Listening is a skill required bymost professions, but in journalism, it's essential.

Sometimes, listening means you change your mind.

This week, I changed my mind regarding discrimination at theCFPB.

I had good reason to doubt the April 2 hearing investigatingsuch claims would be worth our resources.

Congressional hearings, in my opinion, are primarily for show.Our elected officials express plenty of concern at hearings, andsometimes it's even genuine. But despite all the rhetoric, actionrarely follows a hearing.

Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House FinancialServices Committee, doesn't like the CFPB. Whenever he calls ahearing that focuses on the CFPB or secondary mortgage marketreform, his other pet project, you can guarantee it fits into hispolitical agenda.

That's part of the fun of being chairman.

Although I think it's disrespectful, even on polarized CapitolHill, to refuse to appear before Congress, I could understand whyCFPB officials were reluctant to appear, and why Democrats wantedthe hearing canceled.

After all, only one employee was willing to testify about thisallegedly systemic problem.

In litigious Southern California, where I’ve spent most of mycareer, unlawful termination suits are just part of the turnoverprocess. One suit does not a toxic work environment make.

Then I watched the hearing.

If just half of what the witness said was true, the CFPB does,indeed, have a big problem.

The witness, CFPB attorney Angela Martin, seemed genuine enoughto me. My B.S. radar, while not perfect, is pretty reliable. Andthe things she said were so inflammatory and extreme, if she lied,I’d think the CFPB would pursue legal action against her.

Even Ranking Member Maxine Waters, the Californian who led theDemocrats’ effort to cancel the hearing, admitted she appreciatedthe witness coming forward. Granted, Waters politicized thestatement, saying the witness’ claims underscored the need fordisparate impact. But as a 75-year-old black woman, I’m sure shehas experienced plenty of discrimination.

It was obvious she listened, too.

This week I also found myself seeing the home-based credit unionproposal in a new light. I’ve always been supportive of the NCUA'sefforts to provide a safe work environment for employees.

If examiners aren't allowed to use the restroom at somehome-based credit unions, and have been bitten by dogs, those arelegal and regulatory liabilities.

And if an examiner files an OSHA complaint or a lawsuit, guesswho gets to pay for it?

Credit unions, that's who.

In that respect, the rule is a good one overall for theindustry.

This week, I discussed the proposal with NCUA Chairman DebbieMatz. She also brought up budget considerations that got me tothinking.

Yes, Americans have the right to form cooperatives. But do theyhave the right to form their own private institution, when theycould easily get service elsewhere, and force the rest of theindustry to subsidize supervision costs?

It's the classic small credit union debate, but intensifiedhere.

Board Member Michael Fryzel suggested in a CU Timesletter to the editor that instead of evicting home-based creditunions, the NCUA should send two examiners into home-basedinstitutions to guarantee safety and shore up liability.

But I can't imagine that going over well in November when nextyear's operating budget is proposed.

Determining where the rights of the few infringe upon the rightsof the many is a difficult process; but, in this case, I’ve changedmy mind.

I think the NCUA is right.

All of the home-based credit unions we’ve interviewed said theirexaminers have never complained about work conditions, and they’regracious hosts. Perhaps the rule could be adjusted so that it'simplemented only if the credit union is unable or unwilling toprovide a safe work environment, or if credit union officialsaren't properly safeguarding sensitive data, or are unprofessionalto the point of being risky.

Some of those are subjective calls, so the rule would have to bewell-written. However, given the difficult regulatory topics theNCUA has tackled in the past five years, I have confidence they canhandle this one.

Heather Anderson is executive editor of CU Times. She can bereached at 202-370-4822 or [email protected].