Over the weekend, we reviewed Priority One Credit Union's misnamed "Career Opportunities" page which contains the following statement:
"Priority One Credit Union, A progressive $175 M credit union, is an equal opportunity employer. We offer competitive salary and benefits packages within a friendly team-oriented environment. We provide career growth opportunities for those that demonstrate the potential and have accepted the challenge of responsibility."
$175 million credit union? Not since Mr. Harris was President, has Priority One's Net Income approximated $175 million. As we reported previously, this past August the President wrote to the Board of Directors, stating that $10 million of the $20 million borrowed in mid-2008 from the credit union's line-of-credit would be paid by September 2009. In his statement, he also wrote that the payment would reduce Priority One's Net Income by $10 million.
Reviewing the credit union's financial statements for the month ending September 30, 2009, confirms that in September, the credit union paid $10 million of the $20 million. This reduced their Net Income total to $168,211,115.34 which is approximately $7 million less than the $175 million references on their Career Opportunities page.
What's more, there remains an unpaid balance of $10 million which means that their actual Net Income size is $158,211,115.34. This means that they're actually worth $17 million less than what is stated on their Career Opportunities page.
There are so many discrepancies between the statements contained on their website, the President's verbalizations which continually allude to growth and increasing success and what is stated in the credit union's Monthly Income Statements and their quarterly Financial Performance Reports filed with the NCUA. Clearly, the credit union is lying and exacting efforts to present a non-existent image of the credit union's actual standing.
MORE OF THE SAME 'OL
Over the past two weeks, business and morale remained in decline, with President Wiggington once again, altering his behavior and donning an attitude of unconcern, even disinterest to the credit union adverse financial climate
The credit union also published the results of its recent election in the October 2009, newsletter. As we reported in previously posts, this was the second election to be conducted by the credit union in less than 10 months. The first electoral process was declared invalid when it was discovered the President and Board Chair derailed the election when they tried to minimize the number of members who would receive invitations to nominate themselves if they'd like to vie for a seat on the Board of Directors. or Supervisory Committee.
Of course, after we exposed what the President and Board Chair had done, it was decided to hold a second election and avoid the filing of possible complaints against the credit union which could have resulted in state-ordered sanctions.
The election results were published on the front page of the newsletter, though inconspicuously tucked away at the bottom of the page. The font used to disclose the results is the same size as the font used in the disclaimer for the "Back-to-School" loan which appears at the top of the front page of the newsletter. Shown below, is a copy of the announcement published by the credit union:"
Supervisory Committee Election Results for two (2) positions:
We want to express our thanks to the candidates who ran for a position on our Supervisory Committee. Cooperatives are built on the spirit of volunteerism and we certainly appreciate their interest in serving.
The results have been calculated and validated by an independent audit firm with the following results:
Ballots received 2,160; 67 of them were considered invalid. The final tabulation:
- Anna Smith - 1537 votes;
- Lorenzo Ford - 1261 votes;
- David Davidson - 722 votes;
- Jeffrey Moses Chen - 565 votes
Congratulations to the top two (2) winners!
The top two winners are actually incumbents who have been re-elected to the Supervisory Committee. What the results confirm is that President Wiggington's and Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks' tampering did affect the outcome. By accepting the nomination application for Jeffrey Moses Chen days after the deadline for submitting nominations, the two corrupt officers comprised the integrity of what should have been a free and unbiased election. Mr. Chen's nomination also diverted votes that would have gone to the other candidates who submitted their applications by the date when they were due. The President and Board Chair have acted reprehensibly and in a manner that reduced the probity of the electoral process. We believe the effects of what they've done will be reflected in how members respond to invitations that they nominate themselves to vie for a seat on the Board or Supervisory Committee. If Mr. Chen's application had not been accepted due to its late submission, Mr. Davidson probably would have won a seat on the Supervisory Committee.
Over the past month, the President's persecution complex escalated to new heights. He recently disclosed that he knows, electronic surveillance equipment has been planted by unnamed employees throughout the credit union and so, will launch a new, more stringent campaign to flush out the "rebels" so that they may be terminated. He also revealed that he recently scheduled a meeting to discuss how to stop breaches of confidential information. The meeting was held at the home of AVP, Rodger Smock. Why wasn't the meeting held at Mr. Wiggington's alleged $1 million mansion? If the President wishes to find the source of leaks of confidential information, he need only look in the mirror.
September's Monthly Income Statement is too long, so we've decided to only publish those actuarials we deem most important and telling about Priority One's actual financial standing. The report also contains a reference to monies spent on Lillestrand and Associates who were hired to assess employee personalities, strengths, interests, and also, help identify who the blogger, bloggers and who their accomplices are.
The amount of $600.00 is referenced under Educational Expenses for Senior Management but the senior management sector has not participated in educational development, so what exactly was $600.00 spent on?
The report also references that amount of $12,400.74 spent on the Annual Meeting but the annual meeting took place in May and we know $12,000,74 was not spent for the 30-minute meeting. So what exactly was purchased for $12,400.74?
We've indicated interesting and questionable references in RED font. We know that his current conflict with CFO, Manny Gaitmaitan, involves orders by the President that alter reporting to show high profits while decreasing the actual amount of losses. We find some of the references in the report suspicious and again, suggest an in depth audit to verify the accuracy of the financials being reported by the credit union.
LESS: ALLOWANCE FOR LOAN LOSSES
INVESTMENTS IN COOP
INVESTMENT IN FSCC
ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION
LESS ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
NET FIXED ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
"Notes Payable" refers to the remaining unpaid balance due on the $20 million loan borrowed by President Wiggington in mid-2008 from the credit union's line-of-credit.
Total Liabilities and Equity
Interest on Loans
Income from Investments
Fees and Charges
Total Operating Income
Education Expense: Staff
Education Expense: Senior Mgmt
Education: Supervisory Committee
Education: Board of Directors
Business Development Expense
Provision for Loan Losses
NCUSIF Stabilization Expense
Interest on Borrowed Money
Annual Meeting Expenses
Board of Directors/Supervisors
Total Operating Expenses
Income (Loss) from Operations
Loss (Gain) on Disp of Investment
NET (LOSS) INCOME
THE REAL STORY
The real story of Priority One Credit Union is not its decline, but the abherrent behaviors of both it's President and irresponsible Board who year after year, fail enact anything that produces upward mobility. Instead, this rabble of incompetents has chosen to focus on gossip, slander, cheating, lying and subverting the credit union's once excellent reputation.
We of course, invite the President or any member of the Board to provide evidence of what they've accomplished that has made Priority One a better, stronger, and more prosperous credit union.
The President's so-called cost-saving agenda is designed to freeze employee wages, reduce benefits and abort the opportunity for promotions. And while his agenda negatively impacts non-exempt personnel, the President continues to waste money on his frivolous, poorly planned enterprises.
Last year, he obtained approval form the Board to purchase a $600,000 telephone system which since its installation, has been plagued by technical issues. In 2008, he declared that the new phone system would serve in lieu of creating a call center. A little more than one year later, the President and COO are planning on installing a call center because of the technical difficulties affecting the phone system.
A few weeks ago, the Board authorized the hiring of Lillestrand and Associates who were to administer tests of all non-exempt employees to obtain a record of their interests, likes and dislikes and strengths. According to Loren Lillestrand, the information would be used to place employees in positions where there likes could be used to realize the credit union's business goals. Mr. Lillestrand has been paid more than $25,000 and the information he provided has not been utilized because what the President wanted was for Mr. Lillestrand to identify rebel employees who the President believes are trying to topple his authority.
We located the following article by Chris Penttila, titled, "Rethinking CEO Salaries." So far, President Wiggington's solutions don't demand anything from the management sector. His purported solutions don't require that he or his executive staff sacrifice anything that could reduce their salaries and benefits. Charles R. Wiggington,. Sr. may not be bright or prudent but he is unscrupulous. Here is Chris Penttila's article:
RETHINKING CEO SALARIES
Pay-for-performance structures are enjoying a resurgence.
Last September, Mission Research formed a compensation committee to discuss capping executive pay and by how much.
Charlie Crystle, co-founder of the 35-employee Lancaster, Pennsylvania, software company, would like to see executive pay limited to seven times the company's median salary, which hovers around $60,000. Mission Research generated $3 million in revenue last year. "We're trying to figure out the right mix of goals and bonuses for our executive team," says Crystle, 41. "It's part of our growing up and becoming a real company." Mission Research plans to implement a new compensation structure early this year.
It's a timely move given recent public rage over executive pay. Anger has been simmering for years, but it boiled over last fall amid the taxpayer-funded bailout of the financial sector. Watching CEOs glide away from failed companies with multimillion-dollar severance packages has the public questioning with renewed vigor whether corporate executives are worth what they're paid....
Congress is considering a variety of measures, including pay caps on public companies and "say on pay" legislation that lets shareholders vote on executive pay packages.
The pressure on improving pay for performance will be immense over the next couple of years," says Paul Hodgson, a senior research associate at governance research firm The Corporate Library. Topping its most recent CEO pay survey is Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, who made almost $193 million last year and incited shareholder anger when he received a 38 percent pay increase.
Some CEOs are voluntarily limiting their pay. Since 2004, at least 62 CEOs have signed agreements accepting cuts in pay or forgoing severance packages when times get tough, according to The Corporate Library. The list includes H&R Block CEO Russ Smyth, who has agreed to a pay cut if the company hits tough times. JetBlue Airways CEO David Barger, meanwhile, accepted half pay last summer when the company instituted a hiring freeze."
Don't expect President Wiggington or any of his overpaid executive sector to sacrifice a portion of their salaries or benefits. None are invested in the credit union's well-being and President Wiggington is an opportunist who will manipulate policies and laws to ensure that his salary, benefits and perks remain unaffected by declining business.