An Autonomous & Self-Indulgent Board of Directors

TRULY A CASE OF THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND

The Board of Directors at any credit union are appointed to monitor decisions and actions made by the President/CEO and to ensure member and credit union assets remain protected and that business is conducted compliant to state and federal laws.

In 2008, an investigator hired by Priority One Credit Union's Board of Directors, interviewed more than eight employees, asking if they had ever witnessed President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. make unwanted sexualized statements and gestures to a former employee. 

At the end of an approximate six (6) week inquest, the investigator delivered his findings to Priority One's Board of Directors. The meeting where evidence was presented, took place in the Board Room located in the credit union's main branch in South Pasadena, California. Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, invited the following officers:

• Cornelia Simmons, Chair, Supervisory Committee
• Thomas Gathers, Director, Board of Directors
• O. Glen Saffold, Director, Board of Directors

Other attendees included William Adler, Esq, the credit union's attorney. Mrs. Harris-Brooks contacted the Supervisory Committee Chair and the two Directors and invited them to the meeting but she purposely excluded inviting the Board's other Directors. Fortunately, employees of the credit union learned about the impending meeting and contacted Director, Janice Irving, who in turn, contacted Joseph Marchica.

To Mrs. Harris-Brooks' chagrin, Mrs. Irving and Mr. Marchica arrived at the meeting room minutes before the scheduled start of the conference. 

During the meeting which followed, the investigator presented statements collected from employees and almost all of which described inappropriate te and sexualized comments and gestures made by the President to the former employee. The investigator recommended the President's termination. Mrs. Harris-Brooks, not one to be undaunted by something like evidence led Ms. Simmons, Mr. Gathers, and Mr. Saffold to vote for the President's reinstatement.  She insisted that the sexualized comments were said in jest and did not constitute sexual harassment as defined by federal law. They also concluded that the President must re-acquaint himself with the credit union's policy governing sexual harassment and understand that he must conduct himself as a President.  

The two dissenters were Mrs. Irving and Mr. Marchica, both who voted for the President's immediate termination.

A few days later, Mrs. Harris-Brooks also signed a letter written by the credit union's legal counsel and which informed the victim of Mr. Wiggington's unwanted statements and gestures that according to what the Board understood, the sexualized comments and gestures did not constitute a violation of federal law. What's more,  they concluded that the victim had actually taken part in the exchange of sexualized commentaries and so she was not under law, a victim. The day after the letter was mailed to the "victim", a 10-page questionnaire arrived at the main office and mailed by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. It seems the victim had also filed a complaint with the federal government. 

Within two-weeks, the Board contacted the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and offered a settlement in the amount of $20,000.00. When the offer was rejected, they increased the offer to $40,000. If President Wiggington had not sexually harassed the former employee, then why did the Board offer a monetary settlement? So did Mrs. Harris-Brooks lie when she stated the President's unwanted sexualized statements and gestures did not constitute sexual harassment? 

Mrs. Harris-Brooks is not an attorney. She is wholly unqualified to interpret law. Despite this, she and the Board determined and based on their understanding that federal law had not been violated by the President. Why was the board been permitted to interpret evidence and derive a conclusion when none of the Directors are qualified to do so? .

One final question. Why is the board allowed to use the credit union's assets to "settle" a case whose investigation allegedly found no wrong doing on the part of Mr. Wiggington, Sr. though they admit that his sexualized statements, though not illegal, were a violation of credit union employee policy? And finally, how did a 30-some year old woman, coax a 50-some year old man into verbalizing sexualized statements? Does President Wiggington lack the discipline to know what are appropriate and inappropriate behaviors? If so, why is he President? 

Kindly Share The Love»»

Tweet

Save on Delicious