From the Forums: CFPB whistleblower bites back

by MPA08 Sep 2014
The MPA forums just had an interesting guest – the whistleblower who brought attention to the allegations of racial and gender discrimination at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Responding to another commenter’s incorrect contention that only three CFPB employees had testified of mistreatment – and that all were on “performance plans” for unsatisfactory job performance – CFPB whistleblower Angela Martin had this to say:

“I was never on a performance improvement plan -- in my entire federal career -- and have never received a negative written counseling, even to this day. In my prior federal service in the Department of the Army I received the highest ratings of 5 always. Even at the Bureau, my 2012 overall rating was a 4 out of 5. I did not receive a rating in 2013 at all but it is true that after I came forward and asserted my rights my then-supervisor gave me 6 "unacceptables" in a mid-year review (1-rating equivalent) and he also took my job away on the spot, without the necessary PIP or counseling. I hope this clarifies things for you. Let's all speak the truth or be quiet.”

And other MPA readers jumped to Martin’s defense.

“The "political Spin" is clearly on the side of the CFPB and the administration,” wrote Justice. “If any company in the private sector, state government or local government acted in the same manner, the DOJ would be knocking at their door within days. Why hasn't the President spoken on this?”
MPA reader Poster claimed inside knowledge that the allegations against the agency were true.

“I work as a Counsel for a Cabinet level agency (I hold a senior role) and my wife works at the CFPB,” Poster wrote. “She told me first hand that over 200 grievances were filed by employees in a span of only 8 months. They can't be all be on performance plans. The reality is the CFPB is being horribly mismanaged and there is no accountability for the offending managers. The complaints should never have made it to the press and the congressional level. In any normal work environment, the complaints would have been handled in a timely way. Seems to me that the senior management is bent on destroying the CFPB's reputation. It's sad because this agency had so much promise.”

And MPA reader Julie simply responded with support: “YOU GO, ANGELA MARTIN!”

What do you think? What do the allegations of Martin and others mean for the CFPB? Is this an issue that can be resolved with “more training,” as CFPB Director Richard Cordray suggests? Or does the agency need to clean house and start over? Let us know what you think in the comments below.


Should CFPB have more supervision over credit agencies?