Just when I think the neocons could con no more

[Mucho]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/04/09/wolfowitz-responds-to-controversy-over-staffer/#comments

April 9, 2007, 11:11 am
Wolfowitz Responds to Controversy Over Staffer
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, in a memo to the bank’s staff, responded today to the growing controversy surrounding the salary paid to a staffer with whom he is romantically linked after she was detailed to work at the U.S. State Department in September 2005.

“I…acted on the advice of the [World Bank] Board’s Ethics Committee to work out an agreement that balanced the interests of the institution and the rights of the staff member in an exceptional and unprecedented situation,” he said.

The World Bank’s staff association had said Shaha Ali Riza, who remained on the bank’s payroll while working at State for the Middle East Partnership Initiative, had received $61,000 in raises since she left, a sum the association said is out of line with bank rules governing salary increases.

Her annual salary — $193,590 — exceeds that of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and as a foreign national working for an international institution, Riza isn’t subject to the same U.S. income taxes as Rice.

The bank’s 24 executive directors — representatives of the countries that own it — said last week they “have decided to acquire all the information related to this matter and will respond to the issues raised as soon as possible.” The executive directors asked World Bank General Counsel Ana Palacio, a Wolfowitz appointee and former Spanish foreign minister, to handle the inquiry.

The text of Mr. Wolfowitz’s memo follows:

“Over the past few weeks, information regarding the external assignment of a World Bank staff member has raised concerns among some of you about upholding Bank Group rules regarding the rights, obligations, and fair treatment of all employees,” Wolfowitz said. “I would like to assure the staff that I have always acted to uphold these rules to the best of my ability, and I will continue to do so.”

“The case of the staff member mentioned prompted me to seek the advice of the Board of Executive Directors upon my arrival at the Bank. I subsequently acted on the advice of the Board’s Ethics Committee to work out an agreement that balanced the interests of the institution and the rights of the staff member in an exceptional and unprecedented situation. Just as one example, a normal external assignment is voluntary and for a maximum of three years, but this one was involuntary and for the length of my service.”

“As President of this institution, I accept full responsibility for the actions taken in this case.

“I have already indicated to the Board my intention to cooperate fully in their review of the details of the case. In particular, I will ensure that the Board has access to the facts in this case, in a manner that also respects the Bank’s rules concerning the right of every staff member to the confidentiality of his or her records.”

“What remains of the utmost importance to me is the protection of the interests of this institution as a whole, and our need to remain focused on our agenda of helping the world’s poor.”

Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/04/09/wolfowitz-responds-to-controversy-over-staffer/trackback/
Save & Share: Share on Facebook | Del.icio.us | Digg this | Email This
Read more: Global

Comments
Report offensive comments to washwire@wsj.com
And we were going to pay for the war reconstruction with oil $$$$$
Comment by JPI - April 9, 2007 at 12:42 pm
it now appears that ms. riza did some paid consulting work for SAIC prior to the iraq war - while a staff member of the world bank, in violation of its rules. wolfowitz was the primary manager of that SAIC contract, it appears. and they were a couple at that point, too.
Comment by anon - April 9, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Oh my. I mean, this is just… oh, my.
What is it with Dick Cheney’s friends? Sticky fingers, bad memories, terrible reflexes (too slow to get out of the path of a shotgun blast), and the morals of a nightclub restroom drug dealer.
Comment by James - April 9, 2007 at 2:12 pm
It looks as if the Board of the World Bank got “neoconned”. They can get rid of the unethical Wolfowitz, but Ms. Riza may get to keep her high-paying job. Maybe she can support him in the style to which he has obviously become accustomed.
Comment by Bluevoter - April 9, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Sure thing, Paulie. And Iraq will be a cakewalk.
-
Comment by Hank Essay - April 9, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“unprecedented”
Oh, sure, Paul. No powerful, rich guy has ever greased the skids for his romantic interest.
It’s unprecedented.
Comment by Garuda - April 9, 2007 at 4:12 pm
No way this is legit. All the people from this administration or those close to it are corrupt and enriching themselves at our expense. If the Ethics committee okayed this, how much are they paying themselves!!!
Comment by Avvorio - April 9, 2007 at 4:30 pm
At least he’s got a libido. I always thought he looked hot blooded. Delish. As for all the handwringing… look at it this way - He’s just following Kofi Annan’s example for leadership.
Comment by Media Lizzy - April 9, 2007 at 4:50 pm
..abhorrent. Is he paying her for work done within or outside office hours? …and now that he’s caught, he wants to get back to helping the poor. Laughable!
Comment by tau - April 9, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I don’t know… you’d have to pay me a heck of a lot of money to date a man who licked his comb.
Comment by BobN - April 9, 2007 at 6:24 pm
What can you expect from the beady-eyed Wolf-Man…?
greenpagan.blogspot.com
Comment by greenpagan - April 9, 2007 at 9:08 pm
So, how soon will the WSJ editorial page blame this on Clinton?
Comment by Robert - April 10, 2007 at 12:59 am
Who cares? (sound familiar?) Hint: Bill Clinton supporters
Comment by pkinfertz - April 10, 2007 at 1:06 am
Shaha Riza?
http://www.persiancarpetguide.com/sw-asia/People/Bio949.htm
Paul? WOOF-WOOFowitz!
Comment by freejack - April 10, 2007 at 8:08 am
For that kind of cash, I’d date the guy…..
Comment by Billy D. - April 10, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“For that kind of cash, I’d date the guy…..”
Uh-uh. No way. Not enough money in the world for me.
Comment by Julie - April 10, 2007 at 1:24 pm
At least he’s moved on to alienating the ethics committee after having initially saying he was following the directive of the full board (you can imagine how that went over with them). Really a paltry amount of money to ruin one’s reputation over.
Comment by Brioboy - April 10, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Give Wolfowitz a break… He’s a brilliant guy and just because he played politics and WON - doesn’t mean he’s corrupt. It means he’s smarter than a lot of other folks. As for the salary - yes, it’s overkill. Here’s a question… how is it different than getting into office just because you were someone’s wife? You know, like Hillary. At least Wolf & his gal pal are QUALIFIED for the positions they hold. Give them a slap on the wrist - then move on.
Comment by Media Lizzy - April 10, 2007 at 2:02 pm
media lizzy, you sound like you have a crush on wolfie-tits yourself…gross
Comment by durka-durka - April 10, 2007 at 2:34 pm
media lizzy, you sound like you have a crush on wolfie-tits yourself…gross
Comment by durka-durka - April 10, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Wolfowitz is scum.
Comment by LJP - April 10, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“how is it different than getting into office just because you were someone’s wife?”
Uhh, the difference between being elected by hundreds of thousands of voters and being picked by the guy you’re sleeping with.
Next question.
Comment by sj - April 10, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I read it a little differently. It appears that Wolfowitz accepted a job where his squeeze was already working. He and/or his board determined it would be a conflict of interest for her to work under him, so to speak, officially. So she is moved out while Wolfie is the boss, but they keep paying her because it wouldn’t be fair to can her just because he took the World Bank position.
Still a bit European in the marital morals department, but not quite the sleazy maintaining the mistress off the books deal some are making it.
Comment by charlieq - April 11, 2007 at 1:12 am
I agree with Charlie Q.
Comment by Fred Zimmerman - April 11, 2007 at 11:45 am
CharlieQ, they didn’t JUST “keep paying her”, they kept INCREASING her pay to more than what was allowed by the Bank’s regulations.
Comment by trish - April 11, 2007 at 12:58 pm
CharlieQ, they didn’t JUST “keep paying her”, they kept INCREASING her pay to more than what was allowed by the Bank’s regulations.
Comment by trish - April 11, 2007 at 12:58 pm
CharlieQ, they didn’t JUST “keep paying her”, they kept INCREASING her pay to more than what was allowed by the Bank’s regulations.
Comment by trish - April 11, 2007 at 12:58 pm

[Plane]

You get what you pay for.

[Mucho]

You get what you pay for.

And I know you Repubs always have to pay for it.