IN THE AFTERMATH OF INJUSTICE
(What Members Should Know As They Vote)

On November 15, at a Special Meeting called by its five-member majority Board, a tiny fraction of Columbia Credit Union's 62,000 members (approximately 930 out of 1202) voted to remove three Volunteers from their elected positions ( two Directors and one Supervisory Committee Member). Members were also asked to take the extraordinary step of voting to permanently expel these Volunteers from the credit union, as well as preventing anyone involved with SaveCCU (a member advocacy group involved in promoting member rights) from being candidates for Volunteer positions.

On the Columbia Credit Union website and in its December newsletter, CEO Parker Cann pronounced that "the members have spoken and democracy has prevailed." Yet the outcome of the Nov. 15 special meeting represents nothing more than "a triumph of marketing over democracy", according to Doug Schafer, who has represented SaveCCU in seeking judicial review of court decisions that are harmful to member rights, and seeking court intervention when SaveCCU and individual members were expelled from credit union membership.

The "membership decisions" made on November 15 have at least one thing in common with the bank conversion vote that occurred in 2003: in both instances Columbia's Board utilized credit union funds to wage a comprehensive, one-sided public relations campaign to get the membership to vote for what it wanted. The material offered to the membership constituted propaganda rather than an honest presentation of both sides of the issues on which members were directed to vote. Any fair and adequate presentation of the other side of the issues was suppressed. Shockingly, three of the five-member Board majority, who helped orchestrate the outcome of the Nov. 15 special membership meeting, gained their seats on the Board by endorsing the SaveCCU platform, which states in part: "Any issue in front of the membership for a vote will be fairly balanced in all publications and information."

Any objective examination of the "Enough is Enough" campaign, that promoted the Nov. 15 "membership decisions," can only conclude that the issues supposedly "fairly balanced in all publications and information" was quite the opposite. And therein lies the travesty: Columbia Credit Union may be "Moving Forward" but it does so by violating member rights and the very democratic principles that are the foundation of "the credit union difference." When minority rights of Volunteers (or members) become expendable in the pursuit of what is claimed to be "legitimate business decisions," it is the members who lose democratic control of their cooperative. A vote won by a one-sided public relations campaign is a vote that can easily be accomplished over and over again in the future. Thus the outcome of the Nov. 15 meeting sets a dangerous precedent for any real member participation in Columbia's governance.

So, where does that leave things at present? A Volunteer election is underway, which for the most part is in the image of the five-member majority Board. Two candidates have been unjustly removed, with seven of the remaining 10 candidates endorsed by the five-member majority Board. Also the current Board has further concentrated its power with two of the minority Board members, Ralph Erdmann and Emmy Winterburn, having resigned.

Credit union members are best served by voting for candidates who genuinely respect member rights and the democratic principles contained in SaveCCU's platform. After reviewing information in the candidate bios, and in contacts with candidates in the candidate forums held last July, SaveCCU supports the election of Director candidates John Howes, Greg Flakus, Walter Hansen and Wayne Bigelow. SaveCCU still believes that each member vote is important, and hopes that thinking members will elect candidates who will keep an open mind about the governance issues that, despite the outcome of the Nov. 15 special meeting, remain relevant to members who truly care about the cooperative principles on which Columbia Credit Union was originally founded.

Postscript:

The following link will provide interested members with a fund-raising letter that was written by Lee Bettis, Executive Director of a group called the Coalition for Credit Union Options, which was widely circulated to credit union boards, including Columbia, this fall. Note that "charter choice" advocates are taking aim at "opponents of conversion" and recommend getting rid of "dissidents" in order to allow credit union boards to "govern as they see fit, in keeping with their credit unions' business opportunities and strategy." Significant portions of the material used in the five-member majority Board's "Enough is Enough" campaign are strikingly similar to the rhetoric contained in this letter. This strategy paints dissenting voices as "self-serving" and "distracting" the board from "their critical mission of serving members and the community." While Columbia's 5-member majority board found it necessary to publish a letter in July to convince members that Columbia intends to remain a credit union, it is also clear from their actions that tolerating minority voices in the boardroom (and in the membership) is not on their "business agenda." Columbia Credit Union's member-owners are not well served by this travesty and they are subject to it being repeated when any effort is made to promote genuine transparency in Columbia Credit Union's operation.

Read the fundraising letter.