What CCU's Majority Board Didn't Want You To Know

Ralph Erdmann resigned from CCU's Board of Directors on November 15, 2006.  Prior to his resignation, he attempted, from within, to persuade the 5-member majority to provide fair and balanced material to CCU's members on both sides of the issues that were put before the membership for a vote at the Special Meeting on Nov. 15.

In an e-mail to the Washington Department of Financial Institutions (DFI), Erdmann stated, "the actions of the majority board over the last years and months to limit accountability and democratic rights of members is the central cause of conflict and the primary threat to our credit union's reputation and stability." Among other things, Erdmann says:

The processes of debate, dissent and compromise are underlying strengths of a democracy. Democracy has several pillars; including, minority rights, free and fair elections, values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise, and the concept of checks and balances. Sadly, the majority board has focused solely on the concept of majority rule. Time and again, they have used democratic procedures to oppress the minority, conduct unfair elections, and shown great intolerance toward dissent. Witness the elimination of candidate statements, comments to the membership that a court action is not a valid form of redress, the refusal to engage in mediation, limiting the minority in their access to information, the board motion to "encourage" employees and members to vote their way (which was passed at the October 16th, Special Board Meeting) in spite of my dissent.

Click Here to read Erdmann's 10/18/06 e-mail to DFI (obtained by a public records request).

Erdmann's 10/25/06 e-mail to DFI shows that he attempted to set (per his authority as Board Secretary) the special membership meeting date and location to best facilitate member attendance. The 5-member majority abruptly removed Erdmann as Secretary in order to get their way. He also attempted, unsuccessfully, to get his Minority position statement disseminated to the membership, as the Board's own policy requires.

Click here to read Erdmann's Minority Position statement (obtained from DFI), that includes these and other assertions:

However, there is nothing in the actions of these defendants to warrant the current effort to remove from office and expel them from the credit union.

-and-

If we expel these two Directors and one Supervisory Committee member, we will lose three strong advocates for member rights in this credit union. We will lose three individuals who care deeply about integrity and accountability in this credit union. We will lose an important check on the power of the majority, a check on "the tyranny of the majority."

Erdmann protested to DFI about the 5-member majority board's actions in his 10/25/06 e-mail, with these views:

First, a cooperative by definition is run democratically. This means that members are allowed to vote on their leadership and on specific issues (including suspension). In order for the membership to make an informed vote they should have access to candidate statements and majority/minority positions. I believe the credit union should take a neutral [stance] on the issues by providing each candidate, or side, on an issue the same number of words to address the membership. As in the conversion controversy in 2003-2004, Columbia is not taking a neutral stance with respect to the suspension of Board Directors, Cathryn Chudy and Kathryn Edgecomb and Supervisory Committee member Lloyd Marbet.

Click here to read Erdmann's 10/25/06 email to DFI.