Bullying, Threats and Chaos at Safety Agency

An aerial picture, taken from a helicopter following US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, shows the devastation at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, on April 25, 2013.
National Journal
Jason Plautz
Add to Briefcase
Jason Plautz
July 31, 2014, 1 a.m.

It was a rough week for Ra­fael Moure-Era­so.

Four days after House Over­sight Com­mit­tee Chair­man Dar­rell Issa ded­ic­ated a hear­ing to slam­ming his work as the head of the fed­er­al Chem­ic­al Safety Board, Moure-Era­so gathered his em­ploy­ees in a con­fer­ence room at the board’s K Street headquar­ters to ad­dress the awk­ward situ­ation.

His first an­nounce­ment: He wasn’t resign­ing — a dis­ap­point­ment to some agency staff and alumni who pine for his ouster.

The second: He could ad­mit he wasn’t per­fect — a state­ment that was met by some snick­ers. When it came time to open the floor for ques­tions, none came.

Ac­cord­ing to CSB em­ploy­ees and out­side crit­ics, Moure-Era­so’s four years as chair­man have been far worse than “not per­fect.” Un­der his watch, staff mem­bers say they’ve been bul­lied to keep de­bate low, key in­vest­ig­at­ors have fled for the door, and an agency that used to be fueled by co­oper­at­ive en­ergy has turned tox­ic. Em­ploy­ees de­scribe feel­ing down­right para­noid, speak­ing in secret in bath­rooms or avoid­ing col­leagues they thought might re­flect poorly on them.

The agency’s in­tern­al strife — com­bined with in­creased con­gres­sion­al scru­tiny and a back­log of un­fin­ished cases — has led some to la­bel the chair­man a fail­ure and to push for him to step down early. But Moure-Era­so is not the first CSB dir­ect­or to struggle: The agency has had in­tern­al dis­putes since its cre­ation, and some be­lieve that any dir­ect­or of the board is be­ing asked to do the im­possible.

Former board mem­ber Beth Rosen­berg, who stud­ied un­der Moure-Era­so, is now among his crit­ics. She resigned her post after serving just 17 months of a five-year term be­cause she felt “mar­gin­al­ized” in an of­fice filled with “de­mor­al­ized” staff.

An in­vest­ig­at­ive back­log has raised pres­sure on CSB to cor­rect its in­tern­al dis­putes. It’s caught the at­ten­tion of mem­bers of both parties — House En­ergy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee rank­ing Demo­crat Henry Wax­man has flagged neg­at­ive fed­er­al mor­ale sur­vey res­ults, while Issa re­leased a re­port on CSB’s prob­lems and called on Moure-Era­so to resign.

Sev­er­al sources with­in CSB spoke to Na­tion­al Journ­al an­onym­ously for fear of re­pris­al — no titles or ex­per­i­ence levels are be­ing used to pro­tect their iden­tit­ies. Former staff and board mem­bers and in­ter­views in an Over­sight Com­mit­tee re­port help tell a story of an agency strug­gling with in­tern­al con­flict as it looks to catch up with its mis­sion.


Al­though the man­age­ment troubles have reached throughout CSB’s 40 or so em­ploy­ees, Moure-Era­so’s soured re­la­tion­ships with the up to five mem­bers of the board that votes on re­ports and re­com­mend­a­tions stand out. Three former board mem­bers said that they felt pushed out or chal­lenged. A nor­mally col­legi­al and co­oper­at­ive body, they say, was chilled.

Bill Wright, who served a five-year term un­der three chair­men that ended in Septem­ber 2011, said his time un­der Moure-Era­so was “ter­rible” be­cause he felt the chair­man framed re­la­tion­ships through polit­ics (Wright was a George W. Bush nom­in­ee, but said his re­cord showed a his­tory of pro-reg­u­la­tion votes). Fel­low mem­ber Wil­li­am Wark, who served the same ten­ure as Wright, said there were con­stant frus­tra­tions on ef­forts like get­ting a man­age­ment plan to or­gan­ize cases or schedul­ing a pub­lic agenda meet­ing.

There was par­tic­u­lar ten­sion over the de­cision to in­vest­ig­ate the Deep­wa­ter Ho­ri­zon oil spill (which happened just be­fore Moure-Era­so came on, but was car­ried out in his term), an ac­ci­dent the board typ­ic­ally wouldn’t have pur­sued be­cause it was off­shore and was be­ing covered by oth­er agen­cies. Both Wright and Wark voted for the in­vest­ig­a­tion, but only un­der the con­di­tion that they could re­quest ded­ic­ated fund­ing from Con­gress that nev­er ma­ter­i­al­ized, and both now say they re­gret the de­cision.

The hir­ing of Richard Loeb as gen­er­al coun­sel — a de­cision that board mem­bers said they did not have over­sight over — also drove a wedge between the chair­man and his fel­low board mem­bers. The im­plic­a­tion was that Moure-Era­so was try­ing to push gen­er­al coun­sel Chris Warner out of his job for his sup­port for the board mem­bers and re­place him with someone more loy­al. In an email cited in the Over­sight re­port, Wark said the chair­man was “get­ting bad ad­vice” on hu­man re­sources and said he should “not send threat­en­ing emails to Board mem­bers for do­ing their job.”

Un­der stand­ard op­er­at­ing pro­ced­ure, board mem­bers would de­bate with each oth­er and in­spect­ors, be briefed on in­vest­ig­a­tions, and feel a part of guid­ing CSB’s over­all mis­sion. But they say that didn’t hap­pen. Rosen­berg’s testi­mony to the Over­sight Com­mit­tee in­cludes a 2011 memo from Man­aging Dir­ect­or Daniel Horow­itz to in­vest­ig­at­ors in which he chas­tises in­vest­ig­at­ors for go­ing dir­ectly to board mem­bers with pro­pos­als and re­com­mend­a­tions as well as re­quests that he be in­cluded in such dis­cus­sions.

“Al­though I do not nor­mally like to em­phas­ize these mat­ters — and prefer use of the col­legi­al mod­el — send­ing pro­pos­als and re­com­mend­a­tions dir­ectly to board mem­bers without provid­ing me a chance to re­view and ap­prove them lacks pro­fes­sion­al­ism and cour­tesy and un­der­mines ba­sic prin­ciples of sound man­age­ment and ap­pro­pri­ate work­place con­duct,” the memo states.

It was widely seen as an at­tempt to lessen the power of board mem­bers, des­pite Horow­itz’s as­sur­ance in the memo that it was not a bid to “stifle re­spons­ible dis­cus­sion or de­bate,” but was to “avoid situ­ations where staff ap­pear to be com­mu­nic­at­ing in an un­co­ordin­ated man­ner.”

In an in­ter­view, Horow­itz re­it­er­ated that he didn’t think there’s been an at­tempt to freeze out board mem­bers and that in­vest­ig­at­ors are en­cour­aged to talk to them as long as man­age­ment is kept abreast of the big is­sues. “We couldn’t be as good in our re­ports as I think we are if we didn’t do that,” he said. 

The dys­func­tion ap­pears to have gone two ways. In a memo titled “Restor­ing Trust” re­leased by the web­site TruthOut, CSB’s in­vest­ig­a­tion lead­ers say their “trust is broken” be­cause of the ac­tions of Rosen­berg and board mem­ber Mark Grif­fon, in­clud­ing an al­leged in­cid­ent where Rosen­berg told staff in the Den­ver of­fice that she was work­ing to re­move Moure-Era­so and Horow­itz and po­ten­tially take the chair­man post her­self. Later in the memo, the in­vest­ig­at­ors say that Rosen­berg and Grif­fon “are work­ing to delay re­ports” and are fo­ment­ing pub­lic dis­con­tent. An­oth­er memo ex­presses frus­tra­tion that the two board mem­bers wouldn’t meet with staff and say that be­cause of the delays, “our core mis­sion work of is­su­ing in­vest­ig­a­tion re­ports is cur­rently para­lyzed.”

In a re­sponse, also re­leased on TruthOut, Rosen­berg and Grif­fon say they were not delay­ing re­ports, but were wait­ing on com­ments to come in. Rosen­berg said in an in­ter­view that the in­cid­ent was blown out of pro­por­tion — the com­plaints were only brought up months later after she and Grif­fon voted to hear more in­form­a­tion on the Chev­ron in­vest­ig­a­tion.

The im­plic­a­tion: The memo was a re­sponse to a vote that didn’t please man­agers that were look­ing for con­sensus opin­ions.

Rosen­berg has since left to re­turn to aca­demia at Tufts Uni­versity. That’s an en­vir­on­ment, she said in an in­ter­view, where she felt she could ac­tu­ally de­bate and dis­cuss big is­sues. Plus, she said, “people give me hugs here.”


That feel­ing has trickled down to the rest of CSB’s 40 or so em­ploy­ees. In a fisc­al 2013 em­ploy­ee sur­vey, ef­fect­ive lead­er­ship was giv­en just a 42.3 per­cent score, the third-worst in the gov­ern­ment. Only 20 per­cent of em­ploy­ees said their seni­or lead­ers were of­fer­ing ef­fect­ive lead­er­ship, a gov­ern­ment low (the av­er­age was 45.4 per­cent), and team­work was rated at just 48.5 per­cent, also a gov­ern­ment low (av­er­age was 64 per­cent).

Over­all mor­ale also showed a drop between 2007 and 2013 on state­ments like “I like the kind of work I do” (down to 76 per­cent from 94 per­cent) and “My work gives me a feel­ing of per­son­al ac­com­plish­ment” (down to 70 per­cent from 94 per­cent).

It was enough to prompt a con­cerned let­ter from Wax­man, who said he was con­cerned that “gov­ernance is­sues at the agency could threaten its im­port­ant mis­sion.”

A Feb­ru­ary 2013 email ex­change ob­tained by Na­tion­al Journ­al shows how touchy things were with re­gards to the mor­ale data: When Horow­itz cir­cu­lated an art­icle that named CSB one of the best small agen­cies to work for, staffer Manuel Gomez re­spon­ded that he was “troubled” by that char­ac­ter­iz­a­tion. Data showed that “we rank, at best, in the bot­tom half among fed­er­al mi­cro agen­cies,” he wrote, adding “job sat­is­fac­tion and mor­ale are ac­tu­ally very poor by mul­tiple meas­ures.”

In an email re­sponse, Moure-Era­so blas­ted the “really pathet­ic” use of num­bers to “spin” a case and said Gomez should “avoid spread­ing un­ne­ces­sary and in­ac­cur­ate gloom and doom.”

“I be­lieve it is not at all bad to be the most im­proved out of 362 agen­cies,” he wrote. “It puzzles me why you have this wish to make things look gloomy.” When Gomez re­spon­ded an­grily and said it soun­ded like an “ef­fort to muffle me,” Moure-Era­so said his email was “sent in a spir­it of lev­ity” and meant to “poke fun at the use of ‘me­di­ans’ in a very sur­faced-based ana­lys­is.”

That at­mo­sphere is also be­hind what crit­ics have char­ac­ter­ized as an ex­odus of ex­per­i­enced in­vest­ig­at­ors. Four left in 2011, in­clud­ing two su­per­visors with 16 years ex­per­i­ence, and CSB has lost an av­er­age of 2.5 in­vest­ig­at­ors since 2008. (Since the Over­sight re­port came out, at least two more staff mem­bers have left) A re­port from the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency in­spect­or gen­er­al on the CSB cited a 15 per­cent an­nu­al staff turnover rate and said that heavy de­mands and lim­ited re­sources could be be­hind the moves.

That, said CSB em­ploy­ees, has left a lack of ex­per­i­ence that has helped slow down case­work and burdened the seni­or staff. The tur­moil has grown so much, said one em­ploy­ee, that he felt CSB wouldn’t even hold up to its own scru­tiny.

“We ana­lyze the en­vir­on­ment and cul­ture in work­places “¦ for ques­tions like wheth­er em­ploy­ees are en­cour­aged to re­port prob­lems or bad news,” the em­ploy­ee said. “We’d be judging harshly a com­pany that op­er­ates in the same way CSB op­er­ates. It’s just hy­po­crit­ic­al.”


Moure-Era­so says he’s not deaf to the work­place chal­lenges and is work­ing hard to fix them. CSB con­vened an eight-mem­ber Work­force Im­prove­ment Com­mit­tee last Novem­ber that since met 13 times and has re­com­men­ded an out­side de­vel­op­ment con­sult­ant. It has been made per­man­ent with six vo­lun­teer mem­bers, ac­cord­ing to lead­er­ship. Al­though em­ploy­ees have charged that the im­prove­ment com­mit­tee is tooth­less and could be cor­rup­ted by man­age­ment, Moure-Era­so prom­ised it would be “an in­de­pend­ent voice.”

An out­side con­sult­ant was brought in to meet with staff and present a re­port on mor­ale im­prove­ment (a sort of “mar­riage coun­selor,” Moure-Era­so said). But he denies the al­leg­a­tions that he’s tamped down on the board or in­vest­ig­at­ive staff, say­ing he en­cour­ages open dis­cus­sion and has in­sti­tuted a “scop­ing” pro­cess that keeps status up­dates on re­ports more open. The com­plaints, he said, have more to do with de­bates on big ideas on how in­vest­ig­a­tions or re­com­mend­a­tions should go.

“The staff have very strong ideas about what the find­ings and the re­com­mend­a­tions are and at the end it has to come to a re­port and ul­ti­mately come to the board,” he said. “There are some people with very strong opin­ions and their opin­ions don’t carry the day.”

Man­age­ment has said that the turnover is nor­mal and that they have re­placed their losses with equally ex­per­i­enced hires (one new staffer had 33 years of in­dustry work). The board also has plans to hire five or six more in­vest­ig­at­ors in the next year and they’ve poin­ted out that re­ports are com­ing out at a faster pace, in­clud­ing one just weeks after the Over­sight hear­ing.

The big­ger ques­tion, however, is wheth­er the chaos is new or is part of CSB’s short his­tory. The non-reg­u­lat­ory agency was cre­ated in the 1990 Clean Air Act amend­ments and was seen as a coun­ter­part to the Oc­cu­pa­tion­al Safety and Health Ad­min­is­tra­tion, the Na­tion­al Trans­port­a­tion Safety Board, and oth­er in­vest­ig­at­ive bod­ies. But it took un­til 1998 for the board to be­come fully staffed up amid ques­tions about ex­ec­ut­ive over­sight.

The board’s first chair­man, Paul Hill, was al­leged to be guilty of some dic­tat­ori­al moves that over­stepped the oth­er board mem­bers, which promp­ted em­ploy­ees to seek guid­ance from the Justice De­part­ment Of­fice of Leg­al Coun­sel. The en­su­ing “Moss opin­ion” laid out a sys­tem where the chair­man is a “chief among equals” (a de­scrip­tion co­di­fied by a CSB board or­der) and must listen to the four oth­er board mem­bers when mak­ing de­cisions.

The small staff and tight $11 mil­lion budget for CSB has been cited as a reas­on for its in­vest­ig­at­ive back­log, but also con­trib­utes to the stressed en­vir­on­ment. Former board mem­ber Wark com­pared it to “a little chick­en al­ways get­ting pecked at” when politi­cians wanted an ac­ci­dent in their dis­trict ad­dressed. There’s even been talk among stake­hold­ers that it would be bet­ter off fol­ded in­to NTSB or OSHA.


For now, though, people in­side and out­side the agency are just won­der­ing how to fix the dim at­mo­sphere with­in. At June’s Over­sight Com­mit­tee hear­ing, Chair­man Issa called on Moure-Era­so to resign (“You really need to ask wheth­er or not in your last year, you can really undo the dam­age of your first five,” Issa said) and re­it­er­ated that in a let­ter to Pres­id­ent Obama.

Nobody ques­tions Moure-Era­so’s com­mit­ment to work­er safety, but they say his man­age­ment style leaves in doubt wheth­er CSB can up­hold that mis­sion.

An on­go­ing in­spect­or gen­er­al in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to the leaked iden­tity of whistle-blowers at CSB has com­plic­ated mat­ters — the IG said that CSB of­fi­cials were with­hold­ing doc­u­ments (man­age­ment had cited at­tor­ney-cli­ent priv­ilege) and is still re­view­ing a re­cent re­lease of emails to see if CSB has com­plied.

Two more nom­in­ees for the board are on hold in the Sen­ate un­til that dis­pute is re­solved. That leaves CSB in an un­usu­al po­s­i­tion — be­cause of rules about col­lu­sion, Moure-Era­so and Grif­fon, the sole re­main­ing board mem­ber, can’t be in the same room alone dis­cuss­ing of­fi­cial busi­ness.

There’s been no fol­low-up from either the White House or Con­gress, but dis­cus­sions about Moure-Era­so’s fu­ture are con­tinu­ing be­hind the scenes on Cap­it­ol Hill and among stake­hold­ers.

“I know that the re­fin­ing in­dustry be­lieves that a well-man­aged, pro­fes­sion­al, and re­spec­ted CSB can play a much needed role in en­han­cing work­er and com­munity safety,” said an in­dustry ex­ec­ut­ive work­ing with gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials on mat­ters re­lated to CSB. “To that end, we are in­tent on be­ing a con­struct­ive voice in help­ing to re-fo­cus the Agency to­ward its ori­gin­al mis­sion of provid­ing ob­ject­ive in­vest­ig­at­ive ana­lys­is of in­cid­ents free of any polit­ic­al agenda.”

But Moure-Era­so has said he won’t resign and is de­term­ined to close out the re­mainder of his term.

Former board mem­ber Rosen­berg said she’s con­fid­ent that the gov­ernance is­sues are “fix­able” and that she would like to see them be cor­rec­ted soon. Oth­ers aren’t so sure.

“People have asked me if I’d go back and I say you’d have to turn the whole thing up­side down,” said Wright, adding that he’d want board mem­bers to get hir­ing and fir­ing powers. “It’s sup­posed to be the pin­nacle of your ca­reer, but not when you’re mar­gin­al­ized and the staff can’t treat you with re­spect. I wouldn’t go back to that.”

What We're Following See More »
Multiple Deaths, Injuries from Van Attack in Barcelona
4 hours ago
Former Top Aide to McConnell Says GOPers Should Abandon Trump
4 hours ago
Trump Blasts Graham, Flake on Twitter
9 hours ago

As part of a twitter rant on Thursday morning, President Trump singled out Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham for criticism. He said Flake is "WEAK on borders, crime and a non-factor in Senate. He's toxic!" Trump also named Flake's primary challenger, Kelli Ward. He said Graham's contention that Trump suggested a moral equivalence between the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville and the counter-protesters is a "disgusting lie."

Trump Defends Confederate Statues in Tweetstorm
9 hours ago
Trump to End Business Councils
1 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.