy from the start, given his previous role as a major architect of the Iraq war when he served as the No. 2 official at the Pentagon.
"He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution and we accept that," the board said in its announcement of his resignation.
His departure was all but forced, however, by the finding of a special bank panel that he violated conflict-of-interest rules in his handling of the 2005 pay package of bank employee Shaha Riza.
The board said it was clear that a number of people had erred in reviewing the pay package.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P6DB0G2&show_article=1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now,as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story:
Paul Wolfowitz's judges may have ethical issues of their own.
BY BRET STEPHENS
Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
In the winter of 2006 an email was sent to the investigations hotline of the World Bank's Department of Institutional Integrity, or INT. Its subject was the "Hypocrisy of ED Tom Scholar."
"Please know," read the text of the email written by a bank employee, "that UK ED Tom Scholar is continuing an affair with [a bank employee]. This woman has been given preferential treatment in [the department] because of her relationship with this powerful ED, this affair is well known, and is in violation of the Bank Staff Rules and the Boards Standards of Conduct."
"ED" means executive director. There are 24 such directors at the World Bank; collectively, they form the board that oversees the bank's work on behalf of its 185 member countries. Mr. Scholar is the ED from the United Kingdom. This week, all eyes were upon these officials as they decided on Paul Wolfowitz's future as president of the bank. Whether their conclusion is fair is a subject for another time. But no less important is whether, while penalizing Mr. Wolfowitz, the board isn't also covering up its own multitude of sins.
I first became aware of the 37-year-old Mr. Scholar--a former private secretary to British Chancellor Gordon Brown who also serves as an executive director at the International Monetary Fund--following the publication of my May 1 column, "Notes on a Scandal." The column, which detailed the hypocrisy of some of Mr. Wolfowitz's public detractors, including former World Bank senior managers with conflict-of-interest issues of their own, clearly struck a nerve within the bank. Many former and current bank staff wrote me to share stories of other bank managers or directors who, they claimed, had violated staff rules with impunity. Mr. Scholar's name kept coming up.
In one email, a correspondent wrote to say that "just like Wolfowitz, Scholar has a romantic relationship with a female employee at the World Bank. Scholar has never officially disclosed this relationship even though it clearly interferes with his oversight responsibilities as a Board member." The author signed off by saying that he (or she) "regrets to have to stay anonymous for fear of reprisal and hope for your understanding in this respect."
Given the seriousness of the allegation, I spoke with Mr. Scholar's secretary three times and twice left messages on his cell phone asking that he call me back for comment, most recently yesterday. He never replied. I have deleted the name of the woman with whom he is alleged to be involved, as well as the department in which she works, because the conflict of interest is not hers. And I have left vague the precise date of the original complaint and job description of the bank employee who filed it in order to secure the person's confidentiality.
The existence of the original complaint does not in itself prove the truth of the allegation. It does show that a complaint about Mr. Scholar was indeed filed with the INT. Because the subject of the complaint is an executive director, the INT was obliged to notify the board, which in turn is required to refer the matter to its own ethics committee. Membership of that committee--itself comprised of three members of the board--is a closely held secret at the bank.
But it does highlight an inherent conflict of interest in the way the board of directors operates: Where allegations of impropriety regarding its own members are concerned, the board serves as its own judge and jury. What's more, the board's code of conduct requires board officials to "protect the security of any information obtained in the performance of their duties," a requirement that applies to those officials "without limitation, after the terms of service as board officials has expired." In other words, it's a closed loop.
Since the original complaint was filed about Mr. Scholar more than a year ago, there has been no indication that any action has been taken by the board--and no way of finding out if the matter was even discussed. But a new complaint regarding Mr. Scholar was sent directly to eight members of the board this Tuesday. Signed "John Smith"--it is not clear whether the author is the same person who filed the earlier complaint--the one-page letter restates the allegation regarding Mr. Scholar's undisclosed liaison with the bank employee. It also adds significant new detail:
"Mr. Scholar has used his privileged position as an executive director to influence Bank staff to manipulate [Ms.] ---- job description in a way to suit her limited professional qualification. Without Mr. Scholar's intervention she would clearly not occupy her present position.
"Several staff members have in the past reported these facts to HR [human resources] and INT. These complaints have been ignored. Given that Mr. Xavier Coll--VP for HR--and Mr. Roberto Danido [sic, should be Danino]--former General Counsel--have been involved in [this] case, one can certainly speculate about the reasons. The case against Mr. Wolfowitz rests solely on the testimony of these two people. . . .
"The experience of the last two months has clearly demonstrated that complaints are only effective if they are made public."
The letter was sent to eight members of the board of directors, including Dutchman Herman Wijffels, who led the board's inquiry into Mr. Wolfowitz's conduct. It will be interesting to see what comes of it. Given the board's previous apparent nonfeasance, the answer would almost certainly have been nothing had the matter not been brought to public attention.
Why does any of this matter? For one thing, it suggests the board lacks the most basic institutional mechanisms to police the conduct of its own members. This ought to call into question its fitness--and particularly Mr. Scholar's fitness--to judge the conduct of others. For another, the Daily Telegraph has reported that Mr. Scholar is likely to become Gordon Brown's chief of staff once the latter moves to 10 Downing Street.
But it matters most of all because the departure of Mr. Wolfowitz is being demanded by his most vehement critics to show that the World Bank is serious about setting the right example when it comes to governance. If it's a spring cleaning they want, why stop there?
His departure was announced late Thursday by the World Bank board.
Wolfowitz's departure ends a two-year run at the development bank that was marked by controversy from the start, given his previous role as a major architect of the Iraq war when he served as the No. 2 official at the Pentagon.
"He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution and we accept that," the board said in its announcement of his resignation.
His departure was all but forced, however, by the finding of a special bank panel that he violated conflict-of-interest rules in his handling of the 2005 pay package of bank employee Shaha Riza.
The board said it was clear that a number of people had erred in reviewing the pay package.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P6DB0G2&show_article=1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now,as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story:
Paul Wolfowitz's judges may have ethical issues of their own.
BY BRET STEPHENS
Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
In the winter of 2006 an email was sent to the investigations hotline of the World Bank's Department of Institutional Integrity, or INT. Its subject was the "Hypocrisy of ED Tom Scholar."
"Please know," read the text of the email written by a bank employee, "that UK ED Tom Scholar is continuing an affair with [a bank employee]. This woman has been given preferential treatment in [the department] because of her relationship with this powerful ED, this affair is well known, and is in violation of the Bank Staff Rules and the Boards Standards of Conduct."
"ED" means executive director. There are 24 such directors at the World Bank; collectively, they form the board that oversees the bank's work on behalf of its 185 member countries. Mr. Scholar is the ED from the United Kingdom. This week, all eyes were upon these officials as they decided on Paul Wolfowitz's future as president of the bank. Whether their conclusion is fair is a subject for another time. But no less important is whether, while penalizing Mr. Wolfowitz, the board isn't also covering up its own multitude of sins.
I first became aware of the 37-year-old Mr. Scholar--a former private secretary to British Chancellor Gordon Brown who also serves as an executive director at the International Monetary Fund--following the publication of my May 1 column, "Notes on a Scandal." The column, which detailed the hypocrisy of some of Mr. Wolfowitz's public detractors, including former World Bank senior managers with conflict-of-interest issues of their own, clearly struck a nerve within the bank. Many former and current bank staff wrote me to share stories of other bank managers or directors who, they claimed, had violated staff rules with impunity. Mr. Scholar's name kept coming up.
In one email, a correspondent wrote to say that "just like Wolfowitz, Scholar has a romantic relationship with a female employee at the World Bank. Scholar has never officially disclosed this relationship even though it clearly interferes with his oversight responsibilities as a Board member." The author signed off by saying that he (or she) "regrets to have to stay anonymous for fear of reprisal and hope for your understanding in this respect."
Given the seriousness of the allegation, I spoke with Mr. Scholar's secretary three times and twice left messages on his cell phone asking that he call me back for comment, most recently yesterday. He never replied. I have deleted the name of the woman with whom he is alleged to be involved, as well as the department in which she works, because the conflict of interest is not hers. And I have left vague the precise date of the original complaint and job description of the bank employee who filed it in order to secure the person's confidentiality.
The existence of the original complaint does not in itself prove the truth of the allegation. It does show that a complaint about Mr. Scholar was indeed filed with the INT. Because the subject of the complaint is an executive director, the INT was obliged to notify the board, which in turn is required to refer the matter to its own ethics committee. Membership of that committee--itself comprised of three members of the board--is a closely held secret at the bank.
But it does highlight an inherent conflict of interest in the way the board of directors operates: Where allegations of impropriety regarding its own members are concerned, the board serves as its own judge and jury. What's more, the board's code of conduct requires board officials to "protect the security of any information obtained in the performance of their duties," a requirement that applies to those officials "without limitation, after the terms of service as board officials has expired." In other words, it's a closed loop.
Since the original complaint was filed about Mr. Scholar more than a year ago, there has been no indication that any action has been taken by the board--and no way of finding out if the matter was even discussed. But a new complaint regarding Mr. Scholar was sent directly to eight members of the board this Tuesday. Signed "John Smith"--it is not clear whether the author is the same person who filed the earlier complaint--the one-page letter restates the allegation regarding Mr. Scholar's undisclosed liaison with the bank employee. It also adds significant new detail:
"Mr. Scholar has used his privileged position as an executive director to influence Bank staff to manipulate [Ms.] ---- job description in a way to suit her limited professional qualification. Without Mr. Scholar's intervention she would clearly not occupy her present position.
"Several staff members have in the past reported these facts to HR [human resources] and INT. These complaints have been ignored. Given that Mr. Xavier Coll--VP for HR--and Mr. Roberto Danido [sic, should be Danino]--former General Counsel--have been involved in [this] case, one can certainly speculate about the reasons. The case against Mr. Wolfowitz rests solely on the testimony of these two people. . . .
"The experience of the last two months has clearly demonstrated that complaints are only effective if they are made public."
The letter was sent to eight members of the board of directors, including Dutchman Herman Wijffels, who led the board's inquiry into Mr. Wolfowitz's conduct. It will be interesting to see what comes of it. Given the board's previous apparent nonfeasance, the answer would almost certainly have been nothing had the matter not been brought to public attention.
Why does any of this matter? For one thing, it suggests the board lacks the most basic institutional mechanisms to police the conduct of its own members. This ought to call into question its fitness--and particularly Mr. Scholar's fitness--to judge the conduct of others. For another, the Daily Telegraph has reported that Mr. Scholar is likely to become Gordon Brown's chief of staff once the latter moves to 10 Downing Street.
But it matters most of all because the departure of Mr. Wolfowitz is being demanded by his most vehement critics to show that the World Bank is serious about setting the right example when it comes to governance. If it's a spring cleaning they want, why stop there?