😎 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]*
Before 9p.m.had already received a quick response from our star commentator!!!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately our analyst is either trying to weasel by not answering a couple of questions... or perhaps simply overlooked them in the rushed response?
Let's assume the best and put it down to unintentional oversight caused by the rush..
Here ya go second chance to answer!
1) "Are you saying that there wasn't an election at SECU last year; and therefore, no vote was "needed"?
2) "You said the annual meeting was hijacked, not me. Which SECU annual meeting was "hijacked"? Or was that mis-stated?" [2022?2023?2024"2025?]
Thank you.
9:54pm Think we're making some progress but of course its hard to verify! Received the following:
ReplyDelete"1) no.
2) you’re the one who hijacked it with your stuttering rant and worthless resolutions so you should know."
So the follow ups would be::
1) You originally said: 1) "We'll get to vote when elections are held and needed." ...then said: "1) "Don’t play stupid. Did we need to vote last year?"
Was trying to confirm you were referring to last year - in 2025 - when no election was held and no vote was needed. Is that what you were saying?
2) Not trying to trick you on dates. The year the stuttering resolution was presented was 2022. So is 2022 the year you were talking about being hijacked?
Thanks for the follow up.
10;43 pm Appear to be getting closer.Got this:
ReplyDelete"2) yes. Why is it so hard to understand? In addition to it being an embarrassment for you, it was the catalyst for all the role changes. Have you apologized to the membership yet?"
So 2022 was the source of the problem...got it.
The only one left unanswered is #1:
"1) You originally said: 1) "We'll get to vote when elections are held and needed." ...then said: "1) "Don’t play stupid. Did we need to vote last year?"
"Was trying to confirm you were referring to last year - in 2025 - when no election was held and no vote was needed. Is that what you were saying?"
Not sure why the hesitancy on confirming this? If it was a slip-up or mis-statement, just own up and lets move on.
Thanks. Last one!
No, no vote was needed. None of the self nominating candidates bothered to read the clear and basic instructions on how to self nominate and I’m glad they did. SECau deserves top leadership who pays attention and those self nominating candidates showed their true colors and failed to do so.
ReplyDeleteWhy would we waste the memberships time and money?
#1. Wow you’re slow. Your statement - “your vote will no longer count” I am simply saying that was a lie. There is a difference, genius, when something doesbt need to get to a vote or a vote doesn’t occur, than when a vote is held and a vote isn’t counted. You’re claim is that we wont count members votes when they vote in an election. LIe.
ReplyDeleteDo you get it yet?
8:18am Got the fimal response! Thank you.
ReplyDelete"1. No, no vote was needed. None of the self nominating candidates bothered to read the clear and basic instructions on how to self nominate and I’m glad they did. SECau deserves top leadership who pays attention and those self nominating candidates showed their true colors and failed to do so."
Stay tuned...
Why would we waste the memberships time and money?
not sure what answer that is, but it's not mine. predictable pivot when its pointed out how stupid your #1 comment was, and what an outrageous claim or lie it is.
DeleteSeems maybe that wasn't the final answer to #1. Warring trolls... a new low!
ReplyDelete10:18 wins, though. That debacle makes this whole thing about suppressing member rights look ridiculous. It took at 3rd grade reading level to follow those directions, and even have awareness they were issued. Then, for you to endure the hilarious public humiliation by not being able to properly interpret unambiguous, plain language, then challenge the GC, lodge a formal complaint against your credit union with the regulator, and then get blown up by both of them was just hilarious and priceless.
DeleteOne note, without your 5-6 trolls this blog would be dead. People look at it to read their comments, not yours!
So, while you're thinking: "Please stop will this never end!!!"
ReplyDeleteHere are the original troll smack responses to the questions in the above post "updated" to include the subsequent follow up answers to #1 and #2 at 8:18am and 10:18am:
1) It does come naturally for you. we agree on something.
No, no vote was needed. None of the self nominating candidates bothered to read the clear and basic instructions on how to self nominate and I’m glad they did. SECU deserves top leadership who pays attention and those self nominating candidates showed their true colors and failed to do so.
2) Yes, 100% absolutely. I believe and trust the nominating committee selects the most qualified candidates. If they are the incumbents, that's how it goes. Common sense that Board experience matters, and that weights for incumbents.
3) If only you could win an election by getting more votes than someone in a prior election, not getting more votes than who you are running against! LOL! Process works. Nominating didn't deem Mr. Hawes as the most qualified. So he nominated himself and the voting members agreed with the committee overwhelmingly. And when I say overwhelmingly, I mean by a landslide.
4) Yes. The 2022 annual meeting was hijacked by your stuttering resolution.Why is it so hard to understand? In addition to it being an embarrassment for you, it was the catalyst for all the role changes. Have you apologized to the membership yet?"
5) I repeat. so what? Not relevant to the conversation.
That said, this massive suppression of right you speak of. Kinda silly to throw such a tantrum about it when only 7 out of 3 million are willing to engage. That's such compelling evidence of democratic involvement by members! You're ok we have to prove citizenship (oops, I mean membership) to vote, aren't you?
6) we agree on more thing.
7) call the well-qualified, highly qualified or whatever you want. But YES, all that matters is that the 3 on the slate are the MOST qualified of the group, as determined by the committee. Why would it be a problem for candidates to demonstrate their qualifications once they are on the ballot? Like my post said, it's a good process. Members have every chance to disagree with the committee and put them on the Board. Maybe the vote will be closer this time. The process is working exactly as designed - which actually begs the question of why all the rants and tantrum about suppressed member rights? A member has a right to self-nominate, other members have the right to get them on the ballot, and then we all have a right to vote. It's a great exercise of democracy, and member right are hardly suppressed.
Phew... that was a long process. Glad we all understand now! Interesting answers. Thank you.
the board showed their "qualifications" when they selected Gym the selfie CEO ...
Delete