Another icon biting the dust?
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina provides an interesting parallel to SECU. Both were created in times of economic difficulty; chartered on a mutual, cooperative basis; designed to help working men and women acquire two of the basic necessities of living - access to credit and access to healthcare.
North Carolinians came together to create locally owned, locally controlled, locally focused solutions. Perhaps you don't understand the powerful advantage of local community ownership, focus, and control? Lets take a look at another "right-here-at-home" example, Mission Health in Asheville.
Mission Hospital traces its roots to 1885, when a group of women calling themselves "The Little Flower Mission" saw a need for a hospital in Asheville that would care for those in need, regardless of their ability to pay. Mission Health became the state's sixth-largest health system and Western North Carolina's only not-for-profit, independent community hospital system governed and managed exclusively in western North Carolina.
Mission Hospital "stayed on mission" until 2019. The $1.5 billion sale of Mission Health to the for-profit HCA Healthcare, was completed on February 1, 2019.
"Since the purchase was finalized, there has been a stark rise in the number of complaints from patients and staff alike regarding the hospital - including long wait times in the emergency department, chronic under-staffing, broken equipment, unsanitary conditions, patients lying in feces for extended periods of time, medication administration being delayed for hours at a time, nurses taking on twice their normal workload, and doctors leaving due to pay disputes."
If you'd like to check on the latest response by HCA Healthcare to the recent Helene devastation in North Carolina take a look at this [link].
What does this have to do with the "new/new" being implemented by the SECU Board? Perhaps quite a lot if you think the original "mission" of SECU remains important.
Regional expansion, commercial vs not-for-proit, loss of local ownership and control?
SECU, it is yours to lose... but lets hope not.
OK Elton John, your rose colored glasses seem amazing.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to remain optimistic about the good character of other people when one sees so much greed and self-serving actions by businesses that were created as "not for Profit." No sense that honor, fairness, lending a helping hand have a place in the corporate world of Profit, even though BCBS, Mission Hospital, and SECU were all very successfully run businesses serving millions of people in NC. BUT, from a NON-profit perspective. The current powers in charge only want success for Profit. Bigger salaries for the administrators, and eventually for the boards.
DeletePlead thoroughly guilty to those rose colored glasses!
DeleteYep, have had life long problems with the reality which we so often find around us... and therefore, have always backed optimism over pessimism, hope over despair, encouragement over exploitation, and still believe faith triumphs over despair.
How about you? The industry standard, the status quo still your guiding light?
Rose colored glasses comment wasn’t in regard to optimism (optimism has to do with the future not the past).
DeleteSECU is still on mission
ReplyDeleteHow so?
Delete1) Open membership? Y/N?
2) Regional/national expansion? Y/N?
3) Commercial Lending? Y/N?
4) All commercial businesses may now be members? Y/N?
5) Still seeking mergers like LGFCU? Y/N?
Had "several guesses"...official confirmation would ease a lot of concerns.
DeleteOr maybe the current Board and CEO are sticking by those former Fireside Chat "answers".
If anyone can find concrete answers please comment.
Why would SECU comment on an internet blog?
DeleteThe SECU Board and CEO (even "anonymously"!) shouldn't need to comment on this blog.
DeleteThere is a legal and fiduciary duty for SECU to answer to the membership however.
After 3 years, neither the SECU Board nor the CEO has honestly and transparently answered the 6 or 7 questions posed in the resolution approved by the membership at the 2022 Annual meeting.
If you can direct us to those answers please do so.
The Board pledged to respond.A clear, informative response might ease a lot of - perhaps unnecessary - concern.
Ain't that hard. just send us all a one page email. Why wouldn't the SECU want to level with the member-owners?
So why publish a blog, and why ask questions you refuse to post answers to because they aren’t “official” if you don’t expect SECU to read or comment?
Delete8:14pm ...my favorite commenter!
DeleteLets parse the comment carefully:
Q: 1) Why ask questions you refuse to post answers to because they aren't "official"?
A: a) anonymouse commenters have little credibility - rightfully so. b) what exactly is an "unofficial" answer? - why would a reader bother with such from an anonymouse?
Q: 2) You don't expect SECU to read and comment?
a) aware that "many" at SECU do read and comment, b) have never had an "official" SECU comment on the blog, which is reasonable, c) SECU needs to respond openly, frankly, and directly with the membership, not a blog. d) "SECU" has repeatedly failed to level with the members over the last 3 years, e)" SECU's" failure to communicate is an unnecessary, unforced leadership error, f) many loyal members start to suspect that "SECU" doesn't truly know what it is doing or start to suspect "they're" up to no good.
Weak and ineffective communications is now being equated with weak leadership. That should be easily corrected if untrue.
Just step out...and lead. Won't hurt you!
Unsurprisingly, my favorite commenter continues thinking their anonymous, "unofficial" hokum has credibility and merits consideration as in...
Delete"First, I comment anonymously because you can edit comments before they are "approved" for posting. Why would I put my name on words that will then be twisted?" [this type of logic is a great example of the word "weaseling", dodging the truth)
A: Have long promised to post verbatim "signed" comments...think discussions with real people are far more intelligent and helpful. don't you? Step up to accountability - put your name on it!
"Second, to all the questions you posted, the answer is a resounding No. SECU is still on mission. None of those things were pursued in a serious way ...."
A: Is that "official "? Why should we trust you if you're afraid to tell us who you are and how you know?
And BTW, that transparency with members and that the decline in operational results are not being pursued in "a serious way" is the reason continuing concerns exist.
Easy to resolve. Just tell the members the truth... start Monday!
We'd all like to see this blog go away... leveling with the membership will end it!.
How do you know the decline in operational results aren't being pursued in a serious way? Yes, the Board needs to be transparent on topics of the resolution if (and only if) they pursue them.
Delete3.24pm If you are acknowledging the fairly obvious "decline in operational results", it would be an excellent idea for the SECU leadership to publicly inform the members how they are being addressed and corrected. Great idea!
DeleteThat second sentence seems to also acknowledge that the SECU Board hasn't addressed the 2022 resolution as pledged ...and voted on and approved by the SECU membership.
The past SECU Board leadership had pushed for open membership, regional expansion, commercial membership and lending, and a merger with LGFCU... (even the SuperBowl Ad!)... those facts are corroborated by written documents, by SECU staff, other North Carolina CU leaders, and highly reputable external parties.
Have you ever heard the SECU Board deny it? If so, would you point out where we can all go look? That would be a great blessing... this has all been just one, big misunderstanding!
What do you think caused the uproar leading to the 2022 resolution, the booting off of 3 SECU board members by the membership and the continuing uproar?
Lots of "unofficial" "muck-mucking" being submitted... won't burden you with that sort of artificial intelligence.
ReplyDeleteWill the strategic plan be sufficient and official enough for you?
ReplyDeleteNo because it banal, fluff... but now before you get upset... so is almost everyone else's! It's a "box check" for folks at the NCUA. Credit unions are "required" to have "a strategic plan", even if it is meaningless, just a regulatory paper churn.
DeleteHave you read it? If you'll check your web stats you'll find no one else much is taking it seriously either!
The NCUA's latest "critical issue" for credit unions is "succession planning" which is a even more absurd. That emphasis is like handing Elon Musk firm evidence that the Agency has too much staff/authority and too little of importance to do. NCUA really has become "redundant" and will be an easy target - look out after 1/25!
What I think would clear the air is explicit, "official" answers from the current SECU Board to those 2022 resolution questions - the Board pledged to do so.
Since you haven't given us any reference point, assume you can't find those answers either... what's the problem?
You and Mike Lord clearly failed at succession planning.
DeleteWell, hate to enlighten you too much, but the SECU Board "owns" the succession plan and selects the "successor"...but can whole-heartedly agree with you that the past SECU Board exhibited extremely poor judgment in 2021.
DeleteThe past Board leadership owns that mistake... no one else. Shame on them, world class mistake.
you missed the commenter's point on succession. board formally owns a plan, but up to the CEO(s) to coach and develop their external leaders who aspire to the role so they are capable and prepared for the CEO role, but that didn't happen and the board was forced to go outside. LB was appointed in haste and for stability and continuity.
DeleteNice theory but it doesn't sync-up well with the facts and how the real world works... take a look at the WSJ for a reality check.
DeletePure concocted BS about how succession planning actually works... you seem to be a-wandering in la-la land!
... ask around... do you work for NCUA?
There were several very qualified internal candidates for CEO other than and including Leigh. That Board was DETERMINED to hire outside. And they did hire outside, and a worse candidate to lead SECU could not have been found unless they had looked in the gutter(close).
DeleteAgree. This wasn't gross negligence by the board it was criminal negligence. Please sue them individually before the stat limitations runs out.
DeleteOpen shut case
You seem to be the only one fretting about things that aren’t going to happen and aren’t anywhere near ready to happen.
ReplyDeleteRead it carefully folks... yes that's exactly the logic and attitude which keeps me "fretting".
Delete"... aren't going to happen and aren't anywhere near ready to happen."
Members need to read that statement again and again...
Well which is it? Not happening now (open membership, commercial lending, merger/conversion) because you can't pull it off....but plan to do so as soon as you can get your act together?
Sad state of weaseling... fret, fret!
You can go on about the LGFCU conspiracy theory, but that path is known.
ReplyDelete6:48pm Please tell us about that "known path"... we'd like to hear the "official" version...
DeleteOr are you asking us to believe the former SECU Board Chair and CEO despite the well-documented evidence to the contrary?
What's the true story?.
SECU. Board and CEO said there was a merger discussion broached by our side. Gave the reasons for it and said there was no formal offer. That's in writing and on tape.
Deletethis "person" will never respond on the record. Just like the board and CEO... Maybe it is one of them?
Delete7:29pm Thanks! Where exactly can we find that in writing and on tape? Specifics?
DeleteIf you know "the reasons" for the SECU Board's merger proposal... could you tell us all again what those "reasons" were?
Appreciate you acknowledging that the SECU Board generated the merger proposal... that' a little progress toward the truth! Thank you.
Interesting article today on health care https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2024/12/15/why-americans-pay-more-for-health-care/76900978007/
ReplyDeleteReason 1: Lack of price limits
DeleteReason 2: Hospitals and doctors get paid for services, not outcomes
Reason 3: Specialists get paid much more ‒ and want to keep it that way
Reason 4: Administrative costs inflate heath spending
Reason 5: Health care pricing is a mystery
Reason 6: Americans pay far more for prescription drugs than people in other wealthy nations
Reason 7: Private Equity
I would rather pay more to have specialized care on demand and my own room. No thanks to the long wait times and crowded rooms found in other countries. However, obviously still a lot wrong with US system AND everyone else’s. The perfect or ideal solution does not yet exist anywhere in the world. Let’s all keep complaining about our lives without considering how good we actually have it.
Delete@10:23am public healthcare time and time again has proven to be better than privatized healthcare. European countries are vastly ahead in that department. Healthcare is not a sector that should be privatized and for profit. It’s stupid.
Delete@10:23 how privileged of you to be able to pay for more. Most Americans can’t afford to catch a cold.
Delete9:37am hit the nail one by one. Point by point.
Delete@ 2:31, under US federal law, hospitals are required to provide emergency medical treatment to any patient who presents with an emergency condition, regardless of their ability to pay, due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA); this means they must stabilize the patient's condition before transferring them elsewhere if necessary.
DeleteInteresting the article doesn’t speak to the differences in the quality of care between US and the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteQuality of care for who? The ones who have healthcare in the US or the ones who don’t? Millions of American are uninsured and that is unacceptable as a country. That is not great! Making America great includes giving Americans healthcare regardless of financial status
DeleteHealthcare should be collectively owned by the people of the nation. Not by oligarchs.
ReplyDeleteRegional expansion would be debating for NC workers. We must be NC focused and NC employee focused.
ReplyDeleteIt's giving manic episode
ReplyDelete