Banishment and Slander

A PRESIDENT MIRED 

IN ISSUES

Few who have come to know Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. could ever deny that he is a man of who loves indulging in conversations about himself though his subjects of conversation are often extremely limited and rarely related to business. His three favorite topics are his alleged sexual prowess, his uncommon and superior intellect, and what he sincerely believes is his seemingly impeccable character. He loves expounding unendingly about his high standards which apparently, no one can live up to. If one were to choose to believe what he says at face value, then Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. is indeed superior and more evolved than most people. .

During meetings with managers, he often states that employees who fail to attain his stipulated performance standards will not receive raises. No doubt, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. is a harsh taskmaster though ironically, he is the one person at the credit union who is most incapable of satisfying his own lofty standards. .

The President demonstrates a chronic and insatiable proclivity to judge and condemn others. In July 2008, he was suspended following accusations by a former employee, that he sexually harassed her for a period of several years. During what would be an 8-week suspension, his son Charles "Chuckie" Wiggington, Jr. temporarily worked at the credit union's main branch in South Pasadena along with other high school aged children of employees, who were hired to empty and box member files kept in the credit union's storage room. Each day, Chuckie would loudly tell his co-workers that his father wanted nothing to do with the employees of the credit union who according to Chuckie, were "untrustworthy", "back stabbers" and "low class." Evidently, Chuckie shares the same insatiable proclivity to gossip as does his father. 

Following an almost 8-week suspension, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was found guilty of sexual harassment. Despite what could have been a humbling experience, he returned to work unchanged, loudly proclaiming that he intended to go after the people who provided an investigator statements that attested that the President had indeed, sexually harassed a former female employee. 

Despite the evidence presented by the investigator, Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, Directors, O. Glen Saffold and Thomas Gathers, and Supervisory Committee Chair, Cornelia Simmons, all voted for the President's reinstatement. Their vote over-ruled the two dissenting votes from Directors, Janice Irving and Joe Marchica, that urged the President's termination. 

In the days following his reinstatement, the President told Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, and CFO, Manny Gaitmaitan, that he knew for a fact that some of his staff were "out to get him" because this unnamed group of conspirators were envious and jealous that he had been appointed president. He tried in earnest to convince the two officers that this group of rebels were trying to undermine his authority and attempting to commit subterfuge to destroy the credit union. Within a few weeks following his reinstatement, his accusations were being echoed by Human Resources "clerk", Esmeralda Sandoval who threatened employees who discussed this blog while at work and who said "they are trying to destroy the credit union.:" So is Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. the victim of a network of secret conspirators or is he the real conspirator who has slandered employees, injured employee morale and injured the credit union's relationship with its members? 

THE VICTIMIZATION OF THE MARKETING DIRECTOR

Maggie Rios, had been employed by the credit union for sixteen and a half years. More than thirteen of those years were spent serving in the capacity of Marketing Director. 

In October 2006, immediately following the Board's announcement that then Vice President of Operations, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., would succeed William E. Harris as President and CEO of the then successful and growing credit union, the Vice President of Operations
told the then Lending Director, Aaron Cavazos; Rodger Smock the then VP of Human Resources; Liz Campos the then Burbank Branch Manager; Georgina Duenas the Consumer Lead Loan Teller; and Gema Pleitez, the South Pasadena Branch Manager, that 
he intended on terminating all of "Harris' people" including Maggie Rios. Mrs. Rios confronted the Vice President as soon as she learned about what he had said and he adamantly denied that he planned on terminating her and assured her that her employment was secure and would remain unchanged. 

On January 1, 2007, Mr. Wiggington, Sr. became the new President and CEO of Priority One and on January 4, 2007, he conducted several meetings with staff at the South Pasadena branch, informing them of the changes he was implementing to the credit union's corporate structure. During each meeting, he distributed flow charts delineating what he described as "corporate restructuring." Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. had been employed for 16 years on the date he assumed the role as President, yet apparently he seemed glib to the fact that Priority One is not a corporation. 

In the chart he distributed, Maggie Rios had been demoted and was to report director to the new AVP of Lending, Aaron Cavazos despite the fact Mr. Cavazos had no experience or education in anything related to marketing. Furthermore, many employees were surprised by her reassignment because it was widely known that Mr. Cavazos held Mrs. Rios in disdain and had spent years disparaging her reputation to his staff in the Loan Department. 

Two weeks following Mr. Wiggington's appointment to President, Mr. Cavazos informed Mrs. Rios that she was being stripped of her title of Director of Marketing and would from thereon serve in the capacity of Marketing Coordinator. She was also informed that President Wiggington had decided to eliminate the Marketing Department and replace it instead, with a marketing committee that would be headed by the wholly unqualified, Mr. Cavazos. Mrs. Rios would begin serving as a member of the marketing committee who would select as a group, language and graphics for impending promotions. Mrs. Rios was also informed that she was prohibited from conferring with the credit union's contracted marketing agency, Andamahr and Company or with vendors, even those with whom she had established long standing relationships. Mr. Cavazos explained that  only he, Patti Loiacano, the Assistant to the Director of Lending or Georgina Duenas, the Lead Consumer Loan Officer, would be authorized to speak to the marketing agency and all vendors. 

A few days later, Mr. Cavazos informed Mrs. Rios that she must vacate her executive office which Mr. Wiggington, Sr. had reassigned to Mr. Cavazos. He explained that due to a lack
of space in the so-called, "executive sector, she would have to relocate her desk to the back of the corporate offices where the dusty old file room and business development department were located. Though that area was recently remodeled, on the day Mrs. Rios relocated to that wing, the area contained dust covered desks piled by documents and files from the DMV and Card Services departments. The carpets were old and stained and hadn't been cleaned in years and the area was strewn with old metal filing cabinets that were haphazardly placed on one side of the room.

Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s order to relocate Mrs. Rios to the back offices was an act of vengeance and a way to strike out at his predecessor. His intent was to humiliate Mrs. Rios so that she would voluntarily resign. However, his efforts were enabled with the help of Rodger Smock, Aaron Cavazos, Esmeralda Sandoval, and Georgina Duenas. However, the President's vindictive act was short-lived. Several employees stepped forward and complained, labeling his decision unconscionable and prompting the President to reverse his decision and instead, return Mrs. Rios to the executive wing where he assigned her a desk located just outside her former office. 

Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s elimination of the Marketing Department was an elaborate and quite frankly, an emotionally driven ploy by which to oust the people who had once loyally served his former President, William E. Harris. A portion of the evidence to this lies in the fact that he replaced a prize-winning Marketing Director and its highly experienced Director, with a marketing committee populated by staff who had absolutely no experience with anything related to marketing. Furthermore, the committee's only task was consigned to selecting graphics and language for planned promotions. Thank, unbeknownst to President Wiggington is advertising not marketing. Marketing requires a knowledge needed to study one’s marketplace which entails knowing how to obtain data from your market. None of the members of the committee can do this because quite simply, they don't possess the abilitiy to do so. 

What's also interesting is that one of the committee's members, Georgina Duenas, the Lead Consumer Loan Officer, has been the subject of numerous employee complaints regarding her apparent chronic violation of Priority One's policies. Fortunately, for Mrs. Duenas, Aaron Cavazos and Rodger Smock, have protected her and excluded her from disciplinary actions described under credit union policy. 

A few weeks after being informed she was being demoted to the position of Marketing Coordinator, Mrs. Rios was called to the office of Rodger Smock who continues to oversee Human Resources. Aaron Cavazos was also present in the meeting during which she was informed that her salary would soon be reduced. Mr. Smock explained that a Marketing Coordinator is not paid as much as a Marketing Director and that once he completed his research, her salary would be adjusted and reduced. 

When some of the board learned of what Mr. Wiggington, Sr. had ordered, they again contacted him and protested his plan to reduce Mrs. Rios salary. Mr. Wiggington, Sr. quickly rescinded his plan and assured the board her salary would not be reduced. Rodger later spoke to Mrs. Rios and said that Mr. Wiggington, Sr. had ordered that her salary not be reduced.

Again, when advised of what Mr. Wiggington, Sr. planned to do, some members of the board contacted him and lodged complaint against his intended action. Mr. Wiggington, Sr. thereafter ordered that her salary not be reduced.

A few days later, Maggie Rios overheard a representative of the Human Resources Department, whose desk was located directly behind her own, tell someone on the phone that Mrs. Rios was being removed from her exempt status and would from hereon, be required to clock-in and out like all other non-exempt employees. After overhearing the comments, she spoke to Rodger Smock who asked if Aaron Cavazos had spoken to her about her change in status. When she informed him that he hadn't and that she had overheard the comments from another employee, Rodger stated that Aaron should have spoken to her. A short time later, Aaron apologized, explaining that he forgot to speak to her and confirmed that she was being stripped of her exempt status.

A few days later, Rodger Smock called Maggie Rios to his office though time she to inform her that after careful review and due to the implementation of the new Marketing Committee, her services were no longer needed. She was immediately laid-off and asked to clean out her desk.

The campaign against Mrs. Rios was obvious. The intent appears to have been, to drive her away and possibly force her to resign. The efforts by Mr. Wiggington, Sr. and Mr. Cavazos, were intended to belittle and humiliate her and reduce her self-confidence and to make her feel unwanted. The severance of employment which Mr. Wiggington, Sr. describes as a lay-off was done without any intent of ever recalling Mrs. Rios to the credit union. The termination also occurred after it became apparent that Mrs. Rios could not be forced to resign.

Did Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., the man who now purports to be a victim of embittered employees, have to demote Mrs. Rios, move her out of her former office, attempt to reduce her pay, and remove her from exempt status only to finally terminate her employment of 16 1/2 years? And so, after tremendous abuse and belittlement, Mrs. Rios’ was terminated despite the overwhelming fact that in October 2006, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. verbally assured her that she would not be terminated once he became president and her job was secure. I guess as Mr. Wiggington, Sr. would say, he was “out to get” her… and he did.

In April 2008, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. entered the Loan department and sat down on a love seat located alongside the desk which at the time, was assigned to the VISA Specialist, Suzanne Sunada. Languishing comfortably, with his legs outstretched, Mr. Wiggington, Sr. spoke loudly in the presence of the entire Loan Department staff, stating that he terminated Maggie Rios because she wrote an anonymous letter to former Board Member, David Davidson, exposing Liz Campos, the former AVP, of kiting, which is a FEDERAL offense.

Continuing, he said that the exposure “forced” him to audit Mrs. Campos’s account records and later, terminated her employment by order of William Adler, the credit union attorney.

Doesn’t it seem odd that in his own words, he terminated Mrs. Rios for allegedly exposing Liz Campos of kiting, though the exposure came in the form of an unsigned letter mailed to former board member, David L. Davidson. What is the evidentiary foundation which helped Mr. Wiggington, Sr. conclude that Mrs. Rios wrote the letter mailed to Mr. Davidson? There is none. His conclusion is nothing more than unbased conjecture.

If Mr. Wiggington, Sr. terminated Mrs. Rios because she allegedly exposed Liz Campos of kiting, then his actions violate state and federal statutes which protect employees who expose wrong doing, from retaliation. Whistle blowers are protected by state law thus making it illegal to retaliate against any person who exposes wrongdoing in a company.

Based on Mr. Wiggington, Sr.'s own words and actions, he terminated Maggie Rios because she was one of "Harris' people"; "because she allegedly exposed Liz Campos of violating federal law; and because he was not going to allow her to tell him what to do." None of his reasons support his later excuse to Diedra Harris-Brooks, that Maggie was terminated because of his "new vision" for the credit union. So based solely on his own words, Mrs. Rios was terminated as an act of vengeance. But wait! Isn't this what he alleges some unnamed group of credit union employees is doing to him? Hypocrisy, I dare say.

On 12/28/07, Mr. Wiggington, Sr. called Susan Sunada and Patti Loiacano to his office. During the brief meeting which followed he attributed his appointment to his avarice and cunning. He loudly exclaimed, "I played the game and won" and "I beat the others." And the board thought they selected him because of his alleged abilities and knowledge. His statement also reveals that he believes he somehow manipulated the board.

During this same conversation, he described Mrs. Rios as "The one who complained isn't here anymore. Do you see her?" The latter is a reference to her termination.

During the meeting, the 50-some year old Mr. Wiggington, Sr., described Mr. Harris as "old school" and accused his predecessor of having been jealous of Mr. Wiggington, Sr.'s plans to change the way Priority One conducts business.

He also described the merger with Inland Counties Postal Credit Union as orchestrated by Mr. Harris, as a "bad move" and which as a result, he forced him to spend "many months” cleaning up Mr. Harris' mess."

He also told the two women that he took PEMCO from Lynnette Fortson, the AVP overseeing the LAPDC branch but reinstated it soon thereafter, to "keep her mouth shut because its more trouble than it is worth."

Charles proceeded to tell Suzanne that after being promoted to Assistant Vice President, Liz Campos visited his office and told him she felt that Maggie Rios, who had been demoted, was “out to get her.” He told Suzanne that Maggie never liked Liz (though it was Maggie’s recommendation which resulted in Liz’s promotion to Branch Manager of Priority One’s Burbank branch).

One other conspicuous fact is that Charles' willingly and knowingly chose to violate the rules governing confidentiality at Priority One. There is no justifiable reason why he disclosed what he did to Mrs. Sunada and Mrs. Loiacano or why he verbalized his comments in the presence of the employees of the Loan Department.

In July 2008, Attorney William Adler received an anonymous letter alleging wrong doing committed by Mr. Wiggington, Sr. Mr. Adler contacted Diedra Harris-Brooks who afterwards, called Mr. Wiggington, Sr. at his office. When advised about some of the contents contained in the letter, Mr. Wiggington, Sr. exclaimed that he terminated Maggie Rios because of his "new vision" for the Marketing Department. His statement to Mrs. Harris-Brooks contradicts his other statements describing the reasons why he terminated Mrs. Rios. Based on what are a variety of reasons verbalized by the President, Mrs. Rios was actually terminated for one of the following reasons:   

1. Mrs. Rios allegedly wrote an anonymous letter exposing Liz Campos of kiting.
2. While Mr. Harris was President, Maggie allegedly told Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. what to do and he was not going to tolerate this after becoming president.
3. Mr. Wiggingon, Sr. had new plans for the Marketing Department (which included replacing Mrs. Rios, an experienced Marketing Director, with a committee whose members had no prior experience or education in marketing).
4. None of the above.
5. All of the above.

In July 2008, Maggie Rios mailed a letter to attorney, William Adler. The letter, sent via Certified Mail, made reference to several acts committed by Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. while she was an employee of Priority One. It must be noted that Mr. Adler nor any member of the board or Supervisory Committee has ever responded to Mrs. Rios. The refusal to respond to her letter reveals much about the character (or lack of character) of Priority One's attorney, members of the Board, and the Supervisory Committee. Though each has a judiciary responsibility to members and employees, they have instead opted to contribute to the perpetuation of Mr. Wiggington, Sr.'s acts by ignoring, circumventing, and squashing the facts- many of which prove overt violations of credit union policy and the state and Federal law.

Someone might argue that the board was objective and its intents evidenced by their hiring of an investigator who interviewed several credit union employees to determine if sexual harassment had actually been committed by Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. Yes, one could argue intent, but REMEMBER, Diedra Harris-Brooks, the chairperson and board members O. Glen Saffold and Thomas Gathers as well as Supervisor Committee member, Cornelia Simmons, all fought- and fought they did, to reinstate Mr. Wiggington, Sr. The magnitude of their efforts is measured by their unbridled squashing of the evidence whose importance was diminished to fit their revamped interpretation of what actually constitutes sexual harassment under federal law. Recall what I wrote in a previous post, this is preserving the status quo. What's more, if the evidence was in fact unsubstantial in proving sexual harassment, why then did the board later offer former employee and victim, Kim Burke, $20,000.00 to settle the complaint she filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing?

Evidently dredging out the truth to ensure the credit union comports itself commensurate to the highest ideals and ethical standards of the credit union industry is unimportant at Priority One Credit Union or at least to some of its shameful and embarrassing board. Here are two excerpts taken from Mrs. Rios' letter written to attorney, William Adler:

Liz Campos: Exposing an AVP of kiting

May I suggest you also re-audit Liz Campos’ records. I am not sure if your initial audit delved into who actually approved the overdrafts which kept Liz from incurring NSF fees. You will discover upon closer inspection that though Charles was not yet the president or CEO, he was the only person who could approve or deny overdrafts for checks written by employees of the credit union which were later returned due to insufficient funds. It was he, alone, who approved the overdraft for each bad check deposited by Liz. How then, can he claim that he had no involvement in the incidents involving Liz’s checks?

Furthermore knowing she had written numerous bad checks and having, himself, approved the overdrafts, he proceeded in promoting her to the position of AVP. I guess her rather extensive record of bounced checks was insufficient evidence to deter him from promoting her. You can also check Human Resources records to verify that Liz was once under my supervision, when she worked as a Business Development Representative of the company. At that time, Charles was aware that she was bouncing checks. In fact, I counseled her about the NSF activity on her account and reminded her that if the problem remained uncorrected, she could be written-up, suspended, or even terminated. Her habit of writing bad checks was not a new development and one Charles was fully aware of long before he was appointed president of Priority One. As I stated previously, while he served as VP of Operations, he was the one who reviewed all reports for NSF activity on employee accounts. Let me be so frank as to add, that any denial by Charles is an outright lie!

Ballot Mailing: Member account & Social Security Numbers Printed on the outside of envelopes containing election ballots.

In 2008 The Board of Directors Election Ballots Contrary to what Charles may allege, he alone is responsible for the incident which occurred in 2007, when ballots for the upcoming Board of Directors elections were mailed out with the account and social security number of our members printed on the outside of the envelopes. He created that debacle when he disregarded the safeguards implemented by Mr. Harris which required that a group of the envelopes be reviewed prior to their mailing, to ascertain that there were no errors. Charles chose not to review any of the envelopes and thus violated security protocols. Of course as is typical of Charles, he found a scapegoat in Alan Santos, who took the fall for what Charles created.

Evidently, from Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s perspective, slandering and abusing people is justified while letters mailed to attorney, William Adler, exposing him of sexual harassment and other improprieties are not. Another undeniable fact is that in the history of Priority One Credit Union, allegations of sexual harassment have never been filed by some unnamed group of embittered and jealous employees against any other president. So is Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. victim or a perpetrator? Does his reasoning seem sound or logical; or is this merely behavior characteristic of people who lack understanding of what is moral, ethical and good and who believe the world circulates about their every whim?

Rationalization is a wonderful tool. It can help preserve and protect through subconscious denial, one's sanity.

If it Walks, Sounds, or Talks like Racism, it Probably Is

SEGREGATION

In October 2006, Priority One's Board of Directors announced that they'd selected then Vice President of Operations, Charles R. Wiggington,. Sr., as successor to William E. Harris who was slated to retire on December 31, 2006. 

Many employees, including managers, and vendors were surprised that he Board had decided to select Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. as the next President because he was widely known for being brash, uncouth and immensely lazy. So why did the Board choose the President above other more qualified candidates? 

In the days following the Board's announcement Directors O. Glen Saffold, Thomas Gathers, and Janice Irving each admitted that their reason for selecting Mr. Wiggington was skin color. Two of the Directors stated, "Priority One needs a Black CEO" and "I want a Black man to head the credit union." Interesting that competency and a proven history of accomplishments were Trumped by pigmentation.

Priority One Credit Union was founded in 1926 by a group of, dare we say, "White" United States Postal carriers. Over the years, as a result of hiring more and more minorities, the United States Postal Service's ("postal service") demographics changed which in turn, changed the credit union demographical make-up. This should not be construed to imply that there are no longer White members at the credit union. Priority One's membership is extremely diverse, comprised of Asians, Blacks, Hispanics and Whites. Thus, the statement that Priority One needed a Black President is absurd, ignorant and smacks of racism. Apparently, based on Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s failures, he was not selected based on anything else other than his skin color. 

The reason for choosing the Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. to serve as President is also the antithesis of changes occurring in our nations. Recently, the U.S. welcomed its first Afro-American President whose mother is White. What the Board did when it chose Charles R. Wiggington., Sr. to serve as President is what is sometimes referred to as "reverse discrimination." 

 BLACK BIAS

Periodically, Board Director, O. Glen Saffold will talk about convicted felon, O.J. Simpson, asserting that Mr. Simpson was the victim of the "White man." He insists that all of the evidence was concocted and use to intentionally implicate Mr. Simpson in the crime which has now resulted in his conviction. 

It's interesting that Mr. Saffold, a Director, has found it appropriate at times to express his opinion about the "White man" while visiting the credit union. Maybe Mr. Saffold's bias which blinds him from accepting that Mr. Simpson was convicted because of evidence is the same bias he held in 2008, when he intentionally ignored real evidence proving Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. sexually harassed a former employee and why in spite of the evidence, voted to reinstate the President. Mr. Saffold seems to be unaware that the industry's credo is "People helping people" not "Black people helping Black people." 

Currently, Priority One's Board is comprised of all but one Latino Director. Would Charles r. Wiggington, Sr. have been reinstated had the Board been comprised of Asian, Latin, and White Directors? 

WHITE IS ALSO A COLOR

In 2007, there were two "White" Directors on Priority One's Board. They were, Rob Shipp and David L. Davidson. The two often disagreed with the course of business set by Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks. In fact, Mrs. Brooks created a clique within the Board and as a resulting in division and segregation. Through her clique, Mrs. Harris-Brooks succeeded in pushing her personal agendas and drowning out voices of the Board's White Directors. 

In time, Mr. Shipp and Mr. Davidson resigned and after leaving, described their frustration because the male, Black Directors were all subservient to Mrs. Harris-Brooks and it was quite apparent, that the Board Chair and her cronies did not want the White Directors on the Board. 

The Board Chair takes tremendous pride in the fact that she serves on the Board of Directors, actually that she possesses the title of Chairperson. Realistically, Mrs. Harris-Brooks and for that matter, the other Directors could never obtain paid employment on the Board of any bank. They lack knowledge of finances, always relying on President Wiggington to interpret financial reports. Under Mrs. Harris-Brooks' leadership, the conduct of the Board has been continually deplorable. Here are some of the acts sanctioned by the Board which have contributed to Priority One's decline:

• In 2007, they allowed the President to escape all disciplinary actions when he refused to abide to security protocols which resulted in the mailing of ballots in envelopes on whose exterior were printed member account and social security numbers. 

• Under this leadership, the amount of Net Income has decreased in the millions of dollars. 

• Last year, he chose and using credit union monies, purchased a $600,000 phone system which has been immersed in technical difficulties. What's more, the credit union has incurred added expenses paying for technicians to visit the credit union several times each month to try and resolve the problems caused by the system.

• Last year a detective from EXTTI, Inc. presented the Board and one Supervisor evidence that Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. had indeed sexually harassed a former employee. The investigator also recommended termination of the President. Mrs. Harris-Brooks led Directors, O. Glen Saffold and Thomas Gathers and Supervisory Chair, Cornelia Simmons, to vote for the President's reinstatement. 

 The Board is led by a Chair who is a complete failure in carrying out her appointed responsibilities in a competent, effective and objective manner. She has, however, succedeed in creating a comfortable niche in which she dons a title that she could never have gotten at any other business and dispenses her decisions knowing that she has the full alliance of a group of Directors who are wholly useless and who lack the understanding to help oversee the credit union's operation. 

It's important to note that Mrs. Harris-Brooks successful reinstatement have not come without a cost to employee morale and as importantly, to President Wiggington who now owes her. For "saving" him, Mrs. Harris-Brooks now visits the South Pasadena branch without an appointment and enters closed door meetings, unannounced. In fact, she is the real CEO at Priority One. Well, Mr. Wiggington, there is after all a heavy price to pay for entering into a pact with a devil." 

If racial bias isn't an issues, then one need only explain what O. Glen Saffold, Thomas Gathers and Janice Irving meant when they admitted choosing Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. to serve as President because of his skin color. Mrs. Harris-Brooks and her posy may do well to take an introspect view at their motivations. President Obama in his speech on race, said: 

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news....Or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

-Barack Obama, Speech on Race

Priority One's founders never could have imaged the disparaging lows the credit union would be dragged into by President Wiggington and the offensive Board or that this body of ineffectual officers would change the credit union's focus from members to their personal agendas which are motivated by skin color. What a way to regress!

An Autonomous & Self-Indulgent Board of Directors

TRULY A CASE OF THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND

The Board of Directors at any credit union are appointed to monitor decisions and actions made by the President/CEO and to ensure member and credit union assets remain protected and that business is conducted compliant to state and federal laws.

In 2008, an investigator hired by Priority One Credit Union's Board of Directors, interviewed more than eight employees, asking if they had ever witnessed President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. make unwanted sexualized statements and gestures to a former employee. 

At the end of an approximate six (6) week inquest, the investigator delivered his findings to Priority One's Board of Directors. The meeting where evidence was presented, took place in the Board Room located in the credit union's main branch in South Pasadena, California. Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, invited the following officers:

• Cornelia Simmons, Chair, Supervisory Committee
• Thomas Gathers, Director, Board of Directors
• O. Glen Saffold, Director, Board of Directors

Other attendees included William Adler, Esq, the credit union's attorney. Mrs. Harris-Brooks contacted the Supervisory Committee Chair and the two Directors and invited them to the meeting but she purposely excluded inviting the Board's other Directors. Fortunately, employees of the credit union learned about the impending meeting and contacted Director, Janice Irving, who in turn, contacted Joseph Marchica.

To Mrs. Harris-Brooks' chagrin, Mrs. Irving and Mr. Marchica arrived at the meeting room minutes before the scheduled start of the conference. 

During the meeting which followed, the investigator presented statements collected from employees and almost all of which described inappropriate te and sexualized comments and gestures made by the President to the former employee. The investigator recommended the President's termination. Mrs. Harris-Brooks, not one to be undaunted by something like evidence led Ms. Simmons, Mr. Gathers, and Mr. Saffold to vote for the President's reinstatement.  She insisted that the sexualized comments were said in jest and did not constitute sexual harassment as defined by federal law. They also concluded that the President must re-acquaint himself with the credit union's policy governing sexual harassment and understand that he must conduct himself as a President.  

The two dissenters were Mrs. Irving and Mr. Marchica, both who voted for the President's immediate termination.

A few days later, Mrs. Harris-Brooks also signed a letter written by the credit union's legal counsel and which informed the victim of Mr. Wiggington's unwanted statements and gestures that according to what the Board understood, the sexualized comments and gestures did not constitute a violation of federal law. What's more,  they concluded that the victim had actually taken part in the exchange of sexualized commentaries and so she was not under law, a victim. The day after the letter was mailed to the "victim", a 10-page questionnaire arrived at the main office and mailed by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. It seems the victim had also filed a complaint with the federal government. 

Within two-weeks, the Board contacted the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and offered a settlement in the amount of $20,000.00. When the offer was rejected, they increased the offer to $40,000. If President Wiggington had not sexually harassed the former employee, then why did the Board offer a monetary settlement? So did Mrs. Harris-Brooks lie when she stated the President's unwanted sexualized statements and gestures did not constitute sexual harassment? 

Mrs. Harris-Brooks is not an attorney. She is wholly unqualified to interpret law. Despite this, she and the Board determined and based on their understanding that federal law had not been violated by the President. Why was the board been permitted to interpret evidence and derive a conclusion when none of the Directors are qualified to do so? .

One final question. Why is the board allowed to use the credit union's assets to "settle" a case whose investigation allegedly found no wrong doing on the part of Mr. Wiggington, Sr. though they admit that his sexualized statements, though not illegal, were a violation of credit union employee policy? And finally, how did a 30-some year old woman, coax a 50-some year old man into verbalizing sexualized statements? Does President Wiggington lack the discipline to know what are appropriate and inappropriate behaviors? If so, why is he President? 

An Uninformed President and CEO

CHOOSING IGNORANCE

In a previous post, we described some of the differences between credit unions and other financial institutions. Credit Unions were established on the premise of "People helping people" and unlike banks, are distinguished by the fact they are not-for-profit. The key philosophical difference is their view of people. At a credit union, its clientèle are member-owners unlike banks, where clients are customers. 

Research shows that it takes approximately two-years to acculturate members and to convert them into active participants who seek out obtaining financial products and services from the credit union. The process of acculturation requires strategic planning whose goal targets members who have no previous history of participation in what the credit union offers that will allegedly improve their financial livelihoods. 

This past December, President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. told employees during the quarterly all-staff meeting conducted at the main branch in South Pasadena, California that it was imperative that there be a marked increase in new members by the end of December 2009. So desperate was his directive that he exclaimed, "We don't have long to live." He statement is a contradiction to his frequent claims that business is "great" and "growing." He exclamation is not only a contradiction of what he's been saying for several months, it was more than a little inappropriate and undignified. 

So why is the President's strategic planning failing to reap the results he often asserts are being reaped? One problem may be that Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. doesn't comprehend the wants or needs of Priority One's many and diverse marketplaces. The cultural, economic and demographical differences of each region requires diverse strategies that succeed in reaching the communities served by the credit union. It's also evident that his 2007 elimination of the entire Marketing Department and its Marketing Director has served to exacerbate the credit union's inability to attract new business and members. 

If President Wiggington had taken the time to conduct research, he would have discovered that the elderly sector in the United States holds the majority of this nation's wealth. Since being appointed President on January 1, 2007, he has never created programs or promotions specific to the group of members who are elderly. 

He might also have discovered that to induced growth requires converting inactive members into active participants who become recipients of the credit union's products and services. Unfortunately, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. relies on his emotions and on what he perceives to be true. The credit union's ongoing decline is attributable in great part to his inability to perform actual research that would provide understanding of the marketplaces served by Priority One Credit Union. 

Don't expect Priority One's fortunes to change at anytime soon. Like an owl holding a squirrel, President Wiggington will continue to cleave to his fantastical belief system which is mired in all things imaginary. It is said that "Ignorance is bliss" but in reality, "Ignorance is just ignorance."

This is an Expose'

We've received a few emails advising us that our disclosures constitute a violation of proprietary information and are a breech of the policies and possibly even laws, governing the disclosure of confidential information. 

We agree that some of the information is highly confidential however it is not information we have direct access to. In fact, the only people who possess knowledge of this information are some members of Priority One's executive sector.  

Much of the information we report on this blog has been made public by President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. during many of his frequent gab sessions that take place throughout the main branch located in South Pasadena, California. None of what we've reported was ever said privately in meetings between the President and his manager and executives but verbalized publicly, in the presence of non-exempt personnel. 

The fact is, President Wiggington should not be disseminating confidential information. It sets a bad example. It also provides insight into the credit union's internal operations which undermines the security of data and possibly even the security of assets. Unfortunately, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. does not comprehend why rules exist prohibiting verbalization of confidential information. 

Over the years, President Wiggington has shown he has not control over his incessant babbling. He's been warned not to divulge confidential information in the presence of staff and he's even been warned to refrain from talking about sex, but its quite clear, he lacks the personal discipline to do so. As he's periodically stated, "No one tells me what to do." Evidently, he's right. 

Last year, he spent weeks sitting in the Consumer Loan Department, talking openly about why he terminated certain staff members and disclosing the names of employees he was planning on terminating. And though his verbalizations are an overt violation of credit union policy, neither Human Resources Director, Rodger Smock, or Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, are about to hold him accountable. 

It is now January 2009 and we predict that the credit union is going to find itself mired in legal problems sometime in the near future, all as a result of President Wiggington's incessant need to talk about subjects that are confidential. As for the blog, it could never exist or continue without President Wiggington's avid participation. In fact, he provides us with fodder. 

Destroying Imaginary Enemies

FIRST REINSTATEMENTS, NEXT REVENGE

Following an approximate 6-week suspension during which he was investigated following accusations he sexually harassed a former employee, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was reinstated as President and CEO of Priority One Credit Union. 

Within days following his reinstatement, the chronically undisciplined President revealed his disdain for Board Director, Janice Irving. Mrs. Irving was the only one of two people who voted for the President's termination after being informed by an investigator from EXTTI, Inc. that Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. had indeed sexually harassed a former employee. The investigator also recommended the President's removal.  

The president evidently learned nothing during the period he was suspended with pay. He has returned to the credit union intent on exacting his wrath on anyone he believes is his enemy. Mrs. Irving did nothing wrong. She did not sexually harass an employee and unlike Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, she did not intentionally suppress evidence of the President's illegal act. Despite the fact the President was found guilty of sexual harassment, both he and Mrs. Harris-Brooks have labeled Mrs. Irving a dissenter. 

Since his reinstatement (which should never have occurred), the President and Mrs. Harris-Brooks have shown contempt towards Mrs. Irving. The President also often rolls his eyes whenever Mrs. Irving's name is mention. The President's hatred has even prompted the always childish President to refer to Mrs. Irving as "the Board member who wanted me out."

Its important to note that recently, both the President and Mrs. Harris-Brooks have been busy, reviewing the credit union's by-laws in search of anything that might help them ouster Mrs. Irving from the Board. Strangely enough, this is probably one of the few times that the President and Mrs. Harris-Brooks actually take time to research anything. May we suggest since their reviewing by-laws that they re-acquaint themselves with those laws that relate to a Director's credit standing. We've recently discovered that some of the Directors have incurred adverse references on their credit reports which if true, requires they be removed immediately. Of course, its just a suggestion. 

Honesty is Always a Choice

A WEAVER OF TALES

For those who don't know, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. is a gifted storyteller. When confronted with allegations that implicate him in violations of credit union policies or state and federal laws, he feigns ignorance and instantaneously begins weaving a fanciful story which always identifies a scapegoat. To Charles R. Wiggington,. Sr., everyone is expendable. 

In March 2007, former Director, David L. Davidson, received an anonymously written letter which exposed now former Assistant Vice President, Liz Campos of kiting. The letter included evidence showing that Mrs. Campos had incurred more than 25 individual NSF incidents to her checking account during the months of September and October 2016. 

Before discovery of the federal offense she committed, Mrs. Campos had served as Branch Manager of Priority one Credit Union's Burbank branch. Following announcement that Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was to succeed William E. Harris as President of the credit union, Mrs. Campos was contacted by the President and informed that she was to be promoted to the newly created position of AVP. Though Mr. Wiggington was not slated to begin in his new capacity until January 1, 2007, during the months of October, November and December, Mrs. Campos would spend four days a week at the South Pasadena branch, meeting with Mr. Wiggington in his office to plan his new corporate "restructuring." 

It is customary in most business that prior to promoting an employee, a careful evaluation of their competencies, performance and behaviors be conducted. Inclusive in any evaluation, is confirming that that the employee has complied to policies and procedures. At no time is this more important than when preparing to promote a person in a managerial or executive capacity. Despite having incurred more than 25 NSF incidents during the months of September and October 2006, the President deemed it prudent to promote her, a position that took effect on January 1, 2007. 

We have to point out that on the dates each violation occurred, Charles R. Wiggington Sr, was Vice President of Operations. What's more, one of his responsibilities was to review all accounts belonging to employees who had overdrawn their account balances. Furthermore, NSF fees incurred by employees could not be reversed without his authorization. So how could Charles R. Wiggington., Sr. have approved the reversal of 25 separate NSF events during the months of September and October 2006 and still, promoted Mrs. Campos to the post of AVP, effective January 1, 2007? 

When the credit union's attorney ordered that an audit of Mrs. Campos checking account records be started, President Wiggington exclaimed, “I was not the CEO at the time the kiting was committed.” No he wasn't, he was the Vice President of Operations. 

So was President Wiggington merely suffering from a bout of amnesia? In October 2006, the President entered the South Pasadena lounge room and in the presence of several employees, informed Vice President of Human Resources, Rodger Smock, that he was going to have to speak to Mrs. Campos about her continual problem of overdrawing her account. Evidently, he knew she was abusing her checking account privileges. .

In March of 2007, the President was contacted by William Adler, Esq, the credit union’s attorney, and informed about the letter which had been mailed to Director, David Davidson, and the allegations in contained. The president denied all knowledge of Mrs. Campos abuses but was ordered by the attorney to conduct an audit of Mrs. Campos' checking account. Following his conversation with Mr. Adler, the President Rodger Smock and advised him about what he had been told. He also called o Diedra Harris-Brooks, the Board's Chair, though the two were more concerned with finding out who wrote the letter than investigating the abuses. During their exchange, they concluded that Mr. Davidson should have given the letter to the Board of Directors and not submitted it to Mr. Adler, the credit union attorney. So did Mr. Davidson, err?

• Mrs. Harris-Brooks is a retired postal worker. Though she alleges to be a marketing expert she is nonetheless not an attorney and certainly not qualified to investigate any violation of federal law. 

• Director, O. Glen Saffold, is employed by the United States Postal Service and supervises postal clerks. He also studied law but has never succeeded in passing the state's bar examination.

• Director Thomas Gather is also a retiree of the United States Postal Service. 

Its quite obvious that none of the Directors possess the education or experience to oversee investigation of a federal offense. Furthermore, the President and Mrs. Harris-Brooks decided to publicly chastise Mr. Davidson. During a May 2007 Board meeting, Mrs. Harris-Brooks issued a verbal warning to Mr. Davidson that he was never to again deliver any letter exposing any officer of the credit union of illegal activities without first conferring with the Board. 

What is illogical in Mrs. Harris-Brooks' warning is that Attorney Adler ordered the appropriate steps to respond to the abuses Mrs. Campos was alleged to have committed. Despite the reasonableness of Mr. Davidson's decision and the subsequent orders given by the attorney, Mrs. Harris-Brooks chose to vilify Mr. Davidson who by the way, was White. 

In 2008, President Wiggington was accused of sexually harassing a former employees. An investigation conducted by EXTTI, Inc. gathered sufficient evidence proving the President had indeed sexually harassed the former employee.   In spite of the number of statements compiled by the investigator and the investigator's own recommendation that Charles R. Wiggington,. Sr. be terminated, Mrs. Harris-Brooks concluded that in her opinion, sexual harassment as defined under federal law, never occurred. The President was promptly reinstated and the victim was informed she had no case. 

With Mrs. Harris-Brooks' history of squashing evidence why would any allegations leveled against an officer of the credit union ever be brought to her attention for investigation? 

Since 2007, the President has often publicly stated that there is a group  of unnamed employees who are conspiring to displace him. According to the President, their motivation is that “These people are jealous of me because of what I have achieved.” 

Its incredulous that Mrs. Harris-Brooks chose to focus on who exposed Mrs. Campos of kiting rather than directing her attention on the fact a violation of federal law had been committed. What's more, during their conversation, Mrs. Harris-Brooks asked if Mike Lee, the owner of Allied Asset Management, the credit union's contracted collection agent, might have written the letter. The President replied that Mr. Lee could have written the letter. 

The President also suggested the letter could have been written by Aaron Cavazos, the former AVP of Lending or by the former Director of Marketing.  We doubt that the combined brain power of the President and Board Chair will ever uncover who authored the anonymous letter. After all isn't the point of any crime, trying to discover who exposed it? 

Rules are Made to be Broken

Auto Loans - 1.99% APR Special!

Yes, this is a promotional rate that is currently being offered by Priority One Credit Union. The rate, which became effective on January 1, 2009, will continue to be offered indefinitely, at least according to President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. Of course, amongst his staff, he's disclosed he will terminate the offer without prior notice. 

The rate is being offered in the midst of our national economic crisis. According to Senior Vice President, Rodger Smock, the rate offers an opportunity to those applicants who qualify, to purchase a new or used vehicle at a phenomenally low APR, but the act is hardly a gesture of kindness, at least based on a statement made by President Wiggington in March of 2008. At the time, he offered sagely advice, stating, "When their APR's and yields are too low, that tells you the institution is in trouble." So is Priority One in trouble?  

To qualify for the 1.99% APR, an applicant must satisfy the following requirements:

• Must have a FICO score of 680 or higher
• Must make a minimum down payment of 10% of the total cost of the vehicle
• Must open an allegedly free checking account  
• Must enroll for electronic payroll deposit

There are two other stipulations, actually disclaimers. These are: 

"CURRENT POCU LOANS DO NOT QUALIFY"

This means that if a member has another loan currently financed by the credit union, then that loan cannot be refinanced for the purpose of obtaining the lower APR. 

Members obtaining funding will have to "cash out"

This means that if the amount of the loan exceeds the amount actually being financed, then the overage in funds must be deposited into the member's Priority One account.

This past month, Board Director, O. Glen Saffold refinanced his current Priority One automobile loan so he could obtain the lower APR. Of course and based on the current requirements, Mr. Saffold's loan did not qualify for refinancing, yet his request was readily approved by President Wiggington. So what happened to the credit union's stipulation that "current loans do not qualify"?

Furthermore, Mr. Saffold refused the "cash-out" despite the fact the promotion clearly states a member must accept the cash-out. So what happened? 

Mr. Saffold found exemption because he serves as a voluntary Director of Priority One's Board of Directors. However, the exception violates the terms of the promotion. Mr. Saffold like the President and the Board Chair, is Black. Under Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., skin color has been an issue alluded to by the Black Directors of the Board. In 2006, O. Glen Saffold and Directors, Janice Irving and Thomas Gathers, disclosed they selected Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. to serve as the credit union's new CEO because what Priority One needed "is a Black president." Really? 

Though the Directors on the Board all serve in a volunteer capacity, granting Mr. Saffold exemption to the requirements of the 1.99% APR promotion amounts to a perk. There are state laws that clearly delineate the responsibilities, qualifications and limitations of Board Directors but at Priority One, abiding to the law is a choice not a requirement. When Mr. Saffold financed his automobile, he dis so as a Member of the credit union, not an officer.

What's more, President Wiggington would not have made an exemption for any other member. Isn't that discrimination? 

Stealing from Members

"Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

President Nixon to David Frost, May 19, 1977

On January 6, 1999, member, Danny Wafa obtained financing from Priority One Credit Union for a newly purchased, white-colored, 1989 BMW. A few months later, a member of his family became ill forcing Mr. Wafa to frequently leave the state, causing his loan payments to become delinquent. 

At the time, Credit Resolutions Supervisor, William Brinkley, visited Mr. Wafa at his home and structured a repayment plan that would enable the member to become current with his payments and avoid repossession which would have adversely impacted the member's credit history. Mr. Brinkley also understood that repossessing any automobile constitutes a monetary loss to any credit union. 

After the member signed the agreement, Mr. Brinkley returned to the South Pasadena branch and presented the document to his supervisor and owner of Allied Management, Priority One's contracted collection agency. Upon realizing that the vehicle was a BMW, the same make of automobile owned by the Vice President of Operations, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., Mr. Lee visited the Vice President in his office. Vice President Wiggington denied approval of the repayment agreement and ordered the vehicle be repossessed and brought to him. 

Mr. Lee drew up new documents ordering repossession of the vehicle. After the vehicle was retrieved, Mr. Lee drew up fictitious documents to create the appearance that the automobile had been sent to auction when in fact, ownership of the vehicle was transferred, at no cost, to Vice President Wiggington.   The Vice President and Mr. Lee committed collusion and fraud. 

The file containing the original documents signed by Mr. Wafa and the documents ordering the repossession should have been sent to the file room located at in the back offices at the South Pasadena branch. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the file is nowhere to be found at the South Pasadena office. What's more, the file is also not found at Allied Management's Glendora, California offices. Vice President Wiggington retained ownership of the automobile for only a short-time before selling it to his then friend, Odell Richards. 

This incident is far more than simply an abuse of authority by both the Vice President and Mr. Lee. Evidently, neither considered the member's circumstances, choosing instead to take ownership of the automobile through fraud and in the process, causing the member to incur a negative reference on his credit report. Mr. Wafa's loan record continues to appear in Priority One's XP program which discloses the loan was written off. 

When a vehicle is repossessed and afterwards, sold at auction, any monies obtained from the sale are applied to the loan's outstanding balance. In this case, the unpaid balance remains unchanged revealing the vehicle was never sold.

In the years which followed, Mr. Wiggington would periodically boast about the beautiful white BMW he allegedly purchased from a dealership, bragging that the wheel covers alone, "are worth more than $2000.00."

In 2008, the credit union's attorney received an anonymous letter which included the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), license plate number, and description of the automobile along with a description of how then VP of Operations, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. came into possession of the automobile. Mr. Adler contacted the Board of Supervisors and conferred with Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks. Mrs. Harris-Brooks contacted Mr. Wiggington, Sr., who was now President and CEO, and informed him about the contents of the letter. 

Stunned by the disclosure,  the President assured Mrs. Harris-Brooks that the automobile had been obtained legally. However, immediately following conclusion of the call, the President called Mr. Lee and the two, concocted a story they would tell anyone who might investigate the incident.

In September 2008, the President stood in the Board room located at the South Pasadena branch, loudly informing an auditor that he had purchased the automobile at a "BMW dealership." Of course, if the vehicle had been purchased at a BMW dealership, then why would the member's loan record in XP show that the vehicle had once been financed by member, Danny Wafa, and later repossessed? Why would Mr. Wiggington feel impelled to contact Mr. Lee and concoct a story to explain how he came into possession of Mr. Wafa's automobile when all he would have to do, is show evidence of the purchase?