Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this2:17 pm
May 28, 2013
Offline
Have been asked by Coast Capital to vote in the election of new members to the board of directors. So there are three vacancies to fill, and only three candidates to vote on, all three selected by the board from a number of interested parties. But get this - one must vote for all three candidates, or the ballot is invalid.
Why do they even bother sending this out? Yes, I read that since they are now national, they have to have such an election. Given that, a bit more choice might have been appreciated. I'd like to know who else was interested in running for a slot on the board. Seems to be a bit of a farce, somewhat like voting in government elections in North Korea.
3:56 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
rhvic said
Have been asked by Coast Capital to vote in the election of new members to the board of directors. So there are three vacancies to fill, and only three candidates to vote on, all three selected by the board from a number of interested parties. But get this - one must vote for all three candidates, or the ballot is invalid.Why do they even bother sending this out? Yes, I read that since they are now national, they have to have such an election. Given that, a bit more choice might have been appreciated. I'd like to know who else was interested in running for a slot on the board. Seems to be a bit of a farce, somewhat like voting in government elections in North Korea.
YES!!! I noticed this as well, and it upset me greatly! I suppose it's okay to have to cast a mark for each candidate, but providing only a 'For' option for each of the trio of director candidates is wholly inappropriate and undemocratic. (Ironic, considering they're notionally a cooperative and frequently parlay that in their marketing that we have a voice.) At least with the publicly-traded Canadian banks, we have the option of voting either "for" or "withholding" our vote for each of the director candidates for election. They should've provided at least a "withhold" option, if not an "abstain" and/or an "against" option. I plan on raising this at the AGM and, if nothing is done, to:
(a) raising an Ordinary or Special Resolution at next year's AGM; and,
(b) running as a non-endorsed director candidate at next year's AGM, principally, on this very issue.
Cheers,
Doug
6:16 pm
April 26, 2019
Offline
Their arrogance trickles all the way from the top right down to the branch level.
10:27 pm
March 4, 2019
Offline
rhvic said
Seems to be a bit of a farce, somewhat like voting in government elections in North Korea.
Or like voting in the United States. Or Canada. They choose 2/3 candidates and we have to choose from one of them.
10:40 am
May 28, 2013
Offline
Well, a new year, and Coast Capital is doing pretty much the same election technique as last year. This time there are four candidates for the board of directors, and one MUST vote for all four in order to have your vote count. "Voting for less than four candidates will disqualify your ballot." No choices here.
Democracy in action? I think not.
12:09 am
October 21, 2013
Offline
It's likely that their Nominations Committee (assuming they actually have one) is either lazy or has trouble finding suitable candidates. Thus, when they get to the minimum number needed, they stop looking.
I don't belong to Coast Capital, but perhaps one of you (or both) should consider running for the board. They can't refuse a nomination if it has the correct documentation.
I know some of these elections seem rigged, but I've also chaired a Nominations Committee for a board of a fairly large charity, and I know from experience that sometimes it can be hard to find qualified candidates.
DUCA regularly has several more nominees than slots to fill. This is because there are some disgruntled members who regularly run for the Board. So far I've not voted for any of them because, well, they don't seem as well qualified, but I always read what they have to say. There was one this year for whom I would likely have voted, but she hadn't taken the course on how to be a credit union board member, which I consider very important.
I've always been amused by the composition of the Steinbach CU Board, fully one-third of whom are surnamed Penner - and have been for as long as I've been paying attention. For all I know, the others may be married to Penners or been Penners before they married! I do understand that this is a common enough surname in MB, but one wonders...
1:19 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
rhvic said
Well, a new year, and Coast Capital is doing pretty much the same election technique as last year. This time there are four candidates for the board of directors, and one MUST vote for all four in order to have your vote count. "Voting for less than four candidates will disqualify your ballot." No choices here.Democracy in action? I think not.
The worst part is that you must vote for all four candidates. I can handle that the number of candidates = the number of positions available, as you always have the option of running as a non-Nominations Committee-endorsed candidate, but what I cannot stomach is that one must vote for all candidates.
Cheers,
Doug
1:24 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
Loonie said
It's likely that their Nominations Committee (assuming they actually have one) is either lazy or has trouble finding suitable candidates. Thus, when they get to the minimum number needed, they stop looking.
You can still run for a director position as a non-endorsed candidate, and some have in the past. The reality is, though, having that Nominations Committee stamp of approval does increase the likelihood of a successful election substantially. To be honest, I'd prefer they scrapped the Nominations Committee and stop trying to behave like a bank, and instead behave like a member-owner cooperative, with qualified and non-qualified director candidates (warts and all, etc.). Then we might actually have the much ballyhooed true "diversity of voices."
I don't belong to Coast Capital, but perhaps one of you (or both) should consider running for the board. They can't refuse a nomination if it has the correct documentation.
That's true, yeah.
DUCA regularly has several more nominees than slots to fill. This is because there are some disgruntled members who regularly run for the Board. So far I've not voted for any of them because, well, they don't seem as well qualified, but I always read what they have to say. There was one this year for whom I would likely have voted, but she hadn't taken the course on how to be a credit union board member, which I consider very important.
I personally wouldn't mind a good balance of qualified and unqualified voices on boards. For instance, every year in Sunova's election, I always vote for a "Joe average" candidate, along with others whom I consider qualified.
I've always been amused by the composition of the Steinbach CU Board, fully one-third of whom are surnamed Penner - and have been for as long as I've been paying attention. For all I know, the others may be married to Penners or been Penners before they married! I do understand that this is a common enough surname in MB, but one wonders...
That's quite funny. Also, the Carpathia Credit Union (Ideal Savings) board of directors and staff listing is a bit interesting. All, or nearly all, of their board and staff have Ukrainian last names.
Cheers,
Doug
5:07 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
I agree that it's unlikely you'd be elected, but it would show that more candidates were possible. Presumably you could also put forward a motion to eliminate the requirement to vote for a minimum number of candidates. Considering how many people usually don't show at such meetings (almost all in my experience), you could organize some members to support the motion and show up and might actually win that point unless there is a statutory requirement to the contrary. Unlike banks, it's one member one vote, so i don't think they can stack the votes without actual voters. You might be able to gather enough votes to get it through if you organized enough people to show up. But most of the AGMs are a bit of a sham, precisely because people odn't show up or care.
I do support the use of Nominations Committees. Having chaired one, I know how difficult it can be to get capable informed candidates. That needs to be a responsibility that is taken seriously, however much you may disagree with the results. I would judge that 99% of Canadians can't read an annual report knowledgeably and ask knowledgeable questions about one.
I think it's OK for Carpathia directors to all be Ukrainian. The last time I checked, it was a sort of closed bond CU, where only Ukrainian-origin people were voting members. Others could join as non-voting members. We need to remember that FIs like this were founded because they couldn't get service at the banks. It's OK with me if they choose to maintain that identity, but I choose not to belong as a non-voting member.
6:00 pm
April 3, 2021
Offline
Hmm, yes, I just submitted my ballot using the online option.
Note that failure to vote FOR all the listed candidates disqualifies your entire ballot, not just this one question. It does not let you abstain on that question, and only vote on one or more of the other questions.
At least, perhaps, the ballot provides some small opportunities to slow down the continued erosion of democratic oversight, here.
On that note, some interesting CCS governance commentary here, if a bit dated now... http://governancewatch.ca/
8:31 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
henri said
Note that failure to vote FOR all the listed candidates disqualifies your entire ballot, not just this one question. It does not let you abstain on that question, and only vote on one or more of the other questions.
That's really pretty bad, reminiscent of the elections process in some less-than-democratic countries.
In Canada, we have a time-honoured tradition that people can officially decline their ballot if they don't think any of the candidates are worthy These are counted as declined votes, a measure of lack of confidence in the options. You could try asking CC for the figures on spoiled ballots, as it appears they don't have a category for declined ones.
If what has been reported is true, I think they are skating very close to a fraudulent process. If I had an account with CC, I'd be asking the gov't dep't that oversees financial institutions what they thought about this. Federal CUs may be fairly recent (not sure). Maybe nobody has caught up with these undemocratic practices yet.
2:47 am
May 14, 2021
Offline
Life is just unfair. There's nothing we can do.(
7:35 am
February 27, 2018
Offline
LaurenH said
Life is just unfair. There's nothing we can do.(
Lauren H, there's a lot we could do about it but that would require us having a backbone. The straw that broke the camel's back, the bough broke and the cradle fell.
3:57 pm
October 21, 2013
Offline
If you want to try to do something, I would start by asking for a copy of the by-laws. See if it's written in stone that the ballots must be constructed this way. If it is, then the first campaign must be to get that changed, I think. It's so patently wrong!
I would also look into the law in BC which governs CUs and see if there is any remedy there.
However, I don't belong to this CU, and have no reason to join.
3:02 pm
May 14, 2021
Offline
I hate this corruption. There are people that have worked their whole lives for a post that one could never get, because of the "rules up there". My mother-in-law struggled with this. She was loyal to the firm for so many years, she organized every party, helped with any problem. In the end (almost), she remained the fool in front of the board of directors. It was until one day my mother came across this amazing site https://ndandp.co.uk/director-disqualification/. She contacted them immediately and got help as fast as possible. I have never seen such and fast and beautifully organized. I recommend them!
Please write your comments in the forum.