You Can Cut the Tension with a Knife, Part I

BABBLE

Nowadays, the level of paranoia sweeping through Priority One Credit Union's main branch in South Pasadena, California is extremely disturbing. 

A reason why fears are out-of-control can be attributed, in part, to President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s inability to stop talking. It is his undisciplined need to talk and repeat information that is deemed highly confidential, that fuels this blog and propels rumors that are finding their way throughout the industry. For Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., this is certainly a low point in his already unimpressive career. Since being appointed President four years ago, his administration has been marred by scandals, declining business, losses of millions of dollars, and internal discord. 
A few weeks ago, the President disclosed he suffered a stroke and that while in the hospital, it was discovered that the has "ball cancer" which probably is a reference to testicular cancer.  

In 2011, Priority One's expansion of its territories now seems but a distant memory which ended when Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. began his appointment as President. 

SPINNING

Mark Twain once said, "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." Unfortunately, the lawsuit filed by former Burbank Branch Manager, Linda Nicely, has evolved into a confused and chaotic mess riddled by inconsistencies, as both the Plaintiff, Ms. Nisely, and the Defendant, Priority One Credit Union, concoct stories to impugn one another. 

When it comes to Ms. Nisely, we are extremely objective. Lest we forget, she was once one of Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s minions and during her brief stay at the credit union, became known for her polarizing effect upon subordinate staff, who she was at times, abusive with. Couple that with the fact, she often mistreated Latin workers. As one of the President's lackeys, she played a vital role in abusing many employees and for a time, seemed to ally herself with AVP, Sylvia Perez. 

That all changed in 2010, when COO, Beatrice Walker, ordered Ms. Nisely's termination using the excuse that the credit union could no longer afford to pay her salary. It was a lie fabricated by Ms. Walker. Like the President who can't control his talking, during a meeting with AVP's and Branch Managers, Ms. Walker boasted that she was going to terminate Ms. Nisely and then wait six (6) months to hire Ms. Nisely's replacement. According to Ms. Walker, the state of California allows a company to replace laid-off employees following a six (6) month wait period. 

The caustic Ms. Nisely, now alleges she was discriminated against by the credit union because of her age and because she is Caucasian. The fact is, Ms. Nisely was a careless manager. Because of her ineptitude, the credit union funded several loans approved by Ms. Nisely and which all went bad. 

Mrs. Nisely also refused to visit business in Burbank alleging she suffered from health problems to her legs. Clearly, attending a monthly Chamber luncheon and calling business by phone should not have caused physical stress to her fragile health condition. 

The credit union is now attempting to gather sufficient witnesses who will testify that Ms. Nisely was lazy and a racist. Recently, AVP, Sylvia Perez said she was excited to be called as a witness to testify against Ms. Nisely, though Mrs. Perez is being presumptuous as no one has actually told her that she is to be called to testify. 

What's more, the reason why Ms. Nisely was laid-off is because Mrs. Perez complained to the President and COO that Mrs. Nisely was being insubordinate and refusing to carryout her assigned responsibilities. 

As we've stated in a previous post, if Mrs. Nisely had been insubordinate and refused to perform her responsibilities, then why was she laid-off using the excuse that the credit union could no longer afford to employ her? And why did the credit union promote her from Assistant Branch Manager of the Valencia office to Branch Manager of the Burbank office? Why didn't the credit union terminate her for being a racist? According to the credit union's attorneys, they've gathered testimonies proving Mrs. Nisely hated Latins. Insubordination and subjecting employees to racism are both terminable offenses of Priority One policy. 

Then again, while serving as COO, Beatrice Walker said that the Mexican employees of the credit union were probably all "members of the Mexican mafia" while President Wiggington was proven to have sexually harassed a former offense, yet Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks not only reinstated him following a 6-week paid suspension but she buried the evidence. 

We believe the Plaintiff's allegations are most untrue and we know the credit union's current reasons for terminating Mrs. Nisely are also untrue.

If COO, Beatrice Walker was correct in stating that the credit union could no longer afford to employ Ms. Walker, then why did the former COO spend more than $70,000 installing a call center and more than $100,000 on remodeling the South Pasadena branch and the lobby of the Burbank branch? 

The eventual winner in this battle of dimwits will be the party that spins the best and most convincing story, even if their concoction is untrue. 

THE WITNESS

Mrs. Nisely also provided her attorneys with the name of a witness who will provide testimony impugning the credit union. The witness is former Valencia Branch Manager, Nora Neale now named Nora Torres. Unfortunately, Mrs. Nisley's gambit has literally exploded in her face.  

After being subpoenaed,  Mrs. Torres called the credit union's attorneys and provided them a rather lengthy list of statements impugning Mrs. Nisely's work ethics and character. If the intent was to have Mrs. Torres substantiate Mrs. Nisely's allegations, it backfired. According to Mrs. Torres, while working at the Valencia office in the capacity of Branch Manager, Mrs. Nisely, the Assistant Branch Manager, constantly scrutinized her work and falsely attributed errors to Mrs. Torres. According to Mrs. Torres, Mrs. Nisely carried out a smear campaign which disparaged the Branch Manager's character and abilities. Mrs. Torres also told the attorneys that Mrs. Nisely is a racist who hates Latins.  

Evidently, at the time Mrs. Nisely provided Mrs. Torres' name t her attorney, she'd forgotten how she treated Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Nisely hasn't learned to be cognoscente about treating others with respect. It seems Mrs. Torres is still hurt by the ordeals she was subjected to be the abuse, Mrs. Nisely and calling her as a witness created an opportunity for Mrs. Torres to publicly talk about the treatment she was subjected to at the hands of Mrs. Nisely. 

If Mrs. Torres' statements can be attested to by others, then Mrs. Nisely may end up being portrayed as lazy, insubordinate, slothful and a racist.  

.  

THE RACE CARD

Ms. Nisely may have taken a cue from the Board f Directors when she accused the credit union of discriminating against her because she is Caucasian. For years, the Board of Directors has done everything in its power to ensure the Board remains almost completely Black and the Supervisory Committee remain entirely Black. In 2006, Directors O. Glen Saffold, Thomas Gathers, and Janice Irving all admitted publicly that they selected Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. as the credit union's next President because "what the credit union needs is a Black president." Not only did the Board get the Black President of their choice, they got an ignorant, undisciplined and highly embarrassing Black president. 

Other racist behaviors we've observed over the years include Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks' threat to then Director, Dave Davidson, a Caucasian man, forbidding he submit accusations and evidence of wrongdoing to the the credit union's attorney and that these instead be given to the Board who would conduct a fair and impartial investigation. Was Mrs. Harris-Brooks suppression of evidence proving President Wiggington sexually harassed a former employee an example of how the Board conducts fair and impartial investigations? Would the President have suppressed evidence had the President been Caucasian, Asian or Latin?  

   

CENSORSHIP 

Over the years, AVP, Rodger Smock, has been the source of malicious gossip. In the past, it was the Director of Human Resources who fueled rumors of a relationship between the President and one of his officers. It was untrue.

In 2009, Mr. Smock told the President that he knew who the authors of this blog are and provided Mr. Wiggington with a list. As usual, Mr. Wiggington never asked for evidence because he is a man ruled by emotions and responsive to conjecture. 

However, Mr. Smock is no small hypocrite. Last month, Mr. Smock was informed by a part-time member of the Real Estate Loan Department that a long-time business development representative had allegedly criticized the President.  

It's important to point out that the real estate representative who informed Mr. Smock about the statements allegedly made by the business development representative was not the recipient of the comments and supposedly overheard these. Subsequently, what she heard may have been taken out of context and the accuracy of what she repeated, disputable and amounting to hearsay. 

So what was allegedly said? The business development representative allegedly stated that the nation's home modification program implemented by Barack Obama did not actually serve the best interest of home owners. The real estate representative ASSUMED the president being referred to was Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. and not Barack Obama. 

In typical Rodger Smock fashion, the hypocritical AVP became immediately incensed and proceeded to the Loan Department where he interrogated the members of the Real Estate Loan Department, demanding to know what had been said about President Wiggington. 

His indignation dissipated when he discovered that the the comments were about the federal government’s home modification program and not criticism about President Wiggington.

Odd that Mr. Smock took such effrontery over comments he thought were leveled at the President, yet over the years has refused to document or investigate complaints reported by employees which have included accusations of harassment, retaliation and sexual harassment. Mr. Smock is evidently morally confused and ethically deprived.

Mr. Smock has over the years, been duplicitous in planning employee terminations often and knowingly, using fabricated evidence. A few years ago, the overseer of the Human Resources Department entertained several employees at his home, filling them with alcohol as the female staff members swam in his pool and while one woman swam in the nude.While the women swam, he remained in the house with a male employee of the Member Services Department. Mr. Smock is no stranger to violating policy and his hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed. 

 POINTING FINGERS

In 2009, just a few months following inception of this blog, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. used credit union monies to hire an investigator to locate all of the electronic surveillance equipment that had been planted in the South Pasadena branch by unnamed rebel employees who out of jealousy, were seeking to displace him.

The President's beliefs were borne out of his undisciplined emotions and unbridled imagination. According to President Wiggington, surveillance equipment was the only means by which his enemies were able to accurately publish information often said in the confines of his office. At the time, he stated, that's why “everything I say ends up on the blog.”

And so, in 2009, he contacted Reggie Ellis of Sepia Consulting and Investigations. Here is some information we've obtained about Mr. Ellis and his firm:

At 5:15 pm, on a late Thursday afternoon in early 2009, Mr. Ellis entered President Wiggington’s office. At 5:35 p.m., the President closed the door and venetian blinds and Mr. Ellis began what would prove to be a brief scan of the President’s desk, his telephone, the filing cabinet located behind his desk, of pictures hanging on the office's walls, other cabinets, the circular conference table and under each of its chairs, lamps and window frames. Not surprisingly, Mr. Ellis found nothing. 

Two weeks later, on a Saturday morning, the President met Mr. Ellis at the South Pasadena branch and led the consultants to the desks of employees the President "knew for a fact" were reading this blog while at work, posting comments to this blog, and even composing our posts. Each computer underwent an intensive scan but again, located absolutely nothing to validate the President's far-fetched and unevidenced beliefs. 

However, the scan caused numerous technical issues which would not be resolved for several months. Again, Mr. Ellis' services were paid for using credit union money. 

Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s arrogance, self-centeredness coupled by his wild and paranoid imagination, for the credit union to spend hundreds of more monies trying to find evidence that would bring credence to the President's delusions. It's nothing less than incredible that there allegedly exists a band of employees who are driven by jealously to seek the ouster of the President so that they can take control of the no longer impressive or growing credit union. 


To be continued........

Kindly Share The Love»»

Tweet

Save on Delicious