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

[GtwoG PublicOhOne]

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 at sbcglobal.net
> <mailto: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 <mailto:tim at arizmendi.coop>"
> <tim at arizmendi.coop <mailto: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    
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20131201/52de6972/attachment.html>