The IG launched the investigation after Jim Blaine, President of State Employees’ CU (SECU), requested a review of statements made by Yolles in a December 6 letter to Jerrie Jay, administrator of the N.C. Credit Union Division.
The IG limited its investigation to two statements by Yolles: (1) Jay's statement that NCUA intended to terminate SECU’s NCUSIF share insurance and (2) Jay or someone in her office providing an early draft of a Document of Resolution (DOR) to the credit union prior to the exit interview.
On the first allegation, the IG found:
"A careful consideration of the exchange between Jay and Yolles at the September 19 meeting indicates that Jay was inquiring whether NCUA had initiated the process of terminating SECU’s share insurance status, not “announcing” it. However, given the leading nature of Jay’s questions and the heatedness of their exchange, we can see how Yolles might have concluded that Jay’s statements amounted to an announcement. Therefore, we cannot conclude that Yolles’ statement in his December 6 letter, viz., that Jay announced that NCUA had initiated the process of termination of NCUSIF insurance of SECU share accounts, meets the definition of a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001."
On the second allegation, the IG concluded:
"The investigation substantiated that Jay attached a copy of the draft DOR to her email ... on July 18, 2010. Consequently, the evidence does not support a finding that Yolles’ statement in the December 6, 2011, letter was false."Read the results on the IG investigation.
Funny that the OIG would narrowly review the narrow question using Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, while avoiding the bigger suspicions of arrogant behaviors of regulators.
ReplyDeleteEven funnier that you, as a staffer for the ABA, would even dare to mention the legal citation that most endangers the ABA, other staff lobbyists and CEO, for lying and misrepresenting facts to Congress about the credit union sector. ABA's pattern of CU disparagement might be more carefully reviewed by your legal team -- As Section 1001 makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Whoops!
Maybe you are right, the credit union system doesn't have its act together, yet. Nor might the ABA when its credit union hyperbole and rhetoric crosses the line of honesty. Just sayin'.
Just sayin a bunch of garbage. You should remember the old saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
ReplyDeleteThe list of NCUA and various cu "leaders" misrepresentation is a long and embarrassing one.
Start with the lawsuit in Texas against cu "leaders" for disrupting a cu charter change.
How bout Cuna and NCUA"s fairy tales on what losses are in corporates...
While you may have missed the point, I am sure ABA did not.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who reads the report - and everyone should- would prob have difficulty believing that the o.i.g. Is objective.
ReplyDeleteRead the "findings on allegation 1".
How can a state regulator "announce" in a private meeting anything but in particular can't "announce" something that is not their's to announce. NCUA appears to have been threatening and their bluff got called.
That said, saying jay "announced" an action is silly but the o.i.g supporting it is bizarre.
I guess the "o" in OIG doesn't stand for objective.
Delete