The SAFE/Boeing Merger Mugging In Sacramento

   Looting Sack-ramento! 

On October 27, 2026 the majority of SAFE Credit Union members chose not to approve the merger of their credit union with Boeing Employees' CU.

But wait, the SAFE Board of Directors has now appealed to the California state regulator asking DFPI to arbitrarily overturn that vote by the SAFE membership!

✅  Here's what  Dr. Scott Rose a long-time SAFE member advocate has to say about the latest effort by the SAFE Board and CEO to dismantle the credit union: 

The following is a copy of my direct communication to the Business and Consumer Services Agency (BCSA), which is the control agency for the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI).

"This outcome is not unexpected. SAFE Credit Union leadership has controlled the narrative from the start. They refused to allow an opposing ballot statement that would have allowed members to make an informed choice. 

In statewide elections, the California Secretary of State allows every ballot initiative to have a statement of support and a statement of opposition. Informed consent is the legal standard in California. 

Because SAFE refused to allow a statement of opposition on the ballot, members were not made aware that a “yes “ vote would terminate the SAFE charter.

As a physician, I am required to obtain a signed informed healthcare consent for every treatment I provide, every procedure I perform, and every medication I prescribe, to every patient. 

Legal jurisprudence requires every binding legal action to meet the mandatory legal informed consent standard. The SAFE ballot failed the legal informed consent standard because SAFE leadership refused to allow a statement of opposition to appear on the ballot. Members were denied the opportunity to hear an opposing viewpoint that may have persuaded them to cast a "no" vote.

SAFE Credit Union has an NCUA low-income designation, meaning that greater than 50% of members have annual incomes that are less than 80% of the regional median. Because legal representation is unaffordable for the average SAFE member, the majority of whom are economically disadvantaged, a legal challenge to the wording of the ballot has been impossible. As a result, the rights of all members to be fully informed of the consequences of their voting choices have been disregarded. 

The primary mission of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) is to protect consumers from predatory financial practices. Yet DFPI routinely rubber stamps credit union proposals with little regard for the interests of the members or their communities. 

In May 2026, I submitted a comprehensive twelve page letter of opposition to DFPI identifying the multitude of adverse consequences should this “merger” be allowed. I received no response to this letter.

The blatant giveaway of SAFE member-owned resources demands DFPI and BCSA intervention.  The obvious self-dealing by SAFE leadership represents corruption at its worst. A payout of over $14.5 million to the top five SAFE executives is nothing less than a legally sanctioned bribe to reward these executives for their complicity in this transaction. And the two SAFE directors who have been designated to serve on the board of Boeing Employees Credit Union will each be paid a minimum of $125,000 annually. By comparison, California law mandates that credit union directors perform their duties on a voluntary basis. 

The ultimate losers from this financial scheming will be the economically disadvantaged SAFE members who represent more than 50% of the membership. The NCUA low income designation will be lost and all associated low income member benefits will be terminated. 

This ill-conceived deal is a direct attack on the Sacramento working class community. Low income SAFE members will be the victims of this betrayal by SAFE leadership. Well-off members will simply move their assets elsewhere. With diminished deposits, employee layoffs and branch closures are inevitable.

Worst of all, other financial cooperatives will see that there are no adverse consequences for self-serving actions, and the frequency of these deals will escalate.

I have no doubt that a reputable legal team could stop this transaction in its tracks, but unlike private shareholder mergers, there are no deep pocketed investors who can fund a costly legal challenge to this travesty."

 

Stay Tuned... this is the "national test case"! 

 

  The potential massive financial gains available to CU insiders through mergers will soon reach North Carolina and SECU... you can take that to the bank! 

 

 

The SAFE/Boeing Employees' CU Merger: A Canary In The Coal Mine?

 Crunch Time!

The SAFE member vote on this proposed merger concluded last night at 6:30pm (PT). Approval requires a majority of all 250,000 SAFE Members to vote in favor.

The SAFE CU merger has raised numerous concerns nationwide. The merger appears to fail every test of financial prudence, member-owner equity, and positive community impact. [link] California is widely known for its activism in the arena of consumer protection. If California state regulatory authorities approve the SAFE/BECU merger, that approval will be used as an endorsement for a wide open, "anything goes, everything is okay" national merger assault.

✓ Much is at stake nationwide pending the SAFE/BECU decision;  

1. Mergers and consolidation are prevalent among most American industry segments and institutions. Credit unions have enthusiastically joined that stampede . Much evidence shows that this trend leads to less competition and higher prices for consumers. SAFE CU has a lower cost of operation and better loan/deposit pricing than BECU. 
2. Any benefits to SAFE members which might occur through a merger with BECU can be obtained  without forfeiting their locally-owned credit union. Every SAFE member can join BECU right now, today, for free - no merger required.  
3. There is no opposition to responsible, financially prudent mergers. But the nature of mergers has changed nationwide with noticeably adverse impacts on local communities, the cost of service to small business, and the quality of service to consumers. [link] Post merger, there will be no assurance that local funds will be reinvested in local communities.
4. If the SAFE merger occurs, California will lose regulatory authority over an institution currently serving 250,000 members, with future growth potential affecting 7+ million California consumers. Would outside supervision be superior?
5. The commercialization of California credit unions through "growth for growth's sake only" mergers will heighten the competitive tensions with for-profit banks. These type mergers may endanger and cause the loss of the tax-exempt status of all California credit unions.  “Credit unions have a mandate from Congress to serve people of modest means, though we repeatedly see growth-obsessed credit unions exploit their federal tax exemption...[Independent Community Bankers Association]" 
6. SAFE CU, as a $4.4+ billion asset institution, has a market, enterprise value of between $400/$800 million.  A real life comparable is the 2025 purchase in California by Frontwave CU of a $316 million asset bank for $56.4 million in cash [link]. The 250,000 members of SAFE are not being compensated for their ownership interests - zip, zero, nada. 
7. The official SAFE merger notice [here!] provides evidence of up to $15 million in payouts to senior executives and up to $750K in future fees to two SAFE Board members. Immediate payments result from the change in control triggered by the merger proposal. 
8. This merger does not appear to meet the basic definition and standards of an impartial, arms-length business transaction. The idea of merger was not discussed with SAFE members in advance, terms of the merger agreement have not been disclosed, alternatives/options to merger have not been presented, the required "Special Membership Meeting" to discuss the merger is not scheduled until the conclusion of the member merger vote, and the ballot includes a misleading "vote" on charitable community support.  
9. California laws provide for majority member approval of mergers [15201.a], which protect credit unions from "rogue" takeover attempts by insiders or minority member factions. Section 15201.b provides the State regulator with authority to independently approve mergers for community benefit, financial necessity, or to avoid potential failure. [link] The minority "rogue" faction supporting this SAFE merger proposal appears to arise solely within a small clique of SAFE insiders.
10. The failure of a majority of all SAFE members to vote in favor of the merger proposal will be prima facie proof that 1) SAFE members are pleased with their CU and wish to maintain independent, local control, or 2) see no benefit and much potential harm in the merger, or 3) are unaware and inadequately informed of the merger proposal.
11. For SAFE members, Sacramento, and California, there is no benefit in Department of Financial Protection & Innovation rushing into an ill-considered and poorly justified approval. A DFPI merger approval is final and fatal for SAFE CU. 

Credit unions are a the fair, responsible solution to the knowledge imbalance between experienced for-profit financial providers and vulnerable consumers.  The lack of consumer expertise in financial matters is widely apparent. What consumers do not know, can and does cost them dearly. 

Member-owned, non-profit credit unions have served to level that playing field on behalf of their consumer/members. With mergers such as SAFE/BECU, that vital role appears to be ending.

  The potential massive financial gains available to CU insiders through mergers will soon reach North Carolina And SECU... you can take that to the bank!