for for 28 years many years ago had some major embarrassing screw ups (caused by managers who wanted to pre-determine the outcome of investigations). When the agency was publicly scolded, the answer from the brain trust that caused the kerfuffle was to change the name of the agency. Managers (unlike leaders) never want to take responsibility or blame.
After retiring from the federal govt, I worked for a state agency for a few years (Virginia State Bar). They had broad responsibilities in their mission. One of the missions was to promote the legal profession in the Commonwealth. The other mission was to protect citizens from malfeasance by member lawyers, and take appropriate action when a Virginia lawyer violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. They were required to publicly publish if any sanctions were issued. This dichotomy resulted in inherent conflicts of interest. Promoting the legal profession and/or publicly sanctioning members. In 1995, JLARC noted this inherent conflict of interest, but nothing changed.
The resultant conflicts has resulted in sanctions/non-sanctions being proscribed by who the attorney is (state legislator, powerful law firm, etc.) vice consistent application of the rules. And, when you do a Wikipedia search of the Virginia State Bar, you find that the Bar was established to silence/sanction Civil Rights attorneys during the Civil Rights movement.
I bring this up, because I do understand what your post meant. It makes me appreciate your posts even more, because I understand better what events helped form your posts.
Thanks for sharing!