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.*
- 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!
Still time to help put an end to"burritos bellicoso"! Better move fast... or look out!
1) don’t play stupid. Did we need to vote last year?
ReplyDelete2)re-read and try to comprehend my post. Simply pointing out there is a non-incumbent on share, and ihes not one of yours.
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.
4) a stupid question that deserves no response
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
6) except I notice you didn’t say I was wrong. We also know how ignorant you are about things outside of SECU.
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. You saying so doesn’t count.
Creating insurmountable barriers to members who want to participate in credit union governance is corruption plain and simple. One can run for Congress with fewer signatures. Nominating “qualified” nonmembers to the board is how SAFE Credit Union excluded members from governance and now the board has the audacity to claim that terminating SAFE is in the members ‘ best interests.
ReplyDeleteScott R
SAFE member
12:17, except that in our case, a couple of million members+ were eligible, and would have had to fill out about 30 mins worth of paperwork to be considered by the nominating committee. Hardly difficult and it's a very low barrier to apply. Then, they have to stand on their merits and be evaluated among others. Unfortunate for them if they aren't selected by the committee to be on the ballot, but collecting 500 sigs is not difficult.
DeleteThe self-nomination has worked a few times, exactly as it should have. It's hardly corrupt.
Your Board got sold a bill of goods buy the boeing ceo and board and clearly didn't do enough due diligence, with a CEO happy to oblige to get paid in 18 months. Board members have an apparent conflict of interest to vote yes to bring it to a vote, and then get a $125,000 board salary.
One thing's for sure - SAFE members control this outcome and their right to vote on this is not suppressed. Nothing can get in the way of them voting this down if they educate and engage.