World Bank President: 3 rebuttals of Wolfowitz's statement

You are here: HOME - 3 rebuttals of Wolfowitz's statement - Updated -

3 rebuttals of Wolfowitz's statement - Updated - Ad Melkert, former chairman of the World Bank's Ethics committee has issued this statement refuting Wolfowitz claims that he and the board share responsibility for the Shaha affair. The Government Accountability Project (GAP) has also issued this statement on " Misrepresentations in Wolfowitz’ Statement". Finally here is another excellent rebuttal by former Vice President and General Counsel of the World Bank; Roberto Dañino.

The points made by Dañino, who was the Bank's top lawyer at the time, are vital to understanding how Paul Wolfowitz (PW) and his lawyer are trying to beat back the Bank board Ethics Committee (EC) of the case.

"15. As indicated to the Cmte, I believe PW acted correctly when he instructed the Vice President, Human Resources (VPHR) to proceed with (a) the secondment and (b) the in situ promotion, because these two steps were in accordance with the guidance received from the EC.

16. However, as I also indicated to the Cmte, I believe PW acted incorrectly when he instructed that,in addition to (a) and (b), the VPHR should also (c) make an extraordinary salary increase, (d) guarantee an outstanding review for each year of secondment (with the corresponding top yearly salary increase), and (e) guarantee a second promotion upon her return to the Bank. I did not learn of these actions prior to my departure from the Bank in January 2006.

17. In my opinion, this was incorrect because:

(i) PW was in a de facto conflict of interest under Staff Rule 3.01, paragraph 4.02, which should have precluded him from providing these benefits to the very person who was part of the conflict;

(ii)These benefits far exceeded, and were granted in addition to, those recommended by the EC;

(iii) None of the additional benefits were disclosed to or approved by the Board, the EC or the General Counsel (I also understand they were granted over the objections of the VPHR but I was not involved in that phase); and

(iv) The Bank was effectively deprived of legal representation to review whether these benefits complied with Bank rules".

A Washington source ~ May 01, 2007

Comments

Please take a look at the Danino statement of a few minutes ago published by FT. It rebuts all that Wolfowitz stated in his statement.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/411e46f2-f76f-11db-86b0-000b5df10621.html

Inder Sud ~ May 01, 2007, 02:05 AM

Danino's statement rightfully upholds the integrity of World Bank; and so does the earlier one this afternoon by Ad Melkert (former chair of the Ethics Committee of the Board). Now, it's the turn of the Human Resources Vice Presidency to release all the dubious details of commission!

Blue-Ribbon Wearer ~ May 01, 2007, 03:01 AM

I hope the HR vice presidency also make public the performance evaluations of Ms. Riza.when she was at the bank. They will show that she was not performing well in her job and her performance was under review.

wbstaff ~ May 01, 2007, 03:34 AM

OPEN LETTER TO PW

Put your money where your penis is

Dear PW:

Having read your eloquent defense carefully, there is a simple and elegant solution to the problem.

You say you did nothing wrong and suppose the Bank were to accept accept your position and accede to your demands that you did nothing in violation of Bank rules (broadly speaking) during your tenure.

Very well.

Suppose you were to resign from the Bank effectively immediately and leave with all the compensation, and bonuses that you would have accrued if you had served out your 5 year term.

The funds will be paid out on a monthly basis as if you remain employed at the bank until the Bank's obligations to you cease, with the rest of the funds due held in escrow.

However, in order to protect the Bank, you will indemnify the Bank against any claims arising from wrongdoing during your tenure.

Not withstanding the generalities of the foregoing, you will be required to indemnify the Bank from the cost to defend and payments to settle any and all legal action that will arise from conflicts of interest, sexual harassment, or malfeasance or other violations of Bank rules and procedures.

Jurisdiction for any legal action against the Bank and yourself will be the International Court of Justice at the Hague.

You will furthermore agree that any judgments against you will not be dischargable under the laws of any state.

If you and your attorney have complete confidence in your case, there should be no problems working out the details.

Looking forward to your response,

Innocent Bystander

Innocent Bystander ~ May 01, 2007, 03:34 PM

Please post Riza's statement. It's available at:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/rizastatement.pdf

Staff ~ May 01, 2007, 04:09 PM

"Keep track of the rumored candidates, power plays and buzz."
The Washington Post

Next & Previous

« Incredulity replaces Irony (Update with GAP) | HOME | LA Times debunks LA Times »