Problem: A recent Treasury Department report of misconduct by a banking regulator is giving watchdogs some ammunition to argue that financial regulators are too cozy with the banks they are tasked with overseeing.

The report, part of a small batch just released by the department's inspector-general, says that a government employee in Florida who served as a bank examiner accepted "gratuities (golf fees and/or food) on at least four occasions" from a bank he was reviewing. The report, conducted in 2010, called the situation a "conflict of interest" for the employee, who worked at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

"You have a government employee, during a time when he has a special responsibility to oversee this bank, actually taking time from work and going to play golf with these folks," said Michael Smallberg, a researcher with the Project on Government Oversight. "It was a pretty striking example of a government employee actually cozying up to the folks he's supposed to be regulating."

But Inspector-General Eric Thorson, who polices the Treasury Department and released the files, defended the agency.

"These investigative reports are good examples of the fact that the department has been successful in demonstrating that there is little toleration for individual misconduct."

"My opinion is that Treasury has an institutional highly ethical culture," he added.

But Smallberg is still critical. "When folks wonder why regulators didn't do a better job of stopping the financial crisis, or they're wondering why OCC didn't spot the huge trading loss at JP Morgan earlier this year, I think part of the issue is just that the examiners were just too close to the folks they were supposed to be examining," he said.
1. What was the recent report about?
2. Was this a big batch?
3. When was the report?
4. What was it called?
5. Who took up for the agency?
6. Who was he?
7. What does he do?
8. Where these reports bad or good?
9. How were they good?
10. What was Thorsons thoughts on the Treasury?
11. Did Smallberg have any thoughts?
12. What was one of his thoughts?
Answer: 1. Misconduct by a banking regulator
2. No
3. 2010
4. A "conflict of interest" for the employee
5. Eric Thorson
6. Inspector-General
7. Polices the Treasury Department
8. Good
9. They are good examples that there is little toleration for individual misconduct.
10. It has an institutional highly ethical culture.
11. Yes
12. That the examiners were just too close to the folks they were supposed to be examining

Problem: New York (CNN) -- A federal judge has ordered that an official monitor be put in place to prevent discrimination in the hiring of New York City firefighters.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis said the city needs "to comprehensively reassess its policies and practices, to analyze the evidence showing the effect of those policies and practices, and to rationally consider how they can be changed to achieve a firefighter hiring process that is -- in actual practice and effect -- fair and open to all."

The order requires the city to take remedial steps to fix discriminatory hiring practices and puts the court monitor in place for at least the next 10 years to make sure those steps are taken.

Garaufis cited "the clear evidence of disparate impact that Mayor (Michael) Bloomberg and his senior leadership chose to ignore was obvious to anyone else who looked."

"Instead of facing hard facts and asking hard questions about the City's abysmal track record of hiring black and Hispanic firefighters, the Bloomberg Administration dug in and fought back," the judge said in his ruling.

Mark LaVorgna, a spokesman for the mayor, said the city intends to appeal the decision.

Litigation against the city's firefighter hiring practices began in 2007, when the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint alleging the Fire Department of New York's hiring exams negatively affected black and Hispanic applicants.

"Four years of litigation and two adverse liability rulings later, the City still doesn't get it," Garaufis said. "The City's senior leaders have routinely denied that they are responsible or doing anything to remedy nearly forty years of discrimination."
1. Who is the mayor of New York?
2. What is his first name?
3. Who works for the mayor?
4. What did he say?
5. What specifically?
6. Of what?
7. For what jurisdiction?
8. Who decided this?
9. What is he?
10. How long will the changes need to last?
11. Why?
12. What did he reference?
Answer: 1. Bloomberg
2. Michael
3. Mark LaVorgna
4. Tthe city intends to appeal the decision
5. That an official monitor be put in place to prevent discrimination
6. The hiring of firefighters
7. New York City
8. Judge Nicholas Garaufis
9. A federal judge
10. At least the next 10
11. To make sure those steps are taken to prevent discrimination.
12. The clear evidence that Mayo Bloomberg chose to ignore this issue

Problem: CHAPTER VII

THE SIN OF VROUW BOTMAR

When the meat was cleared away I bade Suzanne go to bed, which she did most unwillingly, for knowing the errand of these men she wished to hear our talk. As soon as she was gone I took a seat so that the light of the candles left my face in shadow and fell full on those of the three men--a wise thing to do if one is wicked enough to intend to tell lies about any matter--and said:

"Now, here I am at your service; be pleased to set out the business that you have in hand."

Then they began, the lawyer, speaking through the interpreter, asking, "Are you the Vrouw Botmar?"

"That is my name."

"Where is your husband, Jan Botmar?"

"Somewhere on the veldt; I do not know where."

"Will he be back to-morrow?"

"No."

"When will he be back?"

"Perhaps in two months, perhaps in three, I cannot tell."

At this they consulted together, and then went on:

"Have you living with you a young Englishman named Ralph Mackenzie?"

"One named Ralph Kenzie lives with us."

"Where is he?"

"With my husband on the veldt. I do not know where."

"Can you find him?"

"No, the veldt is very wide. If you wish to see him you must wait till he comes back."

"When will that be?"

"I am not his nurse and cannot tell; perhaps in three months, perhaps six."

Now again they consulted, and once more went on:
1. Who was sitting in the light?
2. Who were they speaking to?
3. What did the men want to know?
4. Were they policeman?
5. Who spoke for him?
6. Did Vrouw intend to tell the truth?
7. Where did she say he was?
8. And returning when?
9. Who had she sent away earlier?
10. Where to?
11. Did she want to go?
12. Who else lives in the home?
13. Had the men asked about him?
14. Did they use the same surname?
15. Where did she claim he was?
16. With Jan?
17. Did they go to find him?
18. Why was it not possible?
19. Is she his nurse?
20. So what must the men do to see him?
Answer:
1. Vrouw Botmar?"
2. three men
3. Where is Jan Botma
4. One is a lawyer
5. the interpreter
6. no
7. Somewhere on the veldt
8. Perhaps in two months, perhaps in three
9. Suzanne
10. to bed
11. no
12. Ralph Kenzie
13. Possibly the same
14. No
15. on the veldt.
16. yes
17. no
18. the veldt is very wide.
19. no
20. wait till he comes back