✔ 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.*
- Download and print off a set of petition forms from the return email (as many as you need!).
- Complete and sign a page for each candidate.*
- Mail originals to: SECU Fair Elections, 3192 Cannadys Mill Rd., Franklinton, N.C. 27525
- Please drop in the mail asap - by July 27th, if possible!
This may be your last chance!
An unsurprisingly inaccurate and deceptive spin on this. Several problems with your logic.
ReplyDelete1) "your vote will not be counted" is a total lie. Ridiculous distortion and gaslighting.
2) There is a non-incumbent, Christopher Dillon, on the slate this year.
3) "highly qualified" is a very subjective assessment and it's an absolute statement. They all can be "highly qualified", but the MOST qualified are selected.
5) Your post isn't even credible unless you can make an argument why hawes and browning are MORE qualified than those selected. Do they even have board experience? Mr. Hawes didn't add that in his bio before. What about Mr. Browning? What has he done to prepare for this in the 12 years since he retired? Incumbents have extensive board experience at SECU and from other Boards. A director for a 60 billion, highly-regulated financial institution is not a training ground to teach someone to be a board member. That's what united way is for. The Board has a fiduciary duty which can be violated if they don't nominate the most qualified candidates.
6) You seem to think management experience highly qualifies someone for a Board. It doesn't. Governance is different than management. And there is a reason why it's universally considered a bad idea to have prior management, CEO or otherwise, on a company's Board. Why? Because there is risk they can't be objective. How would they vote to kill or change a program they implemented? The risk of that at SECU is very high. Old / old is the poster child for the narrow "we've always done it that way" thinking, more than any org, CU, or group of leaders I have ever seen. The cost of consequence of that mentality in the last 10 years is incalculable.
7) These people were vetted and interviewed, and you need to acknowledge you don't see that process.
We would have a much better chance of new directors being nominated if they weren't prior leaders from the credit union. Governance 101 stuff across all industries.
Just another thing where you don't like the outcome, so you criticize the process. It's a good process, not a conspiracy. Make the argument why those two were MORE qualified than the ones the committee selected and you'd have valid point.
Having an exceptionally small amount of signatures required is actually far less democratic. Imagine if laws only needed 25% of a vote to pass. More garbage.
ReplyDelete12:12 This comment makes absolutely no sense. The signatures are required just to be able to run-they are NOT votes. Voting will take place later.
DeleteThe comment makes perfect sense. It takes only 500 out of 3 million to get on the ballot, and then say 5% of members actually vote in the election. You could get an eligible, but very unqualified director without an affirmative vote from 97% of the member owners. Do we want that process, or one where prospective directors are vetted with some rigor by the nominating committee, comprised mostly by directors we voted for that have a legal duty to act in our best interests?
Deleteor you can have a handful of board members hire an unqualified CEO...
ReplyDeleteJust because folks resisted necessary change doesn’t mean he was unqualified. He was far more forward looking that his predecessors.
DeleteThe Board’s failed attempt of an outside hire is what is so disappointing. Their process made them look inept in retrospect. From the consultant to the vetting process - a total whiff at the plate. Clearly they did not lean on any ‘prior board’ experience. Many past and present SECU leaders would have seen through the applicant chosen. Second largest CU could have landed a much better outside hire. The one chosen was not ready nor qualified.
Delete7:58 Don't let your nose grow too long
Delete