Voting closed on October 27 for members to vote yes or no to merge with BECU. That is five days ago.
There has been no SAFE announcement of results. Nothing on the official merger home page https://www.safecu.org/combination/. (safe.org/combination)
Nor could I find any press release or other update on SAFE’s website: https://www.safecu.org/.
Normally a credit union is quick to announce the results usually with general comments such has “members have overwhelmingly approved” etc.
But no vote totals announced. No winner declared. Is this because the vote did not go the way SAFE’s leaders hoped? Are they now considering a plan B?
The Vote Numbers Are Critical
Without the numbers, we don’t know the election outcome. Just as important is the total number of votes cast. In California law a majority of members must vote in a merger decision for it to be approved.
However SAFE stated in the official meeting Notice they would ask for an exception to this requirement, regardless of the number of 245,000 members who participated.
In other words when following the law doesn’t work out, ask for an exemption to override this guardrail for member-owner democratic control.
A Faulty Merger Premise
This silence is a continuing example of the unilateral Board action to transfer all of SAFE’s resources, member relationships and legacy contributions over to another organization. BECU is a Washington state charter whose main office is 750 miles away and operates under different bylaws and business models from SAFE. Members were told nothing about how BECU would change SAFE’s operations.
All merger efforts were done in secret without any member notice or dialogue. The only specific commitments in the merger agreement were to pay bonuses of up to $15 million to the five senior managers who arranged the merger. All the other employees were left to fend for their future if put in the hands of new leaders.
The Chair who signed the official Member Notice neglected to reveal she would receive one of the two $125,000 salaried director positions at BECU. On October 22, five days before the final votes were due, a belated press announcement disclosed this arrangement
In analysis after analysis public posts at SECU-JustAsking and in my prior blogs, the public call report data showed SAFE members would pay more for loans, receive lower savings and have an overhead cost almost one-third larger under BECU control.
Why would members support closing their credit union, lose all independent operations and local control to pay more and receive less?
Next Steps
We may know the outcome of today’s political contests before SAFE reports the member voting totals. Just another example of leaders ignoring their accountability to the owners. But the numbers will come out.
When that happens, the members and the regulators will have multiple decisions. If the vote is lost, that is a refutation of SAFE’s board and senior management. Time for new leadership.
If the vote is de-minimis versus the legal majority standard, does SAFE just walk away or try to get a regulatory override?
Finally, what legal options can member-owners pursue to protect their rights and property interests in this credit union?
The vote numbers will just open another chapter in this misguided, self-serving effort to sell SAFE’s entire operations to another organization so seven leaders could make a quick buck. And then letting 700 employees and 245,000 member-owners fend for themselves.