... our democracy in action.
✅ Question of the day: "Which is more fun: 1) Reading more about the tortured antics over at the N.C. Credit Union Division or 2) doing your taxes?" I agree, but before you rush off...
Here's a brief article which gives you a summary of the plot so far [link to CUToday story] to help you keep up. Don't despair, more to follow. As they say, there are only three certainties in life: death, taxes, and the search for a straight answer from the NCCUD.
Would like to make one side note. Last election cycle at SECU, almost a dozen members submitted their application to the SECU Board Nominating Committee for consideration. The "application" runs @ 20 pages and is well designed to discourage. The Nominating Committee offered interviews for each applicant also. As it worked out, the Nominating Committee selected the 3 incumbent board members as its slate as "most qualified". At the Annual Meeting the SECU membership said "uh-uh" and sent those 3 packing.
The principal concern with the NCCUD centers on the request to the Nominating Committee by SECU member Ms. Susie Ford to seek election, after she saw that the incumbents were the preferred slate. Ms. Ford was denied the opportunity to run [see that denial here] although she was a well-qualified member.
The question the Administrator and the Credit Union Commission keep trying to purple duck is whether any N.C. state-chartered credit union can deny an eligible, qualified member the right to seek a board seat?
As simple as that... no complaint, no intrigue, no twisted legal zig or zag, no bob or weave. The NCCUD will end up answering that question to the citizens of North Carolina and our 3 million+ credit union members. You can count on that, but evidently more embarrassment and erosion of credibility is required.
Seems like 2024 may be the year folks decide whether our credit unions, our regulators, our democracy are working as designed - for the people... or for some other purpose?
... as of last week the North Carolina Credit Union Division doesn't appear to know the answer!
To your other points, would it even matter if she (or any other member) well-qualified?you would argue she is a member and should therefore be qualified right?
ReplyDeleteThat is what the law and bylaws state. Would you ignore the law?
DeleteNot at all! Just making it clear that any member “well qualified” or otherwise should be eligible.
Delete"Nominating Committee selected the 3 incumbent board members as its slate as "most qualified"
ReplyDeleteLOL of course ... honor among thieves ....
Was she denied the opportunity to run or did she not go through the required steps? There is a difference. Others that were not the recommended candidates were on the ballot and even won. She stated “ requiring me to have filed an application with the Nominating Committee to even be eligible to run”. There is an application process for just about every thing these days including running for president, applying for a job, applying for a loan, changing a color on my house with the HOA. If someone can’t even go through the defined steps that include filling out an application, I don’t want them to be apart of setting the strategic direction of the second largest CU in the world.
ReplyDeleteHow qualified are the current board members? Who qualified them? Who holds the keys? Perhaps there’s some deeper thinking to consider here.
DeleteThe point of the argument is not if she is qualified, it is if she is eligible to run. To be eligible, one of the steps is to submit the application which lists…. Her qualifications. Submitting an application so that people’s qualifications can be validated allows us to avoid a George Santos situation. If people could still be nominated at the time of the annual meeting, people could stand up and makeup what ever qualifications they wanted to.
Delete11:14 1) You are correct, Ms. Ford was denied the opportunity to self-nominate - see the email rejection from SECU here [https://www.secujustasking.com/2024/04/the-eclipse-of-north-carolina-credit_9.html].
ReplyDelete2) You are also correct, SECU denied Ms. Ford the opportunity to self-nominate: "Since you did not submit a completed Candidate Package before the deadline..."
3) Since we agree on what happened, all you need to know is that that denial was against the law and SECU bylaws.
All you need to know is she didn’t follow the steps required. Boo hoo
Delete8:36 am You believe SECU members should be required to follow illegal restrictions to seek nomination by their fellow SECU members?
DeleteThat "attitude" toward member-ownership and basic democratic principles is what got those 3 incumbents put in their place last year - out to pasture!
1:53pm The only qualifications required by the SECU bylaws are that the individual be at least 18 years old and a member willing to serve. All the current board members appear to be over 18 years old and are serving willingly.
ReplyDeleteIs there any requirement that a member be in good standing?
Delete5:12 pm No, but from federal regulators: a board member "cannot have been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or breach of trust unless the NCUA Board has waived the prohibition for the conviction."
Delete3:50 pm 1) You are correct. We both agree that Ms. Ford is qualified to serve, there is no argument on that.
ReplyDelete2) You are also correct; to be eligible to be nominated by the Nominating Committee a member must submit a Candidate Package.
3) Not a few members believe there are already a couple of "Georges" sitting on the SECU Board, so the Nominating Committee screening process is not infallible.
4) Nominations from the floor have not been permitted for several years, so not sure what that remark is about.
4) The SECU bylaws and law prohibit the Nominating Committee from denying a qualified SECU member the right to self-nominate, after their slate has been announced.
5) Ms. Ford as we agreed was qualified; and as we agreed was denied her legal right to self-nominate.
6) Maybe now, you would have better luck than others in explaining that to Ms Ray. Pretty simple isn't it.
So, as part of the self-nomination process, you have to fill out an application. Which she did not do. I’m still lost. The other three who were elected to the board followed the process successfully.
Delete11:19 pm - Perhaps it is convenient for you to remain lost ? Will pick it up again today and guide you to the light, ok?
DeleteWhile the two of you shouldn’t have to do this, Mr. Blaine and Mr. Lord should run for two of the seats. One of two things will happen: if selected as a candidate, it’ll all but guarantee two seats are won, only leading to one seat needed to gain the majority in October. If not selected, it would expose this process as corrupt. There’s no way for them to justify not selecting both of you as candidates.
ReplyDelete8:56 am For the record, I will not run for the SECU Board. Not going to happen, as in never!
Delete