Return to Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site

Return to Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
 
 

Readers' Comments

[Note: This material is copyright by the Press-Citizen, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require the prior approval of the Iowa City Press-Citizen.]

A total of 1,437 people came to the Quality Inn & Suites Highlander Conference Center on North Dodge Street to vote, and 806 of them voted against the name change, leaving 631 to uphold it. For some time after the start of the 6 p.m. vote, a line of cars stretched down North Dodge Street almost to where it intersected with North Summit Street.

"I think we had a good, fair democratic process," said Jeff Disterhoft, credit union president and CEO. "People were allowed to make their opinions heard."

On Oct. 4, credit union members attended a special meeting to vote to change the credit union's name to Optiva Credit Union. The proposal was approved 198-192.

But a petition in early February, signed by 143 members, challenged the conduct of the vote because some members were allowed to vote before the meeting.

James Forney, superintendent of the Iowa Division of Credit Unions, sent two division employees to monitor Wednesday's vote. Forney also requested copies of a number of documents related to the new vote, including the ballot and notice sent to members about the special meeting.

Disterhoft said the vote would be effective today. He estimated that the credit union spent $400,000 to date on expenses related to the name change, including new signs and letterhead that can't be sent back.

He said his staff will go on serving members as best they can.

"Staff knows that it's our responsibility to provide the best credit union possible," Disterhoft said.

Credit union members who flooded the hotel's lobby Wednesday night represented all sides of the name-change issue.

Iowa City resident Dan Daly, 53, was passing out stickers that said "I (heart) UICCU."

"I would like (the name) to stay the same," he said. "I look forward to a better result this time.

Elizabeth Cummings, 36, of Iowa City, said she grew up using credit unions and liked the democratic process used to make decisions.

"I like that they run things by their members first," she said. "It just seem like (the first vote) was done in a very covert manner. And maybe it's not the name, but the process, that people are here for."

Some said they just wanted the whole ordeal to be over.

"In my opinion, they should have just gone ahead with (the name change after the first vote)," said Steve Deckers, 53, of Iowa City.

His wife, Rita, 55, said she voted for the name change to Optiva.

"I'm voting 'yes.' It's a name and I don't really care one way or another," she said. "I've heard the pros and cons, and about the new name being more welcoming."

The idea to change the name came about based on the latest member and market research, which showed many residents thought that membership to the credit union required association with the University of Iowa.

The credit union has said that changing the name would clear up confusion and allow the credit union to represent its diverse membership of 45,000.

The University of Iowa Credit Union began in 1938 with 25 members, all employees at University Hospitals. In 1988, the credit union added "Community" to its title, expanding service to non-university-related clients.

How can the management be so out of touch with the values...  Posted by: ICE123 on Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:56 pm
I have been to pretty much every annual meeting the last 6 years, and the turnout was very poor, no one ever objected to anything... Maybe it is not just the BOD / Management that was out of touch but maybe the members should have been more involved also.

Possibly a change in the BOD could be a good thing, but I do not want these two people that started the petition to have anything to do the management of my credit union. I don't think they can be trusted.

By the way I am not an employee.

Todd Landerson
 

My Rant  Posted by: anonymouscoward on Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:26 pm
The UICCU Board and Director must take last nights vote at more than face value. I believe the main issue was not a only a rejection of the name Optiva but something much more subjective and personal; Iowans in general are very fair-minded and tend to reject unsound reasoning and can basically smell a rat a mile away - it's an innate sense that we should take pride in. Couple this with the general makeup of the Iowa City community and it was obvious this entire fiasco was doomed from the start. Not so much because the UICCU name was being replaced but 1) because membership was never given the opportunity to decide if the idea should even be pursued and 2) The process, including the over-the-top propagandizing by employees, smacks of corporate elitism - simply a dumb thing to try to pull in this town.
The Board and Directors obvious lack of understanding of the people that make up its core membership is astounding. This is an activist community and thinking they could basically ram this through "in the middle of the night" style with a cursory vote gives credence to those who say there is a hidden agenda and that the Board is out of touch. Whether there is more than meets the eye as to the impetus of the name change will be debated until, and unless, more facts come to light, however, my concern lies with the "daddy knows best" attitude put forth by the Board and unfortunately by the employees in their numerous letters of support.
Those that believe the members of the UICCU should defer to the Board/Directors decision on something as monumental as a change of the name of the Credit Union (and I emphasize "Union") do not seem to understand we are not customers of a bank - we are member-owners of our Credit Union and to borrow from Bush "we are the deciders" and last evening that decision came down. Not only was the name rejected but so was the entire process.
I must also say the campaigning done by UICCU employees was in bad form. I do not think they should have sat by in silence, however, the arguments they put forth and the vile directed at some of the more vocal opponents was counter-productive and has likely built a wall between the employees and many members. That is D-U-M-B and also bad business.
 
 

Reader Comment  Posted by: hk on Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:10 pm
My question has been greeted by deafening silence, so I ask it again:

How can the management be so out of touch with the values of its members?
 
 

Taffe and Cox agenda of deceit and misinformation marks loss  Posted by: tellthetruth on Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:02 pm
Cox/Taffe,

Tell the truth, the petition you circulated was fallacious and the signatures you obtained were collected under fraudulent means, having disseminated outright lies to the members you accosted. The petition was not legal in any sense of the word, but it was honored none the less in good faith by a principled and volunteer Board of Directors. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted at the hands of but two people; money that would otherwise have been spent wisely, eliminating the confusion of potential members and courageously redefining our credit union. With less than one-third of our membership base having any relationship to our original sponsorship group (the University) we have grown far beyond the exclusive border our name would imply.

A name change is imminent, but it will not happen today. Democracy at it's best? Doubtful.
alan1983 and propaganda  Posted by: thoreau80 on Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:44 pm
So what if some people were wearing stickers? At the time, that was the name of their credit union. Regardless, it pales in comparison to the propaganda I got while standing in line to get a ballot. The woman who was checking ID and membership lists was soliciting everyone dealing with her. She was spouting off reasons why the name needed to be changed and arguing with any who disagreed with her. In addition, there was a pile of pro-Optiva info sheets beside her on the table.
 
 

The pro-Optiva folk were certainly engaging in more propaganda than simple stickers.
Taffe & Co  Posted by: melt1971 on Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:34 pm
After the second vote, I am saddened by the fact people continue to spread lies about the board of directors and the great CEO of our organization. I was also appalled that a postcard was placed on my vehicle's windshield at the meeting last night trying to suggest that our 3 board members up for re-election need to be replaced. I have never worked with such devoted people in all of my life and they do it voluntarily. The thought of someone such as Tim Taffe thinking he could do a better job is laughable and scary. I know that I do not want someone who is willing to spread lies and solicit people outside of our branches to get what they want representing this fabulous credit union...what kind of reputation would that give us in the 14 communities we currently serve? Let's really stop and think what's important and do the right thing on March 21st-vote to re-elect those who have been working hard for you for years. Their top priority is the membership and communities around us.

Thank you.
 
 

Reader Comment  Posted by: hk on Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:46 pm
Honest Abe:

Really? Don't you think that if the board knew anything at all about the community it serves, they would have seen this controversy coming? But instead they spent $400,000+ to promote a doomed, alienating name change. You don't think that was a miscalculation? Bad judgment? In any other organization, that kind of major screw-up would get you fired.

What is their excuse for being so unfamiliar with the values of their own membership?

Which raises the question: are we done? Can the management possibly justify pouring another $400,000 or more into trying to change the name again? If that's the plan, it's not just time to vote the name change down, it's time to vote the management out.
 
 

Support the board/CEO  Posted by: alan1983 on Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:37 pm
We have learned three things from this process.

1) It pays to lie. As Mr Tim Taffe did when he was soliciting signatures on the petition.

2) It pays to point fingers at people's backs. As iowajeff is doing now to the management/board of our proud membership.

3) It pays to not follow your own rules. The petition stated that the meeting should be clear of any propoganda... and yet I saw those opposed to the name change handing out I (heart) UICCU stickers.

I still find it funny that iowajeff refuses to say who he really is, all the while chastising others. We don't need these quacks on our board of directors. Or will will very quickly go from #1 to non-existant.
 
 

Mr Cox?  Posted by: iowajeff on Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:12 pm
I am not Mr. Cox.

Once again you get your facts wrong!
 
 

Reader Comment  Posted by: honest-abe on Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:02 pm
Let us all be clear here, Mr. Cox. It was not the Board's recommendation, but the membership's decision from October 4 that resulted in those monies being spent. With that membership decision last October the credit union had no other choice but to move forward with implementation. To state that greater oversight is needed of the Board is an injustice to the integrity of the process and to the Board itself, let alone a poor understanding of the laws in the state of Iowa.

From my perspective, the Board has taken great strides in transparency and integrity in this process. They convened a meeting in accordance with the petition, when they had every right to wait until March 8. They went to great lengths to ensure a democratic and open meeting last night. They took proactive steps to clear up some misinformation that unfortunately was intentionally being shared in the community. And most importantly, they oversee the highest performing credit union in Iowa, let alone one of the top 12 in the nation. Somewhere along the way we seem to have lost sight their past accomplishments if only because this one event. I understand the sensitivity, but would encourage all of us to take a more long term view of the accomplishments of the credit union, and not dwell entirely on one event you may not agree with.

I would encourage you, and the community as a whole to gracefully move forward with the process of reconciliation. This Board deserves far better treatment than they have received to date for their sincere and genuine attempts to keep the cooperative moving forward.