Where is Human Resources?

STIRRING THE POT

The posts on this blog describe incidents that have occurred at Priority One Credit Union starting on January 1, 2007, the date Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. began his appointment as President and CEO of a then successful credit union and incidents which are currently ensuing and contributing to the credit union's decaying infrastructure. 

Since the inception of this blog in January of this year, the President and some members of his staff and the Board of Directors have moved quickly to denounce our reports, labeling what we disclosure as lies and conjecture and threatening to "shut you down." One department participating in the President's campaign to stop us is Human Resources who is under direction of Senior Vice President, Rodger Smock. 

With this in mind, does it at all seem peculiar that Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. has spent years violating Priority One's policies and state and federal laws without Human Resources ever interceding to try and stop behaviors that may soon place the credit union in a legally precarious position? 

One has to ask, where was Human Resources when the President committed his assault against the former Director of Marketing and during the first six months in 2007, expelled her from her former office and reassigned her to a desk in the company's file room? Following a surge of complaints by employees that he move her back to the executive wing, he demoted her from Director to Marketing Coordinator and placed her under supervision of AVP, Aaron Cavazos, who had for years expressed his disdain for the Marketing Director. 

Where was Human Resources during the years he sexually harassed a then Real Estate Loan Officer, frequently threatening to "whip your ass", "spank that ass", "give yo what you want" and "sop you up like gravy." 

Where was Human Resources when the new Van Nuys Branch Manager, D. Centeno, discovered that employees of the branch were not adhering to state-mandated security procedures? The employees complained to their former Branch Manager, Sylvia Perez, who on January 1, 2007, was promoted to the post of AVP by President Wiggington. Mrs. Perez reacted by concocting fraudulent accusations against D. Centeno and using the fabricated excuses, terminated the Branch manager with the assistance of Human Resources' Director, Rodger Smock.  

And what about former Business Development Representative ("BDR"), C. Freed, who was constantly subjected to harassment by President Wiggington and AVP's, Sylvia Perez and Liz Campos, and by Burbank Branch Manager, Linda Nisely? C. Freed sought help from Director, Rodger Smock, but the aged Director refused to document any of her complaints and in the end, used fraudulent accusations documented by Mrs. Perez and President Wiggington, to terminate the BDR. 

In a forthcoming post, we will describe two incidents in which employees filed complaints against the former Director of Lending and were immediately afterwards retaliated against by the Director and forced to endure a hostile working environment. In both cases, the employees visited Human Resources and reported the abuses to Rodger Smock. The Director never documented either complaint, never initiated investigations and in the end, ignored each employee's concerns. 

Mr. Smock never considered that his decision to don an apathetic attitude and squash the complaints by not responding to either grievant, might become public. Mr. Smock has proven to be an ineffective director, allowing the President and preferred managers to violate credit union policies and state and federal laws, why seeking to stringently enforce policies violated by staff members who are disliked and targeted for termination by the President. It is a fact, President Wiggington could never have carried out scurrilous campaigns against certain staff members had Rodger Smock not willingly allowed him to do so. It is also Mr. Smock who has consistently allowed the President to divulge highly confidential information about current and past employees, including disclosing why he terminated certain staff and making inflammatory statements about the characters and physical appearances of employees he disliked. 

Under Rodger Smock, Human Resources has become the means by which President Wiggington and his cronies are able to abuse employees without fear of ever being cited by the deplorable Senior Vice President. Since Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was appointed President, gossip, the maligning of employee reputations, and conflicts amongst staff members have become commonplace and part of what was once a healthy and wonderful working environment. In fact, there was probably a lot less intrigue in the court of Louis XVI.

The Spider's Lair IV

A CONNIVING PRESIDENT

This is the final installment, documenting the story of a former Business Development Representative ("BDR") named C. Freed who became the victim in a vicious campaign launched by President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. in 2007, and which was carried out with assistance by then AVP's, Liz Campos and Sylvia Perez; Linda Nisely, the Burbank Branch Manager; and Director of Human Resources, Rodger Smock. 

Tired and frustrated by the onslaught attacks leveled through her supervisor, AVP, Sylvia Perez, and the refusal of President Wiggington to provide evidence supporting his allegations that many employees had personally filed complaints with him, accusing the BDR of having a bad attitude, of not being a team player, and of maligning her employer, 

the BDR sent the following message on May 7, 2007, via email, to Mrs. Perez:

"Dear Sylvia:

I am writing concerning my requests [for evidence] of Tuesday, May 1st, and Friday, May 4th, requesting a written statement from Charles R. Wiggington Sr., our President and CEO, supporting his allegations that employees at the South Pasadena office have reported that I have a poor attitude and have made negative statements against the credit union and its management sector.

On May 1st, you called me into a meeting in your office and informed me of what Mr. Wiggington said though noticeably absent, were the names of employees who had accused me of having a bad attitude or an actual record of what I am alleged to have said about the credit union.

Due to the exclusion of vital facts which would have validated Mr. Wiggington’s assertions, I asked you to obtain a documented record from Mr. Wiggington, in which he provides the names of employees who allege I have a bad attitude. I also asked that Mr. Wiggington provide a record of the actual statements I am alleged to have made and the dates and times when these occurred.

In reply to my request, you stated that you did not believe Mr. Wiggington would provide a written record of what he had allegedly been told by employees at the South Pasadena office. In what appears I think is an attempt by you to support what Mr. Wiggington said, you added that you have observed me involved in conflicts with some of my co-workers though when asked, you could not cite a single incident when you observed such behavior.

On May 4th, you called me into another meeting, this time to review those new member account and loan applications I obtained during the week of April 23, 2007. During our meeting, you informed me that you conveyed my request to Mr. Wiggington, but he refused to provide a written record of the evidence which might support his allegations about my alleged behavior, during those times I visit the South Pasadena branch.

In the United States, every person has a right to face their accusers. We are imbued with a right to express our thoughts and opinions [free speech] without fear of reproach or retribution. My request for documented substantiation is thus reasonable and also serves to benefit my employer by lending credence to Mr. Wiggington’s allegations."

A few days after the message had been sent, Mrs. Perez called Ms. Freed at her cellular and informed her that the President had finally agreed to meet with the BDR. Mrs. Perez provided C. Freed with the date and time of the meeting which was scheduled to take place at the main branch in South Pasadena, California.

On the day of the meeting, C. Freed met Mrs. Perez in the Credit Resolutions Department. She then followed Mrs. Perez to the office of Vice President, Rodger Smock, who served as both the Vice President of Operations and Director of Human Resources. Conflict of interest? Possibly. As C. Freed sat facing Mr. Smock, Mrs. Perez closed the office door and sat alongside the BDR. President Wiggington was not present at the meeting. This, by the way, is the exact same dynamic which occurred when Mrs. Perez and Rodger Smock called former Van Nuys Branch Manager, D. Centeno, to South Pasadena, to allegedly provide him with his performance evaluation. 

As the meeting started, Mr. Smock informed C. Freed that the President could not be present due to pressing business that had suddenly developed. Pressing business? Was the President suddenly called to attend an emergency character assassination conference?

Mr. Smock then informed C. Freed that it had been decided that her employment would be terminated because in his words, "You don't get along with others." Ms. Freed was stunned particularly because she was led to believe the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the allegations leveled against her by the President for several weeks and to provide her with the evidence supporting all of his contentions. It became acutely clear that Mrs. Perez had also lied which is rather peculiar since she professes to be a Christian. 

Mr. Smock informed C. Freed that her personnel file would show that her termination was "voluntary" and one, actually agreed to by C. Freed and the credit union. Is there such a thing as a forced voluntary termination? 

One only need Rodger Smock to know he is President Wiggington's tool of choice and easily compromising ethics to ensure his employment remains intact. After all, what other company would hire him to serve in Human Resources? 

As mentioned in prior posts, C. Freed was an accomplished BDR whose monthly totals always surpassed her assigned sales quotas. It's nothing less than one of the highest producers in sales would be attacked by the same President who is devoid of all skills needed to create effective strategies that produce new business and generate profit. 

The BDR was also constantly under attack by AVP, Liz Campos, who at one time served in the capacity of BDR and whose accomplishments in sales were mediocre, at best. Mrs.Campos attacks like those of Sylvia Perez were carried out at the request of President Wiggington. In April 2007, just four months after being promoted by the President to the post of AVP, Mrs. Campos was exposed of kiting- a federal offense. An investigation revealed that she incurred more than 25 individual NSF incidents to her checking account during the months of September and October 2006. Despite the fact she wrote more than 25 bad checks during an approximate 60-day period, the President deemed it prudent to promote her to AVP, disclosing he chose her because she was his "friend" versus competent or responsible. 

In February 2007, Ms. Freed learned from her co-workers in the Burbank branch that Mrs. Perez had said she hoped to "get rid of Ms. Freed within the next three months." Its amazing that Mrs. Perez actually achieved her goal, particularly when her performance as a Branch Manager and later as an AVP reveal that she her alleged accomplishments were nothing more than hyperbole.

It's also rather hypocritical that President Wiggington, a sexual harasser, slandered C. Freed publicly and to other staff members while simultaneously accusing her of having a "bad attitude." President Wiggington is actually a tragic figure, a slave to his own abhorrent behaviors and lacking the self-discipline to bring an end to his horrendous conduct.  

In November 2006, while sitting in the Loan Department and just prior to the start of his appointment as President, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. declared that he would terminate C. Freed after he became President. He may not be able to develop business or lead with decorum but he's apparently quite adept and conspiring against certain staff members. So is Charles R., Wiggington, Sr. like the Captain of the Titanic or is he more like the iceberg? 

The Spider's Lair, Part III

FIGHTING GIANTS

We continue with the story of former business development representative, C. Freed, who was subjected to continuous harassment by her supervisor and AVP, Sylvia Perez, and AVP, Liz Campos, while assigned to work at Priority One Credit Union's Burbank branch. During many meetings she was forced to attend, the two AVP's informed her that what C. Freed viewed as harassment had actually been ordered by President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. 

Priority One's continuing financial losses and struggling efforts to obtain new business are the result of President Wiggington's ignorance about marketing, his confused priorities, overspending, and his undisciplined and embarrassing behaviors. 

it should be apparent to anyone reading this blog that President Wiggington spends an inordinate large amount of time on things that have absolutely nothing to do with developing new business or developing stronger ties with the communities the credit union supposedly services. In 2008, it was discovered he sexually harassed a former employee. Since then, he has spent a lot of his workday slandering employees, playing on the Internet while in his office, walking around the South Pasadena branch speaking loudly on his cellular to family members, and working less than 6 hours per day. At the end of 2007 and again, at the end of 2008, Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks approved he be granted an increase in salary and bonuses. 

C. Freed's Plight 

After submitting her initial complaint to Human Resources on 2/06/07, Ms. Freed began documenting incidents she believed were intentionally executed to discredit her reputation.

Following a February 2, 2007, meeting with AVP's, Sylvia Perez and Liz Campos, during which the two women accused her of having a "bad attitude" and of disparaging her employer, Ms. Freed's performance continued to be heavily scrutinized by the two officers. It is rather conspicuous that the two officers who are of Mexican descent, singled out Ms. Freed who is Jewish, and continually scrutinized her work. Whenever Ms. Freed would submit her mileage reimbursement requests, she would be interrogated at great length by Mrs. Perez who would demand to know exactly what businesses she visited, how long it took her to arrive at her destinations and where might she stopped off on her way to visit members and potential members. Mrs. Perez's inquisition was absurd, demanding a minute-by-minute breakdown of all of Ms. Freed's activities. What's more, Mrs. Perez actually added up the times to ensure they tallied to eight hours. It was excessive and cause Ms. Freed duress and superficially, it was discriminatory as no other business development representative was subject to such stringent scrutiny. 

On April 5, 2015, Ms. Freed was again contacted while in the field by Mrs. Perez and asked to come to the Burbank branch on April 6, 2015, to discuss "a situation". The following record was documented by Ms. Freed describing the conversation with Mrs. Perez:

"I arrived at Burbank as requested on April 5, 2007, by Sylvia Perez. After arriving, Sylvia called me on my cellular and said she wanted to speak to me between 9 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and wanted to discuss an incident which occurred when I visited the South Pasadena, on Wednesday, April 4th.

I sat at my desk and waited for the meeting to start but Sylvia did not arrive at the Branch until 10:30 a.m. and when she did, she walked past my desk without saying a word. Entering her office, she immediately sat down and made a telephone call. At about 10:45 a.m., she called my name and asked that I enter her office. Once inside, I closed the door behind me so employees would not hear what was about to be discussed. Sylvia began by stating, 'I asked you to do something. Tell me what happened because Charles is furious with you'.”

Sylvia was referring to my visit to South Pasadena on April 4, 2007. At the time, she asked that to visit the main branch and speak with Lead Consumer Loan Teller, Georgina Duenas regarding several errors I had found in the credit union's most recently published newsletter. 

On April 4, 2007, I arrived at the South Pasadena office and walked over to Georgina's desk but she was out to lunch and no one in the Loan Department seemed to know when she might return. Since I had no idea how long I might have to work, I decided to create fliers that I needed for an upcoming event. I went to my old desk in the business development unit and began working. I periodically returned to the Loan Department to see if Georgina had returned. When Georgina finally arrived I sat in a chair in front of her desk and told her about the errors I identified and offered some suggestions for the next scheduled newsletter. 

I returned to the business development unit and resumed working on the fliers but remembers that I'd forgotten to tell Georgina that the language in the current Vacation promotion which appears in the current newsletter differs from the language contained in the materials the credit union provided to employees of McKay Travel. The newsletter states that if a person finances a loan in the amount of $15,000 or more, they will receive a 6-day vacation package to Hawaii, however, the language is inconsistent with what we previously provided to McKay Travel.

I returned to Georgina's desk but was informed she had just left and no one seemed to know her whereabouts or when she might return. In fact, one loan processor informed me she had gone on break which seemed peculiar since she had just returned to work following her lunch break. 

I decided to walk over to Patti Loiacano's cubicle. Because Mrs. Loiacano is the Assistant to the Director of Lending, I decided to inform her about the discrepancy in language contained in the newsletter and that contained in the materials sent to McKay Travel.  She reviewed the information and said that all information about the promotion which was subsequently published in the newsletter, had been provided by McKay Travel's CEO. However, she could not explain why a discrepancy existed and asked that I instead, speak to Georgina. 

I returned to the business development unit and resumed printing fliers. While doing so, Charles Wiggington walked over to where I sat and said, "I’m glad you still here” and asked that I follow him to Member Services.

Once in Member Services, he turned and asked in an angry tone, “What’s happening with the newsletter?” I explained that there were inconsistencies between what was printed in the newsletter and what was printed in the materials provided by McKay Travel. I also showed him other errors in the newsletter including a reference that the credit union has an ATM at the Burbank branch which is incorrect. I also showed him that the hours of operation for the Valencia branch are incorrect. I also told him that the newsletter states that Priority One offers IRA Certificates which the credit union is not licensed to offer. He replied, "We don’t want to make it be known to our members. I rather get loans but since Inland Postal Credit Union offers them [IRA Certificates] we thought we would continue [carrying these] and offer them to the rest of the membership.”

The President is wrong. Though it is true, IRA Certificates are only offered by the Redlands and Riverside branches, the reason why they are only offered at those two locations is that IRA Certificates were one of the products contained in their portfolio of products prior to their merger with Priority One Credit Union at the end of 2006. And though the President is correct that IRA Certificates are continuing to be offered, they are only offered in Riverside County which also explains why they have never been promoted in Los Angeles county. What the President could have told Ms. Freed's is that IRA Certificates are offered but never advertised. That actually would have been accurate. When it comes to IRA Certificates, hush is evidently the word. 

Continuing, Ms. Freed wrote:

"President Wiggington next stated he is “sick and tired” of Andemahr, the credit union's long time marketing company and accused them of continually committing errors and adding that this isn't the first time they've been negligent when creating promotions for the credit union. He loudly proclaimed, "This is the last error they commit!" During his rant a member sat quietly at a nearby desk listening to our conversation. I could not understand why the President chose the middle of the Member Services Department to level accusations against Andemahr. Charles ended by stating, "I am going to call Andermahr today and fire them!"

When I finished telling Sylvia what had transpired, she responded by stating she disagreed with everything I did during my visit to South Pasadena. She then opened a manila folder that had lain atop her desk and pulled out a copy of a 2006 performance evaluation issued to me by my former supervisor, Maggie Rios. I suddenly realized that my performance was the actual reason why I had been called into a meeting by Mrs. Perez. 

Sylvia stated, "I want you to read something" and read a reference that stated I was not a team player. I was taken aback by her use of an old evaluation issued to me by my former supervisor. Her tactic was a direct contradiction of a directive issued by the President just two weeks earlier in which he said he did not want employees bringing up the past because everything began anew when he started his appointment of President on January 1, 2007. 

Weary of the continual criticism leveled against me by Mrs. Perez, Mrs. Campos and now, President Wiggington, I told Mrs. Perez I was tired of being berated and of being badgered by Liz Campos and Linda Nisely, neither of who are my assigned supervisors but who continually criticize me.  

Mrs. Perez replied, stating "Carol, I think you're too sensitive. You're a great worker and taking offense for what others tell you to do is absurd. After all, this is Linda's branch and she can make whatever comments she wants to and she can address issues which affect her branch. So just accept it and let it go."

Everything Sylvia was consigned to short sentences and punctuated by criticisms. She also contradicted several directives provided to the entire business development team during a meeting conducted on January 4, 2007. At the time, the President explained that every business development representative would have one supervisor and only one supervisor they'd answer to and receive instruction from. The President also said that at no time were business development representatives to perform branch-related work and that our only focus was the obtainment of new business. He even explained that this would ensure business development representatives were not be used to perform work that fell outside of their assigned responsibilities and that tellers and FSR's are at each branch to only perform branch-related work. 

I told her in view of the fact I was receiving orders from her, from Mrs. Campos and from Mrs. Nisely, I wanted her to from hereon, provide all instructions in writing, explaining this would serve to avoid future confusion. Sylvia replied, "I can't promise anything." 

After the meeting ended, I returned to my desk and though about the evaluation Mrs. Perez had used to assert I am not a team player and it occurred to me that while Maggie Rios was my supervisor, at no time did she ever accuse me of being uncooperative or of not being a team player. In fact, at no time do I remember ever being issued a performance evaluation by Maggie that included any such references. It then occurred to me that Mrs. Perez and President Wiggington might have altered the original evaluation which constitutes fraud.

In a log dated Friday, April 13, 2007, Ms. Freed wrote: 

"This morning after arriving at the Burbank branch and while signing on to my computer, I noticed a manila envelope lying at one side of my desk. On the envelope was written the word, "Congratulations." Opening the envelope, I poured its contents on to my desk and discovered there were travel vouchers containing Mrs. Perez's writing. Further below the word Congratulations was a note that read, "I need to talk to your about some loan applications submitted via fax to Burbank office by a dealership."

Because Sylvia hadn't yet arrived to work, I asked one of my co-workers if they knew when she might be arriving. No one knew. Returning to my desk, I called Mrs. Perez at her cellular and asked when she might arrive at the branch. She replied that she was on her way to one of her weekly mentoring classes and probably would not arrive at Burbank until after 10:45 a.m. Though I had planned on leaving work early because I wasn't feeling well, I decided o wait for Mrs. Perez to arrive.  

At 10:30 a.m., Mrs. Perez called and said she would not be arriving until after 10:45 a.m. because she was on her way to meet the Branch Manager of the Van Nuys office at health fair he was attending. She informed me that she might not get to Burbank until after 1 p.m. I told her that I was not feeling well and she suggested I leave for the day but before doing so, that I leave my timesheet, expense report and weekly production report on her desk. 

I next asked why she needed to speak to me about the loan applications faxed to the branch by a dealer. She said Linda Nisley told her that for each loan application I submitted, I included a request for a vacation voucher. I told her that this was correct, reminding her that the current Vacation Giveaway promotion allows employees to earn points each time they obtain a new membership or loan application, irrelevant of whether the membership is opened or the loan financed. We had been instructed to submit vouchers whenever we obtained new business. The vouchers would provide a record of the type of new business obtained by employees. I asked Sylvia if she would prefer that I pick-up the loan applications directly from dealerships rather than having these faxed to Burbank. She replied, "Don't do anything or speak to anyone until I have had an opportunity to first speak to Charles."

In a log dated May 1, 2007, Ms. Freed wrote:

 This morning upon arriving at the Burbank office, Sylvia immediately asked that I come to her office. As I entered the office I again closed her office door and sat down directly in front of her desk. Sylvia stated she was unsure how to approach the subject she had been asked to speak to me about but began by stating that Charles Wiggington told her he had received numerous complaints from employees at the South Pasadena branch alleging I have a terrible attitude and that I frequently speak negatively about the credit union. 

I was taken aback because the President has a "closed door" policy to all employees and has often issued directives prohibiting employees from speaking to him yet for some reason he has suddenly become the recipient of lots of complaints from what I assume are lots of employees. How is that even possible? 

I responded by informing Mrs. Perez that I wanted to know exactly what had been said about me and by whom. I told her the statements made by the President mean nothing if they are not specific. 

Said the President had not provided anything more specific. I then told her that I couldn't understand why she chose to speak to me about alleged unspecified complaints without first having obtained specific information about what I allegedly said and to whom. 

Taken aback, Mrs. Perez said she did not believe the President would volunteer specifics. I told her that I had a right to face my accusers and repeated that I wanted to know what I specifically said and who I said it to. She repeated that the President would probably not volunteer specifics. 

In what seemed an attempt to justify the President, Mrs. Perez stated that she too had observed my interactions with co-workers and was forced to agree with the President that there are problems with my attitude. I asked that she provide instances when I demonstrated a poor attitude towards staff and the credit union but she merely replied that she could not remember any specifics at that moment. 

I told Mrs. Perez that I was tired of being singled out and even abused by the President, by Mrs. Campos, by Mrs. Nisely and by her. I also reminded her that just one week ago, Mrs. Nisely told me I was not allowed to use the fax machine located on the counter behind the teller stations in the Burbank branch and I was ordered to desist from using my cellular for business calls while inside the branch. I was also the only employee ordered by Mrs. Nisely to not park in the public parking lot located in front of the branch. I asked Sylvia if she thought I was being treated fairly and like all other employees of the branch? She didn't reply. I added that despite what appears to be a smear campaign started by the President, I continue to meet my assigned goals and consistently bring in new business on a daily basis. I ended by again asking that she contact the President and request a record of what I've allegedly done that is disrupting the work environment and what I've allegedly said that is maligning my employer. She again didn't respond. 

In a log dated Friday, May 4th, Ms. Freed wrote: 

While reviewing the record of new business I obtained for the week of April 23, 2007, Sylvia paused and told me that President Wiggington "refused" to issue a record of the acts I've committed that violate policy or the names of the individuals who lodged complaints against me.  

To be continued......

The Spider's Lair, Part II

Character Assassination

This is the continuing story of a former Business Development Representative named C. Freed who was terminated in early 2007 following a vicious campaign carried out by President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. and which included slandering her reputation, constant harassment, and finally, termination of her employment. 

In 2005, C. Freed was hired as a Business Development Representative ("BDR") because of her extensive past experience in outside sales. Ms. Freed quickly proved to be a highly effective sales person who consistently met her stipulated monthly sales quota. Her hard work consistently made her one of the top performers in her department and she often proved to be a valuable asset to the credit union. Despite her achievements,  then Vice President of Operations, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. disliked the BDR and expressed his contempt of her to various staff members. In fact, in 2006, while speaking about Ms. Freed, he said, "You know those people [Jewish] hate Blacks." He also disclosed that "if I ever become President, I'll make sure she's gone." 

His contempt for her seemed purely emotional and based on his comment about her ethnicity, may have been fueled by racism.  

On January 1, 2007, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. began his new appointment as President and CEO and on January 4, 2007, he announced changes that would include reassigning the Business Development staff. 

Under his plan, C. Freed would be transferred to the Burbank branch and would have to report to the President's friend and newly appointed AVP, Sylvia Perez. At the time, Mrs. Perez informed some of her staff at the Burbank branch that she had been instructed by the President "to watch" Ms. Freed. Apparently, the over-zealous and pandering Mrs. Perez int interpreted his request to imply that she must micromanage C. Freed. Of course, with Mrs. Perez, any order was taken to its zenith and even distorted and she soon began to harass and humiliate C. Freed. 

On January 31, 2007, Ms. Freed was called to the Burbank branch to attend a meeting with her supervisor, AVP Sylvia Perez and AVP, Liz Campos. Prior to the meeting, Ms. Freed was told that the intent of the meeting was to provide clarification about her role in business development and what was expected of her. Evidently, the two not-so-bright, AVP's thought that C. Freed who had been an employee of the credit union for about two-years, had not yet understand what her role was as a BDR. 

During the meeting, Ms. Freed was berated by the two AVP's and questioned about her daily treks into the communities she was assigned to visit. Not only did the two AVP's scrutinize her daily routines but they intently reviewed each one of Ms. Freed's mileage reimbursement requests. After two hours, Ms. Freed was informed that she must return to the Burbank branch on February 2, 2007, to continue the meeting. 

On February 2nd, Ms. Freed returned to the branch, though before the meeting started, she asked Mrs. Perez why Mrs. Campos was participating in the meetings if she was not her supervisor. Mrs. Perez replied, "Because Business Development is all one." Mrs. Perez's statements revealed that the AVP was extremely confused. On January 4, 2007, President Wiggington announced the Business Development team was being divided into two separate groups, each to conduct business in differing regions. Mrs. Perez was to supervise two BDR's, one who would oversee business development in the Santa Clarita Valley and the other who would oversee business development in the San Fernando Valley. Two other BDR's would be supervised by Liz Campos and would oversee business development in the San Gabriel Valley and city of Los Angeles. Obviously, business development was not "one" as asserted by the highly confused Mrs. Perez. 

During the meeting on February 2, 2007, Mrs. Campos took the lead, accusing Ms. Freed of verbally disparaging two employees of the credit union. She also informed Ms. Freed that 
her recently submitted application requesting reduced working hours so that she could take classes at a local college, had not yet been approved by the credit union. Mrs. Campos stated that Ms. Freed's decision to enroll in school conflicted with her role as BDR and that the President doubted she would be able to fulfill her monthly goals. Mrs. Campos explained that the problem with Ms. Freed's request is that classes she hoped to attend are all scheduled Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.

Though neither AVP participated in the 2005 interview which led to Ms. Freed being hired, both Mrs. Campos and Mrs. Perez insisted that on the day Ms. Freed was hired, she agreed to work Monday though Friday, 8 hours per day, 7 days a week. We doubt the veracity of this statement simply because BDR's are salaried employees who are not paid overtime. And though they may at times work more than 8 hours in a single day, it is illegal for them to be expected to work 7 days per week. Coincidentally, the agreement signed by Ms. Freed on the date she was hired makes no references to working 7 days per week. 

Ms. Freed was also accused of not being a "team player" and Mrs. Campos demanded that she be provided with copies of the class schedule and any syllabus provided by Ms. Freed's professors. We have to point out that Priority One does not reimburse employees education-related costs. What's more Mrs. Campos seemed to have forgotten that her request must be supported by credit union policy. 

Ms. Freed asked the AVP's to provide her with a copy of policy that states she must provide evidence proving she is enrolled in school. Caught unaware, both Mrs. Campos and Mrs. Perez began stuttering simultaneously and Mrs. Perez informed Ms. Freed that she would have to contact Rodger Smock in Human Resources. 

Ms. Freed next informed Mrs. Campos and Mrs. Perez that she had discovered over the past few weeks that they had maligned her reputation to employees of the Burbank and South Pasadena branches and that their statements were untrue and constituted slander which is both illegal and a violation of credit union policy. 

Mrs. Campos called an immediate end ot the meeting and Ms. Freed left the Burbank branch and drove to South Pasadena where she was to create fliers needed to announce an upcoming business development event. While at South Pasadena, Mrs. Perez called and asked employees in the Loan and Member Services Department to confirm if Ms. Freed had arrived and if she was actually working on creating fliers. Mrs. Perez also told employees that President Wiggington wanted Ms. Freed out of "his office as soon as possible" because he did not want her near his staff. The President was evidently confused enough to believe that the South Pasadena office and its staff are "his property." 

On a side note, on February 5, 2007, George Woods, another BDR, visited the South Pasadena branch to print colored fliers for an upcoming event. At no time while he was in the office, did Mrs. Perez call and ask employees to confirm that he was in the office and working. Nor did President Wiggington ever tell employees that he didn't want Mr. Woods in "his office."

On February 5, 2007, Ms. Freed composed a letter, lodging a complaint against Mrs. Campos sand Mrs. Perez. On February 6, 2007, she submitted the letter to Rodger Smock in Human Resources. The contents of C. Freed's letter are shown below. 

I am writing concerning the meeting I was requested to attend on Friday, February 2, 2007, by my supervisor, Sylvia Perez, and the two brief conversations I had with you prior to that meeting. As you were made aware of by Sylvia Perez and Liz Campos, the meeting was scheduled for 2 :00 p.m. on Friday, February 2, 2007.

Mrs. Perez explained that the meeting was intended to continue our conversation of Wednesday, January 31, 2007, during which I asked if a decision had been made concerning the position of branch manager for the Van Nuys branch. Though I had interviewed for the position more than a week earlier, no one had apprised me of a decision. At the time, Ms. Perez nonchalantly stated that the position had been filled. It was then that I advised her that I would not be able to work after 6 p.m., Monday through Fridays, because I am attending classes.

On Monday, January 29, 2007, Mrs. Perez asked to meet with me so that I could provide her with a list of my classes. At the time Mrs. Perez informed me that Liz Campos “might” also attend the meeting. Perplexed why Mrs. Campos would be present in a meeting allegedly intended to discuss my school schedule, I called and asked you if another employee could be present during the meeting. The purpose for request was merely to ensure that whatever was said during the meeting would not later be misconstrued. It was also intended to protect me, as both women represent the management sector while there was no one there to assure that my rights would be defended. You denied my request and when I asked if G. Woods could be present, you stated that he could not be privy to a private matter though I still cannot comprehend why Mrs. Campos was made privy to what you described as a private matter.

During the morning of Friday, February 2nd, I visited the South Pasadena office to create and copy flyers because I do not yet have a computer at my desk in Burbank . While at South Pasadena, you spoke to me, explaining that the purpose of my meetings with Mrs. Perez and Mrs. Campos was only to discuss my role in Business Development. I again asked why Mrs. Campos might be present if she was not my supervisor and you said that Business Development is “one” entity.

During the meeting, Mrs. Perez said that I am required to work after 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, as I am expected to attend special events. Liz Campos and Mrs. Perez also said that at the time I was hired, I agreed to work a flexible schedule of more than 8 hours per day, including Saturdays and Sundays, if deemed necessary by the credit union. Mrs. Perez also said that by refusing to work more than 8 hours a day, I had created an unfair situation for the other business development representatives.

I reminded Mrs. Perez and Mrs. Campos that on January 29th, I was told that my work day begins at 9 a.m. and ends at 6 p.m. At no time, did either woman state I might be required to work before or after my scheduled shift.

Mrs. Perez also asked that I provide the credit union with copies of my class schedule and a syllabus for each class. I told both that I am not required to provide the requested proofs unless Priority One is reimbursing me the costs of attending classes. When I asked if I was being prohibited from attending classes, neither replied. Defensively, Mrs. Perez accused me of being inflexible but I quickly pointed out that I worked last Saturday and that I am again scheduled to work on Saturday, 2/3/07 and Saturday, 2/10/07.

I find it incredulous that Priority One is trying to impede one of its employees from developing their education or from enhancing their abilities and knowledge. On Monday, 1/29/07, Mrs. Campos told me I was selected as the branch manager for the Burbank branch because I do not possess loan processing skills (which fails to explain why other, current branch managers have been appointed without having loan processing skills). Its rather illogical to prohibit me from enhancing my education and obtain new, needed skills that will improve my abilities and personal development, when the credit union has refused my previous requests to be trained in loan processing.

Mrs. Campos also accused me of making disparaging remarks about you and another employee, whose name she would not disclose. She quickly changed the subjected when asked to bring my accusers into the meeting. Evidently, Mrs. Campos used the meeting as a platform to accuse me of things which amount to nothing more than unfounded gossip. which by the way, have absolutely nothing to do with the alleged reason I was asked to attend both meetings. Do you condone the behaviors of your two AVP's?

During the 2/02 meeting, Juan entered the room and handed Liz a copy of my job description which you had just faxed to the branch. Mrs. Campos handed the description to me to read. I noted immediately that written on the top right corner was the word, “Draft” indicating this was not a finalized document for use by the credit union. At this time, I would like to address specific portions of the job descriptions which allude to what I am expected to do in the development of new business.

The description states, that a BDR "Compiles and analyzes market research data to develop portfolio of products and services focused on needs of target market."

Compiling and analyzing market research is not a duty assigned to any business development representative at Priority One. As you know, this is the responsibility of the management sector. At best, business development representatives have been allowed to make suggestions based on their first hand exposure in the marketplace though none of the teams have ever been trained or provided with the actual tools needed to compile or analyze market research.

The description also states that a business development representatives "Develops, revises, or eliminates products and services experiencing less than satisfactory performance."

This has never been the a responsibility of any business development representatives. As you know, the task of developing or eliminating products and services is something carried out by the credit union president, the vice president of operations, sometimes the loan director, all of who confer with the director of marketing. Also, the business development team have never been empowered to make decisions in these areas. As you also know, findings from surveys are never divulged to the business development staff.

The description also states that a business development representative "Designs selling program to promote establishment consumer and business loan products." Again, business development representatives have never designed programs though we each may develop our own, individual method needed to sell our products and services. Designing a "selling program" is something determined by upper management including the loan director, the director of marketing, possibly with assistance of the branch manager at South Pasadena and the VP of operations. Also, Priority One has never and does not currently offer business loan products.

Also stated is that a business development representative "Recommends changes and additions to loan development programs to ensure customer satisfaction and profitability of establishment."

Changes to the loan development programs originate with the director of the loan department and the President based on their observations of our members needs. And as you will recall, Priority One has to date, not offered taught its employees how to assist in the development of loan programs.

Continuing, the description states that a business development representative "Calls and visits target customers to promote and sell establishment products and services." During the business development meeting conducted by Liz Campos and Syliva Perez at the Burbank branch, were were told that we are expected to "pound the pavement" in our search for new business. This means actually visiting prospective members and employer groups and not calling. This was made very clear by your two AVP's, who said representatives will not be allowed to stay in their assigned branches but for a very brief amount of time.

With regards to LANGUAGE SKILLS described in the description, it states-

"Ability to read, analyze, and interpret general business periodicals, professional journals, technical procedures, or governmental regulations."

The insidious campaign launched against Ms. Freed by the President with assistance of AVP's, Liz Campos and Sylvia Perez, and also by Burbank Branch Manager, Linda Nisely, was enabled by the intentional decision by Human Resources, actually Rodger Smock, to ignore the attack and by his refusal to intercede and bring an end to a series of illegal acts.

On February 2, 2015, he faxed a copy of the job description for Business Development Representative, knowing the document was going to be used to disparage and berate Ms. Freed. If Ms. Freed had indeed maligned the credit union and violated policy than the incident should have been conducted with Mr. Smock present.

Furthermore, the job description faxed by Rodger Smock was an unauthorized draft that had not been approved by the Board of Directors. Subsequently, it possessed absolutely no value. Additionally and contradictory to the reference contained in the job description, Priority One's BDR's have never been shown how to read, analyze, and interpret general business periodicals, professional journals, technical procedures or governmental regulations. We're not sure why Mr. Smock who is quite incapable of reading, analysing and interpreting general business periodicals, professional journals, technical procedures or governmental regulations would expect BDR's to possess the ability to fulfill this requirement.

It is also reasonable to assume that prior to introducing new products and services, the credit union conducts studies and evaluation processes to ensure these meet "governmental regulations." That is not a responsibility of any BDR. The job description also states that BDR's work within the guidelines and polices provided to them by the credit union. What specific is the description referring to? Which periodicals and professional journals are BDR' allegedly required to analyze? And what types of technical procedures are they required to comprehend? In fact, when has the credit union ever provided training to any employee to understand business periodicals, professional journals, technical procedures or governmental regulations? And who provided the training? We know it wasn't the credit union's information deprived, Training and Education Manager, Robert West. 

Not surprisingly, Rodger Smock never responded to Ms. Freed's correspondence. This of course is what the self-described :"peacemaker" always does when faced with complaints containing allegations that members of the management sector have ever violated policies and state and federal laws. Even allegations of sexual harassment have been ignored by the aged Senior Vice President and Director over Human Resources. Mr. Smock like Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, has enabled the egregious acts perpetrated against staff members by President Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. Then again, every monster has its maker.

TO BE CONTINUED....