Look Out Sacramento! If The SAFE/Boeing Merger Makes Sense, Then Expect This Next...

 

  

😎"My first In-N-Out experience was practically a religious conversion. This local, family-owned chain remains the gold standard against which all fast-food burgers are measured." [link] 

✔ From the Sac Bee: "At In-N-Out, we've decided we're tired of being "The Gold Standard" in burgers for Sacramento and all of California. We have decided to give it up. Why be relevant and locally-owned,  when we all know "scale is more important than quality"! So "last-gen" to believe that the best is better..."

"Therefore, we are pleased to announce our plan to merge with..."

  "Big Mac" out of Chicago!                                    "We're Out, They're In!"

✔  "But, don't worry "nothing will change for now", same "culture" y'know, and all that ... "People Feeding People!" 

Say "Hello!" Sacramento to..."McSAFE"! 

   

We may not be better, 

... but we will be bigger!

 Big Mac-ramento?!? Nah, you're just clowning around, aren't you?    Aren't you...

SECU 2026 Election?? While We Wait For The Answer... Why Not Take In A Movie.

 The SAFE/Boeing Merger Odyssey! 

 

  

 A blunder of epic proportions? 

  

 Gambling everything on the wrong horse? 

 

 

 

 An odd, idiocy for ole SAC'ked City? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SECU 2025 Election Process: Hate To Be A Paine, But...

A Doubting Thomas...

"It is only error, not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." - Thomas Paine
                                 
                     

   Well, you've heard from the trolls! [link]

✅ Now consider this: 

✔  First take a second for a quick refresher glance on where we started [link].

1. The truth is: When there are no member-nominated candidates, your vote does not count, as in 2025.  It does not count because there wasn't an election! Therefore, as a member you never got a chance to vote.
2. The truth is:  The nominating committee always renominates incumbents. The majority of the nominating committee - and chair in 2026 - are current board members. 
3.  The truth is: Out of 3 million members at most 4 members - 2 of whom were Hawea and Browning! - expressed an independent interest this year in serving on the board. No effort was made by the nominating committee to educate or encourage SECU members to consider applying to serve on the board.
4.  The truth is: The nominating committee is not limited to selecting only one member for each board vacancy. Other qualified applicants could also be nominated, but aren't.
5.  The truth is: The 2022 Annual Meeting was not "hijacked". The resolution [you can read it here] simply requested a review and a report to the membership from the Board on the changes being made. 
6. The truth is: That resolution presented at the 2022 Annual Meeting was unanimously approved and the motion to approve was seconded by an SECU board member - from the podium.
7.  The truth is: The nominating committee has selected 3 well-qualified candidates to run in 2026. Mr. Hawes and Mr. Browning are also well-qualified to serve on the board, if member-selected to run. In 2024, 31,000 members voted for  Mr. Hawes to serve on the board. 
8.  The truth is: The nominating committee did not select the "most qualified" board candidates from among all SECU members. The nominating committee, in their opinion, selected the 3 "most qualified" candidates from a pool of only 7 members - out of a universe of 3 million.
9.  The truth is: The nominating committee does not always select the "most qualified" candidates to seek a board seat, nor are they required to do so.
10.  The truth is: There is no reasonable explanation why our CEO, Leigh Brady, hasn't put to rest the issue of the approved bylaw amendment, which would increase the potential petition signature requirement dramatically.

 Hard to argue against the truth, isn't it? 

SECU 2026 Election Process: Troll Responds, Clears Up Stupidity...

     Link: July 28, 2026 at 7:14 AM

 ...!

SECU 2026 Election Debate Turns Serious With "Don't Play Stupid" Request ...

  Caution: Croc Alert!

😎 Well, much like in"Cool Hand Luke", what we may have here is... [link - take a look!]!

⚛⚛  If you're just joining us, you probably should go back and start at the beginning of "the conversation" [the 7/22 post - click here]. Then scroll forward through the next 3 posts up to today - don't overlook the comments! Then... all this will make perfect sense!  ⚛⚛ 

The discussion is about the erosion of democratic principles at SECU over the last 3 years [see - here]; including an, as yet unannounced, SECU Board bylaw amendment [see here]. The bylaw change would effectively eliminate the possibility for any future member-nominated board candidates. Required member petition signatures would be increased from 500 to somewhere between 6k and over 30k! Two members are currently seeking signatures as independent, member-nominated candidates in 2026.

🔥 So, now back for his third guest appearance is everyone's favorite anonymouse! Read the complete comment first: [Anonymous July 26, 2026 at 3:17 PM]! As Jack Nicholson said in "The Shining"... "Here's Johnny!".

1) "Don’t play stupid. Did we need to vote last year?"  Well first, evidently you're pretty sure I don't have "to play" at being stupid, it just comes naturally! OK with that one! Are you saying that there wasn't an election at SECU last year; and therefore, no vote was "needed"?
2) "Re-read and try to comprehend my post. Simply pointing out there is a non-incumbent on slate, and he is not one of yours." Yes, I'll agree when there are no incumbents available, the committee must select someone new. But, you're sticking with your claim that incumbents when selected are the "most qualified" candidates?
3) "Remember at first they were “highly qualified”? Fog a mirror and the committee will let you go get signatures to force your way on. That doesn’t make you qualified. If it did maybe it wouldn’t have been such a massive landslide with your four candidates a few years ago."  I personally believe the 2 potential member-nominees are "highly qualified", but as you say that's just one opinion. But as I recall about that "massive landslide", in the 2024 board election Julian Hawes received over 31,000 member votes. The largest vote total for any candidate prior to 2024 was @7,000!  
4) "A stupid question that deserves no response." Might ask of you here -"don't play stupid". You said the annual meeting was hijacked, not me.  Which SECU annual meeting was "hijacked"? Or was that mis-stated? 
5) "All eligible members were able to apply. But neither of your questions are relevant to the point and I think we’ve shown how stupid your first comment and question was." The nominating committee evidently said that 7 members applied, including the 3 on the slate and the 2 contenders, out of 3 million members. 
6) "Except I notice you didn’t say I was wrong. We also know how ignorant you are about things outside of SECU." On your first point, I'm probably being too subtle about that, trying to be discreet. Will admit you're right on the second point, I realize how little I really know with each passing year... admire your self-assurance!  
7) "I am 100% saying that.  Of the candidates the committee reviews, they select the most qualified. Just like they did again this year. The others are deemed eligible and get to try and force their way on. It’s a good process. It’s irresponsible, however, for them to beg for signatures without demonstrating how they are qualified." OK, OK, got it! The 3 nominees for 2026 are not only "well-qualified" and "highly qualified", but are the "most qualified" of those who applied, right? Mr. Browning and Mr. Hawes are only eligible and qualified. Hopefully, if members permit them to be on the ballot, they will have an opportunity to demonstrate "how they are qualified". That isn't a problem, is it?

😎  My only real defense on the "don't play stupid" comment is Forrest Gump...[link]! 

  Last chance to download and mail your signature petition! Here's how [link]*  

  * Your signature is not an endorsement of the candidates, it will simply permit them to run and make their case to the members in September.

SECU 2026 Election Debate Draws Explosive Comments...

   Hey, overdid the "lettuce"?

Our favorite commenter really let loose over the last post [link]. The feedback was a cheesy-beef, double burrito blow back! 

 😎 Regret having to wade in once again to mop up, but... [to follow along more easily you may want to read the entire "comment" first! Anonymous July 25, 2026 at 11:17 AM ] 

1) "We'll get to vote when elections are held and needed." That is an interesting comment "when held"? Please tell us when "elections are needed" at SECU?

2) "And the 3rd? A non-incumbent. You're implying only non-incumbents have a chance." No, the statement was that the SECU nominating committee has always selected all incumbents willing to serve. That's true, isn't it? Yes, it is; no need to argue about that.

3) "Eligible and qualified are not the same thing." According to the SECU nominating committee that's not true. Every SECU member once "vetted" by the committee is both eligible and qualified to run. 

4) [The OOPS!] "The placeholder was to remind you that your annual meeting debacle is the very reason the rules have changed. No meeting will ever be hijacked again." Oh,... is that it. Which SECU annual meeting was "hijacked"? 

5) "Of course not and what a stupid question. The nominating committee is asserting that their nominees are the most qualified of those among the 3 million members that applied to become a director." How many of SECU's 3 million members applied this year? How were the members invited to apply?

6) "I'm not saying it should be an auto disqualifier. I'm saying.... blah, blah, blah." Your "explanation" is worse than your original pontification. As to management "best practices", you may want to reflect upon the axiom: "When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging."

7) "You deflected the point. Yes they were vetted - and then not selected.  The topic here isn't whether they were eligible to run." Agree, no argument there! Both Mr. Browning and Mr. Hawes are eligible and qualified to run as confirmed by the 2026 SECU nominating committee. Are you trying to claim the candidates selected by the nominating committee are always the best qualified?

✅  Tired of "cleaning up after"? Request a nominating petition you can download and mail at: jimblainenc@gmail.com  You will receive a nominating petition for each of the candidates. You will find the name of each candidate printed in the upper right text. Please complete and sign a page for each candidate.*

1. Download and print off a set of petition forms from the return email (as many as you need!). 
2. Complete and sign a page for each candidate.*
3. Mail originals to: SECU Fair Elections, 3192 Cannadys Mill Rd., Franklinton, N.C. 27525
4. Please drop in the mail asap - by July 27th, if possible!

  Still time to help put an end to"burritos bellicoso"!  Better move fast... or look out!

  * Your signature is not an endorsement of the candidates, it will simply permit them to run and make their case to the members in September.

The 2026 SECU Election Process Electrifies Debate...

  ... disturbulence!

Yesterday's post about the on-going disruption in SECU Board nomination and election protocols set off a firestorm among commenters [take a look].  One of our favorite anonymice trolls really lit it up: AnonymousJuly 23, 2026 at 4:53 PM! Let's take a look at the troll's "sturm and drang": 

1) "Your vote will not be counted" is a total lie."  The post is about the SECU Board's continuing efforts to suppress member participation in the governance - annual meeting, member self-nomination, elections -  at SECU. Easy answer: As an SECU member did you have the chance to vote for your directors last year in 2025? Was your vote counted?

2) "There is a non-incumbent on the slate this year." That was in response to the statement that the SECU  nominating committee tends to always renominate incumbents for reelection. In fact, no one at SECU can recall when this was not the case. Sorry, all SECU incumbents were re-nominated again this year - there were only two.

3) "Highly qualified" is a very subjective assessment. They all can be "highly qualified", but the MOST qualified are selected". This was in response to the simple statement that the two members  - Browning & Hawes -  seeking member-nomination are well qualified. They are! The SECU nominating committee interviewed the two candidates and qualified both to seek member-nomination by petition!

4) OOPs!... our troll seems to have missed a beat. 

5) "Your post isn't even credible unless you can make an argument why Hawes and Browning are MORE qualified than those selected." Not sure why anyone has to make that "argument". As our troll stated in #3 above: "Highly qualified" is a very subjective assessment." Is the SECU nominating committee asserting that their nominees - Stone, Dillon, Clements - are the "most qualified" folks out of 3 million members to serve on the SECU Board?

6) "You seem to think management experience highly qualifies someone for a Board. It doesn't. Governance is different than management." Would be difficult to find many folks in the world who would agree with these two statements. As a reader do you believe successful management disqualifies a member from serving on the SECU Board?

7) "These people were vetted and interviewed, and you need to acknowledge you don't see that process." Our troll has become so puffed up with self-importance that (s)he entirely misses the fact that  both the nominated slate and Mr. Browning & Mr. Hawes were vetted, interviewed, and fully authorized to run by the 2026 SECU nominating committee!

😎  That's probably enough to keep the sparks flying and the "balderdash stuff" [B.S.] flowing - for now!

✅  Tired of that "balderdash stuff"? Request a nominating petition you can download and mail at: jimblainenc@gmail.com  You will receive a nominating petition for each of the candidates. You will find the name of each candidate printed in the upper right text. Please complete and sign a page for each candidate.*

1. Download and print off a set of petition forms from the return email (as many as you need!). 
2. Complete and sign a page for each candidate.*
3. Mail originals to: SECU Fair Elections, 3192 Cannadys Mill Rd., Franklinton, N.C. 27525
4. Please drop in the mail asap - by July 27th, if possible!

  Still time to help put an end to "troll think"! But this may be your last chance...

  * Your signature is not an endorsement of the candidates, it will simply permit them to run and make their case to the members in September.

 

Preserving SECU Members' Right To Serve On The SECU Board...

 

 The SECU Board is determined that SECU members - that means you! - should not have the ability to reasonably self-nominate to serve on the Board; nor should members have a choice among candidates. In other words, your vote as an SECU member-owner will no longer matter; your vote will not be counted. 

✔ Wait a minute that can't be right. What happened to cooperative democratic principles, "one member, one vote", and all that?  

Here's how it currently works at SECU: 1) To run for the Board an SECU member must apply to the nominating committee, 2) the nominating committee is selected by the Board, 3) the majority of the nominating committee are existing Board members, 4) the nominating committee chooses who can run, 5) one - and only one - candidate is selected for each vacancy, 6) incumbents are always favored - including this year!, 7) other qualified candidates not selected are given 3 weeks to obtain the signatures of at least 500 other members to qualify to run. Get the picture?

✔ But that's not the real problem In September, 2025 the SECU Board of Directors passed a bylaw amendment to try and make the difficult - independent member nominations - impossible. 

✔ Here's an example from the also large Pentagon Federal Credit Union of what those new petition requirements might look like:

  

 ✔ SECU now has over 3 million members. If a formula like this is adopted in the SECU Board approved amendment at 1% that would mean that a qualified member candidate would then have 3 weeks to obtain 30,000+ petition signatures, at .5% it would take 15,000+ signatures, at .2% 6,000+ signatures to be on the ballot. Get the picture?

✅ Two highly qualified, long-time SECU members, Julian Hawes and Barry Browning, are seeking 500 member signatures in order to self-nominate as candidates for the SECU Board election in 2026.  Both applied to the SECU nominating committee but were not selected - incumbents as usual were preferred.

✅ If you would like to receive a petition you can download just send an email request to: jimblainenc@gmail.com  You will receive a nominating petition for each of the candidates. You will find the name of each candidate printed in the upper right text. Please complete and sign a page for each candidate.*

1. Download and print off a set of petition forms from the return email (as many as you need!). 
2. Complete and sign a page for each candidate.*
3. Mail originals to: SECU Fair Elections, 3192 Cannadys Mill Rd., Franklinton, N.C. 27525
4. Please drop in the mail asap - by July 27th, if possible!

 This may be your last chance!

  * Your signature is not an endorsement of the candidates, it will simply permit them to run and make their case to the members in September.

At SECU - "One Member, One Vote"! Going, Going, Gone...?

                           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? Four 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!   

Recent Year     Member May Speak     Member Resolutions

       2022                 Fully Permitted         Fully Permitted

       2023                    Restricted                     Restricted

       2024                    Prohibited                    Restricted

       2025                    Prohibited                    Prohibited 

2)  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 15,000+ members to sign a support petition. That change will effectively eliminate any likelihood of open board elections at SECU.

3) 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?

4) 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?

  Closing down free speech, blocking member participation in elections, lack of transparency by our leadership, and more to come... "What me Worry?"

✔  If, as a member of SECU, you want to protect your voting rights and don't like the current "trend line".... [click here to help and sign on to "End the Trend"!]

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

SECU Election Petitions: Isn't This A Losing Struggle?

 

✔ Yes, SECU members are losing their credit union.

"The process has been distorted by leaders with member-owners having no meaningful role at any step."  [link] 

 ✅ 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 

✅ Member-led Loan Review Committees: Eliminated! 

✅ Still to come 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 15,000+ members - and upwards as membership continues to rise!

 

For some reason our CEO won't admit it [link]!  

 

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

 

      💢💢 Here's why and how - [check it out!] 💢💢  

 

                                  

  What have you got to lose... everything?

 

  * Your signature is not an endorsement of the candidates, it will simply permit them to run and make their case to the members in September.

SECU Members 2026 Elections: Time To "Lock And (Down)-Load!

   

😎 SECU folks have been badgering me: "Get back on track, stop wandering around on the "Left Coast"!

✔ OK, OK then! Got an urgent request, need your help if you're an SECU member.

Two highly qualified, long-time SECU members, Julian Hawes and Barry Browning, are seeking 500 member signatures in order to self-nominate as candidates for the SECU Board election in 2026.  Both applied to the SECU nominating committee but were not selected - incumbents as usual were preferred.

 

The two are seeking election because the SECU Board has passed a bylaw amendment which would increase the petition signature requirement from 500 members to 15,000 to over 30,000 as membership continues to rise! 

 

✔  That doesn't sound fair! Here's what the two candidates had to say:

"As you are probably aware, the credit union is fighting to retain its ability to remain a democratic institution by  being able to have members nominate candidates to represent them.  We are asking you to help us in this effort by signing a candidate petition for both of us in the next few days. Believe me, it is awkward, having to reach out to former coworkers and friends for such assistance. If you could commit to getting a few family members and friends to sign a petition, it would mean so much to both of us.  Time is of essence, since we have such a narrow window to get 500 signatures. All of this is being done to ensure that we can hold on to one of the very last vestiges we have as a true credit union, “One member, One vote”.  Thank you in advance for your consideration."

Signed,

Julian Hawes & Barry Browning

✅ If you would like to receive a petition you can download just send an email request to: jimblainenc@gmail.com  You will receive a nominating petition for each of the candidates. You will find the name of each candidate printed in the upper right text. Please complete and sign a page for each candidate.

1. Download and print off a set of petition forms from the return email (as many as you need!). 
2. Complete and sign a page for each candidate.
3. Mail originals to: SECU Fair Elections, 3192 Cannadys Mill Rd., Franklinton, N.C. 27525
4. Please drop in the mail asap - by July 25th, if possible!

     🎇🎇🎇🎇  If you would like to email the candidates directly: 🎇🎇🎇🎇

                        Barry Browning [browningb3@gmail.com]       

                        Julian Hawes [jwhawes124@gmail.com]

✔ Hope that you will help support this effort. Your signature is not an endorsement of the candidates, it will simply permit them to run and make their case to the members in September.

 

Please also consider texting or forwarding this post to other members. If you can help by getting your family and a few other members to sign, we can finish this next week. 

 

There is a sense of urgency, so please help now.

 Help preserve the right for SECU members to choose their Board.

The SAFE/Boeing CU Mega-Merger: The Future Is Plane To See?

 

No longer SAFE?

 

 ✔ As the SAFE Board and CEO see the merger! 

 

By selling out: "We can assure that our success over the last 85 years ("a leader in the credit union space") will continue."  

 

 ✔ As the financial experts see the merger!

1]  Better rates                                            YES ◻    NO   ❎

2]  Lower operating costs                             YES ◻    NO   ❎

3]  Enhanced technology                              YES ◻    NO   ❎

4]  More branches/ATMs                               YES ◻    NO   ❎ 

5]  Retain local ownership/control               YES ◻    NO   ❎ 

6]  Assured increase in community support YES ◻    NO   ❎

7]  In-state California regulation                  YES ◻    NO   ❎

8]  Return of capital to SAFE members         YES ◻    NO   ❎ 

9]  Member dialogue prior to agreement      YES ◻    NO   ❎ 

10] Will strengthen the Sacramento area     YES ◻    NO   ❎ 

  SAFE members: "Please fasten your seat-belts... ... in preparation for landing!"

The SAFE/Boeing Mega-Me-Me Merger: Definitely An 'Unconventional' Flip!

 

 

Why SAC-rifice a good name?

                                                                                                   We're SAFE At Home!" 

 For Sacramento, some choices really do matter... [See why! - link]. 

 

The SAFE Merger: Milking The Membership - What Are Friends For?

                          We're giving up! Merging with Boeing Employees' CU!

 

✔ Why? According to CEO Faye Nahbani: 

"For value we on our own, ourselves, cannot deliver."  

 [link - "Perfect Cents" @3:15]

 

 ✔ So, in that case! The best thing for SAFE members to do:

 

  

💥Please email to: What-R-Friends-4@gmail.omg! 

 

    

   That really makes "Perfect Cents", doesn't it?               

Even Trolls Keep Questioning The SAFE/BECU "Mega-Me"... Again!

   

                     A $400 million sucker punch?

✅ Following CEO Faye Nahbani's "Makes Cents" video yesterday [link], even the trolls are again calling out the illogic and mis-statements. That's not usually a good sign!

✓  🧌🧌🧌  Anonymous July 8, 2026 at 2:31 PM

✓ 🧌🧌🧌  AnonymousJuly 8, 2026 at 1:36 PM

 

 ✅ A few months back: 

 In response to the "$400 Million And No Toaster?" post [link], even our troll community seems a bit perplexed about the BECU/SAFE "mega-me-me" merger! 

✓ 🧌🧌🧌  "Anonymous February 23, 2026 at 11:15 AM" 

*This isn't a good deal for SAFE members, but not for he reasons stated. Their capital isn't going away. BECU has basically flat-lined on deposit and asset growth in the last few years, and they're not very profitable, despite being focused on profit. Their high operational expense ("Opex") ratio is 3.43% and rising; SAFE is 3.13% and declining.  This is a scale and net income play for BECU. They'll have to hack expenses a lot get that horrible Opex down. And, their rates aren't great:

SAFE new auto, 5.19%,  BECU 5.49%
SAFE used auto, 5.29%, BECU, 5.79%
SAFE HELOC, 6.75%,   BECU HELOC, 6.99%
SAFE Personal loan, 9.04%, BECU 9.99% etc, etc..

SAFE 24 mo CD: 3%; BECU 2.23%
SAFE 12 and 18 CD: 2.55%; BECU 2.37% ...it goes on and on.*

😎 So, according to our troll-confirmed, NCUA financial data: BECU has higher operating costs, worse interest rates, and a slower growth rate than SAFE credit union!?!   

😎 But the CEOs are cooing otherwise... 

                    

                           [link-watch the CEO video]

  Faye Nabahni: "You can see it in the data, you can see it in the statistics. It's factual which I love, I love data... it's undeniable."

 

The SAFE Mega-Me: What's The Problem?

      One thing is clear... the problem is not SAFE Credit Union. 

✔ Take a look at this newly released SAFE "Perfect Cents" podcast [link] in which SAFE CEO Faye Nahbani explains why a merger with Boeing Credit Union is necessary.  Then take the following quizzes: 

✅ Part 1 - Q:  Please list the 7 crucial reasons why Ms. Nahbani believes that SAFE Credit Union must sell-out now to the folks in Washington.

A1] By selling out, "We can assure that our success over the last 85 years ("a leader in the credit union space") will continue." [0:00]

A2] "Because we have created a low fee, high rate, high value environment for members to do their financial business with us". [2:15]

A3] Boeing will provide a value "we on our own cannot deliver." [3:15]

A4] [As to the the superiority of Boeing] - "This is provable, it's demonstrable. You can see it in the data, you can see it in their statistics. It's factual which I love, I love data... it's undeniable." [5:45]

A5] "We're at our strongest. I think SAFE's in a great position. We're in the best position we've been in in I don't know how many years." [7:25] 

A6] 'Significant fee reductions right off the bat.. the opportunity for better rates even on loans." [10:42] 

A7] **[Sorry as a reader, I just can't waste any more time on this! Over 35 minutes - often hesitant, frequently disjointed, unconvincing. [00:00-35:00]]**

✅ Part 2 - Q: What 7 things did Ms. Nahbani say about her interests and goals? 

A1] Favorite snack? "Nerds candy with the gummy in the center". [30:37]

A2] Favorite summer vacation? "Maybe Palm Springs." [31:15]

A3] Favorite car? "DeLorean" [31:52]

A4] Favorite restaurant? "Eat-A-Pita" [33:16] 

A5] How long at SAFE? "10 years" [34:38]

A6] Enough years to retire? "33 years working in credit unions". [4:20]

A7] What's next in terms of personal goals, aspirations dreams? "To finish off my Evolving Skies Pokemon series deck." [34:00] 

✅ One thing is clear... the problem is not the Credit Union.  

  All this makes "Perfect Cents", doesn't it? 

The SAFE Credit Union Mega Mishap?

 

Our Mission: "Serving Californians by effectively overseeing financial service providers; enforcing laws and regulations; promoting innovation and fair and honest business practices; enhancing consumer awareness; and protecting consumers by preventing potential marketplace risks, fraud, and abuse. "

✔ If the SAFE merger proposal comes to a member vote, it will not be approved by a majority of the 250,000 California SAFE member-owners.

✔ When the merger proposal is not approved by SAFE member-owners, the California regulator  - without published guidelines nor public hearing - may unilaterally choose to over-rule the legitimate member vote.

 ✔  If DFPI disregards the SAFE member vote,  SAFE's California charter will be terminated, regulatory authority, and control of member assets will be transferred to Washington.

  

Lopping off yet another charter by DFPI is to say the least  ... Innovative!

  ✔ Lets take a look at how that "innovative strategy" is working out for California's state regulator, DFPI:

 

  Looks like SAFE members and all of California have been put out on a limb.