Saturday, October 3, 2026

As An SECU Member: You Need To Stop And Vote - RIGHT NOW!

 

             Do you smell something burning?

Across the U.S., we're having a fiery debate over voting practices and elections. Although the rhetoric is fierce, the differing sides aren't really that far apart. Everyone wants only eligible citizens voting, everyone wants all eligible citizens to have the chance to vote. 

Everyone agrees that elections are crucial, the heart and bedrock of our - and every! - democracy.

Why so much concern this year over SECU Board election practices and the Annual Membership Meeting?  Why not quit whining and move on? Five reasons:

1) You've already witnessed how SECU members - and your voice! - have been shut out of the Annual Meeting by the Board of Directors. Leaves you speechless doesn't it!  [Yes, it does!]  

Recent Year     Member May Speak     Member Resolutions

       2022                 Fully Permitted         Fully Permitted

       2023                    Restricted                     Restricted

       2024                    Prohibited                    Restricted

       2025                    Prohibited                    Prohibited 

2)  Now more????  The SECU Board passed a bylaw amendment in September, 2025 to prohibit member-nominated board candidates, unless the candidate - in just 3 weeks time! - can get 6,000+ members to sign a support petition. That change will effectively eliminate any likelihood of open board elections at SECU.

3)  So if you want to run for the Board in the future???  Just contact your 6,000 closest friends and ask them to sign... Or, you could run for the U.S. Senate with a lot less signatures.

4) Our CEO Leigh Brady publicly refused to acknowledge the passage of that amendment when asked in front of the entire membership at the 2025 Annual Meeting [link]. One has to wonder why hide the truth from SECU members?

5) If SECU members can no longer participate in the Annual Meeting and there is no longer an election by the members of the Board of Directors; won't "They" soon ask why have an Annual Meeting at all?

 ðŸ‘‰  Here's where to find complete voting info [link].    [Online voting ends Tuesday October 6th!]     

 ✅ Please consider casting your votes for Julian Hawes and Barry Browning. Your ballot is still valid if you vote only for the 2 member-nominated candidates.  

SECU Board Elections: Vote Now For Two - Julian Hawes And Barry Browning!                    

 Facts are facts folks; and if you lose your rights, you won't get them back!

Friday, October 2, 2026

SECU Board Elections: Don't Forget! Time Is Running Out To Be Counted!

  Members should have a choice!

Two highly qualified, long-time SECU members, Julian Hawes and Barry Browning, are on the 2026 ballot having been member-nominated by petition.  Both were qualified as candidates by the SECU nominating committee, but were not selected. Incumbents as usual were preferred.

Hawes and Browning are seeking election because the SECU Board has repeatedly over the last 3 years acted to suppress SECU member participation in their credit union.
 
SECU members are losing their democratic rights in their credit union.

✔  Look at how participation in your Annual SECU Membership Meeting has changed: 

 Recent Year   Member May Speak     Member Resolutions

       2022              Fully Permitted         Fully Permitted

       2023                 Restricted                  Restricted

       2024                 Prohibited                 Restricted

       2025                 Prohibited                 Prohibited 

✔  No Board election was held in 2025.

✔ Member-led Loan Review Committees: Have been eliminated! 

✔  In the works for SECU Members? Only Board self-selected candidates eligible to run? 

The SECU Board has passed a bylaw amendment which would increase the petition signature requirement for member-nominated Board candidates from 500 members to over 6,000+ members - and upwards as membership continues to rise!

For some reason our CEO, Leigh Brady won't admit this has happened [link]!  

✔ Hope you will help preserve your right to select and and vote for member-nominated Board candidates.  

 ✅ Please consider casting your votes for Julian Hawes and Barry Browning. Your ballot is still valid if you vote only for the 2 member-nominated candidates.  

SECU Board Elections: Vote Now For Two - Julian Hawes And Barry Browning!

👉  Here's where to find complete voting info [link].                              

  What have you got to lose... well, perhaps everything!

Thursday, October 1, 2026

The SAFE Meh-Merger:

 SAFE-Logo-Primary-Reverse SAFE-Logo-Primary-Reverse SAFE-Logo-Primary-Reverse  CEO's, Strike Three!   "Yer Out ... Of Your Mind!"

 

BETTING THE HOUSE ON A RISKY MERGER:

Why Boeing Employees Credit Union is Wrong for Sacramento

by Jeanine Morse September 30, 2026

[About the author: Jeanine Morse served as CEO of the University of Hawaii FCU prior to her retirement.  Morse has been a SAFE member since 2003 and currently lives in Elk Grove.]

 

Former SAFE Credit Union CEO Dave Roughton claims he “evaluated” the proposed takeover of SAFE Credit Union by Boeing Employees Credit Union with one guiding directive – “member benefit.” But in doing so he disregards the truth of this transaction:  SAFE CREDIT UNION WILL CEASE TO EXIST WHEN THIS DEAL IS DONE. 

The benefits he touts are illusory because SAFE Credit Union will be gone and all current SAFE members will lose an institution that successive generations have built up over eighty-one years. All SAFE resources will become the property of Boeing Employees Credit Union, including all member deposits and all member-owned income accumulated over the past eight decades. You cannot “fortify” an institution that no longer exists. And a credit union based in Washington state cannot “enhance the local communities” when it has no connections to our region.

As a former credit union CEO, I have carefully examined the financial benefits touted by Mr. Roughton, and they are neither immediate nor verifiable. I have analyzed and compared the publicly available financial and statistical data for both institutions, and the actual facts contradict his claims.

Mr. Roughton specifically makes claims of lower fees, higher deposit rates and lower loan rates. But SAFE management has deliberately not disclosed the math behind these claims, so I compared the NSF (bounced check) and returned check fees for both credit unions. My objective findings raise serious questions.  


SAFE Credit Union’s NSF fee is $14, with a maximum of 2 NSF fees daily for a maximum charge of $28. Boeing Employees Credit Union’s NSF fee is $10, with a maximum of 5 NSF fees daily for a maximum charge of $50. In this hypothetical scenario, SAFE members end up paying an additional $22 with Boeing Employees Credit Union. Conclusion: Boeing Employees Credit Union actually charges higher NSF fees.  The same is true for check deposits that are on hold. If checks try to clear against on hold deposits, both credit unions charge $10 with the same daily maximums as the NSF fee. If a member is charged the maximum daily limit at Boeing Employees Credit Union, they will pay an additional $52 more than at SAFE Credit Union.


The federal government has provided SAFE Credit Union with a low-income designation (LID).  Boeing Employees Credit Union does not have this designation. A LID designation means the government has determined that a majority of SAFE's members have family incomes at or below 80% of the Sacramento area median, and that lower-income consumers are disproportionately more likely to incur overdraft and NSF fees, with frequent users experiencing substantially greater financial vulnerability.

On a separate note, on September 22, 2026, I met with SAFE CEO, Fay Nabhani for three hours.  While cordial, the meeting was unproductive because Ms. Nabhani refused to disclose more specific details of the due diligence performed by SAFE. When I suggested that SAFE has the financial resources to reduce or eliminate some of their fees, she replied that SAFE could not afford to absorb a $7 million reduction in fee income. When I suggested that she could increase loan income to offset this expense, she replied that SAFE needed more capital to increase loan volume. I did not understand this illogical response.  When I pointed out that SAFE’s rates were much better than Boeing Employees Credit Union, she stated there would be regional pricing after the merger. But the merger agreement does not mention regional pricing and there is no legally binding requirement for Boeing Employees Credit Union to provide this.

According to former CEO Roughton, “There would be a 30-percent increase in direct financial return. The estimated increase is based on an analysis of SAFE’s 2024 financial results and the projected value of combining with BECU, including benefits from lower loan rates, higher deposit rates and reduced fees compared to typical bank offerings…”

Mr. Roughton once again does not provide any data to support his contention that this merger will lead to a thirty percent increase in financial return.  

To counter this unsubstantiated assertion, I compared the loan and deposit rates that are specified on each credit union’s website. Conclusion: SAFE Credit Union rates on both deposits and loans are clearly better than those of Boeing Employees Credit Union.

Deposit Rates SAFE BECU

6 Month   CD 2.25% 1.98% 
24 Month CD 2.90% 2.23% 
36 Month CD 3.00% 1.93% 
48 Month CD 3.05% 1.69% 

Checking

SAFE: 3% interest up to $3,000, = $90 a year in interest paid to members.

BECU: 3% up to $500, .10% after that = $17.50 paid to members.


Loan Rates SAFE BECU

New Car 5.19% 5.89%

Used Car 5.29% 6.19% 

Credit Cards 15.29% 16.49%

Home Equity Line of Credit 6.75% 6.99% 


In every scenario, members are better with SAFE Credit Union than with Boeing Employees Credit Union.


Takeaways:

1. Boeing Employees Credit Union has lower fees; however, the method in which they are applied results in members paying more when daily maximums are applied.

2. SAFE Credit Union charges less for loans and pays more for deposits. This is the number one reason for which credit unions exist. The truth is that Boeing Employees Credit Union profits much more from their members than SAFE.

3. The underlying strategy at Boeing Employees Credit Union is obvious: Lower fees counterbalanced by higher loan rates and lower deposit rates. That is a for-profit mentality. While there is no way to verify the $7 million in fee savings, it is clear that SAFE members will pay more for loans and earn less on deposits. And given SAFE’s LID designation, higher loan rates are a certainty for members who fall into the designated low income category.  

Summary - SAFE Credit Union has $4.4 billion in assets and $3.9 billion in member deposits. Given its size, its well-documented financial strength, and an objective analysis of its fee and rate structure, there is no logical argument to be made for a “merger” that terminates the existence of a treasured local institution and transfers all of its assets to an-out-of-state organization with no ties to the Sacramento region. 

Former CEO Dave Roughton touts the elimination of $7 million in fees for SAFE members during the first year after the takeover, but he does not disclose the methodology that would substantiate this figure. As with most of the information SAFE management has provided, members have no way of knowing if they will end up paying more and getting less. Mr. Roughton’s claims are impossible to verify and this appears to be by design.


SAFE Credit Union has been a valued financial services provider in our community for over eighty years. As a member of SAFE since 2003, I believe it is essential that we keep SAFE healthy and strong, while its leadership and headquarters remain in the Sacramento region.

 

  Sacramento are you listening? "If so, please hang up and dial 911... " 



 

The SAFE Mal-Merger: CEO Touts "Trusted, Honest, Open Leadership - Expect No Less'!

 SAFE-Logo-Primary-Reverse SAFE-Logo-Primary-Reverse  CEOs,  Strike Two..

TRUST AND STEWARDSHIP

A Credit Union CEO Questions SAFE Credit Union’s Proposed Merger

by John Tippets September 28, 2026

 

[About the author: After earning an MBA from UCLA, John Tippets spent 20+ years in a for-profit environment. John Tippets served as CEO of San Diego North Island Credit Union for three years and American Airlines Federal Credit Union for seventeen years.]



The character of leadership has a great many dimensions. Among these are to be trusted, honest and open. Customers, owners, and employees rightly expect no less.

Leaders also have a role as stewards: the care and protection of the reputation and brand; the quality of the products; the welfare of the employees and their families; and the financial and physical assets of the organization. These are all functions of a leader’s responsibilities.

Self-Interest Versus the Public Good

Sadly, in today’s world, these principles are too often not adhered to or intentionally violated. In some charities, NGOs, and similar non-profit entities, overhead costs (including executives with excessive compensation) eat up significant portions of donations, of government / taxpayer funding, and of earned income.

We see these self-dealing operators diverting dollars to fancy cars, expensive vacations, and many other personal remunerations. We see politicians compromised, doing the bidding of large donors, or taking financial advantage of non-public information for personal gain.

SAFE Credit Union’s Role Reversal

Credit Unions are not-for-profit cooperatives with tax exemptions that attest to their civic public duty roles.  Credit union employees work every day to help improve the lives and welfare of their members and their communities. Credit union employees generally love what they do and love the people they do it for. SAFE Credit Union, headquartered in Sacramento, is one of many that has done a fantastic job living this vision and mission for generations of local member-owners. 

It stunned me to learn of plans by the SAFE Credit Union Board of Directors and its executive leadership to eliminate this regional institution by allowing it to be acquired and merged into Boeing Employees Credit Union, an organization with no ties to Sacramento.

Hopefully, SAFE members will be given the opportunity to factually learn the pros and cons, the expected operational changes, and the financial and service impacts that will affect themselves and their community. Will employees be encouraged to share their thoughts or will they be urged to just acquiesce? Will members be engaged directly? Will insiders’ “generous” benefits be fully disclosed and justified?

The Real Question for SAFE Members

The narrative I have outlined above challenges the loss of the fundamental character of leadership at so many not-for-profit institutions. Although we can recognize that the process involving the SAFE Credit Union “merger” meets the minimum legal and regulatory requirements, the essential question is whether the likely outcome is morally and ethically correct and consistent with the principles and purposes for which SAFE Credit Union was created and currently exists. 

  Vote like there is no tomorrow... because there isn't!

 

The SAFE Mis-Merger: CEO Sees Lose-Lose-Lose Proposition Bypassing SAFE Member Vote!

 SAFE-Logo-Primary-Reverse

  FORMER GOLDEN 1 CEO QUESTIONS SAFE CREDIT UNION’S PLAN TO MERGE

by Stan Hollen September 28, 2026 

 

[About the author: Stan Hollen became CEO of The Golden 1 Credit Union in Sacramento and guided its massive statewide expansion from 1984 through 2001. Following a three year stint as CEO of Liberty Enterprises, a supplier of data services to credit unions, he served as president and CEO of CO-OP Financial Services in Rancho Cucamonga until his retirement in mid-2016 ]

 

Local Focus And Control Are At Stake

I question the need for the proposed SAFE CU merger with Boeing Employees Credit Union (Tukwila, WA). If SAFE merged with another California credit union and members gained access to more branches it would make sense. The SAFE executives would not make their huge payouts, but the members would greatly benefit. Imagine, for example, the advantage to merging with Golden 1 Credit Union. Local focus and control would be retained.

One wonders if SAFE really sought mergers with other California credit unions. SAFE is large enough that economy of scale cannot be a reason to seek a merger into a larger credit union. 


SAFE was always looked to as a leading credit union in Sacramento and California. This will no longer be the case.


Proceeding without Member Approval

The SAFE Board of Directors has clearly signaled its intent to seek merger approval from the state regulatory agency even if a majority of members do not approve the merger. The following is the actual ballot wording: 

“(T)his is to advise you that the Board of Directors will make an application under California Financial Code Section 15201(b) for approval of the merger in the event that a majority of all members of SAFE do not vote to approve the merger, in person at the meeting, or by mail-in or online ballot.”


The above ballot statement is only required if SAFE leadership plans to bypass the majority vote requirement. The intent to seek an exemption from the majority vote requirement is clear. This is very much contrary to credit union philosophy. Perhaps some ex-bankers in the movement do not have this member-first focus.


Not Enough Member Benefit

There is not enough benefit to SAFE members in this merger. They will lose their reserves built up by SAFE over 80 years. They will lose local control. They will lose SAFE’s focus on the Sacramento market and community support. Employees will lose their lengthy professional service growth tracks. 

Boeing Employees Credit Union does not need this merger. I question why they are seeking this kind of expansion.

  Is the SAFE member vote really a milestone... or simply a ruse?

 




The SAFE/Boeing Megasaurus: With "Scale" - Bigger Is Always Better?

                     SCALE CU a dino-mite idea?

          Wescorp, WAMU, SCALE... "terrible lizards"?

  T-Rex thinking? Isn't "Better is Better" Better?