Five examples of too many: the SEC and its NTEU Union’s treatment of employees
(1) The excerpt below from my Whistleblower statement has always disturbed me. In March 2018, Dan Barry, Chief Steward of SEC Union NTEU Chapter 293, sent a series of emails threatening a male SEC employee’s job. I met the employee as he was facing a Performance Improvement Plan at the same time and under similar scenario as I. The employee complained about his treatment by a phone call to the office of then SEC Chair Jay Clayton. The Union’s March 29 email answers with retribution: “apparently based on your call to the Chair’s Office, Iris [Rossiter in the SEC Office of General Counsel] made a new offer today”. The email goes on to ‘offer’ threats of removal within 10 days under allegations of “loafing” (what??). Then another threat (or possibly ’employee’s choice’) to be fired for misconduct and lose retirement benefits. Ultimately, this employee was not terminated by the SEC. I believe that his mention in my Whistleblower statement contributed to saving his job.
(2) Scott Bauguess evidently had more careers to demolish in the spring of 2018. This second example documents another DERA employee (“Adam”), threatened into a ‘voluntary downgrade’ from his Assistant Director position in May 2018. Kim Coronel exclaims to the SEC HR attorney: “Thanks for your help with this!”
Twenty minutes after receiving the email affirming the employee’s downgrade, Scott Bauguess writes back to Kim Coronel: “Great. Can we begin discussing process for AD [promotions to Associate Director or Assistant Director] postings? I assume the Christof matter will be settled soon” [more on Christof on The SEC Revolving Door].
(3) The third story concerns another SEC EEO Complaint against my supervisor, Mike Willis, within 2 years of his joining the SEC: My co-worker Mr. XY #1 emailed me in March 2018: “Sorry to hear that you are going through the same bullying. It was hell and I had to put up with it for 2 years. Finally I had to file a formal complaint to get me out of the hole…discrimination is going on in a systematic manner within OSD. Employees who were bullied in a systematic manner and had to leave OSD in the past 2 years since Mike became the AD:”, followed by a list of 7 employees.
Mr. XY #1 filed a formal EEO complaint, which the SEC forestalled by re-assigning him, in addition to other means. The remaining employee-victims of Mr. Willis met various fates. My own fate, perhaps not the worst, as others’ bullyings were suffered (mostly) in silence.
(4) When Scott Bauguess finally realized that the accountants figured him out, Mr. Bauguess simply removed the accountants. A senior DERA staff member described to me that Mr. XY #2 [lead accountant with the staff member on a key DERA analytical tool] was shamed by Mr. Bauguess’ insinuations designed to remove the accountant in early 2018. Mr. XY #2 begged to be allowed to arrange other employment before being formally thrown out of the SEC – a written termination would seriously impede future employment in his home country. Mr. Bauguess allowed a small window of time. The key [remaining] project staff member commented: “Mr. XY #2 didn’t deserve that.”
(5) SEC document destruction was not limited to its Division of Enforcement in the early 2010’s. Documents, careers, and employees’ lives in the Division of Trading and Market (T&M) were also destroyed. This story is a friend’s; it hurts to remember but I think it important to present. Ms. XX #1 was the Regulatory Specialist responsible for maintaining the all-paper files for two of T&M’s key Financial Responsibility programs, the Consolidated Supervised Entity (CSE) Program and the 17-H Broker-Dealer Risk Assessment (17-H) program. After the programmatic failures of both these programs during the 2008 U.S. Financial Crisis, Ms. XX #1, her Assistant Director moved to the office next to hers – where the records were maintained – and began asking questions about the records which he had never asked before. The NTEU declined to assist when the intimidation continued. Soon after, Ms. XX #1 was no longer employed by the SEC, losing her career of 28 years.
The down-and-dirty: details of my SEC termination
These snips from my personal notes explain the details of the tactics the SEC found useful to harass and retaliate me for my Whistleblower statement and my EEO Complaints, make me an example to others who might speak out, make sure I knew I didn’t have long to continue my federal employment, and make my last few months at the SEC, after a successful 28-year career, as stressful as possible.
This sums it up well – the TLDR:
The attacks on my career and well-being by SEC management officials had nothing to do with my performance, nor with the business of the SEC. Instead of being focused on the mission of the SEC, these officials exploited the agency for their own benefit, at the expense of taxpayers. Their actions had no basis in evaluating my performance, nor with improving it. They simply chose me, an employee they thought was “weak” on the basis of my age, sex, and religion, and used a tactic available to them to take my job; simply to enrich themselves.
If you have the time and interest, or if the SEC might be targeting you right now, read on.
As explained more fully in my Whistleblower statement, Willis, Coronel, Bauguess, and Becker engaged in a number and variety of adverse, discriminatory actions against employees in the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, especially those they could not control, who had years of experience, or asked questions. The corrupt quartet’s hope – to silence institutional knowledge of the myriad of illegal and dysfunctional activities they perpetuate.
First, see if you can get the employee to quit:
“I believe the reason he began shouting at me [on November 8, 2017] was to initiate his plan to demote or terminate me unjustifiably to accomplish his own promotion and that of a younger female employee. I had never before been shouted at in a professional work setting. As explained in the attached report, the timing of the incident was during the period when Willis was required to prepare performance evaluations. Willis, Coronel, and Bauguess had been unable to accomplish the promotions since February 2017, and decided to resort to using the performance management system to accomplish the plan. Up to that day, Mr. Willis had never communicated any performance issues to me; in fact he had thanked and praised me for my work.”
“There were actually no issues with my performance during the rating period and during the PIP period. Allegations and gross mischaracterizations referencing ‘persistent observable poor performance’ were only raised after the end of the rating period, when management officials made the decision to use the tactic. No substantiation exists of notification to me during the rating period of ‘persistent observable poor performance’. My belated mid-term performance review in May 2017 was consistent with my past fully acceptable performance.”
“On January 31, 2018, Iris Rossiter [attorney ‘terminator’, SEC Office of General Counsel] phoned my legal counsel after she learned I had discussed my protected EEO activity and management officials plans to terminate my federal employment with DERA Director Jeffrey Harris. Rossiter told my attorney that the “likely outcome of a Performance Improvement Plan at the SEC is termination”, threatening that when the PIP was issued, the foregone conclusion would be failure resulting in termination of my employment. It was an admission that the PIP would be farce and not based on ‘performance improvement’.”
Plan B, fabricate a untruthful performance evaluation and an onerous PIP:
“As stated in the Union email, management did not provide substantiation for the unacceptable [2017] rating. The performance appraisal I received contained fabrications about my performance in an attempt to support my demotion or termination to achieve Willis, Coronel and Bauguess’ plan to promote a younger female employee and my male supervisor.”
“It is significant that there was no discussion, meeting, interview, or investigation concerning the substantiation of any of the allegations of my unacceptable performance during the rating period. When I emailed my supervisor Willis [on February 20, 2018] asking for substantiation for the specific allegations of my unacceptable performance he wrote in my performance appraisal, he did not respond. Therefore, as part of my response to the notice of proposed removal I made a spreadsheet documenting each allegation of unacceptable performance, explained why each was untrue, and provided corroborating evidence of the untruth. Much of the evidence was in emails that my supervisor authored or was party to.”
“Management officials’ affidavits for my prior protected EEO activity include rote repetitions about my “persistent observable poor performance”. The entire basis for my termination hinges on this assertion, which they have never been required to substantiate. However, the spreadsheet I prepared substantiates that management officials made demonstrably false statements on the performance evaluation that justified the PIP that they manipulated to illegally terminate me from federal employment.”
Next, if threats don’t work, make the PIP as stressful as possible:
“The harassment/hostile work environment added a new level of stress to my work performance considering that Willis had doubled my workload in the 2017 rating period without giving me new resources. Since 2012 my assignment was to work on one primary taxonomy; in early 2017 an additional primary taxonomy and 500 reporting filers were added to my workload. I was also working with the FASB to write another new supplemental taxonomy. Additional stress was placed on me once I was targeted in November 2017 and my performance attacked as a pretext to take my job away from me. Despite this stress, I continued to perform at a high level in an effort, however futile, to save my job despite the ultimate predetermined outcome.”
“On July 31, 2018, my OSD co-worker phoned me and told me that Willis said in a senior staff meeting on July 30, 2018: “Kim is no longer with us. She was escorted out this morning.” This co-worker also messaged me on LinkedIn that day expressing his dismay and concern. The co-worker told me the names of two other OSD senior staff members who were in this meeting and were shocked at Willis’ statement.”
“I was shocked as well, because it made it obvious that my termination was predetermined. Mr. Willis also severely damaged my professional reputation by his comments foreshadowing my ultimate demise. It has come to my attention that Willis’ comments were shared both within and outside the agency.”
“My attorney informed me that Willis’ statements were a violation of federal regulations, as Willis would not be the Deciding Official on my termination, and was not permitted to confer with the Deciding Official. However, this statement evidenced that Willis already knew that the decision was made, had discussed it with the Deciding Official and likely other management officials, [e.g. Chyhe Becker’s July 9, 2018 email to Kim Coronel discussed earlier on this page], and broadcast it at a senior staff meeting.”
“In addition, my coworkers’ reactions made it clear that Willis’ statement was another manifestation of the hostile work environment in DERA: intended to humiliate me, while letting everyone else who might be inclined to challenge DERA management know what could happen to them.”
“As I pointed out in my response to the Notice of Proposed Removal, it cites 3 tasks out of the 39 deliverables in the PIP for which Willis asserts my performance was unacceptable and thereby justifies my removal. I dispute the allegation of failure of the three tasks; however, even considering them means I passed 92.3% of the PIP tasks. Management still terminated my employment.”
“Since the harassment and hostile work environment continued until my termination on September 18, 2018 (including that my termination occurred on an important religious holiday), I assume no action was taken.
In the meantime, protect cronies and new friends:
“There are four SK-16 level employees in the group where the budget resources were needed to effect the ‘repurposed vacancies’ to provide the promotions. I am the only female, and the unacceptable rating was unsubstantiated and fabricated in order to remove me from my position. It also constituted disparate treatment as I have documentation of performance failures on the part of two of the male SK-16 employees that I do not believe were factored into their ratings. I have heard that one of the male employees was recommended by Willis to receive a performance bonus which was ultimately not given because the male SK-16 has numerous complaints against him for bullying and yelling at other employees. I have been the victim of and witnessed this employee doing that to others. I reported harassment by this colleague in March 2017 to my supervisor and his action on it was to ask the harasser to stop emailing it, not to stop it.
“Since 2014, there has been a demonstrable pattern in DERA of replacing women employees with male employees, and hiring predominately male new employees. I was the only female in Willis’ group at the SK-16 level and there were three male SK-16s. Willis’ group in total was staffed with 1/3 female and 2/3 male employees.”
“The division of OSD into sub-offices and the employee assignments were sleight of hand ‘realignments’ solely to affect Willis’ promotion, and were later manipulated. On February 2, 2017 when the restructuring was proposed, 2 of the male SK-16 were assigned with me in the sub-Office of Rulemaking Support. Later, the assignments were revised to gerrymander all the male SK-16s to the sub-Office of Disclosure Technology. Because I worked on NO rulemakings during my six years in DERA, I asked for reassignment to the Office of Disclosure Technology and my request was denied twice.”
“Conversely, there were performance issues with at least one of the male SK-16s during the 2017 rating period (for example, errors in EDGAR Release content for the IFRS taxonomy update). There were also performance issues with at least one of the male SK-16s during my PIP period (for example, failure to timely perform assigned task of creating a technical update to an SEC webpage for an EDGAR Release).”
“There are at least 4 work products attributed to my performance failure during the rating period, the PIP period, and the Notice of Proposed Removal that Mr. Willis assigned to other employees, including the male SK-16 under his supervision. A notable example is the ‘IFRS sample filing’ assigned to one of the male SK-16s during the 2017 rating period. After 4 months of work, the male SK-16 failed to produce a viable project – as Willis wrote in this email the day after his outburst about my alleged unacceptable performance. The male SK-16 did not receive an unacceptable rating for this work. Instead Willis transferred blame for this work to me and cited it as my unacceptable performance. Then, in my PIP, Willis asked me to complete the ‘IFRS sample filing’ with a due date six days after the start of the PIP. I completed the work but it was not published on the SEC website due to technical difficulties. Despite Willis’ urgency for me to complete this task during my PIP, the IFRS sample filing, as of [now] 8 years later, is still not published on the SEC website.”
“After my Notice of Proposed Removal, I was permitted three hours on August 3 to review and print out any materials for my response, and that Kim Coronel was with me to review the documents I printed “to ensure they are appropriate prior to Ms. Earle taking them off-site”. Kim Coronel reviewed each page I printed, as Iris Rossiter required, and then the documents were boxed. When I got home and started looking at the printouts, I noticed very quickly that there was an obvious problem with the documents: about 1/3 printed incompletely and were cut off in mid-paragraph. Since Kim Coronel was supposed to review the content of the documents for appropriateness, it is not credible that she did not notice the obvious printing problems. Her failure to “notice” this when she was aware that I was printing the document to defend myself against a proposed removal from employment was purposefully hostile and constitutes harassment.”
“I notified my attorney and he emailed Iris Rossiter to notify her of these issues and request additional time to access my records. Iris Rossiter permitted me an additional 2 hours and I returned on August 15, 2018. At this session there were significant printer issues – both ink cartridge and printer drum required replacing, and paper ran out several times, all of which took away from my allotted time and added to my stress. Kim Coronel was monitoring me again and retrieving the printouts from a remote room. When I got home and starting reviewing the printouts, I realized that not all of them were given to me: for example, none of my “sent” emails were provided to me. Iris Rossiter emailed my attorney on August 15, stating “I understand that Ms. Earle was able to print and take all the documents she asked for today. So that should conclude her request for document access to formulate her written reply.” My attorney emailed Rossiter to inform her that was not true.”
“In addition, the printing area was in an SEC security office suite. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Branch Chief in this security office, had two posters/signs on his door about celebrating happy hour and drinking alcohol. At least two employees assisting Branch Chief (names unknown) with the printer in the security office witnessed the issues with the printer (ink, drum and paper replacement, interruption of the printing).”
“It was harassing and hostile to only be permitted 5 hours to access my computer records to defend my employment (which turned out to not be adequate particularly given the problems encountered), to have problems with the printer and the printouts, the inappropriate environment for this process, and for the management officials overseeing this process to not care to ensure that it went smoothly and that I had adequate time, proper equipment, and received all the printouts properly and completely. There were no plans made or controls for accountability to ensure that I received all printouts I requested when there were numerous printer issues.”
