This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/new-leadership-cfpb-name.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Under New Leadership, the C.F.P.B. Lives On Under New Leadership, the C.F.P.B. Lives On
(about 11 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may have seen many of its powers curtailed under the Trump administration, but the embattled agency is at least getting to keep its old name.WASHINGTON — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may have seen many of its powers curtailed under the Trump administration, but the embattled agency is at least getting to keep its old name.
In one of her first acts, Kathleen Kraninger, the agency’s newly-confirmed director, reversed a controversial move by her predecessor to rename the C.F.P.B. as the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection — which would have given it an even more awkward acronym: B.C.F.P. In one of her first acts, Kathleen Kraninger, the agency’s newly confirmed director, reversed a controversial move by her predecessor to rename the C.F.P.B. as the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection — which would have given it an even more awkward acronym: B.C.F.P.
The decision, which was announced in an email to the bureau’s staff on Wednesday, was something of an olive branch to career staff who have at times felt under siege by the efforts of Mick Mulvaney, the former acting director, to roll back regulations at an agency whose very existence he questioned.The decision, which was announced in an email to the bureau’s staff on Wednesday, was something of an olive branch to career staff who have at times felt under siege by the efforts of Mick Mulvaney, the former acting director, to roll back regulations at an agency whose very existence he questioned.
Mr. Mulvaney had said he was renaming the bureau to correspond with the legal statute creating the agency, which referred to it as the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. But consumer advocates, Democratic lawmakers and other critics said it was a simply a way to further neuter the agency’s stature.Mr. Mulvaney had said he was renaming the bureau to correspond with the legal statute creating the agency, which referred to it as the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. But consumer advocates, Democratic lawmakers and other critics said it was a simply a way to further neuter the agency’s stature.
“We have a legal name but will be using our colloquial name and the branded acronym 'CFPB,' Ms. Kraninger said in the email, which was provided to The New York Times by a bureau spokesman. “Many of us have legal names but use nicknames without much confusion.”“We have a legal name but will be using our colloquial name and the branded acronym 'CFPB,' Ms. Kraninger said in the email, which was provided to The New York Times by a bureau spokesman. “Many of us have legal names but use nicknames without much confusion.”
She added: “I believe this decision is most efficient and effective for our continued work together.”She added: “I believe this decision is most efficient and effective for our continued work together.”
The consumer bureau was created during the Obama administration under the Dodd-Frank Act and many Republicans have accused it of regulatory overreach. When Mr. Mulvaney took over as acting director from Richard Cordray last year, he put a freeze on much of the agency’s enforcement activity and, to the chagrin of much of its career staff, decided to rebrand it.The consumer bureau was created during the Obama administration under the Dodd-Frank Act and many Republicans have accused it of regulatory overreach. When Mr. Mulvaney took over as acting director from Richard Cordray last year, he put a freeze on much of the agency’s enforcement activity and, to the chagrin of much of its career staff, decided to rebrand it.
“We changed the name because it’s the name in the statute,” Mr. Mulvaney told reporters at the agency’s offices last June. “If your whole theme is going to be to follow the statute, I thought it was a good, small way, but a very visible way, to send a message.”“We changed the name because it’s the name in the statute,” Mr. Mulvaney told reporters at the agency’s offices last June. “If your whole theme is going to be to follow the statute, I thought it was a good, small way, but a very visible way, to send a message.”
As part of Mr. Mulvaney’s directive, the letters on the bureau’s offices were reshuffled to read B.C.F.P. and he was in the process of reformatting stationary and other materials to make the change official. According to an internal analysis, which was first reported by The Hill, the costs of these changes to the companies regulated by the bureau could reach $300 million. As part of Mr. Mulvaney’s directive, the letters on the bureau’s offices were reshuffled to read B.C.F.P. and he was in the process of reformatting stationery and other materials to make the change official. According to an internal analysis, which was first reported by The Hill, the costs of these changes to the companies regulated by the bureau could reach $300 million.
Ms. Kraninger, who was confirmed earlier this month, said in her memo to the staff that the bureau would continue to use its formal name and official seal for legal filings and reports.Ms. Kraninger, who was confirmed earlier this month, said in her memo to the staff that the bureau would continue to use its formal name and official seal for legal filings and reports.
The decision was cheered by some of Mr. Mulvaney’s fiercest critics, and offered some hope to who feared that Ms. Kraninger would continue to follow the lead of her predecessor, who is now Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff.The decision was cheered by some of Mr. Mulvaney’s fiercest critics, and offered some hope to who feared that Ms. Kraninger would continue to follow the lead of her predecessor, who is now Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff.
“Mick Mulvaney’s silly, wasteful, and confusing fight to change the C.F.P.B.’s name was little more than a petty ploy to undermine the bureau’s hard-won reputation as a champion for consumers,” said Karl Frisch, executive director of Allied Progress, a progressive group. “Kathy Kraninger was right to fix Mulvaney’s name change disaster.”“Mick Mulvaney’s silly, wasteful, and confusing fight to change the C.F.P.B.’s name was little more than a petty ploy to undermine the bureau’s hard-won reputation as a champion for consumers,” said Karl Frisch, executive director of Allied Progress, a progressive group. “Kathy Kraninger was right to fix Mulvaney’s name change disaster.”
John Czwartacki, a spokesman at the bureau, said he was not sure whether Mr. Mulvaney was disappointed by the decision. He said it was also unclear when the logo on the building would be changed back to C.F.P.B.John Czwartacki, a spokesman at the bureau, said he was not sure whether Mr. Mulvaney was disappointed by the decision. He said it was also unclear when the logo on the building would be changed back to C.F.P.B.
While Mr. Mulvaney proudly touted the name change this year, Mr. Czwartacki, his longtime aide, suggested that reverting to the bureau’s “street name” was not a big deal.While Mr. Mulvaney proudly touted the name change this year, Mr. Czwartacki, his longtime aide, suggested that reverting to the bureau’s “street name” was not a big deal.
“Everyone should just chill,” he said. “We’re trying to be chill about it.”“Everyone should just chill,” he said. “We’re trying to be chill about it.”