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 – 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 – 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—and 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 – 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 – 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.
=======
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 – 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.