<p>Here are the statements of the people who were actually involved. Riza wasn’t overpaid because of Wolfowitz, she was a very talented and experienced employee – the kind of employee most organziations would be glad to have and pay well.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/05/official_statements_of_shaha_r.html[/url]”>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/05/official_statements_of_shaha_r.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t put me in the position of defending Wolfowitz or Shaha. But I gotta say that if you’re Shaha and you have to leave the institution ENTIRELY where you have been plying your career for several years (I don’t buy that going to the State Dept. is just an internal transfer for someone who works at the World Bank; it’s just not. I think of it it as a kind of demotion or going out to pasture for someone who wants to work directly in development), that’s not really fair. As much as I’ve ever experienced it or witnessed it, I have seen that people may have to leave divisions. But entire companies? I would think that as long as someone wasn’t in the direct chain of command and other protections were put in place, there could be a work-around that didn’t involve a person tanking their entire career.</p>
<p>However, some of the ability to do this would rest on people being transparent and above-board and not vindictive or high-handed, and it doesn’t seem clear that either Wolfowitz or Shahe meet those standards based on this case.</p>
<p>There aren’t many options to the World Bank. That’s why the analogy in the legal field doesn’t work for me. There are a lot of options in that field to representation and potential affiliations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For much more important reasons why they shouldn’t have put him in that position, I would consider number 7 in my list above. Given that Cheney has a daughter who’s given wide-ranging portfolio to do pretty much as she wishes in the State Dept., I don’t think the Bush Administration would have seen any of the ethical constraints that you are talking about.</p>
<p>Wolfowitz was seen to have been a pretty good Ambassador so far as I know. The New Yorker had a pretty balanced article on him just as this controversy was beginning to explode.</p>
<p>Wolfowitz is, one on one, a low-key guy and comes across as a decent person. The problem is that he doesn’t really live in the real world, and is a tremendous ideologue, who believes forcefully in his own rightness and his own rightfulness. And that’s why he told Shinseki with such blistering offensiveness that the General was crazy for believing we’d need to have many more troops for the occupation of Iraq than we sent. And so, chaos ensued, weapons depots and immunitions dumps were emptied by Iraqis and we quickly lost credibility for being a force for stabilization. I think there is a Hannah Arendt-esque lesson to be learned about how nice guys who make passable graduate school deans can lead things really far off the right track, if given too much reign to do so.</p>
<p>Wolfowitz’s reputation may ultimately be held lower than that of Gonzalez’. I would argue with much more justification, since Gonzalez’ has sponsored a corrosion of govt. whereas Wolfowitz’ missteps have meant lots of dead people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I know she was apparently brilliant. But if you think that’s what this is all about, uh, yore knot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the impression I got from my acquaintance as well.</p>
<p>On the Riza remuneration: I was actually surprised by how low her salary was at the WB, before the pay increase. Back in the 1980s, I knew an economics Ph.D. who got a job at the WB. He found the salary there so much higher than what he might command in academia that he never did finish his Ph.D. That was when an assistant prof’s salary would be in the $20k. But now, an assistant prof salary is $60K+ and a full prof salary at top institutions is considerably more than the $132k she was earning.</p>
<p>Going from World Bank to the State Department would be like going from HYP to, say, oh somewhere around tier 3 or 4 University. Not that there’s anything at all “wrong” with either the State Department or lessor-ranked colleges, but, to state again what Bedhead posted and what I have already tried to point out, it’s a terrible career diversion. </p>
<p>As to Riza earning more than the secretary of state, that’s because World Bank is on an entirely different - far more generous - pay scale: state department is in the federal public sector; World Bank is an NGO and its compensation structure is entirely different. So an employee transferred into state from such a place would be like a person cut adrift, career effectively destroyed. If it were me, I’d be screaming for ten times as much money, AND I would be ending the relationship that got me into such a predicament.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t feel too bad. WB jobs are tax-free.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So didn’t Wolfowitz realize this? Why didn’t he make a better arrangement for Riza?</p>
<p>Not only tax free, but, the leave time is incredible, and the benefits are just beyond belief…</p>
<p>And the internal support is incredible. One person I know very well has TWO administrative assistants, assigned exclusively to her. And she’s only 28 years old, although she does have a master’s from Johns Hopkins. In the past 12 months, she’s traveled to China, Singapore, Ireland, and France, on different trips…all vacations.</p>
<p>Fendrock that’s exactly what got him into trouble LOL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No…like going from Boeing to Bechtel. They do different things. It’s not really a question of relative prestige in the world, but of how you are able to ply your chosen career.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But if you are arguing that she’s justified in letting her boyfriend abuse his power to pursue a remedy for the implied unfairness, like it or not, you are putting her in the position she is railing against, of being a “neoconcubine.” Aka whore. If she felt abused, she needed to pursue remedy above-board. That’s how the world works – remedies short of that look like payoffs or sleaze.</p>
<p>Where’s your response to anything substantial said above, by the way? Curious to your reply.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Bank does tend to follow European vacation standards. But the other stuff is absolute bs or some kind of anomaly so bizarre as to be a useless piece of information.</p>
<p>I had friends (with Hopkins’ degrees) who earned very meager salaries and didn’t have any assistants dedicated solely to them and they were representative of the conditions, given the number of them that I saw working like this.</p>
<p>All those vacations? When I worked in development, I would tack on a day or two wherever work had taken me to to do a little sightseeing (when my bosses allowed). Arguably on the company nickel in the sense that they got me there, but there were many trips when I couldn’t do this and the additional time and expenses were paid by me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why did Wolfowitz have to arrange her overpayment? Why couldn’t she have gotten it on her own merits by going through the proper channels?
Fact is, when she applied for promotions that she had to compete for on a level playing field, she didn’t get them. </p>
<p>Absent Wolfowitz, the powers that be didn’t even think she was entitled to regular promotion, much compensation so astronomical it was off their charts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll grant that she’s intelligent. But prior to Wolfowitz’ involvement, her employer didn’t even find her all that promotable, much less worth the large salary he arranged for her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you work at an entity and not be in the chain of command of the president of the entity? I’ve never seen an OR chart that looked like that.</p>
<p>Even with her at the State Department and presumably reporting to them not the World Bank, Wolfowitz was still dictating her salary, promotions, and even the contents of her performance appraisals. Imagine how much more control he would have had over her situation had she stayed at the bank.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but it’s equitable, because it could have happened to any bank employee with a strong personal connection to the new president. </p>
<p>She knew when she took a job in the banking industry that there would be ethical rules she’d have to abide by, even if those rules one day affected her in a way she didn’t want them to. It’s an occupational hazard. The bottom line is that organizations that have fidicuary duty to others are obligated to do whatever is legally within their power to ensure the organization’s integrity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm, no. It’s because Reza was earning far MORE than the bank’s pay scale. That’s one of the main points of the controversy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. The idea that once their boyfriends enter the picture, working women can’t be expected to abide by the terms and conditions of their employment or to follow established policies and procedures is really demeaning to women.</p>
<p>Conyat:</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In light of no articulating policy or rule – if Shaha’s statement above is true and I can’t imagine she’d say these things in a statement to the Board if they weren’t – then I have to say that you are going overboard.</p>
<p>The key thing I said about chain of command was “direct” chain of command. I think you’re smart enough to be able to imagine how a person who’s in the chain of command of someone is not directly, on a day-to-day basis, falling under someone’s direct influence.</p>
<p>And she’s not in the banking industry, per se, she’s in the development industry.</p>
<p>None of this changes any of what I said or exculpates either her or Wolfowitz in this. But I agree that the solution is arguably draconian.</p>
<p>Also, what about the inevitable cases – some have been brought out in the press – about affairs within the bank within chains of command? How can you hold a disclosed relationship to a higher standard than others that are known but not officially corroborated.</p>
<p>The fact is that none of what I said lets Wolf. off the hook for his improprieties.</p>
<p>Since I have seen firsthand so much death and destruction of people’s home, livelihoods, and environment caused directly by the World Bank (most of during the Clinton/Gore years), it is hard to get me all exercised about whom Wolfie decides to share his sperm with.</p>
<p>There are much bigger things at stake.</p>
<p>Bedhead, I never once said Wolfowitz was justified in using his power to get around this or any other rule. He broke LOTS of rules during his tenure and if he wasn’t breaking a rule he was behaving in a manner that alienated people, most notably non-American staff. He began irritating people from day one and never stopped. He even hired his own personal security team to travel to the annual meeting in Singapore because he didn’t “trust” World Bank’s security, and he let everyone know it. </p>
<p>The whole point is that the bank is a study in contradictions. There are people like the 28 year old with the two assistants and generous leave time and then there are other people in similar positions but different departments who work 16 hour days and seem to never get any time off at all, or, if they do get the time off, are unable to take it, and that also have no help. </p>
<p>And the state department IS very different than World Bank - not only in terms of pay scale and how promotion is determined, but the entire culture is very, very different. </p>
<p>The only real solution is that Wolfowitz should never have been appointed, but, once appointed, he should have declined the offer. </p>
<p>Having said that, I hope the new president comes in and looks at ALL the ethics violations, and does something about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s very clear that Reza thought she was entitled to stay at the bank with her boyfriend at the helm. The Ethics Board thought otherwise. </p>
<p>Sorry, but I am going to believe that the Ethics Board is in a better position to interpret the rules than an employee who stands to be adversely affected by those rules. It’s kind of the whole point you have an Ethics Board in the first place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Go look up the bank rule that the Ethics board used in making the decision to ask her to move. I read it earlier, but didn’t save the link. It covers a lot more than just direct supervision; it extends even to professional interaction. </p>
<p>Setting your lover’s salary and rank and dictating the contents of her performance appraisals is still exercising significant influence over her or her situation, even if you aren’t the direct superior. It’s probably even more control than a direct supervisor would have. </p>
<p>Wolfowitz was doing all those things even after the Ethics Board took action to try to reduce the conflicts of interest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but if it was that common for employees to receive that kind of salary increase and to get promotions without having to compete for them, it would have been part of company policy to give it to them, and not against that policy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same standards are going to apply, however Draconian they may be at times. You’re dealing with other people’s money, and they have a right to expect you to be accountable for how you spend it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would Wolfowitz say that the Board signed off on her raises and promotions when they didn’t? I can’t imagine why he’d do that, yet he did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, there is a huge difference between your first post that assigns some fault to Wolfowitz, but implies that his forced resignation as mere political payback (thereby putting the major fault on the board), and the second post that says he never should have taken the job in the first place and broke all sorts of rules and demonstrated rank incompetence. Those are VERY different positions.</p>
<p>Secondly, there is a big question about whether an institution dedicated to helping the poor should pay as well as it does. However, the one instance you cite – a 28-year old with two assistants – strains credibility. To be an American and get a STAFF position at the World Bank, you’ve basically got to be a PhD from MIT/Harvard/Princeton/Stanford/Berkeley/Chicago/Yale maybe a couple of others and be really accomplished by the time you’re about 30 or so.</p>
<p>I had friends work as consultants there and they shared assistants with many people, if they had any at all. Some eventually were sometimes hired as staff through a different route, but their salaries were paltry compared to peers doing anything private, and without PhD’s in the World Bank environment they were basically often dog meat.</p>
<p>I had staff friends from other countries who were on the road to places like Armenia sometimes for weeks at a time. Okay, tell me what a gravy train it is to spend three weeks in a three star hotel in Moldova, and I’ll tell you that for a person who’s earning maybe half of what they might in the private sector, it’s not really all that great. It’s not all sh*** and giggles to be sure, and often these are people who aren’t driven by money much at all. The IFC – the World Bank’s private sector arm – is a place to gather experience and then leave, except for those who stay and make much less than they would doing the same jobs elsewhere.</p>
<p>I don’t doubt that there are cases of abuse, but I just don’t buy the picture you’re selling. Not when you don’t even stick to your original story. Sorry</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, we knew from the get-go that this wasn’t true. Not even Wolfowitz’ own account supports this. He proposed she stay and the Ethics Board overruled him. </p>
<p>So I don’t know why any of the other contradictions should trouble anyone.</p>
<p>Conyat: I think at this point we are splitting hairs. I feel a bit sorry for Shaha, in that the decision of the Board was I think draconian.</p>
<p>However, as I said, two wrongs don’t make a right. Unfortunately for her, her boyfriend made some spectacularly bad judgement calls and her sense of having been wronged caused her to acquiesce in these judgement calls. And she’s the one who is really, really f***ed much more than he is. He’s at retirement age, and he can probably get some third-tier university that has no standards to hire him. Kind of life Georgetown with Douglas Feith. Wow, Georgetown lost tons of cachet IMO with that hire. What whores!</p>
<p>Bedhead, this isn’t about “me”, it’s about the World Bank, and the issue specific to Wolfowitz. Having said that, there are no contradictions in any of my posts - my position is unchanged. I absolutely DO think he was forced out based on politics, and, I also think he should never have accepted the position in the first place. He’s at minimum smart enough to suss out that he wasn’t exactly going to be a great fit for the organization, let alone the more obvious issues. Plus with his CV he would have lots of other options and no particular need to settle for this particular option. </p>
<p>And, it isn’t true that you must be so highly credentialed to gain employment there - a friend of mine in her mid-fifties just attained a permanent position there, after time expired on her contracting position. She’s a lawyer with a disastrous resume, prior to her contracting position. And the 28 year old is from India - not an American - not that it matters. </p>
<p>I am sure there are people on staff that end up in less than glamorous hotels and in challenging geographies. But that sort of makes my point - there are people on staff who have it made, and others who don’t. One veteran who has been there 25+ years is rumored to spend 75% of working hours in the cafe area, working his contacts to make sure he holds on to his job. I’m sure that’s an exaggeration but my sense of this organization (lacking complete, precise empirical data, just my overall sense) is that there is a lot of abuse of power, a lot of inequitable compensation practices in play - regardless of what the rules say - and therefore I can certainly understand why a career employee who suddenly finds herself banished to the state department is outraged, and says so.</p>