Incongruence

BRINGING A BIG  

SWORD TO  A GUN FIGHT

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

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

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

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

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

A CYCLE OF INEPTITUDE
Business Development Resuscitated

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

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

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

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

A NON-PROFIT?

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

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

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

MISREPRESENTATION?

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

Former Executive List

 Current Executive List

Management List  

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

Source: Yvonne Boutte's LinkedIn Account

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

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


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

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

THE PLAN THAT COULDN'T FAIL




- Webpage Page as it appeared in 2010 -

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

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

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

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

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

- Website Page as it appears in 2015 -

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

- ANDRE' MALRAUX -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Resources: Wiggington's Weapon of Choice

FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES

Since his appointment as President and CEO of Priority One Credit Union on Jaunary 1, 2007, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. has carried out a campaign which has targeted employees he wishes banished from the credit union. In 2007 and 2008, his goal was to rid the credit union of employees who had once been loyal to his predecessor, William E. Harris. 

In 2008, he altered his focus, this time targeting employees he believed had provided testimonies to an investigator and which confirmed President Wiggington had sexually harassed a former employee. 

Since the inception of this blog this past January, the President is now focusing flushing out a group of invisible employees who he says are jealous that he was named President and CEO by the credit union's Board of Directors. 

Starting in mid-2007, the President began divulging publicly the names of employees he had terminated and employees he intended to terminate. His disclosures were a violation of the credit union's policy governing confidentiality but thankfully, Human Resources is not about to counsel the talkative President about anything related to his abuse of policies. Furthermore, he has found protection from the credit union's inept Board of Directors who in 2008, squashed all evidence proving that he sexually harassed a former employee. Fortunately, one of the Board members who voted for his termination, disclosed how Board Chair Diedra Harris-Brooks pushed for the President's reinstatement which succeeded when she along with three allies outvoted the two dissenting votes that demanded his removal. 

The Credit Union's Human Resources Department is headed by Senior Vice President, Rodger Smock. Though Mr. Smock has periodically described himself as a "peacemaker" he is actually the President's personal tool and has willingly ignored enforcing the very policies he is appointed to oversee. It is through Mr. Smock that the President has succeeded in persecuting and harassing employees and often utilizing fraudulent documented evidence by which to seal employee terminations. 

What Mr. Smock has done is violate his role as Director over Human Resources Department which was intended to serve as an impartial liaison between the credit union and employees. Instead, he has intentionally allowed the President to use the department as a vehicle through which targets, victimizes and ultimately, terminates employees Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. imagines are his enemies. 

REVIEW TIME, AGAIN

It is a known fact at the credit union's main branch in South Pasadena, California, that in 2007, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. forged a plot to persecute, demean and eventually, terminate the Director of Marketing. The reason his plot is common knowledge at the main branch is because President Wiggington spent weeks in early 2008, boasting publicly, while sitting in the Consumer Loan Department, about how he believed the Marketing Director was the author of an anonymous letter sent to a Director of the Board, exposing one of hand-picked AVP's of kiting. At the time, he bragged that he knew without evidence that she was the author and that he terminated her using the excuse her position was being phased out. 

He also boasted about terminating D. Centeno, a former Branch Manager of the Van Nuys office after Mr. Centeno discovered that the former Branch Manager, Sylvia Perez, had allowed her staff to violate state banking standards when counting money. Mrs. Perez was so offended, she complained to her "friend", President Wiggington, who ordered D. Centeno's termination using false and unbased allegations. 

The President also openly slandered former business development representative, C. Freed. On the day of her termination, Ms. Freed demanded evidence proving the allegations leveled against her by the credit union but Rodger Smock refused to provide her with the basis for her removal merely stating that the "allegations against you stand as they are." In the documentation she received during her termination, Mr. Smock noted that C. Freed's termination was "voluntary" and "mutually agreed to." 

In December 2006, Mr. Smock was present at Carmine's restaurant in South Pasadena during the Loan Department's annual Christmas party. During the gathering, Charles R. Wiggngton, Sr. made several sexualized-charged comments to one of the employees while Mr. Smock laughed boisterously. 

REWARDING WRONG

During the months of September and October 2006, then Burbank Branch Manager, Liz Campos, incurred over 24 separate NSF events to her credit union checking account.  In early October the then Vice President of Operations, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. announced that Mrs. Campos was being promoted to the post of AVP which would become effective on January 1, 2007. Later, that same month, while standing at the coffee machine located in the employee lounge room, Mr. Wiggington loudly told Rodger Smock that he was going to have to speak to Mrs. Campos about her numerous checking account which had been overdrawn numerous times "during the last two months." Its interesting that he chose to discuss confidential information about an employees account while in the lounge room and in the presence of several employees. 

On January 1, 2007, Mrs. Campos began her role as AVP but in March 2007, then Board Director, David Davidson, received an anonymous letter exposing Mrs. Campos checking account abuses. The Director delivered the letter to the credit union's attorney, William Adler, and Mr. Adler contacted Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, ordering an investigation of the allegations. 

During the brief investigation which followed and included an audit of Mrs. Campos' checking account, it was discovered that she had been kiting- a federal offense. She had written numerous checks for amounts exceeding her account balances using checking accounts held at three different institutions. It was also discovered that every one of her NSF fees charged to her Priority One checking account, had been reversed. 

When asked if he had been aware of the abuses, the President denied all knowledge though as stated previously, in October 2006 he openly and in the presence of several employees discussed Mrs. Campos' abuses with Rodger Smock while standing in the South Pasadena lounge room. Furthermore, at the time the abuses occurred, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was Vice President of Operations and the only person who could authorize the reversal of NSF fees charged to employee checking accounts. When asked if he reversed the NSF fees, Mr. Wiggington told the credit union's attorney that the fees had been reversed by the Member Services Department without his knowledge. His statement was a lie. 

What we find incredulous is that despite having incurred more than 25 NSF events in a 60-day period, Ms. Campos was promoted by Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. to the post of AVP and with the promotion, given a substantial increase in salary. We think this may be one of a few incidents in which the President is actually generous though at the same time unethical and corrupt. 

What's more, Rodger Smock was fully aware of Ms. Campos' abuses and as the Director of Human Resources, should have informed the President and Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, that Mrs. Campos could not be promoted. Mr. Smock chose to turn a blind eye to the abuses and to what turned out to be a violation of federal law. 

In October 2006, the President also informed then Director of Lending, Aaron Cavazos, that he would be promoted to AVP effective January 1, 2007. Mr. Cavazos was known by the staff of the Loan Department for taken 2 to 3 hour lunches, sometimes returning to inebriated, and for harassing and retaliating against employees he didn't like. He, like President Wiggington, was known for making sexualized remarks to both male and female staff members. 

During the years of 2005 through 2008, numerous complaints were filed with Rodger Smock, describing abuses perpetrated by Mr. Cavazos yet the Director of Human Resources chose not to investigate the complaints or enforce those policies which had been violated by Mr. Cavazos. 

What's more, whenever employees complained to Mr. Smock, the aged Director never documented what he was told later asserting that he doesn't document complaints because "I retain everything to memory." 

The credit union's Employee Handbooks clearly states that all complaints will be investigated and that once the investigation is completed, the complaining employee will be informed of the remedial action taken by the credit union. NO EMPLOYEE EVER LODGING A COMPLAINT WITH MR. SMOCK HAS EVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE WHICH ADVISED THEM HOW THEIR COMPLAINT WAS RESOLVED. 

Of course, if Mr. Smock wishes to contest our accusations, all he has to do is provided documentation proving he recorded each complaint and showing that he investigated and resolved each grievance. Anything less than this, won't do.

Prior to leaving the credit union, the employee who had been subject of Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s unwanted sexualized comments and gestures, distanced herself from the corrupt officer. Noticing a change in her demeanor, the President began publicly mocking her attired. Tired of his verbalizations, she visited Mr. Smock's office and complained but the Director again, refused to document her complaint though he did try and excuse the President's behaviors by telling her the President was "only joking" and "maybe you misunderstood what he said." 

In 2005, the employee was further victimized by her then supervisor, Aaron Cavazos, who began spreading rumors criticizing the employee's abilities as a Loan Officer and soon, began making fun of her attire. His campaign disparaging her person was witnessed by employees of the Consumer and Real Estate Loan Departments. 

Mr. Cavazos campaign escalated shortly after he was contacted by his friend, Mike Fahim of CU Partners who informed him that his company was about to lay-off several employees. Mr. Fahim told Mr. Cavazos that he had an excellent candidate for the position of Real Estate Loan Officer though there was no available positions for another Real Estate Loan Officer in the South Pasadena branch.
Mr. Cavazos complained to Mr. Smock that his current Real Estate Loan Officer was not working out and that he questioned her ability to carryout her assigned responsibilities. Mr. Smock approved transferring the employee to the Consumer Loan Department and replacing her with the new Real Estate Loan Officer recommended by Mr. Fahim. 

Is it coincidental that the highly competent Real Estate Loan Officer's performance suddenly changed at about the time Mr. Fahim recommended that Mr. Cavazos hire one of his staff? 

Unlike the former Real Estate Loan Officer, her replacement was provided assistance to help her with the desk. Despite having asked for assistance for more than a year, Mr. Cavazos refused to provide the former loan officer with any help. 

Irked because the former Real Estate Loan Officer complained to Human Resources about his alleged abuses, Mr. Cavazos continued his attacks on the officer and on September 20, 2005, accused her of insubordination. Mr. Smock suspended her for 3 days. In a memorandum dated 9/15/05, sent to Human Resources, the former Real Estate Loan Officer wrote: 

I have been suspended by my employer for alleged statements made against Aaron Cavazos, though I informed my employer that the accusations are all untrue.

On Monday, September 12, 2005, at about 8:40 a.m. Aaron Cavazos called me to his desk and told me that I had been replaced by a new employee and that I would no longer serve as Priority One’ real estate lending officer. Shocked, I returned to my desk. Later that morning I asked Mr. Cavazos if I could speak with him, in private. He said that I could and the two of us walked to Mr. Smock’s office.

During the meeting which followed, I told him I was not angry with him but in an angry voice, he said, “I dare you to dispute my decision with the way you messed up that desk [real estate desk]!” He continued, accusing me of having committed several errors. He said that in processing the loan for Mr. Layarte, I took too long to complete the signing. I replied that he had provided me with an incorrect address for the member which I entered into the Title Report. I later had to correct the reference in both the Title Report and the AVM. I told him that after discovering the error, I ordered a corrected title which affected the property value, forcing Mr. Layarte to obtain an appraisal.

I proceeded to explain that after a corrected title was received by our office. I discovered that there were 2 liens of Mr. Layarte’s property, both of which had to be resolved. As we conversed I was able to provide ample justification for every one of his allegations.

Frustrated and angry, Aaron ignored everything I said and proceeded to informed me that I am to assist the Consumer Lending sector of the Loan Department and any branch personnel calling to request assistance with consumer loans. Irked by the way he spoke to me, I told him that before moving, I would like to return the Real Estate folders I left atop my desk, to the File Room, but Aaron raised his voice and yelled that I am to “sit and do as you are told!”

The meeting over, I left Mr. Smock’s office and returned to Georgina Duenas’ desk where I had been told I am to sit until a new desk is prepared for me. I remained seated at her desk for about 30 minutes without having anything to do. I rose from my seat and walked into Mr. Cavazos’ cubicle, asking if I could at least file the deed folders in the cabinet located just behind from where he sits. He said that I could.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2005 at approximately 8:20 a.m. I entered the Loan Department. As I walked across the room towards Georgina’s desk, I continued to speak to my cousin who lives in New Orleans, using my personal cellular. Because it was before 8:30 a.m. no other Loan Department personnel had arrived at their desks.

During our conversation, I told my cousin that “some people are warriors” and thus “resilient.” I was not aware that Aaron sat quietly in his cubicle listening to my conversation. The sound of his angry voice startled me, as he ordered me to end my call so that he could speak to me. I told my cousin I would call her back and followed Mr. Cavazos to Mr. Smock’s office.

Once inside, Aaron closed the door behind us and said that he would not tolerate my accusations that he is racist. and even alluded to the fact that Mr. Harris is Black. I was shocked because in choosing to eavesdrop, he took my conversation completely out of context. I denied his accusation, but to no avail. He accused me of having a negative attitude and of adversely affecting my co-workers and said he would not tolerate my behavior.

During the day, several employees asked me about the altercation with Mr. Cavazos. I was surprised that they knew as no one was present in the department at the time the incident occurred. I was told that Aaron had gone about the office telling co-workers and managers that I accused him of racism.

I know that the reasons why I was demoted and the allegations used to support my suspension, were all untrue.

I now only ask that you file this document in my personnel folder though I would like to speak to you about what I have documented, at a mutually convenient time. Thank you.

Though he received the Loan Officer's letter, Mr. Smock never acknowledged or replied to any of her statements. Additionally, then Vice President of Operations, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. complained to Mr. Harris about the Officer, describing her as insubordinate and disruptive. Mr. Wiggington also informed the Board that the Loan Officer had been been placed on suspension, a fact they should not have been privy to. 

In spite of the well-documented record of abuses, Mr. Cavazos like Mrs. Campos was promoted to AVP effective January 1, 2007. Evidently, Charles R. Wiggington., Sr. promotes people who like himself, are guilty of misconduct and egregious violations of credit union policies. 

Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. always resorts to the use of the same tactics making him predictable. When selecting people to promote, he considers only whether he likes them or not. Competency and ethics are inconsequential to the man who judges people by whether or not, they are his "buddy." Furthermore, his abuses are well protected by Rodger Smock and apparently, sanctioned by the Board of Directors. Rodger Smock's decisions appear based purely on what is politically advantageous to himself. 

Defaming employees and subjecting them to harassment is what has come to characterize President Wiggington's mode of administration. In his regime, no one holds value if they are not in some way feeding his bloated ego. It must be awful to be Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. 

Banishment and Slander

A PRESIDENT MIRED 

IN ISSUES

Few who have come to know Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. could ever deny that he is a man of who loves indulging in conversations about himself though his subjects of conversation are often extremely limited and rarely related to business. His three favorite topics are his alleged sexual prowess, his uncommon and superior intellect, and what he sincerely believes is his seemingly impeccable character. He loves expounding unendingly about his high standards which apparently, no one can live up to. If one were to choose to believe what he says at face value, then Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. is indeed superior and more evolved than most people. .

During meetings with managers, he often states that employees who fail to attain his stipulated performance standards will not receive raises. No doubt, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. is a harsh taskmaster though ironically, he is the one person at the credit union who is most incapable of satisfying his own lofty standards. .

The President demonstrates a chronic and insatiable proclivity to judge and condemn others. In July 2008, he was suspended following accusations by a former employee, that he sexually harassed her for a period of several years. During what would be an 8-week suspension, his son Charles "Chuckie" Wiggington, Jr. temporarily worked at the credit union's main branch in South Pasadena along with other high school aged children of employees, who were hired to empty and box member files kept in the credit union's storage room. Each day, Chuckie would loudly tell his co-workers that his father wanted nothing to do with the employees of the credit union who according to Chuckie, were "untrustworthy", "back stabbers" and "low class." Evidently, Chuckie shares the same insatiable proclivity to gossip as does his father. 

Following an almost 8-week suspension, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. was found guilty of sexual harassment. Despite what could have been a humbling experience, he returned to work unchanged, loudly proclaiming that he intended to go after the people who provided an investigator statements that attested that the President had indeed, sexually harassed a former female employee. 

Despite the evidence presented by the investigator, Board Chair, Diedra Harris-Brooks, Directors, O. Glen Saffold and Thomas Gathers, and Supervisory Committee Chair, Cornelia Simmons, all voted for the President's reinstatement. Their vote over-ruled the two dissenting votes from Directors, Janice Irving and Joe Marchica, that urged the President's termination. 

In the days following his reinstatement, the President told Executive Vice President, Rodger Smock, and CFO, Manny Gaitmaitan, that he knew for a fact that some of his staff were "out to get him" because this unnamed group of conspirators were envious and jealous that he had been appointed president. He tried in earnest to convince the two officers that this group of rebels were trying to undermine his authority and attempting to commit subterfuge to destroy the credit union. Within a few weeks following his reinstatement, his accusations were being echoed by Human Resources "clerk", Esmeralda Sandoval who threatened employees who discussed this blog while at work and who said "they are trying to destroy the credit union.:" So is Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. the victim of a network of secret conspirators or is he the real conspirator who has slandered employees, injured employee morale and injured the credit union's relationship with its members? 

THE VICTIMIZATION OF THE MARKETING DIRECTOR

Maggie Rios, had been employed by the credit union for sixteen and a half years. More than thirteen of those years were spent serving in the capacity of Marketing Director. 

In October 2006, immediately following the Board's announcement that then Vice President of Operations, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., would succeed William E. Harris as President and CEO of the then successful and growing credit union, the Vice President of Operations
told the then Lending Director, Aaron Cavazos; Rodger Smock the then VP of Human Resources; Liz Campos the then Burbank Branch Manager; Georgina Duenas the Consumer Lead Loan Teller; and Gema Pleitez, the South Pasadena Branch Manager, that 
he intended on terminating all of "Harris' people" including Maggie Rios. Mrs. Rios confronted the Vice President as soon as she learned about what he had said and he adamantly denied that he planned on terminating her and assured her that her employment was secure and would remain unchanged. 

On January 1, 2007, Mr. Wiggington, Sr. became the new President and CEO of Priority One and on January 4, 2007, he conducted several meetings with staff at the South Pasadena branch, informing them of the changes he was implementing to the credit union's corporate structure. During each meeting, he distributed flow charts delineating what he described as "corporate restructuring." Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. had been employed for 16 years on the date he assumed the role as President, yet apparently he seemed glib to the fact that Priority One is not a corporation. 

In the chart he distributed, Maggie Rios had been demoted and was to report director to the new AVP of Lending, Aaron Cavazos despite the fact Mr. Cavazos had no experience or education in anything related to marketing. Furthermore, many employees were surprised by her reassignment because it was widely known that Mr. Cavazos held Mrs. Rios in disdain and had spent years disparaging her reputation to his staff in the Loan Department. 

Two weeks following Mr. Wiggington's appointment to President, Mr. Cavazos informed Mrs. Rios that she was being stripped of her title of Director of Marketing and would from thereon serve in the capacity of Marketing Coordinator. She was also informed that President Wiggington had decided to eliminate the Marketing Department and replace it instead, with a marketing committee that would be headed by the wholly unqualified, Mr. Cavazos. Mrs. Rios would begin serving as a member of the marketing committee who would select as a group, language and graphics for impending promotions. Mrs. Rios was also informed that she was prohibited from conferring with the credit union's contracted marketing agency, Andamahr and Company or with vendors, even those with whom she had established long standing relationships. Mr. Cavazos explained that  only he, Patti Loiacano, the Assistant to the Director of Lending or Georgina Duenas, the Lead Consumer Loan Officer, would be authorized to speak to the marketing agency and all vendors. 

A few days later, Mr. Cavazos informed Mrs. Rios that she must vacate her executive office which Mr. Wiggington, Sr. had reassigned to Mr. Cavazos. He explained that due to a lack
of space in the so-called, "executive sector, she would have to relocate her desk to the back of the corporate offices where the dusty old file room and business development department were located. Though that area was recently remodeled, on the day Mrs. Rios relocated to that wing, the area contained dust covered desks piled by documents and files from the DMV and Card Services departments. The carpets were old and stained and hadn't been cleaned in years and the area was strewn with old metal filing cabinets that were haphazardly placed on one side of the room.

Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s order to relocate Mrs. Rios to the back offices was an act of vengeance and a way to strike out at his predecessor. His intent was to humiliate Mrs. Rios so that she would voluntarily resign. However, his efforts were enabled with the help of Rodger Smock, Aaron Cavazos, Esmeralda Sandoval, and Georgina Duenas. However, the President's vindictive act was short-lived. Several employees stepped forward and complained, labeling his decision unconscionable and prompting the President to reverse his decision and instead, return Mrs. Rios to the executive wing where he assigned her a desk located just outside her former office. 

Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s elimination of the Marketing Department was an elaborate and quite frankly, an emotionally driven ploy by which to oust the people who had once loyally served his former President, William E. Harris. A portion of the evidence to this lies in the fact that he replaced a prize-winning Marketing Director and its highly experienced Director, with a marketing committee populated by staff who had absolutely no experience with anything related to marketing. Furthermore, the committee's only task was consigned to selecting graphics and language for planned promotions. Thank, unbeknownst to President Wiggington is advertising not marketing. Marketing requires a knowledge needed to study one’s marketplace which entails knowing how to obtain data from your market. None of the members of the committee can do this because quite simply, they don't possess the abilitiy to do so. 

What's also interesting is that one of the committee's members, Georgina Duenas, the Lead Consumer Loan Officer, has been the subject of numerous employee complaints regarding her apparent chronic violation of Priority One's policies. Fortunately, for Mrs. Duenas, Aaron Cavazos and Rodger Smock, have protected her and excluded her from disciplinary actions described under credit union policy. 

A few weeks after being informed she was being demoted to the position of Marketing Coordinator, Mrs. Rios was called to the office of Rodger Smock who continues to oversee Human Resources. Aaron Cavazos was also present in the meeting during which she was informed that her salary would soon be reduced. Mr. Smock explained that a Marketing Coordinator is not paid as much as a Marketing Director and that once he completed his research, her salary would be adjusted and reduced. 

When some of the board learned of what Mr. Wiggington, Sr. had ordered, they again contacted him and protested his plan to reduce Mrs. Rios salary. Mr. Wiggington, Sr. quickly rescinded his plan and assured the board her salary would not be reduced. Rodger later spoke to Mrs. Rios and said that Mr. Wiggington, Sr. had ordered that her salary not be reduced.

Again, when advised of what Mr. Wiggington, Sr. planned to do, some members of the board contacted him and lodged complaint against his intended action. Mr. Wiggington, Sr. thereafter ordered that her salary not be reduced.

A few days later, Maggie Rios overheard a representative of the Human Resources Department, whose desk was located directly behind her own, tell someone on the phone that Mrs. Rios was being removed from her exempt status and would from hereon, be required to clock-in and out like all other non-exempt employees. After overhearing the comments, she spoke to Rodger Smock who asked if Aaron Cavazos had spoken to her about her change in status. When she informed him that he hadn't and that she had overheard the comments from another employee, Rodger stated that Aaron should have spoken to her. A short time later, Aaron apologized, explaining that he forgot to speak to her and confirmed that she was being stripped of her exempt status.

A few days later, Rodger Smock called Maggie Rios to his office though time she to inform her that after careful review and due to the implementation of the new Marketing Committee, her services were no longer needed. She was immediately laid-off and asked to clean out her desk.

The campaign against Mrs. Rios was obvious. The intent appears to have been, to drive her away and possibly force her to resign. The efforts by Mr. Wiggington, Sr. and Mr. Cavazos, were intended to belittle and humiliate her and reduce her self-confidence and to make her feel unwanted. The severance of employment which Mr. Wiggington, Sr. describes as a lay-off was done without any intent of ever recalling Mrs. Rios to the credit union. The termination also occurred after it became apparent that Mrs. Rios could not be forced to resign.

Did Charles R. Wiggington, Sr., the man who now purports to be a victim of embittered employees, have to demote Mrs. Rios, move her out of her former office, attempt to reduce her pay, and remove her from exempt status only to finally terminate her employment of 16 1/2 years? And so, after tremendous abuse and belittlement, Mrs. Rios’ was terminated despite the overwhelming fact that in October 2006, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. verbally assured her that she would not be terminated once he became president and her job was secure. I guess as Mr. Wiggington, Sr. would say, he was “out to get” her… and he did.

In April 2008, Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. entered the Loan department and sat down on a love seat located alongside the desk which at the time, was assigned to the VISA Specialist, Suzanne Sunada. Languishing comfortably, with his legs outstretched, Mr. Wiggington, Sr. spoke loudly in the presence of the entire Loan Department staff, stating that he terminated Maggie Rios because she wrote an anonymous letter to former Board Member, David Davidson, exposing Liz Campos, the former AVP, of kiting, which is a FEDERAL offense.

Continuing, he said that the exposure “forced” him to audit Mrs. Campos’s account records and later, terminated her employment by order of William Adler, the credit union attorney.

Doesn’t it seem odd that in his own words, he terminated Mrs. Rios for allegedly exposing Liz Campos of kiting, though the exposure came in the form of an unsigned letter mailed to former board member, David L. Davidson. What is the evidentiary foundation which helped Mr. Wiggington, Sr. conclude that Mrs. Rios wrote the letter mailed to Mr. Davidson? There is none. His conclusion is nothing more than unbased conjecture.

If Mr. Wiggington, Sr. terminated Mrs. Rios because she allegedly exposed Liz Campos of kiting, then his actions violate state and federal statutes which protect employees who expose wrong doing, from retaliation. Whistle blowers are protected by state law thus making it illegal to retaliate against any person who exposes wrongdoing in a company.

Based on Mr. Wiggington, Sr.'s own words and actions, he terminated Maggie Rios because she was one of "Harris' people"; "because she allegedly exposed Liz Campos of violating federal law; and because he was not going to allow her to tell him what to do." None of his reasons support his later excuse to Diedra Harris-Brooks, that Maggie was terminated because of his "new vision" for the credit union. So based solely on his own words, Mrs. Rios was terminated as an act of vengeance. But wait! Isn't this what he alleges some unnamed group of credit union employees is doing to him? Hypocrisy, I dare say.

On 12/28/07, Mr. Wiggington, Sr. called Susan Sunada and Patti Loiacano to his office. During the brief meeting which followed he attributed his appointment to his avarice and cunning. He loudly exclaimed, "I played the game and won" and "I beat the others." And the board thought they selected him because of his alleged abilities and knowledge. His statement also reveals that he believes he somehow manipulated the board.

During this same conversation, he described Mrs. Rios as "The one who complained isn't here anymore. Do you see her?" The latter is a reference to her termination.

During the meeting, the 50-some year old Mr. Wiggington, Sr., described Mr. Harris as "old school" and accused his predecessor of having been jealous of Mr. Wiggington, Sr.'s plans to change the way Priority One conducts business.

He also described the merger with Inland Counties Postal Credit Union as orchestrated by Mr. Harris, as a "bad move" and which as a result, he forced him to spend "many months” cleaning up Mr. Harris' mess."

He also told the two women that he took PEMCO from Lynnette Fortson, the AVP overseeing the LAPDC branch but reinstated it soon thereafter, to "keep her mouth shut because its more trouble than it is worth."

Charles proceeded to tell Suzanne that after being promoted to Assistant Vice President, Liz Campos visited his office and told him she felt that Maggie Rios, who had been demoted, was “out to get her.” He told Suzanne that Maggie never liked Liz (though it was Maggie’s recommendation which resulted in Liz’s promotion to Branch Manager of Priority One’s Burbank branch).

One other conspicuous fact is that Charles' willingly and knowingly chose to violate the rules governing confidentiality at Priority One. There is no justifiable reason why he disclosed what he did to Mrs. Sunada and Mrs. Loiacano or why he verbalized his comments in the presence of the employees of the Loan Department.

In July 2008, Attorney William Adler received an anonymous letter alleging wrong doing committed by Mr. Wiggington, Sr. Mr. Adler contacted Diedra Harris-Brooks who afterwards, called Mr. Wiggington, Sr. at his office. When advised about some of the contents contained in the letter, Mr. Wiggington, Sr. exclaimed that he terminated Maggie Rios because of his "new vision" for the Marketing Department. His statement to Mrs. Harris-Brooks contradicts his other statements describing the reasons why he terminated Mrs. Rios. Based on what are a variety of reasons verbalized by the President, Mrs. Rios was actually terminated for one of the following reasons:   

1. Mrs. Rios allegedly wrote an anonymous letter exposing Liz Campos of kiting.
2. While Mr. Harris was President, Maggie allegedly told Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. what to do and he was not going to tolerate this after becoming president.
3. Mr. Wiggingon, Sr. had new plans for the Marketing Department (which included replacing Mrs. Rios, an experienced Marketing Director, with a committee whose members had no prior experience or education in marketing).
4. None of the above.
5. All of the above.

In July 2008, Maggie Rios mailed a letter to attorney, William Adler. The letter, sent via Certified Mail, made reference to several acts committed by Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. while she was an employee of Priority One. It must be noted that Mr. Adler nor any member of the board or Supervisory Committee has ever responded to Mrs. Rios. The refusal to respond to her letter reveals much about the character (or lack of character) of Priority One's attorney, members of the Board, and the Supervisory Committee. Though each has a judiciary responsibility to members and employees, they have instead opted to contribute to the perpetuation of Mr. Wiggington, Sr.'s acts by ignoring, circumventing, and squashing the facts- many of which prove overt violations of credit union policy and the state and Federal law.

Someone might argue that the board was objective and its intents evidenced by their hiring of an investigator who interviewed several credit union employees to determine if sexual harassment had actually been committed by Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. Yes, one could argue intent, but REMEMBER, Diedra Harris-Brooks, the chairperson and board members O. Glen Saffold and Thomas Gathers as well as Supervisor Committee member, Cornelia Simmons, all fought- and fought they did, to reinstate Mr. Wiggington, Sr. The magnitude of their efforts is measured by their unbridled squashing of the evidence whose importance was diminished to fit their revamped interpretation of what actually constitutes sexual harassment under federal law. Recall what I wrote in a previous post, this is preserving the status quo. What's more, if the evidence was in fact unsubstantial in proving sexual harassment, why then did the board later offer former employee and victim, Kim Burke, $20,000.00 to settle the complaint she filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing?

Evidently dredging out the truth to ensure the credit union comports itself commensurate to the highest ideals and ethical standards of the credit union industry is unimportant at Priority One Credit Union or at least to some of its shameful and embarrassing board. Here are two excerpts taken from Mrs. Rios' letter written to attorney, William Adler:

Liz Campos: Exposing an AVP of kiting

May I suggest you also re-audit Liz Campos’ records. I am not sure if your initial audit delved into who actually approved the overdrafts which kept Liz from incurring NSF fees. You will discover upon closer inspection that though Charles was not yet the president or CEO, he was the only person who could approve or deny overdrafts for checks written by employees of the credit union which were later returned due to insufficient funds. It was he, alone, who approved the overdraft for each bad check deposited by Liz. How then, can he claim that he had no involvement in the incidents involving Liz’s checks?

Furthermore knowing she had written numerous bad checks and having, himself, approved the overdrafts, he proceeded in promoting her to the position of AVP. I guess her rather extensive record of bounced checks was insufficient evidence to deter him from promoting her. You can also check Human Resources records to verify that Liz was once under my supervision, when she worked as a Business Development Representative of the company. At that time, Charles was aware that she was bouncing checks. In fact, I counseled her about the NSF activity on her account and reminded her that if the problem remained uncorrected, she could be written-up, suspended, or even terminated. Her habit of writing bad checks was not a new development and one Charles was fully aware of long before he was appointed president of Priority One. As I stated previously, while he served as VP of Operations, he was the one who reviewed all reports for NSF activity on employee accounts. Let me be so frank as to add, that any denial by Charles is an outright lie!

Ballot Mailing: Member account & Social Security Numbers Printed on the outside of envelopes containing election ballots.

In 2008 The Board of Directors Election Ballots Contrary to what Charles may allege, he alone is responsible for the incident which occurred in 2007, when ballots for the upcoming Board of Directors elections were mailed out with the account and social security number of our members printed on the outside of the envelopes. He created that debacle when he disregarded the safeguards implemented by Mr. Harris which required that a group of the envelopes be reviewed prior to their mailing, to ascertain that there were no errors. Charles chose not to review any of the envelopes and thus violated security protocols. Of course as is typical of Charles, he found a scapegoat in Alan Santos, who took the fall for what Charles created.

Evidently, from Charles R. Wiggington, Sr.'s perspective, slandering and abusing people is justified while letters mailed to attorney, William Adler, exposing him of sexual harassment and other improprieties are not. Another undeniable fact is that in the history of Priority One Credit Union, allegations of sexual harassment have never been filed by some unnamed group of embittered and jealous employees against any other president. So is Charles R. Wiggington, Sr. victim or a perpetrator? Does his reasoning seem sound or logical; or is this merely behavior characteristic of people who lack understanding of what is moral, ethical and good and who believe the world circulates about their every whim?

Rationalization is a wonderful tool. It can help preserve and protect through subconscious denial, one's sanity.