Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures, Part 3 of 3

Often high salaries and bonuses paid to executives and managers are associated with their exemplary performance. Evidently, achievements, competency and contributions to the betterment of a business are not factors important to Priority One Credit Union's Board of Directors. Under leadership of Chairperson, Diedra Harris-Brooks, the Board has deemed it prudent over the past five years to issue year-end-bonuses to President, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. despite a well-documented history of business failures, abhorrent personal behaviors and indulgence in gossip and in scandals including sexual harassment. 

In spite of having ended 2008, 2009, and 2010 with massive financial losses, the President and some members of his executive staff continued being paid hefty salaries and in some cases, bonuses. Beginning in 2008, the credit union's asset size plummeted by millions of dollars. In late 2010, the credit union began closing branches in a frantic effort to ensure net capital remained well above 6%.  In 2010 the former Burbank Branch Manager filed a lawsuit against the credit union alleging she was subjected to age and racial discrimination. Since then the credit union has been sued by three other former employees and one former member. There is no arguing that under Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. the credit union's infrastructure has unraveled creating a dynamic addictively reliant upon expense reductions as key to the credit union's survival. 

We recently obtained copies of the credit union's IRS Form 990 filings for 2010. As shown below, President Wiggington received Base Compensation in the amount of $151,221.00. It is undeniable that his salary is not based on the quality of his performance. He was also paid an additional $3223.00 for "retirement" and other compensation. He was also paid an additional $12,124.00 in "non-taxable benefits." The total paid to the President in 2010 was $166,568.00.

Line 19 of the filing discloses that in 2009, the credit union incurred losses of $5,458,432 and in 2010, losses totaling $563,830. Does Priority One Credit Union's Board of Directors maintain two separate standards of performance expectations for it's employees? 

Since April 2012, we've reported that employees who failed to attain their assigned monthly quota for a one-month period would be issued a written warning. Failure to attain their assigned monthly sales quota for a consecutive two-month period would be issued a written warning and/or termination.  In contrast, President Wiggington's inept business decisions have caused the losses of net assets, forced the closures of four branches, and caused the ruination of the credit union's once respected public reputation. 

TOP HEAVY

As shown below, the credit union reported that CFO, Saeid Raad, was paid $59,170.00 in 2010. However, this is not the entire amount paid to Mr. Raad in 2010. During the first half of 2010, Mr. Raad worked in an allegedly "temporary" contract capacity which even prompted President Wiggington to exclaim publicly "he [Saeid Raad} is paid more money than me." 

The filing also discloses that Senior Vice President, Rodger Smock, was paid $98,189 plus another $9763 in "estimated" compensation. We find it interesting that Mr. Smock's title is referenced as Senior Vice President in the IRS filing when at the credit union his title is Executive Vice President. What's more, he continues to serve as Director of Human Resources. Aside from the myriad of titles imbued upon the aged officer, what is it that he actually does at the credit union?  His total salary amounted to $107,952. This seems steep and unreasonable when one considers it was Human Resources under leadership of Rodger Smock that created the opportunity for the filing of lawsuits by four former employees.

NOT WHAT YOU KNOW BUT WHO YOU KNOW

A common complaint amongst members is the increasingly difficulty in obtaining loans from the credit union. Since 2008, Priority One has implemented more stringent eligibility requirements making it more difficult for many members to obtain loans. A reason for introducing stricter rules was to reduce the incidence of bad loans. Bad loans are those which possess the potential of becoming delinquent and if unpaid, being written-off aka charge-offs. Thankfully, the rules that apply for most members aren't always enforced for officers of the credit union.  The excerpt shown below is obtained from the credit union's Form 990 filing and references the names of officers who have loans obtained from Priority One Credit Union. Whenever an officer requests a loan, their application is reviewed by the Board of Directors though we've noticed that at no time has any officer been denied their request. And though all officers are to maintain excellent credit we know that some of the Directors and Supervisors have in recent years incurred negative/derogatory references on their credit report. Under Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, there is no enforcement of the credit union's by-laws which pertain to a Director's or Supervisor's credit history. 

FAILURES AND MORE LIES

Earlier this year, President Wiggington ordered that all branches begin opening on Saturdays. The idea was the brainchild of CLO, Cindy Garvin, and a response to Foresee Consulting who suggested that opening longer hours would surely result in increased new business. It hasn't. 

The credit union not only failed to see any increase in new business but the added hours resulted in increased spending on employee salaries and utilities. Last month, the credit union posted messages on it's website disclosing that branches would no longer open on Saturdays. As we've often reported, President Wiggington and his executive staff frequently implement strategies based upon their personal belief systems versus information obtained from actual studies. 

In an effort to reduce spending, the President is more and more, utilizing the credit union's webpage as the primary means by which to keep members informed of important announcements. According to the President, this is reducing the amounts usually spent on postage. 

Upon the advice of it's paid consultants, the credit union has now saturated the Internet with copies of President Wiggington's and Senior Vice President, Rodger Smock's, biographies. Reviewing each published history we immediately noticed exaggerations, omissions and inaccuracies. As usual, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. and the Senior Vice President have chosen to embellish their past employment histories, including referencing non-existent accomplishments. President Wiggington's biographies state he has been President since 1992. This is completely untrue. He attended the retirement party for his predecessor in November 2006 and effective January 1, 2007, began his appointment as President. Mr. Smock states he studied business, marketing and psychology in the mid-1960's while attending the University of Cincinnati. He has for years said he majored in psychology but until just a few weeks ago and following publication of his biography, no one was aware that he ever allegedly studied marketing. If so, why has there been no evidence of his marketing skills at any time since he took over the department in 2008? 

January 1, 2013, will also mark the 6th year anniversary in which Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s was appointed President and CEO of the shrinking credit union. Since his appointment, the credit union's net asset size has declined by approximately $14 million. 2012 also marked the first time in the credit union's over 80-year history that it was forced to lay-off and terminate a large contingent of full-time staff members. But don't expect 2013 to fare better for the declining credit union. The biggest impediment to reversing the credit union's financial woes is that the one person who set the organization's decline in motion, remains President and is expected by the ignorant Board of Directors to forge a solution for the mess he alone created. 

LAWYERING 101

Priority One Credit Union's attorneys may not be bright and they certainly aren't ethical, but they are unscrupulous. Currently, the credit union's defense team is being headed by attorney, Paul F. Schimley, who leads the Employment Practices Department of Richardson, Harman, Ober PC, a Pasadena-based law firm. 

Mr. Schimley seems strategically stuck. From what we've observed, his weapon of choice is smearing Plaintiff reputations and there are no impediments to how low he will go. He moved quickly, at lightening speed, to respond to the lawsuit filed by the former FSR. In his response, Mr. Schimley predictably denies that his client ever committed any of the abuses described in the lawsuit. He also states that while the Plaintiff was an employee of Priority One Credit Union she committed illegal acts and acts which though not illegal, constituted violations of credit union policies. So does Mr. Schimley hope the court will believe that the FSR committed a series of egregious acts during a period of only a few years before she was finally terminated?  Maybe this is why Mr. Schimley must try to impugn the character of each Plaintiff because he lacks the ability to create defenses that are either believable or convincing. 

Mr. Schimley also states that if the Plaintiff had been the victim of illegal acts perpetrated by her former supervisor, AVP, Sylvia Perez, then the Plaintiff failed to pursue all remedial channels available under credit union policy. 

Mr. Schimley is intimately acquainted with the allegations contained in all the lawsuits filed by former employees. He is not so dull that he hasn't noticed the similarity in the accusations contained in each. What's more, on more than one occasion he has had to contact President Wiggington and Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, to remind them to stop divulging confidential information about the lawsuits.  

The Burbank Branch Manager

In the lawsuit filed by the former Burbank Branch Manager, Mr. Schimley's firm planned a defense which not only impugned the manager's work ethic but would portray her as a racist who hates Latins. He also threatened numerous times, to file a motion seeking dismissal of the case. So if t there case was in essence "open and shut", then why did his firm contact the manager's attorney and ask to enter into settlement negotiations? 

A Business Development Representative

The second, filed by a former Business Development Representative, alleged liable, sexual same-sex discrimination and failure by Human Resources to intervene in the abuses committed by President Wiggington and COO, Beatrice Walker. 

Mr. Schimley contacted Eileen Cohen, an attorney at the firm of Joseph Lovretovich and Associates who were representing the former Business Development Representative. Ms. Cohen contacted the Plaintiff via email informing him that she is an associate of Mr. Schimley and that though her firm agreed to represent the Plaintiff in his lawsuit against Priority One, it had now been decided that after more than a year,  that his allegations lacked merit and that he should enter into a settlement agreement with his former employer. Ms. Cohen's written admittance that she is an associate implies she has a relationship with Mr. Schimley. Whether professional and/or personal, doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest? 

In the meantime, the Plaintiff received an email from Joseph Lovretovich, advising him that it had been decided he did not have a case against his former employer and that he must enter into a settlement agreement with Priority One Credit Union. So if the former employee didn't have a case against the credit union then how could he enter into a settlement agreement? No case should mean no settlement. Within the legal profession, back door dealings are common place amongst attorneys and in the case of Mr. Schimley and Mr. Lovretovich's associate, Eileen Cohen, admitted she was an "associate" of Mr. Schimley. The Plaintiff initially refused. Mr. Lovretovich threatened to file a motion requesting the court remove him as legal counsel in the Plaintiff's case. Evidently, Mr. Lovretovich and/or Ms. Cohen chose to violate confidentiality and contacted Mr. Schmiley, advising him that their "relationship" with the Plaintiff had ended. This of course was presumptuous on the part of Mr. Lovretovich, Ms. Cohen and even, Mr. Schimley as the dissolution of a relationship between an attorney and their client requires approval by the court. 

Mr. Schimley, possessing the same disregard for confidentiality as does his client, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., contacted the credit union. According to President Wiggington, Mr. Schimley was gleeful as he allegedly and inaccurately reported that the Plaintiff's attorney had resigned. Again, under the law, an attorney cannot resign without approval by the court. Nonetheless, President Wiggington conferred with Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, and Director of Project Management, Yvonne Boutte, informing them that the attorney for the former Business Development Representative had resigned and the case was no over. 

Mrs. Boutte returned to her office and informed Credit Resolutions Supervisor, Alex Suarez, that the case was over and the Plaintiff's attorney had resigned. Mrs. Suarez in turn, shared the information with her staff in the Credit Resolutions Department. 

Priority MC, the handle used by a periodic poster on this blog, published a comment declaring that the Plaintiff's attorney had resigned and the case was officially over. 

Mr. Schimley acted abhorrently, divulging highly confidential information which had not been approved by the court. Did he violate the state's code of conduct all attorneys are to required to abide to?  Mr. Schimley prematurely assumed the Plaintiff's attorney's request to be dismissed would eventually be approved by the court though he had absolutely no evidence suggesting this would ever occur. What's more, the motion seeking to be remove as legal counsel was never filed by the Plaintiff's attorney bringing into scrutiny the ability to Mr. Schimley possesses to conduct himself in an ethical and respectable manner. Mr. Schimley's statements not only revealed the state of his personal ethics but unwittingly exposed the incompetence of the Plaintiff's own legal counsel. 

At the time these events ensued we learned that the Plaintiff is in possession of several emails sent to him by his former attorney, Joseph Lovretovich, which threatened to file the motion with the court if he refused to enter into a settlement agreement. However, these were apparently not the only documented threats leveled by Mr. Lovretovich. The Plaintiff published a review on the Internet, describing his experience with Mr. Lovretovich's law firm. When Mr. Lovretovich discovered the Plaintiff's review, the sent another email to his former client, threatening to sue him for breaching the agreement entered into with the credit union. Clearly, Mr. Lovretovich failed to comprehend that the review criticized his law firm. Mr. Lovretovich seemed also glib to the fact that his threats contained in the emails sent to the Plaintiff  had left him vulnerable to ethics charges which the Plaintiff could have filed with the state of California. 

On a side note, Mr. Lovretovich's law firm eventually paid all taxes due on the settlement amount paid to their former client. This is hardly what a law firm does if their client had violated a settlement agreement or any state laws. 

 VALENCIA BRANCH MANAGER

In the third lawsuit filed against Priority One Credit Union, the former Valencia Branch Manager alleges she was retaliated against, harassed, subjected to a hostile working environment, subjected to slander, and sexually (same-sex) harassed by former COO, Beatrice Walker. 

As he addictively does in all cases involving Priority One Credit Union, Mr. Schimley chose to skewer the Plaintiff's reputation. Earlier this year, the President revealed that it is imperative that the Valencia Branch Manager's lawsuit not proceed to court. Evidently, the President is afraid that Ms. Walker's acts committed while COO would become a matter of public record. He is also concerned that he and Human Resources would be depicted as purposely refusing to stop Ms. Walker's scathing personal campaign launched against the former Valencia Branch Manager.

According to statements made by President Wiggington, Mr. Schimley's handling of the third lawsuit is commencing along the same road traversed in his handling of the lawsuits filed by the former Burbank Branch Manager and the former Business Development Representative. He has tried to show that the branch manager was derelict in carrying our her assigned responsibilities but his efforts have hit a dead end.  

The fact is, every one of the lawsuits litigated by Mr. Schimley has been settled despite his pre-settlement cries that the Plaintiff's cases lacked all merit to proceed to court. In December 2011, weeks after his firm informed President Wiggington that the Burbank Branch Manager's lawsuit would be dismissed by the court, Mr. Schimley scrambled to enter into settlement negotiations to avoid the case proceeding to trial. 

What's more, no one believes that a company would voluntarily enter into a settlement agreement if a Plaintiff's lawsuit lacks all merit. In fact, what attorney would ever accept to represent any Plaintiff if their case didn't possess some merit? 

A settlement agreement always contains language that the payment issued by the defendant is not an admittance of wrongdoing but realistically, why wold a defendant pay out a settlement if they are not guilty of wrongdoing? 

Attorney, Paul F. Schimley's response to the lawsuit filed by a former Financial Services Representative ("FSR:") once assigned to the Burbank branch. Mr. Schimley's response is wordy and droll. We've chosen the following excerpts documenting Mr. Schmiley's response.Mr. Schimley provides nothing that could corroborate the integrity of any of his statements.    

Mr. Schimley's statement that his client, the Defendant, "denies generally and specifically each and every allegations contained in the Complaint, and the whole thereof, and further denies Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum or sums whatsoever or at all" is of course, expected. Fortunately, Mr. Schimley will never be a pregnant female who despite her condition, was subjected to duress and harassed by a credit union that has developed a well-documented record of abuses of federal and state laws. Furthermore, wasn't President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. found guilty of sexual harassment in 2008 and wasn't the evidence of his illegal act covered up by Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks?

By the way, this is the pat answer also provided by Mr. Schimley in his responses to the lawsuits filed by the former Burbank Branch Manager and a former Business Development Representative. Mr. Schimley adds that because the lawsuit filed by the FSR fails to provide substantiating "facts" to justify the Plaintiff's complaint against his client. 

In the Second Affirmative Defense, Mr. Schimley asserts that his client's treatment of the former FSR was proper and appropriate. He as the Defendant of the credit union must, in his response, ignore the fact that the abuses perpetrated against the former FSR were witnessed by numerous employees. And despite his insistence that the credit union conducted itself in a proper manner, the fact is, the FSR's complaints and concerns verbalized and submitted in writing to Human Resources Director and Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, were consistently ignored and not responded to. 

In his Third Affirmative Defense, Mr. Schimley states that the former FSR failed to file her lawsuit within statutes of limitations allotted under state law. Under California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 the Plaintiff had two years following the date of the incident in which to file her claim. 

We've recently learned from our favorite source for information - President Wiggington, that Mr. Schimley has declared yet another victory against the FSR. We've, as mentioned previously, have previously heard Mr. Schimley's premature declarations to victories that just never pan out and so we have to view his latest exclamation as the verbalizations of a man who lacks the type of personal self-discipline that is associated with adults. According to the President, Mr. Schimley has described litigation against the former FSR as a "slam dunk.:" According to the President, Mr. Schimley has assured him that there is no way the Plaintiff's case can proceed to court because of her failure to file her lawsuit in a timely manner as allotted under California state law.  Evidently the ignorant President doesn't understand that the final determinant in deciding whether or not any case has failed to be filed in a timely manner. 

In his Fourth Affirmative Defense, Mr. Schimley writes that his client "acted in good faith and with an absence of malice towards Plaintiff."  

The Plaintiff called and sent emails to Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, reporting the abuses perpetrated against her by AVP, Sylvia Perez. Mr. Smock chose not to acknowledge, investigate or respond to her concerns. 

The acts perpetrated by Mrs. Perez were witnessed by the entire Burbank branch staff. The staff urged the Plaintiff to contact Human Resources which she did but as stated previously, Rodger Smock chose to ignore all communications. 

The Plaintiff conferred with her supervisor, Nidia Reyes, but the supervisors intercession were also ignored by Mr. Smock and by President, Rodger Smock. 

Mr. Schimley's response intentionally and all too conspicuously ignores the fact that a total of four lawsuits have been filed by former employees, all of which level similar allegations of wrong doing perpetrated by the President and some of his executive and managerial staff. 

Mr. Schimley's response attempts ever so feebly, to ignore the fact that over the years there have been dozens of complaints filed against both President Wiggington and Mrs. Perez. In fact, Mr. Schimley knows that the credit union has acted as maliciously in their treatment of employees as he has been in his treatment of the Plaintiffs. 

Mr. Schimley's Fifth Affirmative Defense is nothing more than an unrealistic wish by the manipulative attorney that the court decide that the Plaintiff has failed to provide facts that justify awarding her part or all of the damages she is requesting be paid to her as a result of the abuses perpetrated against her by AVP, Sylvia Perez. 

In his sixth and seventh Affirmative Defenses Mr. Schimley states that under state law, the credit union was allowed to terminate the FSR at anytime and without reason because she is an "at will" employee.  Though he is correct that Priority One is an at-will employer, he is ever so weakly, trying to circumvent the fact that even at-will employers are not allowed to subject employees to harassment, retaliation or to create a hostile-working environment. 

Of course, this again brings into question the ethics of the credit union who in 2008 purposely ignored evidence gathered by the investigator from EXTTI, Inc. which proved President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. sexually harassed an employee. Does being an at-will employer allow employers to protect officers who violate federal law? Mr. Schimley may not be a forthright attorney and his methodologies may even be considered insidious with the legal community, but he should know it is illegal for any employee to discriminate against any employee on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sexual preference, gender, medical reasons such as pregnancy, childbirth or disabilities. The credit union is also not allowed to discriminate based on an employee’s disability, age (40 years or older), citizenship status,  and genetic information. Additionally, under state law, the credit union is prohibited to discriminate based on marital status, sexual orientation, AIDS/HIV,  medical condition, political activities or affiliations.

In his Eight Affirmative Defense Mr. Schimley states that the Plaintiff's claims are barred by the "doctrine of unclean hands." The doctrine of unclean hands is a rule of law that stipulates that a person who files a lawsuit and is asking for monetary relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conducted related to any of the accusations referenced in their lawsuit. 

Mr. Schimley was presented with a record of written and verbal warning issued to the FSR by no other than AVP, Sylvia Perez. At the time the warnings were issued, the FSR responded by declaring that they were untrue and as stated previously, called and wrote to Executive Vice President and Director of Human Resources, Rodger Smock, who never responded. 

Now the credit union is attempting to use documents containing allegations the FSR had previously declared untrue, to strengthen its defense. The issue now is that Priority One is again using fraudulent evidence to try and win it's case. This by the way, is not the first time Priority One uses fraudulent information to justify it's actions. 

Mr. Schimley’s tactic is preemptive, possibly hoping to avoid depositions, discovery, and a costly and embarrassing court trial. 

In his Ninth Affirmative Defense, Mr. Schimley asserts that the Plaintiff committed unlawful, wrongful and improper acts. Mr. Schimley's declaration of wrong doing is unaccompanied by facts. Mr.Schmiley uses the terms "misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance" to describe the alleged illegal acts and non-illegal violations of policy and procedures allegedly committed by the Plaintiff. 

• Malfeasance is any act that is illegal or wrongful.
• Misfeasance is an act that is legal but improperly performed.
• Nonfeasance is a failure to act which results in harm.

Mr. Schimley's "evidence" is in part, the untrue and fraudulent acts allegedly committed by the FSR as documented by AVP, Sylvia Perez. Though untrue, the credit union is nonetheless using the fraudulent "evidence" in it's defense. In the past, Mrs. Perez with the help of Human Resources, documented untrue accusations against employees, resulting in their termination. She did this with a Branch Manager of the Van Nuys office and with a Business Development Representative assigned to the Burbank office.  

One has to also wonder why the FSR was not terminated for her alleged illegal and non-illegal acts and instead fired for acts related to her pregnancy leave?

In his tenth defense, attorney Schimley asserts that the injuries (or damages) suffered by the former FSR were the result of her own negligence, nonfeasance, and misfeasance. In other words, while serving as an employee she committed acts that though not illegal, caused injury to herself. She also acted in manner which resulted in harm and subsequently, led to her termination. Furthermore, she and/or a third person contributed in causing all or part of the injuries she sustained or which caused the credit union, harm.

Attorney Schimley states that Priority One Credit Union is thus, not liable to pay any percentage of damages as stipulated under California Civil Code, Section 1431, et. seq. (Proposition 51). The civil code limits the amount of damages the credit union might be liable to pay for any pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation alleged by the former FSR.  In other words, Priority One has done nothing wrong and so it owes nothing to the former employee.

In his eleventh and twelfth defenses, attorney Schimley, declares his client will not pay damages for an physical or emotional injuries suffered by the Plaintiff, simply because the credit union didn’t commit the abuses described in the lawsuit. He further asserts that the FSR can have applied for Workers’ Compensation for any injuries that arose out of and during the course of her employment. Clearly, attorney Schimley is hoping to tap into remedy provisions provided under workers' compensation statutes which are designed to protect employers from common lawsuits filed by employees to recover for work-related injuries.  By doing so, attorney Schimley is seeking to protect Priority One from larger damages that might be awarded should the credit union be found guilty of the charges leveled by the Plaintiff.

In recent years, courts have allowed judicial exceptions to workers’ compensation statutes. New standards now hold employer’s liable for harassment. The court should consider several factor including, if the alleged discrimination was severe and pervasive.

 

Attorney Schimley’s further requests that any order by the court order, demanding Priority One pay damages, be reduced by any compensation previously paid to the Plaintiff from other sources including workers’ compensation, disability, unemployment, or settlements derived from lawsuits filed against other parties.

In his sixteenth defense, Attorney Schimley argues that imposing punitive damages against the credit union is unconstitutional under state law as these could be construed as “excessive fines and penalties” and constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” and violate the credit union’s right to “due process and equal protection clauses.”

In his seventeenth defense, attorney Schimley states that the former FSR has not stated the truth and even if the allegations are true, the accusations are insufficient to justify the payment of punitive damages.

In his nineteenth defense, attorney Schimley asserts that the former FSR failed to use all of the venues allotted by the credit union under policy which might have resolved her grievances and brought an end to the alleged abuses committed by AVP, Sylvia Perez.

Attorney Schimley has been involved in litigation of the first, second, and third lawsuits. He, more than anyone else, is aware of the allegations contained in each complaint. He also knows, that the credit union refused to follow its own remedial channels and even allowed the harassment and abuse of many, now former employees while ensuring that the perpetrators go unpunished. This speaks volumes about the level of ethics governing the credit union’s efforts to vindicate itself from the allegations. There is also the subject of the many witnesses who have through the years observed the abuses committed by President Wiggington; former COO, Beatrice Walker; AVP, Sylvia Perez; and which were allowed to persist by both Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock; and Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks.

In concluding, attorney Schimley reiterates that the former FSR failed to exhaust her administrative remedies which include contacting the credit union’s Human Resource Department and filing an official complaint. Attorney Schimley also asserts the credit union’s right to introduce any additional defenses as they are obtained or as allowed under the law, asking that the court not grant damages to the Plaintiff, to order she pay all attorney fees, and any additional fees, which would include court-related costs.

THE PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL TEAM

The former FSR (Plaintiff) is being represented, as shown below, by the Law Offices of Joseph Lovretovich. In April of this year, President Wiggington alleged that the attorney representing a former Business Development Representative was an associate of the credit union’s attorney, Robert F.Schimley, and bragged that the alleged association would prove a victory for the credit union in that lawsuit.  

---

As we reported in our last two posts, the credit union was litigating a lawsuits (cross-complaint) filed by a member whose confidential information was published by an employee of the credit union and more than likely, an officer, on the Internet.

Bruce Needleman, the credit union’s collection and bankruptcy attorney was given what turned out to be, the unpleasant and possibly even over-whelming task of defending Priority One. Unfortunately, the area of law was apparently outside his scope of expertise and though he tried to litigate the lawsuit, stepped away.  In November, following his failure to respond in a timely manner to certain filed motions, Mr. Needleman was replaced by Colleen A. Deziel (#164282) of the law firm of Anderson, McPharlin and Conners.

Source: http://www.amclaw.com/bio/ColleenDeziel.asp

Within a few days, Ms. Deziel worked out an agreement though we’ve recently learned that the President and Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, refused to admit in writing, that an officer or employee of the credit union, ever posted the highly confidential information pertaining to the member’s Priority One automobile loan. Of course, one would have to be glib to believe that anyone but an officer would be privy to the highly confidential information which included knowledge of a lawsuit filed by Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance, Inc. against the credit union; or the fact the member’s loan had been referred over to collection proceedings and afterwards, to collection and bankruptcy attorney, Normal Needleman.  On November 15th, Mrs. Deziel presented the credit union’s best and final afterward which the credit union asserted was all they were willing to give.  Attorney Deziel also stated that the credit union would be unable to executive a settlement agreement within the stringent deadline presented by the member.

Not so coincidentally, on November 27, 2012, the attorney arrived at the credit union’s main branch in South Pasadena, California, and conducted meetings with employees, advising them that credit union policy prohibits the disclosure of confidential member information- both verbally and published on the Internet. It is apparent, the attorney was duped by the credit union’s President, who over the years have been the single most violator of credit union’s policies and deservedly established a reputation for publicly verbalizing information which is deemed confidential by the credit union.

---

 .

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures, Part 2 of 3

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

As reported in our last post, in late 2011, the credit union again hired consultants to determine and resolve the issues impeding Priority One’s ability to attract substantial amounts of new business and revamp the President, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.’s undesirable public persona.

This past May, several versions of the President’s amended biography began to appear on various websites throughout the Internet. According to the President, the consultants informed him publishing officer biographies ensures potential members that a business is being managed by competent leaders and this is a selling took guaranteed to generate new business. Huh? Reading through the various biographies, some of whose images are shown below, we identified numerous embellishments which make the biographies both inaccurate and disingenuous.

 http://charlesrwiggingtonsr.com/

As shown below, the intent of one of the President’s online biographies is to emphasize his vast “executive banking” experience. Unfortunately, his alleged years of experience are not synonymous with success as attested to by the credit union’s monthly and quarterly reports.  Priority One’s reduced Net Income, closure of four branches, and four separate lawsuits filed by former employees all attest to incompetence and mismanagement and not success or long-term experience.

http://charlesrwiggingtonsr.org/

The last paragraph of Mr. Wiggington’s www.resume.com biography, states he possesses a Bachelor of Arts degree though failing to disclose it is in Afro-American studies.

Shown below, are the President’s alleged objectives. The President should take a few minutes to acquaint himself with what defines “Objectives”.

http://www.resume.com/charlesrwiggingtonsr 

Source: http://www.slideshare.net/charlesrwiggingtonsr

 The statement in his us.viadeo.com biography, that Charles R. Wiggington supervises “all branch operations at his company” is inaccurate. In 2007, he created the AVP sector. Each AVP was assigned a specific region to manage. Branch operations in each region were delegated to assigned AVP’s. In 2009, the task of operations was transferred to former COO, Beatrice Walker. Following her termination, the task was temporarily transferred to Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock. In December 2011, oversight over all branch operations was transferred to CLO, Cindy Walker. The reference to “loan origination” is incorrect. Loan origination refers to a specific process used in opening a new loan application and the initial steps enacted to gather documentation required to determine an applicant’s eligibility. Changes in oversight over the Real Estate and Consumer Loan Departments is shown below:

• Prior to January 1, 2007, the Real Estate and Consumer Loan Departments were under administration of the Director of Lending and Assistant to the Director of Lending.
• Beginning on January 1, 2007, the Real Estate and Consumer Loan Departments were under administration of the AVP of Lending and his assistant.
• In 2009, the Real Estate Loan Department was placed under authority of the Real Estate Loan Supervisor.
• In 2010, the Real Estate and Consumer Loan Departments were placed under the authority of then newly appointed Loan Manager, Joseph Garcia.
• By mid-2010, due in part to Mr. Garcia’s inability to understand the processes governing mortgage lending, the Real Estate Department was placed under authority of CFO, Saeid Raad.
• In August 2011, the Real Estate and Consumer Loan Departments were placed under authority of then newly hired Director of Lending, Cindy Garvin, while Mr. Garcia remained Loan Manager over consumer loan development.
• Ms. Garvin currently possesses sole authority over the Real Estate and Consumer Loan Departments.

So what the does the reference to President Wiggington’s “responsibility for loan origination” mean? Not a thing. It is both inaccurate and untrue. Furthermore, Mr. Wiggington has failed consistently over the past five years to enact any strategy that translates into growth and profit. The loss of four branches and the credit union’s reduced Net Income size suffice as evidence to his failure to produce real growth in business. 

The statement that President Wiggington “strives to ensure good relationships with all members” is certainly not evidenced in the strained relationship he introduced between Priority One and one of its formerly most loyal SEG, Providence, Inc.’s medical centers- St. Joseph, Tarzana, and Holy Cross.

 http://us.viadeo.com/ 

  In the end, the biographies are part of an expensive publication relations effort which includes published embellished and inaccurate versions of the President’s biographies. The biographies have been tweaked ever so carefully to create the impression of professionalism and success but amount to nothing more than gross exaggeration of a man who has shown no proclivity towards leadership. 

---

 IS IT SEXY, ART, PROVACATIVE OR JUST BAD TASTE?

We can’t think of a single manager at Priority One who qualifies as a consummate professional and we certainly can’t think of a single manager who can be characterized as either dignified or noble. AVP, Yvonne Boutte’s (the Assistant Vice President of Support Services) subordinate, AVP, Gema Pleitez, has recently revealed that she like President Wiggington, marches to the sound of a different drummer and that she will not be constrained to comply those dictates governing what is and what is not, appropriate.

At many companies- possibly even most companies, members of the management and non-exempt sector are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is above-reproach. Apparently, not so at Priority One Credit Union where rules are defiantly broken by executives and managers, alike. On November 12, 2012, one of our readers published their thoughts about AVP, Gema Pleitez’s Facebook photograph which accompanied her comment, shown below: 

ORIGINAL POST

We admit we didn’t notice the photograph until after it was brought to our attention by the person posting the following comment:

Anonymous said...

Not to mention she (Gema) comments on her employer's website with a facebook profile that has a collage of pics including a provocative picture of her in a bikini showing a tramp stamp. I thought employers reprimanded that type of representation, especially by an AVP. Maybe Yvonne will use that in her growing pile of reasons to fire Gema.

November 12, 2012 10:23 AM

In late November, Mrs. Pleitez was ordered by the credit union to amend her Facebook photograph and remove the image displaying her tattoo. Mrs. Pleitez’s new Facebook photograph is shown below:

AMENDED PHOTO IN POST

Currently, Mrs. Pleitez’s Facebook page, displays the following photograph: 

Though we believe in freedom of expression we realize that certain compromises must be made when employees post images and statements on public media. An employee’s extracurricular activities can negatively impact their employer and their person. Though Mrs. Pleitez is more than 30 years old, she is evidently ignorant of what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate photographs and posting. She, as a long-time officer of the credit union, should be expected to comply, uphold, and enforce credit union policies. We were fortunate enough to obtain a copy of her original Facebook photograph, which is shown below and which she partially amended, following the comment which addressed the inappropriateness of her photograph.

APPROPRIATE or INAPPROPRIATE?

What any person finds provocative is purely subjective, however, what is appropriate and certainly proper within an organization is subject to policies which govern what an employer wishes to project about themselves, their employees, and their clients.

Looking at Mrs. Pleitez’s Facebook photograph we were reminded that shortly after being hired in June 2009, former COO, Beatrice Walker, described Priority One’s environment as “ghetto” and periodically disparaged “Mexican” employees for their conduct, behaviors and mode of dress yet Ms. Walker like Human Resources, never was impelled to enforce rules  governing conduct and dress- at least not for certain, favored employees. From another perspective, Mrs. Pleitez’s photograph certainly serves as an appropriate metaphor for what Priority One is as a professional business.

---

Once known for his grandfatherly demeanor, Executive Vice President’s once almost pristine reputation has deteriorated over the more than past five years. Mr. Smock’s downfall can be attributed in great part for his disregard of credit union policy as four lawsuits have insinuated for federal and state laws.

In late 2009 and throughout 2010 and part of 2011, former COO, Beatrice Walker, targeted Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, for expulsion, referring to him as “lazy”, “useless”, and “overpaid.” The man, whose responsibilities once included overseeing the credit union’s Human Resources Department, were transferred in 2011, to former Training and Education Manager, Robert West, following filing of two lawsuits. So what exactly does the Executive Vice President do, nowadays? We know that in 2011, he and CLO, Cindy Garvin, issued an email requesting that all employees in possession of company-issued cellulars, return these to his office. We also know that he used to spend hours clipping and distributing coupons to employees. And we know that secretly (actually not so secretly), he serves as an unofficial consultant to Human Resources, in great part because current Director, Robert West, is inexperienced and unqualified to oversee the department. More importantly, we also know that the allegations described in each of the lawsuits filed by former employees took place while Mr. Smock served as Director of Human Resources. This fact is extremely telling, isn’t it?

RODGER SMOCK, EXECUTIVE V.P.

It is one thing for us to write about what we know and think about Mr. Smock, but quite another to read what Mr. Smock says about himself. In recent months, consultants have urged the chronically inattentive Executive Vice President to post bios about himself through the Internet as a positive means by which to promote and affirm his skills, abilities, and experience. As shown below, his LinkedIn account contains sparse information. It also erroneously references his position as that of Senior Vice President.   

His SlideShare account contains much more information about who he allegedly is as an officer, though we know first hand that his alleged expertise is sharply contradicted by his performance, involvement in credit union operations, and finally, as a contributor to a credit union which is nowadays, much smaller and less competitive. We agree he has experience in payroll but he is most certainly not an expert in anything related to marketing. Certainly the credit union’s inability to sell its wares and the fact that earlier this year, the credit union hired a Marketing Specialist, attest that Mr. Smock is not qualified to serve in a marketing capacity. In the years when he oversaw publication of the credit union’s newsletter and helping creating posters promoting the credit union’s products, Mr. Smock’s efforts were limited to advertising.  The credit union’s reduced Net Income, the loss of  four key branches, and four lawsuits filed by former employees indicate that his alleged expertise has not been utilized to reverse the credit union’s horrendous performance over the past several years.

Ironic that this allegedly accomplished officer has no followers, as shown below nor does he apparently follow anything.

http://www.slideshare.net/rodgerdsmock

TWEETING AWAY

On his Twitter account, Mr. Smock describes himself as a “business and human resources specialist” yet the filing of former lawsuits by former employees suggests that he is not only not a specialist but may be more than a little inept in employee-employer relations. He again doesn’t appear to be participating in his own account as shown by the complete absence of tweets.

https://twitter.com/RodgerDSmock

In his Ziggs biography, Mr. Smock is describes himself as “a respected professional”, as an Executive Vice President who oversees a wide range of operational responsibilities including human resources, security, finance, and payroll. Oddly, in 2011 his authority over human resources was removed and transferred to then Education and Training Manager, Robert West. If so, then why is human resources referenced as one of the areas he currently oversees? The answer: He’s not telling the truth.

He allegedly also oversees security, but just earlier this year, an officer of the credit union began posting responsive comments on this blog using the handle, Priority MC, and revealing highly confidential information about a former employee’s lawsuit and a member who has since sued the credit union alleging violation of the Privacy Act.

In 2007, payroll was transferred to his former assistant, Esmeralda Sandoval. She afterwards, reassigned the task to a representative in the Accounting Department. Mr. Smock has not managed payroll in several years, yet includes it in his present biography.

Contrary to what is written below, Mr. Smock does not provide home, equity, and automobile loans. Mr. Smock does not have any experience in opening a new loan application, determining eligibility or funding an approved consumer or real estate loan. The test to prove so is simple- ask him to process a consumer and mortgage loan from the point of origination through closing.

The closing statement that Mr. Smock “strives to maintain a high level of professional awareness” through his participation in certain organizations is not attested to by his performance at the credit union and is laid waste by four lawsuits filed by former employees.  His biographies amount to hyperbole.

http://www.ziggs.com/public/Rodger_Smock_337994

The statements describing Mr. Smock’s competency are dispelled by the allegations contained in each lawsuit filed by former employees and years of complaints which included allegations of sexual harassment. Furthermore, his statement alleging he built “a career dedicated to strong human resource management” is easily disputed by the failures of the Human Resources Department to ensure policies were adhered to by both managers and non-exempt personnel. To the contrary, Mr. Smock has not contributed in creating a “strong human resources management.”

Mr. Smock has also no documented record of contributing to the growth and development of new business. If asked to prove what he has actually achieved while serving in the capacities of Human Resources Director, Senior Vice President and Executive Vice President, he would be unable to provide evidence of his alleged accomplishments. Certainly the closure of four branches in less than three years attests that as an alleged contributor, his skills may require considerable improvement and maybe some actual hands on experience in and off the field versus, sitting contently at his desk.

Rodger D. Smock does not routinely visit SEG’s including postal facilities to describe the benefits of becoming a member of the credit union. Having once overseen Business Development, his promotion of products and services was limited to dispensing advice to the former and no longer existent, Business Development Team.

Mr. Smock’s Wordpress biography is as embellished as his other biographies published on other sites.  If Mr. Smock truly oversaw all operations then he would not serve as Executive Vice President but would serve as the credit union’s Chief Operations Officer. As readers know, the Board of Directors hired Beatrice Walker in 2009, to serve as the credit union’s first COO. She was fired two years later and nowadays, branch operations are allegedly overseen by Chief Loan Officer, Cindy Garvin. This being true, we can’t understand why Mr. Smock’s biography would assert that he “works with personnel at each of these locations to ensure that the goals set by Priority One’s Board of Directors are being adequately addressed.” Furthermore, Human Resources now named Employee Development, is under directorship of Robert West.

Many past and former employees might take issue with the statement of Mr. Smock’s alleged “dedication” to the employees and members, alike.

http://bigsight.org/rodger_smock

Source: http://us.viadeo.com/en/profile/rodger.d.-smock

Other sites in which Mr. Smock is promoting his experience and abilities, are shown below:

http://www.xing.com/profile/Rodger_DSmock

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rodger-d-smock/4/357/779

Source: http://donanza.me/rodgerdsmock

Mr. Smock’s alleged and extensive experience is undermined by the simple fact he is not actually able to perform many of the procedures referenced in his biographies. Any employee who has worked with Mr. Smock for any length of time can attest that he is incapable of opening a new member account, running Red Flags Procedures, processing closure of an existent member account or creating a new loan application- at least not without assistance. Yet, in his biography he is alleged to oversee operations including the aforementioned processes.

Source: http://rodgerdsmock.org/

Other sites containing copies of Mr. Smock’s biography are shown below:

http://www.lookuppage.com/users/rodgerd.smock/

http://www.flickr.com/people/rodgerdsmock/

Does Rodger D. Smock actually supervise all aspects of branch operations? Ask any non-exempt employee. Anyone who has worked with Mr. Smock for any amount of time is well-acquainted with his knowledge and work ethics.  

Rodger Smock’s interests, as shown below are Rodger Smock. What?

http://www.worky.com/rodger-smock

For years, Mr. Smock’s few online biographies referenced a B.A. in psychology though his newly updated biographies reference a B.A. in Marketing and Psychology and in other biographies, a B.A. in Business Administration. Did the consultants ask him to embellish his educational accomplishments? Again, the effort appears to be to create the impression he studied business and is thus qualified to serve in the capacity of an officer. We know that while William E. Harris served as President, Mr. Smock never indicated he possessed a B.A. in Marketing or any actual experience in Marketing. His trek into marketing has been limited to selecting graphics intended to promote products and services and writing copy, those his writing abilities leave much to be desired as attested to by the credit union’s horrendously written and formatted Employee Policy handbook which he authored.

The effort to present Mr. Smock as noble because of his charitable efforts is laid-waste by the many complaints filed with Human Resources while he served as Director, some of which alleged sexual harassment and others accusing managers of abuses, slander, and retaliation. Clearly, the allegations of wrongdoing, alleged by many now former employees, reveal that Mr. Smock is a man who chose to defy the policies he was obligated to enforce. No amount of hyperbole trying to present him as a good and caring person can overshadow the irrefutable facts and evidence attesting to his actual behaviors.

 

---

ARE THEY ON THE ROAD TO RECOVERY?

According to BANKRATE.com, is performing satisfactorily but does this suggest improvement?  Earlier this year, President Wiggington bragged that Priority One was well on the road to recovery though just four months later, the Burbank branch closed.  In December 2011 and during January and February 2012, he pointed to high capital as the evidence of the credit union’s success though by October 2012, a large number of employees were terminated while complaints pointed to deficient member service, escalated.

The credit union has remained afloat (though continuing to take on water) as a result of sometimes drastic cut-backs, which have compromised the credit union’s ability to promote its name and products. The recent efforts to reverse the credit union’s problems have been addressed by the creation of a new allegedly better website and by the President and Executive Vice President’s trumped up biographies. Of course if business were truly succeeding then why has Priority One’s Net Income decreased by approximately $21 million over the past six years and why did the credit union close the Redlands, Riverside, Valencia, and Burbank branches? President Wiggington would like members and employees to ignore these facts, but we won’t as they are critical indicators of Priority One’s performance.

As shown below, at the end of June, the credit union’s Net Capital/Assets were deemed below normal by Bankrate.com. However, Priority One’s Nonperforming Asset Ration was deemed “Somewhat Higher Than Standard.” The lower the ratio of a nonperforming asset ratio, the better. Earlier this year, many financial institution experienced reduced asset ratios as a result of improved economic activity and overall efforts by the industry to reduce the amount of problem loans. In determining the level of nonperforming asset ratio, Bankrate considers the amount of the loan charge-off ratio. The disclosure that Priority One’s nonperforming asset ration is “somewhat higher than Standard” may indicate that the credit union has sustained losses as a result of loans going bad. As also shown below, the rate for asset growth is below normal. 

As also shown below, the credit union’s Return on Average Assets was deemed below average while Overhead/Average Assets were “significantly higher than average.” This indicates that Priority One is not utilizing its assets efficiently. If the Return on Average Assets had been deemed “average” this would suggest that Priority One is able to function with the assets it possesses. Evidently, Bankrate’s determination concludes the credit union is unable to do so.

Without question, Priority One’s ability to sell its products and services at a level which enables the credit union to pay its expenses needed to remain in business, is suffering and may serve as an indicator of what lies ahead for the troubled credit union. 

Finally, Bankrate reveals that at the end of June, Priority One reported a return on their average assets (ROA) of 0.31%. In 2011, during the same quarter, the credit union reported an ROA in the amount of .39% which reveals a loss in profitability. This can be compared, as shown below, with the credit union Industry’s ROA of .86%,  once again revealing that not only has their ROA dropped but it is substantially lower than the industry’s approximated average.  Evidently, Priority One’s profit are being offset by their operation expenditures which seems highly unusual when one considers that they have closed four branches in less than two and a half years; laid-off numerous employees; and reduced overall expenses. 

Bankrate’s summary concluded that Priority One’s three-star rating is “unlikely to change within the ensuing twelve month period.” Well that certainly doesn’t suggest a bright and cheery future like the one President Wiggington has tried so hard to present. 

Source: http://www.bankrate.com/rates/safe-sound/memorandums-memos.aspx?cuid=60024

---

AN OLDIE BUT A GOODIE

THE LIGHT BULB CAME ON IN SOMEONE’S HEAD

Over the years, we’ve been Mr. Wiggington’s greatest critics in his inability to create strategies that translate into new business and generate profit. For years, we reported on his decision to eliminate the credit union’s once successful seasonal and affordable loan promotions, including Holiday (formerly known as a Christmas loan), Tax, Computer, and Back-to-School loans.

We are of course pleased, when the credit union listens. CLO, Cindy Garvin, who have decided to enhance the credit union’s lackluster loan portfolio by re-introducing a product offered by President’s Wiggington’s predecessor, the honorable William E. Harris. The products which for years garnered member attention is the Holiday Loan, once named the Christmas Loan. The loan along with the other lucrative seasonal products offered prior to Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.’s appointment to President, were eliminated by Mr. Wiggington who wanted to eliminate anything which reminded him of his predecessor. In giving into his emotional dictates, the President caused the credit union to lose lucrative sources of income and contributed to the credit union’s rapid decline in the years which followed. It is said, “Better late than never” but is it?

---

CONCLUSION

A WORLD OF INCONSISTENCIES

 

President Wiggington’s reign has been marred by adverse incidents, many proving detrimental to the credit union’s ability to acquire business and as attested to by Priority One’s diminished size.

On January 1, 2007, the date Charles R. Wiggington began serving as President, Inland Counties Postal Credit Union of Riverside County, effectively merged with Priority One. In the weeks before the merger, the credit union manually converted accounts for members of Inland Counties Postal Credit Union into Priority One’s XP database. The manual conversion became subject of extensive human error. On Tuesday, January 2, 2007, the credit union began receiving a vast number of calls from members of the newly integrated group, who cited they were unable to use their check cards, access their newly created accounts or transfer monies using home banking services. The mishandling of the incident would prove to be the first of a long line of fiascos created by and under President Wiggington. 

Like in any large adverse situation, the credit union found itself over-burdened with calls demanding immediate resolutions and threatening account closures. The event could have been used by President Wiggington to prove his abilities as Priority One’s new President and CEO. Instead, the President chose to point fingers at others and extricate himself from all accountability. He quickly placed blame on his predecessor, declaring that “he left  me with a mess”. Rather than performing an audit to confirm how many new members had been affected and possibly introducing a technological solution designed to resolve the issues in an expedient and effective manner, President Wiggington dragged his feet and told his receptionist to intercept any calls from irate members who had requested to speak to him. The end result was mass closure of member accounts and further evidence that President Wiggington did not possess the aptitude needed to lead the credit union.

●

During the first quarter of 2007, the credit union mailed out ballots in envelopes on whose exterior were printed member credit union account and social security numbers. The fault lay in President Wiggington who refused to follow security procedures established by his predecessor, though when the problem became public he quickly found a scapegoat and victim in the former IT Supervisor. The supervisor was suspended and a few week later resigned after acquiring better employment.

●

In 2008, President Wiggington was accused of sexual harassment. EXTTI, Inc. conducted an investigation which proved many employees had witnessed him sexually harassing the former employee. Though evidence was provided to Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, along with a recommendation the President be terminated, Mrs. Harris-Brooks fought to reinstate the President. 

●

Though 2009 and 2010 ended in the negative the salary paid to the President remained unaffected. Over the past year, many employees were terminated for allegedly failing to perform their assigned responsibilities commensurate with the credit union’s allegedly high standards and lofty principles. The President remains in office and continues to be paid an high salary despite numerous documented abuses, failures, and scandals which have left Priority One a tattered organization. Nowadays, he supinely languishes in his office, confidant his employment and salary are well-protected by Mrs. Harris-Brooks.

Furthermore, the President and Mrs. Harris-Brook have shown tremendous hubris in their abuse of power and defiance of policies and laws. They may believe they are potentates with unlimited authority to do whatever they please. Obviously, neither believes they owe anything to members and employees and are impervious and above rules.

At the end of 2011, President Wiggington boasted publicly that the credit union was on the road to recovery and not only had business improved but the credit union turned a profit as allegedly attested to by high capital. Unfortunately, employees did not understand the significance of capital or that it not synonymous with profit obtained from new business.

In January 2012, the President continued his ruse, ensuring employees that all was well. However, during the February 2, 2012 all-staff meeting, he warned employees that unless a large amount of new business was gotten within the next three months, he would be forced to close down the Burbank branch. What employees didn’t know was that the President had already contacted the company who the branch was leased through and informed them that they intended to close the branch in April. The branch eventually closed at the end of May 2012.

The President’s administration has been marred with lies and deception, horrendous and illogical strategies, and wild spending which the beleaguered credit union could not and cannot afford. The credit union’s current legal plights are the direct result of mismanagement, defiance to policies and laws and the product of a mode of administration which abhors ethics and organization. Certainly there is nothing in their current efforts to create a new façade that can hide the years of ignominious acts committed by and under President Wiggington. 

Source: http://www.usacreditunions.com/priority-one-credit-union-60024

Total Assets: $153,161,364

Minus Notes & Interest Payable (loans):  $3,000,000

Actual Total Assets:  $150,161,364

www.ncua.gov

On January 1, 2007, President Wiggington inherited a credit union whose Net Income approximated $172 million. Over the past five years, the credit union’s Net Income has diminished by approximately $22 million.

The President’s current efforts to create a polished façade are nothing more than another superficial make-over intended to hide the deep running cracks marring Priority One’s performance. The President hasn’t learned that his image and that of the credit union are grounded in Priority One’s performance and it’s relationship to its members. His bloated biographies and those of Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, and the credit union’s new, more colorful website can not rectify the deficiencies afflicting the credit union.

Under President Wiggington, Priority One has lost its relevance and its ability to help members win with money has yet to be proven. Upon the advice of consultants, President Wiggington has placed his hopes in creating a superfluous impression that Priority One is a well-managed organization under administration of highly professional, accomplished and competent executives. Credit union records suggest the exact opposite.