It's been over a month now, since the SECU Board approved new bylaw amendments, designed to further crush SECU member participation and governance rights in their credit union.
How do you know? A check of the official SECU Board minutes would be a good place to start [link]. Our CEO was asked politely - well in advance, as required - at the 2025 SECU Annual Meeting about the amendments [link]. A masquerade of goggledy-gook was offered in a prepared response to the 3 million SECU members.
The SECU Advisory Board system - the members' first line of defense for leadership accountability - was called upon to seek a legitimate answer [link]. But the charade continues.
What's truly appalling is that the rest of the credit union world already knows what the SECU leadership refuses to admit to 3 million SECU members. Take a look:
✔ "Just A Member" blog: "In a January 2024 blog, I described NCUA’s approval of bylaw changes for Navy and Pentagon FCU’s that effectively eliminated the ability of member-owners to nominate directors for board openings. (link) "
"In the post Who is Responsible for Credit Union Democracy, I summarized these changes: The two largest FCU’s quietly changed the required number of signatures for member nominations for the board. In both situations the change removed the 500-signature standard bylaw and replaced it with a percentage of members. For Navy this new signature requirement was 26,000 and for PenFed 5,800 based on their latest reported member counts. Now the trifecta for the three largest credit unions is complete." [link - read the whole piece]
👺 So, now you too know. The underlying question for all SECU members should be: Is trickery the cause of such poor treatment of member-owners by the SECU leadership?
"I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do." - James Baldwin
They don't care because NCUA will do whatever they are told to do ... and members can go take a hike off a short plank ...
ReplyDeleteBrady better get her act together on this
ReplyDeleteor pak it up.
DeleteNeed a better leader, cash her out
DeleteBe careful of what you ask for! Remember Hays?
DeleteCredit unions are no longer credit unions. Let's call them what they are and tax accordingly. Then the "membership" won't be deceived. But first, give us our money back!! ooh That's must be what the ELT and Board is after. 6 billion in reserves with no one's name on it that members have accumulated over the last 85 years that SECU HAS been a credit union. Is that what is driving all the evasion and dishonesty by ELT and Board?
ReplyDeleteNo reason for Ms. Brady to change. She let it be known that she is collecting a check and will be gone very soon! She tells the staff good luck at every meeting.
ReplyDeletebeing led by group of legal losers
ReplyDeletePlease lay out your actual accusation. She was asked if there were bylaw changes and she said no. You seem to have additional information.
ReplyDelete2:26 pm Believe what you say is entirely not true! You don't seem to "get it"!
ReplyDeleteAnd, in fact you set Leigh up for the kill when you claim "she said no"! That's not what she said at all! If she did say that there were no amendments approved by the SECU Board in September, 2025 then she is a bald-faced liar - no if's, and's, or but's!
Personally, I don't think Ms. Brady lies...that's certainly not my experience from working with her over several decades.
The problem is not that Leigh is lying, it's that she has chosen to not tell the truth.The ethics between lying and not telling the truth is an interesting debate for all of us.
The core question over the last 3 years, has been why our CEO and Board would choose not to tell the SECU membership the truth on governance issues? What's going on?
It appears that Ms. Brady, over the last 3 years has consistently received inept internal "legal" advice, which keeps leading her and the SECU Board up blind alleys of "incredibility".
If Ms. Brady would just tell it like she sees it and why, then the issues can be openly discussed, resolved, and everyone can move on.
But don't criticize the lawyers! Poor, ineffective advice is not unusual!
But the choice of whether or not to take such advice is the CEO's. Her choice, her decision, her judgment, her reputation for honesty and integrity - her legacy..
The CEO owns this problem.... and she knows the truth.
Leader? Or not up to the task? Stay tuned...
"The ethics between lying and not telling the truth is an interesting debate for all of us."
ReplyDeleteJust watch MSM or politicians, they are masters at it ...