I am glad that the process was allowed to run to the conclusion, which appears to be a reasonable compromise.
I do note the following from the WP lead story:
In a statement released last night, the board conceded that "a number of mistakes were made by a number of individuals in handling the matter under consideration," and the bank would need to improve its ethical procedures. The board declared that Wolfowitz "assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, and we accept that."......Another WP article states:
A bank official briefed by board members said the board would today issue a second statement asserting that Wolfowitz is immediately barred from making personnel and policy decisions, assuaging the fears of some that he might otherwise fire those who have rallied against him.
In his statement to the bank board on the Riza deal earlier this month, Wolfowitz seemed to recognize that "what this is really about" was "my leadership and management style." He said that "there are some significant things that I need to change in order to regain the trust of the staff." He had "relied too long on advisers who came in with me from the outside."A third WP article states that thousands of World Bank staff members here in Washington had taken to wearing blue ribbons on their jackets to express their opinion that Wolfowitz should go.
Wolfowitz acknowledged the need for "more direct and frequent engagement with staff on substance," he said, adding: "I truly believe I can do much better."
Comment: It rather looks like Mr. Wolfowitz would have done considerable damage to th Bank had he continued in his job for the rest of this term of office, and perhaps more had he survived for a second term. JAD
1 comment:
Check out this editorial in The New York Times.
Post a Comment