[sudo-discuss] Fwd: from Tim Huet; URGENT info and help needed​

[Danny Spitzberg]

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 at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:31 AM
Subject: from Tim Huet; URGENT info and help needed
To: "tim at arizmendi.coop" <tim at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20131201/3ca0135c/attachment.html>