WASHINGTON—Embattled (adj. 被人圍困的) World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz is negotiating an agreement to resign, according to an official familiar with the talks.
His departure would include an acknowledgment (n. 承認(rèn)) from the bank that he doesn't bear sole responsibility for the controversy surrounding a generous pay package for his girlfriend, the official said.
The negotiations were taking place as the bank's board resumed deliberations (n. 熟思) over Wolfowitz's fate Wednesday afternoon. The official said Wolfowitz wanted the bank to accept some responsibility for conflicts of interest cited against him by a special bank panel. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate state of the negotiations.
It was not clear whether the bank's 24-member board would accept Wolfowitz's terms.
Pressure on Wolfowitz to resign has grown since a bank panel report, released Monday, found that he broke conflict-of-interest rules in his handling of the 2005 pay package of bank employee Shaha Riza.
Wolfowitz has maintained that he acted in good faith. Pundits on the Internet have weighed in aggressively on both sides of the debate
His departure would include an acknowledgment (n. 承認(rèn)) from the bank that he doesn't bear sole responsibility for the controversy surrounding a generous pay package for his girlfriend, the official said.
The negotiations were taking place as the bank's board resumed deliberations (n. 熟思) over Wolfowitz's fate Wednesday afternoon. The official said Wolfowitz wanted the bank to accept some responsibility for conflicts of interest cited against him by a special bank panel. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate state of the negotiations.
It was not clear whether the bank's 24-member board would accept Wolfowitz's terms.
Pressure on Wolfowitz to resign has grown since a bank panel report, released Monday, found that he broke conflict-of-interest rules in his handling of the 2005 pay package of bank employee Shaha Riza.
Wolfowitz has maintained that he acted in good faith. Pundits on the Internet have weighed in aggressively on both sides of the debate