Not Playing by the Rules

Let's look at a situation. Supposing I am working for a company where my girlfriend happens to be working, one can argue that there may be a potential for a conflict on interest due to the fact that we are in a relationship and that could potentially affect our business relationship. In an effort to remain impartial and removed from the situation, I make a recommendation that my girlfriend take up a position with another company where I have friends. Okay. Problem solved right? Yes. But what if in my nepotistic attempt also keeps my girlfriend on the payroll of her former company as well. Okay, at a reduced salary due to years of service? Sure, that could work; it almost seems like a pension. But what if I ensure that she not only gets her full salary but also gets a raise of nearly 35%, plus a bonus that boosts the total to an increase in salary of nearly 50%? Again, you can say that as the head of the company it's my right to make that decision. But what if this circumvents the leadership of the company who I am also obligated to consult in such cases? After all, I am still privy to the laws of the company aren't I?

Were this the normal corporate world, there would have been firings and investigations galore but in the case of current World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, it's all in the line of duty. Wolfowitz and the Bush Administration are making continuous attempts to downplay the situation and make it appear that the actions taken by Wolfowitz are no big deal; after all, he is the head of the World Bank isn't he? While that in and of itself is quite true, it doesn't help the image that corporate America has gained in the past few years. With scandals regarding the falsification of books and income for many major coporations around the nation, what the country doesn't need is another corporate scandal in which the leadership is called into question.

I am not arguing on whether or not Wolfowitz is qualified to continue leading the World Bank or not but I do believe that given the reactions of other international officers within the company, the Administration should consider actions against Wolfowitz. There is nothing in my mind that can justify not only paying an employee who is no longer at a company but to also bump up her pay by nearly 50%? That's one Hell of a severence package. If that were the case across the country in all corporations, I think you'd see a sudden spike in the number of people changing jobs and leaving their current employment. Just think, a person earning minimum wage would be able to retire after changing jobs about six times with severance packages like these. To think, all that time and energy (and money) that was spent on my college education. I could have just joined a company and quit and made more money in less time if that was the rule.

Obviously that's not the way things work and it's a negative reflection on not only the Administration but of the leadership of our country as well. As it is, there are protests against the World Bank all the time. There are organizations around the world who see the World Bank as the reason so many developing countries are having such a hard time. It's simply because they can't work off the interest payments on the loans made to them by the Bank. When there are already people calling for the end of the World Bank's services, the last thing the organization needs is to have its leadership accused of corruption or misdeeds. And it reflects poorly on the Administration when they leap to defend him. No matter what the circumstances, the actions taken by Wolfowitz are about as kosher as a lion slaughtering a gazelle.

Should Wolfowitz resign? I believe he should. Not because he is incompetent or incapable, but because he knowingly broke the rules and then continues to deny having done anything wrong. Were this anyone else or were it not for the fact that the United States is a majority stakeholder in the Bank, the person would have been dismissed long ago. To say that he misinterpreted the recommendations of the ethics committee makes it appear that he was too stupid to get clarification. This is a man who was deputy at the Pentagon and integral in helping sway the nation to throw support for the war in Iraq. If he was so sure then with evidence that was not all concrete, he managed to get clarification or hear the things he needed to hear to make him choose to go to war then how is it he can't figure out that it's unethical corporately to keep paying his girlfriend for a job that she doesn't even occupy anymore. His and the Administration's continuous denials aren't helping at all, if anything, they are helping turn more allies against us.