FICOM Should Say No to Coast Capital Board

Transferring our credit union from BC to nation-wide is bad for its 500,000 members.

Coast Capital Savings Credit Union's board of directors has launched a plan to expand nationally, which would increase their opportunities to benefit personally from their power and members' disempowerment. The dangers are well documented on this concerned member's website: GovernanceWatch.ca/ThreatsToCoastCapitalsMembers.html.

In the past 10 years, Coast's board has changed the credit union in several ways that are harmful to members. They raised their pay to double that of Vancity Credit Union's board. A group of members compiled data showing that by 2011, Coast's board had increased its pay to over $750,000 while the Vancity board was paid less than $370,000 – see coastcapitalcompensationwatch.wordpress.com/facts. This sparked a member uprising that Coast's board is still trying to divert and ignore – see votermedia.blogspot.ca/search/label/Coast Capital.

The board maintains its power by controlling the information conveniently available to members when they vote. Most are too busy to look beyond the board's spin, not realizing how poorly they are being served. So they trustingly vote as the board recommends.

The BC Financial Institutions Commission (FICOM) can disallow Coast's national conversion if they find that Coast made inadequate disclosure to members before the approval vote – see fic.gov.bc.ca/pdf/fid/correspondence/OLTR-FedContinuance.pdf. The one-sided nature of all the information Coast sent to members can certainly be seen as inadequate – see governancewatch.ca/Case Against Coast Capital Savings.pdf.

Unfortunately, FICOM has already been following policies that let BC credit union boards conduct member votes with very one-sided information; for examples:
- votermedia.org/publications/MarkLathamCommentsOnFICOMDraftCUGovernanceGuideline.pdf
- votermedia.org/publications/2015-09-14-Latham-comments-on-FIA-CUIA-review.pdf

They have also refused a Coast member's request to extend beyond March 30 the public comment period on national conversion (via email to commission.consultation@ficombc.ca).

FICOM should reverse this trend and say no to Coast's board,
thus protecting the financial security of British Columbians.

Revise the BC Credit Union Act to Reclaim Member Democracy

British Columbia's Credit Union Incorporation Act gets reviewed every 10 years, along with the Financial Institutions Act. That time has come, so the review process was launched on June 2, 2015.

It's an important opportunity to improve credit union governance. On this blog I have advocated for reviving democratic member control, to reduce the risks and costs of self-serving behaviour by insiders -- credit union boards and their payees (senior staff, consultants etc) -- with Coast Capital and Vancity as specific examples.

So I've submitted this comment letter on the legislative review. My main recommendation is to require each credit union to host a year-round online member forum to facilitate member sharing of information -- mainly to reduce board control of voter info during director elections. See also this comment letter by Bruce Batchelor, who advocates a wider range of democratic reforms.

As I highlighted in my similar comment letter to FICOM in 2013:

It is natural for directors and their payees to say: "To improve governance, we should give more power to directors." But instead, we should strengthen our democratic checks and balances. Self-serving behaviour is natural for humans, as it is for foxes, so I mean no offence to either when I say: Please don't let the foxes design the hen house.

Fortunately, this time the deputy minister has warned that they "may" publish comment submissions on the Ministry of Finance website. That would be a great way of exposing insiders' recommendations to the sunlight of public scrutiny.

Watch out for comments that advocate weakening credit union members' right to submit resolutions to a vote. There's a striking contrast between the BC Credit Union Act (Section 77) and the BC Co-op Act. The CU Act guarantees that with 300 member signatures, a resolution must be submitted to a vote of all members even if the board opposes it. The Co-op Act has no such guarantee.

Then contrast what has happened with members' resolutions at Coast Capital CU versus at Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC). When Coast Capital members found out that their board had raised its own pay to more than double the Vancity CU board's pay, they put a resolution on the ballot and passed it by a 79% majority, against the board's advice to vote no. At MEC however, the board persuaded members to approve a rules change "modernization" that included (if you click through to read the details) letting the board reject any member resolution for any reason. The existing CU Act prevents boards from pulling that one.

Who I'm voting for in Vancity Credit Union election

Vancity Credit Union is having its annual election for board of directors. 3 seats are to be filled.

I'm voting for:

• Lisa Barrett
• Man-kit Kwan
• Vittoria DeMichina

Reasons:

• I haven't taken the time research the candidates in detail this year. If you know of any useful online reviews, please let me know.
• I avoid the recommended candidates because recommendations entrench the controlling clique, as explained in this earlier post.
• I have worked with Lisa Barrett on democratic reform, and think highly of her -- an easy first choice.
• I like Man-kit Kwan's straightforward emphasis on the community of members as owners.
• I like Vittoria DeMichina's personal history of pulling herself up by hard work.

Other info:

New independent website -- Vancity2015 Collaborative Democracy Wiki -- for sharing info on election candidates. Looks promising but still evolving towards being useful and convenient.

Vote by April 24 on Vancity website

@Coast_Capital credit union members could set Board pay by median vote

In April 2013, Coast Capital Savings Credit Union members approved by 79.7% majority a special resolution that “...the members of Coast Capital establish the remuneration for the directors of the credit union...” The resolution, put forward by a group of members called Compensation Watch, did not specify a process for members to do that.

In April 2014, Compensation Watch and the Coast Capital Board put forward two duelling resolutions to specify how Board pay would be determined. However, neither resolution got the 2/3 member voting approval required for implementation. Details are in my previous blog post and in this Victoria Times-Colonist article: "Credit union votes fail to resolve board pay dispute".

So I am proposing another way that we Coast Capital members could determine our Board's pay: Vote using a menu of possible total Board pay pay levels, and set pay at the median voted amount. For example, we could submit it to member vote like this:

How much should we Coast Capital members pay our Board, as annual total compensation?

□ $200,000
□ $300,000
□ $400,000
□ $500,000
□ $600,000
□ $700,000
□ $800,000

I've fleshed out the proposal, with an example, in this 3-page pdf.

I emailed it to the Board on May 8, and promptly got this reply: "Your email has been received and will be forwarded to the Board of Directors. Please expect a response in due course." No further response yet, but when it comes I'll post an update in this blog.

@Coast_Capital vote results: Board oligarchy maintains its power

At the Coast Capital Savings Credit Union Annual General Meeting on Wednesday April 30, results were announced for the member votes in the director election and on the 8 special resolutions. Unfortunately, none of the democratic reform candidates were elected, and the 4 member resolutions did not get the 2/3 vote required. The Board used its control of information sent to members, to maintain its grip on power for a while longer. On the plus side, the Board's 4 undemocratic resolutions also failed to get 2/3 voting approval. Details are in these links:

- Director election results

- Resolution vote results

- Compensation Watch post: A sad day for democracy

- Times-Colonist article: Credit union votes fail to resolve board pay dispute

- Coast Capital news release

- My previous summary post: Vote for Member #Democracy @Coast_Capital Credit Union

Coast Capital members will continue to work for democratic reform. I will still be involved, but perhaps not as vocal on this blog and twitter; so to hear what's going on, I recommend the Compensation Watch blog. You can "Follow" them to get an email when they post something.

Hear @Coast_Capital vote results at AGM Wed April 30

Coast Capital Savings Credit Union's Annual General Meeting of members is this week:

DATE: Wednesday April 30.

TIME: Registration & refreshments from 4:30pm. Meeting starts 5pm. Cutoff to register 5:15pm, but members can still enter the meeting.

PLACE: Sheraton Guildford Hotel, 15269 – 104 Avenue, Surrey. Free parking for members attending AGM.

WEBCAST: Live at this link.

It should be an exciting AGM this year, because we'll hear the results of the battle for the hearts and minds of Coast Capital members, between the incumbent Board and some challengers (whom I support). You can see what it's all about in my March 16 blog post.

See you there!

Vote for Member #Democracy @Coast_Capital Credit Union

SUMMARY:                         [中文]

To control excess director pay and restore member democracy at Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, I recommend voting:

AGAINST the Board's resolutions (numbered 1, 2, 3, 4)
and
FOR the member resolutions (numbered 5, 6, 7, 8)

(Resolutions booklet here.) In the director election I recommend voting for three candidates not recommended by the Board. I'm voting for Lisa Barrett, Bruce Batchelor and John Fryer.

Vote now through April 8: You can fill in the paper ballot and submit it at any branch. Or vote online at coastcapitalsavings.com: log in, then click Online Voting tab at lower left. (Joint account members and business members can't vote online, so must use the paper ballots.)

Please spread the word to your friends who may be among Coast Capital's 500,000 members in southwestern British Columbia.

REASONS:

In 2007, the Board persuaded members to let the Board set its own pay based on a pay "philosophy" document. By 2011, the Board had raised its pay to more than double that of Vancity Credit Union's Board -- details here. (Vancity is similar to Coast Capital in size and location. Both have about 500,000 members.)

Members were unaware of this dramatic rise in director pay, until in 2013 two members created the Coast Capital Compensation Watch website, and gathered over 400 member signatures to put this resolution on the ballot:

"Be it resolved that, the members of Coast Capital Savings Credit Union establish the remuneration for the Directors of the credit union and that the amount paid to each Director is published in the Annual Report."

The Board put the member resolution and its supporting statement on pages 10 and 11 of this 12-page booklet, most of which was designed to persuade members to vote against the resolution. Examples of the Board's spin:

Page 5: "...you are being asked to vote on a special resolution brought forward by a member named Phil Embley..."
-- No mention of the over 400 members who signed petitions in support of bringing the resolution to members' vote.

Page 5: "...every three years the Board Governance Committee works with an independent external compensation consultant who reviews director compensation..."
-- Of course, the "independent" consultant is selected by the Board.

Page 8: "Coast Capital advises our members that some of the facts alleged in the [resolution's supporting] statement are inaccurate and misleading."
-- They gave no specific backup to this accusation, in spite of the many pages of their arguments in the booklet where they could have done so.

Page 9: "Vote “Against” if you agree with the 2007 member-approved approach to establishing director compensation"

Fortunately, members were able to see through the Board's spin, and voted 79.7% in favour of the member resolution! Voter turnout in 2013 set a new record of over 23,000 compared with less than 14,000 in 2012 and less than 20,000 in 2011.

Recognizing that excess pay indicated a lack of Board accountability to members, a group of concerned members (including me) worked with Phil and Scott at Compensation Watch to review Coast Capital's governance rules. We were dismayed to learn how the Board had written the director election rules to give themselves effective control of who gets elected, while maintaining a facade of democracy: They put their chosen candidates first on the ballot (in bold face, flagged as "recommended"), and prohibit campaigning. Candidates are not allowed to mention their candidacy on the web or by email or in the media, else they will be disqualified -- see 2014 Campaign Regulations (especially rules 4, 5, 6, 7). For data and analysis of how recommendations on a ballot affect elections, see my letter to the B.C. Financial Institutions Commission.

So we drafted four resolutions to help re-establish member democracy:

• 12-year director term limit.
• Disclose pay of top 3 executives.
• Allow director election campaigning.
• Set specific pay for directors, at Vancity's pay levels.

Several of us also offered to run for election to the Board, even though in 2014 we would still be subject to the ban on campaigning.

As in 2013, we had to gather signatures from at least 300 members to get these resolutions on the ballot. We got over 400 signatures on each. Here's a photo of me helping deliver them on January 24:

This year, the Board realized it would take more than spin to sway member votes their way, so they drafted four resolutions with the same headings as our four, and placed them ahead of ours on the ballot. Again, they drafted the member voting information booklet with many pages of their spin. Here's a link to the booklet and some rebuttal to their arguments:

Page 3: "Four individuals are bringing forward disruptive Special Resolutions ... which will threaten our great products and services."
-- All four of our resolutions are already in effect at successful financial institutions. Vancity's pay levels attract well qualified directors, who run for election with campaigning allowed. 12-year term limits are a well accepted practice, as is disclosure of executive pay. Each resolution is well supported by the statements on pages 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the booklet. On the contrary, a lack of accountability can threaten the success of a financial institution, as the 2008 financial crisis showed us, so we should strengthen accountability of Coast Capital's Board to us, the members. Similarly, a "democratic deficit" in the UK Co-operative Group was a causal factor in their 2013 scandal.

Page 3: "These individuals are aligned with a small special interest group known as Coast Capital Compensation Watch. Their name is misleading. This group is not the voice of your credit union. It represents the views of only a few supporters – not Coast Capital’s 512,000 members."
-- 79.7% of voting members said that last year's Compensation Watch resolution represented their views better than the arguments of a small group known as Coast Capital's Board. That small group seems to have a special interest in increasing its pay and its grip on power. More members voted for the 2013 Comp Watch resolution than ever voted to elect any of the current directors.

Page 5: "The Individual Resolutions are unnecessary and costly."
-- These resolutions were made necessary by the Board's unreasonable pay increases and unfair election rules. Compare 2011 Vancity Board pay of $366,000 to Coast Capital Board pay of $750,000 and other comparisons here. Also, the resolution proponents have taken care to time their submissions to coincide with director elections, so as not to require a costly extra mailing to all members.

Page 7: "We're already implementing term limits this year."
-- The Board's Term Limit resolution was drafted after the members' Term Limit resolution, in response to it, so there's no "already" about it. It even refers to the members' resolution, giving itself the power to override if both are passed. How can they even be allowed to put their resolution first on the ballot? And the Board's resolution would ignore the 20-plus years that two directors have already served: "... only an individual’s years of service as a Director of the Credit Union beginning on or after April 30, 2014 will be counted..." (page 16) So those two directors would have served at least 32 years each before their "12 year limit" resolution would term them out!

Page 9: "We already do this."
-- The members' resolution calls for disclosing the top three executives' pay individually, to the extent permissible by law. Coast Capital is only disclosing the sum of the top nine executives' pay, which hides information by lumping it together, as explained in the supporting statement on page 8 of the booklet.

Page 11: "Keep our elections democratic."
-- It amazes me that anyone could consider it democratic to silence election candidates and control voter information as tightly as this Board now does -- see 2014 Campaign Regulations (especially rules 4, 5, 6, 7). Even the organizations I criticized in the paper We Want Our Co-ops Back do not silence candidates as Coast Capital does.

Page 13: "Your Board also commissioned an independent member task force to review the credit union’s philosophy that sets Director pay."
-- The Compensation Task Force process was orchestrated by another "independent" consultant chosen by the Board and Board-overseen staff. It concluded by proposing another pay "philosophy" that would continue to give the Board leeway in setting its own pay -- more on that at this Comp Watch page.

[About the author of this post: Mark Latham is a Vancouver-based financial economist (cv: linkedin.com/in/marklatham) specializing in governance reform of co-ops, democracies and corporations. He was appointed by the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to represent individual investors on the SEC’s post-financial-crisis Investor Advisory Committee.]

[Last updated on 2014-04-06.]

Vote for #Accountability @Coast_Capital Savings Credit Union

This post has been superseded by a subsequent post which includes more recent info, so I recommend reading that instead.

But if you would like to read this older post, it continues below:

@Coast_Capital Credit Union: 4 member resolutions go to vote in March @Comp_Watch

Over 400 members of Coast Capital Savings Credit Union signed petitions to require a member vote on these four resolutions:

1. Set Specific Pay for Directors
2. Disclose Pay of Top 3 Executives
3. Set 12 Year Term Limit for Directors
4. Reform Director Election Processes

This surpasses the 300 signatures needed to have a vote of all Coast Capital members on the resolutions, on the election ballot March 14 - April 8.

A big thank-you to Phil Embley and Scott Kristjanson at Coast Capital Compensation Watch for spearheading this drive to reform our credit union! I joined Scott at Coast HQ to submit the signatures, so he posted my smiling face on the Comp Watch website announcement here.

Members please vote YES on these resolutions March 14 - April 8!

@Coast_Capital members please sign these #democracy reform resolutions @Comp_Watch

This is the last week for Coast Capital Savings Credit Union members to sign these 4 resolutions for restoring the board's accountability. We need 300 signatures to get them onto the March 2014 ballot, so that all members can vote on them. We have over 200, so getting close.

This is important because the Coast Capital board has been taking advantage of its power to overpay itself with members' funds. In 2011 they paid themselves more than double the pay of Vancity Credit Union's board -- details at coastcapitalcompensationwatch.wordpress.com/facts.

Members: Please print, sign, and return:

ALL 4 RESOLUTIONS IN THIS PDF FILE

You can scan (or photograph) your signed resolutions and email them to compensationwatch@gmail.com, or fax to 604-542-9369, or mail to address on the form.

Please forward this to friends in Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island who may be members. Thank you!

Will #FICOMBC support @Vancity Credit Union board entrenchment? #democracy

Today I submitted this letter to the B.C. Financial Institutions Commission (FICOM), with my comments on their draft Governance Guideline for Credit Unions. Main points:

Accountability requires competition in board elections.
=> So boards should not be able to disqualify competitors based on subjective assessments.

Lack of accountability opens the door to corruption.
=> Only competitive elections can prevent favouritism in the use of members' funds.

Board control of information can bias elections.
=> Boards should not be allowed to put their recommendations on board election ballots.
=> Without that, Vancity members would have elected Lisa Barrett instead of Allen Garr.

Please don't let the foxes design the hen house.
=> The public interest should take precedence over lobbying by credit union insiders.

Will next week's B.C. election have any effect on FICOM's final Governance Guideline? Just asking...

Reports on member rebellion @Coast_Capital AGM

At the Coast Capital Savings Credit Union's Annual General Meeting of members on April 30, it was announced that members had voted over 79% to take back control of directors' pay. The board had recommended voting "NO", so members have learned to be skeptical of board recommendations. Two recent write-ups on this:

- Press release from the proponent (Coast Capital Compensation Watch)

- Vancouver Sun article

For background and context:

- My article in the Vancouver Observer: We want our co-ops back

- Posts on Coast Capital in this blog

Stand up for member #democracy: attend AGMs @MEC @Coast_Capital @Vancity

You can help reclaim member democracy by attending these upcoming Annual General Meetings:

Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC):

Thursday, April 25, 2013
Doors open at 5:30pm
Meeting at 6:00pm
Roundhouse Community Arts & Recreation Centre
181 Roundhouse Mews, Vancouver
Please bring your MEC membership card or 2 pieces of ID

Coast Capital Savings Credit Union:

Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Registration and light refreshments from 4:30pm to 5pm
Meeting begins at 5pm
Executive Airport Plaza Hotel & Conference Centre
7311 Westminster Highway, Richmond, BC

Vancity Credit Union:

Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Registration at 6pm
Meeting at 7pm
Italian Cultural Centre, 3075 Slocan Street, Vancouver

(Vancity director election voting ends April 26. Here's why I'm voting for Williams, Barrett & Yaron.)

Reclaiming member democracy in co-ops and credit unions can be a first step toward making our elected leaders accountable to voters in corporations and democracies too -- see recent Vancouver Observer article "We want out co-ops back."

Oppose biased election ballot @Vancity - vote for Williams, Barrett, Yaron

A dominant majority of the Vancity board are using their control of information flowing to Vancity members, to tighten their grip on power over the credit union. Taking advantage of voters who are too busy to search for other info sources, the controlling group ensures that their recommendations are the only info conveniently available to members. I have documented this in a series of posts since April 2012 -- see votermedia.blogspot.ca/search/label/Vancity

Notably this year, one of the board's "recommended" candidates -- Bob Williams -- is not a member of the controlling majority (details in this report, from page 8). So I plan to vote for him. Challengers to the dominant group can help improve democratic competition and thus accountability to members.

I also plan to vote for Lisa Barrett and Gil Yaron, for the same pro-democracy reasons why I voted for them last year.

Vancity members can vote by Friday April 26, via mail or online.

Co-op #democracy reform movement growing @MEC @Coast_Capital @Vancity

Co-op members are waking up to reclaim their democratic rights.

Mountain Equipment Co-op:

Over 400 500 members of MEC have now signed an open letter "The C is for Cooperative, Not Corporation", protesting the MEC board's misleading labelling of a resolution that would transfer control of director nominations and member resolutions to the board. Members can vote on it until March 28, at mec.ca/election. I recently posted this analysis with voting recommendations -- please vote NO on the board's Resolution #1.

Coast Capital:

In a similar push-back, 438 members of Coast Capital Savings Credit Union (a financial co-op) have signed a petition demanding a vote to reverse a 2007 rule change that allowed their directors to decide their own pay, which has grown rapidly since then -- see the member-organized website Coast Capital Compensation Watch. Members can vote on the resolution from now through April 16, on paper ballots by mail or online at www.coastcapitalsavings.com > Log in > Account Services > Online Voting. (Please vote YES.)

Technology Credit Union:

Last year, the board of California's Tech CU proposed converting it into a mutual savings bank, a move that has been criticized (e.g. here) as enriching directors at members' expense. Fortunately, a campaign to alert members to the downside resulted in their defeating the proposal by a 77% vote.

Vancity Credit Union:

In April 2012, the Vancity board of directors elections were criticized for being undemocratic -- see especially the article's comments. Although other candidates can run for election, the board's recommended candidates are listed first on the ballot, in bold, with the word "recommended" -- my analysis here.

Vancity's 2013 board election is next month.

We Want Our Co-ops Back!:

Last year I wrote a report proposing reforms for these democratic deficits, and emailed it to the boards of MEC and Vancity. But judging from our resulting correspondence, they seem unwilling to restore accountability to members.

So more members are getting concerned about the trend, and seeking to reverse it. Last week I published an article in the Vancouver Observer, citing the decline in accountability of elected leaders as a major cause of the 2008 financial crisis. Co-ops can become the starting point for a democratic reform movement that can eventually empower us to also reclaim our corporations and our governments.

We are organizing -- please email me (mark[at]votermedia.org) to join us in re-establishing Co-op Principle #2 -- Democratic Member Control:

"Co-operatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership."

Published today in Vancouver Observer: We want our co-ops back @MEC @Coast_Capital

Today (2013-03-18) the Vancouver Observer news website published my opinion piece "We want our co-ops back".

It describes how the boards of Mountain Equipment Co-op and Coast Capital Savings have been changing the rules in ways that shift power from members to boards. This undermines the accountability of elected leaders to voters -- the same trend that caused our 2008 financial crisis.

But we can reverse the trend -- see how in the Vancouver Observer article.

[BTW the above linked article is a 2-page overview, partly based on my 24-page in-depth report with the same title but capitalized: "We Want Our Co-ops Back". Sorry for any confusion but I love that title!]

@MEC @Vancity #CIRA boards unwilling to restore accountability to members

Last year, I studied the trend toward violating the second fundamental principle of co-operatives -- democratic member control -- as co-ops become large. As examples, I focused on three organizations: Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC), Vancity Credit Union, and the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. (CIRA, which manages the .ca domain, is not formally a co-op but faces similar issues of accountability.)

I wrote a detailed exposé of how these organizations' boards have been changing the rules in ways that shift power to themselves by reducing their accountability to members, while maintaining a facade of democracy -- see We Want Our Co-ops Back at votermedia.org/publications. Last September I announced the first draft on this blog and on Twitter, and emailed it to all three boards, inviting feedback. Here I'll report how they have responded so far.

To make it easier for them to give at least a partial response in the near term, in December I suggested that they focus on just two practical reform questions:

1. Do you plan to create a year-round online member forum?
2. Do you plan to create a competition for informing members, in which members vote to allocate award funds?
For both these questions: If so, when? If not, why not?

Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC):

@Coast_Capital credit union members' resolution to regain control of director pay

Over 400 members of Coast Capital Savings credit union have sent petitions to require a member vote, on a resolution to regain control of director compensation. Ballots will be sent to all members on March 21, with voting from March 22 to April 16, 2013.

More info:

• coastcapitalcompensationwatch.wordpress.com/news
• coastcapitalcompensationwatch.wordpress.com/facts (pay growth & comparisons)
• facebook.com/CoastCapitalCompensationWatch

Congrats and thanks to Phil Embley for alerting and mobilizing Coast Capital members!

This is the latest event in a broad trend of elected leaders reducing their accountability to voters, and voters pushing back to increase accountability. See "We Want Our Co-ops Back" at votermedia.org/publications for developments at Vancity Credit Union and Mountain Equipment Co-op. Also my earlier post Tech Credit Union members' revolution.

Tech Credit Union members' revolution! @stayacu

It's reassuring to see that credit union members can wake up and say no when their directors seem to be acting against members' interests. The members of Technology Credit Union in San Jose (California) recently voted down their board's proposal to convert the credit union to a mutual savings bank.

This article in Credit Union Journal quotes reactions from both sides of the controversy.

Now the leader of the revolt is proposing to members that they should replace the CEO, the board chair, and maybe other directors as well. (See also his Twitter posts: @stayacu)

This further confirms the references in my recent paper We Want Our Co-ops Back (page 3) about how co-op and credit union boards sometimes put their own interests ahead of members' interests.

Congrats to Tech CU members who stood up and said no!

We Want Our Co-ops Back @MEC @Vancity #CIRA

Today I released the first draft of my paper We Want Our Co-ops Back, along with a spreadsheet Co-op Democracy Scorecard. From the paper:

We can reform all our large voter organizations, including democracies and corporations, by starting with reforming our co-ops (including financial co-ops such as credit unions). Most large institutions lack effective democratic control by voters. Even though citizens of democracies can vote, corporate shareowners can vote, and co-op members can vote, those voting rights are ineffective if voters lack the information, insight and nomination rights necessary to elect the best leaders. This paper outlines how we can better implement the fundamental co-op principle of democratic member control, even when co-ops grow very large. Later we can apply these ideas to our democracies and corporations.

This paper proposes rules to improve the democratic accountability of co-op leaders to members, organized in nine topic sections. To contrast these proposals with existing rules, I cite examples from three Canadian organizations where I am a member: Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC), Vancity Credit Union, and the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA).

I welcome your comments!