Was there a better choice? What if the answer is "Yes"?
Choice and false choice are two different and opposing ideas. Choice involves weighing the pros and cons of several options based on personal goals, values, or circumstances. A false choice is a deceptive tactic, which creates an illusion of choice, while restricting or misrepresenting available alternatives - or worse, implying there is only one choice!
Been trying to point out - probably unsuccessfully - that we live in a world, which increasing offers up to each of us, an illusion of choices, when in fact there are actually few... and often none. Perhaps this is acceptable in our "buyer beware", "anything goes" economy, with few prudential or consumer safeguards. The illusion of choice - or a false choice - seems, however, out of place in the cooperative, non-profit realm. Isn't that against the basic principles and core values of these institutions?
So, that's why we've been looking at WakeMed, SAFE Credit Union, and SECU as examples. With WakeMed clearly there is a better deal to be made for the citizens of Wake County. Little dispute there. Public outcry by citizens and political leaders from both parties have challenged "the no other choice" arrogance.
With SAFE, the member-owners are being asked to vote to "self-destruct" in a merger they didn't want, with an out-of-state partner which appears financially inferior. The majority of SAFE members will not approve "this no choice merger". The SAFE board has stated it will appeal to the state regulator to overrule "the members choice"!
At SECU, the board and senior management have of late stripped away many rights of members to participate. The Board has even threatened to effectively bar "the members choice" to independently nominate board candidates. The Board - through a non-independent nominating committee - routinely presents the 3 million SECU members with "no choice" in board candidates. "Without choice" of candidates, is there an election?
✔ Choice is the cornerstone of democracy. Is it working?
Is there a better choice?
The nominating committee shouldn’t be independent. Why have an independent committee, which has no duty to the membership, make those selections? That makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteYour comment reinforces the theme of the post!
DeleteThe false choice in your statement is that an independent committee would have no duty to the membership..
Thanks for proving the example!
Put an independent group together and let them recruit and nominate their best friends?
DeleteIsn't that what folks say the non-independent nominating committee is doing now?
DeleteYou seem to think an independent group would generate a different outcome
DeleteIsn't that exactly what happened in 2023? The "independent group" in that instance was the SECU membership!
DeleteBy renominating two of those folks as "best qualified" hasn't the board confirmed that the nominating committee didn't get it right in 2023?
That the membership made a better choice!
The nominating committee made the right call to nominate the most qualified candidates. Clements, Dillon, Stone.
ReplyDeleteWeren't two of this year's nominee-incumbents first nominated by the membership in 2023, not the nominating committee?
DeleteIn 2023, the members thought they could come up with better candidates than the board selected nominating committee. The 3 member-nominated candidates were elected, throwing out all the incumbents!
Evidently by renominating those two from 2023 in 2026, the nominating committee agreed they really were the best qualified candidates.
A true choice in 2023 provided a better choice in 2026?
ReplyDelete"Choice and false choice are two different and opposing ideas"
That is how we know if someone is operating in the Spirit of truth or the spirit of deception...
Why would we want members to have a say in how SECU operates?
ReplyDelete