Yo everyone: This is majorly important. This issue will be decided by a
small handful of votes, so if you have an account at Coop Credit Union,
you need to be at this meeting to make your voice heard and your vote count.
The issue at stake comes down to this: Old-guard Board members are
upset with Tye, Tim, and Mike, for insisting on accountability to the
Credit Union membership. The old-guard wants to throw out the
"radicals" and get back to business as usual.
I know Tye, Tim, and Mike. They're ferociously committed to cooperative
values of membership democracy and participation, and they walk their
talk. Tim has been involved in a number of successful worker coop
startups in the Bay Area over the last 15+ years. All three are
committed to an agenda that will lead to starting more worker coops and
strengthening those that already exist.
This vote is about whether the "radicals" get to keep their Board seats,
or whether the old-guard gets to throw them out.
This is a critical turning point for the Coop Credit Union.
The meeting is this Tuesday evening, 03 December, at 6:00PM (get there
early!), at the Ed Roberts Campus, which is located directly above Ashby
BART station. Tell your friends and spread the word: anyone with an
account is a member and has a vote, and every single vote matters.
-G.
=====
On 13-12-01-Sun 1:49 PM, Danny Spitzberg wrote:
For those of you who are members of the Cooperative
Development Center
Federal Credit Union and/or interested in political dimensions of
democratic organizations... Read on
And to all a happy Sunday!
:Danny
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Tim Huet* <easytospell(a)sbcglobal.net
<mailto:easytospell@sbcglobal.net>>
Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM
Subject: from Tim Huet; URGENT info and help needed
To: "tim(a)arizmendi.coop <mailto:tim@arizmendi.coop>"
<tim(a)arizmendi.coop <mailto:tim@arizmendi.coop>>
{This is a matter of great urgency for what-should-be a democratic
organization that can do great good for its community. I
apologize for the mix of personal and work email addresses,
especially if you got duplicate messages. I'm trying to get this
message out to members of the Cooperative Development Center
Federal Credit Union before Tuesday's meeting; I'm writing you as
people who hopefully know me as someone who has dedicated myself
to building democratic organizations and would not do the things
that certain people in power are accusing me of. Please feel
encouraged to forward this message on to any friends you know who
might be members of the credit union to assist the effort to fight
this assault on democracy.}
Hello. I have started to receive enquires from friends and
worried credit union members regarding the action of the credit
union’s Supervisory Committee to suspend Tye Kirk, Mike Leung, and
myself. Let me begin by saying that I believe the suspensions
reflect a grave governance crisis for the credit union, but I also
believe the credit union is financially secure. My primary
interest continues to be to revive the credit union as a
democratic institution and have it serve its community/members
well, even if other parties wish to engage in factional warfare
and divert resources that could better serve the members.
I will provide a brief response to the charges here because past
experience indicates I might not be given a fair opportunity to
respond to charges in the meeting. Though fair process would
involve an unbiased investigation, the Supervisory Committee did
not even interview me before issuing its charges and suspension.
The allegations are that Tye, Mike, and I…
· “Attempted to hold one or more Board meetings without
giving notice to the other directors”
· “At improper meetings attempted to remove two legally
seated directors…”
We never endeavored to remove other board directors. We
endeavored to have timely legal elections as part of the 2013
annual meeting. I tried everything I could to inform Board Chair
Garrett and Vice Chair Shabaka the bylaws called for their terms
to end with the next annual meeting unless re-elected at that meeting.
The reason the election could not happen on the meeting date Mr.
Shabaka proposed (11/1/13) was because Mr. Garrett, as Board
Chair, did not fulfill his legal duty of appointing a Nominating
Committee with a sufficient period to seek out qualified
candidates. It would be understandable if Mr. Garrett simply
forgot that his maximum three-year term was coming to an end
(though two annual meetings without an election in a row should
never happen in a credit union with three-year terms). But his
failure to take appropriate action/responsibility once notified of
his lapse is entirely another matter. Instead of seeking guidance
and approval from the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
about how we could carry out an election with the greatest haste
and least waste of member resources, Mr. Garrett and Mr. Shabaka
kept pushing toward an early annual meeting without elections…and
apparently stayed on the board without being re-elected. So we
had a 2013 “annual meeting” with no elections or substantial
opportunity for the members to give input, at the cost of
thousands of members’ dollars; and now we will apparently have an
extra annual meeting/election in early 2014 (likely costing
thousands more of the members’ dollars). Yet the Supervisory
Committee (primarily charged with making sure members’ funds are
not wasted) ignored this violation.
We tried to organize a meeting of the board within seven days of
the annual meeting as the bylaws would appear to require; the
bylaws require this meeting primarily to elect new officers
(presumably because an election would have happened and there
might be occasion/need for a change of officers). There was an
effort to reach every board member and the one possible time that
Mr. Shabaka, Mr. Leung, Mr. Kirk and I could make was arrived at,
with the hope that Mr. Garrett would be able to find a way to
fulfill this obligation under the bylaws. But when Mr. Garrett
was called and asked about time in the remaining day to meet the
bylaw obligation, he would not listen or engage in a cooperative
effort to fulfill our obligation; he instead hung up on the
caller. Though I expect Mr. Garrett will have more opportunities
to speak for himself, he apparently objected that only he as the
Chair could call a meeting (not true). But the real issue was
that a meeting was required the bylaws; he was responsible as
anyone to understand the bylaw requirements; and particularly if
he was the only one who could call the meeting he would be the
person most responsible for making sure not to violate that
bylaw…but he wouldn’t want to have a meeting where he wouldn’t be
eligible to be elected to a one-year officer term when he was
beyond his election term and it could not be presumed he would be
re-elected. So another actual bylaw violation – failure to have
the meeting within seven days – due to Mr. Garrett’s inaction and
obstruction.
Yet the Supervisory Committee again ignored this in favor of
suspending directors trying to work out bylaws that would comply
with NCUA regulations, allow for lawful elections, etc. (the
bylaws supposedly adopted by the previous board, including Ms.
Pitrie of the Supervisory Committee, proved to be a jumble of
contradictions that could not possibly have been approved by the
NCUA).
This is despite the Supervisory Committee’s claim that it “takes
seriously your, and each of our members’ rights, to vote on the
composition of your Board.” The Supervisory Committee is required
by law to let the members decide on approving suspension and
reinstatement…and only if members show up December 3^rd (Ed
Roberts Campus, above Ashby BART, 3075 Adeline; 6 p.m.) who care
about democracy will a fair process and result be assured.
Thanking you for your consideration,
Tim Huet
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss