tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post313008830333590692..comments2024-02-16T09:00:32.845-06:00Comments on FromDC2Iowa: UI Held Hostage Day 429 - March 26Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-11281410847337890222007-04-02T16:37:00.000-05:002007-04-02T16:37:00.000-05:00Wow....it did not even take more than one post to ...Wow....it did not even take more than one post to use a Hitler or Nazi Comparison. (A weak weak fallback). Godwin's Law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-27715521758262037992007-03-28T20:01:00.000-05:002007-03-28T20:01:00.000-05:00I do not want to turn this into a forum of argumen...I do not want to turn this into a forum of argumentation, our University of Iowa Community Credit Union Shareholder Association Group Organization certainly has attracted enough of that.<BR/><BR/>Your rude counter-statement, sir, is exactly what got Adolf Hitler elected in Germany. I have been through several take-overs, only one of which was unsuccessful. It is the callously complacent people who have the most at stake and who have the initial ability to prevent tyranny who are the victims. This is absolutely no different.<BR/><BR/>This impropriety has only come to light in the Optiva transgression. I have "editorialized" in our Association list-serve about this on several occasions because this is too important to allow OUR credit union to be subverted and taken-over by a scheming group both in our board of trustees and by their supporting followers who are also shareholder members.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-36418357074104915772007-03-26T11:16:00.000-05:002007-03-26T11:16:00.000-05:00Oh my Lord...Just drop it.For YEARS no one so much...Oh my Lord...Just drop it.<BR/><BR/>For YEARS no one so much as gave a damn about these annual meetings. Now because of a poor name change you go are playing the old anti-democratic song. I wonder if the whole Iowa City Socialist Sect would have cared if it had been to a more benign name like "Hawkeye Area Credit Union"?<BR/><BR/>"Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government."<BR/>- Alexander HamiltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30130444.post-16026254082050247042007-03-26T09:06:00.000-05:002007-03-26T09:06:00.000-05:00I posted this on our list-serve for UofICCUnionGro...I posted this on our list-serve for UofICCUnionGroup@yahoogroups.com:<BR/><BR/>Annual Meeting of March 21, 2007<BR/><BR/>This can be labeled as an influencing editorial comment, before<BR/>I get into the details of the annual meeting itself.<BR/><BR/>The lead-up to the annual meeting had the apparent implication<BR/>that this "election" would be a complete and total<BR/>anti-Democracy sham, due to the continued alienation of most of<BR/>the shareholders from the decisions and management of OUR credit<BR/>union. But I had to attend the meeting to be confirmed on that<BR/>aspect. And it was.<BR/><BR/>First of all, as was evident on the Optiva name change vote<BR/>last January, of which hardly any mention was made at this<BR/>meeting, there is no way for 4,500 shareholders to arrive at<BR/>and park in this facility's parking lot. Even the hall will not<BR/>accommodate half of our 4,500 members, which I am sure is an<BR/>intentional aspect after the traffic jam prior to and during<BR/>the meeting to vote for or against the name change to Optiva,<BR/>and that traffic jam continued well into the meeting: traffic<BR/>was backed up on North Dodge well beyond the I-80 bridge.<BR/><BR/>Now, if you want to prevent enough votes from opposing<BR/>something, or supporting something, this location is one great<BR/>place to discourage two-thirds of the credit union's<BR/>shareholders from EVER AGAIN attending these important meetings.<BR/>THAT IS NOT A PREJUDICED STATEMENT !!!!!!!!!<BR/><BR/>IN ADDITION: if anyone wants to "stack the deck" by arranging<BR/>for their supporters to arrive and fill up the room in ample<BR/>time BEFORE any meeting's commencement, that leaves the balance<BR/>of anti-issue shareholders from attending the meeting and to<BR/>make their vote against (or for) any issue not desired by the<BR/>board. Once again, there is just NO WAY for the rented meeting<BR/>room and location to accommodate even two-thirds of the<BR/>shareholder members of U of I CCU.<BR/><BR/>This is a critical point, because quite conspiratorially and<BR/>intentionally, there never has been a provision to accommodate<BR/>even HALF of the POTENTIAL numbers of shareholders at any<BR/>meeting, should they decide to come for a critical vote,<BR/>because ALL VOTING MUST BE MADE IN PERSON, whereas most<BR/>organizations (corporations, non-profit organizations, clubs<BR/>and associations that I have been affiliated with) all<BR/>accommodate mail-in ballots.<BR/><BR/>The annual meeting of March 21st immediately took on the tone<BR/>of something not "right", because there were flyers on all of<BR/>the seats that were obviously propagandistic. I have already<BR/>had one baseless complaint about my partiality and "prejudice"<BR/>already, but there is no mistaking what the brochure was<BR/>intended for: to propagandize to obtain votes in favor of a<BR/>pre-chosen slate of sole "candidates", who were pre-selected<BR/>"by the board" with neither opposition nor competition being<BR/>provided in advance, and, that is a blatantly tyrannical<BR/>conflict of interest.<BR/><BR/>There is something even more important to mention here, about<BR/>these three "candidates. During the "candidate" introduction,<BR/>an inadvertently Freudian slip (I am sure) admission of further<BR/>conflicts of interest was mentioned about the business<BR/>backgrounds of several of the board members. I didn't write<BR/>the information down, since I was not expecting the information<BR/>to be divulged, but one board member is connected with a local<BR/>real estate firm, another with a local construction firm, and<BR/>a third with another regional financial institution! Red flags<BR/>and sirens, folks !!!! How does a credit union attract<BR/>qualified board members and officers without presenting at least<BR/>the image of a conflict of professional or investment financial<BR/>special interests ?????<BR/><BR/>THE MEETING: I will hereby now transcribe somewhat from a copy<BR/>of (but not word-for word or in entirety) my notes of the<BR/>meeting of March 21st:<BR/><BR/>After they had a great band playing enjoyable music, as any<BR/>annual meeting might have, there was a "fluffy" home-folks<BR/>address of the board members up for re-election. Although it<BR/>would otherwise be a mere revelation of Charles Mason's recent<BR/>hip surgery a few days ago, an admirable fact that he had made<BR/>the effort to attend his candidacy election at the Annual<BR/>Meeting, it turned into "good ole boy" talk. I am not at all<BR/>nit-picking on this; when the meeting agenda appeared on the<BR/>screen, there was more audience-softening chat that went beyond<BR/>audience familiarity with the board by and in behalf of Dean<BR/>Borg, himself.<BR/><BR/>When the second item on the agenda was addressed, regarding<BR/>the reading and approval of the 2006 Minutes (unspecified in<BR/>any way otherwise), which I recognized was highly controversial<BR/>because there was no semblance of propriety: acknowledging<BR/>the March 23, 2006 Meeting minutes by reading the minutes was<BR/>immediately cancelled by voice vote. THE LAST OFFICIAL MEETING<BR/>WAS THE VOTE MEETING ON CHANGING THE CREDIT UNION NAME TO<BR/>OPTIVA, which was defeated by a special vote, NOT the 2006<BR/>whatever-meeting of March 2006 !! No mention at this Annual<BR/>Meeting was made of how the membership could get a copy of this<BR/>2006 Meeting Minutes, and, the minutes document was not approved<BR/>or disapproved by board vote. That is a violation of correct<BR/>meeting procedures. It is exactly like a cover-up in front of<BR/>the membership meeting with collaborating support from the<BR/>"membership audience".<BR/><BR/>On item 4, Report of the Directors, and the introduction of the<BR/>Directors by Chairman Borg: Mr. Borg advised us that page 11<BR/>of the annual report is the Chairman's message - - I had to go<BR/>back out to the reception tables in the foyer to find where the<BR/>annual reports were, and I was directed back into the meeting<BR/>room to the rear corner of the room, where I found some gift<BR/>"freebees" and raffle tickets, plus the annual reports, which<BR/>were being issued; no one had told anyone at the registration<BR/>tables outside where any of this was, I didn't even know about<BR/>the coffee and cookies in the back of the room !<BR/><BR/>The Annual Report itself, like the Optiva propaganda literature,<BR/>is basically a pamphlet of wasted expense. This Annual Report<BR/>is like no annual report I have ever seen: its information is<BR/>much too concise and abbreviated, focusing mostly upon member<BR/>borrowers with huge pictures. Out of the entire document, only<BR/>one page is actually the Annual Report Financial Statements,<BR/>and it does not even resemble the inclusive formats I was<BR/>presented with in my college accounting classes. It is mostly<BR/>a very expensive, fluffy, irrelevant non-document that is not<BR/>intended for discriminating, perusing, analyzing members of our<BR/>credit union.<BR/><BR/>In the introduction, as I said, lots of local business people<BR/>were identified as being on the board, something that does not<BR/>appear ANYWHERE in any of the credit union literature at the<BR/>Annual Meeting, including the annual report !!!! If you look<BR/>at the mix of board-approved candidates as to the red-lights<BR/>and siren business affiliations I mentioned previously, there<BR/>is a definite possibility for a conflict of interest, where<BR/>the possibility of a combination of operations for channeling<BR/>non-member real estate buyers into becoming member-customer<BR/>borrowers into the credit union finances, and / or of using<BR/>credit union funds to sustain development in a board-member's<BR/>company is an obvious investigative issue. This would require<BR/>a genuine corporate prosecutorial-level analysis to uncover<BR/>what is really going on in the offices of this "credit union".<BR/><BR/>We do not see common community people of substance on the board,<BR/>but rather, people of elite wealth and elite status, to be<BR/>expected of national corporations. The casual appearance of<BR/>the obvious arrogance and elitism by the board at meetings is<BR/>only the tip of the iceberg for our warning of things to come,<BR/>for it is documented that the board does the planning, without<BR/>any approval by the common shareholder members before<BR/>initiating actions.<BR/><BR/>Key phrases I heard from Mr. Borg at this meeting were: "...<BR/>the Board is a policy-setting role...", "...guiding and<BR/>directing the CEO...", "...collective guidance...". By the<BR/>past actions of the board with Optiva, it appears to be that<BR/>the board really interfering with the operation and management<BR/>of our credit union, far beyond setting policies and goals.<BR/>One reference was to a "NCUA", which I am unfamiliar with. I<BR/>have known about the NCUSIF, having been a credit union member<BR/>in various credit unions since 1969. But, in conjunction with<BR/>this acronym, the statement Mr. Borg made about the federal<BR/>oral report on the status of UofICCU is confidential and cannot<BR/>be repeated to the membership at this meeting really stunned<BR/>me. He did, however, obtain "permission" from the state<BR/>regulatory commission to use "parts" of pre-approved comments<BR/>to be represented at the meeting, which was read. Mr. Borg<BR/>also said that UofICCU ranks number 12 of 8,536 credit unions<BR/>in the nation. Does that ranking justify the seeming corporate<BR/>aggression-mentality we have seen in addressing our credit<BR/>union's progress into "the market" ????? And, which "market"??<BR/><BR/>I only mention item 4 on the agenda, because I think it shows<BR/>the questionable personality of Mr. Borg and of the board.<BR/>The drawing for the grand prize (a trip to Chicago for a<BR/>weekend, won by a credit union shareholder who lives in south<BR/>Illinois!) was conducted by a seated board member reaching into<BR/>the glass fish-bowl and drawing a ticket, and Mr. Borg, still<BR/>standing at the podium, then took the ticket and placed it into<BR/>a small but wrinkled lunch-size paper bag.<BR/><BR/>Now, if you have studied how magicians perform their tricks<BR/>before an audience, Mr. Borg smilingly placed the paper bag<BR/>down and BEHIND the dais, and out of most of the audience's<BR/>sight (including out of my line-of-sight), and then after a<BR/>brief moment of perhaps five seconds in what appeared to be<BR/>minor jiggling of the bag behind the dais, he raised "the" or<BR/>"a" paper bag back up into view, and he awkwardly placed it on<BR/>the table in front of the dais, joking that he didn't want<BR/>anyone to think he had switched the ticket with a ticket of<BR/>his own. Of course, conspiracy-theory wise, it could have<BR/>been the switch of a pre-selected ticket, but I just do not<BR/>know. If this was meant as a humorous joke by a Chairman of<BR/>the Board, it was very immature and wayward behavior, and you<BR/>can judge this very stupid act for yourself. As for me, I<BR/>think it indicates the mentality of how the board operates.<BR/><BR/>Agenda items 5, 6 and 7 went quickly, identifying the election<BR/>requirements of the candidates: 18 years of age minimum,<BR/>willing to serve, must agree to and take an oath of<BR/>confidentiality and ethics requirements, and take a board oath.<BR/>Then the three "candidates" nominated by the board were<BR/>mentioned.<BR/><BR/>Agenda item 8 was for nominations from the floor "with a<BR/>second" on the nomination. Caroline Dieterle, of New Pioneer<BR/>Co-op, was thus nominated and carried by a second to the<BR/>nomination. From the presentation by Fred Nims, I could only<BR/>support making two of my votes, one for Nims and one for<BR/>Dieterle, of the four candidates, thus I lost a vote.<BR/><BR/>The candidate statements verified my choices. Charles, or<BR/>"Charlie", Mason has been a member of our credit union since<BR/>1972, but I heard no statement that would indicate his<BR/>appropriate qualification for re-election. Dean Borg said he<BR/>had a "...passion (-is-) to serve the underserved." Fred Mims<BR/>was the only board-approved candidate who presented what I<BR/>would consider to be a forthright campaign speech presentation<BR/>by any of the board members, and he has been a member of our<BR/>credit union for 30 years. Yes, I do not know the man, but I<BR/>like Fred Mims. He acts and sounds "boardmember" to me.<BR/><BR/>Then came Caroline Dieterle. With an entirely modest and<BR/>sincere community-member presentation, she said that she moved<BR/>to Iowa city in 1968, and has served and is serving on the<BR/>board of the New Pioneer Co-op. She was very believable in<BR/>her presentation as said she really believes in the Democratic<BR/>process, and that there are things that can be done to involve<BR/>and include the general membership. She mentioned that there<BR/>was a $5000 cost to the Co-op to mail ballots to all of their<BR/>members, which enabled all members to participate in the<BR/>Co-op's voting even if they could not attend the meeting. She<BR/>further pointed out that the Linn County credit union mails<BR/>its ballots to shareholders. She wants to focus on better<BR/>marketing (-in reference to the name change purpose??-) and she<BR/>complimented the credit union board and management for their<BR/>excellent financial management. I really dislike having to<BR/>say this, because Caroline's message was totally impressive,<BR/>but, in light of this board, she sounded like an "outsider",<BR/>and that speaks volumes about the nature of this board and how<BR/>it disregards our membership.<BR/><BR/>On agenda item 15, Tim Taffee brought up a complaint that<BR/>nominating form mailing is required to be done to every member<BR/>30 days prior to a board election. One of the board members<BR/>sternly said that for 45,000 members it would be too involved<BR/>and too expensive, and that they are not required by the law<BR/>to have mail-in nominations.... AND THERE WAS RAMPANT APPLAUSE<BR/>FROM THE AUDIENCE !!!!!!! Was this room a "stacked deck" of<BR/>pro-board attendees ??????? Who would give up their right to<BR/>nominate someone AHEAD OF THIS MEETING ?????<BR/><BR/>The meeting ended at 7:13 PM Standard Time (that is 8:13 PM,<BR/>if you use Daylight Stupid Time).<BR/><BR/>Ronald Kinum<BR/>group list-serve facilitatorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com