The More The Merrier?
The last few days, commenters have obsessed over the $26.5 million insurance loan made to our CEO. Folks have jumped on that carousal with a vengeance.
✅ The lurid attraction is a dangerous distraction! As an SECU member, don't lose sight of the more fundamental questions [link] our CEO has - to date - refused to answer about: those "no amendment amendments", the new trampling of individual member privacy rights, revocation of member rights to speak, participate, and present resolutions at Annual meetings.
✔ And then there is, the new 30 minute annual meeting limit on 3 million members to ask our CEO and Board questions!
So, don't get too distracted by that $26.5 million painted pony; Ms. Brady has promised to answer and post all submitted questions. Commenters have sought clarity: what insurance company, what agent, what premium, what rate, whose cousin, "secured" by what, etc.
✔ Lets hope the answer is not what one commenter said: "... More importantly, you have no right whatsoever to know that information" October 18, 2026 at 10:56 AM. [Really? Surely you jest!]
Might point out that every North Carolina teacher and all state employees' annual salary/benefits are publicly published... as are the comp levels of CEOs at JP, Chase, Citi, and BOA. SECU shouldn't have anything to hide.
✔ No right to know? Wrong about that! The reason the IRS requires disclosure is they want credit union members [and charity/non-profit supporters] to know exactly what's going on due to rampant abuse in this benefit area.
The BNC article [link] was somewhat sketchy: State regulators don't approve CEO compensation/benefits - a $26.5 million loan to any SECU member would of course raise their eyebrows! SECU execs already have substantial special retirement packages [SERPs] which didn't require approval.
😎 But, do your own research! Call up your life insurance agent, tell them you're a 60 year old female, in good health, and would like a quote on a $26.5 million life insurance policy. Let us know what they say!
The privacy statement is a regulatory requirement that every bank and institution has. Don’t like it? Then you don’t get to use online banking. SECU has had it for decades. Why is it an issue now?
ReplyDelete10:55am Nah, fibbing again!
DeleteBless your heart... get on back under your rock now!
So uou chose ignorance. Bless your heart, you have lost your way.
Delete4:34pm Why treat SECU members as adversaries? The privacy notice is excessively punitive. Why not treat - and respect - members as fellow human beings? Y'know as if they owned the place!
DeleteLatest example of SECU being over-lawyered and under- led. SECU could do much better.
Squandering member trust that has been hard earned and built up by 1000's of employees over decades!
Now members aren’t being treated like human beings? Ridiculous. Can you detail the changes that were made to this statement, why they are bad, and how they differ from what happens in the industry? You take one poster’s inaccurate cimmeht at face value and now members are being treated adversaries? You’re considered an adversary beacuse you have a personal agenda and act in bad faith, but no other members are being treated as adversaries.
DeleteI work in a branch down east and it is important to point out that our consumer privacy notice is what is covering personal information relating to financial products and services. That notice has not changed since 2014.
Delete8:07 pm Which poster made the "inaccurate cimment"? Not clear which cimment you are referring too.
DeletePlease clarify for everyone... thanks
Please clarify why you are advocating that this is now putative??? Thought you were on the side of the members.
Delete7:53am Good question, especially if 1) you're like most of us who never read privacy statements, 2) accept the statement that the privacy statement hasn't changed in "decades", and have always trusted the CU to do the right thing by members.
DeleteThen why waste time,right?
10:19. The inaccurate statement was the original comment by a member that it changed. It didn’t. But you jumped on it and claim your credit union is treating members like sub humans. Nice. You should lodge another formal complaint with the regulator since that’s what you do. You got to detail the changes you saw. We’re waiting.
Delete8:09 am Thanks that helps, but I think you may be getting into... back under rock territory, but...
DeleteTry this one. Is the SECU privacy statement intended to reassure members their privacy will be protected?
The privacy statements have been in place since you were CEO and are required by law. Are you suggesting SECU break the law? Don’t edit my comment now.
Delete10:17 am People say a lie repeated often enough can appear to be true.
DeleteFor the second or third time: "The privacy statements have been in place since you were CEO ..." are not true.
Get on back under there..!
11:51. Are you saying no privacy statements existed at all while you were CEO, or that the current one has changed since then? You might refer the GLBA which started requiring them in 2001 and they were mailed to members. Then in 2014/2015 it was made acceptable to post the statement for all. 10:17’s statement us factual. Yours isn’t. Feel free to tell us what’s changed, though, on the privacy statement posted now and the one when you were ceo. Digging yourself a hole because all because you believed some stupid comment from a member. It’s pathetic, but fun to watch you get called on your BS. It should be obvious to you that commenter no longer accept what you say to be true. You need receipts.
DeleteDigging yourself a hole because all because you believed some "stupid comment from a member." The difference between what SECU used to be and what it is now. Members used to be welcomed, helped and respected, not called names.
DeleteThe member wasn’t called stupid, the comment was stupid. Blaine needs receipts and reasons why this “privacy statement”, a legal requirement which has been in place SINCE HE WAS CEO, is now, somehow “an assault on member privacy” @8:37 Genuine question for you, can you read?.
DeleteBoard already had experience with this with Hayes--the $6 million dollar man. Now SECU has upped the ante for Brady the $26.5 million dollar woman. Gotta stay ahead of inflation--It hits folks in the 1% so hard.....
ReplyDeleteCan you explain how Ms Brady received $26.5 million? That’s the policy premium I thought, not any death benefit or accrued cash value of the policy.
DeleteOur CEO will explain all by Halloween. Hold your pumpkin!
DeleteIf the death benefit is $26.5 million, then Ms Brady gets nothing and SECU losses money on interest payments but recoups its principal.
Delete7:02am Maybe so. but that's not what SECU told BNC... there is a link to the article in the post.
Delete7:02 am Our CEO will clarify the facts of the $26.5 million loan soon... the question was submitted in advance as required... as recommended hold your pumpkin!
DeleteI doubt she will disclose the details you want for a private insurance policy. Is there a law or regulation that requires public disclosure of private permanent life insurance policy details, such as death benefit or cash value? That would seem to encroach on the rights of private citizens.
Delete8:28am She may choose not to do the right thing, but lets hope not. Truth won't hurt.
DeleteYou need to think through the "private" part of your argument carefully. Why do you think the IRS has required that companies publicly publish this information?
The financial/ethical/tax concerns at the IRS with these benefits has been with the lack of transparency and disclosure. IRS forced folks to quit "hiding" this stuff from members/investors.
But, glad to see you fully support individual privacy rights... if our senior leadership has a right to privacy shouldn't all the 3 million other SECU members expect the same rights too?
guess no more "poor Leigh" commemts?
DeleteIt used to be in the annual report of the CEO president's compensation, but for some reason it's gone
ReplyDelete