Franklin Credit Union

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Franklin Credit Union

Postby sw » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:57 pm

Taken from another related post:

Okay, this is not Boys Town, but found that the Franklin Credit Union lost a bunch of money for some nuns in South Dakota...


March 24, 1989: The South Dakota order of nuns that had more than $2 million on deposit at Franklin received $361,969 from the NCUA's insurance fund, leaving the order with a loss of $1.7 million. The NCUA said it paid more than the $`100,000-per-account limit because the order had certificates of deposits in several names.
sw
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:35 am

Somewhat unrelated to your nuns post but related to thread on Franklin Credit Union in general:

My question is that there has been talk in various places that I cannot recall at the moment of a connection between Johnny Gosch's father and the Franklin Credit Union/Larry King. I am in no way suggesting this information is true but I have seen it mentioned in other threads here at RI in the past but never seen any confirming information or answers as to what that connection entailed or what it implied.

Does anyone know anything about this?
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

nuns who lost money

Postby sw » Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:51 am

court record of the nuns who lost money at Franklin:

961 F.2d 733

SISTERS OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY OF
ABERDEEN, SOUTH DAKOTA, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION BOARD, Respondent.

No. 91-1516.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 1991.
Decided April 8, 1992.

Gerald P. Laughlin, Omaha Neb., argued (David A. Karnes, Richard E. Putnam, Omaha, Neb., and Donald Bierle, Yankton, S.D., on the brief), for petitioner.

Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Washington, D.C., argued (Stuart M. Gerson and Thomas M. Bondy, on brief), for respondent.

Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, and BRIGHT and ROSS, Senior Circuit Judges.

ROSS, Senior Circuit Judge.

1
This appeal is brought by the Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Aberdeen, South Dakota (Petitioner) from a decision of the National Credit Union Administration Board (the Board) denying Petitioner's status and claims as a creditor of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union (Franklin) of Omaha, Nebraska. In November 1988, Franklin was placed into involuntary liquidation by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). At that time, the Petitioner held share certificates in Franklin amounting to $2.45 million dollars. The Board rejected the Petitioner's argument that it should be treated as a creditor for purposes of the priority payout schedule and instead ruled that it was a "member to the extent of uninsured shares." We affirm the Board's decision.

I.

2
The Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1751 et seq., provides for the chartering and incorporation of federal credit unions, which are defined as cooperative associations organized in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the purpose of promoting thrift and creating a source of credit for provident or productive purposes within the community. Id. at § 1752(1). Federal credit unions must be established to serve a particular defined group having a common bond of occupation or association, or a group within a well-defined neighborhood, community or rural district. Id. at § 1759. The Act also establishes a program of federal credit union share insurance, pursuant to which each member account is insured up to $100,000. Id. at §§ 1781(a), 1787(k)(1).

3
The Act designates the NCUA as the agency with responsibility and authority for administering its provisions, including its insurance program. See generally id. at §§ 1752a(a), 1781(a), 1782(a), 1783(a). The Act provides that the NCUA shall be managed by the National Credit Union Administration Board, id. at § 1752a(a), which shall possess the authority to promulgate "rules and regulations for the administration of this chapter," id. at § 1766(a), and shall have broad powers to oversee and supervise the operations of the federal credit unions. See, e.g., id. at §§ 1766, 1784. As part of its statutory duties, the Board has adopted the following Priority Schedule to be used whenever a federal credit union is involuntarily liquidated:

4
a. Secured creditors to the value of their collateral;

5
b. Costs and expenses of liquidation;

6
c. Wages due employees of the Federal Credit Union;

7
d. Costs and expenses incurred by creditors in successfully opposing release of the Federal Credit Union from certain debts;

8
e. Taxes legally due and owing to the United States or any state or subdivision thereof;

9
f. Debts due and owing to the United States, including the NCUA;

10
g. General creditors and secured creditors to the extent that their claims exceed their security interest; and

11
h. Members to the extent of uninsured shares and the National Credit Union Insurance Fund.

51 Fed.Reg. 43,383 (1986).1

12
The Franklin Community Federal Credit Union was chartered as a federal credit union in 1968 under the Federal Credit Union Act, and was established to serve the community of North Omaha in Omaha, Nebraska. Franklin was designated as a "credit union serving predominantly low-income members" within the meaning of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1757(6), as a consequence of which it was legally eligible to receive deposits from nonmembers, such as charitable and religious organizations, in order to increase the deposit base in a limited income credit union.

13
Capitalizing upon its "low income" status, Franklin solicited funds from charitable and religious organizations nationwide, representing that shares in Franklin not only would constitute a sound investment, but also would contribute to Franklin's stated aim of using its funds to help the disadvantaged community that it was established to serve.

14
Over a period of years, a variety of charitable and religious organizations, and other groups, including local governmental units, purchased millions of dollars in share certificates in the Franklin Credit Union. Some of these entities, including Petitioner, obtained shares in excess of applicable insurance limits, apparently, in some cases, on the basis of assurances by Franklin officials that their shares were safe because they were "collateralized by government securities."

15
Eventually it was discovered that Franklin's share certificate operation was a fraud. Money expended by charitable, religious, and other organizations in consideration for Franklin share certificates was not being used for legitimate purposes, but instead was being siphoned off for the personal and other improper use by certain individual Franklin officers and employees. In November 1988, the NCUA, acting pursuant to its statutory authority, placed Franklin into involuntary liquidation and appointed itself Liquidating Agent, on the ground that the credit union was insolvent.

16
The Petitioner asserts that it did not seek out Franklin as a depository for its funds, but instead was solicited as a nonmember to place large sums of money in Franklin. For several years, the Petitioner transferred money to Franklin, receiving in each instance a letter from a representative of Franklin indicating that the funds had been received, that a certificate had been issued, and that such deposits were collateralized by United States government securities. The Petitioner claims that it was confident that its money was secure, notwithstanding the $100,000 limit of insurance, because of the collateralization by government securities. Only after the collapse of Franklin did the Petitioner learn that the statements concerning the collateralization were false.2

17
In December 1988, following the commencement of the liquidation proceedings, the Petitioner submitted an administrative claim for federal credit union share insurance. The NCUA determined that the certificates were insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund up to a total of $341,883.02, leaving an uninsured amount of $2,114,596.44. In conjunction with the written receipt of that determination by the NCUA, the Petitioner also received a certificate issued by the NCUA which indicated that the Petitioner was the holder of a claim equalling the uninsured amount.

18
The Petitioner contends that as a result of Franklin's representations that its deposits were collateralized, it should be considered a secured creditor entitled to first priority under category (a) of the Priority Schedule. The Petitioner argues that each letter from Franklin, signed by credit union officials, indicating that the Petitioner's deposit was secured by United States government securities, was sufficient evidence of a security agreement. The Petitioner further contends that even if its interest is not deemed "secured," its claim falls under category (g) as a general creditor.

19
It has been the Petitioner's consistent position that it is entitled to priority over members of Franklin and the NCUA, and that there are or should be funds available to pay the Petitioner its entire loss as a "creditor" of Franklin in accordance with the Priority Schedule. In the alternative, the Petitioner argues that even if it is not a "creditor," it is entitled to a priority preference by virtue of equitable constructive trust principles.

20
On March 8, 1990, the Liquidating Agent rejected the Petitioner's claim for "creditor" status and found instead that the Petitioner was to be treated as a "member" of Franklin because its deposits were insured. On January 17, 1991, the Board upheld the decision of the Liquidating Agent, finding that the Petitioner was a "member to the extent of uninsured shares" within the meaning of the payout priority schedule.

II.

21
The Board's conclusion that Petitioner is a "member" of the credit union for purposes of the payout schedule rested in part on its determination that Petitioner is an insured shareholder whose share certificates constitute "member accounts." The language of the statute associates "insured accounts" with "members" in a variety of sections. For example, "the term 'insured account' means the total amount of the account in the member's name (after deducting offsets) less any part thereof which is in excess of $100,000." 12 U.S.C. § 1787(k)(1) (emphasis added). The statute also directs that, "in determining the amount [of insurance] due to any member, there shall be added together all accounts in the credit union maintained by him for his own benefit either in his own name or in the names of others." Id. (emphasis added). Similarly, section 1781(a) states that the NCUA "shall insure the member accounts of all Federal credit unions." (Emphasis added).

22
It is undisputed that the Petitioner's share certificates in Franklin gave rise to an "insured account" within the meaning of the statute. This is evidenced by the fact that the Petitioner applied for such insurance and received an insurance payout of about $350,000. The NCUA therefore contends, and the Board found, that because it is undisputed that the Petitioner held insured share certificates, which thereby constituted a "member account," it necessarily follows that the Petitioner is in this sense a "member." Because the Petitioner held shares that were insured in part but not in full, it follows that the Petitioner is a "member to the extent of uninsured shares," which falls within category (h) of the NCUA's Priority Schedule.

23
The only provision defining the term "member" appears in 12 C.F.R. § 745, and supports a finding that members and nonmembers are to be treated identically for purposes of classification and treatment of an account. Section 745.1(b) provides in part, "[t]he terms member or members as used in this part mean those persons enumerated in the credit union's field of membership ... includ[ing] those nonmembers permitted under the Act to maintain accounts in an insured credit union." (Emphasis in original).

24
The definition of "member account" similarly equates members and nonmembers for purposes of classification and treatment of an account:

25
[A] share, share certificate, or share draft account account [sic] of a member of a credit union ... and, in the case of a credit union serving predominantly low-income members (as defined by the Board), such terms (when referring to the account of a nonmember served by such credit union) mean a share, share certificate, or share draft account account [sic] of such nonmember which is of a type approved by the Board and evidences money or its equivalent received or held by such credit union in the usual course of business and for which it has given or is obligated to give credit to the account of such nonmember....

26
12 U.S.C. § 1752(5). Section 1752(5) includes nonmember share certificate accounts in low-income credit unions in its definition of "member account." Therefore, such insured nonmembers are treated as "members" of the credit union for purposes of classification and treatment of their accounts.

27
We reject Petitioner's claim that it is a "creditor" of Franklin for the simple reason that the express terms of the Act provide that the Petitioner's shares constitute equity and not debt. The statute provides that where a federal credit union issues share certificates to a person or organization within or without its field of membership, those share certificates "represent[ ] equity." 12 U.S.C. § 1757(6). Therefore, it is clear from the terms of the statute that the Petitioner is an equity holder of Franklin, and not a creditor.

28
We also reject the Petitioner's argument that it cannot be a "member" because it is in fact a "nonmember" within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. § 1757(6). Section 1757(6) provides that where, as here, a federal credit union is designated by the NCUA as a "credit union serving predominantly low-income members," the credit union may issue share certificates not only to the persons or entities within its limited field of membership, but also to "nonmembers," such as charitable or religious organizations. The Petitioner correctly asserts that it is a "nonmember" within the meaning of this provision. As a nonmember, the Petitioner had no right to subscribe to shares of stock or to be elected to the membership. 12 U.S.C. § 1759. Further, the Petitioner was not entitled to vote, obtain loans or hold office in the credit union. Id. at §§ 1757(7), 1759, 1760.

29
It is clear that for purposes of its participation in, and governance of, the various credit union activities, the Petitioner was a nonmember that did not share many of the rights and benefits otherwise enjoyed by credit union "members." It does not follow, however, that the Petitioner is separate and distinct from "members" in all respects. In fact, the Petitioner, although a "nonmember" as defined by section 1757(6), was treated as a "member" with regard to the classification of its account, most notably with respect to the payment of insurance upon liquidation. It necessarily follows that for purposes of classification and treatment of the Petitioner's account, the Petitioner was treated as a "member" of the credit union. That classification and treatment of Petitioner's account logically extends not only to the payment of insurance upon the involuntary liquidation of the credit union, but also to the disbursement of the credit union's assets upon liquidation.

30
We simply cannot overlook the inconsistency in treating the Petitioner as a "member" of Franklin, thereby entitling it to the same insurance benefits as that enjoyed only by holders of "member accounts" and at the same time conferring upon the Petitioner priority creditor status to the detriment of all other insured accountholders whose accounts exceeded the insured limit. By applying for and accepting the insurance available for member accounts, the Petitioner impliedly agreed that its account was a member account and that it was to be treated as a member of Franklin for purposes of classification and treatment of its account. We conclude that the Petitioner was a "member to the extent of uninsured shares" for purposes of distribution under the priority schedule. Any other interpretation would be contrary to the Act and regulations and would result in a grossly inequitable distribution of the liquidation proceeds, at the expense of some of the other accountholders.

III.

31
We also reject Petitioner's argument that it is entitled to the imposition of a constructive trust placed on the assets available at the time Franklin closed. The Petitioner asserts that equity dictates that a constructive trust is appropriate because it was induced by fraud to purchase share certificates in Franklin and because the NCUA was negligent in performing its duty to discover that fraud. Further, it asserts that it suffered harm unique from other depositors in that Franklin's fraud harmed the Petitioner to a much greater extent than any other depositor, simply by virtue of the amount of its loss.

32
We find Petitioner's argument to be without merit. First, it has been held that the regulatory activities of a government agency do not give rise to a duty to discover and report possible fraud or wrongdoing. See, e.g., North Dakota v. Merchants Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 634 F.2d 368, 379 n. 20 (8th Cir.1980) (en banc) (in regulating banks pursuant to the National Bank Act, the Comptroller of the Currency has no duty to a bank or its shareholders). The NCUA was under no duty to discover or warn Franklin shareholders of fraudulent activities, and the Petitioner has no equitable claim based on regulatory negligence.

33
Second, the Petitioner fails to establish that it was the only accountholder of the credit union that was fraudulently induced to purchase share certificates in excess of applicable insurance coverage. Nor did Petitioner suffer a fraud unique from other accountholders by Franklin's assurances that its certificates would be collateralized by government securities. The record establishes that at least one other accountholder, the Benedictine Sisters of the Annunciation, received similar assurances.

34
Finally, there is no equitable basis for the Petitioner's argument that it deserves priority over other accountholders because it stands to suffer the most substantial loss. We simply can find no basis in equity for giving the Petitioner a disproportionate advantage over other Franklin shareholders who also suffered losses.

IV.

35
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Petitioner was properly classified as a member to the extent of its uninsured shares and that it is not entitled to the imposition of a constructive trust in its favor. Accordingly, the judgment of the National Credit Union Board is affirmed.

1
We note that subsequent to the events occurring herein, the National Credit Union Administration promulgated new regulations governing the involuntary liquidation of federal credit unions. Effective November 7, 1991, the regulatory provision entitled "Payout priorities in involuntary liquidation," deletes the former reference to "members," and instead provides that for purposes of payout priorities upon involuntary liquidation, "[s]hareholders to the extent of their respective uninsured shares and the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund to the extent of its payment of share insurance" have equal priority with respect to each other, and have lower priority than either secured or general creditors. 56 Fed.Reg. 56,926 (1991) (to be codified at 12 C.F.R. § 709.5(b)(6)) (emphasis added). We do not rely to any extent upon this change in the regulations for the basis of our decision herein

2
At no time did the Petitioner receive copies of the government securities allegedly collateralizing the certificates or any other document identifying these securities or confirming their existence, other than the letters from Franklin
sw
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

good article

Postby sw » Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:56 am

Good Article that lists some of the members of the Franklin CU.



Franklin Officials Question Whether $- Million Gone; [Sunrise Edition]

Paul Goodsell. Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: Nov 13, 1988. pg. 1.B



Full Text (1155 words)

(Copyright 1988 Omaha World-Herald Company)



Three members of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union board said they question whether $0 million is actually missing from the credit union.



"There's an image of guilt projected already," board member Glenn Mitchell said. "Franklin has not been given an opportunity to live by the American code: innocent until proven guilty."



Federal regulators said last week that they have begun liquidating Franklin after discovering that $0 million in deposits allegedly was not recorded on the credit union's books.



The National Credit Union Administration took control of Franklin Nov. 4, and FBI and Internal Revenue Service agents have been investigating the institution.



Authorities Are Criticized



Three board members interviewed Friday and Saturday backed the credit union's staff, including chief executive Lawrence E. King Jr., and criticized the actions of federal authorities.



Mitchell and other board members said that until meeting last week with federal officials they knew nothing of allegations that certificates of deposit were not recorded.



Earlier, Mitchell said, federal examiners had raised questions about policies and practices at the credit union but had not mentioned such a major problem. He said the credit union board was responding to the policy questions, which he would not reveal.



"Everything that was requested of us was either in process, being examined, or being reviewed," said Mitchell, an Omaha School District administrator. "If there's a problem now, why didn't it show up then?"



The Rev. Stan Kessler, another board member, said he was "totally befuddled" by the allegation that $0 million is missing.



"The only thing that I can say is all of this is just an absolute surprise, based on information I was privy to as a member of the board," Kessler said. "I sure hope they get to the bottom of this and find out what's going on."



Kessler said federal examiners did not tell the board in advance that the credit union was in danger of being taken over.



"They didn't say, 'This is likely, this is a possibility,' " he said. "There was nothing that indicated to the board that something like this was in the works."



At the time of the Nov. 4 takeover, Kessler said, it seemed to be "overkill" for the federal credit union agency to suddenly move in. He said, however, the action was within the agency's legal jurisdiction.'Very Exaggerated



"On the surface, it seems very exaggerated," said board member Floyd Waterman, a University of Nebraska at Omaha professor.



Said Mitchell: "Someone must be in line for a promotion. If it's not $0 million, will they (Franklin officials) get as many days of reprieve as they have of torment?"



Mitchell said the board is reserving judgment on the allegations and Franklin's future until federal officials provide more information.



"We're taking a wait-and-see attitude," he said.



Meanwhile, Franklin's activities have been disrupted by the takeover. Instead of banking at the main office at 1723 N. 33rd St. or the South Omaha branch at 2429 M St., credit union members now must go to a temporary office at 217 S. 17th St. to withdraw their money. Automatic bill-paying and other services have been ended.



And unless a new credit union is started to replace Franklin, there will be fewer financial options for residents in the north Omaha area, Mitchell said.



"You don't see a First National Bank on 33rd and Parker, you don't see a FirsTier in an area where people will drive through with their windows raised," Mitchell said.



The loss of Franklin would be a major blow to the financial well-being and confidence of the north Omaha community, credit union co-founder Rodney Wead said.



'Too Big a Loss'



"We have to do something about that," Wead said. "It's too big a loss. I don't want to see the black community lose confidence in themselves."



Wead, who no longer is involved with Franklin, was among the people who started Franklin in late 1968. He now heads United Methodist Community Center, which includes Wesley House.



"The credit union was designed for welfare mothers and fathers," he said.



At first, he said, the maximum loan amount was $00. Members who borrowed money to buy furnishings, winter coats or other small items also were able to develop a credit record that allowed them to approach businesses or other institutions for larger loans, he said.



"Then, teaching thrift, we would put a couple of extra dollars onto their monthly payments and add it to their account," Wead said. "I think it taught a lot of folks how to save. Those are things that we simply can't lose."



Wead said King was hired in July 1970 at a time when the credit union was about ready to fold.



"The small loans weren't coming back as fast as they should have," he said.



Wead said the credit union needed more financial backing from Omaha businesses, churches or other organizations.



"We just didn't have a person like Larry who would get out and sell the credit union," Wead said. He said King has been the key man in developing Franklin "with his innate marketing skills, and his ability to put that credit union front and center in our community."



But the long-term strength of Franklin - and one of its main virtues - is the pride that the north Omaha community has been able to take in the credit union, Wead said.



"They saw some ownership there," he said.



Wead said he did not know whether the credit union had strayed from its original "grassroots" role. But he said he would be willing to work with people who want to restore Franklin or set up a successor.



"I haven't been asked," he said. "But I would sure work my can off to make it work."



Lyn Wallin Ziegenbein, executive director of the Peter Kiewit Foundation, which has deposits in the credit union, said she didn't know whether a new credit union will be established.'



Community Must Decide'



"The first move needs to come from those whose lives are most affected," she said. "The community must decide if they want one to be reorganized."



Mrs. Ziegenbein said she met Friday with J. Leonard Skiles, regional director of the National Credit Union Administration. She said the informal session was intended to discuss Franklin's condition and discover whether it will be possible to have another organization assume Franklin's role.



In the past, she said, local corporations have backed Franklin because "they felt this was an important service in the minority community."



The foundation, Nebraska's largest, has a $00,000 certificate of deposit with Franklin. The foundation had not filed a claim for its money, she said.



Federal authorities said they have received claims so far for $5 million of the $0 million in unrecorded certificates of deposit.



"It's too early to tell what, if anything, is possible to do," she said. "Mr. Skiles did say to me this is hardly a typical credit union failure."



Bank Failure Business Conditions Misconduct



Credit: World-Herald Staff Writer
sw
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

long articles

Postby sw » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:02 pm

sorry for the lengthy articles but they are really meaty....


Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for educational purposes

Dec 1, 1989 Franklin Board of Directors Named in Federal Lawsuit; [Sunrise Edition] David Thompson. Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb. pg. 1

Full Text (896 words)
(Copyright 1989 Omaha World-Herald Company)


Federal regulators filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union board of directors and its supervisory committee, seeking to recover $39 million missing from the credit union.

The National Credit Union Administration said the money disappeared as the result of illegal actions of Franklin's manager-treasurer, Lawrence E. King Jr., and head accountant, E. Thomas Harvey Jr.

The civil suit names 16 directors and former directors and 10 members and former members of the supervisory committee. Two of the defendants served at one time or another on both groups, the suit said.

Former Mayor Walt Calinger and his wife, Nancy, were among those named as former members of Franklin's board of directors.

The lawsuit was the fifth filed by the NCUA since Franklin collapsed Nov. 4, 1988. Earlier suits named King; his wife, Alice Ploche King; a trust established in the name of their son, Lawrence E. King III; and the Consumer Services Organization, which was affiliated with Franklin.

Seven People Charged

King and his wife were among seven people charged with fraud and tax crimes as the result of their alleged actions in Franklin activities.

In the suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, NCUA contended that while Franklin was under the control of King and the board of directors, the credit union sold millions of dollars of certificates of deposit at above-market rates of interest.

King committed "a long series of fraudulent, dishonest and illegal actions by which funds were transferred from Franklin to himself" and others, the suit said.

Harvey, Franklin's head accountant, also misappropriated credit union funds between 1975 and the time of the collapse, the suit said.

NCUA said the board of directors' "negligence, inaction, mismanagement" caused the $39 million loss.

Specifically, the suit said, the directors:

- Relied on audits by the NCUA and failed to have their own audits conducted from 1984 until the time Franklin failed.

- Ignored warnings of the NCUA and delegated "excessive authority and discretion to credit union officials," especially King and Harvey.

- Ignored complaints by Franklin employees about "improprieties" and approved without question the activities of King and Harvey.

- Allowed King to pick replacements for directors without questions and elected some people who were without the necessary qualifications.

- Made no attempt to find out where King obtained money that he spent lavishly.

- Allowed Franklin funds to become "hopelessly" mixed with the personal and business affairs of King.

- Failed to question how the credit union was able to offer certificates of deposit at higher-than-market rate.No Audits

The supervisory committee contributed to the losses by failing to have any audit conducted between July 31, 1984, and November 1988 even though annual audits were required by law and were ordered by the NCUA, the suit said.

The lawsuit asks for $39,084,454.

The suit names as defendants these 10 people who were on the board at the time Franklin was liquidated and six other former directors. Those allegedly on the board at the time of liquidation were:

Charles Jean-Baptiste, chairman, who now lives in Kansas City, Kan., where he is an assistant to the regional director of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; James C. Hart Jr., an assistant city attorney who was board secretary; Floyd Waterman, a University of Nebraska at Omaha professor; Jeanne Rogers, Druid Hill School principal who also served on the supervisory committee; Carnell Deason, a job placement employee with the Omaha School District; Helen Patterson, 4927 Pratt St.; Robert Jones, 2218 Evans St., retired; the Rev. Stan Kessler, Dundee Presbyterian Church; Glenn E. Mitchell Sr., staff assistant in the Omaha School District office; and Mrs. Calinger.

Former Members

Those named as former board members were Arthur Miller, chairman prior to 1985 and a City of Omaha Public Works Department employee; Myrtle Browder, a member of the Nebraska Urban League Guild; Jarrett Webb, who is married to a cousin of King; June Swanigan, associate director of United Methodist Community Center who also served on the Franklin supervisory committee; Marie Bastian, Bergan Mercy Hospital secretary; and Calinger.

Named as defendants for their role on the supervisory committee were these former members: Dr. Paul Lee, who served in 1983-85 before moving to Greensboro, N.C.; Dr. William Johnson, of Omaha, also 1983-85; Thelma Dean, wife of a Union Pacific car attendant; Thomas O. Davis, acting executive director of Boys' Clubs of Omaha; Tommie Adams, Omaha electrical contractor; Glenn Thomas, 6005 Bridle Path; S.P. Benson, acting city planning director; and Rev. Negil McPherson, pastor of Pilgrim Baptist Church.

Benson said Thursday he was asked to serve on the committee, but he declined because he was already involved with the city employees credit union and did not have time. He said he never went to any meetings and did not receive any information about the supervisory committee.

No Meetings Held

McPherson said in an earlier interview that he agreed to serve but no meetings were ever held.

Davis said earlier that he was never notified of any meetings and wasn't aware the committee was responsible for audits.

Adams said in an earlier interview that he attended a couple of committee meetings involving the completed 1984 audit, but he did not know the committee was responsible for audits.

Ms. Swanigan said she received a letter naming her to the committee but no duties were stated and no meetings were held.

Credit: World-Herald Staff Writer
sw
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Rodney Wead

Postby sw » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:12 pm

Rodney Wead is a co founder of the Franklin Credit Union and sat on the board with Larry King. Here is biographical info on him:



Omaha Black Music Hall of Fame | Advertise - [Cached Version]
Published on: 12/3/2008 Last Visited: 12/3/2008
Dr. Rodney Wead Omaha Black Music Hall of Fame | Advertise
...
Dr. Rodney Wead

Dr. Rodney Wead, born and raised in Omaha, Nebraska, and without a doubt has become one of America's best and brightest humanitarian super stars. From humble beginnings to shining star, Dr. Wead's expertise as an educator and in the areas of Not-for-Profit sector, economic development, African-American studies, cultural diversity , alternative educational systems development programs are but a few of vast area's Dr. Wead has excelled.

Dr. Rodney Wead received his B.S. in History and Education in 1957 from Dana College, Blair Nebraska. He received his M.A. in Urban Studies, in 1976 from Roosevelt University, Chicago, Illinois and finally his Ph.D in Sociology in 1980, from the Union Institute, of Cincinnati, Ohio. Doctorial Dissertation: A Historical Perspective on Cooperatives and Case Examples for New Direction.

Areas of effectiveness for Dr. Wead are as follows but are not limited to:
...
In 1958 thru 1966, Dr. Rodney Wead was employed as an Educational Therapist for the Nebraska Psychiatric institute, in Omaha, Nebraska. While there he taught emotionally disturbed and mentally handicapped children, designed special classes for alcoholic adults and worked in therapy groups for teenagers.

In 1966 thru 1968 as Director of Community Relations for Catholic Social Action of Nebraska, Omaha, Dr. Wead directed one of the first VISTA programs for the area and instituted a newspaper specially edited for a minority neighborhood. Dr. Wead founded the first "Pocket Playground". He also created an economic development project called the Lake Charles organization. The project included the pocket playgrounds, rehabbed housing and a 100 unit apartment complex for low to moderate income citizens.

In 1968 thru 1974 as Executive Director of the united Methodist Community Centers, Inc. in Omaha, Dr Wead was responsible for encouraging minorities to establish their own business ventures. Results included the establishment of a credit union, the Community Bank of Nebraska, the nation's first "all day" day care center, the nation's third black owned radio station, KOWH AM-FM, and the development of the Omaha Economics Development Corporation which built a 200 unit housing center and a 10 unit-strip shopping mall.

In 1974 thru 1983 as Associated Executive Director of the Community Renewal Society of Chicago, Illinois, Dr. Wead's duties included providing technical assistance to 20 established community organizations. This resulted in the founding of radio station WSSD, the first community-owned radio station in Illinois. He also helped found housing, food and consumer cooperatives and served as consultant to 200 unit Lake Shore Housing Projects, allocated monies to emerging community organizations and founded the Chicago Black United Fund.

In 1983-1991 as Executive Director of The United Methodist Community Centers, Inc., of Omaha, Nebraska, Dr. Wead's responsibilities included managing materials, resources and programs for this three-location community center including fund raising from multiple sources and monitoring 27 services programs. Personally initiated programs for women in jails and prisons and developed sweat equity housing project for Omaha. Dr, Wead established college education incentives for minority students.

Dr. Wead in 1991 thru 1992 served as Assistant Professor of Black Studies at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

In 1992 thru 1997 Dr. Wead, as Executive Director of Neighborhood House Inc., in Columbus, Ohio, responsibilities included supervision of staff and all programs and activities in a multi-purpose Settlement House. He was responsible for a major health center, an 18 hour day care center for children three and above, an infant/toddler day care center, women's resource center, outpatient counseling services, food pantry and group work programs. Dr. Wead also developed a rehabbed housing program that totaled 3.2 million dollars partnering with the Columbus Housing Partnership.

In 1997 to the present Dr. Rodney Wead, as president/Chief Executive Officer for the Grace Hill Settlement House, a 100 year old Settlement House that is a full-service, and United Way Agency serving 42,000 disadvantaged persons annually within the neighborhoods of the City of St. Louis County and St. Charles County using the Member Organized Resource Exchange (M.O.R.E) System of resident self-help.
sw
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Omaha's Glenn Mitchell as a kid

Postby sw » Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:21 pm

I thought this was a priceless find. Shows another child's assessment that Omaha Franklin Credit Union board member Glenn Mitchell was mean as hell as a child. Notice this person says she still checks on Glenn to this day because he was so damn mean as a child. I consider this a good find.

sw


In the good old valentine days


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By BETTY BELL
Express Staff Writer


When I was 10, Glenn Mitchell was the meanest kid in class, maybe in the whole school, possibly in all of Omaha. I think he was bypassed for the gene that makes us consider consequences. Because of the mean thing he did on Valentine's Day, I didn't put him in a file with the rest of my early joys and anxieties. It was only a few years ago that I quit checking for his name in Criminal Dispositions—I figured an outlaw of Glenn's caliber wasn't likely to still be on the upside of the turf.

As that Valentine's Day neared, my two sisters and I spent all of our after-school time cutting out and pasting and addressing our valentines. We'd walked the two blocks to Saunder's Drug Store and bought our fixings—big white sheets of paper lace and red construction paper and square red envelopes, enough for everyone in our classes. There weren't Hallmark cookie-cutter cards then; our whole supply probably didn't cost more than the $2 a-pop that Hallmark gets for their perfectly turned out cards.

Pause here pilgrims, I have to ask you to cut me some slack. Even though it's a beguiling tale I have going here, it's possible it reminds you of the dredged-up stuff you get from Auntie or Grannie or Uncle Ben. But be magnanimous. On one day so far away you can't imagine it, you'll find yourself a step or two from the swan-dive edge of the big plank, and then you'll see—then you'll find it impossible not to look over your shoulder and, if you can get someone pinned down, expound on some extraordinarily good stuff.

But back to the script: I had to work within the bounds of Miss Olgivie's two rules for Valentine's Day: No one to be slighted. No comic valentines. I was nervous when I took my scissors and cut into my first piece of lace and it showed; the heart I cut was ragged. And when I pasted it to its red base, I blobbed a bit of flour and water paste in the corner. Throwing it away was too wasteful to consider, and it came to me suddenly, probably just like a mean streak came upon Glenn, that there was wiggle room within the rules. There was room for guile, even if I didn't know guile's name. Clearly, this was the card for Glenn Mitchell. I was immediately cheered.

The next card didn't have anything concrete to mark it as inferior, but it smacked of mediocrity—the perfect card for Miss Goldy Locks—always-smiling, do-no-wrong Alice Bixby. Another card was just right for best friend Shirley, and I saved the best card for Paul Schofield, who was everything Glenn was not. Every card precisely suited a particular classmate that Valentine's Day—it was the year that proved to be my introduction to guile—simple, useful, 101 Guile.

The big day passed agonizingly slow until late afternoon when Miss Olgivie, no surprise, chose Alice Bixby to help distribute the cards. All 23 of us received one, but that wasn't the whole story. Glenn Mitchell had stuffed the Valentine box with comic valentines disguised in the same red envelopes the rest of used to exchange messages of friendship and love. My valentine was a kinky-haired girl with bedspring hair poking up everywhere. He'd nailed me dead. When I looked up, cheeks burning, to see if anyone had seen the dreadful thing, I noticed a general quiet, actually a furtive profound quiet, and I sensed I hadn't been singled out. Furtively, we showed one another Glenn's valentines. He'd nailed Fat Frances and Beanpole Tom and Runny Nose Bill and Poor Dumb Henry too—all of us, every card was dead-on. None of them were signed, of course, but Glenn didn't have a nasty card to show us.

A couple of days ago, I checked Chateau and Jane's for fixings so I could make a special valentine for my granddaughter instead of giving her one of the Hallmark clones. The closest thing to the so-necessary sheets of white lace were six-packs of heart-shaped doilies, doilies thick and sturdy enough to slap beer mugs on, doilies you'd need pruning shears to cut, doilies that offered no creative options. And that's a concern to me. How are kids learning Beginner's Guile now? We don't want them to grow up to be guile professionals—like in Congress or among oil company honchos—but mercy, what a harsh, blunt world it'd be with no guile at all.
sw
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Percival » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:03 am

Hey SW I am currently going back and re-reading Decamp's book for the tenth time to see if I missed anything and I just noticed on page 58 in the chapter entitled "The Franklin Committee" that they had found a connection between King and a pedophile child sex abuse ring in KANSAS CITY in addition to Omaha and if I recall correctly wasnt it you who mentioned that you had been abused in Kansas City before you were in Omaha or was that someone else?


Anyway, you may have already been aware of that comment but I wanted to pass it along since I thought it was you who mentioned Kansas as a place you had endured some abuse as a child.


Also as a side note and I have no idea where I am headed with this but I have always been a big college football fan and I remember back in the 80s when all this was going down and Omaha was in the midst of all these scandals the University of Nebraska Cornhusker football team was the most dominant program in the nation at the time, they were just absolutely dominant for the entire decade and now I am wondering if their success was somehow in some strange way connected to all of this and maybe some of those Boys Town mind controlled kids were part of the team in some capacity or whatever, I just remember that Cornhusker football was SOOOOO big during this time and then it sort of fell off the map and its never been the same since that time.
User avatar
Percival
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:09 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:04 pm

http://www.franklincase.org/12-24-88.htm

"...Sister Swain told The World-Herald that her organization did not make any grants to CSO. She said her signature was forged on the letters that bore the Sisters of Loretto letterhead.
"They never came out of this office," she said.

The World-Herald reported last month that four national church organizations have said they did not make $1.3 million in grants that CSO had claimed as revenues....."


So, does this make two nuns organizations that were cheated, or four?
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to The Franklin Scandal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests