Recently Coast Capital Savings started offering a money management tool that our management is calling the Take Charge Money Manager. It’s a tool that’s integrated with the online banking system using software provided by MX Technologies, a company based in Lehi, Utah, US. One of its investors is a San Francisco company called Craft and they have some information on the company here.
This integration with a US-based company means that our financial information is being stored outside of Canada, as Coast says in their FAQ:
If you look at the terms and conditions, Coast says this:
The Third Party Provider provides the Take Charge Money Manager services from the United States, and your information will be processed and stored within the United States. Accordingly, your information may be subject to valid information requests made by government agencies in the United States.
There is also a scary looking term (beginning “You will indemnify…”) which makes us members responsible for anything and everything that might go wrong.
I find this all very troubling. Are there really no Canadian providers of similar software? What would it cost us if we wanted—as a matter of principle—to keep our financial information on Canadian soil? How much do we save, at the cost of the unknown perils of a future privacy breach by parties far beyond our control?
With its “federal credit union” initiative, Canada’s Department of Finance is writing itself into a horror story.
Originating from British Columbia, Coast Capital Savings as a federal credit union will be a Frankenstein monster. Starting almost two decades ago, Coast Capital Savings was stitched together from various predecessor credit unions. Now, the mad doctors are trying to move the still-warm corpse of a democracy from its provincial village into a federal laboratory, and trying to animate it with incantations from the federal Bank Act. It will be a soulless wretch. Whereas the life-spirit of a traditional provincial credit union comes from the community it grew out of, a federal credit union makes claim to all communities and therefore to no community. It is little more than the product of mad ambition. Stories of lore suggest that this experiment is unlikely to end well.
In your Second Consultation Paper, you reveal that “stakeholders” are already trying to suppress member involvement in federal credit unions (page 27). The bigger problem is that nobody has ever articulated a coherent model of how federal credit unions would be of social value. I’ve heard only the superficial idea that more competition is better for consumers. “One member, one vote”—the defining quality of credit unions—has been preserved in federal credit unions, but for what purpose? We are asked to believe that member-ownership inherently leads to a more beneficent institution, but experience demonstrates that member-owners have no power and that directors and management orchestrate elections and other votes to their own benefit. Having member-owners dispersed across the country is a further diffusion of influence.
I have attached the letters I wrote to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, arguing against the continuance of Coast Capital Savings as a federal credit union. They document a sham democracy where free expression is squelched and conflicts of interest go undisclosed. Not only do the Board and management of the credit union have no quarterly accountability to any shareholders, they have also freed themselves of accountability to member-owners.
I’m not going to provide you with specific legislative or policy recommendations; rather, let me provide you with historical facts and allow you to draw your own lessons.
I suggest reading the attached letters at night when you’re home alone, if you like a good fright.
The experiment called “federal credit union” hasn’t even begun yet and already efforts are underway to diminish the differences between banks and federal credit unions.
The federal Department of Finance released a consultation paper today in which they revealed that “some stakeholders have requested the harmonization of bank and federal credit union eligibility requirements” (page 27), to impose a greater barrier to members who want to submit a proposal for a (special) resolution. The Board of Coast Capital Savings has been advocating a similar thing provincially, trying to increase the signature requirement for a special resolution from 300 to over 5300 (see page 3 of my report)…an impossible number given that there is no established mechanism for members to communicate with one another.
Section 254.1 of the Bank Act gives members access to the member list of a federal credit union, which is not something available to provincial credit union members. Not surprisingly, the consultation paper says that certain “stakeholders” want to limit access to the member list.
In any case, giving members access to a list of physical mailing addresses is very 20th-century. The failed democracy at Coast Capital Savings demonstrates that new ideas are needed.
Participants at the conference—all credit union professionals and board members—were asked how they would describe a credit union to someone who knew nothing about credit unions. Listen to their responses. Credit union people have been so well-trained to the idea that “we are not a bank” that they fail to explain themselves clearly by refusing to compare themselves to a bank. The most practical explanation begins: “We’re just like a bank except that…” People know what a bank is.
I edited the Central 1 video, removing most of the talk about communities. I also took out mentions of the word “co-operative” because there’s no good answer to the question of why a new member of a credit union is expected to be “co-operative” in some way. I also took out the annoying mumbo jumbo that marketing people write. I cut 1.5 minutes from their 3.5 minute pitch.
This is the purpose of credit unions in the 21st century. (Smaller credit unions might have other social purposes, too.)
It’s unfortunate that the Board and management of Coast Capital Savings have not been up-front about their conflicts of interest with regard to changing to a federal credit union. A conflict of interest arises when a person performs in multiple roles with divergent goals at the same time.
To start, the Board and management teamed up in a manner that seems much too cozy. Then they enlisted the help of employees to persuade the membership (i.e., the owners) that the move was a good idea. This all confuses the issue of who works for whom.
Board Chair Bill Cooke (left) and CEO Don Coulter appeared side-by-side to promote the move.
Don Coulter (center front) solicited public endorsement by other employees.
These employees were tasked with (implicitly) speaking in favor of going national. No disclosure has been made of the information or training that employees were given, although we know that employees were told that going national is in their career interest.
The Board and senior management have much to gain in becoming a federal credit union. Compensation is part of it, and the magnitude is already apparent. The Board Chair’s compensation increased 437% from 2006 to 2009, directly in response to their ambition to go national. The Board’s average compensation increased 283% during the same period. That’s just the beginning. As these executives become “peers” to the executives at the big banks, their compensation levels will rise accordingly, pursuant to the compensation philosophy that was put in place in 2007.
Career prospects expand for anyone who is looking to be near the top of a national financial institution. Furthermore, the Bank Act requires that the CEO be chosen from the Board of Directors, opening up a new career path and fundamentally changing the nature of the co-operative’s Board of Directors. This was not disclosed to the member-owners.
Nor was it disclosed that the executives at Coast Capital Savings were involved in lobbying for the 2012 changes to the federal Bank Act that permitted the move to the federal jurisdiction. The Bank Act is a barrel of snakes that yields undisclosed advantages to the Board and management at the expense of the member-owners.
Ross Gentleman, writing in a post on his blog Credit Union Futures, points out that credit unions are in a position to lobby for changes to B.C. credit union legislation. This gives the Board and management of Coast Capital Savings yet another opportunity to advocate from a position of conflict-of-interest.
FICOM asked for public input regarding Coast Capital’s bid to go national, and the title of this post reflects my favorite comment, referring to how a federal Coast Capital Savings would be something of a half-breed business, between a bank and a credit union (see p. 32 of the consolidation).
Using a freedom-of-information request, I obtained copies of the comments that were received by FICOM.
Ross Gentleman started a blog called Credit Union Futures a few months ago. He is a former credit union GM and also a former regulator.
His latest post (Coast Capital Sales Culture) is about the problems with Coast Capital’s latest Special Resolution, in which they are trying to sneak through changes to the Rules without full and fair disclosure to the members.
As of March 1, 2017, FICOM started accepting public comment on Coast Capital’s bid to go national. You can read FICOM’s press release. The deadline is March 30, 2017.
I have sent them a letter asking them to extend their deadline. The problem is that they provided less than 30 days notice, and there hasn’t been enough time to get feedback from a national dialog, which I think is appropriate in this circumstance.
The vote for national expansion has been ongoing for 26 days now (only 17 remaining), and for the first time I have seen someone make public comments.
This Vancouver Sun article quotes Wayne Nygren, a former CEO of what was then called Credit Union Central B.C., as opposing the national expansion for several reasons, including:
It would weaken Coast’s cash position
The provincial regulator is preferable to the federal regulator
Deposit insurance would be reduced
Coast’s withdrawal would weaken the remaining B.C. credit union system
Credit unions weren’t designed to be national organizations
The last reason—a socio-political reason—is by far the most important. The economic considerations are short-term and narrow in their vision. If we allow the debate to focus on economic/financial considerations, we’ll forget the real reason that the founders created the credit unions 75 years ago: to take control of their own destinies.
This lone dissenting voice after 26 days shows how the democracy is no longer functioning. A mere newspaper interview doesn’t give him a chance to explain his views, or for other people to debate.
Also, does anybody else wonder why Don Coulter, an employee of the credit union, has access to voting numbers part-way through the vote? This vote ought to be conducted by the Board on behalf of the members. Management should not be running it.
I’ve received some comments over the past week—some following from the Vancouver Sun article that mentioned my website. Here’s a typical one:
“Just wanted to thank you for this website. I received the Coast Capital mailout re voting on becoming a federal credit union, which, of course, is full of positive statements saying very little about what this change would mean. I remembered there had been a website when the board of Coast Capital was trying to increase its income, and I hoped someone had created a similar more informative site on the latest “great idea” of the board. So good to have my suspicions about the downside of this proposal spelled out. Please carry on with your good work.”
If only every member/voter was willing to seek out an alternative opinion, the Board of Directors would have a fair fight on its hands.
The Board is putting it to a vote: should to credit union expand nationally? Voting by the members will begin next Monday (Oct. 17, 2016), until November 28. Results on Dec. 14.
Coast Capital is closing its branches early today for an employee meeting about this. Members will be informed by mail and on the website in the near future.
Here is a worksheet (see below) that employees have been given in order to prepare them to answer questions from members about the national expansion.
It’s troubling that the Board is using the the Coast Capital employees as a propaganda machine to further their objectives. I would be worried for my job prospects if I were an employee who wanted to speak out against this move. Employees might or might not be members of the credit union, but regardless, they should not be put in a position where their bosses can observe their behavior as it pertains to this political matter.
Notice that in their list of “benefits,” the members are treated as customers, not as owners. National expansion will only erode the ability of members to govern the co-operative.
I have finally got around to posting the video of the 2016 annual general meeting back on May 5. The Members’ Open Forum at the end of the meeting is the time allocated for the members to voice their concerns on any topic. As with previous years, the Board does not include this part of the meeting in the official video release of the meeting. The only reason you can view that part of the meeting here is that I recorded it from the live webcast.
The Board has asked the staff to produce an official report on national expansion of the credit union (i.e., changing to the federal credit union). This issue could be put to a vote by the membership as soon as the 2017 AGM. There was no substantial discussion of this issue the meeting. The Board wants any changes to be right for the members, but you’ll notice that they always speak of the members as customers/users of the credit union. They never say that the change to a federal credit union should be right for the members from a governance point of view.
The CEO Don Coulter’s 2015 compensation was disclosed this year (on page 85 of the 2016 Annual Report): $780,760.
Interestingly, it seems the previous CEO Tracy Redies, who left abruptly in 2014, received something in the neighbourhood of $2 million in severance. This could represent 24 month’s worth of remuneration. Coast Capital’s termination costs were $2 million in 2014, compared to $225,000 in 2015, $0 in 2013, and $53,000 is 2012. We can surmise that Redies’ severance was the reason for the large difference. (See page 71 of the 2016 Annual Report for a list of termination costs; page 96 for a description of the CEO’s severance benefits.)
The 2015 director elections are upon us. There are no special resolutions this year—not surprising because of the difficulty of collecting the 300 signatures needed. There’s no online discussion among members that I’m aware of.
There are five candidates for the three open director positions. Vote for Mark Latham and James Boyd because as non-recommended candidates, they’re the least likely to have pledged fealty to the establishment. Mr. Latham is very interested in restoring democratic governance.
It’s necessary to cast a third vote, too. I suggest that it’s best to cast your third vote for the strongest or most popular of the remaining candidates, to give the two above-mentioned candidates the best chance of winning over the weaker ones.
I therefore recommend you vote for: