The truth
the whole truth
and nothing but the truth
...unless of course
the truth is inconvenient
What did the authors of the statements made in the name of the sparkasse get objectively wrong?
In December 2014 the Sparkasse held an alleged "hearing". To fulfill the legal definition of a hearing both parties have to be given the oppurtunity
to be heard. In particular an employee has to be given the right to defend himself against accusations made by an employer (SächsPerVG § 79.2).
Despite the fact, that my employer made objectively false and misleading statements about me and the actions of the persons collaborating in the memo from Sept. 10, 2016, I have to date in direct violation of the SächsPerVG § 79 2 yet to be given this opportunity.
On December 10,2014 the Sparkasse alleged, that I had persistently refused to ("beharrliche Nichtausführung") implement an order from my supervisor to instruct my employees to log late payments on leasing contracts once a month at the end of the month. My supervisor issued the instruction on Oct. 14, 2014 ("wies ...unter dem 14.10.2014 - um 12:23 Uhr - an,") with a deadlilne of December 30, 2014. The process was new and was to be tested until 30.06.2015. My employees tested it on Oct. 24, 2014. I reviewed the process with the colleague in controlling on Nov. 10, 2014 and approved it for implementation on Nov. 10, 2014.
The question, of course, is why? Why was the slanderous lie of persistant insubordination propagated? and to what purpose has it been circulated since December of 2014? The only people, who can truly answer the question, are the people, who spread the lie, who denied and withheld facts and who did basically everything within their power to slander me to deflect from the illegality of their actions. In lieu of the years long efforts these indiviuals have made to cover up the truth, they will probably not be willing to answer the question - why?
So, let's go get back to fact-checking the nonsensical claims and the information they provided to make the lies appear believable.
In order to justify the claim of "persistant" insubordination, tha authors presented a specious fiction associating the logging of late payments with an auditing report dated June 17, 2014 ("ImRahmen einer Prüfung..."). In fact, there was an audit and there were some changes made in the process of informing the corporate accounts managers, when payments were late, namely the saving of a copy of the info. As stated in the report, this change was implemented in May of 2014. So why even mention the report except to imply the order to change the logging process was part of the report and thus due on September 30, 2014.
To date the Sparkasse has not corrected the lie of persistant insubordination, nor has the Sparkasse ever mentioned the actual deadline 30.12.2014 as opposed to the fake deadline Sept. 30, 2104 spread to support the fiction of "persistant" insubordination.
Why mention an audit from the Spring of 2014, when the alleged order being ignored,
was according to the Sparkasse itself, given four months later on Oct. 14, 2014?
In a court document dated April 16, 2015, the Sparkasse falsely claimed, I had not implemented the new process ("hat die Anweisung nicht umgesetzt. Die Umsetzung musste dann von Herrn B. selbst vorgenommen werden."). To cover the fact, that I actually had implemented the process, the Sparkasse additionally claimed, that my supervisor then had to implement the process himself. The Sparkasse in no way documented or supported this claim. What exactly, did that supervisor do? When and how didi he "implement the process"? In the interest of full disclosure, the supervisor was on vacation the last two weeks of October 2014.
Upon his return on November 3, 2014 apparently one of his first acts was to go to the personnel department to ask for assistance ("um Unterstützung gebeten"). What kind of assistance? And why is a supervisor on his first day back from holiday headed straight to personnel to defame a employee? What was he doing on holiday? The allegations made in the "hearing of December 2014 and again in the hearing of January 2015 could not have come from the two ladies from personnel, who signed the paper. There is no possible way, they could have come up with the nonsense in theri filings alone. Judging by the actions of the supervisor on Nov. 3, 2014 and the comment in the filing of January 27, 2015 ("Gerne steht Ihnen auch Herr B. für Fragen zu Fachinhalten zur Verfugung.") is is pretty clear, where the false allegations originated. If I had to guess, I doubt the information presented to the workers council on January 27, 2015 came from the personnel department.
First, the author claims that the auditors report determined, that late payments were not automatically processed. ("nicht automatisiert ..in das Risikofrühwarnsystem einfließen"). That is an embarassingly stupid statement. Everyone in the Sparkasse, that had anything to do with leasing, knew that late payments were not automatically processed. Just check out any version of the 14.02 in the previous 5 years.
Next, the author claimed, that the risk could not be quantified, because it was not being systematically analyzed.
That is essentially true, but how is the transfer of the data processing from the corporate accounts managers to the leasing specialist going to change that? The answer is simple - it is not.
Transferring the logging of late payments from corpoarte accounts managers to leasing specialist has nothing to do with the data analysis. The data analysis is done by the controlling department.
The argument is completely specious. It appears to be intended to create the appearance of a serious latent risk for the Sparkasse, when in fact - no one at the time in the loan department, corporate controlling, the work out team or the organizational team for loan processing (OE 216) could name an actual case, where a leasing contract had been defaulted on without having been recognized by the risk early warning system as soon as the customer started havong financial difficulties.
It is a good idea to look at the actual economic impact here. The Sparkasse had refinanced leasing obligations in the amount of approx. EUR 80 Mio. of which volumn 25% was with three lenders. The entire leasing portfolio makes up considerably less than 1% of the loan portfolio of the Sparkasse. In any given month less than 2 % of the lessees were late on the first of the month. By the 15th of the month the number was under 20. The purpose of logging these arrears, was to insure the customers showed up in the early warning system. Only customers who were not otherwise in the system and being managed by the work out team (OE3XX), e.g. due to returned payments, poor financials, bad credit scores, the direct debot from an internal account, etc.were to be logged. In any given month the number of creditors and portfolio volume being logged ("Warnhinweis interlegt") less than 10 with a portfolio volumn of much less than TEUR 500 or 0.6% of the leasing portfolio.
On Dec. 31, 2020 the Sparkasse had EUR 3.5 Billion in customer loans (Forderungen an Kunden), that means we are talking about a latent risk of approx. 0.015%. Without going into expected loss - based upon the probability of default of each customer and the value of the assets involved - this is a metaphorical mole hill. Why is someone a) falsely accusing a female employee of not implementing an order, which was clearly implemented by that employee and b) attempting to make a metaphorical mountain out of the order itself?
The paragraph is completely irrelevant, mostly because, and this is at no time made clear, I helped develop the process to centralize the data processing in the data processing department to free up the sales teams., which should logically have been in the interest of a supervisor, whose department is measured on sales.
So why is the supervisor giving such an order? And why is the author here ieaving out the fact, that the data processing is merely being transferred from one sales team - corporate accounts, who as clearly stated in the auditing report and the relevant internal guidelines were resonsible for this data proc essing , for years had NEVER effectively done it ("Den Kundenberater ...war nicht bewusst...dass das Warnsignal ...zu hinterlegen ist.")- to another sales team, leasing. The author goes so far as to falsely state, that if the data processing were not done by the leasing specialists, then 78 (33 plus 28 plus 17) other people woud have to be given adminstrative rights to the leasing system. That is absurdly false for two reasons. First, the corporate accounts managers had been responsible for logging the late payments for years without using the leasing system. Second, many of those 78 and many more ("z.B. OE 410, OE 420...") already had the administrative rights, because the Sparkasse at one time had had the policy, that account managers should be able to calculate leasing contracts for car loans. On the other hand, the leasing specialists had specifically not had the right to log warning signs, because they are reponsible for comission business, NOT proprietary business. The administrative rights for everyone were changed, and yet the author implies, the rights were not changed, thus saving money and reducing errors.
So the real question is, why was the dataprocessing transferred to the leasing specialists and not the IT organizational team for loan processing (OE 216), a team responsible for the administrative rights and handling the data associated with loans. Why was the supervisor, so obsessed with making the leasing specialists process proprietary data for the loan department?
The author writes, that the auditting department (Huh, what the? what happened to the supervisor - is it suddenly no longer his idea?) did nothing more than implement my suggestion. Oh yes, they did. The auditting department recommended, that the repsonsibility for proprietary loan data processing be given to employees, who had previously had no training or experience with the proprietary business process. And that is not all the auditors wanted to do. The auditting department in the framework of its report, suggested that the leasing specialists take over a supervisory role for the proprietary refinancing of leasing contracts ("Intensivierung der Steuerungs- und Leitungsfunktion"). Let us be clear about this, the leasing specialists did comission sales for the account of Deutsche Leasing. The auditting department recommended, that colleagues, who have minimal formal training in proprietary loan processing be put in charge. My supervisor was all in this suggestion and gave me a direct order to evaluate establishing a leasing company (Email Oct. 14, 2014 17:46 "Ist die Empfehlung...als Auftrag zur Prüfung der Gründung einer Leasinggesellschaft zu verstehen?"), which my supervisor ordered me to do (Direkt reply to the email at18:14 "Um es noch einmal unmissverständlich klar zu machen. Setzen Sie bitte den Auftrag um."). That is just crazy,
But assume for a moment you have no concept of the internal processes or competence and authority structures? Who needs training to fly a plane, right? Why not put the leasing specialists in charge? Why not put people without knowledge and experience of proprietary business in charge? They are called "specialists" are they not? What could possibly go wrong?
Come to think of it - just how much training and experience had my superviaor had with commission business up until he got the job as department head of corporate banking at the Sparkasse? 🤔 Did he understand the implications of his order? There is no shame in not knowing everything. You cross numerous legal boundaries, however, when you try to cover your lack of understanding and mistakes by falsely accusing others.
I have been requesting the correction of these lies since Spring of 2017. The acting parties have been quite clear in refusing uphold their legal obligation to correct the lies, claiming essentially, that only a court of law will force them to "eine abschließende Bewertung des inhaltlichen Streitpunkts war nicht Gegenstand des Urteils. Es ist die Sicht der Sparkasse Leipzig auf die Dinge..."
The acting parties seem to claim the right to judge and be judged not on facts, but rather on their own lies. That is not what the law says. Contrariwise, such a position stands in direct arrogant defiance of the foundation of democracy - truth and the rule of the law.
That having been said, specious arguments deflect well from facts. Specious arguments confuse. Combined with slander, specious arguments or FUD are very effective means of impeding and corrupting democratic - including judicial - process.
There are good reasons for criminal laws against perjury and fraud.
There are good reasons for data protection laws.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.