The SAFE/Boeing Mega-Me-Merger: At Halloween, SAFE Members' Scary Choice...

   Trick Or... Trick?

Over the last year, the SAFE Board of Directors and CEO have encouraged SAFE members to bury their CU alive.  And hauntingly, to vote to make it disappear! Pretty spooky stuff! 

Chip Filson pointed out in a recent blog [link], the horrifying voting choice that SAFE members confronted:  

🔲 Voting Yes - Spine chilling!

"If members vote yes, their 85-year-old, $4.5 billion independent, high performing credit union is turned over lock, stock, and barrel to the leadership of another organization. A credit union for which they had no role in selecting,  and received no information about the new leadership, its business plans or what they will do with SAFE’s assets." Buried alive!

🔲  Voting No - Hair raising!

"If members vote no, they are stuck with leaders who gave up on their credit union’s future. SAFE’s leaders spent over a year in secret negotiations to hand over  245,000 member-owners to another credit union in return for the right payoff [$15+ million in treats!] for themselves." Macabre!

🎃 Witch would you choose? 

  A decision most grave... either way!

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!