 |
| H-m-m-m .... |
SO, LET'S PURSUE THE PAST A LITTLE FURTHER AS TO THE HISTORY OF $1 BILLION IN HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE LEGAL FEES PAID FROM YOUR FUNDS BY THE NCUA...
Running down the numerous omissions in the NCUA OIG letter to Congressman Issa [link] is pretty dull stuff, isn't it ! 'Bout as much fun as shoveling out a chicken house - and with lots of similarity in substance !
But, let's do an easy one today - OK? You saw yesterday the great sleight of hand the OIG tried to bring to Congressman Issa's simple question as to whether or not the $42 million "Pass The Cash" contingency legal fees were politically motivated.
OIG reported that NCUA's chief legal counsel prepared his final recommendation to the NCUA Board for approval on August 20, 2009 and the contingency legal agreements were signed September 1, 2009. Board member Fryzel stated that he wasn't familiar with the law firms; Ms. Matz claimed she didn't know what was going on because she didn't start work until August 24, 2009; and Board member Gigi Hyland's whereabouts and involvement are strangely omitted.
No one is present at the scene of the crime. Extremely convenient, but not very probable !
But here's the question for you .....
On page 10 of the Issa letter the OIG states:
"We note further that an OGC [Office of the General Counsel] memorandum to the NCUA Board setting forth the General Counsel's final recommendation regarding the choice of law firms was dated August 20, 2009..."
"Final recommendation "....
"to the NCUA Board"...
"regarding choice of law firms" ... "dated August 20,2009".
Clearly and logically it was the NCUA Board's choice as to whether or not to go forward with the contingency legal fee agreements and to choose which law firms. So, the NCUA Board approved the deal; but at which Board meeting did they vote ? The two nearest NCUA Board Meetings (according to the NCUA website) were July 16, 2009 and September 24, 2009.
Final recommendation 8/20/2009...
contract signed 9/1/2009 .....
["Something stinketh" at NCUA!]
Something just doesn't seem to add up with NCUA's internal "watchdog's" report:
OMG... OIG !! ACCOUNTABLE? COMPETENT? TRANSPARENT?
The current NCUA Board should "ACT" to clear the Agency's name:
WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
9 comments:
It's clear that Fryzel and Matz gave ongoing sweetheart deals to their lawyer pals. Harping on their illicit activities of the past isn't going to change anything. Need to force the current NCUA board to make changes now as they can't do anything from 6-7 yrs ago.
And apparently Gigi couldn't handle the truth.
Believe she is an attorney by the way.
Yup, another good question unanaswered.
If it takes a board vote to approve the "recommendation ", then how did that meeting take place in between scheduled meetings?
Where?
Or, did Fenner act alone?
Why?
Is it true his pal is one of the "winning" bidders for the business?
Can we claw back on Fenners lucrative government pension?
Isaa?
Hensarling?
McWatters?
Where art thou?
To me the challenge of clarifying the issues behind the $1 billion contingency legal fees is to the current NCUA Boardd members - is there really a new commitment to ethics and integrity at NCUA - to accountability, competence, and transparency?
Or does the current Board believe that the length of the exam cycle and the size of an SMSA field of membership area is more important than their legal, ethical and personal credibility?
The current Board needs to "ACT" or else acknowledge that they are part of the problem with the federal government about which Americans - both "sides" - are so clearly angered .
Or the current Board can step forward and set a new standard at NCUA for all other agencies to follow, but it is up to two individuals, Mr. Metsger and Mr. McWatters.
Is it that difficult for either individual to take a stand for what is right for credit unions, for the American people? To take a stand for accountability, competence, and transparency?
It would seem to me that the current board knew, should have known, maybe knew, knew but were all right with the arrangement, didn't know, didn't care, whatever with what the agency was doing. And if they didn't know why not? Perhaps if they asked real questions they might get some real answers.
Just more proof that the NCUA is a complete circus full of incompetence.
How in the world can we listen to them tell us how to be "safe and sound"?
Believe it would be helpful for the current Board to make a definitive statement on this question, especially as it relates to their accountability, competence and transparency. The integrity of the agency is at stake - as is theirs!
Far less lucrative than the legal fees but equally culpable on the transparency front are the two small firms selected to assist in the NCUA Guaranteed Notes program. Neither firm would pass an NCUA examiner’s due diligence, risk management or vendor management threshold. NCUA - - Not Credit Union Accountable.
The bank they got to help them w ngn program they also sued for legacy assets...Barclays.
You can't make up how pathetic this all is.
Is that TRUE?
Barclays got the fees on the ngn program?
Didn't ncua also sue Barclays?
Is that possible??!!
Hello, Wall Street journal?
Is this true?
Post a Comment