Over the past week, Priority One Credit Union's President, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., has suddenly become more lackadaisical and has spent more and more time strolling through the main branch in South Pasadena, California, piddling time that should be dedicated to working and talking loudly on his cellular to what are apparently family and friends. One would think by his conduct that the credit union has made a full financial recovery and is again, operating in the black.
Donning more relaxed posturing, the President has resumed verbalizing criticisms about some of his staff for what he describes as their failure to increase new membership and failing to exact efforts needed to increase revenue.
Though its not unreasonable to address areas within the business were immediate improvements are required, it is immensely hypocritical and unproductive for the credit union's highest officer to spend his days traipsing lazily though the main branch criticizing staff members when he has contributed absolutely nothing to improving business and resolving the problems he introduced that are financially taxing the credit union's financial infrastructure.
Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. continually reminds us that he's no strategist and though his obsessive tendency is to find fault in others and issue demands, its quite clear that he is incapable of living up to his own lofty and judgmental expectations.
Aside from introducing reductions in spending that have their most profound impact upon the livelihoods of non-exempt personnel who are also the lowest paid sector of employees at the credit union, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. has developed absolutely nothing nothing that will spur the development of new business and increase membership, in great part because he doesn't comprehend marketing and has little understanding about the wants and needs of the culturally diverse marketplaces served by Priority One Credit Union.
President Wiggington has shown that he is not a participant in delving out solutions to the problems he created. He's just going along for the ride, hoping that someone else is going to do the work needed to resolve the widespread damage he alone created.
Apparently, his only talent is to boast and brag and fabricate stories of non-existent growth and prosperity that he hopes in earnest, people will buy into at face value.
A MEMBER COMPLAINS
Since publication of our first post, we've often witnessed the President and members of the Board of Directors and the executive sector, react adversely to our reports. One of his first responses to our reports was to violate state law and order that Monthly Income Statements not be posted at any of the credit union's branches. He succeeded in not posting the statements for March, April and May, but two complaints filed with the DFI by the same member eventually forced the President to resume posting of the monthly financial statements. Of course, if business were thriving as asserted by the President, then there would have been no psychological need for him to hide the statements.
President Wiggington's addiction to lying was again attested to in how he chose to respond to the DFI. The initial letter received from the DFI was responded to by the President who simply denied the allegations and wrote that all of the statements had been posted on each and every month. This was a lie.
Several weeks later, the President received a second letter from the DFI which reminded him that under state law, he must post the credit union's Monthly Income Statements both, at every branch and in a conspicuous location which allow easy access to the information.
This time, the President deferred the letter to COO, Beatrice Walker, for response. We understand that at the time, the President was furious and even complained that the DFI "should get off my back." Ms. Walker wasn't discombobulated, but she was nervous because she knew he ordered, in defiance to state law, that the statements not be posted. Furthermore, he was dragging her into a situation he created. Nonetheless, she followed his instructions and composed a response. However, for some inexplicable reason, the credit union was unable to issue its response within the thirty (30) days allotted by the DFI. So, Ms. Walker requested an extension and was provided an additional twenty (20) days in which to submit her written response.
So why would the credit union require a total of fifty (50) days in which to compose a response to what really was a simple inquiry by the DFI. Wouldn't providing a simple information accompanied by evidence have served to exonerate the credit union of all alleged wrong doing?
Days before a response was sent to the DFI, President Wiggington conferred with AVP, Rodger Smock, in the South Pasadena employee lounge room and told the AVP that neither of them should be involved in writing a response to the DFI's inquiry and suggested the entire matter be deferred to the COO. So why was the President so adamant that neither he or his number one lackey be involved in formulating a response?
It's also important to note, that the President refused to post the Monthly Income Statements for March, April and May 2009. Ms. Walker did not start working at the credit union until June 1, 2009. Subsequently, the incident was created by President Wiggington months before Ms. Walker started working at the credit union. So why did he deem it appropriate to defer the DFI's letter to her for response? Since she was not an employee of the credit union when the incident first began, why would she be expected to provide information she had no knowledge of?
THE RESPONSE
In her letter dated August 11, 2009, Ms. Walker states that the Monthly Financial Statements for "March and perhaps April 2009" had not been posted due to "industry-wide events."
Her response is inaccurate and inconsistent with the facts. Statements were not posted for the months of March, April and May 2009. The April 2009 Monthly Income Statement was never posted, dispelling her statement that "perhaps" that statement was not posted. Furthermore, why did Ms. Walker omit all references to the Monthly Income Statement for the month of May 2009 from her response?
Unfortunately, when provided with an opportunity to be forthright, Ms. Walker chose what was politically advantageous which in this case was placating the dishonest and law-breaking President.
And what are the specific "industry-wide events" that prompted the President to order that Monthly Income Statements not be posted?
In her letter, Ms. Walker states that on March 20, 2009, the NCUA ordered Priority One "write down their ventures" formerly conducted with Wescorp. As many people know, Wescorp entered into a conservatorship earlier this year. According to Ms. Walker, the "ventures" were to be reported to the NCUA by April 23, 2009. So does her response reasonably explain why the President issued a directive in the month of March 2009, ordering that Monthly Income Statements no longer be posted at any branch? Of course, it doesn't.
The President has now resumed posting of the Monthly Income Statements and in response, the DFI has closed the complaint. Unfortunately, the response was saturated in lies, concocted to present an excuse that the DFI might find reasonable. However, the complaint about the refusal of the President to post Monthly Financial Statements was not the only complaint submitted to the DFI regarding the President's purposeful violation of state law. The following is a copy of of a another complaint filed on June 27, 2009, by another member and proves that the credit union had withheld posting Monthly Income Statements for the months of March, April and May 2009.
Sent: Sat 6/27/2009 8:37 PM
To: Consumer Account
Subject: Violation of Calif Code of Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 1, Section 30.701(c)
I am a member of Priority One Credit Union and am filing this complaint regarding refusal by Priority One to either post its monthly financials for public view and have refused to post instructions either in a conspicuous or inconspicuous, easily accessible area to members. This has been ongoing since March 2009 and is a violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 1, Section 30.701(c). Thank you.
The complaint places a crimp in Ms. Walker's story. The member's complaint is dated June 27, 2009, indicating that Monthly Income Statement had not yet been posted on the date the complaint was filed.
Ms Walker's response serves as evidence she lied. She states that March's statement had not been posted and "perhaps" the statement for April though the member's complaint, which was filed on June 27, 2009, clearly proves the April and May statements had not been posted.
Ms. Walker's August 2009 response is also inconsistent with information provided by the President to the DFI on July 1, 2009. The information provided to the DFI by the President is shown, below:
From: Consumer Account Consumer@DFI.CA.GOV
Subject: RE: Violation of Calif Code of Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 1, Section 30.701(c)
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 12:15 AM
The CEO of the Credit Union was contacted, and he stated that the statements are posted at each branch office. He did mention that there was a problem at their Valencia office recently where the current statements had not been posted and what was posted was stale dated. He indicated that this was corrected and the manager of that location was informed that the financials were to be posted as soon as they were received. He also stated that you may request copies of past financial statements, if you like.
If you would like to file a complaint against the Credit Union, please let us know.
Thank you,
Consumer Services Office
California Department of Financial Institutions
1-800-322-0622
So in response to DFI inquiries, the President and his cronies provided the following three different excuses, all which are inconsistent with one another:
- The Monthly Income Statements were posted at all branches
- The March 2009 Monthly Income Statement was not posted and perhaps, neither was April's statement; and
- Due to some unexplained problem, the Monthly Income Statements were not posted at the Valencia branch though these were posted at all other branches.
What's more, members calling the credit union during the months of March, April and May were told by employees answering the phones that President Wiggington had not issued Monthly Income Statements to any of the branches further dispelling that it was only the Valencia branch that did not post the statements.
Additionally, in his July 1, 2009, statement to the DFI, President Wiggington states that the statements for the months of March, April and May were not posted at the Valencia branch but had been posted at all other branches. This seems peculiar, because in her August 11, 2009, letter to the DFI, Ms. Walker states that the March statement was not posted at any branch and perhaps, also not posted during the month of April 2009.
So what version of the credit union's excuses do you find most believable?
TERMINATIONS
We recently received an email advising us that a Branch Manager of the credit union has recently denied that four (4) employees were laid-off by the credit union. It's incredible that the Branch Manager could be so misinformed or has chosen to intentionally distort the truth which would not be unusual at Priority One.
In August, all employees were asked to voluntarily reduce the amount of days worked each month. By voluntarily agreeing to reduce the amount of hours they work, employees would help the credit union save money. The credit union's plan to reduce spending did not ask any executive to voluntarily and temporarily, agree to to a reduction in salary.
Several employees agreed to work less hours without pay and were thanked by the President during the September 8, 2009 all-staff quarterly meeting conducted at the South Pasadena branch.
However, the President and COO, later determined that reduced working hours will not have the necessary financial impact needed to substantially reduce spending and so on Monday, September 14, 2009, four (4) employees were laid-off. On September 15, 2009, notice of the terminations was posted by Beatrice Walker on the credit union's Intranet. According to Ms. Walker, the terminations were part of an aggressive effort to reduce spending.
Hopefully, this information will help clarify the Branch Manager's apparent confusion.
As we've said in a prior post, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., may not be an adept liar but he is a liar. With regards to the complaints filed with the DFI, he had absolutely no qualms about
fabricating lies but his excuses were inconsistent with one another and inconsistent with the story concocted by COO, Beatrice Walker. You'd think that these two have conferred with one another before providing the DFI with different versions of what supposedly happened with the Monthly Income Statements for the months of March, April and May 2009.
There is no argument that Charles R. Wiggington,Sr. is the cause of Priority One's financial problems. He single handedly created the dynamic of loss which has left the credit union floundering in the RED. And though he'll never admit that he is the cause of the credit union's problems, on some level he is aware of his culpability, otherwise why find it necessary to lie, to find scapegoats to blame for his blunders, and why make daily treks through the main branch, insisting to employees that business is great? Clearly, as attested to by the credit union's own Monthly Income Statements, business isn't great- it's awful. Never has Priority One sustained this amount of losses at any time since it's founding in 1926?