List of Toxic Federal Agencies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:back in 2018 I applied for and accepted a job at USAID OIG in HR. A friend of mine told me not to leave my job for USAID OIG. She connected me with her friend that works there and I am so glad she did.

My jaw dropped from everything the employee told me. They specifically went into detail about one of the consultants that is best friends with the former IG. Apparently this consultant had more authority than the actual HR director and was known to bully staff. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The employee connected me to another USAID OIG employee that confirmed these accounts. Also, that consultant was on my interview panel. I thought that was strange, but didn't think too much about it until hearing from the employees.

I pulled out a week before starting. I felt really bad about doing that, but I did not want to work in a toxic environment. The USAID OIG job would have been a promotion. It's true what they say. Every promotion is not a good promotion. Reading these posts, I know I dodged a bullet. I feel like this thread will spare someone else from making a bad decision.

How is it okay for nonagency staff to be on the interview panel for a federal position?

I was just questioning what a colleague told me: he is interviewing for a position in a different area and his boss and her boss on the interview panel. I have never heard of this happening before and wonder about the propriety. But having a nonfederal employee on the panel is even worse.

It's not ok for non agency staff to be on the interview panel for a federal position. But that's the kind of shenanigans that go on at USAID OIG.

You are wrong about this. No rule or regulation against it. And in fact many people are now encouraging including people outside of the agency on interviews to encourage diversity of thought and outside perspectives.

I'm surprised any agency lawyer would sign off on that. Hiring and management are inherently governmental activities, and you're supposed to give special consideration if the contractor could be assumed to represent the government (which you would assume in an interview).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:back in 2018 I applied for and accepted a job at USAID OIG in HR. A friend of mine told me not to leave my job for USAID OIG. She connected me with her friend that works there and I am so glad she did.

My jaw dropped from everything the employee told me. They specifically went into detail about one of the consultants that is best friends with the former IG. Apparently this consultant had more authority than the actual HR director and was known to bully staff. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The employee connected me to another USAID OIG employee that confirmed these accounts. Also, that consultant was on my interview panel. I thought that was strange, but didn't think too much about it until hearing from the employees.

I pulled out a week before starting. I felt really bad about doing that, but I did not want to work in a toxic environment. The USAID OIG job would have been a promotion. It's true what they say. Every promotion is not a good promotion. Reading these posts, I know I dodged a bullet. I feel like this thread will spare someone else from making a bad decision.

How is it okay for nonagency staff to be on the interview panel for a federal position?

I was just questioning what a colleague told me: he is interviewing for a position in a different area and his boss and her boss on the interview panel. I have never heard of this happening before and wonder about the propriety. But having a nonfederal employee on the panel is even worse.

It's not ok for non agency staff to be on the interview panel for a federal position. But that's the kind of shenanigans that go on at USAID OIG.

You are wrong about this. No rule or regulation against it. And in fact many people are now encouraging including people outside of the agency on interviews to encourage diversity of thought and outside perspectives.

I'm surprised any agency lawyer would sign off on that. Hiring and management are inherently governmental activities, and you're supposed to give special consideration if the contractor could be assumed to represent the government (which you would assume in an interview).

I am an agency lawyer and I sign off on it. Yes, the hiring manager who makes the decision needs to be an employee. Anyone can give insights during the interview process.

[Anonymous]

And there you have it! USAID OIG's best and brightest. Contractors can now direct federal hiring!

[Anonymous]

Chiming in from outside of Uncle Sam; honesty, this conversation is getting boring. Every federal agency has its detractors and there is little here that is unique to State, DOT, USAID, CFPB, VA, or FRB. And guess what, many of the issues raised in the pages above are also present in the private sector. Let’s start a thread on something less controversial, like politics, religion, Daniel Snyder, or bike lanes in NW DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True, USAID OIG could be FUBAR. The OIG community as a whole holds itself to high standards but not this office. USAID OIG is a hot mess of blind careerists, cliques, and clueless managers. I wish I could call the IG Hotline on some of the stuff I see.

You could make a hotline complaint, but that probably wouldn’t go very far since that goes to Investigations and the DAIGI would squash it as disgruntled employees. If you have actual, solid, proven by evidence complaints, I’d recommended sending a letter to the Congressional committee’s that oversee USAID and also to the CIGIE Integrity Committee. CIGIE’s committee reviews complaints against OIG execs, it is led by 2 IGs and overseen by the FBI. You could also send a complaint to GAO. DHS OIG was investigated by both and it didn’t turn out very well for them, they are still in shambles.

If the issues are just gripes and disagreement on how they are managing the agency, I’d recommend finding a new place to work because sometimes you just have to leave what you perceive as toxic because your thoughts there will not change for the better, regardless of who is in charge. I’ve been there, done that, and never looked back.

100% A lot of the complaints amount to people not liking that a certain decision was made. Fine. Maybe a better one could be made or there are multiple options that are good or bad, but was the choice unethical? Illegal? Did you just not like it? Usually it amounts to the last one. If you know your leadership was violating the law, policy, or regulation AND YOU PROVIDE WITNESS NAMES AND WHERE TO GET PROOF, even a reluctant DAIGI will move that forward. Saying someone hires people you don't like and doesn't take your advice is not a punishable offense; providing a generic sky is falling and everyone is corrupt complaint also won't go far.

You are right. USAID OIG Senior leadership decisions are not exactly illegal. "Unethical" is really hard to prove. There is always a justification for every decision. For example, all those senior leaders hired by the former IG was done through panels. While she made the final decision, she can hide behind the panel sending those names forward. But we are not dumb. we know how this works. That's why nobody actually files the hotline complaint. It's rubbish...and it's all subtle. The appearance of these decisions and actions is another thing, but OIGs only use the appearance argument against the auditee, not internally. The former IG knows some of her executive hires were really bad. If not, two of them would not have been demoted/removed from their position and another chased out the door. And now her bad decision to hire AIGM is wrecking havoc on the organization.

The point that multiple posters are making is that the leadership decisions made have led ZERO IMPROVEMENTS. ZERO! And morale continues to decline. As another poster said, 5 years of survey results show the dissatisfaction. The lack of real leadership is driving the organization into the ground. BTW, you sound like one of our lackluster executives. If by chance this is true, then answer this: why can't we keep good talent? Every good employee leaves this organization after 2-3 years, if they make it that long? the good employees that do stay are mostly foreign service. They are stuck stick it out for the FS benefits. We've had quite a few employees leave after being here just a couple of months, especially in the management office. You know this organization is toxic. You know that our management office and their leaders are trash. Don't act like you don't know the truth!

I was speaking as someone who sees a lot of hotline complaints, not to your situation. Most complaints don’t have the information needed to start an investigation and then people complain nothing gets done. You sound very unhappy. Why stay if you are unhappy?

How do the OIG office or other people follow up on this? What if someone wants to report someone but don't have enough support other than the big boss showed favoritism towards a company for sole source? Anyone could say that the sole source company is the best value for Govt due to niche expertise in that field. It must be more complicated than that and I could see why people are afford of using their name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chiming in from outside of Uncle Sam; honesty, this conversation is getting boring. Every federal agency has its detractors and there is little here that is unique to State, DOT, USAID, CFPB, VA, or FRB. And guess what, many of the issues raised in the pages above are also present in the private sector. Let’s start a thread on something less controversial, like politics, religion, Daniel Snyder, or bike lanes in NW DC.

there are other threads for those topics. if this thread bores you, don't visit. This thread has been very eye opening. USAID OIG has a posting for an auditor job. I thought about applying. I came to DCUM to see if someone posted about their experiences with this OIG. I'm glad I did. I will not be applying. My OIG (GSA) is pretty decent. I have not seen or experienced any drama here. The USAID auditor job would be a promotion for me, but my mental health is more important than any promotion. I will apply elsewhere that is less dysfunctional. It's better to find this out before getting the job and leaving a year later.

[Anonymous]

Grab your popcorn!

I remember at USAID OIG 2 Assistant Directors in the same division had an AFFAIR and a BABY - BOTH were PROMOTED. Senior management threw a baby shower and put it in the newsletter. You can’t make this up!

Moral decreased and this was toxic bc one of the ADs was a bully and staff would tell the other AD about their experience not knowing that other AD was her boyfriend.

Management did an internal review and was very reluctant to move them and didn’t for a whole year.

[Anonymous]

Would love to hear more about smaller, lawyer intense agencies.

FLRA
EEOC
NLRB
FMCS

and so forth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True, USAID OIG could be FUBAR. The OIG community as a whole holds itself to high standards but not this office. USAID OIG is a hot mess of blind careerists, cliques, and clueless managers. I wish I could call the IG Hotline on some of the stuff I see.

You could make a hotline complaint, but that probably wouldn’t go very far since that goes to Investigations and the DAIGI would squash it as disgruntled employees. If you have actual, solid, proven by evidence complaints, I’d recommended sending a letter to the Congressional committee’s that oversee USAID and also to the CIGIE Integrity Committee. CIGIE’s committee reviews complaints against OIG execs, it is led by 2 IGs and overseen by the FBI. You could also send a complaint to GAO. DHS OIG was investigated by both and it didn’t turn out very well for them, they are still in shambles.

If the issues are just gripes and disagreement on how they are managing the agency, I’d recommend finding a new place to work because sometimes you just have to leave what you perceive as toxic because your thoughts there will not change for the better, regardless of who is in charge. I’ve been there, done that, and never looked back.

100% A lot of the complaints amount to people not liking that a certain decision was made. Fine. Maybe a better one could be made or there are multiple options that are good or bad, but was the choice unethical? Illegal? Did you just not like it? Usually it amounts to the last one. If you know your leadership was violating the law, policy, or regulation AND YOU PROVIDE WITNESS NAMES AND WHERE TO GET PROOF, even a reluctant DAIGI will move that forward. Saying someone hires people you don't like and doesn't take your advice is not a punishable offense; providing a generic sky is falling and everyone is corrupt complaint also won't go far.

You are right. USAID OIG Senior leadership decisions are not exactly illegal. "Unethical" is really hard to prove. There is always a justification for every decision. For example, all those senior leaders hired by the former IG was done through panels. While she made the final decision, she can hide behind the panel sending those names forward. But we are not dumb. we know how this works. That's why nobody actually files the hotline complaint. It's rubbish...and it's all subtle. The appearance of these decisions and actions is another thing, but OIGs only use the appearance argument against the auditee, not internally. The former IG knows some of her executive hires were really bad. If not, two of them would not have been demoted/removed from their position and another chased out the door. And now her bad decision to hire AIGM is wrecking havoc on the organization.

The point that multiple posters are making is that the leadership decisions made have led ZERO IMPROVEMENTS. ZERO! And morale continues to decline. As another poster said, 5 years of survey results show the dissatisfaction. The lack of real leadership is driving the organization into the ground. BTW, you sound like one of our lackluster executives. If by chance this is true, then answer this: why can't we keep good talent? Every good employee leaves this organization after 2-3 years, if they make it that long? the good employees that do stay are mostly foreign service. They are stuck stick it out for the FS benefits. We've had quite a few employees leave after being here just a couple of months, especially in the management office. You know this organization is toxic. You know that our management office and their leaders are trash. Don't act like you don't know the truth!

I was speaking as someone who sees a lot of hotline complaints, not to your situation. Most complaints don’t have the information needed to start an investigation and then people complain nothing gets done. You sound very unhappy. Why stay if you are unhappy?

How do the OIG office or other people follow up on this? What if someone wants to report someone but don't have enough support other than the big boss showed favoritism towards a company for sole source? Anyone could say that the sole source company is the best value for Govt due to niche expertise in that field. It must be more complicated than that and I could see why people are afford of using their name.

You are right, it can be complicated and hard to prove. The investigators will want to know who sat on a selection panel, if an award was broken up to meet a sole source threshold, if anyone in the selection process has financial ties to the awarded company. The sad truth is someone can favor an outside company, but it there is no benefit to them and the selection process standards were followed, it will not be a substantiated allegation. A lot of stuff that bothers people is allowed in the law. It sucks, but that’s why most of our complaints become about management disagreements.

I understand why people are afraid to put names. You have a lot more protection under whistle blower laws if you are a named complainant and face retaliation. If you are anonymous and face retaliation, you would have to show the retaliatory thought or knew it was you and the OIG can’t help you because we don’t know it was you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grab your popcorn!

I remember at USAID OIG 2 Assistant Directors in the same division had an AFFAIR and a BABY - BOTH were PROMOTED. Senior management threw a baby shower and put it in the newsletter. You can’t make this up!

Moral decreased and this was toxic bc one of the ADs was a bully and staff would tell the other AD about their experience not knowing that other AD was her boyfriend.

Management did an internal review and was very reluctant to move them and didn’t for a whole year.

Please name the specific policies that were violated? You sound like a gossip. The sex life of your coworkers or supervisors is none of your business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chiming in from outside of Uncle Sam; honesty, this conversation is getting boring. Every federal agency has its detractors and there is little here that is unique to State, DOT, USAID, CFPB, VA, or FRB. And guess what, many of the issues raised in the pages above are also present in the private sector. Let’s start a thread on something less controversial, like politics, religion, Daniel Snyder, or bike lanes in NW DC.

Why is this topic so controversial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True, USAID OIG could be FUBAR. The OIG community as a whole holds itself to high standards but not this office. USAID OIG is a hot mess of blind careerists, cliques, and clueless managers. I wish I could call the IG Hotline on some of the stuff I see.

You could make a hotline complaint, but that probably wouldn’t go very far since that goes to Investigations and the DAIGI would squash it as disgruntled employees. If you have actual, solid, proven by evidence complaints, I’d recommended sending a letter to the Congressional committee’s that oversee USAID and also to the CIGIE Integrity Committee. CIGIE’s committee reviews complaints against OIG execs, it is led by 2 IGs and overseen by the FBI. You could also send a complaint to GAO. DHS OIG was investigated by both and it didn’t turn out very well for them, they are still in shambles.

If the issues are just gripes and disagreement on how they are managing the agency, I’d recommend finding a new place to work because sometimes you just have to leave what you perceive as toxic because your thoughts there will not change for the better, regardless of who is in charge. I’ve been there, done that, and never looked back.

100% A lot of the complaints amount to people not liking that a certain decision was made. Fine. Maybe a better one could be made or there are multiple options that are good or bad, but was the choice unethical? Illegal? Did you just not like it? Usually it amounts to the last one. If you know your leadership was violating the law, policy, or regulation AND YOU PROVIDE WITNESS NAMES AND WHERE TO GET PROOF, even a reluctant DAIGI will move that forward. Saying someone hires people you don't like and doesn't take your advice is not a punishable offense; providing a generic sky is falling and everyone is corrupt complaint also won't go far.

You are right. USAID OIG Senior leadership decisions are not exactly illegal. "Unethical" is really hard to prove. There is always a justification for every decision. For example, all those senior leaders hired by the former IG was done through panels. While she made the final decision, she can hide behind the panel sending those names forward. But we are not dumb. we know how this works. That's why nobody actually files the hotline complaint. It's rubbish...and it's all subtle. The appearance of these decisions and actions is another thing, but OIGs only use the appearance argument against the auditee, not internally. The former IG knows some of her executive hires were really bad. If not, two of them would not have been demoted/removed from their position and another chased out the door. And now her bad decision to hire AIGM is wrecking havoc on the organization.

The point that multiple posters are making is that the leadership decisions made have led ZERO IMPROVEMENTS. ZERO! And morale continues to decline. As another poster said, 5 years of survey results show the dissatisfaction. The lack of real leadership is driving the organization into the ground. BTW, you sound like one of our lackluster executives. If by chance this is true, then answer this: why can't we keep good talent? Every good employee leaves this organization after 2-3 years, if they make it that long? the good employees that do stay are mostly foreign service. They are stuck stick it out for the FS benefits. We've had quite a few employees leave after being here just a couple of months, especially in the management office. You know this organization is toxic. You know that our management office and their leaders are trash. Don't act like you don't know the truth!

I was speaking as someone who sees a lot of hotline complaints, not to your situation. Most complaints don’t have the information needed to start an investigation and then people complain nothing gets done. You sound very unhappy. Why stay if you are unhappy?

How do the OIG office or other people follow up on this? What if someone wants to report someone but don't have enough support other than the big boss showed favoritism towards a company for sole source? Anyone could say that the sole source company is the best value for Govt due to niche expertise in that field. It must be more complicated than that and I could see why people are afford of using their name.

You are right, it can be complicated and hard to prove. The investigators will want to know who sat on a selection panel, if an award was broken up to meet a sole source threshold, if anyone in the selection process has financial ties to the awarded company. The sad truth is someone can favor an outside company, but it there is no benefit to them and the selection process standards were followed, it will not be a substantiated allegation. A lot of stuff that bothers people is allowed in the law. It sucks, but that’s why most of our complaints become about management disagreements.

I understand why people are afraid to put names. You have a lot more protection under whistle blower laws if you are a named complainant and face retaliation. If you are anonymous and face retaliation, you would have to show the retaliatory thought or knew it was you and the OIG can’t help you because we don’t know it was you.

It is certainly not the retaliation but a lot of different ways your career could be stuck if you complaint about someone. I have seen this and that person got stuck and never got promoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grab your popcorn!

I remember at USAID OIG 2 Assistant Directors in the same division had an AFFAIR and a BABY - BOTH were PROMOTED. Senior management threw a baby shower and put it in the newsletter. You can’t make this up!

Moral decreased and this was toxic bc one of the ADs was a bully and staff would tell the other AD about their experience not knowing that other AD was her boyfriend.

Management did an internal review and was very reluctant to move them and didn’t for a whole year.

Please name the specific policies that were violated? You sound like a gossip. The sex life of your coworkers or supervisors is none of your business.

I'm not the original poster. You are right. The sex life of your coworkers or supervisors is none of people's business. HOWEVER, it is very inappropriate for managers in a relationship to be in the same division. Most agencies would not allow this for a number of reasons, including conflict of interest and morale, or even the appearance of this. The potential risk to an agency / organization is too great. It sounds like the issue is not that y'all was just having sex, but that one of you is a bully. Staff thought they were "escaping" the bully and may have shared their experience with the other manager not knowing that the managers were in a relationship. What if that other manager started treating that employee unfairly as a result? You might say the employees performance is the reason for the treatment, but it's hard for management to take action against the employee because of the blurriness of the situation. This might not have been yall, but this DOES HAPPEN - more often than not. I've been with the feds for 26 years and worked for 4 agencies. This a big no no at all of those agencies. But it's up to each agency to develop its own policy workplace relationships / romance. If yours doesn't have one then you broke no rules. But this is definitely a blurred line that managers should try to avoid.

[Anonymous]

USAID OIG people, do you agree the FS leadership are a bigger problem than CS? In my corner it’s not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USAID OIG people, do you agree the FS leadership are a bigger problem than CS? In my corner it’s not even close.

The FS leadership at USAID OIG is weak. But the worst executives are the CS. Let's rank them:

The worst:
-AIGM (incompetent and always angry)
-AIGA (he left last month. Was blatant with his favoritism. Decisions never had merit. an overall coward)

Bad:
-PDAIGA (current and former. neither are smart. the current is pleasant to interact with. the former took care of her buddies which is how we got bad people in manager roles)
-Counselor to the IG (what does he actually do? everything he leads goes south quickly)
-all FS audit directors (current and former. lack technical competence. were put in place by former PDAIG. she met her husband through one audit director. so do you ever think she'd hold him accountable?)

Half Decent:
everyone else