WB Staff Assn memo on Wolfie
[someone passed this memo from the World Bank Staff Association about =
special treatment for Wolfowitz’s girlfriend along to me - Woj =
earlier posted links to stories on the affair in the WashPost and =
Arab News - I’ve appended the FT’s]
Staff Association Update April 3, 2007 Dear Colleagues, Since publication of the March 28, 2007 “In the Loop” column in the =
Washington Post, the Staff Association has been inundated with =
messages from staff expressing concern, dismay and outrage. The Staff =
Association has looked into the concerns and would like to inform =
staff of what we have found. At the same time, we call on Senior =
Management and the Board to clarify what appear to be violations of =
Staff Rules in favor of a staff member closely associated with the =
President.
Bending the Staff Rules
At issue are the terms of external assignment for Ms. Shaha Ali Riza, =
formerly a Senior Communications Officer in the Middle East and North =
Africa Region (MNA). According to the Postand a subsequent New =
Yorkerarticle, the Board’s Ethics Committee determined that Ms. Riza, =
who was linked romantically with Mr. Wolfowitz, should be placed on =
external assignment so as to avoid what Staff Rules define as a de =
factoconflict of interest, when one partner supervises another. =
Accordingly, Ms. Riza went on external assignment, with pay, on =
September 19, 2005. The Staff Association has not been able to =
determine who drew up and approved the terms of the external =
assignment. However, we have been able to verify that they are =
grossly out of line with the Staff Rules.
Promotion: Despite the “complement control” that limits the number of =
staff at grades GH and GI, Ms. Riza was given a non-competitive =
promotion to level GH on the day that she left on external =
assignment. Promotion from GG to GH is supposed to be competitive, =
vetted and approved by the relevant sector board and is supposed to =
be against a specific position (Staff Rule 5.05). This promotion =
clearly does not conform to the procedures.
Promotion Increase: Staff Rule 6.03 stipulates that salary increases =
upon promotion should be the greater of (a) 3-12% of the Market =
Reference Point (MRP) of the new grade, or (b) the amount necessary =
to bring the salary to the minimum of the new grade. Ms. Riza’s =
promotion increase should have been determined by the former =
calculation. However, she was given a promotion increase of 28% of =
the MRP =96 more than double the amount allowed by the Staff Rules.
Annual Increase: Since the performance of staff members on external =
assignment cannot be assessed and compared to that of their =
colleagues, Staff Rule 6.05 directs that their annual salary =
increases be set at the average percentage applied to adjust the MRPs =
for grades GA =96 GI. For FY07, the average percentage was 3.7%; Ms. =
Riza’s annual increase this FY amounted to 7.5%.
Leak or Whistleblowing?
In general, the Staff Association defends a staff member’s right to =
have the Bank Group preserve the confidentiality of certain =
information=97and we deplore this leak of a staff member’s confidential =
salary information. However, in this case, the information shared =
with the press reveals a violation of the Staff Rules and therefore =
seems to us a clear case of whistleblowing. We call upon Senior =
Management and the Board to address this issue: explain how/why the =
Staff Rules were bent in this case, take steps to ensure compliance =
with the Staff Rules with regard to Ms. Riza and set in place a =
system that will ensure (and allow verification) that Staff Rules are =
consistently applied. If everything is above board, it reduces the =
impetus to “leak” information and the need to blow the whistle.
Effects on Staff Trust and Morale
The 2005 Staff Survey revealed the low level of staff trust in our =
Human Resource processes =96 largely because the rules are either =
ignored or are applied unevenly. This case sends the message to staff =
that the rules apply to everyone exceptthose associated with the most =
senior levels of management. It also sends the message to managers =
that they may flout the Staff Rules with impunity. It is =
extraordinarily discouraging to staff who have been denied promotions =
and/or who receive a minimal salary increase despite a stellar =
performance evaluation =96 and to hardworking GA-GD staff whose entire =
annual salaries are less than Ms. Riza’s promotion increase. This is =
not the first instance of such Staff Rule violations by the current =
World Bank Group Management, and the Staff Association calls upon =
them to abide by and uphold the Staff Rules that govern allof us.
Senior Management has put forward a call for good governance, both =
within the Bank and among our partner countries. Good governance is =
founded in a respect for rule of law, transparency and =
accountability. In order to be credible, Senior Management must model =
the behavior it espouses.
World Bank Group staff await the answers to these questions.
P.S. Comments and questions may be directed to the Staff =
Association’s Confidential Feedback Line.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Financial Times - April 5, 2007
Wolfowitz partner’s pay rise sparks protest By Krishna Guha in Washington
World Bank staff are protesting over reports that Paul Wolfowitz’s =
partner, Shaha Riza, a bank official, was given a promotion and pay =
increase to $193,000 when she was seconded to the US State Department.
In an e-mail circulated to all bank employees, the staff association =
on April 3 called on its management and board to explain “what appear =
to be violations of staff rules in favour of a staff member closely =
associated with the president”.
The association said it had been “inundated with messages from staff =
expressing concern, dismay and outrage” at the terms of the =
assignment, first reported in the Washington Post.
The controversy is a sign of the poor state of relations between Mr =
Wolfowitz’s management team and bank staff.
The World Bank refused to comment on the accuracy of the reports =
which, if true, would make Ms Riza the highest paid official in the =
State Department. Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, earns $186,000.
The association claims that Ms Riza’s promotion did not conform to =
bank procedures, that she was given an initial pay increase more than =
double the amount allowed by the staff rules and that she was then =
given an annual pay rise that was above the rate applied to bank =
staff on external assignment. On Wednesday night the bank was unable =
to comment specifically on these three allegations.
However, the bank’s general counsel is understood to be seeking =
permission from the board of directors to release a detailed memo.
The question of what would happen to Ms Riza, who was a =
communications officer in the bank’s Middle East and North Africa =
department, arose as soon as Mr Wolfowitz was nominated for president.
Bank rules prohibit one spouse or partner from working for another. =
Mr Wolfowitz, though, was determined to ensure that Ms Riza’s career =
should not suffer on account of his appointment.
“The president asked the board to be recused from any personnel =
decisions involving the staff member,” a senior bank official said. =
“The board over-ruled him and over his objections instructed him to =
resolve the issue through an external assignment.”
The official said the terms of Ms Riza’s secondment were approved by =
the ethics committee of the board =96 not by Mr Wolfowitz.
He said the terms of the assignment “recognised her professional =
contribution and career opportunities”, which might be impaired by =
her departure to the State Department.
Mr Wolfowitz was asked by the FT if he wished to comment but referred =
the matter to career bank staff. The FT tried to reach Ms Riza for =
comment via the bank, but was unsuccessful.