One of the most important days for the selection process may turn out to be Wednesday 4 April. We have learned that “the Danish EU-Presidency intends to provide an opportunity to the EU World Bank Governors to have an exchange with all the three candidates for the position of the World Bank Group President. … It will now be held on Wednesday, April 4 2012, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in Brussels.”
So the finance/development/foreign minsters from the EU 27 will have the chance to meet and interview all three candidates. We don’t know if this will be a group process – like a seminar with all three candidates on the podium – or with the three of them in succession. It seems the intention is that it is behind closed doors either way. Any chance the EU wants to webcast this event? With its large staff of translators the EU could even simultaneously translate the discussion, as suggested by my fellow bloggers.
It is worth remembering that the EU executive directors on the Bank’s board control voting share worth 29.2%. If you add in the Swiss ED,a constituency with Poland serving as the alternate, the total comes to 32.1%. Adding those numbers to the US and Canadian totals yields up 48.4% or 51.3%. That basically makes the numbers for Kim. So if Okonjo-Iweala or Ocampo want to break the gentleman’s agreement they are going to need to peel off some European votes. That may all be determined on Wednesday.
Pingback: European governments opinions – two out of three candidates impressive… | World Bank President
The Nigeria $500 million “loan” (aka quasi-gift, according to the scathing policy assessment of the World Bank’s IEG) should have led to the same treatment afforded to the Albania team that is, removal from office of the whole chain of command, led by Ngozi as MD, followed by the Nigerian VP.
Check out the fact that 6 of the judges on the World Bank Administrative Tribunal serve on ICSID panels appointed by ICSID’s Secretariat. As for IEG – check out what happened to my request for them to correct their satisfactory evaluation on the Bank’s supervision performance of the Philippines Banking Sector Reform Loan. Check out the falsification of evidence in many of the whistleblower cases in the Tribunal, their refusal to allow witnessesses to testify on behalf of the whistleblowers, and then check out the promotion of the Administrative Tribunal’s Executive Secretary to ICSID following his admission of falsified evidence into the Tribunal. You brought up Ngozi’s involvement, I didn’t.
Check out the Administrative Tribunal’s six-figure judgments on Albania foa abuse of authority, or IEG’s reports on GAC, the Bank’s matrix organization and the $500 million credit for Nigeria, all signature achievements when Ngozi was an MD.
As “real Bank insiders” know the Bank doesn’t substantiate its own acts of misfeasance and cover-up which it alone is left to “independently” investigate. EVER.
To end corruption and enable the World Bank to fulfill its mandate.
Why is this relevant?
Here’s what P.C. Mohan, then Staff Association Chair said:
“The Staff Association firmly believes that the integrity of the Bank depends in large part upon its willingness to comply with the terms of agreements it has reached with staff members. Violations of a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’), as alleged by Ms. Hudes, not only undermine the credibility of this institution but damage the morale of its workforce. This impact is particularly harmful when the MOU is intended to address retaliation against an individual who has reported suspected misconduct to the Bank’s officers. Violating such an agreement invariably deters other staff members from advising their superiors of wrongdoing.”
Here’s what Pieter Stek, then Chair of the Board Committee on Development Effectiveness said:
“In a multilateral institution which should be governed by the rule of law and high standards of probity the charge of concealment from the Board of Executive Directors of information relevant to the exercise of its duty of supervising management and the persecution of the person who brings this to light is extremely serious. If correct, which I believe, this poisonous cocktail undermines good governance and ultimately the effectiveness of the Bank in fulfilling its mandate. I shall continue to assist Ms. Hudes in her efforts to have due process brought to bear, preferably by the Bank itself, on these issues of governance.”
Here’s what Luigi de Magistris, Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, said:
“It is with great pleasure that I write to thank you for your presentation during the hearing ‘The Effectiveness of Whistleblowing’ on 25 May 2011 and for your participation in the exchange of views that followed.
I share the opinion expressed by the Members of the Committee that it was very interesting and inspiring to learn about your case at the World Bank and especially the ideas you have presented to us to make whistleblowing more effective.”
Why not ask the World Bank to produce Russell Reynolds’ report following my interview for the position of General Counsel after I answered that Executive Search firm’s query why there was a revolving door for the World Bank’s General Counsels.
So what accounts for the demands that President Obama nominate a non-American?
None of Ms Hudes’ allegations has ever been substantiated. Ever.
No one has ever argued that a non American must be electedOr should have advantage . It has always been the other way around.
Accounting problems at the World Bank? Its CFO is moving on to a new job. Good personal timing. No accountability??
EU Governors should end corruption at the World Bank by asking the 3 candidates: Do you think it is time to end the practice in the Memorandum with Regard to Organization and Loan Procedure dated June 4, 1947 that: “[t]he Management is responsible for developing recommendations in all matters of policy requiring decision by the Executive Directors.” and “Whenever, in connection with the operations of the Bank, decision of a question of policy becomes necessary, the President will submit such question to the Executive Directors with the recommendation of the management as to the action to be taken…”
After two whistleblowers informed the International Development Select Committee of the UK Parliament about accounting problems at the World Bank, on March 29, 2012 the Economic Affairs Committee of the UK House of Lords recommended that funding to the World Bank should be reduced “while a more detailed re-evaluation is carried out.” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldeconaf/278/27802.htm
The World Bank’s Board of Governors rescinded the Gentlemen’s Agreement for the US to appoint the President of the World Bank after its 187 members concluded that there was interference with proper Board oversight of the World Bank. http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/2010/042510.htm Why did members come to this conclusion? The World Bank stonewalled the GAO inquiry into corruption requested by Senators Lugar, Leahy and Bayh http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sunil-chacko/senator-bayhs-long-bye-by_b_518141.html following the firing of ten whistleblowers who revealed:
– cover up of corruption in the Philippines Banking sector
– cost over-runs in a corrupt Kenya school building project
– failure to address AIDS crisis in Africa
– $20 million in interest rate overcharges to World Bank borrowers
– miscalculations of World Bank’s capital and income adequacy
– retaliation against whistleblowers
– false certifications to conceal trust fund misappropriations
– racism and mismanagement in the Niger health sector
– intimidation of staff in the Institutional Integrity Department during Volcker Panel investigation
-cost overruns on the World Bank’s headquarters building
The World Bank also interfered with oversight by the US Congress; two of the World Bank’s whistleblowers were fired after they disclosed wrongdoing at the World Bank to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. One of the whistleblowers, an attorney for twenty years in the World Bank’s legal department, is an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development bondholder and is suing the World Bank and its external auditor, KPMG, in the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, for violations of the securities laws. On March 19, 2012 the Court of Appeals ordered the World Bank to agree on a joint briefing schedule, but the World Bank refused to meet with the whistleblower.
Moreover, the inspector general of a $22.7 billion global health fund whose financial management was entrusted to the World Bank reported corruption. The World Bank is the Global Fund’s Trustee.
Pak Zulmadi has identified the essence of a merit-based selection that the Bank’s board members will soon make, by consensus, after they have interviewed all the candidates in Washington next week.
1. Understand the vision of the Bank and its convening power, in a changing world with shifts in power and priorities, and the emergence of ‘competitors’ on the Bank’s key products, knowledge and money. Be able to articulate it in action terms.
2. Understand how money influences non-financial things, since the Bank’s reputation and its ability to raise and lend more money (particularly IDA) depends on results. Be sure that money is lent prudently.
3. Look to the future, on matters like education, health, employment and jobs, governance and government effectiveness, and human rights, in an evolving world of attitudes and actions. Admit that countries, and all the Bank’s other stakeholders, have a role in defining and achieving that future. Understand and respect that not all the Bank’s clients come from or are in the same place, want prescribed models, or like being told what to do.
4. Show a ‘fit’ to the criteria set out by the Development Committee and the Bank’s owners, who prescribed neither nationality nor technical discipline.
5. Show respect for people, and that doing the right thing, the right way, needs to return as a standard for development. Uphold high standards of personal integrity.
Terima kasih, Pak Zulmadi
Anyone, who would be placed and chosen by the President of the Organizing Committee of the World Bank this Search! important, in my opinion be considered include:
1. Understand the vision and mission of the World Bank itself.
2. Understands and knows about the world of banking and the role of banking itself to all its members. Neither the shareholders nor the parties as well as users and beneficiaries receiving services from the World Bank itself.
3. Familiar with the character and attitude of the nation and its rulers, especially to the youth of the nation and the ruler who will utilize and take advantage of the existence of the World Bank itself.
4. What they have actually been selected to meet all the criteria set out initially by the party or the party committee and organizers of the World Bank’s Presidential Election.
5. Those who choose it, really understand the meaning of life in this world, that every living will surely die, and any who cheat must be destroyed.
Siapapun, yang bakal didudukan dan dipilih oleh Panitia Penyelenggara Pencarian Preside Bank Dunia ini ! yang penting, menurut hemat saya diperhatikan antara lain adalah :
1. Mengerti akan visi dan Misi dari Bank Dunia ini sendiri.
2. Mengerti dan sangat memahami tentang dunia perbankan serta perananan dari perbankan itu sendiri untuk seluruh anggotanya. Baik si pemegang saham maupun pihak-pihak pengguna serta pemanfaat dan penerima jasa dari Bank Dunia itu sendiri.
3. Kenal akan karakter serta sikap anak bangsa serta penguasanya, terutama terhadap anak bangsa serta penguasanya yang akan memanfaatkan serta mengambil keuntungan dari keberadaan Bank Dunia itu sendiri.
4. Mereka Yang terpilih benar-benar telah memenuhi seluruh kriteria yang ditetapkan di awalnya oleh pihak Panita dan atau Pihak penyelenggara Pemilihan Presiden Bank Dunia.
5. Mereka yang dipilih itu, benar-benar paham tentang arti kehidupan di dunia ini, bahwa setiap yang hidup itu pasti akan mati, dan setiap yang curang itu pasti akan hancur.