✅ "Next Steps...: "Your vote is the next milestone and is expected in Q3/Q4 this year. You will receive your ballot and have plenty of time to review and cast your vote."
✔ California CU statutes require the following: "A Plan of Merger must be approved by a majority of all the members of a disappearing credit union, by vote or written consent."
❇ Commenter question: "Ms. Nahbani, after reviewing the material, if a majority of us do not vote in favor of this merger, will you respect our decision or ask the state regulator to overrule our vote?"
😎 If the SAFE membership is pleased with the performance of SAFE CU as a very successful, local, hometown, home-owned institution, why would Ms. Nahbani seek to thwart that member choice?
Is the SAFE member vote really a milestone... or simply a ruse?
Who's counting the ballots... asking for a friend ...
ReplyDeleteIt’s up to the members and if the majority of the voting member s vote yes, the state should use their authority to affirm the majority will of the voters and approve the merger.
ReplyDelete12:35 Your weaseling won't work. California law requires for member approval of the merger a majority of all SAFE members [@125,00+ votes] - not a majority of those members voting.
DeleteShould be no argument there... California law is explicitly clear... a majority of all "must"!
Equally there should be no argument that DFPI may arbitrarily approve the merger if a majority of all SAFE members do not approve
All you're doing, in addition to making yourself look stupid is setting yourself up to have something to complain about when the regulator approves this merger. Spare yourself and us the drama - we already know exactly what your day after comment will be.
DeleteHere are some truths you can start accepting:
1) There will NOT be a yes vote by the majority of SAFE members.
2) Of the votes, the majority will be a YES.
3) Given the lack of engagement by SAFE members, the state will use its specifically defined and lawful authority to approve the merger. In doing so, it will implicitly defer to the members who voted yes, and the to the Board, who voted the approve the merger, and have a fiduciary duty to look after the best interests of members.
Mark it down. It WILL happen that way. No amount of whining on your part will change it. It's debatable that you knew what was good for our members half the time - you're in no position to determine what's best for another credit union's membership.
Assuming a vote count of less than the majority of members, when the majority of voters vote yes, the state affirms that majority in their approval.
ReplyDelete1:13pm On what basis does the regulator make the decision ? If 3 members vote, 2 in favor and 1 against... does the regulator declare an overwhelming 2/3rds majority vote in favor and approve?
Delete1:36; yes, as long the state determines that SAFE did what they were supposed to do to inform members about the vote, the process, how to vote, etc, etc. There is language in the reg that addresses that. Look it up.
DeleteAssuming that was followed, then yes, 3 is enough. Think about your preposterous example - if only 3 vote, it's acceptance of the outcome. Only3 care enough to vote means members either don't oppose it, or those that do oppose it, don't oppose it enough to take 10 minutes our of their day. With your incessant whining and babbling on this over the last several months, you've already spent 100x more time on this than their members.
You seem to forget members elected a board of directors, and what their role is in this.
You don’t have to like this merger but misrepresenting it and ignoring the fact the outcome is based 100% on the member democratic process is disingenuous. If members are SS pathetic and don’t engage and vote, they deserve to own any consequences.
ReplyDelete