List of Toxic Federal Agencies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a hiring official at another OIG. I have two applicants from USAID OIG "managers." Their resumes are nearly flawless but I'm super reluctant to interview them after reading this blog. OMG. we have a good culture and don't need this drama.

If you would normally interview them, I wouldn't let anonymous feedback on a forum stop you. If they interview poorly or you do thorough reference checks and get questionable feedback, that's different. I really wonder about some of these posters. I bet leadership could do better, but the posters have all of the answers, yet they stay when they are unhappy and seem to discourage anyone from coming to USAID OIG to fix problems or add new blood. What's their goal? To keep it bad? Maybe, maybe they might be toxic too? If they had the balls to post their names or positions, what feedback would they get on this forum from their co-workers? They seem like really angry. I'm sure they are great to work with. . .

So basically, you are assuming posters are non-leadership. The point is - if it wasn’t such a toxic environment these threads/posts wouldn’t exist. Imagine how many times this website has been shared to numerous government employees. USAID OIG keeps coming up because it’s true - they also did a lot of people dirty. There are consequences and backlash for that. Most non-leadership staff were pretty good to work with, so don’t just brush over the fact leadership could do better when they are face and foundation of an organization. I don’t know who wants to take on the enormous task and responsibility to fix a toxic environment, I wouldn’t - not how I want to spend my career nor do I want to risk my sanity. FS (the ones that are toxic) can’t/won’t leave. New people were hired and it sounds like it got worse. Don’t knock peoples experiences … you must be leadership.

And nope - nobody is going to post their names or positions but it would be stupid. You also didn’t post your name or position.

Grow up. If you are that unhappy leave. The people who were willing to play games to get ahead at the expense of coworkers or post about how they'll stay until they retire despite it being years away bring everyone else down. That's not toxic too and I'm supposed to think you are all victims? You are amazing people to work with and it's just your bosses who are the problems? Everyone loves you? Sure I didn't post my name. I don't have all the answers that everyone else complaining has. Shame you are perfect coworkers and employees and know better but won't share your knowledge at the office as GS 13/14/15s instead of writing anonymous vengeance posts. We all know everything you read on anonymous internet posts is 100% true, the whole story, and people are being fired over these posts. Lol. (I see your next post crying how anyone who might suggest you are also toxic must be a toxic manager).

Anyone who doubts the validity of these claims can simply look them up. A whistleblower reported almost everything listed here and provided documentation on each. I was there. She was on the spectrum, and documented everything. She sued, and her case is FOIAable, as well as all the documentation. And OMG it's insane.

Off the top of my head and I may get some dates wrong so you can check it, some highlights included:
The security system on the computers was Swiss cheese. Dozens of employees found they could access HR files, well anything. To prove it, the whistleblower was able to access the last IG's banking info. She gave it to Congress.
Because so many people were able to access this kind of material, they gave it all to the whistleblower and she brought it to Congress. She never gave any of us up, despite all the things they offered and threatened.
Audit failed their peer review two years ago. The finding was that 8 out of 14 audits were not GAAG compliant. It was broken into two separate reports to hide the fact that there were about 28 recommendations. The peer reviewer agreed to not say failing in either report. No changes were made.
At one point, an overseas manager was so toxic, the entire staff stopped working. It took 6 months for management to remove her, because she was a favorite of the DIG. There is a pretty obvious 6 month gap where not one audit came from that office.
Employees given promotions to several levels above their current GS. The former DIG was promoted from auditor to SES without having the necessary qualifications or managerial training.
The current nominee for IG is also unqualified to be an GC, much less an IG, and was given waivers to attain her position.
Ignoring records management protocol and dumping 500 plus boxes of material, including PII, in dumpsters. (not unethical, illegal.)
Ordering employees to falsify ratings in the performance ratings via email.
Ordering employees to falsify information in reports to Congress via email. Illegal.
Threatening employees. One immigrant employee was told repeatedly by his boss that he would have his American citizenship revoked if he didn't make changes in an audit. He finally was rushed to the hospital with heart palpitations. He was quietly and quickly transferred out.
Altering audits to protect management. This one was so insane, the Washington Post covered it. There were something like 50 plus audits with hundreds and hundreds of alterations. One notable one was on the timekeeping system in Afghanistan. Employees had figured out that they could claim far more hours than actually worked and the system didn't stop it. The bosses figured it out too. So one AIGA made a half a million dollars in 2017? despite a cap. (check the date).But they couldn't put their own selves in the report, so they took all SES out as well as the OIG staffers.
One AIGI had 17 EEO complaints against her in one year alone. She had dozens of complaints in general. At one point she allowed someone outside USAID borrow her laptop. Our classified material ended up in the Navy computer system. She never received less than 5s on any category. She received a bonus every year of 8k and up.
At one point the management office determined that the turnover rate at USAID OIG was 30 percent. The average is 6 percent. Several employees quit after a few weeks, some a couple months.
The Haiti hotline didn't work for 5 months. No one noticed because the person who oversaw it quit suddenly.
That couple that someone said had an affair? Yes, that happened. More importantly, it happened in a particular conference room on a semi-regular basis. So, you know, definitely affected the office.
The current advisor to the IG or whatever his title is, was allowed to write audits and alter others. He was not and is not an auditor.

Again, just off the top of my head.

The whistleblower was tortured for something like 9 years. Her friends were interviewed. They went through her previous place of employment thoroughly and then had a lawsuit against them for violating the company's rights. USAID OIG had to apologize but the company went out of business anyway.
She was investigated for several years by DODIG. DODIG told Congress they were actually investigating her disclosures. They didn't. They subpoenaed former employees. They showed up at her house demanding to interview her.
Her boss, the AIGM was told to punish her. He wouldn't, and they took away his duties and put him on a PIP. He quit the same day.
They refused to give her an AEF. Then wrote her up for not doing work. Then revoked her badge so she couldn't go anywhere. Then revoked her employment status and reverted her back to Schedule A so they could fire her.
They changed her desk so often we all made a joke out of it. It was like 10 times in a 4 years period. She was disabled. In one move she was chastised for taking a chair from an empty desk. She had to return it. She sat on the floor for days.
They openly mocked her disabilities. The HR Coordinator told people she was faking it. They told her her wheelchair that she often needed, was a "tripping hazard."(Again, in an email!) They refused to let her have it in her cubicle.
At one point she tripped over boxes placed in the mouth of her cubicle. She was in a brace for about a year. USAID OIG told the Dept of Labor that she caused the accident herself. They held up her paperwork for so long she wasn't able to get reimbursement for the medical bills, even though Labor agreed OIG caused the accident.
They repeatedly told her she couldn't use the bathroom during the day. I remember this so well because they emailed her. They said going to the bathroom was "personal time" and could be done before or after work.
I'm sure I don't remember all of it. It was non stop. In the end, they made up some crazy stories about her and said she violated procedure. She produced an audio tape that proved they were lying. The fired her for making an audio tape of a meeting.

Repeat, she never ever gave anyone up. There were dozens of us. She could have named someone who left already. She wouldn't. She wasn't fun to be around after a while because she was a pariah and so outwardly miserable and defiant I'm sure newbies didn't like her. They should have brought her cake.

And btw CIGIE knew. Congress knew. OSC knew. But USAID OIG is not interesting, and the material reported wasn't interesting enough to investigate. And after Trump came in, whistleblowers reporting non Trump info were definitely not interesting.

And to the person who says this is a game. FU.
Everyone else, stay the hell away from the GD office.

Please explain your statement: “ The current nominee for IG is also unqualified to be an GC, much less an IG, and was given waivers to attain her position.”

She is a lawyer, with experience, which is basically the only requirement she needs to be a GC. People don’t have to go from GS-14 to 15 then to SES. 14s are eligible to apply for SES jobs and so is anyone that have ECQs that support it. Also, there are many current and former IGs that were attorneys outside of Government, and many from inside Government, the qualifications for an IG job is to be nominated by the President. The President can nominate whoever they feel will do the job well, with advice and consent from the Senate. She is fully qualified for an IG job. Since you think differently, please elaborate why you think she is not qualified.

If being favored by an IG to get promoted unfairly and target your competition for the IG's love is a qualification, she is well-qualified. She doesn't go to meetings and has been focused on her "nomination preparation" since last summer. What does she do to earn her pay? Isn't that something an IG would be investigated for or is it okay to get paid SES money to only do nomination preparation and not your job?

Sounds like you are upset. Perhaps you should make a complaint to the CIGIE executive committee, the White House, Congress, or just find a new place to work.

USAID OIG must have silenced all the complainers

I’m glad someone did, this thread got really boring for those not interested in watching “As the USAID OIG Turns”

We have not and will not be silenced...it's just a matter of time before the former IG and her posse are exposed on a wider platform. The wheels are in motion. Tik Tok!

Any thoughts on USAID OIG Investigations?

[Anonymous]

Investigations is the most stable division at USAID OIG. It's a mess but not like audit or our management offices, or the immediate office for that matter. The leadership duo for investigations are nice but blah. They are not toxic, but they are also NOT amazing leaders. Another way of saying it is - they are among the best that we have in all of USAID OIG.

The previous head of investigations WAS SUPER toxic. He slept with multiple subordinates and then made them managers. Of course they turned out to be horrible managers. the new (current) head of investigations spent 3 years cleaning up this mess. She is competent but seems to hate people. So they gave her a deputy that has some personality.

We've had a revolving door of SACs and ASACs. The FS agents that were in management really sunk morale, but we seem to be stabilizing. So I guess investigations leadership is partially effective. They still need to solve the morale issue.

Oh yeah the former head of investigations also allowed his SACs to have inappropriate relationships with female agents. The former SAC of Africa region (now retired) banged a couple of female contractors and at least one FS female agent. One of the contractors he banged got converted to a federal employee well before his retirement. She than began an affair with someone who is still an ASAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Investigations is the most stable division at USAID OIG. It's a mess but not like audit or our management offices, or the immediate office for that matter. The leadership duo for investigations are nice but blah. They are not toxic, but they are also NOT amazing leaders. Another way of saying it is - they are among the best that we have in all of USAID OIG.

The previous head of investigations WAS SUPER toxic. He slept with multiple subordinates and then made them managers. Of course they turned out to be horrible managers. the new (current) head of investigations spent 3 years cleaning up this mess. She is competent but seems to hate people. So they gave her a deputy that has some personality.

We've had a revolving door of SACs and ASACs. The FS agents that were in management really sunk morale, but we seem to be stabilizing. So I guess investigations leadership is partially effective. They still need to solve the morale issue.

Oh yeah the former head of investigations also allowed his SACs to have inappropriate relationships with female agents. The former SAC of Africa region (now retired) banged a couple of female contractors and at least one FS female agent. One of the contractors he banged got converted to a federal employee well before his retirement. She than began an affair with someone who is still an ASAC.

Supervisors banging subordinates, what a model of integrity! . I wonder how much of that is actually factual vs. assumptions……

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a hiring official at another OIG. I have two applicants from USAID OIG "managers." Their resumes are nearly flawless but I'm super reluctant to interview them after reading this blog. OMG. we have a good culture and don't need this drama.

If you would normally interview them, I wouldn't let anonymous feedback on a forum stop you. If they interview poorly or you do thorough reference checks and get questionable feedback, that's different. I really wonder about some of these posters. I bet leadership could do better, but the posters have all of the answers, yet they stay when they are unhappy and seem to discourage anyone from coming to USAID OIG to fix problems or add new blood. What's their goal? To keep it bad? Maybe, maybe they might be toxic too? If they had the balls to post their names or positions, what feedback would they get on this forum from their co-workers? They seem like really angry. I'm sure they are great to work with. . .

So basically, you are assuming posters are non-leadership. The point is - if it wasn’t such a toxic environment these threads/posts wouldn’t exist. Imagine how many times this website has been shared to numerous government employees. USAID OIG keeps coming up because it’s true - they also did a lot of people dirty. There are consequences and backlash for that. Most non-leadership staff were pretty good to work with, so don’t just brush over the fact leadership could do better when they are face and foundation of an organization. I don’t know who wants to take on the enormous task and responsibility to fix a toxic environment, I wouldn’t - not how I want to spend my career nor do I want to risk my sanity. FS (the ones that are toxic) can’t/won’t leave. New people were hired and it sounds like it got worse. Don’t knock peoples experiences … you must be leadership.

And nope - nobody is going to post their names or positions but it would be stupid. You also didn’t post your name or position.

Grow up. If you are that unhappy leave. The people who were willing to play games to get ahead at the expense of coworkers or post about how they'll stay until they retire despite it being years away bring everyone else down. That's not toxic too and I'm supposed to think you are all victims? You are amazing people to work with and it's just your bosses who are the problems? Everyone loves you? Sure I didn't post my name. I don't have all the answers that everyone else complaining has. Shame you are perfect coworkers and employees and know better but won't share your knowledge at the office as GS 13/14/15s instead of writing anonymous vengeance posts. We all know everything you read on anonymous internet posts is 100% true, the whole story, and people are being fired over these posts. Lol. (I see your next post crying how anyone who might suggest you are also toxic must be a toxic manager).

Anyone who doubts the validity of these claims can simply look them up. A whistleblower reported almost everything listed here and provided documentation on each. I was there. She was on the spectrum, and documented everything. She sued, and her case is FOIAable, as well as all the documentation. And OMG it's insane.

Off the top of my head and I may get some dates wrong so you can check it, some highlights included:
The security system on the computers was Swiss cheese. Dozens of employees found they could access HR files, well anything. To prove it, the whistleblower was able to access the last IG's banking info. She gave it to Congress.
Because so many people were able to access this kind of material, they gave it all to the whistleblower and she brought it to Congress. She never gave any of us up, despite all the things they offered and threatened.
Audit failed their peer review two years ago. The finding was that 8 out of 14 audits were not GAAG compliant. It was broken into two separate reports to hide the fact that there were about 28 recommendations. The peer reviewer agreed to not say failing in either report. No changes were made.
At one point, an overseas manager was so toxic, the entire staff stopped working. It took 6 months for management to remove her, because she was a favorite of the DIG. There is a pretty obvious 6 month gap where not one audit came from that office.
Employees given promotions to several levels above their current GS. The former DIG was promoted from auditor to SES without having the necessary qualifications or managerial training.
The current nominee for IG is also unqualified to be an GC, much less an IG, and was given waivers to attain her position.
Ignoring records management protocol and dumping 500 plus boxes of material, including PII, in dumpsters. (not unethical, illegal.)
Ordering employees to falsify ratings in the performance ratings via email.
Ordering employees to falsify information in reports to Congress via email. Illegal.
Threatening employees. One immigrant employee was told repeatedly by his boss that he would have his American citizenship revoked if he didn't make changes in an audit. He finally was rushed to the hospital with heart palpitations. He was quietly and quickly transferred out.
Altering audits to protect management. This one was so insane, the Washington Post covered it. There were something like 50 plus audits with hundreds and hundreds of alterations. One notable one was on the timekeeping system in Afghanistan. Employees had figured out that they could claim far more hours than actually worked and the system didn't stop it. The bosses figured it out too. So one AIGA made a half a million dollars in 2017? despite a cap. (check the date).But they couldn't put their own selves in the report, so they took all SES out as well as the OIG staffers.
One AIGI had 17 EEO complaints against her in one year alone. She had dozens of complaints in general. At one point she allowed someone outside USAID borrow her laptop. Our classified material ended up in the Navy computer system. She never received less than 5s on any category. She received a bonus every year of 8k and up.
At one point the management office determined that the turnover rate at USAID OIG was 30 percent. The average is 6 percent. Several employees quit after a few weeks, some a couple months.
The Haiti hotline didn't work for 5 months. No one noticed because the person who oversaw it quit suddenly.
That couple that someone said had an affair? Yes, that happened. More importantly, it happened in a particular conference room on a semi-regular basis. So, you know, definitely affected the office.
The current advisor to the IG or whatever his title is, was allowed to write audits and alter others. He was not and is not an auditor.

Again, just off the top of my head.

The whistleblower was tortured for something like 9 years. Her friends were interviewed. They went through her previous place of employment thoroughly and then had a lawsuit against them for violating the company's rights. USAID OIG had to apologize but the company went out of business anyway.
She was investigated for several years by DODIG. DODIG told Congress they were actually investigating her disclosures. They didn't. They subpoenaed former employees. They showed up at her house demanding to interview her.
Her boss, the AIGM was told to punish her. He wouldn't, and they took away his duties and put him on a PIP. He quit the same day.
They refused to give her an AEF. Then wrote her up for not doing work. Then revoked her badge so she couldn't go anywhere. Then revoked her employment status and reverted her back to Schedule A so they could fire her.
They changed her desk so often we all made a joke out of it. It was like 10 times in a 4 years period. She was disabled. In one move she was chastised for taking a chair from an empty desk. She had to return it. She sat on the floor for days.
They openly mocked her disabilities. The HR Coordinator told people she was faking it. They told her her wheelchair that she often needed, was a "tripping hazard."(Again, in an email!) They refused to let her have it in her cubicle.
At one point she tripped over boxes placed in the mouth of her cubicle. She was in a brace for about a year. USAID OIG told the Dept of Labor that she caused the accident herself. They held up her paperwork for so long she wasn't able to get reimbursement for the medical bills, even though Labor agreed OIG caused the accident.
They repeatedly told her she couldn't use the bathroom during the day. I remember this so well because they emailed her. They said going to the bathroom was "personal time" and could be done before or after work.
I'm sure I don't remember all of it. It was non stop. In the end, they made up some crazy stories about her and said she violated procedure. She produced an audio tape that proved they were lying. The fired her for making an audio tape of a meeting.

Repeat, she never ever gave anyone up. There were dozens of us. She could have named someone who left already. She wouldn't. She wasn't fun to be around after a while because she was a pariah and so outwardly miserable and defiant I'm sure newbies didn't like her. They should have brought her cake.

And btw CIGIE knew. Congress knew. OSC knew. But USAID OIG is not interesting, and the material reported wasn't interesting enough to investigate. And after Trump came in, whistleblowers reporting non Trump info were definitely not interesting.

And to the person who says this is a game. FU.
Everyone else, stay the hell away from the GD office.

Please explain your statement: “ The current nominee for IG is also unqualified to be an GC, much less an IG, and was given waivers to attain her position.”

She is a lawyer, with experience, which is basically the only requirement she needs to be a GC. People don’t have to go from GS-14 to 15 then to SES. 14s are eligible to apply for SES jobs and so is anyone that have ECQs that support it. Also, there are many current and former IGs that were attorneys outside of Government, and many from inside Government, the qualifications for an IG job is to be nominated by the President. The President can nominate whoever they feel will do the job well, with advice and consent from the Senate. She is fully qualified for an IG job. Since you think differently, please elaborate why you think she is not qualified.

If being favored by an IG to get promoted unfairly and target your competition for the IG's love is a qualification, she is well-qualified. She doesn't go to meetings and has been focused on her "nomination preparation" since last summer. What does she do to earn her pay? Isn't that something an IG would be investigated for or is it okay to get paid SES money to only do nomination preparation and not your job?

Sounds like you are upset. Perhaps you should make a complaint to the CIGIE executive committee, the White House, Congress, or just find a new place to work.

USAID OIG must have silenced all the complainers

I’m glad someone did, this thread got really boring for those not interested in watching “As the USAID OIG Turns”

We have not and will not be silenced...it's just a matter of time before the former IG and her posse are exposed on a wider platform. The wheels are in motion. Tik Tok!

Any thoughts on USAID OIG Investigations?

Investigations is good, lack of experience in the agent and first line supervisors and a bunch of primadonna’s is what makes it good and not great. If you want to travel and work 95% administrative cases, then go for it. If you want to live abroad, this is a good place for that. Very small agency so the slackers really stand out and drive morale down. I wouldn’t recommend it as a good place to work unless you are looking for a niche agency in the development community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a hiring official at another OIG. I have two applicants from USAID OIG "managers." Their resumes are nearly flawless but I'm super reluctant to interview them after reading this blog. OMG. we have a good culture and don't need this drama.

If you would normally interview them, I wouldn't let anonymous feedback on a forum stop you. If they interview poorly or you do thorough reference checks and get questionable feedback, that's different. I really wonder about some of these posters. I bet leadership could do better, but the posters have all of the answers, yet they stay when they are unhappy and seem to discourage anyone from coming to USAID OIG to fix problems or add new blood. What's their goal? To keep it bad? Maybe, maybe they might be toxic too? If they had the balls to post their names or positions, what feedback would they get on this forum from their co-workers? They seem like really angry. I'm sure they are great to work with. . .

So basically, you are assuming posters are non-leadership. The point is - if it wasn’t such a toxic environment these threads/posts wouldn’t exist. Imagine how many times this website has been shared to numerous government employees. USAID OIG keeps coming up because it’s true - they also did a lot of people dirty. There are consequences and backlash for that. Most non-leadership staff were pretty good to work with, so don’t just brush over the fact leadership could do better when they are face and foundation of an organization. I don’t know who wants to take on the enormous task and responsibility to fix a toxic environment, I wouldn’t - not how I want to spend my career nor do I want to risk my sanity. FS (the ones that are toxic) can’t/won’t leave. New people were hired and it sounds like it got worse. Don’t knock peoples experiences … you must be leadership.

And nope - nobody is going to post their names or positions but it would be stupid. You also didn’t post your name or position.

Grow up. If you are that unhappy leave. The people who were willing to play games to get ahead at the expense of coworkers or post about how they'll stay until they retire despite it being years away bring everyone else down. That's not toxic too and I'm supposed to think you are all victims? You are amazing people to work with and it's just your bosses who are the problems? Everyone loves you? Sure I didn't post my name. I don't have all the answers that everyone else complaining has. Shame you are perfect coworkers and employees and know better but won't share your knowledge at the office as GS 13/14/15s instead of writing anonymous vengeance posts. We all know everything you read on anonymous internet posts is 100% true, the whole story, and people are being fired over these posts. Lol. (I see your next post crying how anyone who might suggest you are also toxic must be a toxic manager).

Anyone who doubts the validity of these claims can simply look them up. A whistleblower reported almost everything listed here and provided documentation on each. I was there. She was on the spectrum, and documented everything. She sued, and her case is FOIAable, as well as all the documentation. And OMG it's insane.

Off the top of my head and I may get some dates wrong so you can check it, some highlights included:
The security system on the computers was Swiss cheese. Dozens of employees found they could access HR files, well anything. To prove it, the whistleblower was able to access the last IG's banking info. She gave it to Congress.
Because so many people were able to access this kind of material, they gave it all to the whistleblower and she brought it to Congress. She never gave any of us up, despite all the things they offered and threatened.
Audit failed their peer review two years ago. The finding was that 8 out of 14 audits were not GAAG compliant. It was broken into two separate reports to hide the fact that there were about 28 recommendations. The peer reviewer agreed to not say failing in either report. No changes were made.
At one point, an overseas manager was so toxic, the entire staff stopped working. It took 6 months for management to remove her, because she was a favorite of the DIG. There is a pretty obvious 6 month gap where not one audit came from that office.
Employees given promotions to several levels above their current GS. The former DIG was promoted from auditor to SES without having the necessary qualifications or managerial training.
The current nominee for IG is also unqualified to be an GC, much less an IG, and was given waivers to attain her position.
Ignoring records management protocol and dumping 500 plus boxes of material, including PII, in dumpsters. (not unethical, illegal.)
Ordering employees to falsify ratings in the performance ratings via email.
Ordering employees to falsify information in reports to Congress via email. Illegal.
Threatening employees. One immigrant employee was told repeatedly by his boss that he would have his American citizenship revoked if he didn't make changes in an audit. He finally was rushed to the hospital with heart palpitations. He was quietly and quickly transferred out.
Altering audits to protect management. This one was so insane, the Washington Post covered it. There were something like 50 plus audits with hundreds and hundreds of alterations. One notable one was on the timekeeping system in Afghanistan. Employees had figured out that they could claim far more hours than actually worked and the system didn't stop it. The bosses figured it out too. So one AIGA made a half a million dollars in 2017? despite a cap. (check the date).But they couldn't put their own selves in the report, so they took all SES out as well as the OIG staffers.
One AIGI had 17 EEO complaints against her in one year alone. She had dozens of complaints in general. At one point she allowed someone outside USAID borrow her laptop. Our classified material ended up in the Navy computer system. She never received less than 5s on any category. She received a bonus every year of 8k and up.
At one point the management office determined that the turnover rate at USAID OIG was 30 percent. The average is 6 percent. Several employees quit after a few weeks, some a couple months.
The Haiti hotline didn't work for 5 months. No one noticed because the person who oversaw it quit suddenly.
That couple that someone said had an affair? Yes, that happened. [b]More importantly, it happened in a particular conference room on a semi-regular basis. So, you know, definitely affected the office.
The current advisor to the IG or whatever his title is, was allowed to write audits and alter others. He was not and is not an auditor.

Again, just off the top of my head.

The whistleblower was tortured for something like 9 years. Her friends were interviewed. They went through her previous place of employment thoroughly and then had a lawsuit against them for violating the company's rights. USAID OIG had to apologize but the company went out of business anyway.
She was investigated for several years by DODIG. DODIG told Congress they were actually investigating her disclosures. They didn't. They subpoenaed former employees. They showed up at her house demanding to interview her.
Her boss, the AIGM was told to punish her. He wouldn't, and they took away his duties and put him on a PIP. He quit the same day.
They refused to give her an AEF. Then wrote her up for not doing work. Then revoked her badge so she couldn't go anywhere. Then revoked her employment status and reverted her back to Schedule A so they could fire her.
They changed her desk so often we all made a joke out of it. It was like 10 times in a 4 years period. She was disabled. In one move she was chastised for taking a chair from an empty desk. She had to return it. She sat on the floor for days.
They openly mocked her disabilities. The HR Coordinator told people she was faking it. They told her her wheelchair that she often needed, was a "tripping hazard."(Again, in an email!) They refused to let her have it in her cubicle.
At one point she tripped over boxes placed in the mouth of her cubicle. She was in a brace for about a year. USAID OIG told the Dept of Labor that she caused the accident herself. They held up her paperwork for so long she wasn't able to get reimbursement for the medical bills, even though Labor agreed OIG caused the accident.
They repeatedly told her she couldn't use the bathroom during the day. I remember this so well because they emailed her. They said going to the bathroom was "personal time" and could be done before or after work.
I'm sure I don't remember all of it. It was non stop. In the end, they made up some crazy stories about her and said she violated procedure. She produced an audio tape that proved they were lying. The fired her for making an audio tape of a meeting.

Repeat, she never ever gave anyone up. There were dozens of us. She could have named someone who left already. She wouldn't. She wasn't fun to be around after a while because she was a pariah and so outwardly miserable and defiant I'm sure newbies didn't like her. They should have brought her cake.

And btw CIGIE knew. Congress knew. OSC knew. But USAID OIG is not interesting, and the material reported wasn't interesting enough to investigate. And after Trump came in, whistleblowers reporting non Trump info were definitely not interesting.

And to the person who says this is a game. FU.
Everyone else, stay the hell away from the GD office.

Please explain your statement: “ The current nominee for IG is also unqualified to be an GC, much less an IG, and was given waivers to attain her position.”

She is a lawyer, with experience, which is basically the only requirement she needs to be a GC. People don’t have to go from GS-14 to 15 then to SES. 14s are eligible to apply for SES jobs and so is anyone that have ECQs that support it. Also, there are many current and former IGs that were attorneys outside of Government, and many from inside Government, the qualifications for an IG job is to be nominated by the President. The President can nominate whoever they feel will do the job well, with advice and consent from the Senate. She is fully qualified for an IG job. Since you think differently, please elaborate why you think she is not qualified.

What on earth? How could this be happening in a federal building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a hiring official at another OIG. I have two applicants from USAID OIG "managers." Their resumes are nearly flawless but I'm super reluctant to interview them after reading this blog. OMG. we have a good culture and don't need this drama.

If you would normally interview them, I wouldn't let anonymous feedback on a forum stop you. If they interview poorly or you do thorough reference checks and get questionable feedback, that's different. I really wonder about some of these posters. I bet leadership could do better, but the posters have all of the answers, yet they stay when they are unhappy and seem to discourage anyone from coming to USAID OIG to fix problems or add new blood. What's their goal? To keep it bad? Maybe, maybe they might be toxic too? If they had the balls to post their names or positions, what feedback would they get on this forum from their co-workers? They seem like really angry. I'm sure they are great to work with. . .

So basically, you are assuming posters are non-leadership. The point is - if it wasn’t such a toxic environment these threads/posts wouldn’t exist. Imagine how many times this website has been shared to numerous government employees. USAID OIG keeps coming up because it’s true - they also did a lot of people dirty. There are consequences and backlash for that. Most non-leadership staff were pretty good to work with, so don’t just brush over the fact leadership could do better when they are face and foundation of an organization. I don’t know who wants to take on the enormous task and responsibility to fix a toxic environment, I wouldn’t - not how I want to spend my career nor do I want to risk my sanity. FS (the ones that are toxic) can’t/won’t leave. New people were hired and it sounds like it got worse. Don’t knock peoples experiences … you must be leadership.

And nope - nobody is going to post their names or positions but it would be stupid. You also didn’t post your name or position.

Grow up. If you are that unhappy leave. The people who were willing to play games to get ahead at the expense of coworkers or post about how they'll stay until they retire despite it being years away bring everyone else down. That's not toxic too and I'm supposed to think you are all victims? You are amazing people to work with and it's just your bosses who are the problems? Everyone loves you? Sure I didn't post my name. I don't have all the answers that everyone else complaining has. Shame you are perfect coworkers and employees and know better but won't share your knowledge at the office as GS 13/14/15s instead of writing anonymous vengeance posts. We all know everything you read on anonymous internet posts is 100% true, the whole story, and people are being fired over these posts. Lol. (I see your next post crying how anyone who might suggest you are also toxic must be a toxic manager).

Anyone who doubts the validity of these claims can simply look them up. A whistleblower reported almost everything listed here and provided documentation on each. I was there. She was on the spectrum, and documented everything. She sued, and her case is FOIAable, as well as all the documentation. And OMG it's insane.

Off the top of my head and I may get some dates wrong so you can check it, some highlights included:
The security system on the computers was Swiss cheese. Dozens of employees found they could access HR files, well anything. To prove it, the whistleblower was able to access the last IG's banking info. She gave it to Congress.
Because so many people were able to access this kind of material, they gave it all to the whistleblower and she brought it to Congress. She never gave any of us up, despite all the things they offered and threatened.
Audit failed their peer review two years ago. The finding was that 8 out of 14 audits were not GAAG compliant. It was broken into two separate reports to hide the fact that there were about 28 recommendations. The peer reviewer agreed to not say failing in either report. No changes were made.
At one point, an overseas manager was so toxic, the entire staff stopped working. It took 6 months for management to remove her, because she was a favorite of the DIG. There is a pretty obvious 6 month gap where not one audit came from that office.
Employees given promotions to several levels above their current GS. The former DIG was promoted from auditor to SES without having the necessary qualifications or managerial training.
The current nominee for IG is also unqualified to be an GC, much less an IG, and was given waivers to attain her position.
Ignoring records management protocol and dumping 500 plus boxes of material, including PII, in dumpsters. (not unethical, illegal.)
Ordering employees to falsify ratings in the performance ratings via email.
Ordering employees to falsify information in reports to Congress via email. Illegal.
Threatening employees. One immigrant employee was told repeatedly by his boss that he would have his American citizenship revoked if he didn't make changes in an audit. He finally was rushed to the hospital with heart palpitations. He was quietly and quickly transferred out.
Altering audits to protect management. This one was so insane, the Washington Post covered it. There were something like 50 plus audits with hundreds and hundreds of alterations. One notable one was on the timekeeping system in Afghanistan. Employees had figured out that they could claim far more hours than actually worked and the system didn't stop it. The bosses figured it out too. So one AIGA made a half a million dollars in 2017? despite a cap. (check the date).But they couldn't put their own selves in the report, so they took all SES out as well as the OIG staffers.
One AIGI had 17 EEO complaints against her in one year alone. She had dozens of complaints in general. At one point she allowed someone outside USAID borrow her laptop. Our classified material ended up in the Navy computer system. She never received less than 5s on any category. She received a bonus every year of 8k and up.
At one point the management office determined that the turnover rate at USAID OIG was 30 percent. The average is 6 percent. Several employees quit after a few weeks, some a couple months.
The Haiti hotline didn't work for 5 months. No one noticed because the person who oversaw it quit suddenly.
That couple that someone said had an affair? Yes, that happened. [b]More importantly, it happened in a particular conference room on a semi-regular basis. So, you know, definitely affected the office.
The current advisor to the IG or whatever his title is, was allowed to write audits and alter others. He was not and is not an auditor.

Again, just off the top of my head.

The whistleblower was tortured for something like 9 years. Her friends were interviewed. They went through her previous place of employment thoroughly and then had a lawsuit against them for violating the company's rights. USAID OIG had to apologize but the company went out of business anyway.
She was investigated for several years by DODIG. DODIG told Congress they were actually investigating her disclosures. They didn't. They subpoenaed former employees. They showed up at her house demanding to interview her.
Her boss, the AIGM was told to punish her. He wouldn't, and they took away his duties and put him on a PIP. He quit the same day.
They refused to give her an AEF. Then wrote her up for not doing work. Then revoked her badge so she couldn't go anywhere. Then revoked her employment status and reverted her back to Schedule A so they could fire her.
They changed her desk so often we all made a joke out of it. It was like 10 times in a 4 years period. She was disabled. In one move she was chastised for taking a chair from an empty desk. She had to return it. She sat on the floor for days.
They openly mocked her disabilities. The HR Coordinator told people she was faking it. They told her her wheelchair that she often needed, was a "tripping hazard."(Again, in an email!) They refused to let her have it in her cubicle.
At one point she tripped over boxes placed in the mouth of her cubicle. She was in a brace for about a year. USAID OIG told the Dept of Labor that she caused the accident herself. They held up her paperwork for so long she wasn't able to get reimbursement for the medical bills, even though Labor agreed OIG caused the accident.
They repeatedly told her she couldn't use the bathroom during the day. I remember this so well because they emailed her. They said going to the bathroom was "personal time" and could be done before or after work.
I'm sure I don't remember all of it. It was non stop. In the end, they made up some crazy stories about her and said she violated procedure. She produced an audio tape that proved they were lying. The fired her for making an audio tape of a meeting.

Repeat, she never ever gave anyone up. There were dozens of us. She could have named someone who left already. She wouldn't. She wasn't fun to be around after a while because she was a pariah and so outwardly miserable and defiant I'm sure newbies didn't like her. They should have brought her cake.

And btw CIGIE knew. Congress knew. OSC knew. But USAID OIG is not interesting, and the material reported wasn't interesting enough to investigate. And after Trump came in, whistleblowers reporting non Trump info were definitely not interesting.

And to the person who says this is a game. FU.
Everyone else, stay the hell away from the GD office.

Please explain your statement: “ The current nominee for IG is also unqualified to be an GC, much less an IG, and was given waivers to attain her position.”

She is a lawyer, with experience, which is basically the only requirement she needs to be a GC. People don’t have to go from GS-14 to 15 then to SES. 14s are eligible to apply for SES jobs and so is anyone that have ECQs that support it. Also, there are many current and former IGs that were attorneys outside of Government, and many from inside Government, the qualifications for an IG job is to be nominated by the President. The President can nominate whoever they feel will do the job well, with advice and consent from the Senate. She is fully qualified for an IG job. Since you think differently, please elaborate why you think she is not qualified.

What on earth? How could this be happening in a federal building?

Oh honey you'd be surprised. I worked in security at EPA 1996 to 2003. Folks were kissing in the stairwell and other places they didn't realize had cameras. After hours was always interesting.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like State’s OBO. Lots of sleeping around

[Anonymous]

I've read this thread twice and I'm considering a job at Usaid OIG. Call me crazy... but any intel on the GS-15 Administrative Officer job in the AOO division? I'm an 14 AO with 9 years of experience. This seems like the perfect fit for my skillset and in an international organization!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've read this thread twice and I'm considering a job at Usaid OIG. Call me crazy... but any intel on the GS-15 Administrative Officer job in the AOO division? I'm an 14 AO with 9 years of experience. This seems like the perfect fit for my skillset and in an international organization!

The person that vacated that job was here less than 1 year.......I think she didn't realize that type of work she would be doing and all the issues that that specific position has to deal with. If you have skills with contracting, finance, training, administration, then that would be a good fit. The top SES in that section is on "extended leave", you know what that means.....the second in charge is a good guy and is trying his best. He needs a strong Director with experience for that job. Good luck if you put in for it, it will certainly be a challenge fit for a GS-15

[Anonymous]

Not sure if this counts but USAO-DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've read this thread twice and I'm considering a job at Usaid OIG. Call me crazy... but any intel on the GS-15 Administrative Officer job in the AOO division? I'm an 14 AO with 9 years of experience. This seems like the perfect fit for my skillset and in an international organization!

The woman who is vacating it did a lot to make good changes in a short time, especially with improving contracting processes. If you want the opportunity to build on that and set yourself up for possible future advancement beyond GS-15 or to a bigger agency, it's a good opportunity. You will have challenges to address to continue improving contracting and addressing facilities, but nothing that can't be done if you can commit to 2-3 years to build something. Not a good fit if you want to coast or sit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Office of Federal Student Aid is a mess

Isn't Rich Cordray currently running it? I worked with him to help launch CFPB many years ago. I thought he was actually relatively good at organizational management, compared to most at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Office of Federal Student Aid is a mess

Isn't Rich Cordray currently running it? I worked with him to help launch CFPB many years ago. I thought he was actually relatively good at organizational management, compared to most at least.

They are allowing 100% telework so that is appealing to many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Office of Federal Student Aid is a mess

Isn't Rich Cordray currently running it? I worked with him to help launch CFPB many years ago. I thought he was actually relatively good at organizational management, compared to most at least.

They are allowing 100% telework so that is appealing to many.

Many agencies are. I was curious what the poster above meant when they said that office is a mess.

[Anonymous]

State is toxic for no reason.