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.  QUESTIONS:

Q1:
1. What did the just published report discuss?
2. What was the subject of the recent report?
3. 
Q2:
1. Was the report part of a large batch released?
2. Was an enornmous amount of information given out with the report?
3. 
Q3:
1. When was the report conducted?
2. In what year was the report information gathered?
3. 
Q4:
1. What situation did the report described?
2. What was the situation in the report called?
3. 
Q5:
1. Who defended the Treasury Department?
2. Who came to the defense of the Treasure Department?
3. 
Q6:
1. Who was Eric Thorson?
2. What was Eric Thorson's title?
3. 
Q7:
1. What is Eric Thorson's job?
2. What does Eric Thorson do as Inspector General?
3. 
Q8:
1. Did Eric Thorson consider the reports to be good or bad?
2. Did the reports give a good or bad impression overall of the Treasury Department?
3. 
Q9:
1. What was good about the reports?
2. Why did Eric Thorson consider the reports to be a good reflection on the agency?
3. 
Q10:
1. What did Eric Thorson think about the Treasury Department?
2. What was Eric Thorson's opinion of the Treasury Department?
3. 
Q11:
1. Did Michael Smallberg have an opinion of the report?
2. Did Michael Smallberg have any thoughts regarding the Treasury Department?
3. 
Q12:
1. What was one of Michael Smallberg's thoughts on the Treasury Deparment?
2. What was one belief Michael Smallberg had regarding the Treasury Department?
3. 
