You Can Cut the Tension with a Knife, Part 3

RAISING DEFENSES

Priority One Credit Union's Human Resources Department aka Employee Services has spent the last week busily gathering documentation requested by the credit union's attorney's at Richardson Harmon Ober. The lawyers are currently working to fabricate defenses in the lawsuits filed by the last Burbank Branch Manager and a former Business Development Representative. President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. has again declared that the credit union's lawyers will "squash both lawsuits." We haven't seen the President this excited since he was accused and later, found guilty of having sexually harassed a former employee. 

The lawsuits from the credit union's perspective are not intended to arrive at the truth but rather, avoiding anything that might expose the violations of federal and state law committed by the President and his executive staff. 

BLITZKRIEG

According to the President who can't refrain divulging information about what the credit union's legal counsel is doing, the attorneys are carefully reviewing every document contained in each plaintiff's personnel file looking for whatever evidence they can find that will raise an impediment that will help the credit union escape ever having to respond to the allegations leveled against it. 

The defendants in each lawsuit are President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.; ruthless former COO, Beatrice Walker; and the Human Resources Department. As you may remember, a few weeks ago the credit union announced a reorganization and renaming of Human Resources which has been renamed Employee Services and is now headed by Director, Robert West and Manager, Esmeralda Sandoval. In reality, Rodger Smock remains the Director. Mr. West is nothing more than a figurehead and puppet who does not have the knowledge or experience to actually oversee the department. Miss Sandoval is a glorified clerk. 

Mr. Smock continues to oversee all functions of the department and his alleged removal over Human Resources was purely superficial and intended to create the impression that the department has become more employee conscious and balanced. It's not. It's still the same department under management of the same aged Director. 

Though the credit union has subjected many now former employees to slanderous campaigns that in time, viciously drove them out of the credit union, the two Plaintiffs are the only former employees to file lawsuits. 

If the lawsuits go to trial, we don't understand how the credit union's attorneys can successfully hide the well documented history of abuses and violations of law perpetrated by the President and Board Chair and enabled by Rodger Smock and the Human Resources Department. But we don't believe either case will ever go to trial, not because of a lack of evidence but because the credit union doesn't want their dirty little secrets finding their way to public record. 

THE LEGAL EDITION

  

This post should have been tilted, ''The Legal Edition." In this post, we will describe efforts currently being made by the credit union's expensive attorneys to fabricate defenses that ultimately diffuse the complaints filed by the last Burbank Branch Manager and a Business Development Representative against the credit union. The strategy the attorneys of Richardson Harmon Ober are attempting to implement will draw attention away from the credit union's illegal acts perpetrated against each former employee and instead, try and vilify and further victimize the plaintiffs. Its the type of tactics one should expect from bottom feeding attorneys who occupy the lowest and most seedy level of the legal profession. 

The credit union's have threatened to file a motion seeking dismissal of former Burbank Branch Manager, Linda Nisely's lawsuit because her lawsuit doesn't possess merit and is thus, frivolous in nature. And though the President has publicly revealed that the attorneys will prove that Mrs. Nisely was laid-off because her position was being phased out due to economic constraints the credit union was under. However, the story the attorneys are trying use to use their defense ignores that fact that in 2010, then COO, Beatrice Walker, publicly disclosed that she was going to lay-off Mrs. Nisely and after six-months, hiring Mrs. Nisely's replacement. So did the credit union lay-off Mrs. Nisely because her position was unnecessary and because the credit union could no longer afford to pay her salary; or, was she fired as part of Beatrice Walker's unnecessary efforts to drive out people she didn't like? 

Former COO, Beatrice Walker, recently provided testimony during a deposition conducted at the officers of Richards Harmon Ober. Though she did state that Mrs. Nisely's removal was motivated by a need to reduce expenses, Ms. Walker spent an inordinate amount of time, segueing from the questions to insert comments about the former Valencia Branch Manager who in 2010, accused Ms. Walker of harassment, same-sex sexual harassment, of retaliation and of creating a hostile working environment. 

.

RETALIATION

During the past three months, several employees who were laid-off and who signed severance agreements, have consulted attorneys. In each case, they've asked if they can file lawsuits against the credit union.

We don't believe they can file lawsuits because the severance agreements they signed contain specific language which in essence states, that they are being issued a severance payment and agree not to seek legal recourse against the credit union. They of course can possibly file a lawsuit if they return the entire amount of severance pay issues to them under the agreement they signed. 

They may have potential cases against the credit union if they possess evidence that after being terminated, the credit under disclosed confidential information about the terms of a settlement agreement or if they made public statements about the employees that disparaged them.

In one case, AVP, Lynette Fortson, informed AVP, Rodger Smock, that the former Teller Supervisor at the Los Angeles branch had criticized the credit union while visiting a United States Post Office. Former COO, Beatrice Walker, President Wiggington, and Rodger Smock, conferred and referred the matter to one of the credit union's many attorneys. The  attorney wrote a letter to the former employee reminding the employee that if she persisted in criticizing the credit union publicly, she could be forced to return the severance payment issued to her. 

We've read the letter and notice that the attorney omitted any evidence which could lend credence to everyone of the allegations made by the AVP, Lynnette Fortson, and later, the COO, the President and AVP, Rodger Smock.  The letter omits the name of the employee(s) at the United States Postal Service who allegedly informed Ms. Fortson and there are no dates provided as to when the incident(s) occurred. 

The credit union, in typical cavalier fashion, chose to lodge a complaint to their attorney which is nothing more than hearsay. It is a frivolous complaint lacking any credibility. The President of course, failed to consider that even he has limits to his authority and in the end, his complaint is relegated to the pile of other empty and unfounded complaints he's often leveling against his imagined and non-existent enemies. 

 REVERBERATIONS

If by chance, Priority One's attorneys lead the credit union to victory in the lawsuits filed by two former employees, it won't occur without taxing the credit union's financial resources. At this point of Priority One's game, their reputation as a corrupt and fallen credit union is sealed. What's more, their vast annual spending on attorneys has quadrupled since the days when the honorable, William E. Harris was President. On a bright cheery note, the Board of Directors seems unconcerned by the massive increase being spent on attorneys. 

As the credit union increases spending on attorneys, business development continues in decline with the the credit union's asset size having declined by more than $30 million since Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. became President in January of 2007. What's more, both the President and former COO, Beatrice Walker, wasted huge amounts of credit union money on things that supposedly were going to create lots of profit but almost all of which failed. What's more, Beatrice Walker was fired in July after being paid more than $200,000 in salary. Does this sound like an organization that can help anyone win with money? Here are SOME of the President's failures include:

• A technically flawed $600,000 phone system
• A more than $70,000 call center that is failing to resolve member service issues
• More than $30,000 spent on Lillestrand and Associates who provided valuable information to improve business but which the President rejected.

On a side note. The President's new training room doesn't have air vents. During closed door meetings, the temperature in the small room becomes unbearable as does the lack of oxygen. 

Ms. Walker also ordered expensive cubicles that were installed in the call center and Credit Resolutions department. She orchestrated the hiring of her friend, Saeid Raad who was paid more than $140,000 per year to serve as CFO and she also hired Randy McBride to serve as manager of the IT department. 

The credit union's extravagant spending is inexplicable in light that it is continues to experience ongoing losses and lagging business.  

 Hoping for a Dismissal

The President recently boasted that Priority One's attorneys are going to obtain a dismissal of the lawsuit filed by former Burbank Branch Manager, Linda Nisely. Unless the President is the judge presiding over the case, it is highly unlikely that he knows whether or not Mrs. Nisely's case will or will not be dismissed. He should stick to what he does best though we don't know what that is. 

According to the President, the credit union's attorneys at Richardson Harmon Ober have assured him Mrs. Nisely's lawsuit is frivolous and unsubstantiated by any evidence that she was ever subjected to age or racial discrimination. The President is just as ignorant about judicial processes as he is about running a credit union. The court not the attorneys determine whether or not a case possesses merit and whether it will proceed to court. If anything can be said about the President it's that his fantasies provide him with a the type of psychological cushion needed to weather the stark legal realities that accompany any lawsuit. 

SCORNED

When nefarious former COO, Beatrice Walker, was terminated this past July, we never thought we'd ever have to write about her again. We were wrong. 

A few weeks ago, Ms. Walker was summoned (by subpoena versus séance) to attend a deposition to answer questions in the lawsuit filed by former Burbank Branch Manager, Linda Nisely. 

Though Ms. Walker was scheduled to only answer questions pertaining to the termination of Ms. Nisely, she was unable to control her emotions and kept segueing to the subject of the former Valencia Branch Manager who she allegedly harassed and stalked. Her inability to stick to the subject at hand didn't go unnoticed by either the attorneys representing the Defendant or Plaintiff. Her behavior would provide wonderful fodder to students of psychology. During her brief employment at the credit union, Ms. Walker proved incapable of controlling her emotions which heavily damaged employee morale.  

On Friday, October 21st, an apparently confused and slightly disheveled President, parked his automobile in the lot at Providence St. Joseph in Burbank, California, and then spent the next several minutes confusedly limping about the property in search of the hospital's benefits fair. As he moved confusedly about in search of the credit union's booth, he struggled to hold tightly to a box which was apparently to heavy for him to carry. 

After finally locating the booth, he sat down, apparently exhausted, sat down and remained sitting for the remainder of the day. He couldn't possibly be suffering from work exhaustion? Employees at the main branch have said he is suffering from the effects of medical treatment of his "ball cancer", a too stringent diet, and medications. But don't let his conduct at the benefits fair fool you. 

The President recently garnered sufficient energy to implement yet another stringent directive. According to the President, "employees are going to have to prove to me that they deserve a raise.": How odd. The President has yet to prove that he's worth the more than $150,000 he's being paid annually to what apparently is to ruin the credit union. Apparently he's not so ill that he can't continue introducing directives which further rob employees of both pay and benefits. 

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, that the new stricter criteria introduced by President Wiggington was actually developed with the assistance of Director of Employee Services, Robert West, and Manager, Esmeralda Sandoval. And though Rodger Smock allegedly vacated his role as Director of Human Resources on July 28, 2011, he was also pivotal in hammering out the new requirement. As we've often reported, Mr. Smock remains the Director of the department despite the hoax perpetrated by the President to create the impression that Mr. Smock vacated his role earlier this year. 

NO EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT

In 2007, a now former business development representative who had amassed an impressive documented record sales, wrote to AVP, Rodger Smock, regarding staff development. The employee's inquiry was never responded to. What's more, President Wiggington became incensed by what he apparently viewed as insolence and said, "She's Jewish. Those people don't like Blacks." 

Prior to submitting her letter, the business development representative had become the victim in a vicious campaign leveled against her by the President with the assistance of AVP's, Liz Campos and Sylvia Perez. Here is the letter submitted to Mr. Smock:

March 6, 2007

Rodger Smock VP

Human Resources

Priority One Credit Union

1631 Huntington Dr South Pasadena, CA 91030

A meeting was held January 4, 2007 addressing changes that are taking effect as of January 1, 2007. Roger presented us with a re-organization chart, which he explained. Roger also mentioned that there will be plenty of opportunities to grow and advance, in addition to enhancements of the training program. Reviewing the organization chart on the back, I noticed that there were TWO branch manager positions open, Van Nuys and Burbank. After the meeting I inquired with Roger and asked the steps that were necessary for me to apply for these positions. The following day completed the transfer request form along with a letter stating why I was qualified for the position. Approximately a week, Liz suggested that when she and I both had time she would like to interview me. I also received a call from Sylvia and she also wanted to set up an interview. Both interviews had taken place and I felt very confident that it went very well.

A few days later Liz asked that I come to her office. She informed me that I interviewed very well, had a lot of knowledge, however I did not have the lending experience need for the position. Liz suggested if classes are being offered or if I had the opportunity to gain more knowledge to do so. Liz also suggested sitting with Linda maybe one day out of the week to learn what I can.

Sylvia however did not comment about anything, as a matter of fact I went to her and asked if the position had been filed. Sylvia responded “I’m glad you asked we just got a flier announcing the new hire. I thank her again for the opportunity to interview.

On Thursday, March 1, 2007 I noticed on XP that Priority One Credit Union is offering an in house training class on consumer lending which will start March 14, 2007 for four session and the classes are from 9am -12pm. Since I had been told that in order for me to advance, within the company I need to grasp a better understanding of loans. Here is a great opportunity for me to do just that. I presented all the information on the class and asked Sylvia if I could attend it. She responded “Let me think about it.

Monday, March 5, 2007 I was out in the field and realized that I hadn’t heard from Sylvia on the class. I called and left a message. Approximately 4:45 pm I received a call back and Sylvia informed me that at this time I was not able to attend her Exact words “I’m going to put it off at this time, I need you to work your numbers first and I’m going to pull everyone’s review to see your numbers from last year.” She said her understanding of the classes is for employees, who already process, are booking or approving, loans which is not what I read.

If we are employees of Priority One and are asking for a class or classes which will help us in our current position or wanting to advance such as in my situation, being told no, how are we to gain more knowledge. Isn’t reaching our goals predicated on gaining knowledge?

C. Freed

A few weeks after submitting her letter, the President with the assistance of AVP, Sylvia Perez, and Rodger Smock, created a record of fraudulent evidence and terminated C. Freed.

Bullying and Mockery 

The credit union's Credit Resolutions Department has become the subject of increasing member complaints alleging that the staff of the department are rude, disrespectful, sarcastic, and threatening. For the record, this was not the case before Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. chose to create an in-house collections department which he placed under authority of Director, Yvonne Boutte. Ms. Boutte, by the way, is the former confidant of Beatrice Walker, the infamous COO who was terminated this past July. 

The department's reputation has quickly spread amongst employees of the United States Postal Service. We've spoken to some employees of the postal service who have been referred to collections, told us they have not filed complaints because they feel powerless. 

Some irate members have demanded to speak to Ms. Boutte but have quickly been subjected to even more abusive treatment by the Director who laugh at them, disparages their inability to pay their loans and reminds them their loans are delinquent. When speaking to members who are not intimidated by her repugnant behaviors, she complains, “Don’t they know who they’re talking to?” Our guess is they’re speaking to an egomaniac who has no comprehension of the importance of members and who is incapable of empathy. 

Here is an except we obtained from Privacy Rights Clearinghouse* web site and which will assist members who believe they’ve been subject to abusive tactics intended to force payment of a debt.

First, we all responsible for any debts we incur. Under federal law, a debt collector has certain responsibilities to investigate a situation and may be liable for failure to cooperate. As a consumer, you should become acquainted with your rights which will help you recognize and respond to abusive collection practices. “Even if you owe a debt, a collection owes you fair treatment and and respect for your privacy.” Be aware that a collector’s conduct does not consistently abide to the language contained in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that the collector may still be liable for their conduct.

• You can advise a collector that you do not wish to be contacted by telephone and wish all communication to be in writing. You will have to enter your request in writing and mail it to the collector via Certified mail. This will provide you with evidence they received your request. 
• You may also inform the collector they are only allowed to call you. At Priority One, when a member obtains a loan, the credit union requires the names of two references. The purpose for these is strictly for collection efforts. When a loan becomes delinquent and the credit union is unable to reach the member, they then call the persons whose names were provided as references.
• Keep a file of all correspondence received and a log of all calls requesting payment. Document your conversations and make sure you obtain the first and last name of the representative with whom you spoke. Include the date and time of a call and keep all recorded messages which are abusive or intrusive in nature.
• If you disagree with anything you are told by a collections agent, write a letter and mail it by Certified Mail and Return Receipt Requested.
• If you agree to enter into a repayment plan, ask the representative to mail you the terms of the agreement in writing.
• If you don’t believe you owe the debt, don’t pay it until you’ve obtained verification that it is your debt. Submitting a payment for a debt you don’t owe or believe you don’t owe, can be viewed that you accept responsibility for the debt.
• Request the collector provide an itemized statement proving balances, interest charges, and any other fees levied against you.
• A collector is not allowed to make idle threats whether expressed or implied, i.e., “We must get your payment no later than the day after tomorrow.” They are prohibited from using abusive or profane language or discussing your account with third parties.

· If you have a complaint, contact the Better Business Bureau, www.bbb.org. You may also have legal recourse by filing a lawsuit in state or federal court within one year of the violation.

· The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) sets the national standard for collection agencies. The FDCPA, enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), prohibits abusive collection tactics that harass you or invade your privacy. (15 USC §§1692-1695) The full text of the FDCPA is found at:

 http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf

A debt collector cannot Call you before 8 a.m. and after 9 p.m. unless you agree. They cannot call you repeatedly or use the phone to harass you or tick you into accepting collect calls or paying for telegrams. They cannot use obscene language, make negative comments about your character, or make religious or ethnic slurs or call you at work if the collector has been informed that you are not allowed to accept personal calls while at work.

A collection agency can file a lawsuit to collect a debt. However, among the many things a collector is not allowed to do is threaten you with a lawsuit just to get you to pay the debt. Examples of some threats and deceptive practices prohibited under law, include:

• Threats that they will garnish your wages or sell your property if it is not legal to do that.
• A threat they will sue you if the collector doesn't intend to sue.
• If they are not truthful about the amount of money you actually owe or may not owe.
• Statements that you will be arrested if you don’t pay the debt.
• Threats of violence.

* https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs27-debtcoll.htm#1

The Visitation

On Thursday, October 13th, President Wiggington accompanied by Senior Vice President, Rodger Smock, and CFO, Saeid Raad, drove to Luminarias Restaurant in Monterey Park to attend the Los Angeles Chapter meeting. This was the first time the President or the Senior Vice President attended the monthly meeting in more than two years. 

The reason why the credit union stopped sending representatives to the monthly meetings is that the credit union cold no longer afford to pay the $25.00 per person charge. Yes, this is the same credit union whose President spent $600,000 on a failed phone system. 

In 2010 the President described the purpose of the chapter meetings as unproductive (versus his daily 2.5 to 3 hour lunches). The always obtuse AVP, Rodger Smock, also chimed in last year, blurting inanely that the only reason employees attend the monthly chapter meetings is because they're "free" (to the employee) and they get to eat a "free meal." Yes, it's offensive, but it is after said by a corrupt Director who has for years, allowed the victimization of employees. Based on Mr. Smock's statement, we have to conclude one reason the President chose to attend last month's chapter meeting is to get a free meal. The other reason that he divulged is that the Board has ordered he make more public appearances to dispel the impression that he's hiding. But he is hiding. 

During October's meeting, Mr. Smock filled and later, refilled the President's glass of water and ran about bringing him food to eat. It looked less like kindness than it seemed disturbing. 

Don't expect the President to continue attending future meetings. His appearance was purely for show and as usual, to create an impression. 

Everything about President Wiggington's mode of administration is to create superficial vacuous impressions. He has proven devoid of any talent needed to achieve real tangible results. His gift is to raise facades. It's smoke and mirrors, trickery but deception which is rent to pieces by the credit union's own Monthly Income Statements and quarterly Financial Performance Reports. 

Recently, he again launched yet another of his tired campaigns declaring that the credit union was re-experiencing growth as attested to by it's increasing capital. Higher net capital is not synonymous with growth in business and no one knows better than does the sly but unclever President. 

This is a President who spent 2009 hiding monthly financial reports until he was forced by complaints filed with the DFI, to post these. He is the same President who hired Beatrice Walker to serve as his own personal hitman but she turned against him and tried to displace him so that she could be appointed President. 

His declarations of success are contradicted by the closures of the Redlands and Valencia branches and more recently, the Riverside office. The fact is, Priority One is nowadays a smaller, less competitive and unpopular credit union thanks to the abuses of Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. 

What's more, his vast spending on consultants to try and resurrect the credit union's formerly pristine public standing, have all failed and further exhausted the credit union's coffers. And why has legal spending more than quadrupled since January 2007? 

But the President's abuses could never have been realized were it not for the protection allotted him by Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, and her inept and bungling Directors. He certainly could not have used fabricated evidence to seal the termination of numerous employees were it not for AVP, Rodger Smock, and with the assistance of Employee Services, Esmeralda Sandoval, and it's Director, Robert West.

And now, the credit union has obtained the services of Richardson. Harmon and Ober who are paid to create a defense that will try and vilify the President's victims and try to deter attention away from the violations of state and federal law perpetrated by the credit union. 

In the end, Charles R. Wiggington should never be believed. His lack of integrity, his dishonesty and his proclivity to lie overshadow any efforts made to improve business.    

A NEW BRANCH

As we reported recently, President Wiggington is currently planning the opening of a new branch in Santa Clarita which will replace the Valencia branch which was ordered closed by then COO, Beatrice Walker. Though we've recently learned that the branch was slated to open this past June and then rescheduled to open in July, the branch is now slated to open at the start of the new year.

The last few weeks, AVP, Sylvia Perez, has visited the site of the new location, allegedly helping to prepare for its upcoming opening.... whenever that may be.

Construction of the location is being handled entirely by the U.S. Postal Service. The President has recently boasted that the credit union will only pay $1 per year to lease the space. The amount of $1 was not the result of clever negotiation on the part of the president but rather an act of kindness shown to the credit union by the Postal Manager in the Santa Clarita Valley.

The facility is located a few miles outside of downtown Valencia which makes it inconvenient unless one lives near the 126 freeway or works somewhere in the vicinity of the Santa Clarita mail processing center. 

The President has also revealed that the office will only open on a part-time basis while the credit union gauges interest in the location. He has also said he does not intend to advertise the location because in his words, "People are going to want to become our members." 

In 2010, President Wiggington described the members in Santa Clarita as "disloyal" to the credit union because they never sought to obtain services and products from the credit union. When the Valencia branch closed at the end of October 2010, he said, "I don't care. The members in Santa Clarita don't do anything for us." 

If the President chooses to open the location at the far edges of the Santa Clarita Valley and if he does not intend to advertise then you can expect this latest enterprise to fail. Logically, there are a lot of factors which suggest future failure but we'll have to wait and see. 

PLAGIARIZING 

In 2007, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. said he wanted all traces of his predecessor erased from the credit union. One of his first acts was to bring an immediate cessation to the credit union's seasonal loans which had proven a reliable source of income for many years. The emotionally undisciplined President didn't care.

The newly hired CLO, Cindy Garvin has announced that credit union will again start offering the Holiday Loan, a product created under former President William E. Harris. The other loans she is planning to resurrect are:

• The Computer Loan
• The Back to School Loan
• The Tax Loan

Ms. Garvin is scheduled to speak during December's all-staff meeting and will describe planned changes she will introduce that will generate new business. Re-introduction of a Holiday Loan is actually a good idea but it should have been offered last month if it is going to have a chance of succeeding. Of course President Wiggington has cronies have no concept of the importance of timing and proper planning. 

Both the President and Director of Project Management, Yvonne Boutte, have already applauded Ms. Garvin's plan to resurrect the Holiday loan, declaring that this is exactly what the credit union needs. We certainly don't want to be presumptuous and will wait to see.  

The Real Estate Department

Ms. Garvin has also obtained permission to refer all first mortgage loans to CU Partners 
who will pay the credit union a fee or loans that are approved for funding. The credit union will also limit real estate loan funding to HELOC's. According to the President, this will help0 the credit union reduce spending which actually serves as an indicator that the credit union is not performing well. 

Fleeing the Coop

The highly competent Manager of the Real Estate Loan Department, Yuling Li, resigned. in October with her final day of employment being October 28, 2011. though her stay at the credit union was brief, she proved to be a highly knowledgeable office and ethically, she is the antithesis of President Wiggington.

Though the President tried to force Ms. Li into violating state laws governing real estate funding she refused and as a result, found herself to be the brunt of one his abusive campaigns intended to humiliate and subjugate her. 

In late 2009, the President ordered morally and ethically pliable AVP, Patti Loiacano, to issue a written warning to Ms. Lee alleging she was insubordinate. The reason the President didn't issue the complaint himself is due to cowardice. 

Ms. Li proved to be too competent, too professional and to ethical for Priority One Credit Union. We wish her the best. 

He’s Back

As we reported in our last post, recently, former COO, Beatrice Walker's once most trusted confidant, Joseph Garcia, abruptly left the credit union on a medical leave of absence. His alleged medical issue was concocted with the help of the former Valencia Branch Manager who is also the same officer who accused former COO, Beatrice Walker, of harassment, same-sex sexual harassment and stalking. 

Mr. Garcia quietly returned to work in October. Unlike the days when he strolled through the South Pasadena branch in company of Ms. Walker, he seems quieter. This could simply be due to the fact he no longer possesses the clout he enjoyed under Ms. Walker. 

His reason for leaving was that he feared his former patron, Ms. Walker was preparing to terminate him. From January to March 2010, Ms. Walker imbued him with the titles of Call Center Supervisor, Real Estate Department and Consumer Department Loan Manager, and Credit Manager, he failed at everyone of his positions. 

Not only did he fail, but by December 2010, he and Ms. Walker were no longer talking. And though she had been generous to Mr. Garcia, he along with Director of Project Development, Yvonne Boutte, both openly disparaged and mocked Ms. Walker. 

By January 2011, he had been stripped of all his titles except that of Consumer Loan Department Manager. 

Since his return, his titles and authority have again been tweaked and he is not the Assistant Consumer Loan Manager. 

The Fall 2011 Newsletter

The President has once again changed his opinion of members who are also employees of the U.S. Postal Service. In January 2007, he ordered that all AVP's, Branch Managers, and the business development team immediately cease efforts to develop new business amongst employees of the postal service. Instead, he ordered increased focus placed on obtaining new business from Select Employer Groups even though, Select Employer Groups have never been a great source of revenue for the credit union. His plan failed miserably.

In the credit union's Fall Newsletter, shown below, the President expresses his appreciation of members employed by the U.S. postal service but is his effort rebuild relations that he ended, come a little too late?

His address may have been impressive had he never tried to end the relationship once enjoyed with employees of the U.S. postal service. We don't personally believe that the credit union will ever restore its relationship with members employed by the postal service, at least not to the level it enjoyed for more than 74 years. We also note that in his address, he conveniently avoids alluding to the loss of more than $24 million in assets since he became President on January 1, 2007. 

The credit union is juggling too many events at one time. He has spent the last few weeks implementing more stringent rules designed to deny employees from obtaining salary increases. His directives are being implemented as a way to reduce spending and justify denying employees increases in pay.

Despite his blunders, the President has found his incompetence and abuses enabled under the protection of the Board of Directors and its incompetent Director, Diedra Harris-Brooks. The failures caused by the President have now resulted in the filing of two lawsuits by former employees which accuse the credit union of violating federal law. 

So will the lawsuits proceed to court or will they be dismissed? According to the President, the credit union's expensive attorneys have assured him the cases will never go to trial. Then again, in 2007, the President assured employees no one would ever be terminated while he served as President. 

To be continued....