LYING IN THE BED THEY MADE
Evidently, Bauer Financial’s four-star rating, issued to Priority One Credit Union in January, was insufficient to satisfy President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. In view of his chronic failure, over the past six years, to implement a single strategy that produces growth and generates profit, we would have thought the President would have been far more appreciative of the credit union’s improved rating. In February, unbeknownst to most members and employees, the President decided on his own volition, to bump up Bauer Financial’s four-star rating to five-stars. Shown below is an excerpt we extracted from the credit union’s website:
Superior five-star rating?
Aren’t they a four-star credit union?
Shown below is the entire page where the reference appears.
Please note the reference that Priority One’s
assets exceed “$163 million.”
The image, shown below, obtained from their Facebook page, states they are a 4-star credit union.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/pocuone
During the week of March 4th, Bauer Financial’s banner which had been shown on the credit union’s webpage, was suddenly and inexplicably removed.
FOUR or FIVE STARS?
Source: https://www.facebook.com/pocuone
It is also important to note, that Priority One’s Net Income as reported to the NCUA for the quarter ending December 31, 2012, was $147,365,337. In spite of the amount shown on their Financial Performance Report obtainable at NCUA.org, their website contains a reference declaring they are a “$175 million credit union” and another, declaring they are “more than $163 million” credit union. Inarguably, President Wiggington is careless even in his deceptions. So is their asset size $147,365,337, $175 million, or “more than $163 million”? The amount of $147,365,337 shown on their Financial Performance Report must also be reduced by an additional $2,500,000, which is the amount of the unpaid balance owed on the $20 million loan borrowed by President Wiggington in 2008. This again does not approximate $175 million.
The President’s decision to dupe people by asserting Priority One is a superior five-star credit union with total assets of $175 million dollar constitutes fraud! As the President knows all too well, the difference between a four-star rating and a five-star rating and a $147,365,337 and a $175 million is as different as pretty is to beautiful. We don’t believe the discrepancy can be chalked up to a typo because information posted on the credit union’s website is reviewed, verified and subsequently, approved for publication. What’s more, Superior is not a word we associate with Priority One Credit Union, at least since Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. became its President.
What information does the NCUA provide?
Source: http://www.ncua.gov
Through deception, the pernicious President, has taken a good thing and tried to make it better. Logically, if the credit union were actually in the throes of prosperity, there would be no reason to perpetrate another lie. Maybe President Wiggington is driven to misrepresent the credit union’s actual status and asset size because things at Priority One Credit Union are not quite as sunny, rosy, or promising as he would like the world to believe.
THIS POST
This month’s post focuses on the proliferation of lies verbalized by President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. over recent years. His fabrications have been part of a grand and sweeping effort to ensure he remains President and CEO of a shrinking credit union and to create the illusion of success. Along with habitual lying, the President has also used numerous other socially deplorable methods in his desire to subjugate people and control circumstances, avoid accountability his disastrous decisions and violation of laws and policies. His methods may constitute self-preservation and a pathetic attempt to gain acceptance. While we’re all guilty of telling lies at one time or another, President Wiggington and some of his closest allies, have made lying a way of life and ignored the destructive effect these have had upon the credit union’s internal structure and on business.
ALTERING FACTS
THE UNRAVELING OF ANOTHER LIE
In last month’s post, we wrote about the mysterious closure of the Los Angeles branch which occurred on Friday, February 1, 2012. On the day of the closing, the credit union posted a message on their webpage, advising members the branch closed as a result of a power failure.
Usually a power failure that forces closure of a credit union branch is responded to quickly with efforts to reopen the branch as quickly as possible. Apparently the credit union was unable to resolve the alleged power failed on Friday, February 1st or Saturday, February 2nd, and again on Sunday, February 3rd. On Monday, February 4th, the branch remained closed and the credit union again posted a new message advising members that the power failure continued.
The alleged power failure remained unresolved on Saturday, February 2nd and again on Sunday, February 3rd. On the morning of Monday, February 4, 2012, the credit union posted another message on their webpage, announcing the credit union would remain closed due to the ongoing power failure. On Monday afternoon, the credit union posted a new message, apologizing for any inconvenience caused by the power failure though this time attributing the reason for the closure, to a systems problem. As we pointed out in last month’s post, power failure and system problem are not synonymous. Late on the afternoon of Monday, February 4th, the credit union posted yet another message, this time announcing the Los Angeles branch would reopen sometime on Tuesday, February 5th.
On Monday, February 4th, we contacted the Los Angeles Postal Distribution Center (“LAPDC”), confirming no power outages had been reported in any part of the massive complex where the branch is located. We also learned that employees were seen inside the branch despite the credit union’s assertion that the branch had experienced a power failure or system problem. During the evening of February 4th, the following cryptic message was posted on this blog:
Anonymous said...
If you only knew what was really happening at LAPDC. Very Heavy. A lot more than you know. That's all I'm saying.
February 4, 2013 at 6:27 PM
Through a process of deducement, we concluded that it was highly improbable the branch would have closed for two entire business days and an entire weekend due to an alleged power failure. It is also doubtful a power failure would have been cosigned only the small space occupied by the Los Angeles branch while the rest of the massive adjoining postal distribution center remained unaffected. It also seemed peculiar that on Monday, February 4th, the credit union changed the excuse on its notice, from power failure to system problem.
Another peculiar aspect to the credit union’s story is that during the alleged power failure/system problem, employees were observed working inside the branch. If power has been compromised or a system problem has occurred, then what work could employees perform? There were also rumors that the branch had again, experienced another infestation of rats- though we weren’t able to confirm if these were metaphorical or real vermin.
The Los Angeles branch is the busiest of all of Priority One’s branches, primarily because it is located on property owned by the U.S. Postal Service and is part of the massive Los Angeles Postal Distribution Center (“LAPDC”). Many of its customers are not members of Priority One and utilize the credit union to cash their payroll checks. Despite its success, the location has been the site of numerous internal issues. Beginning in 2012, AVP, Yvonne Boutte, began receiving numerous complaints from members, alleging that staff at the Los Angeles branch were rude and unhelpful. In January, Mrs. Boutte informed staff at the South Pasadena branch that she was planning on working temporarily out of the Los Angeles branch to observe branch employees at work. Though we are unquestionably not fans of Mrs. Boutte, we have to concede that the problems at the Los Angeles branch began long before she started overseeing its operation on December 29, 2012.
- Prior to December 29, 2012, and beginning on December 1, 2011 through December 29, 2012, complaints would have been deferred to former CLO, Cindy Garvin. Evidently, Ms. Garvin was unresponsive to these.
- From July 14, 2011 through November 31, 2011, complaints would have been deferred to Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, who apparently chose to be unresponsive.
- During the period of June 1, 2009 and ending on July 13, 2011, former COO, Beatrice Walker, would have been the recipient of complaints. Evidently, she ignored these too
It is important to note that the Employee Development Department, under management of Director, Robert West, and Manager, Esmeralda Sandoval, has never taken the initiative to investigate and resolve staff issues affecting any branch.
Additionally, the Los Angeles branch has been the scene of periodic internal thefts. Several years ago, at a time when Priority One sold money orders, a large number of money orders were stolen and cashed. The incident was investigated and afterwards, quietly filed away.
In 2010, following a 3-week audit of the Los Angeles office’s records, the credit union discovered that a former receptionist/FSR/Teller embezzled $60,000 in member funds. The incident would have been quietly filed away had we not exposed it on this blog. Initially, following completion of the audit, Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, President Wiggington, and former COO, Beatrice Walker, decided that disclosure of the audit findings would prove adverse to business and certainly send a negative message to members that their funds were not safe at the credit union. However, public exposure of the incident forced the credit union to seek prosecution of the former employee who was subsequently indicted, prosecuted and found guilty of embezzlement. On the evening of February 27, 2012, the following comment alleging yet another theft at the Los Angeles branch, was published by a reader of this blog:
Yvonne is at LA because her girlfriend Lynnette has been caught with her hands in the till.
February 27, 2013 at 9:55 PM
What’s more, the allegation Ms. Fortson was uncooperative and took PTO during the investigation is preposterous. Ms. Fortson could not arbitrarily leave the credit union on PTO without first obtaining written permission from either Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock; AVP, Yvonne Boutte; or President Wiggington. Subsequently, if she had requested PTO, it could have been readily denied.
There is also the fact that historically, Priority One has periodically suspended employees who are being investigated as attested to in 2008, when President Wiggington remained on suspension for 8 weeks while an investigation was conducted to determine if sexually harassed a former employee. The incident or incidents at the Los Angeles branch were sufficiently serious to force the office’s closure on Friday, February 1, 2012 and on Monday, February 4, 2012. What’s more, why would Mrs. Boutte have warned employees of that branch that they were prohibited from speaking about the credit union’s investigation if the real reason for the closure was either a power failure or system problem?
THE AVP
Ms. Fortson was not an exceptional manager though as a manager, she represented the “norm” at the credit union. She also remained an employee of the credit union of an amazing 40 years (approximately). Under her management, the branch thrived though primarily because of the patronage of employees of the U.S. Postal Service, many of who worked next door in the mail distribution center.
In 2010 and again in 2011, two altercations between female employees, occurred inside the branch in the presence of members. Also, in 2007, President Wiggington targeted Ms. Fortson for termination because in his words, she was “one of Harris’ people” ( reference to William E. Harris, his predecessor). The President also overlooked Ms. Fortson for promotion when he established his sector of AVP’s, choosing instead his friend and associate, Liz Campos. Mrs. Campos was terminated less than 4 months later when an audit disclosed she had kited using her credit union account. Upon Mrs. Campos’ termination, former Board Director, Janice Irving, contacted the President and told him to appointment Ms. Fortson as Mrs. Campos replacement. The President reluctantly conceded.
Also, in 2007, the former Assistant Branch Manager to the Los Angeles branch, discovered a large amount of unprocessed mail and unprocessed loan applications scattered throughout Ms. Fortson’s desk drawers. Some envelopes contained checks mailed months earlier by members, for deposit into their credit union accounts. Members had been informed that the checks had been lost in the mail when they in fact, had remained forgotten inside Ms. Fortson’s desk. There were also a large amount of loan applications, some as much as a year old, which had never been processed. Evidently, one of the credit union’s highest officers had failed to adhere to credit union procedures and security protocols.
Anonymous said…….
Okay for all of you who don't know. Remember they closed the LA branch a couple of weeks ago. That's because money was missing and they needed to investigate and find a replacement for Lynnette who got suspended while Wigg investigated. That's why the company put up that lame excuse of power failure. Then it occurred to stupid Wigg that power failure was not a good excuse because the power never went down in the distribution center so he changes it to system failure but by then it was too late. Yvonne warned the staff not to tell anyone that Lynnette was suspended or money was missing or they'd get fired. So the employees were scared and kept quiet about it. Lynnette was not a good manager. If she was why were there so many thefts out of that branch over the years? She was the queen of mean right up there with Bea Walker, Cindy Garvin and Yvonne Boutte.
I think she should sue big time. I mean it took 40+ years to figure out she wasn’t a good manager? Plus its not the first time money is been missing. So if they suspended her and then got rid of her, why fire her now and not when the $60,000 got stolen? Hope she takes them to the cleaners but knowing her, she’ll settle for what they give her.
I think she should sue big time. I mean it took 40+ years to figure out she wasn’t a good manager? Plus its not the first time money is been missing. So if they suspended her and then got rid of her, why fire her now and not when the $60,000 got stolen? Hope she takes them to the cleaners but knowing her, she’ll settle for what they give her.
March 1, 2013 at 8:11 PM
The inept and bombastic mishandling of the events occurring at the Los Angeles branch in the weeks preceding Ms. Fortson’s ouster transformed what could have been a routine internal issue, into a horrendous public embarrassment. Rather than forging a discreet and proactive solution, the President stirred suspicion and provoked gossip. His mishandling of this event proves again, that when it comes to causing debacles, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. is no small dolt. We’ve also confirmed that the credit union terminated Ms. Fortson for unsatisfactory performance. So are we to believe that her performance was deemed subpar after 40 years of service? We obtained the following post from the credit union’s Facebook page which we believe is proven untrue when one considers the breeches of policy which have occurred at the Los Angeles branch:
The inept and bombastic mishandling of the events occurring at the Los Angeles branch in the weeks preceding Ms. Fortson’s ouster transformed what could have been a routine internal issue, into a horrendous public embarrassment. Rather than forging a discreet and proactive solution, the President stirred suspicion and provoked gossip. His mishandling of this event proves again, that when it comes to causing debacles, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. is no small dolt. We’ve also confirmed that the credit union terminated Ms. Fortson for unsatisfactory performance. So are we to believe that her performance was deemed subpar after 40 years of service? We obtained the following post from the credit union’s Facebook page which we believe is proven untrue when one considers the breeches of policy which have occurred at the Los Angeles branch:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/pocuone
We believe Ms. Fortson’s termination may have been part of the President’s current effort to create the appearance Priority One actually adheres to its own policies and laws though the actual catalyst for her termination may be the allegations contained in four lawsuits filed by former employees during the period of 2010 through 2012. Irrelevant of the reason used to seal her termination, there is no denying President Wiggington’s amateurish mishandling of the incidents at the Los Angeles branch serve to remind us that Priority One’s own worst enemy is its inept President.
What’s In a Name?
The world of attorneys often juxtaposes elite, educated, and ethically adherent attorneys alongside the dredges of the legal world whose amoral, nonmoral, and immoral intentions, volitions, and behaviors impel them to defend reprehensible clients at a high price and possibly as a result of low-self esteem, prone to employ the most scurrilous, abhorrent, and basest tactics to win cases that impress no one but themselves.
Like Hannibal scaling the Alps and advancing towards Rome, Priority One’s lead attorney, Paul F. Schimley, of Richardson Harmon Ober PC in Altadena, we mean Pasadena, California, has been carrying out an aggressive and what appears to be, emotionally fueled campaign, at least according to his client, President Wiggington. Allegedly, the attorney, his paralegals, researchers, and investigators are doing everything to dredge up whatever information can be used to vilify the Plaintiffs in the two remaining lawsuits. How admirable. We were surprised because we thought the attorney was only proficient at hammering out settlements that would help his ethically deprived client avoid having to appear in a court of law. On February 27th, a commenter using the handle Priority MC, posted the following comment concerning the lawsuit filed by a former Financial Services Representative (“FSR”):
PRIORITY MC Said…..
For those who may not know or remember, Priority MC is the handle used by a person whose 2012 comments posted on the Internet, divulged highly confidential information about two former employees who filed lawsuits against Priority One in 2010 and 2011 and comments about a member’s credit union automobile loan along with statements slandering the member’s person. The member contacted Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, in an effort to resolve the violation of confidentiality and of the Privacy Act, but Mrs. Harris-Brooks, despite her lofty title and sorted history of manipulation, referred the incident to President Wiggington who in turn, turned it over to always cantankerous AVP, Yvonne Boutte. The AVP’s gross mishandling of the complaint transformed the incident into a full-fledged lawsuit. We have to add that initially the lawsuit was assigned to long-time credit union attorney, Bruce Needleman, to litigate but the attorney proved ineffective and overwhelmed by the lawsuit, probably because it falls far outside his field of expertise. After several weeks during which Mr. Needleman failed quite miserably, to file timely motions and address requests by the state, the complaint was reassigned to a new attorney who unlike many of the credit union’s usual lawyers, proved quite competent and most of all, ethical.
DEDUCING THE FACTS
If the information posted by Priority MC on February 27, 2012 about the lawsuit filed by the former former FSR proves true or even partially true, then the information could only have originated from the office’s of Priority One’s not-so-elite attorney who again conveyed the information to his chronically wayward and verbose client- President Wiggington. In 2012, Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, and attorney, Schimley, had to remind the President, to maintain confidentiality about the lawsuits filed against the credit union. Evidently, the President has chosen to again violate confidentiality, possibly sharing information with a member or members of his staff who either published what he/she/they were told, using the handle Priority MC.
Though neither illegal or unreasonable for an attorney to confer with their client regarding the status of a case, it is unethical for the attorney and the client to divulge confidential information about a case on the Internet and more than a little inappropriate for the attorney and/or client to distort facts and purport victories where none exist. The publication of information by Priority MC speaks volumes about the character of the credit union’s attorney and reminding us that President Wiggington is a man devoid of self control.
The First Lawsuit
Filed 2010
Plaintiff: Former Burbank Branch Manager
During litigation of the lawsuit filed by a former Burbank Branch Manager (“Plaintiff”), the credit union’s attorney informed the credit union that a former Valencia Branch Manager, would be providing testimony showing that the Plaintiff was “lazy” and a “racist” who hated Latinos. The would-be witness later confided the credit union’s attorney also offered to represent her at no cost.
At the time, AVP, Sylvia Perez, told some of her staff at the now defunct Burbank branch that she was scheduled to testify on behalf of the credit union and would provide testimony that the Plaintiff had been insubordinate, refusing to perform business development efforts and had been a racist.
In December 2011, the President boasted that the credit union’s attorney had alleged the former Burbank Branch Manager’s lawsuit lacked evidence to support her accusations that she had been subjected to age and race discrimination and that he intended to file a motion with the court, requesting dismissal of the case. The President laughingly declared the case would be dismissed.
Thus, it must have come as an utter surprise to the President, when just a few weeks later, the credit union’s attorney entered into settlement negotiations to expediently bring closure to the former Branch Manager’s lawsuit and help his client, avoid what may have been a costly and highly embarrassing trial.
A few weeks following settlement of the lawsuits, Priority MC posted a comment, alleging the amount of the settlement paid to the former Branch Manager had been paltry and inconsequential to the credit union. The only persons who would have known the amount of the settlement are the credit union’s attorney, the President, and Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks and of course, anyone they chose to share the information with.
The Second Lawsuit
Filed 2011
Plaintiff: Former Business Development Representative
During litigation of the lawsuit filed by a former Business Development Representative (“Plaintiff”), Priority MC posted a comment stating the former employee’s attorney had resigned because his client’s case lacked evidence to support the allegations filed against the credit union. The disclosure seemed odd because it is highly doubtful an attorney would agree to represent an employee and later, file a lawsuit if a case didn’t possess some amount of credible evidence to support a Plaintiff’s contentions.
At the time Priority MC posted the comment, we obtained confirmation that the relationship between the Plaintiff and his attorney had indeed, deteriorated. We also discovered that the attorney threatened to resign however resigning and threatening to resign are clearly, not synonymous. Priority MC’s comment, despite it inaccuracies, revealed she or he had gotten their information from either President Wiggington or from someone the President confided to. Furthermore, President Wiggington could only have gotten the information concerning the rift, from Priority One’s attorney who in turn, had obtained the information from the Plaintiff’s lawyer.
Though not illegal or unethical for an attorney to divulge information to his client about the status of a case, the disclosures in this incident purposely perpetrated lies about the Plaintiff and his attorney. If the President and Priority MC had taken to time to verify the information divulged by the attorney, they would have discovered that an attorney cannot resign and walk away from a case. Under the law, the attorney must file a motion seeking removal from the case. After the motion is filed, the court schedules a hearing date. On the date of the hearing, the attorney and his client appear before a judge who listens to their arguments and issues a decision either denying or granting the attorney’s motion. The process also may take several weeks to conclude.
Because the lawsuit was eventually settled, Priority MC’s statements which prematurely declared a victory, proved untrue. Furthermore, a victory in court can only be decided by a judge. The disclosures made by the Plaintiff’s attorney and Priority One’s attorney were not only inappropriate, but appear unethical. We suggest the former employee file a complaint with the California Bar Association, charging both attorneys with a violation of ethics. We also suggest he inquire with malpractice attorneys who specialize in suing other attorneys.
The Third Lawsuit
Filed 2012
Plaintiff: Member
In April and May of last year, Priority MC posted comments about a member’s automobile loan and later, comments slandering the member’s person. The comments constituted a violation of the credit union’s policy governing confidentiality and the Privacy Act. Though Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, was contacted by the member, the inept and corrupt officer deferred the complaint to President Wiggington who in turn, deferred the complaint to the immensely unqualified and frequently tactless, AVP, Yvonne Boutte. Mrs. Boutte chose to don a strong armed attitude towards the member, attempting to subjugate her and force her to concede to her will. Her ploy backfired resulting in a lawsuit and in the eventual payment of a settlement in excess of $16,000.00.
In the end, Priority MC is not the villain in this sorted tale of indiscretions, lies, and slander. Evidently, the President and his attorney have few if any ethical boundaries when impelled to verbalize presumptive statements deceitfully proclaiming victories where none exist. The two appear unusually dull to the fact that their so-called victories are laid waste by the settlements forged and entered into by the credit union. One may have thought the attorney would try and emulate some level of professionalism, maturity, and chosen to act in a manner befitting an alleged expert of the law. It may also behoove the credit union’s attorney if he desists from contributing to the creation of tawdry and sorted gossip intended to exalt his allegedly sharp tactical skills. And lastly, he might try to exercise wisdom when deciding what information should be divulged to his gabby and wayward client. Then again, no matter how much one tries, you can’t ever turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.
Laws are made to be broken so some lawyers can drive expensive cars and have something to brag about.
A. P. Herbert (Paraphrased)
MORE TROUBLES….MAYBE
ANOTHER LAWSUIT?
Rumors have recently emerged that a former employee of the Call Center has conferred with attorneys, hoping along with other ex-employees, to file a class action lawsuit against the credit union. he filing of another lawsuit is not surprising though the filing of a possible class action lawsuit, is. A class action suit would probably include again, allegations of wrongful termination accompanied by a myriad of other, alleged violations of state and federal law.
The would-be Plaintiff began his employment at the credit union as a contracted security guard. He quickly endeared himself to then South Pasadena Branch Manager, Gema Pleitez, and was soon afterwards promoted to FSR. individual initiating inquiries is allegedly Johnny Garcia, a former contracted security guard who worked at the location for a few months before finally being hired to work as a Teller. He quickly established a reputation for pandering to manager and despite lacking the ability to learn quickly, he was soon promoted to the position of Call Center Lead. Unfortunately, like AVP of Sales and Business Development, Joseph Garcia, the new Lead lacked those leadership qualities needed by an effective leader. Over the next two years, his knack for pouring out flattery by the gallons, was soon over-shadowed by his fall from grace. The allure AVP, Gema Pleitez, once had for him dissipated and by 2011, she frequently reprimanded him for his frequent absences and ineffectiveness.
In August 2012, the Lead called the credit union and reported he was ill. In actuality, it was his wife and not he who was ill. His wife was expecting their third and had been consigned to bed by her physician. Due to the frail state of her health, she was unable to care for their two sons forcing the Lead to remain at home and care for his wife and children. Three days later, he called the credit union again and informed Mrs. Pleitez that he was still unable to report to work, though this time explaining that it was his wife who was ill. Mrs. Pleitez became incensed and told him he could not return to work unless he provided a physician’s excuse otherwise he could be terminated. Mrs. Pleitez knew that he would never be able to procure an excuse from a physician because it was his wife and not he, who was ill. Her nonsensical demand was also inconsistent to credit union policy.
Refusing to engage the Lead in further conversation, she prohibited him from calling her again and told him that from hereon, he must speak with the Call Center Supervisor. Because the situation involved credit union policy, the Call Center Supervisor wisely advised the Lead to instead speak to Robert West, the Employee Development Director. The Lead was then transferred to Mr. West’s office. Because Mr. West was apparently unavailable, he left a voicemail asking that Mr. West return his call. Mr. West never called.
A COYOTE IN SHEEPS CLOTHING
For some inexplicable reason, the Lead waited an entire week before calling the Call Center Supervisor again. He informed her that Mr. West never returned his call. Surprised, the supervisor exclaimed that she had assumed the Lead and Mr. West had already spoken. She once again, transferred the Lead to Mr. West’s office and he again, left a voicemail. Later, that same day, Mr. West called the Lead at his home and angrily chastised him for not reporting to work.
Surprised by Mr. West’s aggressive and corrective demeanor, he asked why he was being berated and had only asked to speak to Mr. West because his situation required the assistance of a “Human Resource Specialist.” Mr. West replied, “You’re not speaking to a specialist, you’re speaking to a friend and I’m telling you that you are being irresponsible.” The Lead asked if he could instead meet with Mr. West later that same day, at the main branch. Mr. West replied, “If you still want to work here, you need to prepare yourself for some serious disciplinary action, are you ready for disciplinary action!".
The Lead arrived at the main branch later that afternoon and discovered to his dismay, that Mr. West was not in his office despite having agreed to meet with the Lead. The Lead walked to the office of Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock. As we’ve reported previously, though officially, Mr. Smock is no longer the Director over Human Resources, he continues to covertly manage many aspects of the department. Looking up and seeing the lead, Mr. Smock’s face flushed red and he nervously told the Lead he could not help him though he offered to look for Mr. West.
After searching the entire branch, Mr. Smock returned and informed the Lead he could not locate Mr. West. The Lead decided to wait for Mr. West. While waiting, AVP, Yvonne Boutte happened to walk by and see the Lead. Walking over to him, she loudly scolded him for calling in sick when he was not ill. Embarrassed and frustrated, the Lead continued to wait. Approximately 45 minutes later, Mr. West returned to the branch. Mr. Garcia informed him that he had been waiting for more than 45 minutes to speak to him. Mr. West replied that he would be unable to meet with the lead for at least another 30 minutes, explaining that he had an “important call to make.” Tired, the Lead informed Mr. West that he only wanted to submit his resignation.
There are so many things wrong with this story not the least of which is the incompetent and unprofessional demeanor of the credit union’s managerial sector. The first issue, is the response of AVP, Gema Pleitez, and her effort to wash her hands of the entire incident and to push it off on the Call Center Supervisor. Mrs. Pleitez could have taken the initiative and spoken to Mr. West. On a side note, during the years of 2004 through 2006, Mrs. Pleitez frequently defrauded the credit union when on a weekly basis, she would order her staff to clock her in whenever she was going to arrive late to work.
If Mr. West’s name sounds familiar, this is the same officer who in 2010, stood before employees during an all-staff meeting and read Bible scripture denouncing those who were involved in the production of this blog. Mr. West is also known for having been spied in his office, sleeping during working hours and also known for having worked on a personal, non-credit union related self-help book, while at work. Evidently, Mr. West has not concept about the importance of his personal testimony to others. His bungling of this incident is more than appalling and serves to denote just how unqualified and unprofessional he was in managing a situation which involved his alleged expertise in employee matters. And why did no one in the office, including the EVP know of Mr. West’s whereabouts? Mr. Smock proved typically useless and ineffective responding cowardly and evasively.
Despite the involvement of Mrs. Pleitez, the Call Center Supervisor, Mr. Smock, Mr. West with the added interference of the always dictatorial and inappropriate, Mrs. Boutte, why was this incident not resolved expediently and efficiently?
Does the Lead have sufficient grounds for a lawsuit? We don’t know. California law does not provide rights to employees who have exhausted their personal time off. If the Lead did not have time left on the books and with respect to the fact, Priority One is a at-will employer, then he may have no legal recourse against the credit union. If he did have time on record, then an attorney will have to review the credit union’s policy governing absences. The fact is that after informing Mrs. Pleitez that it was not he but his wife that was ill and that she in essence, took no action, may not bode well for the credit union.
However, almost overshadowing all else is the horrendous reaction by the Director of Employee Development, Robert West, who demonstrated a complete lack of professionalism though typical of the caliber of managers who populate the continually shrinking credit union. Evidently, the religious officer suffers from the same need to subjugate others as does the President and AVP, Yvonne Boutte. And despite Mr. Smock’s continued involvement in Human Resource matters and with respect to his alleged expertise in Human Resources, he seemed unusually incapacitated, like a buffalo trapped in mud, on the day the Lead visited the main branch to meet with Mr. West.
Working Outside Their Job Classifications
We have often wondered why instead of conferring with attorneys, why employees have not instead filed complaints with the state’s Department of Labor Standards. For years, Priority One has many lower-salaried employees perform duties assigned to higher paid staff. This has been a frequent and ongoing practice by the credit union and one which has enabled them to save money by underpaying their employees. The practice has also been approved by the credit union’s Human Resources Department aka Employee Development.
Before Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was appointed President, Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, had been asked to update all employee job descriptions. To date, the project has not been completed. We are not surprised. The sluggish EVP took two years to produce the credit union’s horrendously written Employee Handbook. We personally doubt that Mr. Smock is unqualified to write job descriptions. Last year, we reviewed a job description he authored. While studying his composition, we also conducted a search on Google and discovered he plagiarized numerous phrases and entire sentences from resumes for positions in other industries including a resume for a Forest Ranger.
At Priority One, the one group most often asked to work outside of their job classification are Tellers who at times perform responsibilities assigned to FSR’s and who serve as Call Center Representatives. In fact, the receptionist who embezzled money from the Los Angeles branch just a few years ago, also performed the duties of an FSR and Teller.
The credit union has also often had certain exempt staff perform the duties of non-exempt personnel without paying overtime. This is illegal, as we will show later in this section.
On Saturday, March 16, 2012, the President ordered almost all employees to report to work during which they were to call members in an effort to obtain loan applications. Employees were also informed that they would not be paid overtime and could take the hours worked, as PTO during the week.
Though state law is quite specific, the credit union has been unconcerned about the possible illegality of their actions. We suggest employees first contact the the state’s Department of Labor Standards before consulting with attorneys. The department can be quite effective in resolving illegal practices like those committed by Priority One Credit Union. Recently, the CU Times published an article, “Former Patelco CU Assistant Managers Sue for Unpaid Wages” (Natasha Chilingerian, 1-11-13) which describes a lawsuit filed by a group of Assistant Managers who were reclassified by their employer and required to work as exempt employees. While temporarily working as exempt employees, their employer allegedly failed to compensate them for overtime and missed meal and rest periods. The link to the CU Times article is shown below:
THINNING OUT THE HERD
At the beginning of March, the credit union revealed that not one employee of any of the credit union’s five branches, attained their monthly goals. This included the AVP of Sales and Business Development, Joseph Garcia, who only obtained 30% of his required quota. In response, the President ordered that almost all employees work report to work on Saturday, March 16th, during which they would work from 9 am to 1 pm, calling members in an effort to procure loan applications.
As we disclosed in early 2012, the decision to assign monthly quotas to all employees was not implement solely as a means by which to increase sales but as a ploy through which the President could legally and justifiably terminate staff without revealing the credit union was in dire need of reducing expenses due to lagging business. Beginning in 2010, President Wiggington began reducing expenses as a means of keeping the credit union financially buoyant. In 2011, we warned that he was developing a reliance on reducing expenses to retain the credit union in business and that he would eventually exhaust those sources where he could squeeze out savings. The closure of the Riverside and Burbank branches, the termination of many employees, reduced services and less money spent on marketing, proved us correct.
The terminations which reached their peak in 2012, forced employees to work under tremendous duress with many witnessing their co-workers expelled from the credit union. The strong armed tactics employed by former CLO, Cindy Garvin, and AVP’s, Joseph Garcia and Yvonne Boutte, which were intended to promote growth instead created divisiveness and ushered in a period of tremendous dishonesty, with many employees literally stealing sales obtained by their co-workers and reporting them as their own. The President and his officers also refused to provide necessary training and we would be interested in examining the job descriptions for all employees to see if business development is referenced as a requirement of their positions.
But it wasn’t only non-exempt staff who were profoundly affected the credit union’s new sales requirements, in 2012, AVP, Sylvia Perez, and Assistant Branch Manager, Virginia Contreras, fled the credit union, fearing they would be fired for failing to obtain their assigned monthly quotas.
This past February, AVP, Gema Pleitez, nervously blurted out that the credit union is again failing to acquire its monthly quotas, admitting that the short falls are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. She warned that unless substantial amounts of new business are gotten immediately, another branch might be forced to close in the not-to-distant future.
CUTTING OFF HIS NOSE TO SPITE HIS FACE
Over the years, Priority One has often served as President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.’s personal testing ground. Using credit union monies and with approval of the Board of Directors, he has carried out a long list of failed and sometimes, costly projects, none of which resulted in real growth in business and all of which taxed the credit union’s financial resources. In 2007 the President recounted that while relaxing at home, he was suddenly struck by a sudden surge of inspiration. His inspiration, was the creation of a shiny badge on which were emblazoned words the words, “ASK ME”. Here is a photograph of the President’s badge:
The President’s Magic Badge (above)
Though the President insisted this was an original and inspired idea, we recently discovered that he may have been less than forthright. We recently conducted a Google search which garnered the following results. Evidently the President’s magic badge was not so much inspired as it was plagiarized, copied, mimicked, emulated, etc.
In 2009, the President shared his idea with then COO, Beatrice Walker. Pulling out the badge that lay tucked away in his desk, he showed her his allegedly inspired created. Ms. Walker grimaced and later told staff members that the badge was a “stupid ideas”. This is one of the few instances when we concur fully with the former COO. In addition to the disappearance of the President’s nifty badges, we’ve noticed the elimination of the following services, products, departments, and titles:
- Financial Planning
- Home Mortgage Lending (except LOC’s)
- Priority Pay
- Branch Convenience
- Seasonal loans
- The Business Development Team
- Chief Operations Officer
- Chief Lending Officer
We’ve also observed the deterioration of the following services and activities:
- Free telephone assistance to members calling the Member Services Department, Branches, and Call Center to request transactions to their credit union accounts
- Reduced marketing and subpar advertising
- Reduced participation in community events
- The cessation of free financial education within communities served by the credit union
Another conspicuous omission from the credit union’s recently revamped website is their Mission Statement. In 2009, the President boasted that he had revamped the credit union’s tagline and Mission Statement which were written by then Manager of Training and Education, Robert West. The tagline and Mission Statement were unveiled for the first time in the 2009 Annual Report and according to the President, better conveyed the credit union’s intended role in the financial lives of its members.
“The philosophy of the credit union industry is a simple three word phrase, "People Helping People." For more than one and-a-half centuries this phrase
has attempted to communicate to the world what credit unions are all about, and what is the major difference between credit unions and banks (i.e., "members helping members" vs., "bankers helping themselves").
has attempted to communicate to the world what credit unions are all about, and what is the major difference between credit unions and banks (i.e., "members helping members" vs., "bankers helping themselves").
While all credit unions, everywhere around the world have received direction and inspiration from the high ideals embodied in this simple statement, Priority One Credit Union has decided to make a bold move with regard to it: a move we believe will help you to better understand how we are different from other credit unions, as well as banks.
Our bold move does not involve departing from the spirit of the "people helping people" message. It involves our attempt to redefine it, and as a result, reinvent ourselves and improve our value position with you—our loyal membership.
Recently, we revised our mission statement and tag line to more clearly define what we are in the business of "helping people" to do, and communicate to the world how we want our members to think about us.
Mission: To help our member-owners and employees achieve financial fitness. We are committed to offering quality products and services that help you win with money.
Tag line: Priority One Credit Union - Your Financial Fitness Center.
By making these changes, it is our intent to tell you in a way that maybe we haven't before, that we are passionately committed to your total financial wellbeing, and to transforming the credit union into a place where you will feel uniquely connected and celebrated.”
The verbose address made many lofty claims of Priority One’s renewed purpose, all of which President Wiggington would eventually failed to fulfill. The once highly touted statements no longer appear on the credit union’s revamped webpage. We also discovered that the credit union has pulled PDF copies of their 2009 Annual Report from the Internet. We suspect the sudden disappearances of the tagline, Mission Statement and 2009 Annual Report was the result of advice received from their pricey consultants who may have concluded Priority One is neither a financial fitness center or able to help anyone win with money. Scrapping the tagline and Mission Statement may have been a lot easier than trying to resolve the credit union’s many service issues.
INSPITE OF MONEY SPENT TRADEMARKING AND REVAMPING THEIR IMAGE AND
ALLEGED PURPOSE, THEIR TAGLINE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED.
Could it be the consultants found the tagline and revised Mission Statement as pompous and empty as we did?
THE BOARD
of DiRecTOrS
We’ve periodically received emails asking if we know why the names of the Directors and Supervisory Committee members no longer appear on the credit union’s webpage. For years, the credit union webpage contained a very visible link that led to the page containing their names. However, as we perused through the lists provided at the bottom (shown below) of their revamped homepage, we could not find a singe reference to the Board of Directors or the Supervisory Committee.
Of course, being up for the challenge, we conducted a more extensive search of ALL links on their webpage and discovered something peculiar. Their webpage which was revamped in 2012, now has a tab, located at the top of their webpage, containing the heading “Membership”, under which are provided a list of links. At the bottom of their webpage is a column also labeled “Membership” and contained menu of links. Though the heading are identical, the links offered under each, are not. Confused yet?
As it turns out, the credit union does provide a link, as shown below, leading to a page containing the names of the Board’s Directors. There is also a link titled Management which leads to the same page containing the names of the Board’s Directors along with the names of Priority One’s five top executives. Confused yet?
Two things come immediately to mind when traversing . The first is that the credit union’s webpage is poorly and confusedly organized. The second is that the Board and the President, have made access to the page containing their names, more than a little difficult. For those of you willing to traverse the credit union’s allegedly, better website, expect to experience difficulties. We also note that the credit union’s webpage does not offer a “search” field as do websites of other businesses. It is our personal belief that the Board of Directors, the Supervisory Committee, and the President have jointly and purposely and might we add, not-so-cleverly, chosen to impede easy access to the page containing their names. As a public service to Priority One’s members, we’ve extracted the following images from their webpage:
A reason why the Board, the Supervisory Committee, and the President may have chosen to reduce their visibility on the alleged revamped webpage may be related to their combined and horrendous performance which has left Priority One emaciated and less able to create new business within the communities it serves. The Board is held in low esteem amongst many in the credit union industry. Under their leadership, Priority One has devolved into a smaller, less effective, and certainly less competitive organization than it was in the decades before Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. became its President and CEO.
Since 2009, we’ve contributed an immense amount of time reporting on the disgraceful acts committed by Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks aka as Diedra E. Harris, Diedra Elaine Harris-Brooks, Diedra Brooks, Diedra E. Brooks, etc. Inarguable, the Board Chair has spent tremendous time and effort trying to hide the President’s deficient performance and violations of state and federal law. In 2008, she personally suppressed evidence proving he sexually harassed a former employee. In 2009 and 2010, Mrs. Harris-Brooks and the President tried to limit the number of members who would be invited to submit their nominations for a seat on the Board or Supervisory Committee. When their plot was exposed on this blog, the Board and Committee convened and decided to hold a second election resulting in added expense to reprint ballots, envelopes and to pay for postage. During the same election, Mrs. Harris-Brooks, aided by Director, Bobby Thomas, cajoled an Asian-American postal employee into submitting an application nominating himself for a seat on the Board. Mrs. Harris-Brooks conduct has been reprehensible, though we adamantly believe if an Anglo, Latin, or Asian had done the things she and some of the other Directors have perpetrated, they all would have cried out “racism.”
In 2010, Mrs. Harris-Brooks along with President Wiggington and then COO, Beatrice Walker, told employees of the credit union not to vote for Janice Irving whose seat on the Board was up for re-election. Employees ignored their directive and many actually secretly campaigned for Mrs. Irving. Mrs. Irving was re-elected and received the highest number of votes of all candidates. Unfortunately, disillusioned by the decisions of the Board which are attested to in the credit union’s decline, Mrs. Irving later resigned.
Mrs. Irving unlike Mrs. Harris-Brooks proved to have a functioning moral compass and in 2008, voted for the termination of President Wiggington when evidence presented by an investigator proved he sexually harassed a former employee. Upon his return, Mrs. Harris-Brooks informed the President that Mrs. Irving was one of two dissenting votes. The President afterwards vocalized his disdain for Mrs. Irving stating, “I hate that woman”. In the years that followed, Mrs. Irving found herself more and more ostracized by the Board who under the direction of Mrs. Harris-Brooks, strove to block the efforts of any Director not complacent to the Board Chair’s will. Then again, maybe the Board does have a good for not wanting their names found, so easily.
Priority One’s policy clearly prohibits employees from committing fraud, yet over the years, we’ve observed the credit union make exceptions for certain managers and favored staff. At no time, has the Board under direction of its Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, interceded and brought an end to incidences of fraud.
During a recent search of the Internet we discovered that President Wiggington allowed the posting of fraudulent information on Corporation Wiki, in which current active Board Director, O. Glen Saffold, is described as a “Vice President” of Priority One Credit Union. Of course, it is impossible for an employee of the credit union to also serve in the capacity of a Director on the Board of Directors. Not surprisingly, Mr. Saffold’s names does not appear anywhere on the credit union’s telephone list of employees nor in the credit union’s payroll records. We also doubt he serves in the capacity of an invisible Vice President.
Not only was President Wiggington impelled to change Bauer Financial’s 4-star rating to a 5- star rating but he apparently felt it necessary to embellish Mr. Saffold’s biography and allude to him as a paid officer of the credit union when he is a voluntary member of the Board.
We also examined Mr. Saffold’s brief and dull, LinkedIn account and note in references the U.S. Postal Service as his employer. There is no reference to his capacity as Vice President of Priority One. Actually, there is no reference in his account to Priority One Credit Union. It would be inconceivable for Mr. Saffold to be unaware that the President published an enhanced and untrue reference regarding his actual role at the credit union and it can’t be attributed as a typo. What it does suggest is that O. Glen Saffold like President Wiggington, has no problem perpetrating untrue information about his actual accomplishments.
THE aRt OF MISREPRESENTATION
We recently happened upon Onepagerapp.com, on which appears information published by Priority One Credit Union, about itself. Like the statements describing Board Director, O. Glen Saffold as an alleged Vice President, disclosures providing information and statistics about the credit union, are riddled with inaccuracies.
According to the information, Priority One Credit Union “operates branch offices…..throughout Southern California”. The FACT is, Priority One has never operated branch offices throughout Southern California. At present, the shrinking credit union maintains branches in-
- South Pasadena
- Los Angeles (the Los Angeles and the Airport branch)
- Van Nuys; and
- Santa Clarita
We suggest the President acquaint himself with the definition of the word, “throughout.”
The information also alleges, Priority One takes a “member-centric approach” to business. This is also untrue. The immense number of complaints lodged by members, alleging deficient member service including rude personnel and long waits experienced when calling the branch, attest that the credit union does not practice a “member-centric approach” in its interactions with members. We suggest the President acquaint himself with the definition of “member-centric”.
For years, the President’s predecessor maintained an open-door policy to employees and members, alike. He was known for being accessible and compassionate and members who called or wrote to him, always received a personal response from him and not one of his staff.
This all changed when Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. became President and ordered immediate cessation of his predecessor’s policy. In contrast to his predecessor, President Wiggington never returns calls or responds to letters mailed to his attention. He defers complaints, concerns, and inquiries sent to his attention to subordinates. He also instructs his staff to inform members he is out of the office or in a meeting. Employees must confer with their supervisors or Human Resources and cannot call him directly. We suggest the President familiarize himself with the term, “open door policy.”
On December 29th, the President announced another re-shuffling of the credit union’s corporate structure. His newest reorganization like the many which preceded it, realigned the authorities of the credit union’s remaining AVP’s, Yvonne Boutte and Patricia Loiacano along with those of Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock. Though not referenced in the notice to employees, the changes also reduced the authority once enjoyed by AVP of Sales and Business Development, Joseph Garcia.
Prior to his last medical leave in October 2012, Mr. Garcia assisted former CLO, Cindy Garvin, with all business development efforts. In February 2012, he appointed authority over the AVP’s assigned to the Los Angeles, Airport, Burbank, and South Pasadena branches. He was also appointed authority over the Van Nuys Branch Manager and the Business Development team. His strategies included an immense number of meetings, visits to branches during which he reminded employees they had quotas to meet or be subject to disciplinary measures, and employing the use of charts on which he noted individual goals, departmental, and branch goals. However, by June 2012, his methodologies became subject of increasing scrutiny by both former CLO, Cindy Garvin, and President Wiggington. At the end of September 2012, Mr. Garcia was complaining he was stressed and began asking staff if he should begin looking for other work.
In the corporate structure’s latest incarnation, the President returned all oversight to Mrs. Loiacano. Though Mrs. Loiacano is probably the best choice to oversee loan development the President has again shown that his decision-making abilities are erratic at best. In 2009, it was President Wiggington upon the advice of former COO, Beatrice Walker, who removed Mrs. Loiacano’s authority over the Loan Department. It was also the President who appointed authority over real estate and consumer loan development to then newly appointed Loan Manager, Joseph Garcia, despite the fact Mr. Garcia’s experience was limited to loan processing. In 2011, the President hired Cindy Garvin to serve as the credit union’s Director of Lending and 4 months later, promoted her to Chief Lending Officer (“CLO”). After wasting tens of thousands of dollars and subsequently terminating Ms. Garvin, the President has returned all control over lending to Mrs. Loiacano. Is this an example of things coming full circle?
On a side note, on Friday, December 29, 2012, Mrs. Loiacano ordered an immediate cessation to many of the procedures implemented by Ms. Garvin, declaring these “unacceptable.” We can’t but wonder why during Ms. Garvin’s 17 months of employment, neither the President, the Executive Vice President or the Board of Directors ever expressed any concerns over Ms. Garvin’s methodologies?
The assignment of AVP, Yvonne Boutte over branch operations seems less sensible and definitely, less promising. Her history while at Priority One has been riddled with allegations she is condescending and abusive to employees and her demeanor, caustic and divisive. All we can say is, “Good luck with the decision to expand her responsibilities.”
Executive Vice President is again, overseeing business development efforts by each branch. However, in years past, his oversight over business development never translated into growth or profit. We suspect this latest revamping of his duties is a not-so-clever effort by his alleged friend, President Wiggington, to justify the continued employment of the aged Mr. Smock.
PROOFREAD MUCH?
What more can we say. President Wiggington is a dawdler even in maintaining the credit union’s webpage. Nothing points more to his sluggish attitude than do some of the errors found in the credit union’s poorly maintained and not well designed, webpage. At least its colors and graphics are nice.
What is an auto “loaner”?
POORLY PLANNED WEBPAGE OR INTENTIONALLY HIDING?
In 2012, we reported that the new website was more colorful and contained interesting graphics. After several months, we have no choice but to label it confused, poorly organized, and riddled with inconsistencies and erroneous information.
UNIMAGINATIVE LYING
Over the years, President Wiggington has often utilized lying as a tool by which he tries to hide his mistakes and abuses, exaggerates his abilities, and through which he enhances the credit union’s actual financial standing. However, even we don’t believe his distortions of the truth have not been committed without the help from members of his executive staff and even aided, by highly paid consultants.
As shown on USA Credit Unions’ website, there are numerous alleged FACTS about Priority One which are untrue. Some of the distortions allege Priority One possess six branches. According to the credit union’s own records, they currently only have five branches at the following locations:
- South Pasadena
- Los Angeles
- Airport
- Van Nuys
- Santa Clarita
The opening paragraph, shown at the bottom of this section, declares Priority One has been “serving members in and around the South Pasadena, California area”. To be correct, though Priority One’s main branch is located in the city of South Pasadena, they are not chartered to do business in South Pasadena. Within the city of South Pasadena, they can only membership to employees of the United States Postal Service and employees of SEG’s located in the city and of course, their families. In the city of South Pasadena there is only one post office and any SEG’s in the city are small, privately owned businesses.
- The credit union also states they have 6 branch locations. If you visit the credit union’s website, they reference 6 branch locations one of which is the no longer existent, Burbank branch which closed its doors at the end of May 2012. Alongside the name of the Burbank branch is the word, “closed”. So why would the President allow publicizing of a branch which no longer exists? We believe he is trying to create the impression that Priority One has more branches than it actually does, even if one is no longer operational. It is illogical and glib, but fits perfectly into the tactics often resorted to by the dishonest President. It is also important to note that Priority One’s webpage was completely revamped in 2012, after the Burbank branch closed.
- Please also note that they state they offer real estate loans. The credit union actually offers a real estate loan (singular not plural). Nowadays, only HELOC’s are offered.
- The credit union was founded in 1926 and not 1929, as shown below. Did the President confuse the year the credit union was founded with the year of the Great Stock Market Crash (of 1929)?
- And of course, their actual asset size is again, exaggerated. We would have thought that by now, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.’s proclivity to lie was a lot better honed and far less transparent.
CONCLUSION
NO MAN HAS A GOOD ENOUGH MEMORY TO BE A SUCCESSFUL LIAR
Over the years Priority One Credit Union’s Draconian President has spewed out an unending profusion of lies, intended to enhance his abilities, hide his blunders, create the impression of success and escape accountability for a slew of illegal acts he has committed and sanctioned. This past January, the credit union’s rating was increased by Bauer Financial, from three to four-stars. Unbeknownst to many, the President chose to alter the 4-star rating to 5-stars possibly deluding himself into believing no one would discover what he had done. Along with altering the credit union’s actual rating, the President posted a statement on the credit union’s webpage describing Priority One as a “superior” credit union. His manipulations could only have been fueled by greed and a need to dupe the public into believing Priority One is riding a wave of success.
Additionally, the credit union’s January declaration that “member money is safe with Priority One Credit Union” was literally decimated when rumors emerged that another internal theft had occurred at the Los Angeles branch. Almost immediately following disclosure of a new theft(s), the credit union removed its statement from their webpage.
On Friday, February 1, 2012, the credit union posted a notice on its webpage announcing the Los Angeles branch had closed due to a “power failure.” On Monday, February 4, 2012, the branch remained closed though during the day, the credit union changed the reason for the closure from power failure to system problem. During the closure, employees were seen inside the branch and we now know, that the Internal Auditor was investigating branch records. On March 1, 2012, the credit union announced that the AVP assigned to the Los Angeles branch, had been terminated after 40 years of service. The entire bungling of the events at the Los Angeles branch can be attributed to President Wiggington. What is acutely clear is that the President isn’t even consistent in his storytelling. His absurd concoctions intended to hide the true reason why the Los Angeles branch closed, imploded and brought to light the numerous internal issues affecting the branch.
Adding to the fray, are the efforts of Priority One’s attorney to vilify the Plaintiffs of the remaining lawsuits. The attorney has exacted tremendous energy trying to deflect attention from his embarrassing client’s corrupt methodologies and instead, focus on the characters of each Plaintiff. Irrelevant of how each lawsuit is resolved, the fact is Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. acts are finally in the open. Furthermore, his behaviors are substantiated by extensive and real documentation. We seriously doubt the President will ever have another opportunity to adversely impact another credit union.
There is also the matter of disclosures of confidential information by the credit union. Clearly, the poster using the handle, Priority MC, is either a member of President Wiggington’s staff or an associate of one of the President’s staff members. The accuracy of some of the comments denotes that the information verbalized by the President can only have originated from the office of Priority One’s legal counsel. Though the comments are meant to belittle and mock the Plaintiffs, they actually point to the disturbing psychological make-up of Priority MC, whose declarations allude to non-existent legal victories that can only be decided by a judge and not a slack-jawed President or an overpaid, frothing at the mouth attorney. That said, we gladly continue to welcome any disclosures Priority MC wishes to post because the poster is not the problem but rather a symptom of all that is wrong with Priority One’s President and its officers.
In the meantime, the torpid President has begun 2013 with a virtual bang, thrusting the credit union into a whirlwind of gossip and intrigue. His methods, marred by half-baked concoctions and coupled by doltish reactions to internal problems, reminds us that under President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., Priority One Credit Union is destined for ignominious notoriety.
A lie can go around the world six times while the truth is still trying to put on its pants.
Mark Twain (paraphrased)
Technorati Tags: Robert F Schimley,COO,Beatrice Walker,Yvonne Boutte,Cindy Garvin,Charles R Wiggington,Sr.,Rodger Smock,Robert West,Esmeralda Sandoval,lies,Bauer Financial,4-star rating,5-star rating,Burbank branch,South Pasadena,Employee Development Department,Human Resources,HR