NCUA Bans Founding CEO of a Florida Credit Union
Linda Pelham allegedly engages in improper conduct with a friend’s business accounts.
The NCUA Thursday banned Linda S. Pelham, the apparent founding president/CEO of the $35.5 million Everglades Federal Credit Union, for “improper conduct,” which led to financial damage of the Clewiston, Fla.-based cooperative.
Pelham’s online professional profile shows she served as president/CEO of Everglades FCU from 1980 to 2013. However, the credit union was not chartered until 1985, and she left the Everglades FCU at the end of the fourth quarter in 2012, according to NCUA records.
Pelham allegedly engaged in or directed others to engage in improper conduct in relation to “notice of freeze” or “notice of levy” involving business accounts of her friend who was a member of the credit union, the NCUA’s prohibition order claimed.
Pelham also improperly permitted this unidentified friend to make charges on Pelham’s credit union corporate credit card.
Additionally, the former CEO allegedly created an unspecified conflict of interest between Pelham’s financial interest and those of one of her family members and the interests of the credit union, according to the NCUA.
This conflict of interest “caused financial and/or other damage to Everglades Federal Credit Union,” the federal agency alleged.
The NCUA’s prohibition order did not specify the monetary amount of that damage or in what years the improper conduct occurred.
A review of the credit union’s financial performance reports from 2000 to 2012 shows the 4,419-member Everglades FCU posted mostly six-figure net income gains, except for 2008 when the credit union recorded a net income loss of $593,596. From 2013 to the end of the third quarter of 2018, the credit union has posted net income gains, including a net worth that has ranged from 11% to 13% over the last six years, according to NCUA financial performance reports.
Without admitting or denying the accuracy of the NCUA’s allegations, Pelham nevertheless acknowledged in the prohibition order that there were “good and sufficient grounds” for the federal agency to prohibit her from ever participating in the affairs of any federally insured financial institution.