SECU elects 3 or 4 directors every year. In 2026, the SECU Board of Directors is following its usual pattern of putting forth only one candidate for each vacancy, although every candidate presented to the nominating committee was fully qualified to run.
The problem with this practice of "one vacancy/one candidate" is it assures, if not challenged, that SECU members will never be allowed to vote for their directors, because no election will be held. This is what occurred last year in 2025; there was no election for SECU directors.
Additionally, incumbents have always been renominated by the nominating committee. The only way to crack this Board self-reanointment process is to obtain member signatures to petition to be on the ballot - currently 500 member signatures are required.
This year, two fully qualified candidates not selected by the nominating committee - Julian Hawes and Barry Browning - have submitted the required petitions. Validation of signatures is underway.
✔ SECU members have once again voiced their preference to preserve their democratic right to vote.
Wouldn't you always prefer to have a choice in life... in most everything you do?
Eligible and qualified are not the sane thing
ReplyDeleteAgree current system isn't 'sane'.
DeleteBoth Hawes and Browning are eligible and qualified. Both have over a quarter of a century of actual professional experience with credit unions.
They're not amateurs in that field.
So we’ll see if the voters deem them the most qualified. Love the process!
DeleteFormer employees should not be permitted on the board.
ReplyDeleteAgree. There is a reason you rarely see it in any industry, and it’s not really advised when you do.
Deletethat would be discrimination ...
Delete11:34 Sorry that's fiction.
DeleteBut since you brought it up, explain your reasoning... and of course a little proof would be helpful too. Thanks.
12:33. Not fiction at all. Didn’t say it never happened but it’s highly uncommon. Go look at 100 banks, credit unions or public companies and come back and tell us how many have a prior employee on their board. For public companies it’s most often when there is a CEO and Chair, when they give up the CEO role and stay on the board. And, when it does happen, exceedingly rare that the former management person on the board is not the former CEO.
DeleteYou say fiction? Where is your proof that this isn’t rare?
2:32pm When caught out, you hope that the blah, blah, blah will cover your mistake.... doesn'twork. You look inept.
DeleteWhy should I have to provide proof when you can't? Silly...
2:32pm Not only does it appear silly to bar a former employee from serving on the board; it also appears to be illegal according to the feds:
DeleteFrom NCUA legal opinion: "...it has long been our position that, generally, the only eligibility requirements for FCU board membership are those contained in the FCU Act. That is, as long as an individual is a member (§111) and has not been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or breach of trust (5205(d)), he or she is eligible to be elected as a director."
"There is one exception provided in the bylaws. Article VI, Section 7, permits the board, by resolution, to establish a minimum age requirement."
Who said anything about barring them? It’s not prohibited by the NCUA or any other body like the SEC. Of course it’s not illegal, coulda told you that.
DeleteIt’s a rare practice for reasons that should be obvious. That’s the statement. That’s the claim.
3:40pm Seem to have a bit of an "after the fact" memory when you're called out.
Delete"Coulda told you that" - but didn't.
How about sharing with all of us the "obvious reasons" that it's a "rare practice"....how obvious?how rare?
No blah, blah, blah this time, OK?
No. Didn’t say that it wasn’t illegal up front. But the why would I? Had nothing to do with the point being made, I said it was rare. Just so you kkow, rare means it happens, but very infrequently. If it were illegal, it wouldn’t happen at all, right? Can you follow that?
Delete6:34pm Hate to bust your bubble, but here's what was said: 11:04am -"Former employees should not be permitted on the board." That prohibition would be illegal.
DeleteBut at 11P:34am you say: "Agree." Sorry you can't keep up with what you say...
... but how about quit wasting our time. Thanks.
I said it was rare. Just so you kkow, rare means it happens, but very infrequently. If it were illegal, it wouldn’t happen at all, right? Can you follow that?
DeleteAnd why didn’t it happen last year? Because no one self-nominated. There is a mechanism for contested elections. Just have to follow directions. Not that hard.
ReplyDelete6:42. Not my comment, but either way all they said is we shouldn’t permit it. We could do so as an SECU policy and it would not be against the law. Stop spreading fiction. We get to decide who is eligible and who isn’t. Educate yourself.
Delete6:57pm Complete la=la land. An SECU policy can override the law/ Are youu on the board?
Delete@9:47, the nominating committee can add all kinds of criteria and qualifications on top of the min eligibility, and they could have a policy prohibiting prior employees from their dejection process.
DeleteUnder no circumstance should that be characterized as overrriding the law.
Delete