Sample Ballot for SAFE Credit Union Merger Proposal
Name of SAFE Member:__________ Account Number:___________
Please read the Notice of Special Meeting for the members of SAFE Credit Union. The SAFE Board has tried to let you know what you need to know, when you needed to know it. [link]. You know, we know, who knows best!
✔ Mark your choice [1 only], sign and submit this ballot:
[ ] Approve the proposed merger with Boeing Employees Credit Union as unanimously endorsed by the SAFE Board of Directors. The merger requires the transfer of all SAFE CU deposits, loans, and $400+ million of your ownership equity to BECU. Corporate control and regulatory supervision will also be moved from California to Washington State. SAFE Credit Union will cease to exist. Or...
[ ] Alternative recommendation for SAFE members: Maintain the current California state-charter for at least ten years, with headquarters remaining in the Sacramento area; retain current service facilities, employee staffing levels, and the Sacramento-based leadership structure for at least 5 years; fund a new share account at BECU for up to 10,000 existing SAFE members, who require BECU service; and distribute a "Lets Stay Home Special Dividend" of $150 to each of the 245,000 SAFE members of record as of 12/31/2025. Or...
[ ] Do not approve the proposed merger.
✖ Signed:___________ Member's Name:_________ Date:_____
Not hard to price the hard dollar advantage to SAFE members of the "alternative proposal" over the "just merge" Board idea.
ReplyDeleteSAFE members come out about $40 million bucks ahead with the alternative proposal:
> 245,000 members x $150 = $36.75 million
> BECU accounts max: 10,000 x $25 = $250,000
>In prior proposal [https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/337/forms/credit-union/DFPI-301.pdf]
there were also offers of first time home-buyer grants and 2 philanthropic pledges which together are an additional @$3 million.
>All together @$40 million returned to SAFE members and Sacramento.
Much more, one would think that retaining local control and member-ownership of SAFE is: "Priceless"...
But that's really what this is all about, isn't it. That the SAFE Board and CEO have voted to give away one of the "crown jewels" of Sacramento is: "Feckless"!
Ha! Respectfully, one little flaw in your second scenario, which includes keeping current leadership for five years. Two possible outcomes there 1) you’re keeping the people who sold out, gave up on their members, and had no vision of how to succeed independently, despite having done so for 80+ years, OR 2) WIthin a month SAFE leaders will learn for themselves what they are being forewarned about, and they’ll all quit to get away from the toxic Boeing leadership, just like all the other Boeing leaders have. Then what would they do?
ReplyDeleteSo weren’t Wirz and Roughton really good credit union leaders? They built a perfectly healthy credit union and a community asset. How can they possibly support seeing it get absorbed and ultimately carved up by an out of state, bank-like behemoth with poor leadership and a declining culture? Or, maybe they don’t. I wonder if they will stay silent, or weigh in one way or the other?
ReplyDeletewe live in a world where good men say/do nothing ...
DeleteThe members own the credit union, these people in "leadership" roles are just employees and should be shown the door...
ReplyDeleteThe case against merger remains strong:
ReplyDelete✅ The "Otherwise" Credibility Scorecard: It has been shown that 1) any benefits of the merger can be obtained for free by SAFE members [link], 2) the SAFE Board has voted to give away a financial institution with a fair market value between $400 to $800 million [link], 3) the current cost of operating SAFE is superior (much lower!) [link], 4) current services/rates at SAFE are equal or better [link], 5) if necessary, there are several better merger candidates in California [link], 6) the "faux-ish" Board commitments of April 21, 2026 [link] with the questionable "34% increase in money returned to them" claim [link], and 7) the absence of an independent market valuation creating a fiduciary breach legal exposure [link].
Totally agree. And the case for merger is negligent. In addition, if Boeing just throws money at them, at what point us it not good for them? In these mergers, there is often a clear loser (SAFE), rarely a win/ win for both, and quite possibly a lose / lose, which looks like the case in this one. If all these great benefits and free toasters and ponies for everyone can’t happen until the merger, it means two things. 1) it’s a lie. SAFE can afford it, and 2) then it Boeing ‘s money. What’s being spun to their members? How could this merger possibly be good for them?
ReplyDelete