Does Character Matter, Part 2 of 2

DEPLETION

Priority One Credit Union's Financial Performance Report for the quarter ending on September 30, 2015 is now available at www.ncua.gov and in spite of the President's insistence, business isn't improving.

Late last year President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. somberly stated that "people don't understand the reason I closed branches is to make profit." He of course never took the time to explain how closing branches which eliminates convenience serves to generate profit. 

2008, 2009, and 2010 ended in the negative for the once prosperous credit union and in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and in 2014, the President was forced to close branches to ensure net capital remained well above 6% so that the credit union could remain in open and in business. Despite the losses and it's continuing financial struggles, the President has been awarded annual raises all approved by the Board of Directors and it's Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks. 

We know of no other credit union whose President has caused losses amounting in the millions of dollars, who has been found guilty of sexual harassment and who has provoked the filing of more than seven lawsuits since 2010, who remains employed and is granted annual wage increases. 

What's more, since 2009, the credit union has had a salary freeze in place that only affects the salaries of non-exempt personnel. As we've often reported, often brutal cut-backs implemented by President Wiggington specifically target employee salaries and benefits and never affect the salaries paid to the executive sector.  

REWARDING INCOMPETENCE

So much how much is the credit union industry's most embarrassing President being paid? As we've done every year since 2010, we are again publishing excerpts from the credit union's most recent Form 990 Form IRS filing. The latest form is for the year 2013 and provides insight into the practices of the Board of Directors who under it's Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, has evidently established a policy for rewarding incompetence and over the past eight years, used credit union funds like their own personal piggy bank. Here are the excerpts from the latest filing:   

Form 990 IRS Filing

In 2013, now former Vice President of Project Management, Yvonne Boutte, was paid $91,538. Mrs. Boutte was a polarizing presence and during her years of employment, was abusive to staff, was an instigator and vicious gossip, and frequently slandered employees and other officers. In 2012, she provoked a member who filed a lawsuit against the credit union accusing the credit union of publishing confidential information about her credit union automobile loan and her person. Because of the nature of the disclosures, the information could only have been published by either Mrs. Boutte or one of her staff in the Credit Resolutions Department. Evidently, her abhorrent behaviors and lackluster performance were inconsequential to the Board who authorized that she be paid in excess of $90,000 a year. Can anyone name one thing Mrs. Boutte did during her seven (7) year stay that resolved some of the problems created by the President and resulted in increased business? 

Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was paid $164,484 in 2013 even though he has caused losses of net income in excess of $20 million since being appointed President on January 1, 2007. His horrendous personal behaviors including having been found guilty of sexually harassing a former employee speak as much to his character as they do to the egregious proclivities of the entire Board. 

AVP, Patricia Loiacano, was paid $91,565 in 2013. Though actually knowledgeable about real estate and consumer loan processes, she will go along with abuses perpetrated by the management sector. In 2007, she was informed by a Loan Processor that the DMV Specialist had obtained permission from the AVP of Lending, Aaron Cavazos, to forge member signatures on Power of Attorney forms where loan processors had failed to obtain signatures while funding automobile loans. At the time, Mrs. Loiacano replied, "There's nothing I can do because it came from Aaron." In 2010, she was appointed AVP of Compliance by Beatrice Walker.  

Saeid Raad, the former CFO, was terminated in 2013 but before leaving, was paid $150,451. It was while Mr. Raad was CFO that more than $1 million in cash were stolen from the Los Angeles branch. We wonder if his departure is related to the discovery of the theft? 

Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, was paid $120,286 in 2013. It's nothing less than incredulous that the worst Director over Human Resources and the man who intentionally violated state and federal laws for several years and who refused to enforce credit union policies when violated by the President and his lackeys, would be paid what is an astronomical amount. Can anyone name anything Rodger Smock has contributed to the betterment of the credit union?  And the answer isn't that he used to cut out coupons and pass them out to staff. 

We would be very interested in reviewing the loan documents for some of the officers who obtained loans from the credit union. The board approves loan applications for officers of the credit union which may not be illegal but is a conflict of interest. We are particularly curious to know if each of the officers satisfied the same credit union's eligibility requirements non-employees are expected to comply to. 

As shown above., the credit union also provided the following responses to inquiries set in the form which we've retyped below: 

• "Members have rights to elect the members of the governing body. Members also received a share of the organization's profits in the form of cash dividends." 

• "Members have he right to elect one or more members of the organization's governing body, whether periodically as vacancies arise, or otherwise." 

• "Members have the right to approve the governing body's election and removal of members of the governing body, as well as other matters that are subject to the approval of members as they occur." 

The statements are superficially true but the fact is, in 2009 and again in 2010, Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks and her accomplice, President Wiggington, disrupted the electoral process in an effort to keep new officers from being elected to the either the Board of Directors or Supervisory Committee. 

Under California state law, credit union's must inform members in good-standing of the impending election and extend an invitation that if they'd like, they can nominate themselves to vie for a seat on either the Board of Directors or Supervisory Committee. Mrs. Harris-Brooks and Mr. Wiggington intentionally only chose to publish the mandated notices in the Winter newsletter which was only mailed to members who have a checking account and excluding the large sector of members who only have a savings account. 

The two wanted to maker certain that none of the Directors or Supervisors were displaced because the two governing bodies are comprised of ineffective and ignorant officers who are subservient to Mrs. Harris-Brooks' every whim. 

They might have gotten away with their plot had we not exposed. Our exposure of what they had done forced the credit union to hold a "second" annual election which resulted in having to reprint ballots, letters, and the cost of postage to all active members in good standing. The financial impact their ploy had upon the credit union was inconsequential to the two corrupt officers who freely use credit union monies as if they were their own.  

Please note the credit union has new accounts- Richards and Associates. We certainly hope the credit union doesn't sue them at some point in the future as they've done with Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad. 

 SHRINKAGE

Though it now more than eight years since Priority One Credit Union began it's ascent towards failure, President Wiggington has avoided a complete shut down of the organization by closing branches, implementing what is now a five year wage freeze that only impacts non-exempt staff salaries, and reduced marketing and business development budgets.

His reductions have come at a heavy cost, compromising convenience, quality member service and ruination of the credit union's public reputation. But no other person has contributed more to financial losses than has the incompetent President's wasted spending.  

• In 2007, he refused to resolve issues affecting the conversion of Inland Counties Postal Credit Union member account records into Priority One's network. Though he could have responded immediately but enacting steps that would have immediately implemented remedial measures to all Inland Counties Postal Credit Union accounts, he instead ordered that the member service department only respond to members who actually took the time to call the credit union. His slothful response forced the credit union to spend $100,000 obtaining services from Experian' to monitor member credit reports for one-year, at no cost to members. 

• Later in 2007, he refusal to abide to security protocols resulted in the mailing of ballots in envelopes on whose exterior were printed member account and social security numbers. His error forced the credit union to spend more than $80,000 in remedial measures.

• In 2008, he spent credit union monies purchasing a $600,000 technically flawed phone system. 

• In 2008, the President was placed on paid suspension and during the six-weeks which followed, an investigation took place to determine if he had sexually harassed a former employee. The evidence which was eventually provided to the credit union by EXTTI, Inc. proved he had indeed violated federal law but Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, chose to reinstate the President and literally squash the evidence. 

• In mid-2008, he borrowed $20 million from the credit union's line-of-credit, forcing the credit union to pay between $30,000 to $50,000 per month in interest alone, over the next two years.

• In 2009, he hired his friend, Beatrice Walker, to serve as the credit union's first COO and to help him flush out the blogger, bloggers and confederates of the blogger who he said were trying to force the failure of the credit union. After paying her approximately $100,000 a year, in 2011, he fired Ms. Walker only 25-months after she had begun working for the credit union. 

• Also in 2009, the President and Board authorized the spending of more than $30,000 to procure the services of Lillestrand and Associates. Though the owner, Loren Lillestrand visited the South Pasadena several times during which he met with employees, none of the information he gathered that was to be used to improve how the operation was ever utilized. 

• Immediately after terminating Ms. Walker in July 2011, he hired Cindy Garvin to serve as Director of Lending. Her starting salary approximated $70,000 but within four months, he promoted her COO, increased her salary and gave her authority to manage the operations over the credit union's Airport, Burbank, Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Van Nuys Branches. Ms. Garvin was touted by AVP, Rodger Smock as an expert in loan development, business development and marketing but at the end of 2013, she too was fired. 

• Between the years of 2010 through 2014, Priority One spent more than $500,000 on legal expenses though majority of which was defending itself against lawsuits filed by four former employees and one member whose confidential account information was published on the Internet by an officer of the credit union. 

• In February of 2012, the President opened the Santa Clarita branch and on January 2014, closed its doors. 

 EVIDENCE

The credit union's Quarterly Financial Performance Report ("FPR") for the quarter ending September 31, 2015, reports the organization's net asset size as $153,072,823. On January 1, 2007, the date Charles R. Wiggington,Sr. began his appointment to President, Priority One's asset size was $172,250,649. and the credit union boasted seven branches versus the remaining three it operates. And though the amount of net assets lost since 2007 has often fluctuated, currently the credit union's net assets are -$19,177,826 less than they were on January 1, 2007. 

In 2014, the President complained that he is often criticized for closing branches but that what people don't understand is that the closures were intended to increase profits. No, the closures were intended to reduce spending and raise net capital. Of course, we invite President Wiggington to explain who reducing the credit union's presence in the communities it is chartered to serve, how compromised service and subpar marketing translate into profit. In December 2015, Priority One no longer has a presence in all of Riverside County, in all of the Santa Clarita Valley and in most of the San Fernando Valley. So how is it's physical absence within it's own territories intended to produce profit?

ANOTHER WIGGINGTON BLUNDER

In November 2011, the President gloated over the impending opening of the credit union's newest branch in the Santa Clarita Valley. The structure that would house the new branch was constructed at the request of then Post Master, Ralph Tapia but the President instead, spread rumors that he negotiated a deal in which the postal service agreed to pay for building the location. He also boasted that using his keen negotiating skills, the postal service agreed to only charge the credit union $1.00 per year to lease the space. It would have been an admirable accomplishment if any of it were true. 

The branch was built at the request of then Santa Clarita Post Master, Ralph Tapia. It was his way of showing his gratitude for a credit union he sincerely care about. What's more, in November 2011, the cocky and dull President stated that the branch would be opened quietly and without fanfare because in his words, "People are going to want to become members so we don't need to advertise." He was wrong. 

In 2013, the credit union was contacted by the office of the new Post Master of Santa Clarita who informed a review of their records revealed the credit union was only paying $1.00 per year to lease the structure built by the post office and that the amount would be increased to the market rate. The news was sufficient to prompt AVP, Rodger Smock, into ask, "What is the post office doing to us?" We don't understand why Mr. Smock was so upset. If the President was the amazing negotiator he declared he was, then why didn't he contact the office of the Post Master and renegotiate reducing the amount of the lease?

In January 2014, the credit union permanently closed the doors to the Santa Clarita branch. According to the President, "no one visits the place."  Maybe the location might have had succeeded if the President had chosen to advertise its location. Or maybe, if had chosen to open a location in downtown Valencia versus the unpopulated northern fringes of the Santa Clarita Valley. 

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

• The Financial Performance Report for the quarter ending September 31, 2015, also references losses under "other reserves" in the amount of` -$139,613 though no explanation what the "other reserves" pertains to.

• Under Allowance for Loan & Lease (Losses) the credit union reports a negative -$700,000. So did the credit union not set aside sufficient allowance to cover loan losses?

• Membership growth was below the industry average and reported at a negative -3.02%.  

President Wiggington has made a career of lying, including creating a fraudulent impressions of Priority One's real financial performance. If you visit the credit union's website, you'll find that he has hidden, to date, the 2014 Annual Report. Currently, the 2013 Annual Report continues to appear on the website. In 2009, he attempted a similar antic when he refused to post the credit union's Monthly Income Statements and finally conceded after two complaints were filed with the state's Department of Financial Institutions. In business, sometimes "less is more" but at Priority One, "less is always less." 

The credit union's FPR can be viewed at NCUA.gov using charter number, 60024. 

LEGAL WOES

Inarguably, since Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. became President of the once successful credit union, Priority One Credit Union has found itself inundated in lawsuits, a phenomena that didn't exist prior to his appointment to President. 

It would also be naive to deny or ignore the correlation between his appointment to President, the ineptitude and corruption of the Board of Directors and the ignorance of the Supervisory Committee; and the lawsuits filed by former employees, members, vendors and contracted consultants against the credit union. 

In late June, CUMIS Insurance Society provided Priority One findings compiled by one of its analysts, which allegedly found that the credit union's external auditor, Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad ("TWHC") performed annual audits which violated mandated auditing standards. The specific timeframe which audits took place were between "early" or "late" 2010 through 2012. TWHC's failure had the following two-fold effect upon the credit union:

• TWHC failed to detect any of the many thefts occurring during the years of 2010-2012; and
• The faulty audits created an opportunity for a former AVP to abscond with more than $1 million in cash from the vault of the Los Angeles branch. 

TWHC was first contracted by Priority One Credit Union in 2008. Apparently, any audits performed in 2008 and 2009 were completed compliant to mandated auditing standards. 

According to CUMIS' lawsuit, TWHC is solely responsible for the theft of more than $1 million yet for some inexplicable reason neither the President, the CFO, two COO's, the credit union's internal auditor, the Board of Directors, the Supervisory Committee, and the entire Account Department never realized money was being stolen from the credit union. 

It's one think to level allegations of wrong doing against another party, but can CUMIS prove it? Using the information provided to it by CUMIS, Priority One filed a cross-complaint accusing TWHC of negligence and contractual violations. The credit union's attorney, John C. Steele, filed a motion requesting the court allow that Priority One sue it's former auditor. 

Priority One had little choice but to file its lawsuit. CUMIS paid more than $980,000 against the $1 million claim filed by the credit union in 2014. CUMIS wants to recuperate it's money. Though CUMIS' has taken action against Pearl Lynnette Fortson, the AVP who allegedly embezzled the cash from the Los Angeles branch but Ms. Fortson has filed bankruptcy and if approved by the bankruptcy court, may escape having to pay restitution if she's found guilty of embezzlement. The credit union's lawsuit would serve to strengthen CUMIS's complaint. More importantly, CUMIS has to win to recuperate the money paid to the Priority One'. And Priority One needs to do everything it can to ensure CUMIS wins its lawsuits or their policy with their carrier could be canceled. If canceled and if the credit union is unable to contract the services of a new carrier, Priority One would be unable to continue it's operation. It's a catch 22 for Priority One and the potential ramifications to its business are nothing less than astounding.

LEGAL HURDLE

As reported over the last several months, Priority One Credit Union is currently involved in several lawsuits. And though the lawsuit filed by CUMIS against Turner, Warren, Hwang, and Conrad is scheduled to start on January 25, 2015, it hasn't been without having to scale large numbers of motions filed both by CUMIS, TWHC and the credit union. The motions are really nothing more than a costly means by which to obtain clarification, delineate perimeters, and determine what evidence and testimonies will and will not be allowed by the court. 

In the latest episode of the on going saga, CUMIS filed a lengthy motion which is hoping is attempting to block the admissibility of testimony by an alleged TWHC expert. CUMIS alleges the expert is unqualified to provide rebuttal testimony and the testimony was not submitted within the timeframe specified under law. 

On November 2, 2015, Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad responded to allegations filed CUMIS, asking the court disallow testimony by an expert who would testify on behalf of TWHC. 

Shown below is is TWHC's response to CUMIS' allegations which apparently asked the court to deny the external auditor to deny expert testimony of a "Mr. Sacher" because the report was: 

• Not submitted on time; and
• Mr. Sacher is unqualified to provide expert testimony on the matter. 

TWHC responded by contending that CUMIS' that "expert reports" are not required to be created within a legally specified time frame. 

TWHC is also requesting additional time to amend the motion to conform to Mr. Sacher's capacity as an expert so the report is deemed acceptable to the court. 

TWHC clarifies that the expert, Mr. Sacher, will be providing rebuttal testimony to CUMIS' allegations against TWHC and that CUMIS has been in possession of the expert's opinions since June 24, 2015, long before the court trial is scheduled to start on January 25, 2015. 

CUMIS' attorney contacted TWHC and informed them that the expert, Mr. Sacher's opinion were intended to rebut CUMIS' finding and was informed that the intent of Mr. Sacher's testimony was to rebut CUMIS' allegations. Furthermore, on June 24, 2015, TWHC provided CUMIS Mr. Sacher's opinion which mean that CUMIS knew the expert would be providing testimony rebutting CUMIS' allegations. 

TWHC concludes by asking the court to impose sanctions against CUMIS whose allegations were unfounded and unsupported by law. It appears CUMIS either didn't comprehend the facts or intentionally filed a motion possibly gambling on the hope the court would decide TWHC expert's testimony would not be allowed. TWHC in response asks for sanctions to be leveled against  CUMIS. 

On November 5, 2005, the court issued an order scheduling a Motion for Leave to Amend Expert Designation and Request for Sanctions which is scheduled to take place on December 7, 2015.  

iNsANitY

Over the years, two oft the most often asked questions are how has Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. remained President and why hasn't the Board of Directors been voted out by members? 

There is more than sufficient documentation,  i.e. employee complaints, investigative reports, lawsuits, etc., proving the President's ruination of the once thriving credit union. What the obtuse Board is to dense to comprehend is that the President's business decisions, personal immersion in outrageous scandals, and his disdain for maintaining relations with the membership have all adversely impacted the credit union's ability to obtain new business. Subsequently and to remain open, the credit union is now dependent upon expense reductions. These are unimportant factors that Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, has chosen to ignore. Her mandate is to ensure the inept President remains employed and she has freely utilized credit union resources to hire expensive attorneys who are paid to concoct defenses designed to help the President escape retribution for his egregious acts. In spite of the President's history of failures, Mrs. Harris-Brooks has deemed her abuses of authority prudent and necessary to ensure to President remains employed and paid a salary exceeding $160,000.  

The credit union's current legal troubles involving the theft of more $1 million in cash from the vault of the Los Angeles branch were all completely avoidable. The credit union is hoping CUMIS wins its case otherwise it could adversely impact its ability to retain the services of it's the bond company.  

And though CUMIS would like the court to believe that alleged subpar audits resulted in the thefts perpetrated at the Los Angeles branch, it is logically impossible to do so. CUMIS has to prove that audits conducted by Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad during the years of 2010 through 2012 failed to identify any of the cash thefts allegedly perpetrated by a now former AVP. However, from a  layman's point-of-view, there is something more than a little unreasonable about CUMIS' allegations. 

The embezzler had to walk out of the Los Angeles branch with tens of thousands of dollars each month, over what CUMIS identifies as a 24-month period. How did the thief do so without the President, a CFO, two COO's, the Board of Directors, the Supervisory Committee, the Accounting Department and employees of the Los Angeles ever noticing a single theft? How could one solitary employee enter the Los Angeles vault without being observed and leave with either hand, satchel or a box full of cash during each visit? It is just logistically impossible. 

The thefts allegedly committed by an AVP were discovered in February 2013 by Diane Huffman, the credit union's Internal Auditor. Shortly afterwards, Priority One hired Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad to confirm Ms. Huffman's findings. Not long after this, the credit union transferred Mrs. Loiacano from overseeing Compliance and transferred her back to overseeing the Consumer and Real Estate Loan Departments. Why was she transferred? Was it that while overseeing Compliance she failed to ensure policies governing security had been consistently enforced? 

Has anyone noticed that Priority One has refused, to date, to disclose how the thefts were perpetrated? What is the President and the Board hiding? We're certain every credit union would like to know how this could have been done so that they can instill measures to ensure this doesn't happen to them. We suspect that the reason Priority One's officers have remained unusually hushed about this matter is because the methods used to abscond with the money were so simplistic, so absurd and so phenomenally ludicrous that they are trying to avoid public ridicule. Either that or someone within the executive sector knew that the thefts were occurring or might even have been involved in the thefts. 

As for CUMIS, we hope they have prepared a hefty arsenal of indisputable evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Turner, Warren, Hwang and Conrad, an industry respected company, is responsible for the thefts perpetrated by one of the credit union's officers. And we can't wait to hear testimony from the Supervisory Committee and its Chair, Cornelia Simmons, the robotic officer who year by year assures members that her committee's reviews have proven that the credit union's security is in place and functioning at optimum. This will be a wonderful opportunity to witness the caliber of executives, Directors and Supervisors representing the credit union. 

A History of Failures, Part 2 of 4

AN INESCAPABLE PAST

As 2014 approaches to its end, the month of October proved to be another lackluster month for Priority One Credit Union in South Pasadena, California. Just as attested to by its monthly performance during the past seven (7) years, there was no evidence again, of an impending avalanche of new business and increased profits as promised by President, Charles R. Wiggington,Sr. just three months ago, when he revealed that that the closure of six (6) branches since October 2010 were part of a carefully executed plan designed to produce a surge in new business and fuel a level of financial and physical growth not witnessed at Priority One since before he became its President on January 1, 2007. For Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., the Credit Union's performance during the month of October 2014, served to further solidify our belief that he is incapable of extricating himself from his well documented legacy of failures. 

As we've reported since January 2009, President Charles R. Wiggngton, Sr.'s maladroit business decisions have forced branch closures and replaced many senior, full-time permanent employees with part-time staff who are not recipients of medical or retirement benefits. His mismanagement of the once successful Credit Union transformed Priority One into a smaller and less successful company heavily reliant upon expense reductions as key to its continued survival. Under his leadership, the Credit Union's relationship with its once largest membership group- employees of the United States Postal Service ["USPS"], has grown tenuous. He also eliminated the Credit Union's once prize-winning Marketing Department in 2007 as part of a frantic effort to reduce spending and prove to his constituents that unlike his successful and respected predecessor, he had a smarter and better way of doing business. He was wrong. 

In 2012, the President eliminated the Credit Union's once successful Business Development team who for years had contributed to the development of new business, helped increase membership and had been pivotal in developing and maintaining relations with the many diverse communities served by Priority One. The team's elimination coupled by the closure of six (6) branches brought an end to the Credit Union's visible presence within much of its vast territory.  

Through the years, the President's horrendous business decisions have been continually enabled by the Board of Directors, however, even his business decisions have been overshadowed by his bizarre and at times, illegal behaviors. During the years of 2010 through 2013, the President's inappropriate, unethical and illegal acts have forced the spending of more than $5 million in legal fees. These exorbitant legal costs were spent on expensive and often unscrupulous attorneys, who scrambled to create defenses built upon aggressive tactics designed to vilify the President's victims and raise a facade the protected Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. from any retribution for his illegal acts. 

However, in rushing to forge settlement agreements with former employees and one Member who sued the Credit Union, the attorneys inadvertently helped produce irrefutable evidence of the President's guilt. After all, if Charles R. Wiggington,. Sr. were truly innocent, then why would the Credit Union offer monetary settlements to what would have been frivolous and unfounded complaints? The only thing accomplished by Priority One's attorneys was helping President Wiggington avoid what woiuld most assuredly have been embarrassing and all too telling court trials. 

This month's post....

contains copies of numerous documents supporting our continued contentions against President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. Some of the documents have never been previously published on this blog. We also include financial information recently obtained from the NCUA's website, revealing Priority One's actual financial performance versus the hyperbole continually being spewed out by President Wiggington and the Board of Directors.

We recently noticed that following our September and October posts, that the President has ceased his unabashed and very public campaign, justifying why he ordered closure of six (6) branch locations while simultaneously, trying to create and bolster a fictitious image that he is a prudent leader. The biggest deficiency plaguing the President's incessant storytelling is that his often infantile excuses are never accompanied by tangible evidence. His campaign asserted branch closures were designed to jump start new business and promote physical and financial development though conspicuously failing to explain how the elimination of convenient branch locations and member service, are supposed to produce growth. As is often the case with any story fabricated by Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., his insistence of what he says is true lacked logic reducing his "story" to more gibberish from a man who is incapable of telling the truth and who always exacts efforts to escape accountability for this blunders. 

But every cloud has its silver lining and when it comes to the deceptive assurances and juvenile excuses made by President Wiggington, it is always wise to demand evidence proving that what he says is indeed true. 

PEARLS TO SWINE

IT'S NOT THE SIZE 

BUT WHAT YOU DO WITH IT

For those unfamiliar with Southern California, Los Angeles County is approximately 4,084 square miles in size, including Santa Catalina Island. This poses a logistical problem for Priority One Credit Union whose President has deemed it sufficient to relegate the Credit Union's sprawling territory to a single Business Development Representative ("BDR"). The BDR, Joseph Garcia, has held a myriad of managerial titles since his arrival to the South Pasadena in January 2010, though proving quite incapable of carrying out his assigned responsibilities in each of his short-lived capacities. Unfortunately, for the Credit Union, for Members, and for Employees, Mr. Garcia lacks the skills, a proven track record of documented accomplishments, diplomacy, or the savvy needed to create and maintain relationships with the communities found in Priority One's demographically diverse communities.

While serving as President and CEO, the honorable and ethical, William E. Harris, orchestrated several mergers which increased the size of the Credit Union's territory and added new branches, amassed increased Net Income, and augmented memberships. During the last quarter of 2006, Mr. Harris finalized a merger with Inland Counties Postal Federal Credit Union, acquisitioning all of Riverside County whose physical size is 7208 square miles. The addition of Riverside County provided Priority One with the opportunity of developing new business with employees of the United States Postal Service and their families and also their families'.  It was an incredible opportunity with seemingly endless possibilities. 

Unfortunately, for the Credit Union, the merger was finalized at the end of 2006 and Mr. Harris retired on December 31, 2006. On January 1, 2007, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. became the Credit Union's new President and CEO, inheriting the task of developing new business in Los Angeles and Riverside Counties. As history has proven, he was unqualified to do so, in part because unlike his predecessor, he's unmotivated and when he became President, boasted that he would in his words, "Just sit back and let the AVP's do all the work." Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. sincerely believed that all he had to do was lounge without making any effort and that his subordinates would bring in all the business required by the Credit Union to promote growth, accrue profit, and increase membership.

By April 2007, the disgruntled and slothful President complained, "Mr. Harris left me a mess (Riverside County)." Not so unusually, Mr. Harris never experienced a problem developing new business in the communities served by the Credit Union, but President Wiggington who is chronically unaccountable would fail to enact a single strategy that produced the level of new business required in Riverside County.

The fact is, President Wiggington was not left a mess. He was provided a wonderful opportunity that he was unqualified to handle. If Riverside had truly been a mess then how does he explain his failure to develop new business in Los Angeles county? In 2007, he arrogantly mocked his predecessor, describing him as "old school" and promised to show "everyone" that he had a "better and smarter way" to do business. Seven years later, we're still waiting. If President Wiggington, Sr. possessed a modicum of the competency demonstrated by his predecessor, he might never have resorted to cutting expenses as a primary means by which to keep Priority One's doors open for business. He might also have succeeded in developing new business and establishing relationships with the communities located in the more than 7,000 square miles that make up Riverside County. 

But first.......

We intended to limit the subject of President Wiggington's abuses committed before and following his appointment to President to only two posts but due to the amount of information we intend to publish, we've had to add a third post which will be published in December 2014, concluding our series, "A History of Failures." 

This past October 24th, the NCUA published Priority One Credit Union's quarterly Financial Performance Report ("FPR") for the quarter ending September 30, 2014. The disclosures in the report are inconsistent with the President's periodic insistence that business is doing well and on the verge of surging something that has yet to be realized despite more than four (4) years of assurances that at any moment, business might erupt. 

According to the latest FPR, as of September 30, 2014, Priority One's income size totaled $149,491,398. Just for comparison, on January 1, 2007, the date Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. began his appointment to President, the Credit Union's income size was approximately $172 million.  As of September 2014, the Credit Union's net income has decreased by approximately $23 million. 

To better gauge Priority One's recent performance, we extracted the following record of its total income size for each quarter from September 2013 through September 30, 2014. 

As referenced above, the Credit Union's Net Income or Net Assets have declined during the quarter ending September 2013 through the quarter ending September 2014 by approximately $1 million. According to its FPR, Priority One's Net Income was $150,479,488 on September 30, 2013 while on September 30, 2014, Net Income fell to 

$149,491,398. This of course brings into scrutiny, the President's explanation that the closure of the Redlands and Valencia branches in 2010; closure of the Riverside branch in 2011; closure of the Burbank branch in 2012; closure of the Airport branch in 2013; and closure of the Santa Clarita branch in 2014, were part of a carefully devised strategy that will increase new business and membership and escalate the amounts of the Credit Union's Net Capital aka Net Income and Assets. Based on the disclosures provided in the FPR's its quite clear the President's alleged tactic is failing to achieve its intended purpose. Either that or his so-called plan is nothing more than a ruse designed to cover-up the President's bombastic inability to strategize effectively or intelligently. 

However, if one chooses to ignore the history of well-documented losses resultant from the President's many failed enterprises coupled by his deplorable conduct then yes, one could readily believe that the President's tactic is progressing exactly as planned. Of course, ignoring the evidence would be absurd, yet that is exactly what President Wiggington would like people to do. 

As we've revealed often over the past four (4) years, President Wiggington is unscrupulous and wholly dishonest. A visit to the Credit Union's Career page*, located on Priority One's s website [http://www.priorityonecu.org] discloses that Priority One is a "$154 million Credit Union" when their own FPR shows they are worth approximately $5 million less then the misinformation contained on their webpage.  

"Priority One Credit Union, A progressive $154 M [million] credit union...."

The Credit Union's own "FACTS" about itself are both erroneous and intentionally misleading. The Credit Union has not been a $154 million organization in more than a year, yet the $154 million reference was added to their webpage this past September 2014. Obviously, the intent of exaggerating the Credit Union's worth is to deceive anyone visiting their webpage.

This is not the first time the President has exaggerated the amount of the Credit Union's Net Income. Prior to September 2014 and for a period of a few years, the Credit Union referenced the amount of its Net Income at "$175 million".  At the time President Wiggington's predecessor retired, the Credit Union's Net Income approximated $172 million whereas under Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., the Credit Union's Net Income peaked to approximately $180 million in mid-2008 only after he borrowed $20 million from the Credit Union's line-of-credit. 

Inarguably, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, and the entire Board of Directors find it impossible to accurately report the amount of the Credit Union's actual Net Income. 

We suggest the President and his cronies also take a moment to familiarize themselves with the definition of the word "progressive." Priority One's own reports prove that in 2014, the Credit Union is a smaller and less successful than it was in the years before Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was appointed President. The financial losses incurred under the current President during the past seven (7) years prove the Credit Union is NOT progressive. 

Source: https://priorityonecu.org/community/careers/

On December 31, 2006, the date President Wiggington's predecessor retired. the Credit Union's total Net Assets were $172,250,649. At the end of September 2014, Credit Union's Net Assets totalled $149,491,398, indicating a loss of $22,759,251 over the past seven years during which Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.served as President and CEO. Not only has Priority One lost more than $20 million but the President finds it necessary to continue exaggerating the amount of the Credit Union's Net Income by approximately $5 million. 

So What Does Bankrate.com Say?

We decided to again visit Bankrate.com as we do from time to time and obtain a record of their most recent assessment of Priority One's actual performance versus the propaganda spewed out by the President.

Source: Bankrate.com (Priority One CU Rating)

For the period ending on June 30, 2014, Bankrate.com issued a three-star rating to Priority One. Three-stars, as shown below, indicate the Credit Union is merely "performing."  

HIGH CAPITAL

According to Bankrate, the Credit Union's three-star rating is attributable to high capital. As we've shown since late 2010, the President's bludgeoning in spending forced closure of six (6) branches, sharply decreased the budgets once spent on prize-wining marketing and advertising and in 2012, resulted in the elimination of the once successful Business Development team. All of this was done to ensure Net Capital grew and remained above 6%. In 2009, auditors informed the President that Net Capital was declining and might soon fall below 6%. It was suggested to him to find ways of reducing expenses including identifying and closing branches that were performing poorly. 

However, prior to 2010, the President and Board realized sales were in decline creating a financial strain to the Credit Union as it struggled, more and more to offset its outgoing expense. The President and Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, decided that borrowing $20 million from the Credit Union's line-of-credit would serve to create the impression of growth. Opting for superficiality over substance and results, the money was borrowed, temporarily increasing the amount of the Credit Union's net Income but adding a financial burden in the form of interest on the loan, approximating between $30,000 to $33,000 per month in addition to principle. 

As shown below, as of June 30, 2014, Priority One's Net Capital remains well above 6%, ensuring the Credit Union remains operational. However, contrary to President Wiggington's disclosures made to employees in November 2011, Net Capital is not synonymous with profit. Nowadays, reducing expenses is needed by the Credit Union to assure it remains in business. Another effect of the Credit Union's addictive need to cut spending is attested to that in 2014, Priority One employs a large contingent of part-time staff who are not recipients of medical or retirement benefits. Ten months ago, in January 2014, the President ordered closure of the Santa Clarita branch in a frantic attempt to fuel an increase of Net Capital. However, what is all too clear is that President Wiggington is incapable of developing strategies the create a consistent flow of profit and attract new business. So will the President close another branch should Net Capital again teeter as it did in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013? And if so, which branch might end up on the chopping block? Will it be the large Los Angeles branch, the small but profit generating Van Nuys branch or the dismal main branch in South Pasadena?  

Unfortunately, for the troubled Credit Union, Bankrate's analysis is not all good news. Yes, capital is high but according to Bankrate, the Return on Assets ("ROA"), as shown below,is "Substantially Below Average".  Another point of concern to Bankrate is that Priority One's overhead is "Significantly Higher Than Average."   

This is actually the third consecutive year in which Bankrate.com concludes Priority One's "Overhead" is higher than the industry average and cites that this could potentially be problematic and an indicator that it could "lead to financial deterioration." Bankrate concludes buy suggesting initiation of an in depth investigation  but don't expect either President Wiggington or Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, to initiate queries as investigations are a threat to these two who have spent the past seven (7) years, exacting tremendous time, effort, and the Credit Union's monies, to conceal the truth about the Credit Union's performance from Members, employees and the public at large. This past May 2014, the President ordered that employees limit mailing out copies of the 2013 Annual Report. His directive remains firmly in place and evidently his fear of further exposure is of deep concern for the chronically inept President.  

As shown below, overhead is in Bankrate's opinion, a serious and potentially detrimental factor that could come to impede the Credit Union's future. 

Bankrate's Earning Analysis reveals Priority One reported "net profit of $367.47 thousand" or an return of average assets ("ROA") in the amount of 0.25%". Bankrate adds that in the year preceding June 30, 2014, the Credit Union reported "net profit of $665,131" or an return of average assets ("ROA") in the amount of  0.44%. Obviously, the Credit Union's return on average assets has declined over the past year despite President Wiggington's continuous efforts to create an unevidenced impression the Credit Union's business is progressing forward and upward. ROA's are a primary measurement used in the credit union industry to gauge profitability. In Priority One's case, its ROA is .25% while the industry average is 0.81%. Irrefutably, Priority One's business is doing poorly and falls far below the industry average. 

BANKRATE's SUMMARY

High capital aside, Priority One's documented performance reveals it is not generating sufficient new business to offset its overhead. This inability by the Credit Union also inhibits amassing profit and promoting physical growth. This doesn't bode well for President Wiggington; Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock; Vice President of Operations, Yvonne Boutte; Vice President of Lending, Patricia Loiacano; and the entire Board of Directors who are all apparently ill-qualified to develop effective strategical planning. 

Source:

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

BEAUTY AND DA BEAST

In 2001, a beautiful Afro-American woman and Member of the Credit Union, visited the Loan Department in Priority One's main branch in South Pasadena, California and applied for a automobile loan in the amount of $31,876.  Unfortunately for the Member, who we will refer to as "Patrice", her FICO Score of 518 and a few adverse credit references in her credit report, disqualified obtaining approval of the loan. The End. As with any incident involving Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., the circumstances in this situation would prove anything but simple. 

Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. happened to be walking through the Loan Department while Patrice sat at a desk, speaking to a Loan Officer. Seeing the beautiful woman, he made beeline to the officer's desk using the pretext that he wanted to say hello. After greeting the officer, he turned and introduced himself to the Member and handed her his business card, inviting her to call him if she needed his assistance. The Member called Mr. Wiggington. 

Patrice called and informed the President that she didn't qualify for a vehicle loan due to her low FICO Score and bankruptcy and charge-offs referenced in her credit report. Mr. Wiggington assured her he would look into the matter. It is important to note that this is a unique even as Mr. Wiggington has for years, refused to speak to members about loan requests which have been denied approval due to adverse credit references. 

As shown below, the Member's Experian Fair Isaac Score was 518, indicative of poor credit. Her credit history contained a reference to a past due amount f $20,094.   There are also references to a bankruptcy and to a judgment. The latter was issued by the Antelope Municipal Court. 

THE APPROVAL

To ensure the Member understood the terms of the Credit Union's loan agreement she would be required to adhere to, Mrs. Wiggington scheduled a meeting to discuss the agreement and answer any of the Member's questions. The President called the Member and asked her to meet him at Fat Burgers located at 4070 Marlton Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90008. 

Asking the Member to meet with him at a hamburger stand was wholly inappropriate and could have created a situation that could potentially result in legal ramifications to the Credit Union though it was quite clear that any such considerations were inconsequential to Mr. Wiggington whose self-indulgences have always taken precedence over the good of the Credit Union. 

Mr. Wiggington, accompanied by his uncle, arrived at Fat Burgers and waited for the Member to arrive. Mr. Wiggington would later state that when the Member entered Fat Burger, she sauntered across the room causing every man to turn and stare but quickly adding, "Everyone looked at her but she came to us."  And before jumping to conclusions, the President was not 17 years old on the day the meeting took place. 

After their meeting, the President returned to the South Pasadena office and approved the request. The Member clearly worked Mr. Wiggington like a pony at a children's birthday party.. 

As shown below, the Member received approval for the automobile loan in the amount of $31,876 with an APR of 15.75%.  In abusing his authority and deviating from Credit Union directives found in policy, the President also discriminated against all other Members whose FICO Scores were identical or higher than that of this Member but were denied their requests due to a low FICO Score and/or because of adverse credit references in their credit report. So is beauty justified under policy a basis for approving a loan application? Or does Priority One's policy cite attractiveness deemed a justified reason for denying approval of a loan application?

Since 2010, a growing number of complaints accuse Priority One of having eligibility loan requirements that are too stringent. Evidently, in Patrice's case, no such requirements were enforced. And though we can't comment on the reasonableness of the Credit Union's eligibility requirements, we can on the defiance by Mr. Wiggington to adhere to rules which were reviewed by the Credit Union's attorneys and subsequently ratified by the Board of Directors. Though these were clearly established to protect the Credit Union, Charles R. Wiggington., Sr. showed no hesitation to disregard these in the case of a Member whose request should have been denied.  

So how many Members whose credit reports reference a FICO Score of 518 or higher and whose credit history doesn't reference a bankruptcy found their application for a loan denied?

Under Article 8.3, Credit Bureau Score, in Priority One's Loan Policy, it states:

The Credit Union RELIES on the bureau score developed by Fair Isaac and Companies. This score is known as “FICO” when ordered through Experian, “Beacon”, through Equifax and “Empirica”, through Trans Union. Loan officers WILL USE THE SCORE TO DETERMINE RISK ALONG WITH OTHER CRITERIA REVIEWED HEREIN. 

Not surprisingly, there isn't a single reference in the Loan Policy written to accommodate attractive women or men. Charles Wiggington's intentional disregard for Loan Policy was due more than a temporary lapse in judgment. Though the Loan Policy was reviewed by Credit Union attorneys and later, ratified by the Board of Directors, Mr. Wiggington's behaviors, actions and verbalizations suggest he may believe he is exempt from complying to the organization's policies which he has historically treated as suggestions. Furthermore, in the case of this Member, he showed absolutely no concern or interest in protecting the Credit Union. 

Despite a FICO Score of 518 and adverse references in the Member's credit report, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. approved the more than $31,000 automobile loan.  

Not surprisingly, the Member never contacted Mr. Wiggington after obtainment of the loan. The scorned President later told the Loan Officer who funded the loan that the Member

 "Used me. I will never talk to her again."  To be fair, it was Mr. Wiggington who acted unethically when he disregarded the Credit Union's Loan Policy. He alone approved the Members application for an automobile loan. Furthermore, his decision to approve the loan application was unrelated to business and just a means by which to ingratiate himself to her. The Member never violated Credit Union policies and she never compromised herself. Her role in this incident, was purely manipulative and once she obtained what she wanted she immediately terminated her business relationship with the obnoxious, policy-breaking Officer.   

Source: Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave, When First We Practice to Deceive, Monday, February 9, 2009

In 2009, a then 101 year-old Member-Owner named Carrie Willis Williams, contacted Priority One's Member Service Department to request closure of her Credit Union accounts. Ms. Williams was no longer able to care for herself and decided to move out-of-state with her niece. 

When she called the Member Services Department, the Member discovered to her dismay that monies had been siphoned from one of her accounts by her caregiver, Delores Gleaton, without the knowledge or authorization of the Member. The withdrawals had taken place in Las Vegas which Ms. Gleaton had visited for the purpose of gambling. 

When then COO, Beatrice Walker, and President Wiggington were advised of the incident, the two refused to return Ms. Williams' monies from her accounts. Not only did they refuse to mail her a check for the money contained in her account, they also refused to return all monies that were withdrawn illegally. At the time, the rationale given by the COO and President was that they were concerned that Ms. Williams was being coaxed into closing her account. The issue with their concerns is that there was absolutely no evidence that Ms. Williams was being manipulated to close her accounts. It was pure conjecture on the part of the COO and President. 

What is most peculiar is that at the time the monies were taken out of Ms. Williams' account, no one at Priority One, including the COO and President, made certain the Credit Union's protocols designed to protect Member assets, were being strictly enforced. What is also peculiar is that no one at Priority One ever noticed that the 101 year-old Member seemed to be spending an inordinate amount of time in Las Vegas casinos. Though possible suspicious triggers were evident, no one at the Credit Union took notice of these.

As we've published in past posts, in 2009, an audit of the Los Angeles branch's records confirmed that more than $60,000 had been taken from Member accounts by a former receptionist assigned to that office. 

In early 2013, another audit of the Los Angeles branch's records showed that other thefts had occurred. At the time these were discovered, Vice President, Yvonne Boutte, told employees of the South Pasadena branch that the thefts had been perpetrated by the AVP who had overseen the Los Angeles and Airport branches. Why would the Credit Union not take notice of what most assuredly constitutes suspicious patterns of behavior?

Following the refusal by the COO and President to release Ms. Williams' funds, the Member was forced to procure the services of an attorney. In his letter dated September 20, 2009 and never published by us previously, attorney Ruben A. Spivey, addresses the issues of  $17,080.00 taken without authorization from Ms. Williams' account. In his correspondence, shown below, the lawyer aptly asks why the Credit Union never realized that large withdrawals of money were being taken from the 101 year old's account?

Not only did the Credit Union fail to perform its due diligence, they failed to notify police authorities. It appears the Credit Union experiences tremendous difficulty enforcing its own protocols and clearly, they aren't very adept at protecting Member assets.  

CONCLUSION

As 2014 rapidly draws to its end, it appears Priority One Credit Union in South Pasadena, California remains securely entrenched in the cycle of loss and failure first begun by President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. in 2007. The challenges facing Priority One also include its apparent inability to market its aging products and services supposedly designed to improve a person's financial life, yet in a Credit Union where its products are neither unique or new, what are the actual specific benefits any Member should expect to reap from what the Credit Union offers? 

Since January 1, 2007,. the date when Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. began serving as President, he has compulsively shown his disdain for the Credit Union's policies, state and federal laws, and even for the well-being of Members, and employees. His long record of violations are numerous and have proven periodically, costly to a Credit Union struggling to garner new business. Before being appointed President, he intentionally circumvented Loan Policy and approved a more than $30,000 automobile loan to a Member whose FICO Score was a mere 518 and whose Credit Report referenced a bankruptcy and other adverse credit references. In the meantime, many other members with scores of 518 and better have been denied their requests for loans because they didn't meet the Credit Union's eligibility requirements. Not only did he create a precedent, he discriminated against other Members whose history was no worse than that of the Member he approved because he found her physically attractive. 

Through the years, President Wiggington has violated policies created to protect the Credit Union and forcibly causing the Credit Union to be sued and pay out settlements. Despite his reprehensible acts, he has always found protection in the Board of Director who under leadership of its Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, have freely approved use of Credit Union funds to hire attorneys and consultants, who weaved intricate and fictitious defenses in an effort to exonerate the roguish President. In 2001, while serving in the capacity of Vice President of Operations, the President manipulated Credit Union policy and approved an automobile loan for more than $30,000 to a Member whose FICO Score was 518 and whose credit report referenced a bankruptcy and other adverse credit references. 

• We saw this same disregard for policy and federal laws by the President and Board of Directors in 2008, when an investigator proved President Wiggington had sexually harassed a former employee.

• We witnessed this same disregard when he ordered repossession of an automobile from a Member who had fallen on hard financial times but who agreed to repaying the monies due on the loan. The Member's mistake was having financed a BMW, the President's favorite automobile. After repossessing the vehicle, the then owner of Credit Resolutions handed the President the title for the car. Mr. Wiggington never paid a cent for the vehicle which was supposed to be sent to auction to try and recuperate some of the unpaid balance. Instead, the President took possession of the vehicle which he sold a few years later, at a profit to himself. 

• In 2007, the President chose not to enforce security protocols and as a result, ballots for that year's election were mailed out to members in envelopes on whose exteriors were printed Member credit union and social security numbers. 

• In late 2009, the President and Board Chair committed collusion when the two disrupted that electoral process for the upcoming 2010 election. Their goal was to ensure the election did not result in the removal of any of the Directors who were loyal to Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, and the President and to whom ethics, policies and laws are based on their history of behavior, unimportant.  

The widespread record of documented abuses committed by the President and enabled by the Board of Directors are merely symptoms of the their underlying psychology. In 2007, while standing in the Member Services Department and in the presence of Members, the President exclaimed loudly, "I'm President and no one tells me what to do." The childish rant was both embarrassing and telling, revealing that Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. doesn't perceive himself as an officer elected to serve Member-Owners, but as someone not required to abide to a structure of conduct defined under Credit Union policy and state laws. 

Rather pathetically, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. has proven he is a slave to his own unhealthy proclivities. His excuses verbalized to a select few employees that he ordered the closure of six branches as part of a well-honed strategy designed to fuel growth is both ridiculous and more than a little disturbing. If the Redlands and Valencia branches were closed in 2010 and the Riverside branch closed in 2011, for the purpose of reducing spending and driving sales and new membership, then why did he open the Santa Clarita branch in February 2012? The answer is both simple and obvious: He's lying. The President's absurd concoctions are intended to deter attention from his immense ineptitude and well documented failures. They're also intended to help him save face though after seven years of abhorrent behaviors, his reputation seems quite unsalvageable. 

Contrary to the bill of goods he'd like Members and employees to buy into is that Priority One's decline is not the result of the national economy or the high national unemployment rate. He has also never been the target of a group of apparently invisible ninja-like bloggers who out of jealousy, have sabotaged the Credit Union's ability to do business. The Credit Union's failure to attract Member and potential Member interest in what it offers are easily attributable to the President's immense ineptitude and ignorance of marketing and his equal inability to comprehend the necessity of establishing and maintaining relationships with the membership and the communities located within the Credit Union's territories. 

Bankrate's assessment which cites a concern about Priority One's overhead is a real and growing issue which could at worst, force the closure of another of the Credit Union's three remaining branches in the not-so-distant future. Oddly, it doesn't appear that President Wiggington can comprehend that closing branch locations reduces convenience to Members and in turn, serves to compromise the integrity of service levels. However, Priority One's internal and service issues are merely the by-products of the type of leadership provided by Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., the Board, and its Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, all of who have left Priority One a smaller, frail and ineffective organization. 

IT IS A MAN'S OWN MIND, NOT HIS ENEMY OR FOE, THAT LURES HIM TO EVIL WAYS - BUDDHA