Dedicated to scrutinizing the governance of our Credit Union, and protecting our
collective wealth from uncooperative self-
© 2014-
The Problems at Coast Capital
Here is an introduction to the current governance problems at Coast Capital.
In 2007, the Board added a rule (see 16.12) that future Board members must have senior-
The Board has muzzled free expression
- Prior to Board of Directors elections, candidates are not permitted to discuss issues. They cannot hold meetings and cannot distribute papers or express their opinions online. “A candidate who campaigns or permits any person to campaign on his or her behalf … shall be disqualified as a candidate …” (see Coast Capital Rule 16.28). A candidate cannot speak to more than one person at a time, in person or by telephone—no email or social media (see Campaign Regulation 4). No media interviews (see regulation 5). No assistance from others (see regulation 6). You cannot tell anyone in writing that you’re a candidate (see regulation 7).
- Prior to voting, the only information that members are given about each candidate is biographical information plus a 100-
word Candidate Statement, all of which the Board must approve in advance and can edit themselves (see regulation 3).
No meaningful discussion/debate among members is possible
- Once per year there is an annual general meeting (AGM), followed by a members’ open forum, where members have 3 minutes to ask a question. The AGM itself is recorded and made available online, but the members’ open forum is not.
- Each year, the Coast Capital Savings Annual Report is not made available until after voting has closed. [See the 2014 Election Booklet. Voting closed April 8 (see page 3); report available April 15 (see fine-
print at bottom- left of page 19)]. - The Board does not provide any other mechanism for members to find each other or discuss issues among themselves, either in-
person or online.
The Board is hostile towards active members
- The 2013-
2014 Board declared war on active members. - The Board has veto power over any resolution submitted by a member before it’s presented to the membership for a vote (see Coast Capital Rule 18.4).
- If somehow the members manage to pass a resolution, the Board can ignore it and force an affirmation vote up to 6 months later. They are not required to give members another chance to speak on the issue (see Coast Capital Rule 18.8).
- The Board continues to lobby the government to make it harder for members to submit resolutions. They want to increase the statutory requirement for signatures from 300 to about 1000 (see their FIA/CUIA Review submission, pages 5-
6). As a point of reference, in 2012 a member set up a website and personally spent $15,000 to advertise in 13 newspapers, to obtain about 400 signatures. - The Board says that democracy is too expensive. In their FIA/CUIA Review submission, they say it costs $500,000 to respond to a member resolution, but in the 2014 Special Resolutions Booklet, they claim just $200,000 in costs to respond to four member resolutions. In any case, the cost for democracy is less than a dollar per member.
The Board’s ambition to expand nationally
- The Board of Directors is intent on expanding Coast Capital Savings beyond British Columbia. This will erode the influence of members in any particular community, making the credit union a national organization instead of a local organization. Rather than pursuing community interests, management might pursue whatever business interests serve to promote their status among their peer group.
Supersized director pay
- Massive increases in Board pay have occurred over the past decade. In 2009, the compensation of the Board Chair peaked at 437% of its 2006 level, and the compensation of the Board in total peaked at 283% of its 2006 level. What caused this? In 2007, the Board changed a rule, letting it use public companies as a basis for comparison in setting its pay.
- The Board’s 2011 compensation was 205% that of Vancity Credit Union, the most comparable credit union in BC.