SECU Board "Transparency": Why Not Let The Members Know?

 

 

Ms. Kristina W. Ray

N.C. Administrator of Credit Unions

Raleigh, North Carolina

September 29, 2025

Re: Proposed SECU Bylaw  Amendments

Dear Ms. Ray,

On August 15, 2025, I wrote to the Chair of the SECU Board [link] requesting permission to forward resolutions concerning SECU governance and the bylaws for discussion well in advance of the SECU Annual Meeting. 

Ms. Cathie Plaut, SECU Chief Legal Officer, responded on August 25, 2025 that to submit resolutions for consideration, the SECU bylaws required 10% of SECU members (@300,000 folks) to petition for a "Special Membership Meeting". In an August 25, 2025 response to Ms. Plaut [link], which you received; it was pointed out that the SECU bylaws contained no such statement requiring a "Special Membership Meeting" concerning member resolutions. Ms. Plaut's opinion was simply a cringe-worthy attempt at invention. No prior SECU Board (since 1937) had discussed such an idea, no policy nor procedures exist at SECU for such a bizarre idea - for obvious reasons.

If the SECU Board is to proceed with the "Special Membership Meeting" requirement for simple governance suggestions, an SECU bylaw amendment will be required. Your approval of all SECU bylaw amendments is required by State law.

The SECU membership has not been advised of any new bylaw amendments, nor been given any chance to review nor hear discussions of the merit of such proposed changes. Absolutely no notification has been given, no input has been sought. The SECU membership should be given that opportunity prior to your consideration.

 

The SECU Board last adopted bylaw amendments on 6/27/2023, submitted them to you on 6/28/2023, which you approved overnight for implementation 6/30/2023 - the "optics" of which continue to raise eyebrows.

 

The carte blanche authorized by those 6/30/2023 amendments has been used by the SECU Board to bar member resolutions, eliminate member participation in the business meeting, and now to fully prohibit SECU members from speaking at all. Intended or not, the suppression of democratic participation and speech at SECU was achieved via your approval.  

October 8, 2025 is the date of the next North Carolina Credit Union Commission  Meeting. By State law it is an open meeting with public comment permitted. It would be an excellent opportunity for a transparent discussion of proposed SECU bylaw amendments. It seems unreasonable to preclude 3 million SECU members from such a discussion. 

The governance of SECU remains the democratic foundation right of the SECU membership and should not be abridged further.

Would you please advise of the time and place for the Credit Union Commission meeting, any requirements to present public comment, and how interested parties may participate in or livestream the meeting.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Jim Blaine, SECU member

 

cc: Leigh Brady 

 

  "You'll know what you need to know when you know it."

North Carolina Credit Union Administrator to Consider Latest SECU Board Bylaw Amendment...

    Wonder why not?

😎 The Chief Legaler at SECU has concocted some more mischief to further shut out SECU members from participating in the governance of their credit union [link]. 

The record so far has been sullenly dismissive: 1937-2022 - Speak freely!; 2023 - You have 2 minutes!; 2024 -You may not speak!; 2025 - Don't even try it! Evidently in the future it will be an even more brazen - "STFU" (Speaking Terminated, Forever Unacceptable") !  At least that's what the letter implies, if 300,000 signatures will now be required to address the Board.

The SECU bylaw amendment to achieve this further prohibition must be submitted to the N.C. Administrator of Credit Unions for approval. 

😎 As an SECU member have you received any information, heard any discussion about the proposed bylaw amendment or the reasons behind the changes? Had a chance ask questions, express your point of view?  

✅ [From Robert's Rules of Order for Dummies]:  

"Setting the conditions for amending your bylaws"

"In amending a previously adopted bylaw, make sure that the rights of all members continue to be protected. The surest way to provide this protection is to prevent bylaws from being changed without first giving every member an opportunity to weigh in on a change. And bylaws should never be changed as long as a minority greater than one-third disagrees with the proposal."

😎 Why hasn't the SECU Board provided members with information about its intent to amend the SECU Bylaws - the only document which protects SECU member ownership and governance rights? 

😎  Could the proposal be: "Art. XX, Sect. X - SECU Members, Like Children, Should Be Seen Not Heard."

✅ Even if the SECU Board chooses to ignore the membership, shouldn't the N.C. Administrator of Credit Unions be interested in hearing from the 3 million North Carolinians who will be affected?

 

   Or is this once again the..."You'll know what you need to know when you know it." 

 

Selling Your SECU Mortgage To A "New/New" Partner... The Real Core Issue!

                               

 ... an unsettled and unsettling national issue.

 ✅ "Background of Conservatorship" [source: J.P. Morgan]

"In response to the Global Financial Crisis, the U.S. Treasury placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship in September 2008. This action was intended to stabilize the mortgage market and restore confidence in the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). 

Since the start of the conservatorship, the Treasury has injected approximately $190 billion in capital into the GSEs, from a total commitment of up to $446 billion. In exchange, the Treasury received warrants to purchase up to 79.9% of common stock and approximately $190 billion in senior preferred shares with a 10% dividend rate. The senior preferred shares have generated $300 billion in dividends for the Treasury. However, the preferred stock agreement was recently modified to allow the GSEs to retain capital instead of making dividend payments.  

To compensate taxpayers for the forgone dividends, the liquidation preferences for the senior preferred shares are being increased by the amount of capital retained. As of the third quarter of 2024, the Treasury's liquidation preference for the senior preferred shares stands at $340 billion. As a result of retaining capital, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increased their combined net worth to $147 billion as of the third quarter of 2024. Despite this steady growth, the GSEs remain well below the minimum regulatory capital framework requirements set by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in 2020.  

Under the risk-based capital requirements, the GSEs must maintain minimum regulatory capital levels, including a tier 1 capital ratio of at least 2.5% of their adjusted total assets. As of September 30, 2024, Fannie Mae's capital requirement is $187 billion, while Freddie Mac's is $141 billion, resulting in a combined total requirement of $328 billion."

😎 After 17 years of conservatorship by the taxpayers, Fan/Fred remain under-capitalized by -$181 billion [required: $328 billion, actual: $147 billion = -$181 billion!]... even though the required capital level is only 2.5%.

✔ "New/new" have you really thought this partnership through for SECU mortgages ... a propped  up 1930's-era legacy, tax-payer subsidized, in a 17 year conservatorship, under-capitalized, with a risky political future, in an uncertain world economy! 

Tell us how you "risk-rated" all that, for the SECU Board, please...

   What could go wrong... again?