Democracy for Vancouver

Credit Unions (CUs) are bastions of truly democratic, cooperative spirit in our increasingly monopolistic, hierarchical corporate world. When you join a credit union, you become a member. Each member has one vote towards electing the volunteer board and supervisory committee members of the credit union. The “one member, one vote” rule holds true regardless if you have $5 or $50,000 on deposit at the credit union. The members own the equity of the credit union and indirectly manage (by voting for the leadership) the credit union. This sound familiar? Isn’t this how our country is supposed to be run? CUs are the corporate version of “by, for and of the people”.

Columbia Credit Union (CCU) boasts out of every four households in Clark County, one of them has a CCU member. Credit Unions are supposed to be democratic institutions. Each member/depositor of the credit union votes to elect the Board of Directors. I am a candidate running to be elected to the volunteer Board of Directors of CCU.

If the membership of CCU approves the measures being voted upon next Wednesday at Skyview High School, I will be precluded from running for this volunteer position solely because I attended several of the meetings of Save CCU, a watchdog group. Does that sound democratic to you?

The following is a statement that was obtained from a public records request from the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions:

My name is Ralph Erdmann and I’m a Board Director writing the Minority Board statement on the efforts to expel Board Directors, Cathryn Chudy, Kathryn Edgecomb and Supervisory Committee member Lloyd Marbet. I voted against the Board motion to suspend these defendants from office. I also voted against the provisions to prohibit the candidacy of: 1) anyone who is a plaintiff in any legal action, 2) a member of an organization that is a plaintiff, 3) or attorney representing a plaintiff in any legal action against the credit union.

Like other members of this Board, I’ve known Cathryn, Kathryn, and Lloyd. since the ill fated credit union conversion attempt in 2003. I believe that there are misunderstandings between these directors and the majority board. There are also differences in emphasis, perspective and values. However, there is nothing in the actions of these defendants to warrant the current effort to remove them from office and expel them from the credit union.

Cathryn, Kathryn, and Lloyd have been very clear about the principles they support: namely, member rights. As such, they have advocated, for transparency in credit union governance to insure integrity, accountability of leadership, and democratic values in credit union elections. In short they are strong advocates for members’ right to information about the credit union, its functioning and its director candidates. They believe a strong democratic process within our credit union fosters safety, stability, and excellence.

Cathryn, Kathryn, and Lloyd understand that transparency doesn’t extend to personal and competitive business information. However, they believe, as I do, that the governance of the credit union should not be hidden from the membership. They want to keep the membership well informed so that they are empowered to make good decisions about the leadership and direction of the credit union. They have worked tirelessly to this end.

By participating, either directly or indirectly in three lawsuits, Cathryn, Kathryn, and Lloyd have been unjustly accused of putting “their own interests ahead of the other 62,000 members of Columbia Credit Union” They have no interests “of their own,” only those of the credit union and its membership.

Here’s a synopsis of what the lawsuits are about and the issues they address:

Lawsuit #1

1. Term Limits Issue. That the Defendants exceeded the maximum term limit set forth in the Bylaws.

2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty Issue. That the Defendants have a responsibility to protect the financial interests of members, not just the credit union.

3. Access to Records issue. That credit union members have a right to examine and copy credit union records for proper purposes.

Lawsuit #2

Board member access to credit union meetings and information. Access to information needed to fulfill Board member’s fiduciary duty.

Lawsuit #3

1. Process for expelling leadership. A Special Membership Meeting must be called to remove credit union leaders.

2. Propriety of Board weighing in on Special Membership issues. The credit union should not use its resources to recommend to employees and membership how to vote on the meeting issues.

As I understand it, the Majority Board’s position is that a lawsuit against the credit union is harmful to the credit union and its reputation simply because Columbia Credit Union is named as a defendant. I don’t believe the issue is that clear cut. In my mind, you have to look at the merits of each lawsuit separately. What is its objective? Is it to provide member rights? Is it to clarify an issue? Is it being used as a check and balance to the Board’s power? Even our founding fathers recognized the need for checks and balances.

True legal efforts have likely resulted in confusion and concern within Columbia and within the community. It has likely contributed to the unfortunate polarization on the Board. However, it is very important to emphasize that all of the lawsuits seek only to clarify member rights, relationships between members and the board, or to seek access to information. None of these lawsuits has ever sought monetary damages.

Steve Straub in his article on the credit union website suggests that some of the individuals in question seek to enrich themselves through these lawsuits. However, to my knowledge, there is no objective evidence of this and I strongly, although respectfully, disagree with this opinion.

I believe it is in the best interest of the credit union for the two Board factions to enter into formal mediation without preconditions. Recently the majority opinion side offered a settlement. This first attempt failed. However, Cathryn and Kathryn support formal mediation. (Lloyd Marbet is not involved in this issue since he is member of the Supervisory Committee.) They sought mediation to resolve board differences and even voted on a motion for board mediation at the regular Board meeting in May of this year. They continue to be open to mediation and negotiation which, in my opinion, would be in the best interest of the credit union.

Please think carefully about the Special Meeting ballot questions and vote. 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.”

I urge you to attend the upcoming special meeting and to vote NO on all questions at the Special Meeting. Please retain Board Directors, Cathryn Chudy, Kathryn Edgecomb and Supervisory Committee member Lloyd Marbet.

Details on the Special Meeting are here.

In depth information about the very important issues that will be voted upon at the Special Meeting is here.

If you are a member of CCU, please attend no matter how you view this matter and vote on all the questions. You do not have to stick around. You can just show up and vote. The outcome of this vote may decide whether the largest credit union in Clark County will remain a member owned, democratic institution or become a casualty of apathy and allow a less than 1% minority “cabal” of its membership (based on the number of votes counted at the last Special Meeting) determine how it is to be managed going forward.

If you need a ride, please send an email using the “Contact us” on the menu bar of this site.

A flyer is attached for distribution.

It is very important that democracy be preserved. The outcome of this Special Meeting may adversely affect credit unions nationwide. If enough members show up and vote, I am confident that the outcome will be to turn down the exclusionary practices being offered up by the majority board of CCU. True democracy is not a spectator sport. Please let others know about the Special Meeting and the importance of participating. Please show up and vote.

Sphere: Related Content