After sitting through years of my credit union's sparsely attended annual meetings, which seemed to be held for the sole reason that doing so is required by law, I decided to try something new this year and  run for the board of directors. There had not been a contested election since I joined the organization as a member back in late 2007, and a majority of seats were up for grabs in a single election. Realizing the importance of this latter fluke, I rounded up a few like-minded members, and, after drawing up a platform of reforms aimed at increasing transparency and opportunities for member participation, we announced our intention to run by posting an event on our credit union's Facebook page.

According to the annual meeting notice, we needed to obtain 20 signatures on a petition in order to be included on the ballot with the incumbents, whose candidacy had been pre-approved by the board-selected nominating committee. 

A week out and three signatures to go, we were hit with stunning news. An email had been sent that morning to all the credit union's members announcing that, due to a mistake in the initial email, the meeting was being moved back a month. At first I didn't catch the nature of the "mistake," but, on the third read-through, it struck me like a thunderbolt. The ballot access requirements were being changed from the signatures of 20 members to those of 1% of the total membership or 330.