... hard to miss that statement!
In case some of you missed it (and some of us wish we had!), the SECU membership voted by a 2 to 1 margin at the Annual Meeting yesterday to elect the four incumbent directors Bob Brinson, Mark Fleming, Stelfanie Williams, and McKinley Wooten
The election was hotly contested and @100,000 SECU members participated in the election and balloting process - a remarkable turnout. A healthy sign of member interest and participation! As you'll note from the resulting flurry of blog commenters, there was much excitement and disappointment.
What you can't see are the numerous deleted comments complaining about a rigged election and unfair tactics, etc, etc. I happen to believe the board election process was fair - period!
We all need to "get over" the whine that if our views don't prevail, that something underhanded was done - not so. And, that doesn't apply to this election only, if you know what I mean.
Now, if some of you suspect that my views haven't changed on the key issues, then we understand each other well. The reports given at the Annual Meeting provided some interesting information which we will analyze over the next few days. That review may help create a "baseline" of financial facts, against which to measure the progress of SECU, as it moves on into the future.
😎 Personally, congratulations to the new directors and - as always - I wish State Employees' Credit Union and its staff well!
... perhaps I should fly south for the winter?
The election may have been fair as in votes tallied, counted and reported however; I do not agree the information that given prior to the election was fair. How much of OUR money was spent on ads on social media platforms that only included the incumbents with no mention of the other 4? That was wrong on every level - but that's who they are! More work to continue!!!! Thank you to all who worked so hard! We didn't win this battle but the war is not over! Onward and Upward as we continue to try and hold the others accountable for OUR MEMBER OWNED credit union.
ReplyDeleteDing ding. Money talks and it can also walk. Keep your share account but close the money market and move those funds to a smaller local credit union. Refinance your mortgage and other loans to the same smaller credit union. That’s the only real voice the members have now.
DeleteWhat will they do and how do they spin it if 5-10 billion walked out the door in a month or two?
Send mama somewhere else ... they won't like speaking to a kiosk ...
DeleteIt won’t.
Delete@8:59, it wasn't wrong for the board to promote the board nominated candidates. Members created the by laws, which gives the board the responsibility a to vet and nominate who they think the best candidate are - one of many things included in their fiduciary duty, which they take seriously (in fact are personally liable for). The bylaws allow for self-nominations. This mechanism by definition and design, promotes a contested election. In what other election would an entity spend money promoting the opposition candidate(s)? Governance and democracy worked here under the current by laws. I'd like to discuss how the bylaws can be changed, perhaps having primary elections, making it easier to self-nominate, having term limits so more members can serve, being able to hear directly from all candidates prior to voting, etc. Let's put our energy into changing the rules, not complaining that we got beat within the rules.
DeleteI see that the term "self-nominate" is thrown around a lot. Actually the board did not allow those whom you refer to as self-nominated to nominate themselves and run in the election. They were forced to be member nominated with wet signatures - minimum of 500 - and thousands of members spent money on printing, paper and postage to nominate them. So it would be prudent to correct the real basics before you start a discussion.
Delete@2:13.. this is a difference without a distinction. Call it what you want, but it simply means those not nominated by the Nominating Committee. That said, self-nomination is the specific term used in our bylaws. It's not a made-up term meant to diminish how they got on the ballot. Member signatures were a ballot eligibility requirement, not a nomination - that occurred before the vote and after the committee failed to nominate them. Is it a perfect description of the process? Perhaps not. Could someone propose different language in the bylaws? Sure, go for it. Again, a difference without a distinction, and respectfully, next time around we'll do better if we stick to the substantive issues.
DeleteIt was wrong of them to spend OUR money and not disclose how much and it was wrong not to have ANY transparancy that there were other candidates on the ballot - THEY DO NOT OWN US! We are member owned, not CEO or Board member owned - it was wrong!
DeleteYes, we are member owned...and the members have spoken.
Delete@5:19 it was pretty transparent there were other candidates—they were on the ballot. Each elector was provided resources and biographies to allow them to do their research. Did some of them choose to do this research? That’s a different story.
DeleteTry harder!
ReplyDeleteSo, during last year's election the members spoke and sent a message that things need to change. The message this year seems to indicate things have been going well. Have things really changed in the past year?
ReplyDeleteNo and wouldn't it be a "sign" that in the history of conducting annual meetings - this was the first time members were NOT allowed to speak. That doesn't sound like progress to me since we are member owned and not CEO or Board Member owned!
Delete"... perhaps I should fly south for the winter?"
ReplyDeletenot right now ... or you'll be in another disaster ...
Out of the frying pan into the fire!
excellent post Mr. Blaine. I agree, the election was fair and was a demonstration of how cooperative governance works. It was convincing outcome, and we have to acknowledge that, but it doesn't change, and in fact should embolden how we feel about the issues. thanks for keeping the group focused on beliefs and outcomes (many which aren't good), rather than the presumption of unfair process and bad facts.
ReplyDeleteI indeed commend you for this excellent post. Instead of using what transpired yesterday as an opportunity to sew division, hatred, or discord, you acknowledge the results while still staying true to SECU’s and your movement’s values. As much as I’m all for the core tenets of this blog and making sure SECU doesn’t go astray, I appreciate you stating that you’ll take some time to review yesterday’s data. This post solidifies my already existing respect I have for you as an excellent SECU leader and leader in general. Sorry you had to take down one of “rigged election” posts. It was unprofessional and I continue to learn from you. I do hope you continue this blog, and that our movement doesn’t die out. The members have indeed spoken, but there is always room for improvement, dialogue, and healthy discussion.
ReplyDeleteThank you for everything Mr. Blaine,
Current SECU employer.
12:42 - Well said current employee. Thinking about what we could do for members was what SECU was all about. In my opinion, the credit union culture is about goodwill toward others including supporting North Carolina small businesses and communities. Being bigger and better without those values, is not people helping people. - Charity
DeleteWill be interesting to see how many long term employees jump ship or retire. A new day, yes, a better day? Time will tell.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not jumping ship after 30 years. It’s retiring and getting to do what you want every day, not what others want you to do every day.
DeleteAmen
DeleteChip Filson had a good take on the meeting, in that both LB's presentation and the Q&A were reactive to known membership concerns. In other words, the board and management were held to account to explain, justify and inform at a level that is highly uncommon in CU settings. That's a big win for transparency and accountability. Like many, initially I thought it was bad that members couldn't speak at the meeting. Now I am not so sure this year wasn't a better way. Last year, 30 members or so spoke, and RBL was a dominant theme. The Board and LB just sat there, and hopefully listened, but they didn't respond or acknowledge to any comments or questions (no accountability). One thing the self-nominees (and their supporters) did great was make their concerns known. Members coulda talked again, but would there be new or different concerns stated? This year, by taking questions ahead of time, far more ground was covered and LB had to explain, justify and respond, which as Chip points out, is a higher form of accountability than ever and more than other CU's. Folks also need to consider that if member comments were allowed incumbents and management would have made sure there was a huge line of members waiting to make statements of support. Fact is all voices were suppressed, not just the dissenting ones.
ReplyDelete@1:13. “ That's a big win for transparency and accountability”. It would be better if we could be assured that they didn’t screen out certain questions they didn’t want to answer. But there’s no way to know that. I do agree that Mr. “Thank you for your comments.” contributed nothing last year and that a Q & A is better. I don’t think there was really any question that required prior research. Not one that a CEO should not have been able to answer without a script. Not saying I’d have wanted to be put on the spot either, but a good CEO should be able to.
Delete"Not saying I’d have wanted to be put on the spot either, but a good CEO should be able to."
DeleteThey are paid handsomely to answer questions from the owners of the credit union...
Asked on the comments I heard, don’t think anything was screened out (maybe combined. It not screened out). There was a “question” that specifically called for Leigh’s resignation for Pete’s sake.
Delete@6:41 & 8:15.... great points.. I do think live Q&A would have been better. and, there is no apparent reason not to publish all the questions received, and then writing out answers and posting them for the questions they didn't have time to address. that's one small /easy thing that could increase transparency, which builds trust.
DeleteWasn't about screening questions entirely. It was to give their PR team time to concoct a clever answer. She wasn't speaking off the cuff. The whole thing was orchestrated.
DeleteImagine if you had all of the questions they were going to ask you in a job interview ahead of time and were able to bring in prepared remarks on a piece of paper and reference said paper as needed. Oh, and also, you had a whole team of staff to prepare those answers for you.
You'd ace that interview every time!
a perfect example of "artificial intelligence"
Delete