VICTIMIZATION
In August, we reported that a former member of the credit union filed a lawsuit alleging Priority One Credit Union violated the Privacy Act when one of it's officers intentionally and maliciously, published confidential information about the member's Priority One automobile loan and about her person, which had been published on the Internet. According to the President and Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, the person who published the comments and identifies themselves as "Priority MC", published the highly confidential information without permission of the President. Furthermore, they now insist Priority MC is not an officer of the credit union. They're lying.
The member's delinquent loan was not only the subject of collection proceedings but the member had been named a defendant along with Priority One Credit Union, in a lawsuit filed by her automobile insurance carrier. At the credit union, the only persons who would be privy to accounts that are subject to collection proceedings and that are subject to lawsuits are President Wiggington; the Director of Project Management, Yvonne Boutte; and Credit Collections Supervisor, Miss Alex Suarez. So which of the three intentionally violated the Privacy Act when they willingly intentionally published information about the member's automobile loan and person on the Internet?
Despite that the member's information was likely published by a member of the management team, the President recently ordered termination of his Administrative Assistant, allegedly for violating confidentiality. According to the President his assistant allegedly discussed his cancer with employees of the credit union, however, if true, this is not a violation of confidential information as he habitually and frequently, publicly talks about what he describes as his "ball cancer" and goes into tremendous detail divulging the treatments he is allegedly undergoing. Coincidentally, the termination occurred just after the member complained that her confidential information had been made public by the credit union.
We think the President used his assistant as a scapegoat and blamed her for the violation of confidentiality. This is not the first time he's done so. In 2007, told the Board that it was the IT Supervisor who mistakenly provided the credit union's printing company with member account and social security numbers that were erroneously printed on the exterior, front-side of envelopes containing ballots mailed to member residences. The error was actually caused when the President refused to abide to established security protocols. Prior to mailing the disc containing member information to the printer, the President refused to adhere to the credit union's protocols stating that as President, he did not have to do so.
INCOMPETENCE, HYPOCRISY and LIES
On July 31st, Mr. Needleman, told the court that he never received a copy of the Plaintiff's amended complaint even though the former member had proof the complaint had been mailed and received by Mr. Needleman's office. A copy was also mailed to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Inc., the member's former insurance carrier and who confirmed they received the copy.
The dishonesty found amongst the credit union's officers including it's Directors is obviously one also found in it's attorneys. To put it layman terms, we think the nature of the complaint falls far outside of Mr. Needleman's field of expertise.
The latest allegations filed against the credit union are easily remedied. The credit union needs to admit that one of it's employees, likely an officer, purposely violated the Privacy Act. After doing so, they should voluntarily enter into a settlement agreement and pay the member monetary costs for the attack leveled against her person and character. However, Priority One's President and Board Chair are not people who respect rules or laws or for that fact, members, so don't expect any admittance of wrong doing by members of this criminal band of officers.
As we've witnessed with lawsuits filed over the past two years, the credit union's overpaid attorney's use the following three steps in responding to complaints:
- Deny wrongdoing
- Suppress evidence
- Vilify the grievant or Plaintiff
Expect the credit union to again follow the same predictable pattern in contending with this latest complaint.
Mr. Needleman was also provided with a statement by President Wiggington as to who in the credit union violated the Privacy Act and purposely published the member's confidential information on the Internet. According to the President, the perpetrator is "a disgruntled employee" who uses the handle, "Priority MC." So are we to believe that a disgruntled employee victimized a member in his or her effort to undermine the credit union? What a simplistic and inane excuse. How did the alleged and unnamed disgruntled employee obtain access to highly confidential information that was only accessible to the President, the Director of Project Management, the Credit Collection Supervisor and may we add, Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks?
The credit union has already voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement with the member's Farmer's Automobile Insurance but has now refused to surrender the "pink slip" for the member's automobile. We've recently learned that President Wiggington, Board Chair Harris-Brooks, and Director Yvonne Boutte, and incensed with the member and have, according to Mrs. Boutte, decided to take their time in surrendering the title for the automobile. Members and prospective members should taken note of the credit union's behavior in this matter and understand that this is a reflection of the character of the President and how he chooses to contend with problems created by himself and his executive staff.
The President's refusal to act appropriately has forced the member to file a Motion to Compel Discovery which asks the court to preside over issues caused by the credit union's legal counsel, Mr. Needleman. The credit union, actually the President and Board Chair, often play opossum when required to respond to complaints alleging violations of state and federal law. Their evasive and childish tactics usually play out to their detriment. Don't be surprised if Mr. Needleman fumbles again and unwittingly exacerbates the credit union's mounting legal problems.
Litigation aside, what does the member's lawsuit reveal about the credit union and it's intentional refusal to abide to the Privacy Act? Clearly, guarding confidential information is inconsequential to a President whose agenda is to satisfy his whims and urges and who has no tolerance for structure.
PARANOIA
The disturbing behaviors demonstrated by Beatrice Walker can be traced in great part back to President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. who believes that an invisible group of jealous employees seek to displace him. Months preceding her arrival, the President conferred with Ms. Walker on numerous occasions, providing her the names of the employees he knew for a fact were the blogger, bloggers and their confederates.
Also, months before Ms. Walker's arrival, the President used credit union money to hire Reggie Ellis., the owner of Sepia Consultants and Investigations.. On a Friday in February 2009, the consultant arrived at the credit union at about 5 p.m. At approximately 5:30 p.m. the President closed the door to his office and shut the blinds and Mr. Ellis began a search for surveillance equipment the President insisted was in his office. The President's desk, file cabinets, telephone, and lamps were all scanned and after twenty minutes, Mr. Ellis announced that there was no electronic equipment in the office. Mr. Ellis' services were paid for using credit union funds.
Eight days later, Mr. Ellis met returned to the South Pasadena branch on a Saturday morning where the two spent approximately 3 to 4 hours scanning the computers assigned to employees the President believed were leaking confidential information about his illegal activities on to the Internet. The consultant found absolutely nothing.
The scan of employee computers caused network problems which persisted for almost six months before finally be resolved.
The searches for surveillance equipment having failed, the President informed Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, that he knew for a fact that there were employees who intended to harm him and he believed would even attempt to shoot him. Again, there was no evidence for his beliefs other than his unfettered imagination. Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, approved the purchase of several cameras which were installed outside his office and in the halls leading the wing where his office is located. After the cameras had been installed, the President told staff, “Now I’ll be able to see if someone is coming to my office with a gun.”
A few weeks before the May 2009 annual meeting was scheduled to take place, the President easily convinced the ignorant Board that a “band of employees” was going to disrupt and possibly even resort to violence. The ignorant and poorly educated Directors embraced the President's fears and hired two armed guards and paid for three representatives from the law firm of Styskal, Weise & Melchione, LLP to attend the meeting including attorney, William Adler. Also, all the Directors and Supervisors were present. The meeting lasted 32 minutes from start to finish without incidence of a shootout, riot, or burning down of the branch.
Apparently, former COO, Beatrice Walker, and President Wiggington not only suffer with a gross inability to create new business but they suffer from the same delusions which cause them to lash out against staff in an effort to strike down some invisible group of non-existent and ingenious ninjas.
Also, months before Ms. Walker's arrival, the President used credit union money to hire Reggie Ellis., the owner of Sepia Consultants and Investigations.. On a Friday in February 2009, the consultant arrived at the credit union at about 5 p.m. At approximately 5:30 p.m. the President closed the door to his office and shut the blinds and Mr. Ellis began a search for surveillance equipment the President insisted was in his office. The President's desk, file cabinets, telephone, and lamps were all scanned and after twenty minutes, Mr. Ellis announced that there was no electronic equipment in the office. Mr. Ellis' services were paid for using credit union funds.
Eight days later, Mr. Ellis met returned to the South Pasadena branch on a Saturday morning where the two spent approximately 3 to 4 hours scanning the computers assigned to employees the President believed were leaking confidential information about his illegal activities on to the Internet. The consultant found absolutely nothing.
The scan of employee computers caused network problems which persisted for almost six months before finally be resolved.
The searches for surveillance equipment having failed, the President informed Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, that he knew for a fact that there were employees who intended to harm him and he believed would even attempt to shoot him. Again, there was no evidence for his beliefs other than his unfettered imagination. Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, approved the purchase of several cameras which were installed outside his office and in the halls leading the wing where his office is located. After the cameras had been installed, the President told staff, “Now I’ll be able to see if someone is coming to my office with a gun.”
A few weeks before the May 2009 annual meeting was scheduled to take place, the President easily convinced the ignorant Board that a “band of employees” was going to disrupt and possibly even resort to violence. The ignorant and poorly educated Directors embraced the President's fears and hired two armed guards and paid for three representatives from the law firm of Styskal, Weise & Melchione, LLP to attend the meeting including attorney, William Adler. Also, all the Directors and Supervisors were present. The meeting lasted 32 minutes from start to finish without incidence of a shootout, riot, or burning down of the branch.
Apparently, former COO, Beatrice Walker, and President Wiggington not only suffer with a gross inability to create new business but they suffer from the same delusions which cause them to lash out against staff in an effort to strike down some invisible group of non-existent and ingenious ninjas.
Kindly Share The Love»»
|
|
|
Tweet | Save on Delicious |
No comments:
Post a Comment