| I have a question regarding the handover of various responsibilities
from board members to management as reported -
I make the assumption that board members had only taken over these
responsibilities in the absence of a CEO since Chuckles left. Is
that a correct assumption, or are we witnessing a policy change in
placing responsibility for these activities elsewhere than they
have been historically?
I have to second Ed's concern regarding total redaction of the NCUA
examiner's comments. I make the assumption that there was nothing
that the NCUA examiner had to say which was of a personal nature regarding
either members or employees, nor which had any bearing on current
litigations or other legal matters. If I'm correct in that assumption,
then why in bloody hell shouldn't we the membership know what the
hell was in his stinking report????? I keep wondering if years ago the
NCUA examiners report might have raised questions about certain
loans on the Cape but we never knew.
I strongly suggest that in the future, rather than the pretty little
x's (And where are the o's, anyway?) for redacted material, we be
paid the courtesy of a "Material redacted for personnel/legal/etc.
reasons" commentary so we've got a clue what the issue is. Let's
face it, Board, you're only hurting yourselves by playing Mark
Steinkraus, if you get my drift.
|
| Re: .2
> I strongly suggest that in the future, rather than the pretty little
> x's (And where are the o's, anyway?) for redacted material, we be
> paid the courtesy of a "Material redacted for personnel/legal/etc.
> reasons" commentary so we've got a clue what the issue is.
This is a reasonable request. I will make every effort to ensure that
the minutes give the maximum amount of information permissible. This
was done further on in the minutes regarding a members' loan - but your
point is well taken.
Where there is oversight in the minutes and noters are certainly not
bashful in pointing it out, I will certainly enter clarifying remarks
in the notesfile.
Gim
|