✅ Anonymous June 18, 2026 at 9:07 AM "They are a safety and soundness regulator. You are missing the point anyway. The DFPI has no grounds, under either safety or soundness concerns or consumer protection, not to approve this merger, provided there is a yes majority of voters."
Our commenter from yesterday seems to believe that DFPI falls into the rubber stamp definition of regulators: "A mostly powerless yet officially recognized body that routinely approves or endorses programs and policies initiated by a controlling party." Mighty harsh critique! Certainly no need to lobby for "deregulation" if true!
It is pretty clear the knavish SAFE Board and senior leadership do not believe DFPI's claim that "California is the credit union charter of choice"! But, if this merger mistake comes up for a SAFE member vote: California and credit unions nationwide will have the chance to judge for themselves the regulatory rigor of DFPI.
😎 For, as our commenter so correctly declares: "DFPI has no grounds ... not to approve this merger, provided there is a yes majority of voters."
✔ California law explicitly states that a majority of all SAFE members must vote in favor of the merger proposal for it to be approved. If a majority of all 245,000 SAFE members do not vote in favor of merger, the merger is not approved!
This was a very interesting post. The California law requiring greater than 50% of the membership to approve may be a hurdle to high. The country barely gets more than 60% of the voting population to vote in a Presidential election. In the unlikely event that this hurdle is crossed, it would be a true shame.
ReplyDeleteI believe i would signal a true sign of the beginning of the end of the credit union industry because the glue that makes a credit union a value proposition is the "Common Bond"! Impossible to have a common bond between these two institutions.
This proposed merger rips the band aid off any facade of common bond being any meaningful concept in the organization of a credit union, It will eventually lead to the questioning of the relevancy and necessity of credit unions as a solution for making more available for people of modest means. B
7:40 am If this vote were routine, the logic of a "majority of those voting" decides the issue might make sense.
DeleteBut this vote is not a regularly scheduled membership vote like Board elections where members are aware of the reason for the vote and understand if they don't vote the CU will continue along the current course.
This vote will be at a non-routine "Special Meeting" where the majority of SAFE members - so far - do not know that their local credit union is being dissolved. Added, they do not know that the quantitative, factual data indicates no benefit from the merger - actually looks like several steps backward for folks in Sacramento!
California law provides the appropriate member-consumer protection against major, rogue board mistakes - like this merger proposal - by requiring a majority of all members to affirm the dissolution of the charter
If 122, 501 do not vote for the merger, then SAFE members are telling the Board to continue the current course - and drop the harmful mega-me merger mistake.
In other words, DFPI needs to follow the precise wording and intent of the law and not overrule a non-majority member vote.
DeleteIf the merger is such a great idea, then the SAFE Board - and suddenly shy senior leadership - need to get off their A's.
Why not spend the time to appropriately inform all the SAFE members what "they are up to" - and why it will benefit Sacramento.
If the current Board can't, well... perhaps a new Board can.
The problem is you are ignoring the other part of the law - the precise wording and intent of the law that gives DFPI authority to approve a merger when there is less than a majority of voting members. You are misrepresenting this by implying the DFPI would be acting against the law, and they wouldn’t be. There is nothing unusual or wrong with the DFPI following the law and using the legal authority they were granted.
Delete1:05pm The "problem" you're ignoring is California law states first that a majority of all SAFE members MUST vote to approve the merger.
DeleteThe law later says DFPI MAY overrule the SAFE member vote.
Why do you endorse a government regulator overruling a vote of SAFE member-owners, when there is no apparent merit to the merger nor benefit to the members.
I don't endorse the DFPI "overruling" a vote of SAFE Members.
DeleteThere are 2 ways a voluntary merger can be approved. 1) an affirmative vote from the majority of SAFE members, or 2) in the event there is not a majority turnout, the regulator has the power and authority to overrule SAFE members and unilaterally approve the merge despite the vote...
DeleteWhat would be a minimum vote requirement of the overall SAFE membership to justify merger approval by the regulator? 60% of all members? 75%?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the number?
There is no minimum number. Even if only 20% vote, but the majority of them vote yes, that’s enough. 10 is enough. That’s a meaningful number. Member inaction by not voting is not the same as a no vote. If 90% don’t vote, but DFPI approves, what exactly would the DFPI be overruling? The will, perspective or direction of members would be apathy and indifference, by an overwhelming majority.
Delete10:37pm Trolltwit Alert! Seems to harbor a high disdain for the cooperative model - that home for shiftless mobs of "apathy and indifference".
DeleteAlthough California law requires a minimum vote of 50%+ of all voters, our twit prefers a "no rules", imperial override when the rule of law becomes inconvenient.
If DFPI can approve the merger if only 1% - or even if just 1 member - votes, then why vote at all? To create a sham, mock the law?
BTW our twit is still championing free speech while hiding under the rock of anonymity... doesn't seem to deal well with sunlight.
Reminds one of the Roddy Ho -type personality on "Slow Horses"....
Use your dumb examples but think about what it actually means if 99% of members don’t bother to vote. They don’t care about the outcome they literally and legally gave the DFPI the right to support the CU board’s recommendation for the merger.
Delete9.22 am As Ronald Regan would say: "There you go again"!
DeleteNot voting by 99% of SAFE members would give DFPI legal authority to approve a merger that everybody including you knows has no merit for members or Sacramento??
Think you're eating too many mushrooms... least hope that logic doesn't come naturally.!
The real question should be why would any director in good faith vote for and recommend a merger where their study indicated no clear advantage to the credit union for ding the merger! I have seen boards do a lot of questionable things, but this make no sense! Who is getting paid! B
ReplyDeleteWho said they did a study that said that? That’s not a known fact. That would be a clear breach of their fiduciary duty. The more likely scenario is they did insufficient due diligence. They bought the Boeing BS hook line and sinker. They had no awareness of their problems and toxic leadership.
DeleteTo your general point - the lack of due diligence is still a breach of their fiduciary duty of care - it’s just a slight different form than having an unfavorable study and ignoring it. To answer your question - who is getting paid? The CEO at 2x salary in 18 months and two board members that get 125,000 a year board roles of the combined org. Makes one wonder - were those board members selected before or after the board vote? If before, did they recuse themselves? If after, then all SAFE board members voted yes with the idea they could benefit from the deal with what is excessive pay for a CU board. Pretty problematic either way. This is where DFPI does have done jurisdiction, as to whether they violated their duty of loyalty by not putting their members interest over their own.
Commenter: "Won’t debate the lack of merit..."
ReplyDeleteYep, bet you won't.
Commenter: "The point you don’t get is if 99% don’t show up they are deciding to allow the merger to happen." So if they don’t show up, they legally delegate their authority to DFPI.'
ReplyDeleteDefinitely mushrooms...hallucinogenic, beyond bizarre!
rubber stamp champ.
Delete