Anonymous wrote:D Sherrod Brown has joined Rs McHenry and John Kennedy in calls for a truly independent investigation of FDIC allegations. Latter has said Gruenberg should step down.

A public FDIC meeting slated for yesterday morning was suddenly closed because the R members of the FDIC board were going to ask publicly for an investigation that was in no way under Gruenberg and the GC, both of whom have had complaints lodged against them.

Unclear if Gruenberg survives this. He must be worried about Brown joining the chorus.

Well, they damn will should. How can anyone trust Gruenberg when his own conduct has been called into question?

I mean there were sexual harassment complaints under Bair so I don't blame it entirely on Gruenberg but the reports of him throwing phones and his temper tantrums are alarming and promoting a lawyer that leaves nasty voicemails on employee's phones to General Counsel...make it make sense

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If gruenberg resigned, his replacement would have to be confirmed by the senate, right? If so, I think he stays so that the fdic board doesn’t get gridlocked 2-2 for the remainder of bidens first term.

Assume Hill would become acting chair. Gridlock need not occur if all are willing to compromise on workable solutions.

But there would still be a vacancy that requires senate confirmation? What constitutes a workable solution is always in the eye of the beholder.

Anonymous wrote:If gruenberg resigned, his replacement would have to be confirmed by the senate, right? If so, I think he stays so that the fdic board doesn’t get gridlocked 2-2 for the remainder of bidens first term.

Assume Hill would become acting chair. Gridlock need not occur if all are willing to compromise on workable solutions.

If gruenberg resigned, his replacement would have to be confirmed by the senate, right? If so, I think he stays so that the fdic board doesn’t get gridlocked 2-2 for the remainder of bidens first term.

D Sherrod Brown has joined Rs McHenry and John Kennedy in calls for a truly independent investigation of FDIC allegations. Latter has said Gruenberg should step down.

A public FDIC meeting slated for yesterday morning was suddenly closed because the R members of the FDIC board were going to ask publicly for an investigation that was in no way under Gruenberg and the GC, both of whom have had complaints lodged against them.

Unclear if Gruenberg survives this. He must be worried about Brown joining the chorus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conferences and events still need to be on. Send male investigators with male investigators. The banks can't be fraudulently handing out mortgages.

Your solution for sexual harassment is sex-based discrimination? That's a dumb take. You fire those who engage in sexual harassment, and you discipline the remaining party animals. You don't deny women the opportunity to examine banks.

Isn’t it stunning? It’s 2023 and a poster is suggesting denying women access to certain jobs because women were victims of sexual harassment in those jobs. How can this still be happening.

Because the ones who were ceremonially fired for sexual assault, harassment, and drug use at work were reassigned. They have friends at work. That’s not going to change unfortunately.

Anonymous wrote:The WSJ story basically just discussed white collar American “road warrior” culture. The same crap happens in elite consulting, Big 4 accounting, I-banking, tech….and also apparently the federal government. Anywhere you have heavy travel involved, you get people drinking too much and crossing professional boundaries.

This same story can basically be written about any major corporation or institution. This article is pretty tame compared to what happens in the Secret Service, DoD, or IC agencies.

What conferences are you going to?

That’s true in movies about Wall Street, not real life.

Not saying it never happens but not at this scale even twenty years ago.

This looks like they have been watching too much Wolf of Wall Street at work and wanted to act it out.

Yet another WSJ story on FDIC work environment--this one appeared on the front page:

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/fdic-chairman-martin-gruenberg-workplace-harassment-5cae85bc

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Gruenberg going to have fall out from this?

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2023/11/fdic-chief-reverses-testimony-on-own-misconduct-review-00127430

I know a couple of board members who would love to see Marty gone.

The Republican board members would of course want the Democratic board member gone. Can they do anything with a 2-2 board?

Anonymous wrote:Is Gruenberg going to have fall out from this?

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2023/11/fdic-chief-reverses-testimony-on-own-misconduct-review-00127430

I know a couple of board members who would love to see Marty gone.

Is Gruenberg going to have fall out from this?

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2023/11/fdic-chief-reverses-testimony-on-own-misconduct-review-00127430

Kennedy's just being a bully (or using his bully pulpit) here. But Gruenberg has been at the FDIC for 20 years and was Chair or Vice chair for most of that time. Most importantly, he was chair during the time that the WSJ incidents occurred.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conferences and events still need to be on. Send male investigators with male investigators. The banks can't be fraudulently handing out mortgages.

Your solution for sexual harassment is sex-based discrimination? That's a dumb take. You fire those who engage in sexual harassment, and you discipline the remaining party animals. You don't deny women the opportunity to examine banks.

Isn’t it stunning? It’s 2023 and a poster is suggesting denying women access to certain jobs because women were victims of sexual harassment in those jobs. How can this still be happening.

Anonymous wrote:Conferences and events still need to be on. Send male investigators with male investigators. The banks can't be fraudulently handing out mortgages.

Your solution for sexual harassment is sex-based discrimination? That's a dumb take. You fire those who engage in sexual harassment, and you discipline the remaining party animals. You don't deny women the opportunity to examine banks.