[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND
RETALIATION WITHIN THE CONSUMER
FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, PART TWO
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 21, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 113-81
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-543 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman
GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking
Chairman Member
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Emeritus NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
PETER T. KING, New York BRAD SHERMAN, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JOHN CAMPBELL, California DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota AL GREEN, Texas
KEVIN McCARTHY, California EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
BILL POSEY, Florida KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
Pennsylvania JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin BILL FOSTER, Illinois
ROBERT HURT, Virginia DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
STEVE STIVERS, Ohio PATRICK MURPHY, Florida
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DENNY HECK, Washington
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ANDY BARR, Kentucky
TOM COTTON, Arkansas
KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Shannon McGahn, Staff Director
James H. Clinger, Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, Chairman
MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, AL GREEN, Texas, Ranking Member
Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee DENNY HECK, Washington
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
ANN WAGNER, Missouri STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky
KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
May 21, 2014................................................. 1
Appendix:
May 21, 2014................................................. 53
WITNESSES
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Konop, Benjamin, Executive Vice President, the National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU), Chapter 335............................ 9
Strong, Liza A., Lead of Labor and Employee Relations, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).................... 6
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Konop, Benjamin.............................................. 54
Strong, Liza A............................................... 57
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Green, Hon. Al:
The CFPB's Fiscal Year 2013 Performance Management Analysis:
Snapshot of Findings, dated May 2014....................... 61
ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND
RETALIATION WITHIN THE CONSUMER
FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, PART TWO
----------
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Patrick T.
McHenry [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives McHenry, Fitzpatrick,
Duffy, Fincher, Hultgren, Wagner, Barr, Rothfus; Green,
Cleaver, Ellison, Maloney, Beatty, Heck, Kildee, and Horsford.
Ex officio present: Representatives Hensarling and Waters.
Chairman McHenry. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations will come to order. Witnesses will take their
seats. The title of today's subcommittee hearing is,
``Allegations of Discrimination and Retaliation Within the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Part Two.''
The Chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement. On March 6th of this year, the American
Banker published an article titled, ``CFPB Staff Evaluations
Show Sharp Racial Disparities.'' The article exposed serious
personnel problems at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
including evidence that, ``the CFPB's own managers have shown
distinctly different patterns in how they rate employees of
different races.''
It is now apparent that the CFPB was aware of the racial
disparities in key metrics well before the March 6th American
Banker article. A study on diversity and inclusion commissioned
by the Bureau and conducted by Deloitte Consulting was provided
to the Bureau in September of 2013. That study noted sharp
racial disparities in performance ratings, pay, hiring, and
other areas.
In addition to racial disparities in the CFPB's performance
reviews, the American Banker also reported that, ``the
management has been accused in several cases of favoring
Caucasian men and of creating a hostile work environment.''
The article noted that the CFPB's employees had filed 115
official grievances with the National Treasury Employees Union,
their union at the CFPB, and over 85 informal complaints, most
of which pertain to allegations of unequal pay and raise
questions about the recent performance reviews. These findings
are particularly troubling as the Bureau, in its role as
policeman of the consumer credit markets, has embraced a
disparate impact theory, under which lenders can be held liable
if their practices have a disparate impact on members of
protected classes, even in the absence of direct evidence of
racial discrimination.
If the CFPB were a private company, the mere existence of
disparities in key metrics relating to its treatment of
employees would be ample grounds for enhanced supervision and
costly enforcement actions. Now, at the Bureau, we have both
examples of disparate impact and actual real cases of
discrimination and retaliation.
On April 2nd of this year, the subcommittee held a hearing
which addressed these allegations of discrimination and
retaliation at the Bureau and featured the testimony of Ms.
Angela Martin, a current CFPB employee and whistleblower, and
Misty Raucci, an investigator hired by the Bureau to examine
Ms. Martin's claims of retaliation.
Also invited to the hearing that day were three individuals
with key roles in the union grievance and workplace complaint
process. Unfortunately, the Bureau and the union refused to
make these witnesses available. Only under force of subpoena
are two of the three witnesses here today. I would note for the
witnesses, it was a bipartisan, unanimous vote of this
subcommittee to issue these subpoenas.
Liza Strong serves in the Bureau as a lead employee
relations manager. All formal and informal workplace complaints
are processed through Ms. Strong's office. In addition, Ms.
Strong negotiates on behalf of the Bureau with the union on
changes to workplace conditions as part of the collective
bargaining process.
Ben Konop serves as the executive vice president of the
union and is the highest ranking union official who actually
works within the Bureau headquarters here in Washington. Mr.
Konop has represented the union in negotiations with Ms. Strong
on workplace conditions as well as disputes regarding the
Bureau's troubled performance management review systems.
The fact is that discrimination on the basis of race, sex
or other prohibitive factors is destructive, morally repugnant,
and against the law. All government agencies, including the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, must continue to combat
discrimination in employment and punish those responsible for
discrimination. And yet, during my time in Congress, I have
never witnessed this much of an outpouring from any one agency
or actually any agency added up across the government in terms
of the number of employee complaints we have seen and calls
that we have had to talk about these conditions.
Nevertheless, I join my colleagues in announcing to all
employees of agencies under the jurisdiction of this committee
who are experiencing discrimination or fear of retaliation at
the hands of their supervisors to reach out to this committee.
It should be recognized that in the past few days, the Bureau
has announced changes to their employee performance system that
revealed ``broad-based'' statistical disparities in the
employment ratings system.
In fact, Director Cordray reached out to me personally, and
called to inform me of the changes and acknowledged the role
that the public attention and congressional oversight played in
the Bureau's decision to make adjustments to the performance
management system, however inadequate they are.
While the CFPB's funding and structure afford Congress an
extremely limited ability to influence the Bureau's operations
and policies, the allegations of discrimination and retaliation
at the Bureau further underscore the significant need for real
congressional oversight of this Bureau. It is my hope that
through today's testimony, we will gain a better understanding
of the issues of discrimination laid out in the American Banker
article and the Deloitte report as well as the day-to-day
handling of employee grievance and complaints.
And with that, I will now yield 6 minutes to the ranking
member of the full Financial Services Committee, Ms. Waters.
The ranking member has just informed me they would like
additional time, so I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of
the full committee.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today, we will hear the testimony of two subpoenaed
witnesses regarding allegations of discrimination and
retaliation at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank you for your interest
in addressing discrimination issues at the CFPB. And I want to
reiterate my sincere hope that you will commit to addressing
similar issues that may be occurring in the private sector and
at all Federal financial regulators with the same due diligence
as you have at the CFPB.
As you know, subcommittee Democrats have called on the
Inspectors General at all of the financial regulators under our
committee's jurisdiction to assess whether any personnel
practices and policies within these agencies have created an
unfair or discriminatory workplace for minorities and women.
Since our last hearing, my staff has had productive
conversations with staff from the offices of the Inspectors
General discussing the scope of this review and the use of
uniform criteria to ensure their investigations are conducted
in a thorough, meaningful, and consistent manner.
Mr. Chairman, once they have been completed, I certainly
hope you will join us in using the full weight of this
committee to take a close look at the findings of, and any
recommendations from, the Inspectors General.
However, I remain disappointed that pay disparities among a
wide range of classifications occurred at the Bureau as was
outlined in a report that the CFPB released on Monday.
It is good that the CFPB is taking steps to try to achieve
a fair, inclusive workplace, by among other things, ensuring a
more direct, ongoing interaction between the CFPB's Office of
Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) and the Director's office.
I am so pleased that CFPB is engaging in negotiations with the
National Treasury Employees Union to develop a new employee
evaluation system that will address these pay disparities and
compensate employees.
I am hoping that today's witnesses will shed additional
light on the inner operations of the CFPB, but as I and Ranking
Member Green wrote to you over a month and a half ago, I remain
interested in hearing from the Bureau's top leadership. The
CFPB has offered both Director Richard Cordray and the head of
its OMWI, Stuart Ishimaru, to testify before the committee, as
has the national president of the NTEU.
To date, they have not been invited to discuss this issue
before the committee. Despite the fact that the Bureau's senior
leadership is not here with us today, I hope that in today's
hearing we can still learn more about what steps the Bureau is
taking to identify the root causes of the pay disparities as
well as additional details about the Bureau's plans to evaluate
and adopt new policies and procedures to ensure these types of
problems do not happen again.
Mr. Chairman and Members, I had an opportunity to talk with
Mr. Cordray to better understand what steps he has taken, and
we are going to hear more about that today. But I must share
with you that, based on what I have learned, I am impressed
that Mr. Cordray has taken this problem head on, that he has
identified where the weaknesses are and he has moved in a very
direct and concrete way to do something about it.
So in addition to having learned more about whether
disparities were taking place or had occurred at the CFPB, the
way that he has addressed it and the remedies that he has put
in place already are extremely impressive. And I am impressed
with the way that, despite the fact that he is such a good
public policymaker and a great Director who has moved the CFPB
forward, that he took on this issue, stopped everything that he
was doing, and took on this issue. And I joked with him a bit
and told him he became his own human resources manager, and he
has done a fantastic job.
And I would just like to put that up front because I have
had the opportunity to review what he has done. And so, Mr.
Chairman, as we look at all of these other agencies, where we
now have people who are coming forward telling us stories about
discrimination, that you will tackle this in the same way and
hopefully we can get these kind of results from all of the
other agencies where many of these discrepancies and
discrimination have been going on for years.
I am so pleased about the direction that you are taking and
the progress I already see, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman McHenry. I will now recognize the ranking member
of the subcommittee, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you for your comments about your desire to deal
with discrimination in all agencies.
I would also like to thank the ranking member of the full
committee. I would like to associate myself with your comments,
Madam Ranking Member, and I would also like to thank you for
the leadership that you have shown in insisting that we have
the IGs look into these matters. I think it is exceedingly
important that they do so, and I welcome the results of their
investigations.
I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here
today. I read your statements, and I assure you that I want to
get to the bottom of what is going on. I think it is
exceedingly important that we not only deal with accusations
but that we also get the solutions.
We have to get to the bottom of this. I want you to
understand that I view this the way I view a police department
that is being investigated. At the end of the day, with the
police department, if there are bad actors, if there are bad
circumstances, they are dealt with. But you don't eliminate a
police department. The police department still functions. You
still have your police department. The CFPB is our police
department. It is the cop on the beat.
At the end of the day, after all is said and done, after
Mr. Cordray has had his opportunity to appear, we still will
have a CFPB. And I want to make it very clear to all of my
colleagues that attempts, if they should manifest themselves,
to let this metamorphose into, ``let's do away with the CFPB''
will be resisted, they will be fought, and they are going to be
dealt with, because America deserves a Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. We must fight to keep it. We must also fight
discrimination wherever it exists.
And this is a great opportunity for us to set the paradigm,
to make it very clear that on this side we, too, are going to
fight to make sure that we get rid of discrimination. The
ranking member and I are committed to it. She has a history of
fighting invidious discrimination. And I am going to support
and work with her every inch of the way as well as with all of
my other colleagues.
There are times when it is important to be on the right
side of politics, and there are times when it is important to
be on the right side of history. But this is one of those times
when it is important to be on the right side of right. We want
to be on the right side of what should be happening, of what
should take place, of remedies that ought to be proposed.
This is our opportunity to make sure that we treat this
agency and all agencies the same way. So when we move on, Mr.
Chairman, and we find that there are some complaints at some
other agency, we will have the same desire to investigate that
we have with the CFPB.
I supported the subpoenas, and I want you to know that I am
ready to do whatever is necessary to make sure that we get to
the bottom of it, not just to the top but to the bottom. And I
want you to know that if you think we need more subpoenas, you
and I need to discuss this first, if you would be so kind as to
discuss it. But let's talk about it. Let's see where we need to
go.
I will quote a great and noble American, one known to some
of you, Marvin Gaye. Some of you are smiling. You know who
Marvin Gaye is. I want to quote Marvin Gaye. His words were,
``Let's get it on.'' So Mr. Chairman, let's get it on. Let's
get to the bottom of it, and let's not let this be the last
time that this committee embraces the notion that we are going
to deal with invidious discrimination, whether it is in the
CFPB or the FDIC, we should treat it all the same as we move
forward from this point.
I thank you for appearing today, witnesses, and I look
forward to your testimony.
Chairman McHenry. I trust that the ranking member's context
for that song is significantly different this morning than this
hearing.
Mr. Green. It absolutely is, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McHenry. I appreciate it.
Mr. Green. I thank you for inviting me to respond, and I
will let you know that it clearly is different in that this is
all about people in a different kind of way.
Chairman McHenry. With that, we will now recognize the
witnesses for their opening statement. Ms. Liza Strong has been
the Lead of Labor and Employee Relations at the CFPB since July
2011. Previously, she held human resources positions at the
Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Aviation
Administration. Ms. Strong is a graduate of Oklahoma City
University School of Law and the University of Texas at El
Paso.
Mr. Ben Konop is an enforcement attorney within the CFPB's
Office of Supervision Enforcement and Fair Lending. He is also
the Executive Vice President of the National Treasury Employees
Union chapter that represents the CFPB employees. Before
joining the CFPB, Mr. Konop taught law and was an associate
attorney at a large law firm. He served as a county
commissioner in Lucas County, Ohio. Mr. Konop is a graduate of
the University of Michigan Law School and Emery University.
Finally, Ms. Stacey Bach, the Assistant Director of the
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity at the CFPB, was
subpoenaed by the subcommittee to appear at this hearing.
However, through her legal counsel, Ms. Bach requested that her
testimony be postponed due to a medical condition. Accordingly,
Ms. Bach's testimony has been postponed.
The witnesses will now be recognized for 5 minutes for
their oral presentation of their written testimony. You will
see the lights in front of you: green means go; yellow means
hurry up; and red means stop. Once you are finished with your
presentation, Members will then have 5 minutes to ask
questions.
And without objection, the witnesses' written statements
will be made a part of the record.
The final note is that these microphones are directionally
sensitive and, let's just say, less than good. So if you will
bring them close to you, that will be very helpful. And with
that, we will now recognize Ms. Strong.
STATEMENT OF LIZA A. STRONG, LEAD OF LABOR AND EMPLOYEE
RELATIONS, THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU (CFPB)
Ms. Strong. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman McHenry,
Ranking Member Green, and members of the subcommittee. My name
is Liza Strong, and I am the Lead of Labor and Employee
Relations at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I have
held that position since July of 2011.
Prior to joining the Bureau, I worked in the Office of
Thrift Supervision and, prior to that, at the Federal Aviation
Administration. I have significant experience in Federal
Government personnel matters. I am appearing today to make this
brief statement and to answer your questions pursuant to the
subcommittee's subpoena dated May 8, 2014.
It has been and continues to be my pleasure to work as a
public servant. In particular, I am proud of the work that the
Bureau is doing to protect American consumers. I believe the
Bureau's mission to make markets for consumer financial
products and services functional and safe is very important.
That is why I am deeply troubled by allegations about
discrimination at the Bureau.
On March 6, 2014, the American Banker published an article
alleging racial disparities in the Bureau's performance
evaluations. Additionally, on April 2nd, this subcommittee
heard testimony from Ms. Angela Martin, a Bureau employee, and
Ms. Misty Raucci, a contractor, alleging discrimination. Those
allegations are not consistent with what I have observed during
my time at the Bureau.
The performance review information reported by the American
Banker was compiled by the Bureau at the request of the
National Treasury Employees Union, the union that represents
the Bureau employees. It is part of my job to facilitate
responses to NTEU's request for information, which I did in
this case.
It is not part of my job to actually collect the
information or evaluate or assess the data requested. Instead,
my office serves as a conduit for the request. Although I have
not been involved in the Bureau's assessment of the data, I am
aware that the Bureau was analyzing the performance review
information for signs of disparate impact even before the
American Banker published its story.
I do not have a role in addressing any performance review
process issues that may have occurred in the past. My role in
revising the performance review process is limited to helping
negotiate the Bureau's collective bargaining agreement with the
NTEU going forward. In that context, Director Richard Cordray
asked me to facilitate an open dialogue with the NTEU about its
vision for performance management, which I have done.
During recent contract negotiations, the NTEU presented its
own plan for the performance review process, which the Bureau
has now accepted. Our cooperative efforts with the NTEU will
continue through our working group focused on ensuring that the
performance review process at the Bureau is fair and effective.
In addition to working with the NTEU, I also manage
investigations of individual employee grievances. Employee
grievances are separate from EEO complaints, which are handled
by a different office. My office is currently handling numerous
employee grievances. The grievances involve a variety of issues
with a relatively small number alleging any sort of
discrimination. We take all grievances very seriously and fully
investigate each one.
Angela Martin's grievance was no different. When Ms. Martin
first alleged mistreatment by one of her peers, my office
undertook a thorough investigation that included numerous
interviews and the collection of signed statements. We did not
find evidence to corroborate Ms. Martin's allegations, but
still took a number of proactive steps to address Ms. Martin's
concerns.
These included providing a coach for Ms. Martin's coworker,
which he readily accepted, recommending roles and
responsibilities be clarified, and encouraging Ms. Martin and
her coworker to engage in mediation. While Ms. Martin's
coworker was willing to engage in mediation, it is my
understanding that Ms. Martin declined that opportunity.
Meanwhile, two of Ms. Martin's direct reports raised
serious concerns about Ms. Martin's management style. They
complained of abuse that justified their temporary reassignment
to another supervisor. When Ms. Martin alleged retaliation by
her manager, in part because two of her reports were
temporarily reassigned, we took that complaint equally
seriously.
I engaged with what I thought at the time was a competent,
independent third party to investigate Ms. Martin's retaliation
claims, the Defense Investigators Group (DIG). What I received
in return from DIG, and Ms. Raucci specifically, was an
incomplete work product that did not meet the goals set forth
in DIG's own statement of work.
Ms. Raucci's investigation did not meet even minimal
standards. For example, she failed to obtain signed statements
from the people she interviewed, did not provide Ms. Martin's
supervisor a full opportunity to respond to the allegations
made against him, and did not provide sufficient documentation
to support her conclusions.
The president of DIG, Misty Raucci's supervisor, conceded
that Ms. Raucci's work was unacceptable and in many ways did
not address the allegations she was supposed to investigate.
After giving Ms. Raucci a second chance to correct the issues,
I received a second investigative report that was no better
than the first one. Ms. Raucci and DIG failed to address any of
the problems with the previous report.
The Bureau is working to fill in the gaps left by the DIG
report. Throughout this time, the Bureau worked very hard to
accommodate Ms. Martin's demands. In addition to paying Ms.
Martin a monetary settlement on at least two occasions, the
Bureau essentially created positions for her in two different
divisions at the same pay and grade. We put significant effort
into designing each position according to Ms. Martin's
specifications. She declined one of them outright and is now
dissatisfied with the other.
I feel that the Bureau went to great lengths to help Ms.
Martin get to a place where she could be happy and productive.
For nearly a year and a half, I kept an open-door policy with
respect to Ms. Martin and always made myself available to
assist her in any way I could. I have never witnessed
management be anything but professional and accommodating to
her.
I was surprised when during the April 2nd hearing, it was
alleged that I attempted to influence DIG's conclusions. I have
never done that. And in fact, this allegation does not make
sense. Had I wanted to predetermine the outcome of the
investigation, I would not have outsourced it. Although these
allegations against me are not true, in order to maintain the
integrity of the investigation into Ms. Martin's claims, I
recused myself after the April 2 hearing and turned over my
investigation file to a coworker. I am no longer involved, but
it is my understanding that the investigation remains ongoing.
As a woman and as a minority, I am sensitive to issues that
have been raised about discrimination at the Bureau, but I
honestly believe that the Bureau cares about treating its
employees fairly. I know I do. My team and I work very hard to
give each grievance the attention it requires to achieve a good
and just outcome for everyone involved.
I also know that the Bureau is taking these allegations
very seriously. The Bureau is focused on correcting any
problems that may have occurred in the past and is dedicated to
preventing any discrimination, either intentional or
unintentional, in the future.
In addition to the previous submission and supporting
documentation I provided to the subcommittee, I look forward to
the opportunity today to deliver a more complete picture of the
issues. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Strong can be found on page
57 of the appendix.]
Chairman McHenry. Mr. Konop, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN KONOP, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION (NTEU), CHAPTER 335
Mr. Konop. Thank you. First, I would like to thank the
committee for taking the time to examine the important issues
of race and gender discrimination, as well as other issues of
equality, which are a problem not only at the CFPB but
throughout our society. For the last 3 years at the CFPB, I
have served as an enforcement attorney in the Office of
Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending. I am honored to
enforce our Nation's laws with a group of talented,
hardworking, and passionate colleagues who dedicate their
professional lives to fighting for fairness in the financial
marketplace.
In late 2012, I also helped organize a chapter of the
National Treasury Employees Union at the CFPB. In May of 2013,
workers voted overwhelmingly for the union, with 80 percent of
those casting ballots voting in favor of organizing. Shortly
after the election, I was asked by NTEU's national
representative to serve as the interim Executive Vice President
of the chapter and was eventually elected by our members to
that position for a 2-year term.
As the Executive Vice President, I represented the chapter
in negotiations for our 2013 pay and advocated for dozens of
employees in grievances and EEO proceedings, and I currently
serve on the bargaining committee charged with negotiating the
first collective bargaining agreement in the Bureau's history.
During my time at the Bureau, I have witnessed great
accomplishments by our unionized workforce. For example,
members in Enforcement have led cases that resulted in $3.5
billion being returned to American consumers. Union members and
supervision have traveled thousands of miles every week to
ensure that banks and other financial institutions are
following the law.
Members in Consumer Response have overcome significant
obstacles to staff a robust complaint system that helps give
the American consumer a fair shake. And union members in Fair
Lending have made sure that financial institutions throughout
our Nation are held accountable if they discriminate on
impermissible factors like race and gender.
Unfortunately, I have also witnessed Bureau management
struggle at times to live up to the mission, ideals, and
achievements of the CFPB as a whole, notably in regards to
performance management review (PMR). PMR ratings are vitally
important for our workers, as they determine pay raises and
bonuses and make up the permanent employee record that is
relied upon by the Bureau to award promotions and other
benefits. These ratings can also be accessed by potential
future employers when former Bureau members apply for a job
outside the agency.
In August and early September of 2013, just weeks after the
union was recognized, the chapter asked for and was given the
2012 PMR ratings distribution between labor and management. The
2012 data that we requested revealed managers were far more
likely to receive the highest ratings and less likely to
receive the lowest ratings than bargaining unit employees.
To me, this seemed like managers were, in essence,
receiving coach-of-the-year awards while their employees had
only a mediocre winning percentage. I, along with other members
of the bargaining team, repeatedly raised these fairness
concerns during September of 2013 and were assured by
management that these inequities would be remedied. Sadly, this
was not the case.
In November 2013, employees were given their new PMR rating
for the proceeding year, after which our fledgling chapter was
overwhelmed with members seeking to file grievances over their
ratings. Several chapter stewards and board members observed
that the bulk of potential grievances were being reported by
minority and female employees.
In addition, it appeared that employees over 40 years of
age were also adversely impacted by the rating system. In
response to our members' concerns, the chapter filed a
comprehensive information request on November 22, 2013, seeking
from management a detailed PMR breakdown by categories such as
race, gender, age, and bargaining unit status. It was this
request, and the agency's response to it nearly 2 months later
in mid-January, that I believe led to this hearing today.
The 2013 ratings showed marked disparities for minority
employees. For example, a White employee was twice as likely to
receive the highest rating at the Bureau as compared to a Black
or Hispanic employee. The odds were similarly stacked against
workers over 40. And ratings continued to be badly skewed in
favor of management when compared with the ratings of the
bargaining unit, who do the bulk of the work at the Bureau.
Immediately upon receiving this data on January 15, 2014,
our chapter's leadership made our members aware of these
troubling disparities and called on management to make
wholesale changes in PMR going forward while compensating those
who were adversely affected in the past. In response,
management was largely silent.
We then entered into collective bargaining negotiations in
late January. Throughout the first several months of
bargaining, the union raised these issues with management
representatives sitting across the table and called on them to
discard the current system. And once again, surprisingly,
management refused to acknowledge the documented unfairness in
the system and instead defended PMR.
In fact, at one point during negotiations, a management
representative asked me unironically whether by advocating for
a new rating system, ``I did not believe in meritocracy.''
While the chapter was raising PMR issues through grievances and
bargaining, we also pursued approximately 15 pay equity
grievances. In these filings, we alleged that women and
minority employees were being underpaid when compared to
similarly situated White male colleagues.
To date, the Bureau has denied each of these grievances at
all stages often using inconsistent reasoning, despite what I
feel is convincing evidence of low pay for numerous women and
minority workers.
In the last several weeks, however, there does appear to be
recognition by management that we ought to be doing better as a
Bureau. For example, we recently reached a tentative agreement
on a new PMR system that in large part accepts the union's
proposal and scraps the system that yielded the disparities. In
addition, just days before this hearing, Director Cordray
issued an important directive for the first time acknowledging
that, ``there were broad-based disparities in the way
performance ratings were assigned across our employee base in
both 2012 and 2013.''
He confirmed the union's belief that, ``these differences
indicate a systemic disadvantage to various categories of
employees that persisted across divisions, offices, and other
employee characteristics.'' In particular, Director Cordray
agreed with the union findings that there was ``broad-based,
statistically significant disparity in many areas, including
race, ethnicity, age, and bargaining unit membership
eligibility.''
As a result of this directive, which retroactively
compensates the majority of employees harmed by the PMR system,
it appears that the Bureau has made a solid first step in the
process of holding itself accountable. This is what the Bureau
is in the business of doing in the financial marketplace, and
that is all the union has asked of Bureau management since our
chapter's inception.
I look forward to a productive discussion on these and
other important issues at the CFPB. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Konop can be found on page
54 of the appendix.]
Chairman McHenry. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Konop, on Monday, Director Cordray outlined some
remedial measures to address alleged discrimination against
women and minorities in the Bureau. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Chairman McHenry. As you said in your statement.
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Chairman McHenry. What is the union's position on these
remedial measures that the Director is taking?
Mr. Konop. I think it is a productive first step. We were
pleased to see acknowledgment of the positions that we had been
advocating for close to a year at this point in some cases. We
think there is more work to be done certainly, and we look
forward to continuing to engage the Director and all interested
parties in making sure the entire--
Chairman McHenry. Is your union planning to file
grievances?
Mr. Konop. I believe actually a mass grievance was filed.
It came out of the national office, so I am less familiar with
it, but it did allege that there were certain other steps to
remediate the problem that needed to be taken care of, in
essence, scrubbing people's records of the previous grievance.
Chairman McHenry. So the union requested a report on the
CFPB's 2013 performance reviews. When did you do that?
Mr. Konop. We did that on November 22nd.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. So when did the union receive the
report?
Mr. Konop. It would probably have been on January 14th.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. And why was the report requested?
Mr. Konop. We felt that it appeared anecdotally that a
large amount of people coming to us with questions and concerns
and serious issues with their ratings were minorities or those
over 40 and women, as well.
Chairman McHenry. So when you received this report, when
the union received this report in January, until March 5th, the
day before the American Banker published these reports of
alleged discrimination and retaliation within the Bureau, what
happened with the union's negotiations about this matter?
Mr. Konop. We engaged in a good 2 months of pretty hard-
nosed negotiations and there was a lot of resistance to
changing--
Chairman McHenry. Did that resistance change after the
American Banker article?
Mr. Konop. I believe it certainly softened at that point,
yes.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. So let me ask you another question.
The CFPB received a report from Deloitte Consulting in
September of last year which documented sharp racial
disparities and gender disparities as well, not only in
performance reviews but also with pay, hiring, promotions, and
in a number of other areas. Are you familiar with this report,
which is right before you?
Mr. Konop. Yes. I became familiar with it yesterday after
it was reported in the media.
Chairman McHenry. Yesterday?
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Chairman McHenry. Ms. Strong, about this report, in
September of last year Deloitte provided this report at the
Bureau's behest and found that, ``Asians and Whites are being
deemed most qualified at higher ratings per applicant than
other remaining minority groups, and Asians and Whites are
being hired at more than double the rate of other ethnic
categories.'' So why did the CFPB continue to defend its
performance ratings system when they had such a damning report
from a revered consulting firm?
Ms. Strong. First of all, I have not read this report. I
vaguely remember being interviewed for it about a year and a
half ago.
Chairman McHenry. Were you provided the report?
Ms. Strong. No, so I wouldn't be able to speak to the
content of that report. I wouldn't be the appropriate person. I
do not oversee our hiring process. There is another lead who is
responsible for that.
Chairman McHenry. But you are the lead negotiator with the
union about the contents of this report.
Mr. Konop, would it have been helpful for the union to have
this Deloitte report, considering you asked for a report, an
investigation 2 months after the Bureau received this report?
Would that have been helpful in this process?
Mr. Konop. This report would have certainly informed our
negotiations in 2013 over pay. It would have informed our
negotiations this year over pay and the PMR system, and also,
obviously would have informed our grievance postures and
positions, yes.
Chairman McHenry. So not only the Deloitte report, but also
the internal CFPB report that the union requested, outlines
what managers did within the performance review process. And
so, with those performance ratings, Ms. Strong, they were made
by Bureau managers. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Strong. Yes, the managers rate the employees and issue
a rating at the end of the performance year.
Chairman McHenry. So it stands to reason that any systemic
discrimination observed in compiling the individual ratings can
be traced back to those managers. Is that correct?
Ms. Strong. I really wouldn't be able to answer that
question because I do not oversee--
Chairman McHenry. You answered the first question that
those managers did do the performance reviews.
Ms. Strong. Yes, sir, but I do not oversee the--
Chairman McHenry. Not only do Deloitte and the Bureau find
that they are discriminatory, therefore, those managers who did
that, it was either the system that was the performance review
or the people involved or both.
Ms. Strong. Yes. So my understanding, again, I do not
oversee the Bureau's performance management program, but--
Chairman McHenry. But you negotiate with the union on that
issue.
Ms. Strong. Yes. We negotiated with the union on a
performance management program for the future. So, I don't have
a role in assessing the past system. I did not analyze the
data.
Chairman McHenry. I would encourage you to review the past
system so the future system will not be so negative to your
employees.
With that, we will now recognize Mr. Ellison for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ellison. Let me thank the chairman and the ranking
member. I think it is important just to start my questioning by
putting on the table that on March 6th of this year, the
American Banker did an article and basically the reason for the
article was, I will just read from the article: ``Since the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau burst onto the financial
stage a few years ago, it has made a steady stream of
controversial moves. None are more despised by bankers than the
agency's use of statistical differences in the loan terms
offered to different ethnic groups to sue creditors for its
unintentional racial bias. In an ironic twist, it turns out
that the CFPB's own managers have shown distinctly different
patterns on how they rate employees of different races.
So that is what started this, okay. We are not here because
this committee has come to the conclusion that racial bias is a
problem in Federal agencies. We are here to vindicate American
Banker and the financial services industry in their attempt to
make the CFPB look hypocritical. That is the purpose of this
hearing. That is what we are doing.
It so happens that the CFPB does need to clean up its act,
as every other Federal agency does, proving that even a stopped
clock can be right twice a day. But my point is that out of
something that I think is a bad motive, an improper motive,
something good can happen, which is that we can try to bring
some real issues of fairness to the forefront.
So my question is basically this, and I will ask Mr. Konop
the question: Do you think the CFPB management has responded to
the concerns that bias exists within the rating system?
Mr. Konop. I think Director Cordray's actions a couple of
days ago were a substantial response. I think, after the
American Banker article, within negotiations there did seem to
be a response and we did reach tentative agreement on these
systems. So I think, yes, in the last month or two there has
been movement and especially with Director Cordray's actions on
Monday.
Mr. Ellison. So do you think that management is now taking
these concerns seriously and has a plan to address it?
Mr. Konop. I think they are taking these concerns
seriously. I don't think even they would acknowledge that they
have a full plan to address them. I think that is part of what
our working group has hoped to achieve, and certainly, this is
on ongoing issue that needs constant supervision, monitoring,
training, and holding people accountable, holding bad manners
accountable, and that is really an issue that has been at the
forefront of the union since its inception.
Mr. Ellison. Now, Ms. Strong, I just want to express my
view that I think it is unfortunate that we are sort of trying
this case here. I don't want to talk about the specifics of the
case. I would like to leave that for a factfinder who can do
the right kind of close work that needs to be done. Because I
used to be a plaintiff's civil rights attorney, I am
sympathetic to most plaintiffs. Of course, I am not immune to
the facts, but I am just expressing my bias upfront.
But I will say this, do you agree that there is real work
the CFPB and every Federal agency has to do to make sure
workers are treated fairly?
Ms. Strong. Absolutely.
Mr. Ellison. And my question is, do you believe the CFPB is
prepared to do that work to make sure that every worker can
feel that their contributions are being respected, without
regard to their race, their gender, their color, or their age?
Ms. Strong. I do. I believe the Director is committed to
that, and I believe that we are trying very hard.
Mr. Ellison. Do you take the complaints seriously--
Ms. Strong. Absolutely.
Mr. Ellison. --and if so, what is the evidence of that?
Ms. Strong. Absolutely. In all the grievances--now, I don't
oversee EEO complaints. I oversee the grievance process, and we
take each and every grievance very seriously.
Mr. Ellison. What is out there to show that you take this
very seriously?
Ms. Strong. We negotiated with NTEU. We have a multilevel
grievance process that includes an informal stage, a step one
and step two, that gives two levels of supervisors the ability
to review the grievance. And then, ultimately, if the parties
are not able to agree, the matter goes to an outside
independent arbitrator who renders a binding decision on that
matter.
Mr. Ellison. Thank you, Ms. Strong.
Let me just go back to Mr. Konop.
Mr. Konop, I just want to get your opinion on this quickly,
would you agree with me that the mission and the goal of the
CFPB is to make sure that the financial services industry
treats consumers fairly, including treating them fairly on the
basis of their race, is, it should not be undermine by the fact
that the CFPB itself has now had to deal with issues of bias
and inclusion?
Mr. Konop. I agree completely.
Mr. Ellison. Thank you.
Chairman McHenry. I will now recognize the vice chairman of
the subcommittee, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. I thank the chairman.
And I thank the two witnesses for your testimony here this
morning.
Mr. Konop, the American Banker came out with this
publication on March 6th, a little more than 2 months ago. And
the report is as follows. I want to quote this article: ``CFPB
managers show a pattern of ranking White employees distinctly
better than minorities in performance reviews used to grant
raises and bonuses. Overall, Whites were twice as likely in
2013 to receive the agency's top grade than were African-
American or Hispanic employees, the data shows.''
So my question to you is, did the data which the CFPB union
received from the Bureau support this conclusion?
Mr. Konop. It was the exact data that was cited in the
Banker article.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. So what was your reaction when you were
informed by the CFPB that Whites were ranked higher than
African-Americans?
Mr. Konop. Certainly, the board as a whole was
disappointed, kind of almost bordering on shock, I would say,
at first. But, we had problems with PMR the previous year, in
2012, so it was not completely out of left field that there
were systemic issues with PMR which needed to be addressed.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. And when you had data from the previous
year, what did the union do with that?
Mr. Konop. We used it in negotiations to try and level out
the pay disparities that were going to be a result of the
skewed ratings for management as opposed to the labor force,
and certainly challenged management directly on using the
system going forward in the manner in which it was going to be
used to influence people's careers.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Following up on Mr. Ellison's questions,
is it surprising to you that an agency which prides itself on
egalitarian values treats minorities in this way?
Mr. Konop. As I reference in my statement, this is a
problem that obviously affects society as a whole. Every part
and every organization probably has this. It certainly is
something that we need to focus on to correct especially
strongly, I think, because of our mandate in the marketplace.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. What do you think it says as an officer of
the Treasury Union? What does it say to the public that is
watching?
Mr. Konop. It says that this problem is, I think, endemic
in society and that even in a place like the CFPB, which
certainly has a noble mission and lofty goals and does really
good work, these problems seep in. And so I hope the CFPB, with
the help of the union, can be an example for other institutions
and societies of how to remedy this when it is addressed and
how to make things right.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Konop, in your experience, did you
find performance reviews subjective and arbitrary?
Mr. Konop. There was a great amount of subjectivity, yes,
and arbitrariness, yes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. A great amount?
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Can you expand on that?
Mr. Konop. Yes. When you are a lawyer--and there are a
number of lawyers, I think, on the panel--it is hard to judge
your year's work. If you are working on three large cases,
let's say, and your day-to-day dealing with opposing counsel
and filing motions and doing research and then to be able to
try and sum that up in a 20-minute performance review for the
entire year and give you a rating which will impact your future
career significantly is just, by nature, problematic.
And subjectivity, there is no way for subjectivity not to
creep in. We are not baseball players. When we have a batting
average, it is easy to evaluate them. But with workers in the
CFPB, it is very difficult to come up with a numerical rating.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Do you believe other employees had similar
experiences?
Mr. Konop. I would say the majority of employees have
similar experiences.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Between 2012, when you had the first set
of data, and 2013, was that number going up?
Mr. Konop. The union wasn't in existence for 2012 so we
didn't have a mechanism for taking grievances and taking
complaints.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. But you did have data.
Mr. Konop. We had data. The system was flawed, certainly,
but at the time the ratings were handed out, we weren't there
to administer.
And I also might add, this is a problem, many managers have
expressed to me this, that PMR system is flawed, and they would
have liked to have done away with it sooner than we did. So I
think there is, on sort of both sides of the table here,
agreement that the PMR system is flawed.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Ms. Strong, you indicated in your
testimony this morning that you were interviewed for this
Deloitte report. Who attended that interview?
Ms. Strong. It has been a while. I believe I was
interviewed by someone from Deloitte. I don't recall the--
Mr. Fitzpatrick. So just you and the interviewer? Just the
two of you?
Ms. Strong. I believe so.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Did you have any curiosity as to why
Deloitte was asking about diversity and inclusiveness?
Ms. Strong. No, I didn't. I was told that the Office of
Minority and Women Inclusion had asked them to conduct a
review, and if I remember correctly, they only asked me a
couple of questions, such as, what does diversity mean to you?
Mr. Fitzpatrick. That didn't prick your curiosity at all?
Ms. Strong. No. No. I think because that is the role of
OMWI, it seemed reasonable that they would be conducting a
review.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. And your testimony is, you read this
report for the first time when?
Ms. Strong. I have not read this report.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. You haven't?
Ms. Strong. No.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Nothing further.
Chairman McHenry. I will now recognize Mr. Cleaver for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I associate myself with the comments earlier of the
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison. I have been on this
committee for almost 10 years. I was mayor for 8 and on the
City Council for 12 years before that. This is the first time
in my political career I have been involved in a hearing about
an individual.
And while I don't have any objections to that, I, again, as
I did at a previous hearing, issue a friendly caution that we
can become consumed in doing this.
Mr. Konop, I believe you said something earlier that would
support what I am just saying. I am not sure you said you were
shocked to find some of the complaints. Did I quote you close
to being accurate?
Mr. Konop. I think we were shocked when we saw the racial
disparities.
Mr. Cleaver. Okay. I tend to probably side with you on 99
percent of everything you said, but I am shocked that anybody
would be shocked--
Mr. Konop. Fair point.
Mr. Cleaver. --that there is some kind of inequality. And
you would agree with me, I think--
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Cleaver. --that there is probably structural
discrimination in every single Federal agency that exists. Am
I--
Mr. Konop. I would say at this point in our Nation's
history, there is probably structural discrimination in almost
every entity that exists, regardless of whether it is in the
Federal Government or not.
Mr. Cleaver. Yes. When I was mayor, in a city where
minorities are really in a minority, the overwhelming majority
of the Kansas City, Missouri, population would be nonminority,
and so we did a, it was called a disparity study, which was
very expensive, incidentally, to look at scientifically, what
barriers were there and the structural barriers, not with
intentionality.
A lot of things happen without intentionality. People, they
grow up in a certain way, and they are not even aware of some
of the things they do. It is my understanding that an RFP has
already been developed and maybe already issued to do something
like a disparity study for the agency. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Konop. I am not aware of it. I think Director Cordray's
memorandum that he circulated on Monday seemed to be the
Bureau's attempt at doing that disparity study, and it did find
the disparity. Yes.
Mr. Cleaver. I think it is already out. The RFP is already
out.
Mr. Konop. Okay. It could be.
Mr. Cleaver. I saw something Monday that the disparity
study is out. And I don't know what kind of money they intend
to pay, but I can tell you, experientially, they are very, very
costly, but they are worth it. Because hopefully, the
Department of Agriculture, which has had a long history of
problems, much more than this agency, of course, it is new, did
the disparity study. And I think that if you spoke with
Secretary Vilsack, he will say that is one of the best dollars
they ever spent, because now they are trying to deal with those
problems.
Do you believe--and I want to ask Ms. Strong a question,
but one final question--that there is any Federal agency
functioning at the 24-carat level in terms of equality?
Mr. Konop. First of all--
Mr. Cleaver. I know you don't know, but I am just asking
your opinion.
Mr. Konop. Right. It has been my experience in life that we
all have a long way to go when it comes to equality, and I am
sure that would apply to all the Federal agencies, as well.
Mr. Cleaver. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Strong, in your role managing investigations of
individual employee grievances, how would you characterize the
majority of these grievances? In the past, have they been
focussed on the PMR system?
Ms. Strong. We have, I believe, about 136 grievances to
date. Approximately 57 or so were based on grievances coming
out of the performance management program, but we also have
grievances on other issues, as well.
Mr. Cleaver. All right. My time has expired, and I thank
you very kindly.
Chairman McHenry. I now recognize Mr. Fincher for a few
minutes.
Mr. Fincher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me just make a statement. One of my other
colleagues on the other side of the aisle referenced a few
minutes ago that this hearing was about an American Banker
article or something. We need to be careful, all of us, in
generalizing, making statements. A lot of us are trying to get
to the bottom of what is happening here. And to some of us,
this is not political; we just want to make sure it doesn't
happen going forward. So I would urge some of my colleagues not
to make general statements.
If the same disparity occurred in a private company, how
would the CFPB react? Would they take an aggressive and
retaliatory approach to force immediate corrective action, do
you think?
Mr. Konop. I don't practice in the Fair Lending sector of
the Bureau. But certainly, the chapter's general argument is,
yes, if they saw these type of behaviors going on in the
private marketplace in an area we regulated, it would draw
attention, and it has drawn attention in other contexts at the
CFPB, yes.
Mr. Fincher. If racial disparities occur in the performance
reviews of a private company, would the CFPB take an aggressive
regulatory approach to force immediate corrective action?
Mr. Konop. Again, that is not specifically my area of
practice. But I would say the CFPB would take a look at that
issue if it occurred in the issuance of loans, certainly. I am
not certain that we would have jurisdiction over employee
ratings. But certainly, in the context of, like, an auto loan,
yes.
Mr. Fincher. Have you or other union leaders talked to the
CFPB about this in your negotiations and encouraged the Bureau
to abandon or change this performance review system?
Mr. Konop. Oh, yes. We have made it very clear that we did
not support the previous system, and we engaged in many hours
of relatively heated negotiation on that issue.
Mr. Fincher. When did you start talking about this issue?
Mr. Konop. We started probably in the 2013 pay
associations. That would have been in September of 2013. At
that time, we only had a limited amount of data. We didn't,
unfortunately, have the Deloitte study. We were just going off
of one data set which was a differential between management and
labor. And that looked, to us, incredibly unfair. So we, at
that point, raised serious concerns about the system.
Mr. Fincher. Ms. Strong, in February 2013, CFPB's Legal
Division requested that your office engage an investigator to
determine if Scott Pluta, the Assistant Director of Consumer
Response, was discouraging employees from using the EEO
process. Is that correct?
Ms. Strong. That is correct.
Mr. Fincher. Was this request unique?
Ms. Strong. It was the first time the Legal Division had
requested that I conduct such an investigation.
Mr. Fincher. So no requests had been made before.
Ms. Strong. No.
Mr. Fincher. Was this the first?
Ms. Strong. It was not the first investigation I had
conducted, but it was the first one that was requested by the
Legal Division.
Mr. Fincher. Why do you recommend that employees use the
EEO process for workplace discrimination complaints when you
have managers openly discouraging its use?
Ms. Strong. First of all, that was an allegation that was
made. Based on my investigation, that allegation was not
substantiated. However, as I said in my opening statement, that
investigation remains ongoing.
Mr. Fincher. Can you point to any concrete measures the
CFPB management took before March 6, 2014, to address racial
disparities in performance ratings for employees at the CFPB
which were disclosed to the union on January 14, 2014, and
which the CFPB was aware of as early as September 30, 2013,
when the Deloitte report was released?
Ms. Strong. I can speak generally. None of these actions
came out of my office. But I know that the EEO office delivered
a lot of training to managers. I know our performance
management team has delivered a training to managers on how to
properly assess performance and deliver ratings.
Mr. Fincher. But no specific concrete measures, just
general?
Ms. Strong. Yes. I guess maybe--if you could ask your
question again? Maybe I missed what you are asking.
Mr. Fincher. Are there any concrete measures that CFPB
management took before March 6th to address racial disparities
and performance ratings for employees?
Ms. Strong. I would say that the Director invited NTEU to
propose a new performance management system. And we, through
negotiations, have now agreed on a plan that will carry us over
for the remainder of this year and next and allow us an
opportunity to engage in a work group to design together
collaboratively a new performance management system.
Mr. Fincher. Okay.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McHenry. We will now recognize Mr. Heck for 5
minutes.
The gentleman passes. Okay.
Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. Thank you for passing.
I would like to thank the witnesses, of course, for your
participation in today's hearing, and I appreciate your
thoughts.
The CFPB protects consumers in the financial markets and
its charge is to ensure that they are treated fairly. Clearly,
that duty to protect extends not just to consumers but to its
own employees. So I do appreciate the CFPB's willingness to
examine the issue that it found in its performance management
program and its stated intent to ensure that hiring and
promotion evaluations in that process puts merit first and
foremost.
The report that was released of the analysis of its
performance management program, which evaluates its employees,
is a pretty candid look at the biases of the Bureau in terms of
race, age, union membership, and gender. So there is obviously
a lot of work that needs to be done in this area.
I would, though, like to point out that although this
committee and Congress are quite rightfully concerned with
these reports of discrimination at this one Federal agency, it
is unequivocal to many of us that nationwide, it is clear that
we have a big problem here--and this was referenced in some of
your comments--when women make 77 cents on the dollar as
compared to men in the workplace.
So while we are discussing discrimination, and rightfully
so, I think it is important to point out that this Congress has
failed to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to address gender pay
disparity in the private sector and ensure that women earn what
they rightfully deserve.
As has been pointed out, what we are seeing here is
evidence of something that is not particular to a particular
agency or entity or organization, but it is a societal problem
that we have to address. And in this case, clearly we have to
address it.
But I do want to make sure that those in Congress, those of
us here who wax so eloquently on this subject are willing to
extend that same resolve with the other legislative
prerogatives that this Congress has to deal with what is
clearly a substantial problem.
So while it is concerning to me that CFPB found disparity
of treatment between union and nonunion members in its
performance, that obviously crosses lines of race, gender, and
ethnicity.
Considering the findings by the CFPB in its evaluation, I
look forward to working with the NTEU to ensure uniform
treatment.
Finally, I understand that the request for proposal (RFP)
has been issued for an outside group to undertake an
independent analysis of the performance evaluation program,
along with hiring promotion and evaluation process by the
Bureau. And I look forward to this analysis. I look forward to
further conversations with the CFPB.
Ultimately, I would just like to hear from both of you,
along with the issues that I have raised, what you think the
priorities ought to be as CFPB moves forward with this
analysis.
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on that. And I may
have an additional question. If you could just tell me what you
think the priorities ought to be as the CFPB moves forward?
Ms. Strong. I think the priority for my team now is going
to be to engage in the working group with NTEU in designing the
new performance management system. So, I would see that as one
of my team's top priorities.
Mr. Konop. I think initially, obviously, we have to remedy
the past wrongs. And that will mean, in some cases, financial
remedies. I think Director Cordray's memorandum takes a good
step forward on that matter.
But we still have pay equity issues that have not been
addressed which affect dozens of women and minorities at the
Bureau. We have grievances pending on those, but we think that
would be a strong remedial step.
And then I think the union would like to ensure that there
is accountability for managers who make mistakes. We have
always acknowledged that certainly, union members make
mistakes, and we get held accountable. We just want that same
amount of accountability applied to managers going forward. And
I think that really has to start at the top for the Bureau to
make sure that happens.
Mr. Kildee. I thank you both for your participation in this
hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McHenry. I will now recognize Mrs. Wagner for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the witnesses for being here today.
I want to make sure I have the timeline correct here. This
Deloitte report came out on September 30, 2013. That is 8
months ago. Is that right?
Mr. Konop. I believe that is correct.
Mrs. Wagner. Ms. Strong, is that correct?
Ms. Strong. I don't know. I'm sorry.
Mrs. Wagner. You say you were interviewed for this report?
Ms. Strong. I was. It was about a 15-minute interview over
a year ago.
Mrs. Wagner. It was delivered to the CFPB--
Ms. Strong. Right.
Mrs. Wagner. --on September 30, 2013. Did you read the
report?
Ms. Strong. I did not.
Mrs. Wagner. When were you made aware of the report?
Ms. Strong. Just now.
Mrs. Wagner. You were just--say again to me, please, you
were just made aware--you did not tell anybody prior to this,
this committee, that you were made aware of this report prior
to this very moment?
Ms. Strong. I have not seen this report before.
Mrs. Wagner. When were you made aware of this report?
Ms. Strong. I am telling you, I have not seen this report
before. So this is the first time I am actually--
Mrs. Wagner. This is the first time that you have been made
aware of this report after 8 months?
Ms. Strong. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Wagner. Okay. Wow. I am wondering who read the report,
then, that the CFPB authored and sent over 8 months ago about
these disparities, discrimination, retaliation, the system
being broken. Who read the report?
Ms. Strong. It was conducted, my understanding is, by the
OMWI office. So I am sure they read it. I just--I don't know. I
can't answer that question.
Mrs. Wagner. The CFPB spokesperson says that the Bureau
sought to protectively engage its labor union partners to
address the issue in the report.
Were you engaged, Mr. Konop?
Mr. Konop. The first time I saw the report was yesterday.
Mrs. Wagner. The first time you saw the report was
yesterday.
Yet, CFPB spokesperson Jen Howard said in an email to the
Bureau, analyzed the information and presented to the Bureau
and sought to proactively engage it.
Who was proactively engaged, Ms. Strong, in both analyzing
this with the CFPB and proactively engaging the labor union?
Ms. Strong. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. I
think Stuart Ishimaru would be the appropriate person to ask
that question because he conducted--
Mrs. Wagner. So a report is out there for 8 months about
these issues. And nothing is even done until an American
Banker's article goes public some 5 months later talking about
this issue.
What is your title, again, Ms. Strong? Are you, in fact,
the lead employee for employee relations? What is your title,
ma'am?
Ms. Strong. I am the Lead of Labor and Employee Relations.
Mrs. Wagner. And your spokesperson says that you all took
this report and proactively engaged the labor union after full
analysis and information had been presented. And you are not
aware of this.
Ms. Strong. I am not. And maybe what she is referring to is
the Director asked Stuart Ishimaru, who is the head of the OMWI
office, to conduct listening sessions. So maybe that is what
she is referring to as her ongoing--
Mrs. Wagner. Mr. Konop, let me ask you this question. I
think you have already testified that you thought that there
were distinctly different patterns in how employees were rated
based on race. Is that correct? Is that an accurate
interpretation, sir?
Mr. Konop. Yes. The numbers certainly support that.
Mrs. Wagner. The numbers. Do you have any reason to believe
that rating an employee on a scale of 1 to 5 is somehow too
complicated or too sophisticated for CFPB managers to
understand?
Mr. Konop. I think we have a lot of smart managers who
could probably theoretically understand how to apply a number
rating, yes.
Mrs. Wagner. This is not an automated system. Is that
right?
Mr. Konop. No, far from it.
Mrs. Wagner. It is not an automated system.
The statistics the CFPB used in its analysis are based on
the ratings that actual managers assigned to their employees.
Is that correct?
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mrs. Wagner. This isn't a systematic thing. This is
subjective, arbitrary. Is that how you would characterize it?
Mr. Konop. In most positions at the Bureau, I think it is
fair to say this rating has to be subjective by the nature of
the people's work that is being rated.
Mrs. Wagner. So it is not systematic.
Ultimately, if it comes from the decision made by the CFPB
manager, it stands to reason that any systematic discrimination
observed in compiling the individual ratings can be tracked
back to the managers. Is that correct?
Mr. Konop. Managers were certainly the ones who made the
ratings--
Mrs. Wagner. They actually made the ratings.
Mr. Konop. --fall on them.
Mrs. Wagner. Does it strike you as odd that Director
Cordray would blame the system for this, then?
Mr. Konop. I think there is more than enough blame to go
around, but I certainly think managers deserve their fair share
as well.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Ms. Strong, in your experience, is it true that the CFPB
managers have shown distinctly different patterns in how they
rate employees of different races?
Ms. Strong. Not based on my observations.
Mrs. Wagner. Not based on your observation. Really. Just
based on the reporting, I suppose.
Which CFPB managers gave CFPB employees ratings of 1s and
2s using the discriminatory performance rating system?
Ms. Strong?
Ms. Strong. Which managers?
Mrs. Wagner. Which ones? Names, please.
Ms. Strong. I couldn't give you the names. There were a
handful of employees whose performance was determined to be
unacceptable or minimally acceptable. But I couldn't give you
the names right now.
Mrs. Wagner. Perhaps you can provide those to the
committee.
Chairman McHenry. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Strong, to clarify for the record, when did you have
knowledge that the Deloitte report had been completed?
Ms. Strong. When? Honestly, this is the first time I have
seen this report.
Chairman McHenry. Have you heard that the report was
complete?
Ms. Strong. Not that I can recall.
Chairman McHenry. Have you been asked about the report?
Ms. Strong. No.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. All right.
Now, we will go to Mrs. Beatty for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Ranking Member Green.
And to our witnesses, thank you for being here.
We know that this is a difficult time for all parties
involved. But one of the things I want to focus on a little
more is the information from the American Banker article, which
is in part why we are here today. In that article, which cited
primarily findings from an internal Bureau analysis, as I am
sure you have discussed, it was alleged that the reviews were
being given in a manner such that it was more likely to award
higher ratings to White males than to their minority or female
counterparts. And much of that was based on performance ratings
that were directly linked to each employee's ability to receive
raises or bonuses and/or promotions, as we have heard.
Therefore, a performance review system which is skewed in
favor of one group clearly has a disparate impact on the
nonfavored groups. In fact, in the final analysis, the Bureau
found that the distribution of high rating marks was impacted
not only by race and gender but also by age and location as
well.
So as a result of these obvious disparate impact
performance reviews, the Bureau has, as I understand it,
recently undertaken to compensate aggrieved personnel and to
reform the system by which performance reviews are conducted.
My question to you would be, can you discuss or explain to
us the system of performance review that was in place up until
last week? How were these employees evaluated and what were the
criteria used?
Ms. Strong. Again, I am not the lead over the performance
management program. But I can speak generally to it. It was a
five-level system. And employees were rated on individual
objectives that were created in collaboration between the
manager and the employee and then also on a set of competencies
which applied--they were the same competencies applied to
employees at the same grade level and then also the same set of
competencies that applied to managers.
Mrs. Beatty. So by using the term the same for managers,
are you of the opinion that there was a clear and uniform
method by which the evaluations could be made on an equal
basis?
Ms. Strong. I would say that the performance management
system that we had in place prior to our negotiations with the
union is not very different than the performance management
programs that are in place in other agencies. So it is pretty
common or standard that employees have individual objectives
and then are also assessed on competencies.
Mrs. Beatty. So if, in fact, the reviews were that, do you
have any helpful information for us that explains how do we
have the standard reviews that result in disparate treatment if
it is equal? If it is more rigorous for me being female and
African-American than for maybe my White counterparts, what
makes the disparity?
Ms. Strong. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to help you
there. I don't think I am the right person. I was not part of
the group who assessed that data. I know that the Director
would be happy to come and talk to you about that assessment. I
just was not part of it.
Mrs. Beatty. But you are comfortable that someone made an
assessment which may have been a little more subjective than
objective if the standards were the same?
You are nodding, Mr. Konop, so you can feel free to
respond.
Mr. Konop. Yes. The system is subjective from the very
start because in most areas of the Bureau, the first step in
the review is actually the person being reviewed has to, in
essence, brag about how well they did that last year.
So if someone is really good at talking themselves up, they
might get a better rating. If someone is more humble or has a
different way of communicating, that actually will hurt them
going forward. Because what is evaluated in large part is the
personal statement. That sort of starts the process.
To me, the process is flawed from the beginning. It is
extremely convoluted. You would probably need another hearing
just to try and figure out exactly what was going on. Managers
spent a good month away from their substantive work trying to
do this. And it still turned out rather flawed. So it is a bad
system.
Mrs. Beatty. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman McHenry. We will now go to Mr. Rothfus.
Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Konop, the American Banker article from March 6, 2014,
stated that, ``Employees have filed 115 official grievances
with the National Treasury Employees Union since last August.''
If unofficial complaints that haven't yet worked their way
through this system are included, that number exceeds 200,
according to information obtained by the American Banker. Are
those statements correct?
Mr. Konop. I think those are certainly within the ball
park. I would have to go back and check, but it sounds about
right.
Mr. Rothfus. Are you surprised by the number of official
and unofficial grievances?
Mr. Konop. I think it is an extremely large volume for a
relatively small agency, yes.
Mr. Rothfus. So you would agree that the volume of
complaints is unusual?
Mr. Konop. Very unusual.
Mr. Rothfus. Now, you testified, I think, in your written
testimony and also orally that the vote to organize was 80
percent?
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Rothfus. Was the margin by which CFPB employees voted
to have a union represent their interests unusual?
Mr. Konop. I was told by folks at NTEU National that it was
one of the higher margins they had ever seen.
Mr. Rothfus. Ms. Strong, do you dispute the figures cited
in the March 6, 2014, American Banker article that over 200
complaints had been filed by CFPB's employee union from the
period of August 2013 through March?
Ms. Strong. According to my count, we have had 137
grievances to date filed by NTEU.
Mr. Rothfus. 137.
Ms. Strong. Correct.
Mr. Rothfus. Does that include unofficial complaints?
Ms. Strong. The union sometimes asks us to do inquiries,
and I think they are not technically an informal grievance. So
there may be more than that. But officially filed grievances,
there have been 137.
Mr. Rothfus. So is there--again the American Banker article
talked about official grievances, but then it also talked about
unofficial complaints. Do you have a process set up for
unofficial complaints?
Ms. Strong. I guess I would call them like requests.
Mr. Rothfus. How many requests would you have received in
that time period?
Ms. Strong. I am not sure.
Mr. Rothfus. Has your office resolved all 137 complaints?
Are there still outstanding complaints?
Ms. Strong. We have pending settlement or settlement or
have actually settled 50 of the 137, and most of them are still
in process.
Mr. Rothfus. How long will it take to resolve those
outstanding complaints?
Ms. Strong. The entire process takes about 110 days.
Mr. Rothfus. Some of those complaints were filed over 10
months ago.
Ms. Strong. Some of them what? I'm sorry.
Mr. Rothfus. Some of those complaints were filed over 10
months ago.
Ms. Strong. It could be. Because of the large number, the
volume of grievances that we have received, we have passed our
deadlines. But I will also say that the union has requested
extensions during different phases of the grievance procedure.
And we have granted those as well.
Mr. Rothfus. Do you expect that all these complaints will
be resolved 110 days from now?
Ms. Strong. There are different times in the process. But
our goal is always to resolve them within the timeframes that
we agreed upon with NTEU.
Mr. Rothfus. But that has not been happening. Is that
correct?
Ms. Strong. A very small percentage of them have exceeded
the deadlines.
Mr. Rothfus. Are any of the outstanding complaints active
since last August that you are aware of?
Ms. Strong. Are you asking me?
Mr. Rothfus. Yes.
Ms. Strong. Outstanding since last August?
Mr. Rothfus. Yes.
Ms. Strong. There is a set of grievances that are getting
ready to go to arbitration.
Mr. Rothfus. And how old are they? What is the oldest one?
Ms. Strong. I don't know what the oldest one is.
Mr. Rothfus. Could it be as old as last August?
Ms. Strong. It could be.
Mr. Rothfus. How do you respond to employees who have now
waited since last August, nearly a year, for their grievance
related to the discriminatory pay and performance ratings to be
resolved?
Ms. Strong. I would just say that we take each and every
grievance very seriously and thoroughly investigate it and work
through the process. We did receive a larger amount of
grievances than we expected. We have recently been allowed to
fill initial slots within my team. So we are working as quickly
as we can.
Mr. Rothfus. Are all persons of authority, Ms. Strong,
within the CFPB held to the same standard of accountability?
Ms. Strong. I'm sorry. I am having a hard time hearing you.
Mr. Rothfus. Have you reviewed the 2012 PMR data which
shows that managers consistently rated themselves more highly
than nonmanagers?
Ms. Strong. No.
Mr. Rothfus. So the CFB has not responded when it
discovered in 2013 that managers were rating themselves more
highly than their own staff, or has the CFPB responded to that?
Ms. Strong. I believe the CFPB has responded to that, yes.
Mr. Rothfus. What has the CFPB done?
Ms. Strong. It is my understanding that the Director has
decided to compensate all employees as though they were rated
at the highest rating.
Mr. Rothfus. Thank you.
Chairman McHenry. We will now recognize Mr. Horsford for 5
minutes.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the ranking member. I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today, as well.
And like many of my colleagues, I take the issue of
discrimination in the workplace very seriously, whether it may
be happening at the CFPB or any other Federal agency or entity
outside of the Federal Government. An unfair discriminatory
workplace, whether it be for minorities, women, or based on
someone's sexual orientation should not be tolerated.
I am interested in learning more about the severity of the
issue and how it is being handled internally. I had hoped for
senior management to be here representing the CFPB. But I want
to thank Ms. Strong for appearing today.
Ms. Strong, your testimony stated that you are responsible
for managing the investigations of individual employee
grievances.
Ms. Strong. That is correct.
Mr. Horsford. Can you discuss the process that you go
through in conducting the investigations to substantiate the
validity of discrimination or retaliation that come to your
attention?
Ms. Strong. Absolutely. So in the--if a grievance alleges
discrimination, then we interview the manager and determine if
there was an independent legitimate business reason for the
decision they made.
For example, in a performance grievance, if the manager is
able to articulate and document the reason that they issued the
performance rating, then we find evidence that there is no
discrimination.
Mr. Horsford. And in the case of Ms. Martin, which I don't
want to harp on, only because it is one individual and it is an
entire agency, but I do want to get an understanding of the
process. After you made the determination, was Ms. Martin
permitted the opportunity to appeal your office's decision?
And, if so, what was that process?
Ms. Strong. So if I am understanding you correctly, you are
maybe talking about an allegation that Ms. Martin made against
her peer. We in my office investigated that, and we did not
substantiate that a hostile work environment existed. But Ms.
Martin then filed an EEO complaint, which is in a different
office, and went through that process and ultimately--go ahead.
Mr. Horsford. I understand the EEOC process is an
alternative.
Ms. Strong. Right.
Mr. Horsford. Does she have the right to appeal your
decision that there was not a substantiated grievance?
Ms. Strong. The purpose of my investigation is different
than the purpose of an EEO investigation. My investigation is
to determine if any misconduct took place.
So if the person that she was making the allegation against
did engage in some inappropriate behavior, my office would make
recommendations on the appropriate action to take. So my office
isn't in charge like the EEO office of determining or finding
of discrimination.
Mr. Horsford. Okay. So I want to turn to the other witness
and understand again the fact that the Bureau and the National
Treasury Employees Union reached this collective bargaining
tentative agreement that involved the Bureau discontinuing the
use of its previous performance management team.
So does the agreement going forward address how the Bureau
will handle employees who have been part of this problem
previously based on where you are going forward with the new
performance review model?
Mr. Konop. I think Director Cordray's memorandum on Monday
addresses past wrongs to some extent, but not completely. The
agreement we reached going forward changes the system to
hopefully rid it of some of its discriminatory impact. But it
is going to take constant supervision, constant leadership from
the top of the Bureau on down and constant monitoring from the
union to make sure that happens. Because it is a very difficult
process to keep fair.
Mr. Horsford. And I just want to end with your last
statement. Because you had said earlier in your testimony that
there were systematic and structural factors that contributed
to the disparity in pay, hiring, and in evaluation of
promotion.
So I know some of my colleagues on the other side were very
argumentative in asking, why is this systematic? It is
systematic because the data substantiates the fact that women
and minorities were treated in disparate ways, and that was
done in a systematic and structural way. And that has to be
addressed in a systematic and structural way.
So I am looking forward to seeing the results of this new
performance management system. I know that the ranking member
and the other members of this committee will continue to pursue
this, not just for the CFPB but for any other Federal agency.
And I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle--
Chairman McHenry. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Horsford. --so we can end racial discrimination
wherever it exists.
Chairman McHenry. Mr. Barr is recognized for 5 minute.
Mr. Barr. Mr. Konop, you said that you had not reviewed the
Deloitte report until yesterday. Is that correct?
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Barr. And you, on behalf of the union, requested
information related to performance review disparities. And
when, on the timeline here, did you request that on behalf of
the union?
Mr. Konop. I think we made two separate requests. One would
have been in early September of 2013, that was in the context
of the 2013 pay negotiations. And then we made another request
on November 22, 2013, following that year's PMR ratings. And
that is the request that yielded the data cited in the American
Banker article.
Mr. Barr. Just to be clear, you represent the union with
respect to negotiations. You were aware of pay equities
disparities. And you became aware of those pay equity
disparities eventually when?
Mr. Konop. We were aware that there was a disparity between
the bargaining unit and the managers in December of 2013. We
were aware that it extended to race and age in January of 2014.
Mr. Barr. Okay. And you became aware of race and age
disparities in January 2014, correct?
Mr. Konop. And the continued disparity between bargaining
unit and nonbargaining unit.
Mr. Barr. Right. But you had requested the information
relating to race and gender discrimination in September, then
again in November. Is that correct?
Mr. Konop. In November, we requested specifically the race
data. In September, all we requested was the bargaining unit,
nonbargaining unit data.
Mr. Barr. Okay. Then finally when the CFPB did provide you
with a report on the information substantiating the race and
gender discrimination, again, that was in January of 2014.
Correct?
Mr. Konop. The January report substantiated race, age, and
bargaining unit, nonbargaining unit. I do not believe it found
in the PMR context a gender discrimination. We have had gender
discrimination issues in the pay equity grievance context,
which is separate.
Mr. Barr. Right. You have now been made aware that CFPB was
in possession of a Deloitte report in September of 2013 that
found sharp racial disparities in performance ratings, pay,
hiring, and other measures; that the Bureau had that in its
possession; that report revealed disparities in performance
rating, in employee pay, and in hiring; that you requested
information relating that in September, but certainly in
November. You were provided a report from the CFPB in January.
And in that report, the Deloitte information, the Deloitte
conclusions were not disclosed to the union. Is that correct?
Mr. Konop. The first time I heard of the Deloitte
conclusion was yesterday.
Mr. Barr. And so are you surprised that the Bureau after
multiple requests of information failed to disclose to you the
Deloitte information that the Bureau had in its possession that
you had requested on multiple occasions and that they
apparently deliberately withheld in January of 2014?
Mr. Konop. I think sort of a duty of good-faith bargaining
and if we really wanted to have a collaborative relationship
with management, they ought to have disclosed this to us. I
think, though, our actual information requests may not have
covered the Deloitte study because we didn't know it was there,
so we didn't know to ask for it. Underlying data.
Mr. Barr. You asked for information relating to
disparities?
Mr. Konop. Certainly.
Mr. Barr. The Deloitte report contained information
relating to disparities, and the Bureau did not disclose
information that you had requested.
Mr. Konop. That is true. It is disappointing and it
actually substantively hurts because we have could have used
the Deloitte report in our negotiations and also in defending
people--or representing people in grievances who were harmed.
Mr. Barr. Let me just quickly move to Ms. Strong.
Ms. Strong, you testified in your opening statement that
you were aware that the Bureau was analyzing the performance
review information for signs of disparate impact even before
the American Banker published its story.
Ms. Strong. That is correct, for 2013 performance.
Mr. Barr. For 2013, but you were unaware, you did not
review the Deloitte consulting report and you still haven't. Is
that right?
Ms. Strong. I believe this covers the prior performance
year, not 2013, which is the year in question here.
Mr. Barr. But you were interviewed for that report?
Ms. Strong. I was interviewed for that report, yes.
Mr. Barr. So you had knowledge that it was happening and
that it existed.
Ms. Strong. I didn't--
Mr. Barr. Although you haven't reviewed it, you did know
about it.
Ms. Strong. I didn't know what the purpose of it--the
report was. I was just asked two questions.
Mr. Barr. Again, finally, Ms. Strong, your title is the
Lead of Employee Relations?
Ms. Strong. The Lead of Labor and Employee Relations.
Mr. Barr. Labor--of employee relations. And you did not
look--you were not interested in finding out what the Deloitte
report might have said in September? You didn't look. And the
union is requesting information related to that report, and you
deliberately didn't--you weren't curious that this Deloitte
information was out there? As the Lead of Employee Relations?
Ms. Strong. I didn't know it was out there. It was
conducted by an office that is completely outside of mine.
Mr. Barr. And so you were just totally uninterested what
the Deloitte report might have--
Ms. Strong. If I knew it was there, I would have been
interested. But I didn't know it existed.
Mr. Barr. I yield back.
Chairman McHenry. The ranking member of the subcommittee,
Mr. Green, is recognized.
Mr. Green. In his absence, I would like to compliment our
newest member of our subcommittee, Mr. Horsford. I believe this
was his first opportunity to participate in questioning.
Let me start with the basic premise that there are many
reasons for having this hearing. My concern is whether or not
there are some people who will use or attempt to use
information acquired at this hearing to weaken, emasculate, or
possibly eviscerate the CFPB.
So let me start with our union representative. Would you
have anything that you have said today be utilized to weaken or
eviscerate in some way or emasculate the CFPB?
Mr. Konop. I actually hope this hearing will strengthen the
CFPB by remedying these problems and making us a better, more
compassionate place.
Mr. Green. How large is your union? You mentioned another
aspect of it. How large is your union?
Mr. Konop. The bargaining unit is, give or take, 1,000,
1,100 probably right now.
Mr. Green. How many agencies do you find yourself--
Mr. Konop. Oh, I was just talking about the chapter. I
think the NTEU as a whole is about 70,000.
Mr. Green. At how many agencies are you located?
Mr. Konop. Our chapter is just the CFPB, but the NTEU has
dozens and dozens of agencies, yes.
Mr. Green. Any other agencies that might come under the
purview of this committee? For example--
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Green. Thank you. With those agencies that come under
the purview of this committee, will your union provide similar
information concerning your issues to my office?
Mr. Konop. I would just say, in this case, the vast amount
of sort of momentum for this inquiry was undertaken by the
chapter and not the national. And I represent the chapter. So I
would hope the national would take this and sort of move the
ball forward in other areas. But what you are talking about
today was largely driven by the local.
Mr. Green. I understand.
You have indicated that you believe that some of these
problems are endemic in society. You have indicated that you
believe that they are associated with other agencies. Would you
have similar circumstances be treated similarly? Meaning, if
there is something happening in another agency that an OMWI has
some authority to look into, would you have similar
circumstances be treated similarly? Would you want other
agencies to receive the same scrutiny that the CFPB is
receiving?
Mr. Konop. Of course.
Mr. Green. And sometimes, where you are is important. It is
always important. But equally as important can be the direction
that you are moving in.
I have looked at your comments, your statement. And on the
very last page, you indicate that there is some compensation
that is taking place and you indicate that is a solid first
step.
Am I to assume from this comment that you believe this is a
good remedy?
Mr. Konop. It is a partial remedy, a first step.
Mr. Green. A partial remedy. But as to this part of the
partial remedy, do you believe that it is a good remedy?
Mr. Konop. There needs to be a couple of additional aspects
of it to protect people who got the lowest ratings. They don't
come under this and to also, as the national filed a mass
grievance, to erase the numbers from people's ratings. So I
think those two prongs, in addition to what the Director issued
on Monday, would certainly--
Mr. Green. Let me ask you another way. Would you have this
part of it eliminated from the process? Is this something we
should keep, what you have indicated here, as a good first
step? We don't want to eliminate a good first step.
Mr. Konop. No, not at all. We are very happy.
Mr. Green. You agree that this is a good thing.
Mr. Konop. Of course, yes.
Mr. Green. You also indicate that there is a tentative
agreement on a new PMR system that you had an opportunity to
work with.
Is this moving in the right direction?
Mr. Konop. It is definitely moving in the right direction,
yes.
Mr. Green. You have indicated that some changes have taken
place as of late. And that you seem to see these as positive
changes.
Is it your opinion now that we are starting to move in the
right direction to remedy some of the things that you have
called to our attention?
Mr. Konop. We have taken a very solid first step, as I have
said in any testimony.
Mr. Green. I understand the solid first step. But I am
concerned about the direction.
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Green. Are we moving in the right direction?
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Green. I know where we are, I know what we have done.
And I know that Mr. Cordray has indicated a desire to remedy
certain aspects of what has happened. In fact, he has indicated
a desire to me to take affirmative action to remedy all of the
negativism. But I want to make sure that you are of the opinion
that we are starting to move in the right direction.
Mr. Konop. We are starting to, yes.
Mr. Green. Okay. Now, I have from Mr. Cordray a letter, and
Mr. Chairman, I believe you received a copy of the letter. And
as well there is a Performance Management Analysis for fiscal
2013. I would like to introduce these things into the record,
with unanimous consent.
Chairman McHenry. Without objection, they will be entered
into the record.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, you have been very liberal with
your time, and I would ask one additional indulgence.
I would just like to give Ms. Strong an opportunity to
explain why it is she did not have an opportunity to peruse
this report. She has been quizzed on it, but she has never had
an opportunity to just state it. Would you give her an
additional few seconds to do so, please?
Chairman McHenry. Sure. If you would address--there are two
reports in question. The internal report the union was
provided, and then the earlier Deloitte report. You may address
both.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Strong. I can't speak to the report that was prepared
for the OMWI office. But the request for information from the
union that revealed the performance distribution data was
requested through my office and we provided that information to
the union. And I believe that was in January.
Chairman McHenry. Was the OMWI--if the gentleman--was the
OMWI office aware that you put together that report, or that
the report for the union was routed through you?
Ms. Strong. I am not sure. It was a routine information
request. We get information requests from the union all the
time. My office acts as a conduit for those requests so that we
turn them over to our systems people, they pull the information
from the system, give it back to us, and we turn it over to the
union.
Chairman McHenry. The OMWI office was not involved with the
data you provided to the union?
Ms. Strong. Not initially. But after we offered the union
an invitation to enter into a working group with the EEO
office, OMWI, and Human Capital in reviewing that
documentation.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
The OMWI report, will you give your representation as to
why you were not privy to the report, please?
Ms. Strong. I can't answer that question. I just have never
seen it until today. It may have been circulated to my
supervisor or someone higher than me in my organization. But I
just haven't seen it.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will yield back.
Chairman McHenry. I think it shows there is a problem when
the lead union negotiator doesn't have that very important data
provided by Deloitte.
Mr. Konop, if you would like to respond?
Mr. Konop. I think, obviously, yes, it would have been
helpful. And in the spirit of good-faith bargaining, I think we
should have seen it at a much earlier date.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. Thank you.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, whom I
should congratulate on the birth of his youngest daughter,
number seven.
Mr. Duffy. Number seven.
Chairman McHenry. That is right. Congratulations.
Mr. Duffy. Thank you. We like Marvin Gaye in Wisconsin, I
guess.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I think that invites a comment
from the ranking member. Let me compliment you as well; you
have met your mandate to be fruitful and multiply.
Mr. Duffy. Thank you.
Ms. Strong, obviously, as the labor and employee relations
lead for the CFPB, you heard complaints from different
employees of the CFPB about racism and sexism and maybe some
agism, right? You heard those complaints some time ago. Yes?
Ms. Strong. So we--out of the 137 grievances that we have
received, there is around, I think, 17, that have alleged some
sort of discrimination.
Mr. Duffy. But they come through you. You are aware of
complaints that came in. Yes?
Ms. Strong. Yes.
Mr. Duffy. As you said in your opening statement, you are a
woman and a minority. When you hear about these allegations of
sexism and racism, obviously, you must take this very
seriously. Right?
Ms. Strong. Absolutely.
Mr. Duffy. And so not only did you have the complaints from
employees, you also, in September of last year, had the DIG
report, which I heard in your testimony that you don't agree
with that report. But there was also an outside investigation
that told you that there were some issues as well with regard
to racism as well in the CFPB. Correct?
Ms. Strong. Those were conclusions of that report.
Mr. Duffy. That you disagree with. Right?
Ms. Strong. I just do not think it was a complete report.
Mr. Duffy. Fair enough.
You are also aware that Deloitte was doing an investigation
on this very issue that you care about because they asked you a
few questions about it. Right?
Ms. Strong. It wasn't my understanding that it was an
investigation. It was more of a--like the question that was
posed to me was, ``What does diversity mean to you?'' So I
thought it was more of a study.
Mr. Duffy. Fair enough. When did you learn that there was a
Deloitte report that had been completed?
Ms. Strong. This is the first time that I have seen this
report.
Mr. Duffy. No. Ms. Strong, we all get the joke when you
don't answer my question. I didn't ask you when you saw the
report, which you told me you saw that today. My question for
you is, when did you know the report existed?
Ms. Strong. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. I do
not know.
Mr. Duffy. So you knew before today. Right?
Ms. Strong. I have never seen the report. I knew that there
was some type of study. I am not trying to not be truthful in
answering your question. It is just that I haven't seen the
report. I did know that Deloitte was doing the study.
Mr. Duffy. I know you didn't see it. Did you know that it
existed a week ago?
Ms. Strong. No.
Mr. Duffy. So, then, 2 weeks ago, you didn't know it
existed?
Ms. Strong. I don't believe so. No. I haven't--
Mr. Duffy. You don't recall.
Ms. Strong. --so if I had an opportunity to review it,
maybe that would trigger my memory.
Mr. Duffy. Did you have a meeting with the staff of the
committee?
Ms. Strong. Yes.
Mr. Duffy. Before this hearing.
Ms. Strong. Yes.
Mr. Duffy. Didn't they tell you a report existed in that
meeting? They told you that it existed 2 weeks ago? Yes?
Ms. Strong. Okay. Maybe, yes. I just don't recall that.
Mr. Duffy. So, 2 weeks ago, you knew the report existed.
You knew that you were going to come into this hearing and you
were going to get questions about the report. And when we ask
you those questions, you tell us that you haven't read the
report.
Ms. Strong. My attorney--
Mr. Duffy. And you mislead us and say, well, I didn't see
the report.
Ms. Strong. I'm sorry, I am not trying to be misleading.
Mr. Duffy. You are.
Ms. Strong. My attorney just said that they did not inform
us of the report in that closed briefing.
Mr. Duffy. You knew it existed. You didn't read the report.
So you won't answer questions today about it.
Let me ask you this: Mr. Konop, the union, has requested
the report. They asked for it months ago.
Ms. Strong. They have never asked for this report. I'm
sorry.
Mr. Duffy. For information in regard to this issue. Right?
Ms. Strong. They asked for information.
Mr. Duffy. That is contained in the report.
When did the CFPB provide the report to Mr. Konop or the
union?
Mr. Konop. When did the CFPB provide this? They haven't.
Mr. Duffy. They never did. Right. The committee gave it to
you. Correct?
Mr. Konop. That's--
Mr. Duffy. The CFPB has never given you the report that
contains the information that you have asked for.
And the CFPB comes in today and says, listen, we are on the
front line trying to get rid of racism and sexism. But then you
come in, Ms. Strong, and won't answer our questions. You won't
even give the union the report. We have to give it to them. And
you want us to believe as a lead negotiator that you want to
root out racism and sexism. If you want to accomplish that
goal, you have to cooperate.
Did you prepare for this hearing with leadership of the
CFPB?
Ms. Strong. Yes.
Mr. Duffy. Did they talk to you about how you should
testify?
Ms. Strong. No.
Mr. Duffy. So what was the conversation with the CFPB and
how you should testify in preparation for this hearing?
Ms. Strong. They asked me practice questions to get me
ready.
Mr. Duffy. So they prepared you. They didn't say, Ms.
Strong, go off the best of your recollection and tell the
truth. Tell them what you know.
Instead, you come in here and say, I saw the report today,
but I never read it, even though I knew it existed weeks ago.
So we can't ask you questions about it and you don't give it to
Mr. Konop.
And then you want us to believe that you care about this
issue and you want to help on a bipartisan effort for us to
resolve it. I'm sorry. I don't believe it. And when you start
to be more credible and more forthcoming, I will buy in.
I yield back.
Ms. Strong. That is not true. I'm sorry.
Chairman McHenry. We will now recognize Mr. Heck for 5
minutes.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I would
like to yield my time to the ranking member.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Heck.
Let's, Ms. Strong, continue with the report. And we are
talking about the OMWI report.
You indicated that you saw the report for the first time
today, I believe. Is that correct?
Ms. Strong. That is correct.
Mr. Green. And that you did not have knowledge of this
specific report. You knew that questions were being asked and a
report was being compiled. Is this correct?
Ms. Strong. I knew that Deloitte--that the OMWI office had
contracted with Deloitte to do a study on diversity. And I was
interviewed.
Mr. Green. And you did not receive a copy of the report.
Ms. Strong. Not that I am aware of, no.
Mr. Green. And not having a copy of the report and having
not read it, you are not in a position to testify as to the
content.
Ms. Strong. I am not. I think Stuart Ishimaru actually
offered to come and speak with you. So he would be the
appropriate person to talk about that report.
Mr. Green. Would it be unusual for there to be other
reports that you would not be privy to?
Ms. Strong. I don't think it would be unusual. I am sure
there are a lot of reports at the Bureau that I am not privy
to. I am not a senior manager. I am not an executive. I am a
first-level supervisor.
Mr. Green. And would any indication that there was some
intentionality with reference to your not giving information
today, would that be incorrect because of your lack of
knowledge about the report?
Ms. Strong. Yes. I did not have knowledge of the report.
Mr. Green. I am doing this because I am trying to give you
an opportunity to make it clear as to your lack of knowledge
and, as a result of your lack of knowledge, your inability to
give comments, as opposed to your knowing about this and your
refusal to in some way impart information to others or to give
testimony today.
Ms. Strong. That is correct. I am just not the appropriate
person to speak about this report because I didn't have
anything to do with the report. But there is someone at the
Bureau who would be happy to come and talk to you about it.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Chairman McHenry. Thank you. And we will now go to Mr.
Hultgren of Illinois.
Mr. Heck. Mr. Chairman? Reclaiming my time.
Chairman McHenry. I'm sorry. How much time did the
gentleman have remaining?
Mr. Heck. Two minutes and 55 seconds, to be specific.
Chairman McHenry. We will put it back on the board at 3
minutes because we are being kind.
Mr. Heck. You are very kind, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Strong?
Ms. Strong. Yes.
Mr. Heck. It is my understanding that committee procedures
require you to attest to the veracity, at least, of your
written testimony here today.
Do you affirm now and again that everything that you have
submitted to this committee, you do so to the best of your
knowledge, and it represents the truth as best as you can
recollect it?
Ms. Strong. Yes.
Mr. Heck. Thank you. And thank you for your presence here
today.
Ms. Strong. Thank you.
Chairman McHenry. The gentleman yields back.
We will now go to Mr. Hultgren of Illinois.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for
being here today.
Ms. Strong, I want to follow up a little bit on--talk about
preparation here, meeting with leaders at CFPB to prepare to go
over questions, to go over answers.
I wondered if Director Cordray would have been part of
that, if you would have talked to him in that preparation?
Ms. Strong. Repeat the question, please?
Mr. Hultgren. I wondered if Director Cordray was part of
your preparation for your--
Ms. Strong. No.
Mr. Hultgren. He wasn't in those meetings at all? You never
discussed your testimony today with Director Cordray?
Ms. Strong. No, sir.
Mr. Hultgren. For both of you, do you think that the
removal of Dennis Slagter from his role as of Director of Human
Capital was a positive step in correcting the problem of pay
inequity and discriminatory performance ratings detailed in the
March 6, 2014, American Banker article?
Ms. Strong. It is my understanding that Mr. Slagter was
offered another position and he accepted it. I don't think it
had anything to do with the performance management rating
distribution.
Mr. Hultgren. Do you think the fact that he is no longer
there does help the fact of the pay inequity and discriminatory
performance ratings?
Ms. Strong. I don't think it has any impact on that.
Mr. Hultgren. Mr. Konop, what are your thoughts?
Mr. Konop. I think, as my testimony referenced, management
needs to hold itself accountable. From my dealings with Mr.
Slagter, there seemed to be a lack of sensitivity to these
issues. And in several meetings I had with him, I think also a
lack of urgency in addressing them.
So, I think he was reassigned. Perhaps, that is a better
fit for his skill set. Because I do think there was an endemic
problem in the Human Capital Division that has led to a number
of problems that we are talking about today.
Mr. Hultgren. So would you suggest that his removal and
reassignment likely had something do with the problems with the
pay inequity and discriminatory performance ratings?
Mr. Konop. I can't testify as to exactly what happened. But
certainly the timing of it, several weeks after the American
Banker article and the hearings he conducted, indicates that it
potentially could be linked.
Mr. Hultgren. Ms. Strong, do you think Dennis Slagter
should be commended for a job well done at Human Capital?
Ms. Strong. Dennis Slagter was my supervisor for the
majority of the time that I have been at the Bureau. I found
him to be a very caring person who worked very hard to stand up
the CFPB from a Human Capital perspective.
Mr. Hultgren. So would you support the idea of commending
him for a job well done at Human Capital?
Ms. Strong. I believe he did a good job.
Mr. Hultgren. How about you, Mr. Konop? Would you think
that would be idea to commend him for a job well done at Human
Capital?
Mr. Konop. I would not offer that proclamation, no.
Mr. Hultgren. Would you agree that there are serious
problems with the Office of Human Capital? It sounds like you
have already stated that, Mr. Konop.
Mr. Konop. Yes, I would.
Mr. Hultgren. Ms. Strong, would you agree that there are
serious problems with the Office of Human Capital?
Ms. Strong. No, I would not agree to that.
Mr. Hultgren. But would you say that pay inequity and
discriminatory performance ratings are serious?
Ms. Strong. We take all grievances and complaints very
seriously. But there is--
Mr. Hultgren. So discriminatory practice and pay inequity
would be something that you take seriously and would lead--you
would say that would be a serious problem.
Ms. Strong. Of course. We take all allegations of those
types very seriously.
Mr. Hultgren. My time is running out. Let me get to a
couple of other things quickly and focus these to Mr. Konop.
After providing the union with a report on 2013 performance
reviews which indicated sharp racial disparities in January
2014, I wonder, did CFPB take immediate action to revise its
performance management review process?
Mr. Konop. No, it did not.
Mr. Hultgren. What discernable action did the CFPB take in
January 2014 after the Bureau released data showing sharp
racial disparities in performance ratings?
Mr. Konop. I believe there was a very general message sent
by the Director noting that this is a problem, but certainly,
we did not see a change in the posture of the Bureau in
grievances nor in the collective bargaining process.
Mr. Hultgren. Is CFPB's union satisfied with CFPB's
approach to resolving the outstanding issues with
discrimination at the Bureau?
Mr. Konop. We are not completely satisfied by any means at
this point. A large part of that would have to do with the pay
equity issues.
Mr. Hultgren. What could CFPB do to resolve the union's
concerns about sharp racial disparities and performance
ratings?
Mr. Konop. I think we have discussed a lot of the remedies.
I think Director Cordray's step was positive on Monday. But we
need a new system. We are going to have that. We need more
accountability. We really need from the Director on down to
make sure the managers are doing this fairly and hold those who
don't accountable. And that is really all the union has been
advocating for in general throughout the process.
Mr. Hultgren. But you haven't seen that yet?
Mr. Konop. Not yet.
Mr. Hultgren. My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman McHenry. We will now enter into the next round,
and recognize Mrs. Wagner.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to get a few things straight here, according to the
March 6, 2014, American Banker article, the sharpest
disparities in the performance ratings were seen amongst the
staffers who had received the top rating of 5. The
discrepancies were even greater at the ratings ranges extremes,
and at the top one-fifth of White employees or some 20.7
percent received a 5 and were dubbed role models compared with
10.5 percent of African-Americans and 9.1 percent of Hispanics.
Why do you believe that the CFPB, Mr. Konop, designated 20
percent of its White staff as role models and conferred this
designation to only 10 percent of African-American and Hispanic
staff?
Mr. Konop. I think what those numbers proved to the union
was that there was a disparate impact. And much like the Bureau
would do in a fair lending case, it is almost the strict
liability situation, where once you view those numbers, the
inquiry ends, and the remedy section begins. So we focused on
remediating the problem through grievances and through back pay
and things like that, but the numbers, I think, speak for
themselves.
Mrs. Wagner. Gosh, speaking of the numbers, is there any
empirical data that CFPB had been able to produce to the union
that would account for the ratings' disparities?
Mr. Konop. No.
Mrs. Wagner. None. Is there any explanation that CFPB had
been able to provide to the union to explain any of these
disparities at all?
Mr. Konop. No.
Mrs. Wagner. So there was no empirical data to base these
numbers on? There was no explanation? Did CFPB management and
Liza Strong state that CFPB's apparently discriminatory
performance rating system exemplified meritocracy?
Mr. Konop. I raised the issue probably sometime in February
during our collective bargaining process. I raised it numerous
times fairly aggressively and throughout was met with strong
resistance to changing the system, including a question back to
me whether I didn't believe in meritocracy, so, in essence,
saying that the current system was a meritocracy, which I found
sadly--
Mrs. Wagner. Stunning.
Mr. Konop. --humorous in a sad way.
Mrs. Wagner. Ms. Strong, did you or anyone else
representing CFPB management refer to CFPB's discriminatory
performance review system as a form of meritocracy?
Ms. Strong. No, I did not.
Mrs. Wagner. Maybe you two weren't in the same meeting.
Given the data disclosed in the March 6th American Banker
article and this one that apparently is 8-months-old and just
everybody is coming to light on here, the Deloitte report of
September 30th, that actually, let me be very specific, it
identified diversity problems across the agency including
overrepresentation of minority and women employees in the lower
pay scale groups. That is what this 8-month-old Deloitte study,
as it is called, did.
Ms. Strong, can you explain why CFPB employees should trust
you and your office to look out for their interests and protect
them from abuses of CFPB management?
Ms. Strong. First of all, I don't think or I have not been
privy to any abuses by CFPB management. I look into the
grievances that are brought to me.
Mrs. Wagner. I'm sorry. Would you state that again? You
have not, go ahead, seen--
Ms. Strong. In the cases that I have worked on and in the
investigations I have conducted, I have not found any evidence
of discrimination.
Mrs. Wagner. And one more time, you would like to stand by
that answer?
Ms. Strong. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Wagner. Okay. Mr. Konop, do you believe CFPB's Human
Capital Office generally, and Ms. Strong in particular, are
doing everything in their power to address and resolve specific
workplace complaints as well as the underlying issues driving
those complaints, sir?
Mr. Konop. No.
Mrs. Wagner. I would agree.
Are you aware of a culture of retaliation and intimidation
that discourages employees from submitting valid complaints or
exposing wrongdoing at the CFPB?
Mr. Konop. We have seen instances of retaliation for a
variety of reasons against union members, yes.
Mrs. Wagner. Do you share information about an employee's
complaints with the very same manager they are complaining
about?
Mr. Konop. I am not sure I quite understand that question.
Mrs. Wagner. It is going directly to that manager?
Mr. Konop. Unfortunately, in the current system, yes, that
would be the way it works.
Mrs. Wagner. So you have to share that directly with the
current manager, who has rated in the disparate directly
against the employee? I want to make sure I get this for the
record.
Mr. Konop. That is one thing we seek to change in the
collective bargaining agreement going forward. I think you have
identified a key problem in the structure of the grievance
process, yes.
Mrs. Wagner. I think we have. Do you understand how
disclosing that information can very easily lead to
retaliation, sir?
Mr. Konop. Sure. It is human nature, I would say.
Mrs. Wagner. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McHenry. The ranking member passes, and we will go
to Mr. Barr of Kentucky for 5 minutes.
Mr. Barr. Mr. Konop, just to follow up on something that we
were exploring earlier. Obviously, the Bureau at some point in
time disclosed to the union that managers were rating
themselves higher, more highly than their own staff. And the
union became aware of that when exactly?
Mr. Konop. The union became aware of that in September of
2013.
Mr. Barr. Okay. How did, as you represent the union, the
Bureau respond to that?
Mr. Konop. Obviously, we voiced our displeasure with that.
It kind of goes against most things the union stands for. And
generally, it appeared to me there was some sort of unified
front of just not discussing it, just not acknowledging it and
negotiating it almost as if it didn't happen.
Mr. Barr. To date, have they adequately addressed that
issue in the eyes of the union?
Mr. Konop. I think really Director Cordray's statement on
Monday certainly addressed it, and I think that was the first
time it has really been addressed head on.
Mr. Barr. So, for the first time since September after this
committee began to look the into this issue, the Bureau is
finally acknowledging this as of today?
Mr. Konop. As far as I know, yes, that is the first
straight-on admission of fault.
Mr. Barr. Ms. Strong, you refer to Stuart Ishimaru. You
have a professional relationship with Mr. Ishimaru at the
Bureau, correct?
Ms. Strong. Correct.
Mr. Barr. And is he still the Head of the Office of
Minority and Women Inclusion?
Ms. Strong. Yes, he is.
Mr. Barr. And he has been in that position for how long?
Ms. Strong. I don't know exactly. A couple of years.
Mr. Barr. Okay. So as long as you have been there?
Ms. Strong. I have been there longer than him.
Mr. Barr. Okay. How many meetings do you have typically
with Mr. Ishimaru at work?
Ms. Strong. We don't meet on a routine or regular basis. I
would say I have met with him maybe 4 or 5 times. He has also
been in meetings that other people have been in, as well.
Mr. Barr. Your office is the Office of Human Capital,
right?
Ms. Strong. That is correct.
Mr. Barr. And Mr. Ishimaru's office is the Office of
Minority and Women Inclusion?
Ms. Strong. That is correct.
Mr. Barr. And both of those offices are within the
Operations Division?
Ms. Strong. They were until recently, and the OMWI office
was elevated to report directly to the Director.
Mr. Barr. When did that happen?
Ms. Strong. I would say within the past 3 months.
Mr. Barr. Okay. Is Mr. Sartaj Alag still head of the
division?
Ms. Strong. He is the COO.
Mr. Barr. So does he organize meetings where there is
communication among the various offices within the division?
Ms. Strong. I am sure he does; I just don't attend those
meetings.
Mr. Barr. You are not part of those?
Ms. Strong. That is correct.
Mr. Barr. In the four or five occasions--you are telling me
that you have only spoken with Mr. Ishimaru four or five times
in your entire--
Ms. Strong. That is a guess.
Mr. Barr. That is about right?
Ms. Strong. Right.
Mr. Barr. And in those four or five conversations, not once
in the last 8 months was the Deloitte report ever brought to
your attention?
Ms. Strong. No, sir.
Mr. Barr. You are aware of the Deloitte report being in Mr.
Ishimaru's office? You knew that?
Ms. Strong. Yes. I was interviewed.
Mr. Barr. But there was never a discussion between you and
Mr. Ishimaru related to that?
Ms. Strong. I was never briefed on this report.
Mr. Barr. In your management of investigation of employee
grievances, have you ever come across allegations that
employees within the Office of Consumer Response referred to a
division as ``the plantation?''
Ms. Strong. I had not heard that before the April 2nd
hearing.
Mr. Barr. That was the very first time you had ever heard
that?
Ms. Strong. That was the very first time.
Mr. Barr. So did you not hear about that in Ms. Raucci's
report?
Ms. Strong. No, that was not in her report.
Mr. Barr. Okay. And did you ever hear of any other kinds
of, in your investigations of employee grievances, any other
allegations of gender or racial discrimination?
Ms. Strong. I have received some grievances that have
alleged, for example, that an individual's performance rating
was lower based on their race.
Mr. Barr. Okay.
Chairman McHenry. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Barr. Yes.
Chairman McHenry. Mr. Konop, regarding Angela Martin, Ms.
Strong testified and said some very direct things about her
case. Do you believe Ms. Martin to be truthful in her
allegations?
Mr. Konop. Every allegation I have heard Ms. Martin make, I
have no reason to believe it is untruthful.
Chairman McHenry. Do you believe that she suffered
retaliation?
Mr. Konop. Yes, I do.
Chairman McHenry. Have you actually been retaliated upon?
Mr. Konop. Me, personally?
Chairman McHenry. Yes.
Mr. Konop. I didn't file a grievance or anything on it, so
it certainly is not a formal complaint, but I think generally
the CFPB was a little slow to embrace the idea that we were a
union and we were going to act like a union and represent
employees vigorously. And I think there was some blowback from
managers who had no experience in working in that type of
environment that certainly I felt.
Chairman McHenry. All right. The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will accept my 5
minutes.
Mr. Konop, you just made comments about a certain case and
I have tried to stay away from specific cases, but your
comments invite my concerns. Did you investigate this case
yourself? Do you have some empirical evidence to support your
claim?
Mr. Konop. I read the report, obviously. I--
Mr. Green. My question was, did you investigate?
Mr. Konop. Of course, I did not do an investigation.
Mr. Green. I assumed as much, but I wanted the record to
reflect what the facts are. And understanding that you did not
investigate them, am I to understand that you did not talk to
people on both sides of the issue, that you did not talk to
persons who can give you intelligence about both sides without
bringing names into it? Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Konop. No.
Mr. Green. Did you talk to people on both sides?
Mr. Konop. I talked to the person sitting next to me.
Mr. Green. No, no, no, no.
Mr. Konop. She was representing--
Mr. Green. People associated with the specific case that
was mentioned. I have tried to refrain from mentioning names,
but people associated with that case. Did you talk to people on
both sides of it?
Mr. Konop. I have had discussions with people on both sides
of that, yes.
Mr. Green. About that specific case?
Mr. Konop. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Green. So you have investigated, then?
Mr. Konop. I wouldn't call it an investigation. It would be
more of trying to reach a resolution.
Mr. Green. Did you talk to people who disagreed with the
contentions of the complainant?
Mr. Konop. Sure.
Mr. Green. Did you have reason to disbelieve them?
Mr. Konop. I thought the report was fairly convincing, and
I have reviewed certainly many aspects of Angela Martin's case
personally because I represented her on a grievance.
Mr. Green. My question was, did you have reason to
disbelieve the persons who gave you information that was
antithetical to the testimony that we received here? Did you
talk to people who gave you another opinion?
Mr. Konop. Yes, I actually think I did have reason to
disbelieve them, yes.
Mr. Green. What was the reason?
Mr. Konop. The report, for one.
Mr. Green. Not the report. I am asking you about what you
did and what you found out yourself. You see, we have the
report.
Mr. Konop. Okay.
Mr. Green. And you have given your opinion.
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Green. And your opinion, I want to find out if it is
based on something associated with empirical evidence. Is it
associated with empirical evidence, or are these just your
thoughts based upon things that you have picked up along life's
way, as it were?
Mr. Konop. I don't think Angela Martin's case really dealt
with necessarily empirical evidence, so no, my beliefs on her
case would not necessarily be empirically-based.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Now, let's go to disparate impact. That is a theory that
has been accepted and embraced by many courts; in fact, the
Supreme Court of the United States of America has embraced the
theory, and it has been embraced apparently by this committee.
My hope is that in future testimony, we will find that this
theory finds the same degree of validity that it has found
today and has found on previous occasions.
Now, I am a person who believes that you have to be
consistent to the extent that you can. We all have
inconsistencies in our lives. But to the extent that you can be
consistent, you should. And if you are going to embrace
disparate impact as it relates to this agency, my hope is that
your union would believe that it would be appropriate for other
agencies, as well. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Konop. I think we believe in the principle of disparate
impact, yes.
Mr. Green. And would you agree that if you have some
evidence that is based upon disparate impact, that this would
be something that you should call to my attention?
Mr. Konop. Yes, I do.
Mr. Green. Are you indicating today that you are free to do
this? Can you call these things to my attention?
Mr. Konop. I would be honored to, yes.
Mr. Green. And I would be honored to receive any
intelligence that you have, connoting or indicating disparate
impact so that we may give all persons the same opportunity to
be heard that we have accorded some people in this
circumstance.
Now, finally this: You have indicated that there is a
remedy that is being imposed that deals with the pay
circumstance. You have indicated that you are working now on a
remedy that deals with the way these evaluations will take
place in the future. Is that correct?
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Green. And you have indicated that you seem to be
moving in the right direction. You are not where you want to
be. But is this the way unions work? Do you start at one point
and do you try to graduate to a final point that is acceptable
to the union and other parties, as well? Is this a fair
statement?
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Green. So you are now working with the agency. Are you
working directly with Mr. Cordray?
Mr. Konop. We have quarterly meetings with the Director,
yes.
Mr. Green. And as such, you are moving in the right
direction, not where you want to be but moving in the right
direction?
Mr. Konop. I think that is right.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Chairman McHenry. I will now recognize Mr. Duffy for 5
minutes.
Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have had quite a few hearings on the discrimination at
the CFPB, and during one of those hearings, it was brought to
our attention that a unit at the CFPB that predominantly had
African-American employees was oftentimes referred to as ``the
plantation'' or ``the cesspool.''
Ms. Strong, were you aware that this unit or agency was
referred to by those terms?
Ms. Strong. No, sir.
Mr. Duffy. Okay. Is this the first time you have heard that
those terms have been used for a unit within the CFPB?
Ms. Strong. No. I heard that in the April 2nd hearing. That
was the first time I had heard it.
Mr. Duffy. But before that, you didn't know?
Ms. Strong. No, I did not.
Mr. Duffy. Mr. Konop, have you heard these terms being used
for a specific unit within the CFPB?
Mr. Konop. I certainly have heard for basically a year
since the union has been in existence extremely unhappy
employees in Consumer Response who seem to have justified
complaints and they did seem to revolve, in many cases, around
race. The first time I believe I heard that actual term was
with Ms. Martin's testimony.
Mr. Duffy. Okay. And, again, Ms. Strong, you are at the tip
of the spear in regard to employee relations between employees
and management, right? You are the labor and employee relations
person?
Ms. Strong. Yes, I am the Lead of Labor and Employee
Relations.
Mr. Duffy. And did not know that this was taking place?
Ms. Strong. No, that was never reported to me.
Mr. Duffy. And, again, in your statement, you told us that
you care about women and you care about minorities because you
are both yourself. And I don't want to beat a dead horse, but
you knew that the Deloitte report had come out. And as a person
who cares about women and minorities, are you telling us today
that you cared so much about women and minorities that you had
no interest in reading the investigation that was provided by
Deloitte, and even today as you sit here you had no interest in
reading it?
Ms. Strong. No. It is just that I wasn't provided a copy of
it, so I did not have the opportunity to review it, and I
didn't know that it existed. I knew that a study was being
done, but I didn't know there was a product that came out of
it.
Mr. Duffy. Your testimony, in my prior round, you said you
did know about it 2 weeks ago and that you didn't have a copy.
Does that mean that you couldn't have received a copy?
Ms. Strong. No, actually, I'm sorry, I said that was not
true.
Mr. Duffy. After you consulted with your lawyer, but first,
you told me that you did see it.
Ms. Strong. No. You said that it was brought up in that
meeting, and I said, I am not sure, but it was clarified that
it was not.
Mr. Duffy. I was very clear that you indicated you have no
independent recollection of whether you knew it existed or not
until today and you haven't seen it.
Mr. Konop, you have heard Ms. Strong's comments today about
her lack of review of a report that is pretty damning to the
agency, so she can't answer questions today at this hearing. Do
you think there is concern within the employee body of the CFPB
in regard to the trust of Ms. Strong as the Lead of Employee
Relations with management?
Mr. Konop. I think currently, because of these problems
that we are discussing here today and others, there is a lot of
distrust between various aspects of management and labor. I
think Human Capital certainly played a role in that.
Mr. Duffy. Do you think now, after this hearing, as the
spokesperson for labor at the CFPB, do you think they would
probably feel a lot better about Ms. Strong and the position
that she holds, a lot more confident in her?
Mr. Konop. I think our continued position will be there is
a lot of work to be done and management needs to hold itself
accountable.
Mr. Duffy. Do they feel better about her today after this?
Mr. Konop. Do I? I actually like Liza Strong. We have
worked together on a lot of things. We see issues, though,
differently in many cases, and I have felt that workers have
not been getting a fair shake from Human Capital, so--
Mr. Duffy. So is it fair to say that they haven't been
getting a fair shake from Ms. Strong?
Mr. Konop. She is the second sort of rung supervisor of
Human Capital, so, of course, that would indicate my
displeasure with that, with her, as well.
Ms. Strong. Yes, so just to clarify my role. My role is to
assist managers in responding to grievances. Ultimately, it is
the manager's decision on how to respond to a grievance. We
give them recommendations and guidance, but it is not my role
to make or render decisions on grievances.
Mr. Duffy. And I want to do one quick question. You do see
cases come in on grievances from the union, right, Ms. Strong?
Ms. Strong. Yes.
Mr. Duffy. And in those grievances, roughly how many have
there been?
Ms. Strong. There have been about 137.
Mr. Duffy. And in how many of those grievances have you
sided with the union as opposed to management?
Ms. Strong. I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe
we are pending resolution or have resolved 50, but there are
still some that are still in the process.
Mr. Duffy. So 50-plus have been sided in favor of the
union?
Ms. Strong. Correct.
Mr. Duffy. Mr. Konop, would you agree with that?
Mr. Konop. I don't think siding in favor of the union would
be the--I think there was settlement reached, but for a long
time, I think the denial rate was hovering around 90 percent,
so there has been quite a bit of change in that in the last
several weeks.
Mr. Duffy. I yield back.
Chairman McHenry. The gentleman's time has expired.
I will take my 5 minutes for this round. Ms. Strong, have
any supervisors received counseling for making racially
insensitive remarks or using racial epithets?
Ms. Strong. Yes.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. What remarks or racial epithets are
you aware of?
Ms. Strong. I don't feel very comfortable talking about
specifics.
Chairman McHenry. Actually, I am not comfortable with you
saying it, but you are aware of what they said?
Ms. Strong. Yes.
Chairman McHenry. And in order to resolve the grievance,
you had to be aware of what they said, right, the
circumstances?
Ms. Strong. It wasn't a grievance.
Chairman McHenry. It wasn't? Okay.
Ms. Strong. Maybe it was first raised as a grievance. I'm
sorry.
Chairman McHenry. So what disciplinary action has been
taken against those supervisors who made racially insensitive
remarks or used racial epithets?
Ms. Strong. There was a manager who made a comment to an
employee in a performance discussion that the manager did not
feel or intend to have it come out that way. That manager was
counseled.
Chairman McHenry. How many managers have made racially
insensitive remarks or used racial epithets?
Ms. Strong. That is the only one that I recall.
Chairman McHenry. That is one circumstance or two?
Ms. Strong. That is one.
Chairman McHenry. That is one, okay. And what was the
remediation? What was the punishment?
Ms. Strong. They were counseled.
Chairman McHenry. They were counseled, okay. Okay. And they
are still in their same position today?
Ms. Strong. Correct.
Chairman McHenry. Do you know in the performance review
process if they got high marks?
Ms. Strong. I do not know.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. And under the provisions that
Director Cordray outlines, if he did not receive high marks, he
will be compensated as if he did get high marks. Is that
correct?
Ms. Strong. My understanding is that all employees will be
compensated as though they received a 5 level rating.
Chairman McHenry. A what rating?
Ms. Strong. A 5 level rating.
Chairman McHenry. Out of how many?
Ms. Strong. Out of 5 levels.
Chairman McHenry. So everyone is now superior under the
conclusion of this.
Is that right, Mr. Konop? Is that how you see it?
Mr. Konop. I believe that is correct, yes.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. And is the union's position that
that is satisfactory, that it resolves the issue with
performance reviews?
Mr. Konop. It certainly doesn't resolve the whole issue,
but it is certainly the first acknowledgment there were
problems, and we think that is a good building block for going
forward.
Chairman McHenry. Mr. Konop, I want to ask this because I
was here during the creation of the CFPB on this committee. Are
you surprised, or how has the approach been between the union
and management? Because as far as I saw it, the unions were key
and instrumental in the creation of the CFPB. You could quibble
with that, if you wish. But has the welcome been warm?
Mr. Konop. First, I think but for labor unions, we wouldn't
have a CFPB. I think the CFPB was very welcoming to us in the
organizing efforts. But when we actually organized, I think
they might have been a little surprised that a union was
actually acting like a union, and--
Chairman McHenry. Have they been heavy-handed in their
response to you?
Mr. Konop. I think there were instances of heavy-
handedness, and it has been an adjustment change. I think as
the ranking member put it, Rome wasn't built in a day. We
understand that. However, that being said, I do think the CFPB
could have been certainly more collaborative and put the union
on equal footing, and we didn't see that for a long time.
Chairman McHenry. Sure. So let me ask you, back to the
series of questions I had for you, Ms. Strong, will you provide
in writing who the supervisor was and the circumstances under
which they used the racially insensitive or racial epithet?
Ms. Strong. What is the question?
Chairman McHenry. Will you provide in writing who the
supervisor was?
Ms. Strong. Can I provide it in writing?
Chairman McHenry. Will you provide--not can--will you
provide to this committee in writing who that was and the
circumstances under which--
Ms. Strong. Sure, I would be happy to kind of brief on
specifics of that.
Chairman McHenry. Thank you. You have legal counsel. As you
are entitled as a CFPB employee, your legal counsel is being
paid for by yourself or the agency?
Ms. Strong. I have requested reimbursement through our
indemnification policy.
Chairman McHenry. And have you been granted that?
Ms. Strong. Yes.
Chairman McHenry. Mr. Konop, likewise, did you request
repayment of legal counsel?
Mr. Konop. I did not even get to that point. I was told
pretty clearly--
Chairman McHenry. Why?
Mr. Konop. I was told pretty clearly that I would not be
indemnified so I did not retain an attorney.
Chairman McHenry. Do you believe that is some level of
retaliation?
Mr. Konop. It certainly didn't strike me as a fair
approach, as we are both Bureau employees and both privy to the
same information.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. It seems as if this committee and
what we have aired today--we know a lot more about employee
relations than you do, Ms. Strong, and so it is surprising to
me that you were not provided this Deloitte report. Do you
believe that is problematic?
Ms. Strong. I don't know. I see on here that it was--
Chairman McHenry. Will you respond in writing as to whether
or not you believe it is problematic after reviewing the report
that is before you?
Ms. Strong. I will tell you that I definitely will read it
now.
Chairman McHenry. I would certainly appreciate it. Before
you engage in negotiations, you should look at this data. It is
damning.
My time has expired. I recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Green. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
have just a couple of comments and questions, if I may, please.
Chairman McHenry. We are going into a third round, so we
will give you 5 minutes. The gentleman strikes the last word.
Mr. Green. I don't think I will need 5 minutes, Mr.
Chairman.
But I do want to have you indicate where the managers are a
part of this remedy that is being imposed. The question was
phrased such that you included all persons at the CFPB
receiving the bonuses based upon a 5, and my question to you
is, did this include managers, as well?
Ms. Strong. I do not believe it includes senior-level
managers, at the Assistant Director level or above, is my
understanding.
Mr. Green. And do you agree with this, Mr. Konop?
Mr. Konop. Yes, I agree with her statement.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Mr. Konop, a question was posed to you about your feelings,
as it were, as they relate to Ms. Strong, and you indicated
that where she is in the chain of command, as it were. Let me
ask you now, are you indicating that you think that the
employees at the CFPB have some animus as it relates to Ms.
Strong?
Mr. Konop. I think certain employees certainly do.
Mr. Green. Certain employees?
Mr. Konop. Yes.
Mr. Green. All right. Is that to include, for my purposes,
all employees, which would mean that I would assume you would
say no?
Mr. Konop. No, not all employees.
Mr. Green. And let me ask you this, just for clarity: There
are certain employees who probably don't think highly of you.
Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Konop. I am sure there are.
Mr. Green. But that wouldn't mean that all of them?
Mr. Konop. No.
Mr. Green. And finally, for Ms. Strong, you are not here to
represent the CFPB today, are you? Are you the spokesperson for
CFPB today, or did you come here to represent your station and
what you have done there? Which?
Ms. Strong. The latter. The latter, sir.
Mr. Green. So you are not here to represent the agency?
Ms. Strong. No, sir. The Director offered to come himself.
I know that Stuart Ishimaru offered many times to come, and
both of those offers were declined.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I want to give back more than 3
minutes of time.
Chairman McHenry. Certainly. I want to just recognize
myself for 5 minutes, and then we will end this thing. And I
appreciate the witnesses being here today, even under the
circumstances of being compelled. I appreciate your willingness
to answer questions from both sides of the aisle.
What we found today is interesting. Ms. Strong, you have
been less than forthcoming in terms of how you have answered
questions today, and that, I believe, is problematic.
But I do want to ask you, this Deloitte report, which was
done by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, it is
``Diversity and Inclusion Assessment'' dated from September of
last year. Do you think that information could have been
helpful to you in doing your job?
Ms. Strong. I don't know. I haven't reviewed it, so I can't
answer that.
Chairman McHenry. Would you respond in writing to that
after you review it?
Ms. Strong. No.
Chairman McHenry. You will not respond in writing as to
whether or not you believe it would be helpful to have this
information?
Ms. Strong. Excuse me for one moment.
Chairman McHenry. Your lawyer is nodding--
Ms. Strong. On my attorney's advice, no, I would not.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. Well, I certainly appreciate your
assertion of your rights to not respond to that.
So would you find it problematic to know that on page 13 of
this report, at--the conclusion is, ``further examination
reveals that the minority population is overrepresented in the
lower pay bands and underrepresented in the higher pay bands,
which is masked in the Bureau-level data.'' Would that
information have been helpful to you in doing your job?
Ms. Strong. I haven't had a chance to read the report, so I
wouldn't be able to comment on that.
Chairman McHenry. Specifically, minority composition in pay
bands 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s are approximately 10 percent below
the Bureau-level minority composition, as well. Do you think
that is helpful data, useful data in your negotiations with the
union about the issue of minorities being discriminated against
and paid disparities within the Bureau?
Ms. Strong. I would have the same answer. I wouldn't be
able to respond without thoroughly reviewing the report.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. Again, less than forthcoming in
your answers and unwilling to engage here.
Mr. Konop--
Ms. Strong. That is certainly not my intent.
Chairman McHenry. But it is the result of your actions. It
may not be your intent, but it is certainly the result of your
actions.
Mr. Konop, in terms of negotiating, who do you negotiate
with, with the Bureau? As head of union for the chapter, for
the--
Mr. Konop. Certainly, Liza is involved in the actual
collective bargaining agreement negotiations. Several other
attorneys--
Chairman McHenry. Okay. Do you believe that what you have
heard today means that she is a fully-informed party with whom
to negotiate?
Mr. Konop. I do not believe she is fully informed, no.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. And the withholding of this
important report from the person you are negotiating with, that
to me would not give you greater assurances. Do you believe
that it gives you greater assurance or less assurance that the
Bureau is being forthright in producing data so that you can
negotiate with them in good faith?
Mr. Konop. It certainly would not give us greater
assurance, yes, I agree.
Chairman McHenry. Okay. Well, this hearing is problematic,
the origin of it. We have both data and individual examples of
discrimination and retaliation, and so I think it is important
that we follow up with this. We are going to have additional
questions for both of you. And I would like to thank the
witnesses for their testimony today.
The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions
to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in
the record.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
May 21, 2014
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]