The April Fools Edition

New Year, Same Issues

As we've done at the start of each new year, we took time away from the blog. During our absence we did observe that things seemed uncharacteristically quiet at Priority One Credit Union with nothing publicly said about the lawsuit filed by the credit union and its insurance carrier and bond company, CUMIS Insurance Society, against former external auditor, Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad nor was anything disclosed about the lawsuit filed by Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad against the credit union. The seeming quietude was completely out of character particularly when one consider that CUMIS' lawsuit and that of Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad, were scheduled to go to trial this past January.  As the last nine years 7 years have taught us, when things are unusually quiet at Priority One Credit Union it is because something is sorely awry. As it turned out, we were correct and at the start of 2016 it is apparent that this is a new year with the same issues plaguing a credit union that has been brought to the point of ruin by it's dishonest and incompetent President, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., and the corrupt and useless Board of Directors. 

A "NEW" BUT TIRED FACADE

In November 2015, there were murmurings at the main branch in South Pasadena, California, that the Board of Directors had gown weary at the number of lawsuits filed against the credit union by former employees, members, by a formerly contracted automobile broker and by the credit union's former external auditor. In fact, the Board allegedly had become concerned by the immense amounts spent on "legal" since 2010. The amount spent on attorneys each year has quadrupled since Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was appointed President on January 1, 2007. 

Another concern has been the incidences of internal thefts all occurring  at the Los Angeles branch and have included the theft of more than $60,000 by a former receptionist in 2009 and more recently, the theft of more than $1 million in cash discovered in February 2013 and allegedly embezzled by former AVP, Lynnette Fortson. 

In late 2015, the Board was also informed by the credit union's attorneys and consultants that over the past nine (9) years, the credit union's public image and reputation had suffered as a result of the illegal and unethical acts committed by the grossly incompetent President. Furthermore, he had been continually protected and allowed to escape retribution by corrupt Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks. 

The Board was also informed that the Board's four Directors had historically proven they are subservient to Mrs. Harris-Brooks, allowing her to implement agendas that had proven harmful to the credit union, both as a business and employer. 

The Board and Supervisory Committee were also informed that the thefts occurring at the Los Angeles branch suggested that neither governing body was monitoring the credit union's security protocols and ensuring these are being implemented by all employees on a daily basis. 

Earlier this year, Mrs. Harris-Brooks and President Wiggington made a feeble effort to dispel the impression that the Board is comprised of ineffective and unethical Directors. And so, Mrs. Harris-Brooks allegedly amended the credit union's by-laws and added two new Directors which increases the number of Directors from five (5) to seven (7). Prior to January 1, 2007, the date the Board appointed Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. President, the Board consisted of seven (7) Directors but the President and Board Chair had in recent years reduced the number of Directors to five (5) because according to President Wiggington, he and the Board Chair needed to Directors who were willing to support the changes he and Board Chair hoped to make and that would serve to make Priority One a larger, more financially prosperous credit union. What he should have said is that he and the Board Chair needed Directors who are pliable to the whims of this dishonest duo. This year, two new Directors were added to the Board- Tyree Jackson and Art Now.  The Board now consists of 6 Black Directors and 1 Latin Director.  

In late January the NCUA published the credit union's Financial Performance Report showed that the credit union's asset size had increased slightly and President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was quick to point out that Priority One is experiencing, in his opinion, a resurgence in new business and growing. Of course, the credit union's asset size remains approximately $14 million less than what it was on January 1, 2007, the date Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. began his notorious appointment as President. Furthermore, since mid-October 2010, Priority One was forced to divest itself of six branches so it could remain solvent and in business. Less is sometimes more though in the case of Priority One, less always serves as a testament to the business failures of the chronically inept President. 

The Holiday Toy Drive

On December 8, 2015, the credit union and the South Pasadena Chamber co-hosted a Holiday Party/Toy Drive at the credit union's main branch in South Pasadena. The affair was certainly quieter than that conducted in 2014. There were less attendees, less carousing under the mistletoe and less alcohol consumption. Notably missing was the presence of children. Here are some photos of the event.  

Charles R. Wiggington., Sr. 

Rodger Smock, EVP

A photo of the rather spartan open bar

[Photos Courtesy of Pasadena Now]

The Mystery of the Vanishing Lawsuits

So who embezzled more than $1 million in cash? 

The credit union's quieter persona during the past four months is purely superficial. In February 2013, President Wiggington ordered the closure of the Los Angeles branch and posting of a notice on the branch's doors informing visitors to the location that the office was closed due to a "power failure." The closure was a not-so-clever ruse by the President to try to deter attention that the branch was closed during which the internal auditor, Diane Huffman, reviewed branch records. When the branch reopened, former Vice President, Yvonne Boutte, called the South Pasadena branch and violating the credit union's policy governing confidentiality, informed her friend and subordinate, Credit Resolutions Supervisor, Alex ("Alejandra") Suarez, that the auditor discovered that large amounts of money had been stolen from the Los Angeles branch's vault by AVP, Lynette Fortson. 

Ms. Boutte threatened the staff of the Los Angeles branch with immediate termination if it was discovered that they had communicated with Ms. Fortson during or after working hours. Yes, the threat was illegal, but Mrs. Boutte was known to be a totalitarian. 

Over the weeks which followed discovery of the thefts, the President would infrequently refer to the incident stating that the credit union knew who stole the money and that Ms. Fortson would be arrested, indicted, tried, and eventually prosecuted. 

In March 2015, the following article regarding the incident, was published by the CU Times:

$1M Vault Pinch Hits Priority One

By David Morrison

March 07, 2015  

A long-time employee of the $146 million Priority One Credit Union allegedly stole more than $1 million, according to a legal complaint filed by the CUMIS Insurance Society against the credit union’s former accounting firm.

The complaint alleged the credit union’s manager of its Los Angeles branch, Pearl Lynnette Fortson, began to remove cash from the branch’s vault in late 2010 and allegedly falsified daily reports to hide loss.

Fortson was hired by the credit union on Aug. 1, 1974, the complaint said, and Priority One fired her on Feb. 26, 2013.

The complaint said the credit union discovered the embezzlement in February 2013 and claimed that other people may have been involved.  CUMIS said it reported Fortson to law enforcement, but did not say how law enforcement had responded. The credit union had not yet responded to calls for information on the Fortson case and CUNA Mutual said it had no further information.

Priority One filed a dishonest employee loss claim with CUMIS, for which the insurer paid just a little more than $980,000 after the credit union’s deductible, and settled the claim. CUMIS then sued Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad Accountancy, the Burbank, Calif., firm that had audited Priority One’s books since 2008.

CUMIS charged the accounting firm with negligence in its auditing the credit union’s books and operations.

“Defendant TWHC knew or should have known that Fortson was employed at the Priority One Los Angeles County Branch and that one of her duties was to perform reconciliations for that branch,” CUMIS argued in its complaint.

“Defendant TWHC knew or should have known that Fortson maintained singular control over the vault and vault balancing sheets for Priority One’s  Los Angeles Branch,” CUMIS added.

“If defendants had ever opened the vault, counted the vault cash, reconciled the counted vault cash to the general ledger account or reviewed the balancing sheets prepared by Fortson during the course of their reconciliation of cash accounts, the fraud and embezzlement scheme would have been discovered by defendants,” CUMIS added.

Turner Warren referred calls about the case to its attorney, Randall Dean of the Los Angeles firm of Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb and Barger.

Dean declined to comment at length on the case but said the firm considered it entirely without merit, adding that Turner Warren planned to fight it at trial in June of this year.  He also noted that Priority One had not brought the suit and had not expressed any disappointment with the firm's actions.

Source: CU Times Article

In CUMIS lawsuit, the actual date when the series of thefts began is stated as occurring in "early or late 2010." Could CUMIS have been more uncertain? 

The following key points were made by the CUMIS to the CU Times reporter:

• The embezzlement was discovered in February 2013, approximately three years after the robberies began. 

• Ms. Fortson was reported to law enforcement which is not synonymous with being arrested. 

• Priority One filed a dishonest employee loss claim with CUMIS in the amount of approximately $1 million but after paying a deductible, CUMIS paid "a little more than $980,000." 

• CUMIS sued Priority One's external auditor, Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad, because of negligent auditing which did not meet state mandated auditing standards. 

• CUMIS insisted that Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad "should have known that" that Ms. Fortson was responsible for performing branch reconciliations.

• Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad "should have known that" Ms. Fortson maintained "singular control over the vault and vault balancing sheets" for the Los Angeles branch. 

• Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad never "opened the vault, counted vault cash, reconciled the counted vault cash to the general ledger account or reviewed the balancing sheets" for if they had, "the fraud and embezzlement scheme would have been discovered"by the external auditor. 

CUMIS was sufficiently confident that they apparently had no qualms providing some information to the CU Times reporter. And apparently, former Vice President, Yvonne Boutte, and President Wiggington were absolutely certain that Ms. Fortson had absconded with more than $1 million in cash and that Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad had failed to do their due diligence and as a result, breached its agreement entered into with the credit union. 

With the certainty that CUMIS and the credit union knew for a fact who was responsible for the thefts, it came as no small surprise that on December 16, 2015, CUMIS' attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, the lawsuit filed against the alleged embezzler, Lynnette Fortson. So what about CUMIS' statements to the CU Times or the disclosures verbalized by Mrs. Boutte and the President?  

So why would CUMIS file a motion to dismiss when it was they who revealed to the CU Times that Pearl Lynnette Fortson absconded with more than $1 million? 

Ms. Fortson proved to be more clever and even shrewder than the credit union's and CUMIS' attorneys. Following the filing of CUMIS' lawsuit against Ms. Fortson, responded and moving quickly, filed for bankruptcy. Clearly, she understood that if she were tried and found guilty, the court could order restitution. However, if she could be granted bankruptcy, then she could not be ordered to pay restitution.    

BANKRUPTCY REPORT

Pearl Lynnette Fortson

---

Case:

2:14-bk-24370-WB

CH:

7

Filed:

July 29, 2014

Discharged:

November 17, 2014

Address:

URL:

http://www.bankruptreport.com/ca/inglewood/fortson-pearl-lynnette

Bankruptcy:

Filed

What President Wiggington, the credit union's Board of Directors and Supervisory Committee and CUMIS have always avoided explaining is how more than $1 million in cash were embezzled over an approximate 24-month period without the President Wiggington, the Board of Directors, the Supervisory Committee, a COO, a CLO, a CFO, the Accounting Department, the internal and external auditor ever noticing any of several thefts. 

Furthermore, Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad were contracted to usually perform an end-of-year audit. Wasn't anyone other than Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad auditing credit union branch records? This is highly unlikely. 

What's more, CUMIS told the CU Times reporter that Ms. Fortson had "singular control" over vault cash and vault balance sheets. How is it possible that she possessed singular control? Credit Union dictates double-custody when branch vaults are entered. And how did she physically remove thousands of dollars in cash, each time she allegedly removed money from the vault without anyone in the branch ever noticing? Aren't their cameras located just outside the vault? 

CUMIS also told the reporter that Ms. Fortson may have had accomplices but to date, no verification of this has ever emerged.  

Additionally, there are no records any action being taken against Ms. Fortson, including a record that she was ever arrested. 

THE MOTION TO DISMISS

Here is a copy of the proof of service (delivery) submitted to the court by CUMIS' attorneys.

The December 16, 2015 Request for Entry of Dismissal was filed with prejudice for the all actions originally filed against Ms. Fortson. "With Prejudice" means the lawsuit filed against Ms. Fortson is permanently being closed and no other action can ever be filed against her on the same claim. According to the sate of California, three possible reasons for requesting dismissal of a case with prejudice are:

• The case was settled and the amount agreed upon was fully paid. 
• The defendant named in the case is not the right person or business. 
• The case has already been heard and decided upon before – for example, in another court.

Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad

“Defendant TWHC knew or should have known that Fortson maintained singular control over the vault and vault balancing sheets for Priority One’s  Los Angeles Branch,” - CUMIS, CU Times, $1M Vault Pinch Hits Priority One, David Morrison, March 7, 2015

In 2015, CUMIS showed no qualms in accusing Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad of negligence and of indirectly, allowing the thefts of more than $1 million in cash to go unnoticed. Despite their public statements denouncing the external auditor, on December 15, 2015, CUMIS" attorneys filed another Motion to Dismiss, this time withdrawing the lawsuit filed against external auditor, Turner, Warren, Hwang. The external auditor in turn, filed a motion to dismiss their lawsuit filed against Priority One Credit Union. However, unlike the motion filed to dismiss the lawsuit against Lynnette Fortson, the motions filed by CUMIS and Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad were filed with prejudice. What this means is that they may refile their lawsuits at anytime in the future suggesting the motions were not the result of entering into settlement agreements. 

So what happens next? Is there another suspect in this case who may have absconded with the $1 million? And will CUMIS continue its relationship with the credit union? After all, this is a credit union who under President Wiggington has been the subject of internal thefts and losses incurred as a result of its failure to adhere to its own security protocols. 

How Long is Enough?

Last year we reported that President Wiggington had put his home in Echo Park/Silverlake up for sale. This is the same residence that he boasted about in years past including declaring that the property had been appraised to be worth more than $1 million, that it housed an extensive and valuable art collection and a large and impressive "tuxedo collection." The home is 982 square feet in size prompting us to wonder, where does he store his amazing collections. 

His decision to sell his home followed an attempted robbery of his residence. A friend of his family informed us that he allegedly boasted to neighbors about the home's luxuriant trappings and it would seem, someone believed his far-fetched concoctions. 

As shown below, the home has now been on the market for more than 163 days which is a very long time for a home to remain unsold. Evidently, the President is experiencing as much difficulty in selling his home as he did trying to convince the court that the theft of $1 million at the credit union was the fault of shoddy auditing practices. If anyone is interested, give his real estate agent a call. Maybe he'll negotiate a reduced selling price.  

Photograph of the house and trash cans

Conclusion

In 2013, President Wiggington and now former AVP, Yvonne Boutte, disclosed that evidence gathered by the credit union's internal and external auditors revealed that a large amount of money had been embezzled from the Los Angeles branch by former AVP, Lynnette Fortson. 
In fact, these two paragons of leadership and professional acumen declared that the evidence against Ms. Fortson was so telling and condemning that it would eventually result in her conviction. 

In 2015, CUMIS Insurance Society told the CU Times that more than $1 million in cash had been embezzled from the vault of the Los Angeles branch's vault by Ms. Fortson. They also told the publication that the credit union's external auditor, Turner, Warren, Hwang, and Conrad failed to audit vault cash and vault balance sheets which impeded the discovery of disparities that would have revealed the thefts perpetrated by Ms. Fortson.

In spite of the allegedly vast horde of evidence gathered against Ms. Fortson and the fact that she allegedly stole more than $1 million in cash, last year, on December 16, 2015, CUMIS' attorney filed a motion seeking dismissal without prejudice of the lawsuit filed against Ms. Fortson. So what does the motion say about CUMIS' competency as an insurance and bond company or that of it's "specialists"?

What we also find peculiar is that even though she was publicly accused of stealing more than $1 million and terminated as a result of the theft, Ms. Fortson has never filed a lawsuit against Priority One Credit Union or CUMIS citing defamation or wrongful termination? 

It is also strange that CUMIS also filed a motion to dismiss their lawsuit filed against Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad when they clearly made statements to the CU Times that the accounting firm been grossly negligent in auditing Priority One's records. It doesn't appear that the dismissals were the result of settlements entered into by CUMIS and Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad as the dismissals were submitted without prejudice which means the lawsuits can be refiled at sometime in the future. 

And why was the evidence provided by CUMIS to the credit union and used to file a counter-lawsuit against Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad so imbued with issues that the court could not allow the lawsuit to proceed to trial? 

Lastly, why is it that neither the credit union or CUMIS have ever explained how a series of thefts could occur over an approximate 24-month period without being discovered by President Wiggington, the Board of Directors, the Supervisory Committee, a COO, a CLO, a CFO, the Accounting Department, the internal and the external auditors? On a related note, in the years before Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was appointed President, the Supervisory Committee would periodically visit all branches and count vault cash. Why did was this practice stopped?  

Over the past 7 years we've reported about the incompetence and unethical proclivities of the President, the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Committee. Under Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. there has been a series of blunders all borne out of his refusal and those of the Board and Supervisory Committee to ensure security protocols are monitored and performed by all employees. It would seem that the the dull officers just don't comprehend that security measures were developed to ensure the protection of member and credit union assets. So how much has Priority One Credit Union spent on litigating the lawsuits involving the theft of more than $1 million in cash? And why would CUMIS pay the $1 million claim filed by the credit union knowing that Priority One has a well-documented history of security breaches all borne out of the President's refusal to abide to security measures?

WE WILL BE BACK ON
APRIL 1, 2016

WITH THE LATEST NEWS ABOUT 

PRIORITY ONE CREDIT UNION, 

ITS PRESIDENT, ITS BOARD &

ITS MANY LAWSUITS. 

SEE YOU THEN

Incongruence

BRINGING A BIG  

SWORD TO  A GUN FIGHT

This month's post, returns to the subject of Priority One Credit Union's legal entanglements. Currently, the credit union is involved in litigating four lawsuits. The first is the lawsuit filed
by it's insurance carrier, CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc. which accuses the credit union's former external auditor, Turner, Warren, Hwang, and Conrad ("TWHC"), of breach of contract when it performed several annual audits which violated established auditing standards. The breaches allegedly allowed several thefts totaling more than $1 million in cash to go undetected.

A second lawsuit was filed by TWHC against Priority One Credit Union and a third lawsuit- a counter-suit, was filed earlier this year by the credit union against its former external auditor, TWHC. .

A fourth lawsuit was against the credit union in late 2014, by its former contracted automobile broker, Lewis Seiden dba Auto Alliance ("Auto Alliance"). When we last reported upon the lawsuit filed by Auto Alliance, the credit union had filed a motion requesting dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint on the basis that the auto broker's allegations lacked merit to justify it's suit. Unfortunately, for Priority One, the court did disagreed and the credit union will proceed to court to fend off allegations it breached its agreement with the broker. We will elaborate further about the latest action initiated by both the automobile broker and the credit union.

In the decades before January 1, 2007, the actual date when Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was appointed President, the credit union was never sued by former employees or business associates. The current batch of lawsuits all stem from the decision by the President and Board of Directors to circumvent credit union policies and state and federal laws. It is these decisions which have forced Priority One to dig deep into its coffers, dredging up monies needed to pay for outrageously expensive litigation. From 2010 through 2013, Priority One paid in excess of $500,000 in legal fees. Employee lawsuits filed between 2010 through 2013 were eventually settled by the credit union to avoid costly and potentially embarrassing court trials. The amount currently being spent on litigation will probably surpass the $500,000 previously spent and brings into question the veracity of Priority One's Mission Statement which declares that the credit union is able "To help our member-owners and employees achieve financial fitness. We are committed to providing quality products and services that help you win with money" 

Does anyone really believe that Priority One Credit Union can help member-owners and employees achieve financial fitness when its few profits are being spent on expensive litigation? 

A CYCLE OF INEPTITUDE
Business Development Resuscitated

In our last post, we revealed that the President in yet another desperate move to acquisition new business, reinstated a former Business Development Representative ("BDR") who has been an employee of the credit union for over 40 years. The President's latest decision is another contradiction of his 2010 initiative which began by placing stringent restrictions on the business development team and decision in 2012, which completely dismantled the business development team until January 15, 2013, when he appointed, Joseph Garcia, to serve as sole BDR for the three-branch credit union. 

Despite a well-documented record of failures committed by Mr. Garcia during the years of 2010-2012, the President deemed it prudent to appoint him in charge of the credit union's business development endeavors. The President's decision was also enthusiastically supported by Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, and Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, both of who have continually enabled the President's history of horrendous busines decisions. As reported last month, it was not until July of this year that the not-so-astute President discovered Mr.Garcia was not visiting businesses whose names were referenced in each of his monthly production reports. 

The first problem with the President's latest escapade is that it's logistically marred. The credit union's territory extends from the Riverside/San Diego County border and north to the Santa Clarita Valley. Its a large and impressive territory comprised of diverse demographics and despite its vast size, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. has deemed it reasonable to assign a single business development representative to manage the entire territory. Does he really believe a single individual can, without assistance, manage the vast territory? Apparently, he does. The president may be oblivious to the fact that he has spent the last eight years neglecting the credit union's relationship to its members and in particular, its relationship with members who are employed by the United States Postal Service ("USPS").

If Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. has proven anything its that he is no skilled tactician and that his so-called business decisions are not based on information derived from surveys, focus group assessments, and careful studies of the credit union's marketplaces but rather nothing more than his chronic, unfounded whims.

A NON-PROFIT?

Apparently, both the President and Board have forgotten that as a non-profit, Priority One is required to satisfy certain public obligations which includes but is not limited to providing free services that contribute to the betterment of the communities served by the credit union. A search of their website and Facebook page fails to identify anything that the credit union has done to fulfill its social purpose. Evidently, the President who once aspired to turn Priority One into a bank has forgotten that following industry tenets:

• Help people of modest means
• Provide loans that are to be used for prudent purpose; and
• Provide free financial education

So what positive social impact has Priority One has had upon the communities it serves? 

MISREPRESENTATION?

It's only been a few weeks since Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, accompanied now former Vice President of Operations, Yvonne Boutte, to her desk located in the Credit Resolutions Department and watched while she retrieved her purse and a few possessions before quietly leaving the main branch without bidding adieu to her staff in the Call Center, Member Services, and Teller Departments. It was a quiet departure for a woman who demanded respect and subservience and yet, found it necessary to abuse and disparage staff. A few days following her departure, Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, disclosed that Mrs. Boutte was ill and might be absent for a few weeks. Of course, this proved to be another shame excuse to deter attention from the fact that she was being scrutinized. Almost immediately following her departure, the credit union that has historically been lax about updating its webpage, removed Mrs. Boutte's name, as shown below, from their online list containing executive names and titles.   

Former Executive List

 Current Executive List

Management List  

Its been a long while since we've conducted a search of Mrs. Boutte's name on the Internet, but we were curious to see if she might have moved quickly to amend any of her online biographies. Visiting her LinkedIn account, we discovered that she suffers from the same need exhibited by both President Wiggington and Vice President Smock, to exaggerate her work history. 

Source: Yvonne Boutte's LinkedIn Account

Mrs. Boutte took some poetic liberties when creating her biography. Though she correctly states she was hired to "create an in-house collections team", she is less than forthright when she states she wrote procedures. Her procedures were never ratified by the Board of Directors subsequently reducing her so-called procedures to mere notes. 

She also states her responsibilities included, "handling Card Services and the DMV function." We're completely at a loss to understand what she means by "handling." Mrs. Boutte did not perform Card Services Department procedures merely because she did not possess the ability to do so. The department which is actually a single desk., has an experienced Card Services Specialist. On a side note, in 2010, Mrs. Boutte ordered that the Card Services Specialist assist the collections department, a decision which is as absurd as anything concocted by President Wiggington, himself. 


Mrs. Boutte also oversaw DMV procedures though she was in no way a DMV Specialist. Furthermore, in 2009, the credit union ceased to have a DMV desk after Mrs. Boutte convinced then COO, Beatice Walker, that the DMV Specialist should be laid-off. 

Mrs. Boutte also attributes her purported successes to her "strong and effective leadership skills." The fact is, Mrs. Boutte was a polarizing presence at the credit union. She was known to be rude to employees and some members and like President Wiggington, she was a chronic violator of the credit union's policies. In 2012, she bullied a member who lodged a complaint with Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks and which accused the credit union of publishing information about her credit union automobile loan and disparaging statements about her person, on the Internet. The compliant was delegated to the President who then delegated it to Mrs. Boutte. Mrs. Boutte chose to be aggressive over prudent and impartial, provoking the member into filing a lawsuit which was later settled by the credit union. Evidently, Mrs. Boutte has a distorted view of what constitutes strong or effective leadership. 

THE PLAN THAT COULDN'T FAIL




- Webpage Page as it appeared in 2010 -

In early 2010, then COO, Beatrice Walker, launched an aggressive campaign, promoting her expertise as a Chief Operations Officer. She promised the Board of Directors and its Board Chair, the easily pliable, Diedra Harris-Brooks, convincing them that she would reduce spending and create profitable new streams of income. 

Hired on June 1, 2009, she spent much of her first three months of employment pandering to the Board and succeeding in bolling over Mrs. Harris-Brooks who literally granted Ms. Walker Carte' Blanche to implement whatever changes she deemed necessary to reverse the multitude of problems created by President Wiggington which had caused the credit union to lose its ability to generate the level of new business enjoyed prior to January 1, 2007, the date he began his appointment as President. . 

One of the many changes she made by Ms. Walker was introducing Auto Alliance to the credit union. Though Priority One had a long-time and highly successful relationship with Mike Martinez the owner of Universal Leasing and Sales, Ms. Walker issued an order to the Loan Department staff, advising them to refer all members seeking to purchase an automobile to Auto Alliance.  Furthermore, President Wiggington distanced himself from Universal Auto Leasing and Sales, became aloof and unfriendly. 

To aid success of Auto Alliance, Ms. Walker ordered placement of a desk in the Loan Department where a representative from Auto Alliance would sit and meet with members who were approved for an automobile loan. The plan might have worked had the consumer loan department staff not continued referring members to Universal Auto Sales. What's more, President Wiggington made no effort to ensure the staff was referring members to Auto Alliance. 

By mid-2010, Ms. Walker's relationship with the Board had deteriorated to the point that she began publicly describing the Directors as "uneducated" and "ignorant." In July 2011, Ms. Walker was terminated and within a few weeks, Auto Alliance's representative vacated his desk. 

- Website Page as it appears in 2015 -

"MAN IS NOT WHAT HE THINKS HE IS, HE IS WHAT HE HIDES"

- ANDRE' MALRAUX -

On June 24, 2015, Priority One's attorney, John C. Steele, filed a motion requesting the court's approval which would allow the credit union to join CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc.'s lawsuit, however and as usual, litigation has not been without incident. 

Priority One's attorney had previously filed a motion requesting dismissal of the lawsuit filed by Lewis Seiden dba Auto Alliance but the court deemed the Plaintiff's allegations possessed sufficient grounds to proceed to trial. With the credit union's first course of action having failed, on September 26, 2015, their attorney filed a Stipulation and Protective Order- Confidential Designation Only. The order seeks an order by the court to prohibit the publication of any documents deemed and labeled "confidential". The defendant and plaintiff have apparently comet to an agreement that it is crucial to protect the confidentiality of certain documents that may contain sensitive information such as trade secrets and financial data which is not intended for viewing by the general public or competitors and which may be of a proprietary nature. 

The filing of the motion is not unusual but it comes only a few weeks after we learned that President Wiggington expressed concern that documents presented during the upcoming trial could find their way to the Internet and adversely impact his very public reputation. Frankly, at this point, the President should have moved beyond being embarrassed. Since 2007, evidence was exposed that he sexually harassed a female employee and that while serving as Vice President of Operations, he ordered repossession of a BMW, his favorite car, and transferred ownership to himself without paying a cent for the vehicle. There are also the multitude of allegations documented in complaints filed by former employees and one former member, describing egregious violations of state and federal laws perpetrated by and under President Wiggington.  

Though the attorney's for the Plaintiff and Defendant have signed the motion, we can't ignore the fact that the motion was filed just a few weeks after President Wiggington expressed concerns that documents presented in court could find their way to the Internet. 

The lawsuit filed by Auto Alliance also names Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. a defendant. This, by the way, is the second time since 2013, that the President has been named a defendant. The first incident occurred in the lawsuit filed by the last Branch Manager of the now defunct Valencia office. At the time, the plaintiff accused Human Resources and President Wiggington of allowing her state and federal rights to be violated when they knowingly allowed her to be harassed, sexually harassed, retaliated against, and stalked by former COO, Beatrice Walker. 

In 2013, the President spent an inordinate amount of time walking about the South Pasadena office, divulging confidential information about each of the lawsuits filed by former employees and boasting that three settlements entered into by the credit union were so insignificant in amount that they were inconsequential to the declining credit union. At the time, his breeches of confidentiality even prompted the credit union's attorney to issue a warning to Board Chair., Diedra Harris-Brooks, urging that the President desist from verbalizing information about cases that had been settled and about those which remained in litigation. 

During litigation of the lawsuit filed by the Valencia Branch Manager, the credit union's attorney contacted the Plaintiff's attorney by telephone and informed her that if President Wiggington's name was not removed as a Defendant from the lawsuit, he would file a motion excusing the President from testifying because he was suffering from cancer and was undergoing arduous medical treatments. Evidently, the President has since made an almost full recovery immediately following removal of his name.

Apparently, in 2015 things have changed for President Wiggington.  It appears he will be unable to use his former illness as an excuse to escape from testifying. What's more, he's become extremely concerned about guarding the confidentiality of certain documents that will be presented during the trial. Though we understand that it is important to protect sensitive information from being viewed by the public, we can't ignore the fact that the President recently expressed concern about stopping the disclosure of certain information that could adversely impact his reputation and which could reveal things about his character and about his mode of administration. And though on some level we can empathize with the President's concerns, the fact is this is a ruthless man who has over the past 8 years violated policies and laws with no concern for the consequences this could have upon the credit union and its ability to conduct business. The President should be concerned by the upcoming trials and in particular, the lawsuit filed by Auto Alliance which names him a defendant. He will be unable to hide behind the Board of Directors and its Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, and though the motion to protect the publication of certain documents, the motion does not cover all documents that might be presented and produced during the trial. 

Hiding information isn't new for President Wiggington. Here are two instances in which he has purposely withheld information from public viewing:

• In 2010, he ordered that members not be provided copies of Priority One's Monthly Balance Sheet/Income Statements though state law stipulates that the reports must be provided to active members who request copies of these. His directive remains in effect today.  

• This year, he and Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, decided to stop publication of the credit union's annual report on Priority One's website. 

The President has always hoped people would accept his verbalized assurances and disclosures about the credit union's financial standing, at face value. Unfortunately, his statements have continually been challenged by the credit union's own financial statements including its quarterly Financial Performance Reports filed with the National Credit Union Association. 

Another fact is that anyone attending any of the trials the credit union is currently involved in, will have an opportunity to hear testimonies and observe the presentation of evidence that will finally reveal how Priority One chooses to do business. Though their is no arguing that President Wiggington is a man who chooses to orchestrate his activities in the darkest recesses of the credit union, far from prying eyes, a trial will provide transparency and provide a wonderful opportunity to bring into the light the President's methodologies. 

President Wiggington may soon discover that the motion signed by the plaintiff and defendant will not serve to stop testimonies from being heard in court. Will Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. forge a story that exonerates him from all wrong doing and which serves to convince a jury that Priority One acted responsibly and wholly honestly in their dealings with Auto Alliance?