On the morning of Thursday, December 27th, the Van Nuys Branch Manager, Cecilia Pereyra, excitedly informed Financial Services Representative, Neelam Verma, that Priority One Credit Union’s Intranet contained a notice that Chief Lending Officer (“CLO”), Cindy Garvin, was no longer employed by credit union. Laughing loudly, the two women jumped up and down within the confines of Mrs. Pereyra’s very small office, each unable to conceal their glee and both casting aside all professional acumen.
Moments later, Mrs. Verma called her friend, AVP, Sylvia Perez, and happily informed her that Ms. Garvin was gone. Upon conclusion of their conversation, Mrs. Verma declares loudly, “Sylvia [Perez] is ready to comeback to work!” If the loss of one’s employment can be construed as good news, then apparently Ms. Garvin’s untimely ouster by President, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr, was indeed a celebratory event to at least some employees of Priority One Credit Union.
In 2011, Ms. Garvin formulated a new plan of action needed to jump start sales. Her strategy, which she guaranteed would increase sales and generate profit, consisted of assigning sales goals to most employees. Employees who failed to meet their minimum assigned goals during a single calendar month, would be issued a written warning. Employees who incurred a third written warning would be subject to immediate termination. On February 2, 2012, monthly quotas became effective and by April, the credit union began terminating employees who failed to achieve their assigned quotas. Ms. Garvin’s tactic increased stress amongst staff and very soon, many employees- including two AVPs, began cheating just to ensure they’re quotas were met. To achieve her purpose, Ms. Garvin inducted the assistance of her lackey, AVP of Sales and Business Development, Joseph Garcia. Mr. Garcia aggressively reminded employees of all branches on a daily basis, that they had quotas to meet. In the end, Ms. Garvin’s single most achievement was to further accelerate deterioration of employee morale.
The reactions to Ms. Garvin’s departure were similar to those elicited by employees in July 2011, when discovering that former COO, Beatrice Walker had been terminated from the credit union. In 2011, announcement of Ms. Walker’s ouster prompted the entire staff at the now defunct Burbank branch to cheer and applaud. Like Ms. Walker, CLO, Cindy Garvin, used the element of fear to force employees to comply to her dictates and like Ms. Walker, she failed. Despite their aggressive campaigns, both women eventually became casualties of President Wiggington. So is the termination of Cindy Garvin a sign of good things to come in 2013 or a harbinger of the credit union’s future demise?
SUMMONING HER RETURN
Evidently, Ms. Garvin’s departure was deemed an omen of a promising future for at least one officer of the credit union. In June 2012, AVP, Sylvia Perez, fled the credit union in fear that she was about to be terminated. Mrs. Perez who had over the years, helped President Wiggington and Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, plot the removal of some employees used the pretext that she was suffering from work-related stress, however, a careful analysis of events preceding her departure, suggest Mrs. Perez’s leave was triggered more by paranoia and her survival instinct.
In March and April of 2012, Mrs. Perez was issued to written warnings for failing to achieve her minimum assigned monthly sales quotas. The warnings came as a surprise to everyone because for years, Mrs. Perez boasted that her forte was business development. So adamant was she about her alleged skill in acquiring new business that she frequently reprimanded employees who failed to achieve her lofty standards. However, when the credit union implemented sales quotas, it quickly became apparent that Mrs. Perez’s forte was not business development and that her years of boasting were mere hyperbole.
In mid-May, Mrs. Perez realized that she was again, going to fail to attain her monthly goals for a third calendar month which she knew, would result in her termination. As the month of May drew to a close, she began confiding to certain employees that she knew Cindy Garvin hated her and was preparing to terminate her. She also alleged she was experiencing difficulty sleeping at nights, losing hair, had suffered outbreaks of adult acne, and was experiencing constant numbness to her her hands and face. So in June, following closure of her assigned branch in Burbank, California, Mrs. Perez quietly left the credit union on an indefinite medical leave.
During her convalescence, Mrs. Perez periodically contacted friends and told them she was feeling better and had become more involved with her church and was finally able to spend quality time with her daughter. She also stated she did not intend of returning to the credit union, convinced that if she did so, she would be promptly terminated by Ms. Garvin. She also complained that she was hurt and disappointed that the President who she thought of as a friend, had abandoned her and refused to respond to her emails and telephone calls.
In spite of the gravity of her symptoms and deep-seeded concerns, on December 27th upon being informed that Ms. Garvin was no longer employed by Priority One, Mrs. Perez’s symptoms suddenly and miraculously disappeared. Yes, Mrs. Perez’s instantaneous recovery was nothing short of a medical marvel. The question is, was Mrs. Perez ever actually ill?
THIS POST
SURVIVING THE ODDS
Priority One survived 2012 despite numerous impediments including internal turmoil and as described above, deficient managers. The credit union’s monthly production records again prove the credit union’s continued sustainability is primarily attributable to high capital versus new business. In December, a concerned President disclosed that Priority One had not performed well during the final quarter of 2012. Evidently, the assignment of monthly goals, implemented on February 2, 2012, to almost all employees, failed to generate growth and profit. The President had believed that the assignment of goals accompanied by a threat of termination would achieve its purpose but like so many of his assumptions, the tactic failed.
Forecasting what lies ahead for Priority One over the next twelve months only requires looking at the credit union’s performance during the years of 2007 through the end of 2012. Traditionally (or habitually), during January of each year, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. declares that he foresees an improvement to business over the next twelve months. He is so sure of this that in January 2010, he and former COO, Beatrice Walker, creatively manipulated the credit union’s income statements and plumped up the amount of income generated during the month so that it appeared Priority One turned a profit when it did not. By March, the credit union once again found its monthly reported profits in decline.
This month’s post is intentionally shorter as we speculate about Priority One’s performance over the next year. The one factor which has obstructed Priority One’s ability to reacquire the success it once enjoyed under former President, William E. Harris, is President Wiggington. Subsequently, we can’t imagine that 2013 will prove a banner year for the troubled credit union as the person who created many of the credit union’s problems remains the one person responsible for resolving the problems he created. Yes, its illogical but a dynamic set in motion by the credit union’s Board of Directors who continue to believe this is what’s best for the declining organization.
Like the closure of the Burbank branch in 2012 and closure of the Riverside branch in 2011 and the closures of the Redlands, and Valencia branches in 2010, the termination of CLO, Cindy Garvin, points to an internal operational problem. Financial losses, erratic shifts in power, lawsuits filed by former employees and deterioration of the credit union’s relationship with key member groups and SEG’s, all attest to the gross inability by President Wiggington, his executive staff, and the Board of Directors, to address the myriad of issues impacting the once promising credit union.
In December, President Wiggington conferred privately with Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, to discuss the subject of declining business. The President informed Mrs. Harris-Brooks that he’d given CLO, Cindy Garvin ample leeway to create strategies needed to propel growth in business and increase membership. Despite the President’s alleged generosity, Ms. Garvin, failed to achieve the goals she promised would be attained using her strategies.
In most companies, it is the President who is ultimately responsible for a businesses performance though not at Priority One Credit Union where the President remains well protected by the deficient and negligible Board of Directors.
So what can we expect from President Wiggington over the next twelve months? If Ms. Garvin were truly the reason for business faltering in 2012, then business should improve quickly over the next year. However, the credit union’s financial performance reports obtainable at NCUA.gov prove business has been in steady decline since 2008. In 2009, the President attributed the credit union’s amassing slump to the “Wall Street Meltdown.” Later that same year he promised the Board that with the assistance of then COO, Beatrice Walker, the credit union would experience growth and return to a state of profitability. Beginning in 2010, the credit union was forced to close its Redlands, Valencia, Riverside, and in 2012, the Burbank branches. The evidence proves Priority One has undergone shrinkage versus growth which attests to losses not profit. So what excuses will the President make in 2013 to justify the credit union’s continuing downward spiral?
PRIORITY ONE SETTLES ANOTHER LAWSUIT
This past November, the credit union voluntarily settled yet another lawsuit, though this particular suit was filed by a member who accused the credit union of divulging confidential information about one of her accounts.
In a letter whose contents are located to the right of this post, the President adamantly insists that he never authorized any employee to post the member’s confidential information on the Internet. Furthermore, he declares he never authorized any employee to post slanderous statements about the member’s person.
Irrelevant of his denials, the fact remains that an employee or employees of the credit union, knowingly and intentionally posted information about the member’s account along with slanderous statements about her person. It is impossible that the comments were posted by someone who was not an employee. Furthermore, due to the highly confidential nature of the member’s information, it is likely that the perpetrator or perpetrators were an officer or officers of the credit union.
The President’s statements which were probably written by the credit union’s attorney are ultimately silly, unbelievable, and another inane effort to save face. In the end, his denials no matter how adamant, mean absolutely nothing and serve to once again attest to his chronic need to dodge blame for the acts perpetrated by and under him. The purpose of the letter is simple: Not to admit that the credit union violated state and federal laws. However, if they were truly innocent then why would they have agreed to pay a settlement and bring an expedient closure to the lawsuit?
Interestingly, despite the highly serious nature of the violation, the credit union chose not to terminate the employee who published the confidential information leading us to conclude that the perpetrator of the act may have indeed been an officer of the credit union. As we’ve demonstrated over the years, officers of Priority One who knowingly commit egregious acts are rarely punished. Remember, in 2008 an investigation proved Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. sexually harassed a former employee and yet Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, succeeded in both squashing the evidence and reinstating the President.
SIDE EFFECTS
Though no employee(s) was terminated for violating the Privacy Act, there was at least one officer who was held accountable for provoking the member into filing a lawsuit. As we first reported in late 2012, the member contacted Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, at her home and reported the violation of federal law perpetrated by an employee of the credit union. The inept Chairperson called President Wiggington immediately and demanded that he resolve the complaint quickly and without incident. The President in turn, referred resolution of the complaint to AVP, Yvonne Boutte, and demanded that she contact the member and do “whatever is possible” to bring an end to the incident.
Mrs. Boutte contacted the member but deluded by her pseudo-authority, tried to subjugate the member into submission, a ploy which ultimately blew up in Mrs. Boutte metaphorical face. The member hung-up on Mrs. Boutte and filed a lawsuit. Mrs. Boutte’s strong armed efforts did not bode well for her and in the end irked the embarrassed Board Chair. Mrs. Boutte found herself the humiliated brunt of accusations that her tactics exacerbated the complaint. One has to wonder why Diedra Harris-Brooks chose to refer a violation of federal law to President Wiggington who is neither an attorney or a competent officer. Of course, it is even more enigmatic why the President and Board Chair thought it appropriate and intelligent to refer the complaint to Mrs. Boutte whose alleged expertise is collections. In 2007, Mrs. Harris-Brooks grew incensed when a complaint citing a violation of federal law was delivered by a former Board Director, to the credit union’s attorney. In 2008, Mrs. Harris-Brooks chose to squash evidence implicating President Wiggington as a sexual harasser. Four years later, its obvious that the wayward Board Chair has learned nothing about responding to issues that possess potentially legal implications for the credit union. As the old adage says, “You can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink it.”
THE PRESIDENT’S LETTER
The President’s letter is a transparent attempt to dodge accountability for the manner in which he botched the member’s complaint. It was the President’s chosen course of action which converted the member’s complaint into a lawsuit. It was purely avoidable had the President not again attempted to shirk his responsibilities and attempted to use his AVP to squash the member’s grievance. In addition to the actual settlement paid to the member, the credit union was again forced to hire a new attorney to respond to the lawsuit. 
According to the President…..
“Priority One Credit Union did not Write any material regarding Ms. Nylonda Sharnese, defamatory or otherwise.”
The President denies having authorized one of his staff to publish defamatory information about the member. What he doesn’t deny is that one of his staff published the information. He also admits that the information was defamatory in nature.
“It did not authorize anyone within the credit union to write or disclose any material concerned Ms. Sharnese, defamatory or otherwise. Further, it did not disclose any
information concerning any account or loan Ms. Sharnese may have had with it, nor did it alleged that Ms. Sharnese “ran with her car.”
In the second paragraph, the President reiterates that he did not authorize any member of his staff to write or disclose information about the member or her loan nor did he authorize an employee to alleges that the member “ran with her car.” Again, he does not deny that someone in his staff published the information about the member. Obviously, the confidential information which was only available to a few select employees was published by an employee who had intimate knowledge about the member and her credit union account.
“Quite simply, the credit union has no firsthand knowledge of Ms. Sharnese’s activities with her car, and the credit union does not condone anyone writing any information about any of its members or former members on any blog or other public forum.”
Though the President adamantly states that the credit union had “no firsthand knowledge of Ms. Sharnese’s activities with her car” the fact is, the credit union as the lender would have had knowledge of the whereabouts of the vehicle. Furthermore, the credit union was well aware that the vehicle had been damaged by a drunk driver, a fact which would have been disclosed to them by Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance, Inc. who filed suit against the credit union when Priority One refused to surrender the pink slip for the automobile.
Furthermore, Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks advised the member she would resolve the matter expediently, an offer she later rescinded and which forced the member to file suit against the credit union. If the disclosure of confidential information were not a problem at Priority One, then why did the Board pay for an attorney to visit the main branch in early December 2012, and remind employees that they cannot post confidential member information on the Internet?
Mr. Wiggington’s denials lack credibility and are just more of the same irresponsible avoidance of wrong doing continually committed by an immature and irresponsible CEO.
So will the credit union finally desist from violating its own policies governing confidentiality and the Privacy Act? We doubt it. In mid-2012, the daughter of a member called AVP, Yvonne Boutte, and demanded she be provided with information about her father’s account including her father’s account balance. The daughter is not named a joint account holder and is thus not privy to information pertaining to her father’s account unless she possesses Power of Attorney or a court issued order allowing her access to her father’s personal accounts. Of course in this instance, the daughter did not possess power of attorney or a court order which may have allowed her access to her father’s credit union records. Nonetheless, Mrs. Boutte, who oversees member services, provided the daughter with answer to all of her inquiries.
Additionally, for a period of months, an insurance company had erroneously deposited money into the member’s account. The error occurred because someone at the insurance company erroneously deposited money into the wrong account however, the credit union’s Accounting Department failed to realize the error. When the credit union discovered the error, the Accounting Department set about to back-out the funds which were erroneously credited to the members account, however, it never occurred to Mrs. Boutte or anyone in accounting, to inform the member about the error or the subsequent effort by the credit union to reverse each erroneous deposit. When the member noticed that his account balance had decreased, he contacted the credit union and demanded an explanation.
Mrs. Boutte violated the Privacy Act when she disclosed information to the member’s daughter who was not a joint account holder on her father’s account. However, it was the Accounting Department Supervisor, Jennifer Kelly, who was terminated for failing to realize that deposits were being erroneously transacted into the member’s accounts and for failing to notify the member that the deposits were being reversed. Approximately three weeks after being terminated, Mrs. Kelly was reinstated.
Evidently, some of Priority One’s managers find it impossible to abide to the credit union’s security measures intended to protect the confidentiality of member data. Please also note that the credit union does not punish manages who violate policy or state and federal law.
LIE DOWN WITH DOGS, GET UP WITH FLEAS
The Demise of Another Officer
Arriving at the credit union on August 1, 2011, former CLO, Cindy Garvin, the President made certain to extol her alleged experience, talents, and keen knowledge of loan and business development.
In the months which followed her arrival, Ms. Garvin established a well-deserved reputation for being underhanded and demanding subservience. She also became known for her preferential treatment of some employees and her overt disdain of others. In December 2012, President Wiggington promoted Ms. Garvin to the position of Chief Lending Officer (“CLO”) and appointed her complete oversight over branch operations for all of Priority One’s offices, collections, business development, and the Member Services Department in South Pasadena. For all intents and purposes, she became the unofficial Chief Operations Officer (“COO”) and successor to Beatrice Walker.
The various promotions introduced by Ms. Garvin continually failed to achieve the level of success she claimed would be attained. During her stay, she made no effort to introduce or create a relationship with employees of the USPS which remains one of Priority One’s most critical and larger member groups. As a result, she never developed an understanding of the needs or wants of employees of this vital sector.
Ms. Garvin is also the person who developed and introduced monthly sales quotas to almost all employees and it was she, she stipulated the termination of employees who failed to achieve their assigned quotas during two calendar months.
Ms. Garvin succeeded in amending the credit union’s Loan Policy. Prior to her arrival, members approved for a loan, were allotted thirty (30) days in which to fund the loan.In an effort to garner increased business, Ms. Garvin obtained approval from the Board of Directors to extend the thirty (30) day timeframe to sixty (60) days. The change potentially exposed the credit union to increased delinquencies as a person’s credit can often sustain added unsecured credit within a thirty (30) day period. Despite the potential for loss to the credit union, the Board and President agreed to amend the timeframe.
Ms. Garvin also eliminated the credit union’s once successful Business Development team. In doing so, she brought an abrupt end to the credit union’s external efforts to maintain relations with SEG’s and employees of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”).
Over the year and four months of her employment, Ms. Garvin was often overwhelmed by the amount of her responsibilities and it became evident over time, that her performance fell short of her alleged expertise. Also, the Human Resources Department (aka Employee Development) had been the recipient of complaints filed by employees who accused Ms. Garvin of being abusive. The complaints were only superficially investigated by Director, Robert West, who often informed employees he would not document their grievances in what he alleged would be an effort to amicably resolve their concerns.
Unfortunately for Ms. Garvin, she accepted employment with a credit union immersed in problems caused by President’s Wiggington’s gross ineptitude. The President loaded her with authority over departments she was unqualified to oversee. The President’s ploy was simply to pass off his duties to someone else who would be held accountable should their efforts fail. This is the same reasoning employed by the President when he created the AVP sector and it is the same reasoning used when he orchestrated the hiring of former COO, Beatrice Walker. It is clear that he set Ms. Garvin up for failure.
One of Ms. Garvin’s greatest tactical mistakes was to ally herself with AVP, Yvonne Boutte. Ms. Boutte who is best known as the former confidant of Beatrice Walker, has over the years expressed her longing to become a high level executive. Mrs. Boutte is also widely known for her condescending treatment of staff. For a short period in time, Mrs. Boutte succeeded in coaxing Ms. Garvin to meet her on a daily basis in the alleys and streets located just outside the main branch where the two would discuss information about employees they deemed enemies of their regime. This by the way, was the same practice once carried out between Mrs. Boutte and former COO, Beatrice Walker. This short-lived practice ended abruptly after being exposed on this blog. In November and again in December 2012, the President again conferred with Mrs. Boutte to discuss Ms. Garvin’s performance and how her failures were negatively impacting business.
In early 2011, Ms. Garvin informed President Wiggington that one of the reason for the credit union’s lackluster performance in the San Fernando Valley was attributable to AVP, Sylvia Perez. Following Mrs. Perez’s departure on medical leave in June 2012, Ms. Garvin ordered AVP of Sales and Business Development, Joseph Garcia, to spend time in the field trying to acquisition new business. His efforts failed to acquire new business prompting Ms. Garvin to issue warnings that he must find sources of new business or potentially be terminated. Mr. Garcia’s efforts continued to fail though he continued to add pressure to employees of all branches, insisting they procure new business or suffer termination. In October 2012, after complaining that he was under pressure and being treated unfairly by Ms. Garvin and President Wiggington, Mr. Garcia left the credit union on a three-month leave of absence.
During his three month leave, business continued to decline and by December 2012, the President concluded that it was Ms. Garvin who was failing to implement successful strategies needed to propel growth. Under pressure of Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, and with support from Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, and AVP, Yvonne Boutte, Mr. Wiggington planned out Ms. Garvin’s ouster and began preparing introduction of yet another corporate restructuring.
REORGANIZATION or DISORGANIZATION?
LOAN DEVELOPMENT
The day after Ms. Garvin was dispatched from the credit union, the President announced his latest corporate restructuring. Under his latest inspiration, the President has assigned loan development to long time employee and AVP of Compliance, Patti Loiacano. Oversight of operations for all branches has been appointed to AVP, Yvonne Boutte.
The assignment of Mrs. Loiacano to loans is one of those rare instances in which we congratulate the President for finally demonstrating some foresight. Unfortunately for the President, her appointment over loans again brings into question his ability to make sound decisions.
For years, Mrs. Loiacano was a member of the Lending Department. While in in the department, she served as once as a Lending Supervisor but was demoted when they Vice President of Operations, Charles Wiggington, declared that she didn’t work well with others and described her as being condescending to employees. Years later, Mrs. Loiacano was appointed to the position of Assistant to the Director of Lending. In 2008, the President Wiggington promoted her to AVP of Lending following complaints from the Board at the then AVP of Lending and Assistant of Operations, Aaron Cavazos, was failing to bring in new business. The President’s decision to promote Mrs. Loiacano resulted in a rift in the “friendship” between the President and Mr. Cavazos and in time, resulted in the ouster of Mr. Cavazos.
In 2009, the President made Mrs. Loiacano the credit union’s compliance officer, despite the fact the credit union already had a more qualified compliance officer on payroll. During the same year, former COO, Beatrice Walker, informed the President that Mrs. Loiacano could not have simultaneous authority over Compliance and Loan Development, declaring it illegal under state law and according to what she had been told by a state regulator. Despite her extensive experience in loan development, Ms. Walker appointed Mrs. Loiacano AVP over Compliance and reassigned the Loan Department to her then friend and confidant, Joseph Garcia, who knew nothing about loan development as eventually attested to by his ship shod mismanagement of the department during the period of January 2010 through December 2011. The erratic reassignment of Mrs. Loiacano over the years proves that in life, things at times do go full-circle. And of course, it serves as yet another example of the President’s fickle and disorganized manner of doing things.
Though Mrs. Loiacano is fully capable to manage the Lending Department, she will have the unenviable task of contending with the emotionally fickle President whose interference will assuredly prove a deterrent to success.
The removal and reinstatement of Mrs. Loiacano over loan development points again to the uncertainty by which Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. manages the credit union and reveals one of the many reasons why Priority One is incapable of gaining momentum needed to escape the quagmire of losses and failures created by the derelict President. Though we have full confidence in Mrs. Loiacano’s abilities we have none in the President whose long list of failed decisions will continue to deplete the credit union’s ability to raise a systems of processes which work conducively with one another to realize the goals of new business.
BRANCH OPERATIONS
On December 28th the credit union also announced that AVP, Yvonne Boutte, would begin overseeing branch operations for all of Priority One’s remaining offices. Unlike the appointment of Patti Loiacano to loans which is both logical and potentially beneficial to business, Mrs. Boutte’s appointment over branch operations is far less promising.
As we described previously, Mrs. Boutte is the single most reason why a member’s complaint alleging violation of the Privacy Act metamorphasized into a lawsuit. Mrs. Boutte is known for her callous and tactless methodologies and deep-rooted need to assert authority over her subordinate staff. She has been described as a “know-it-all” and “control freak” but these labels hardly serve to adequately describe her often caustic effect to the working environment.
In 2009, Mrs. Boutte endeared herself to then COO, Beatrice Walker. At the time she along with AVP, Joseph Garcia, became a part of Ms. Walker’s unimpressive and small inner circle. Mrs. Boutte has never veiled the fact that she wishes to be a high powered executive though being a high powered at Priority One is far from impressive. From 2009 through 2010, while serving as Ms. Walker’s most trusted confidant, Mrs. Boutte helped the former COO target employees she suspected were an enemy to Ms. Walker’s regime. Mrs. Boutte like Ms. Walker shared in an obsessive and unquenchable penchant for gossip. Often times, employees spied the two meeting in the streets located around the credit union where they would not-so-secretly gossip about employees. Mrs. Boutte has often been a contributor to internal strife and has often demonstrated an unwillingness to exercise emotional restraint. Over the years, numerous complaints have been filed against Mrs. Boutte with the credit union’s Human Resources Department, aka Employee Development. These have alleged that Mrs. Boutte is condescending, difficult, vindictive, and emotionally cruel. She has also earned a reputation for meddling into affairs that fall outside her assigned authority.
Since the expansion of her duties, Mrs. Boutte has stated that she may spend more time at the Los Angeles branch located at the corner of Florence and Central avenues in south central Los Angeles so that she may observe and resolve numerous service problems reported by members who bank at that location.
Like her former friend, Beatrice Walker, Mrs. Boutte is not known for any specific accomplishments she has personally made which have positively impacted the credit union. Her oversight over Credit Resolutions has been far from exemplary and her current oversight of the Member Services Department relies heavily upon the expertise and knowledge of her subordinate, Gema Pleitez.
While friends with Beatrice Walker, Mrs. Boutte became an avid critic of President Wiggington, often describing him as “talkative” and “unprofessional.” Following deterioration of her professional and personal relationship with Ms. Walker, Mrs. Boutte began verbalizing criticisms about Ms. Walker’s lack of knowledge and lack of emotional control. On the day the credit union announced the departure of Ms. Walker, Mrs. Boutte told her staff that she hoped that she would be named COO, declaring that she possessed the abilities to manage the credit union’s internal operations. Mrs. Boutte’s hopes and wishes were temporarily shattered when the President instead, hired Cindy Garvin.
Beginning on February 2, 2012, Mrs. Boutte was appointed authority over South Pasadena’s Member Services Department. Last year after publicly warning the Assistant Branch Manager (“ABM”) that she intended to fire her if she did not begin attaining her assigned monthly quotas. A few weeks later, the ABM left the credit union on a medical leave of absence alleging work-related stress and recently disclosed she may not return for fear Ms. Boutte may fire her.
The decision by the President to appoint Mrs. Boutte over all branch operations is inarguably not his first choice as he has consistently overlooked her in the past and has to some extent limited her mobility, possibly because of her one time relationship to Beatrice Walker. For all intents and purposes, Mrs. Boutte was probably selected because realistically, the credit union cannot afford to hire another COO or CLO. Furthermore, the President has proven quite inept in selecting qualified officers. His last two choices- Beatrice Walker and Cindy Garvin, each failed miserably and did not live up the hype he and Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, put out, proclaiming both women consummate professionals possessing the know how to create profit.
We know that both Ms. Walker and Ms. Garvin believed they possessed the aptitude to reverse the long list of issues created by President Wiggington but the challenge proved daunting and insurmountable. Both women were actually setup for failure and were used as scapegoats by the President and held responsible for his failures. Mrs. Boutte will be responsible for the credit union’s relationship to its members which will require she field inquiries, concerns, and complaints, something she’s proven incapable of doing in the past. She must also ensure staff are properly trained something she’s never been able to do successfully. She will also have to ensure strategies are carried out that produce new business. From what we observe, she is devoid of any business development skills. We anxiously await to see if she can prove she is capable or if she will continue to be a negative presence at the credit union. We suspect the President will hold her accountable for any failures in business that may result under her governance.
Is It Really a Done Deal?
If there is anything which can be said about President Wiggington is that he is a man governed by his own delusions. The years have proven that he will try anything no matter how implausible, to obtain new business. The President has foregone actual studies and relied mostly one what he perceives to be true. During the first week of January, the President disclosed that he had submitted a request to the state of California, seeking a community charter in the city of South Pasadena, California. For years, some employees have wondered why Priority One did not possess a community charter in the city where the main branch is located, forcing the credit union to focus most of its business development efforts to the single post office located on nearby Fremont Avenue. The President has announced that not only had the credit union applied for community charter but that the request was in his opinion, a done deal and ready to go.
The President’s enthusiasm may be more than a little presumptuous. We believe this another case in which the President puts the cart before the horse. Requesting a community charter is a complicated and timely process. The state requires that a credit union submit an actual marketing plan. The credit union must also provide a report of the estimated profit they foresee within the community along with a development plan. Requests are always prepared by qualified outside consultants who conduct all necessary research and submit the required reports. There is also a waiting period. Inarguably, this is not an over-night process unless one chooses to cleave to President Wiggington’s penchant for storytelling.
The city of South Pasadena is a quaint city though with few large businesses. Within the city there are four supermarkets- including Vons and Pavilions both of who are owned by Vons Companies who has its own in-house credit union [Vons Credit Union]. There is also a Ralph’s Market and Bristol Market. There are several small, privately owned business but these hardly hold the potential for large amounts of new and future business.
The President has also ordered that new efforts be made to increase SEG development though historically, SEGs have failed to bring in the amounts of new business required by Priority One to remain both vital and in business. Most of the credit union’s current SEGs do not seek out Priority One’s products or services. It was this lack of interest which forced the credit union to stop publication of their monthly newsletter. The credit union retained its quarterly newsletter though again, due to a lack of member interest the letter is no longer mailed to members and only obtainable by visiting the credit union’s webpage.
In addition to the disinterest of SEGs in what the credit union offers, President Wiggington has failed on a miserable level, to maintain a working relationship between the credit union and its impressive SEG- Providence, Inc. which owns Providence St. Joseph, Holy Cross, and Tarzana Medical Centers. In 2010, Providence St. Joseph invited Priority One to open a branch in the medical center’s basement. If the credit union had accepted the invitation, the potential for new business might have been realized. Instead, the President refused to respond to inquiries by the hospital, asking the credit union if they would accept the offer to install a branch within the medical center. Eventually, the hospital withdrew the invitation and in 2011 informed the credit union that they would no longer be permitted to participate in new hire orientations. Incensed, the President ordered a cessation of efforts to reach out to the hospital. At present, Priority One has ATM’s at Providence St. Joseph and Tarzana Medical Centers though in 2012, other credit unions and banks began wooing Providence, Inc. hoping for an opportunity to establish a business relationship with the medical centers.
In late 2012, traces of deterioration began appearing in the relationship Priority One has with its once largest member group- employees of the United States Postal Service. Last year, murmuring against the credit union increased amongst postal employees, many of who attribute Priority One’s ongoing decline to President Wiggington. Furthermore, employees of the postal service are all unionized, view the President’s expansive termination of employees a tactic employed by a ruthless management body who callously robs staff of their livelihoods.
We have to conclude that the likelihood of success in the city of South Pasadena is highly improbable because President Wiggington has failed to provide service to all of Riverside County, the city of Burbank, and the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Following closure of the Redlands, Riverside, and Burbank branches, no effort has been made by the President to maintain a working relationship with members in those communities. Furthermore, the Santa Clarita branch which opened in February 2012, is a literal ghost town with few members visiting the facility which has in recent months, spawned rumors that the office may be forced to close in the not too distant future. Without question, the communities in each of these regions possess a real potential for new business however the President has shown no interest in doing so and has proven quite incapable of creating strategies that attract member interest in the products and services offered by Priority One. Subsequently, we have to conclude that IF Priority One obtains a community charter in South Pasadena that this will again prove another bust for the troubled credit union.
A SMALL VICTORY
BUT NOT FOR THE CREDIT UNION
Since its implementation, the $5.00 charge has been the constant subject of member complaints. Since its implementation, the credit union waives the fee whenever a member complains loud enough. Earlier this month, it was decided by the President that the fee will no longer be charged to members who call to request their account balance though members will continue to be charged $5.00 should they request transfers of funds between their accounts.
THE MAGIC ATM
As usual, we can’t accept anything the President says at face value. Over the years he has proven to be a weaver of tall tales and so for the moment, we relegate the purported benefits of a new ATM to nothing more than conjecture. The fact is, the President’s plan to install an ATM in South Pasadena has not been finalized for approval. He also has not conducted a study of the community in South Pasadena that suggests an ATM would generate profit and new business. The branch is located on Huntington Drive in South Pasadena and stands alongside houses and apartment buildings. The nearest business is a cleaners and a Big Lots located two blocks away. We can safely conclude that installation of an ATM will not result in a sudden and unprecedented surge in new business.
THE CUPBOARD IS BARE
As luck, well actually bad luck, would have it, Priority One ran out of plastic card stock during the first week of January. For those who do not know, plastic card stock is used to create VISA check cards for new members who open a checking account and members whose cards have been damaged or lost.
Most financial institutions maintain an inventory of card stock. Most credit unions actually monitor there stock to ensure they don’t run short or out of this critical product. At Priority One, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone that it was important to monitor their stock. Subsequently, Priority One is unable to fill orders for check cards and has disclosed they may not have new stock until February. The credit union experienced this same problem in 2010.
The credit union’s last official Card Specialist resigned in mid-August of last year, moving on to better, greener and hopefully richer pastures. The Card Services Department has been under authority of AVP, Yvonne Boutte, since 2010. Evidently, Mrs. Boutte who prides herself on being the quintessential professional, is unfamiliar with what constitutes a well-stocked inventory. This latest fiasco has again compromised the credit union’s ability to effectively deliver products and services as as disclosed previously in this post, effective December 28, 2012, Mrs. Boutte took over branch operations for all of the credit union’s offices. So should we expect more similar blunders in the not-too-distant future?
CONCLUSION
There is nothing in the decisions made by President, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. over the past six years which suggests Priority One Credit Union is destined for success in 2013. To the contrary, all signs suggest that the cycle of failure which began on the day he was appointed President, will continue unchanged and unimpeded.
Every January and again in May, in an address contained in the credit union’s Annual Report, the President promises improvement and growth through perseverance. Undermining his spiel is the fact that almost everything the President concocts is contrived and superficial and devoid of all substance. What can one expect from a President who consistently seeks the easy way to anything, opting for quick fixes over hard work. His constant assurances of future prosperity will never be realized simply because he lacks the ability, intelligence, and talent required in a President.
Since 2007, Priority One has often found itself floundering, forcing the President to enact drastic measures to try and retain the credit union afloat. Though there is no doubt that the President is the architect of the credit union’s internal and external problems though he has proven incapable of brining an end to the deterioration he set in motion. Under his leadership, efforts to achieve growth and prosperity have been in futile. To be fair, the President’s inept decision-making could never have thrived without intercession of the Board of Directors whose ineffectiveness and lack of ethics have allowed the President’s egregious acts to fester and spawn.
Last January and again in May, Priority One anxiously and willingly settled two lawsuits filed by former employees. At present, two other lawsuits remain in litigation. The lawsuit filed in 2012 by a member and settled this past November revealed that Priority One under President Wiggington, is incapable of protecting confidential member information. In 2007, as a result of President’s Wiggington’s lax attitude and refusal to follow established protocols, the credit union mistakenly published member account and social security numbers on the exterior portion of envelopes containing ballots for that year’s election. The member’s complaint filed in 2012, evolved into a lawsuit because Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, President Wiggington, and AVP, Yvonne Boutte, chose to avoid admittance that someone within the organization intentionally divulged confidential information and maligned the member. Instead, the three opted to try and squash evidence and attempted to vilify the victim of the credit union’s illegal and malicious act.
Another adverse factor which may contribute to the credit union’s continuing inability to obtain growth is that Priority One’s corporate structure is top heavy and populated by overpaid incompetents. Coupling this is the fact that under President Wiggington, the credit union has failed to maintain a healthy and working relationship with sectors of its valuable membership including employees of the United States Postal Service and of Providence St. Joseph, Holy Cross, and Tarzana medical centers. Complaints and concerns expressed by members have been ignored by the President and his staff.
At the end of 2012, the President revealed that Priority One has applied and has allegedly obtained approval, for a community-charter in the city of South Pasadena. We of course doubt the veracity of his claim that the state has already issued approval, knowing that obtainment of a community charter is contingent on several variables while the process if often tedious. His latest ploy is presented as an allegedly full-proof plan that guarantees growth. Realistically, the enterprise holds little promise of success primarily because South Pasadena is a small bedroom community containing mostly small, privately owned businesses. The city of South Pasadena lies in close proximity to other, more prosperous credit unions and several banks, most of who are able to deliver products and services more expediently and efficiently than can Priority One. At present, it takes days for the credit union’s Loan Department to issue decisions on loan applications while other business possess the capability of doing so in a matter of minutes. What’s more, the President has failed miserably to service all of Riverside County, the city of Burbank, and the Santa Clarita Valley where Priority One maintains a solitary and often member devoid office. So how does Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. hope to build relations with residents and business owners in South Pasadena when he’s failed to build relations within the other communities served by the credit union?
The December termination of former CLO, Cindy Garvin, again affirms that President Wiggington’s corporate structure is unsound and populated by managers who are ill-prepared to face the challenges needed to ameliorate the problems he created. Ms. Garvin’s termination also suggests that President Wiggington is incapable of selecting qualified candidates who might be able to transform Priority One into a well-oiled machine and reverse the problems he’s created.
The President’s belief that assigning monthly sales quotas under a threat of termination would reap profit and create a successful sales environment. One might have thought that his friend, Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, who allegedly has a degree in psychology, would have warned him that threats undermine the effectiveness of any company and usually, taint the working environment and adversely impact morale. Though from April to September, the credit union terminated many employees who failed to achieve their assigned monthly goals, the credit union has not recently terminated employees failing to meet the credit union’s stringent requirement. We learned in late 2012, the Board and President experienced a sudden epiphany that threatening employees is actually counter-productive. However, from a legal perspective, is the credit union permitted to terminate SOME employees who fail to meet their assigned responsibilities while exempting others from the same requirements? It smacks of discrimination and we cannot wonder what if any, are the legal implications to Priority One.
Another indicator that things are amiss at Priority One is the large number of employees who left on medical leave in 2012 and all of who alleged, work-related stress. On January 15th, AVP of Sales and Business Development, Joseph Garcia, returned to work following a three month leave of absence. He, like AVP, Sylvia Perez, was targeted for possible termination by CLO, Cindy Garvin, who accused him of failing to develop large amounts of new business. Prior to his leave, Mr. Garcia began seeking new employment using his company-issued computer and confided to employees that both Ms. Garvin and the President, were making unreasonable demands that he could not satisfy.
Over the years, we’ve received messages from readers in the United States and Europe asking why Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. has not been terminated? The reason may seem enigmatic but we believe his continued employment is based on two factors. The first is that since being appointed President, it is Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, who exercises control over almost all decisions made by the credit union. If Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. were replaced by a qualified leader, Mrs. Harris-Brooks would almost assuredly lose her hold over Priority One. The other factor is rooted in statements made in late 2006 by Board Directors, O. Glen Saffold, Thomas Gathers, and the ethical but not astute, Janice Irving, declaring that what Priority One Credit Union needed above all else was a “Black” President.
There are several lessons to be learned from the President’s mismanagement of the credit union, including that intelligence, ethics and a proven history of accomplishment are not prerequisites for selecting officers at Priority One Credit Union. However, what the President has succeeded in accomplishing is in creating a lengthy list of things of what one should always avoid in business.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."-Martin Luther King, Jr.PRIORITY ONE CREDIT UNION’S HOMPAGEApparently, they don’t monitor their own webpageSource: https//www.priorityonecu.org, Monday, January 21, 2013Technorati Tags: President,Charles R. Wiggington,Sr.,Foresee,Foresee.com,confidentiality,violations,lawsuit,FSR,Sylvia Perez,COO,Beatrice Walker,Cindy Garvin,Cynthia Garvin,Rodger Smock,Executive Vice President,consultants,attorneys,lawsuits,Santa Clarita,USPS,postal employees,Richardson Harman Ober PC,Privacy Act,violation,Facebook,Gema Pleitez,Joseph Garcia,medical leave of absence,stress,Burbank branch. Cindy Garvin,CLO,Bea Walker
