Chip Filson
The Seated Boxer, an iconic ancient Greek work of art, shows a grizzled veteran of the ring, equal parts resigned and ready to spring into action.
What I like is a sense of respite from competition, the powerful athletic physique and the tiredness that surrounds his humanity. Is he a winner this day? Are there more fights to go? How will his efforts be remembered?
These are questions that all of us encounter, in literal or figurative ways, in our daily efforts.
A professor in the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern was asked the most important skill he learned in his consulting work. His answer: Asking the right questions. He commented:
PhDs, like many students, excel at defining problems by asking the right questions.
“It’s important everywhere—in academics, in industry, and otherwise—to ask the right questions and choose what to work on, more so than actually knowing how to figure it out,” Gordon says in his keynote address for the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University. “The skill is really crucial, and it will take you everywhere.”
I would add to his list, the most important issues of public policy which confront credit unions.
I try to wade into these conversations with as much nuance and care as possible. I understand the layers, timing, political cycles, and just how hard it is to win in Washington.
So when I say this, I say it with full respect for the effort that went into protecting the tax exemption, again. That work is meaningful. It matters. And I don’t take it for granted.
But now that we have a slight intermission before we hit repeat on this tax fight ritual. —I have some honest questions.
Because it seems like every year, every cycle, this issue is always the centerpiece of our advocacy narrative. It’s always the rallying cry. The headline. The thing we organize around.
And my question is:
When do we get to talk about something else? Not instead of—but in addition to?
When do we apply that same level of coordination, messaging, energy, and visibility to:
Member-facing issues?
Governance questions?
Structural threats?
For example:
Can we discuss why America’s Credit Unions is advocating against succession planning requirements?
Can we discuss why America’s Credit Unions continue to pursue changes that would further weaken the role of supervisory committees? We lose several credit unions annually due to a lack of basic internal controls.
If we can mount national campaigns to protect our tax status—and we should—then why can’t we have a transparent, public conversation about the internal reforms that will shape the future of cooperative governance itself?
When’s the right time to advocate for member-facing issues to help credit unions grow and deliver more value to their communities?
Mainstreet” Issues like:
Student loan reform affects members’ financial health and directly impacts credit unions’ bottom lines (past dues, charge-offs, and additional provisions).
Corporate ownership of homes prices out local families and limits credit unions’ ability to provide mortgages (Most credit unions over $1 billion have large mortgage portfolios).
These are win-win opportunities. They intersect with both member interests and credit union sustainability. They build relevance. Trust. Brand strength.
But they rarely seem to rise to the top of the agenda if discussed at all.
I get that during the ceremonial tax battle, it may not feel like the right time for deeper, messier conversations. But that leaves me with the final question:
If not, then… and not now… When?
I would add: What Questions are you, your board or your external consultants raising for your consideration?
A recollection on Memorial Day
The Vietnam War was a divisive period in American society. Duty called people in many, often differing diections.
The pictures below are of Solid Anchor a combined Vietnamese US Navy base on the Cua Lon river at the very tip of the Ca Mau penisula. This stage of the war was relatively quiet. The Seal team’s primary role was to gather information about threats from Viet Cong or North Vietnamese presence in the area. These pictures are from January and February 1971.
Leaving the USS Windham County (LST 1170) to go to Solid Anchor.
Passing an Island on the way
Large swaths of vegetation and lowlands destroyed by agent orange spraying.
The river front at the base dredged from the lowland. The river patrol boats at the dock.
The water front, an artificial peer from sand filled 40 gallon drums.
A patrol boat disabled by a mine.
VIew from a base watch tower, manned 24 hours.
Joint command flags. Base main office with chow hall and for paying troops with military pay certificates (MPC) not dollars.
The Seal team’s hooch, Happiness is . . . The boy with snake had found a Viet Cong cache of 200 grenades.
Sunset at helo pad with two gunships always ready to lift off at the first sign of trouble.
Dawn on helo pad.
Day after some incoming. Bunkers and metal for airstrip. (January 9, 1971)
At setting sun down main street.
Heading to Saigon with another huey close by to return all left over MPC which was being replaced with a new issue.
A straight canal on way to Saigon.
A Coast Guard ship deployed with our LST.
Heading to homeport after being gone for over six months.
Waiting for dads’ return atYokosuka Naval Base, Japan. Lara in yellow rain coat and Alix on the way.
Thursday’s NCUA board meeting is unique. Only one of the three person board will be there.
Normally these public events are fully scripted in advance. All senior advisors have briefed each other on their members’ positions. The staff has been given the questions directors will ask. All actions are known in advance. Spontaneous dialogue, let alone direct back and forth is highly unusual.
The first open board with a single member will showcase Hauptman’s approach and how a single board member questions staff. Will it be an open discussion or just a pretend briefing with all the dialogue preset? Will Hauptman be able to challenge a staff response, as he has sometimes done in the past?
One is the quarterly NCUSIF update. It will be interesting to learn if Hauptman brings a more transparent approach to this financial briefing. Many issues are long standing such as:
Why does the fund’s financial statement presentation not conform with private GAP (the practice until 2010) versus governmental accounting terminology? In all of NCUA’s three other funds, financial performance follows private GAP accounting presentation.
Will there be an informed discussion about the Funds interest rate risk (IRR) policy? The NCUSIF below market performance (2.59% YTD yield) and investment practice have lead to a portfolio value with a net market loss since December 2022.
For two years the normal operating level (NOL) cap has been set above the long term 1.30% with no factual analysis to support this higher level. This cap sets the level above which credit unions are sent a dividend as part of their open-ended funding commitment in the 1% deposit. Will the cap be reset to its historical level?
The fund has a $ 5.4 million provision operating expense in March. Will the staff show the details of how this amount was determined? The loss reserve is now $242 million or 1.36% on insured shares. There have been virtually no insurance losses in the past five years. Why is this reserve still growing relative to total insured shares? How will the closure of Unilever FCU impact the fund?
How will the savings in total NCUA operating expenses due to staff and other spending cuts, reduce the NCUSIF’s expenses for the remainder of the year?
Finally, when will the NCUSIF’s equity and 1% deposit liability to insured shares ratio be calculated using the latest data from a single accounting period. This management calculation would be a more accurate presentation of the Fund’s true financial position. At the moment this ratio is calculated using data from two different time periods six months apart.
A traditional part of the quarterly NCUSIF briefing has been an appendix which presents the distribution and trends in CAMELS exam ratings by asset size and numbers.
The problem with this staff presentation is that the ratings are an average at least six months old. This assumes an annual exam cycle. The staff does not present the current industry financial trends as of the same date as the NCUSIF financials. However the industry’s numbers are available.
Last week Callahan & Associates presented credit union’s first quarter 2025 financial performance. Here are some excerpts from the full presentation.
Note that all of the trends are positive begining with the key blance sheet totals compared to 2024.
Will these positive trends be reported as the context for the NCUSIF financials at the same date?
The issue will be how were the reductions achieved? What reorganizations are necessary? What are the operational priorities guiding these changes?
Will the focus be on areas where activity seems to be redundant or non-existent? Why two legal staffs? Can the CLF, which has had no activity for over a decade, be combined with other supervisory roles? Why is a separate AME office necessary when for almost its entire life this function was part of the regional office staff? Are contracts being used to replace staff functions thus giving the appearance of lower headcount but spending levels remain the same?
Finally, who is in charge? The board’s job by statute is to manage the agency. If a person has a question about any area of activity, who are the persons with line responsibility? Can an org chart be published?
I would listen for any discussion about the board’s functions, scope and duties during this period of leadership uncertainty. What is the legal position of the General Counsel for a solo Board’s authority?
So tune in Thursday via zoom at 10:00 AM. Or better yet, go in person.
Two quick examples how credit unions use their member and sponsor relationships to create resilience.
The CEO’s introduction: We continue to pursue our mission by living our principles and values and earn the trust and loyalty of our members.
This is a conversation with La Tashia, a long-time member:
La Tashia opened an account with the credit union when she was 16. She had wrecked her car and needed a bank to put her insurance money in, so she chose us.
La Tashia is now 51, so through the 35 years she’s had her kids get our accounts, and now she has a 2-year-old granddaughter who is the newest member. Three generations of members that started all because of a car wreck.”
O Bee Credit Union and South Puget Sound Community College (SPSCC) are proud to announce the O Bee Brewers & Distillers of Tomorrow Scholarship, a $50,000 endowment created to support SPSCC students who are pursuing careers in the craft brewing and distilling industry.
As the endowment matures over the next few years, O Bee is also funding an annual scholarship of $2,000 through 2027, beginning with a scholarship that will be awarded in 2025.
With deep roots in the region’s brewing history, O Bee’s support honors their legacy while investing in the future of Washington’s vibrant craft beverage industry.
“O Bee Credit Union’s roots supporting the brewing industry go back 70 years when we began serving the employees and families of the Olympia Brewery,” said Andrew Downin, O Bee Credit Union’s CEO.
“While the industry has evolved, what hasn’t changed is O Bee’s dedication to the brewers and distillers of Washington. We’re proud to honor the region’s brewing heritage and support the next generation of brewers and distillers with this scholarship.”
I enjoy poems that are accessible on first read. Who Remembers Davenport tells a story of two jazz artists first encounter. The writer sets the scene so realistically you can see it.
More than a story, he uses jazz as a metaphor for inspiration and commentary on social change. Read the first line and last stanza again. This is a story making a statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who remembers Davenport, Iowa, in 1920,
the year the city voted Socialist?
No one now alive could cast a ballot,
and the white-boy jazzers of Scott County
Didn’t care about the Revolution, but stood
on a wharf overlooking the muddy river,
Waiting for a riverboat loaded with music
from the red-light district of New Orleans.
One of them, just seventeen that year,
had heard it hardest. On the deck
Of the paddle-wheeler, high above the dock
and its straggling crowd, a Black man lifted
His ordinary cornet and blew the world away.
No one in all of Iowa knew his name
Except that young man, who understood
his betters when he heard them.
That day he heard it all and soon he would ride
Like Armstrong up river to Chicago on a golden cornet.
You want a revolution? Music was his manifesto.
The clarity of his tone, musicians said,
was like bullets shooting a bell.
“Who Remembers Davenport” evokes two jazz pioneers, one white and one Black, and centers on the moment when Bix Beiderbecke, then in his late teens, heard the greatest trumpet player in history, Louis Armstrong—an encounter that naturally had a profound effect on Beiderbecke.
The transmission of the art across generations and racial boundaries is a source of fascination for me, no matter what the art; but jazz, more than most, has reinvigorated itself many times in just this way over the decades. Perennially reborn, jazz (and most other musical forms) remains for me a central source of inspiration.”
—T. R. Hummer
Financial oversight policy by the federal government is often presented as two distinct opposites: deregulate so the free market can work its wonders or regulate to prevent the worst instincts of capitalism from harming individuals or the greater economy.
However, there is a third policy option. I call it fake regulation. The regulator takes action to prevent some excess or outright harm from occurring, but then never enforces the rule. The market quickly sees these are only pretend guardrails. And the predatory behavior expands in ever increasing incidents.
In 2017 the situation of credit unions buying out and paying off their kin was written about by a number of commentors in articles such as:
The Dark Side of Mergers, by Peter Strozniak, March 27, 2017 Credit Union Times
Time to Talk About an Ugly Truth in Mergers by Frank Diekmann, March 6, 2017 CUToday
Credit Unions for Sale? By Chip Filson, February 14, 2017, Credit Unions.com
In response to the growing disclosures of large payments by credit unions openly seeking acquisitions, in June 2017 NCUA proposed an updated voluntary merger rule. Folllowing a lengthy comment period the final rule was adopted in June 2018.
It is helpful to review the specific statements and intent of this final rule when looking at concrete circumstances today. For many actual events seem to suggest the rule isn’t in force. There are no longer any regulatory roles or constraints being exercised.
The rule included important statements about NCUA’s role and scope of authority when approving voluntary mergers. For example:
“Several commentators . . .suggested that NCUA’s role is limited to safety and soundness concerns. These comments are not accurate. The FCU Act explicitly requires the “Board’s prior written approval” before FICU mergers with another FICU. Moreover, as detailed in the preamble. . . the FCU Act requires the board to consider six factors in determining whether to approve FICU mergers. Clearly, the FCU Act expects the Board to consider the effect of the proposed merger on the credit union members, and gives the Board authority to deny mergers that do not, in their judgment, serve members well. . .
Several commentators stated. . .that members have no right to the net worth of a credit union except in liquidation. This assertion ignores the reality that hundreds of credit unions annually return excess net worth to members. . .A credit union in good condition has the option of voluntary liquidation instead of voluntary merger. . .
The Board agrees that mergers should not be the first resort when an otherwise healthy credit union facing succession issues or a lack of growth. . .
The Board acknowledges however that not all boards of directors are conscientious about fulfilling their fiduciary duties. . .
The Board also confirms that for merging credit unions, the NCUA’s regional offices must ensure that board and management have fulfilled their fiduciary duties under 12 CFR$701.4.
In contrast to commenters’ assertions, the statutory factors the board must consider in granting or withholding approval of a merger transaction include several factors related to safety and soundness, such as the financial condition of the crediit union. . . and the general character and fitness of the credit union’s management. . .
The impetus for the updated rule was driven in large part by the financial incentives being used to acquire other credit unions. In the initial June 2017 draft proposal, the staff was asked by a Board member what percentage of recent mergers reviewed involved increases in compensation? The staff response said 75% to 80% had significant merger related payouts often in the low seven figures.
The final rule in 2018 had extensive examples of “merger-related financial disclosures” that must be provided members. Several comments explained the scope and reasoning included in the new rule:
A “but for” test determines whether the senior management official or director would not otherwise receive the compensation “but for” the merger. . .
Disclosure includes, “all increases in compensation or benefits that a covered person has received during the 24 months prior to the date of the approval of the merger plan by the boards of directors of both credit unions. . . “.
The rule applies to all compensation or benefits received in connection with a merger transaction including early payout of pension benefits and increased insurance coverage. . .
. . . the proposed rule requires both the merging and the continuing credit union to submit board minutes to NCUA that reference the merger during the 24 months preceding the date of the approval of the merger plan by the boards . . .In several recent mergers, a review of board minutes has shed light on potential conflicts of interest, including a situation where a credit union chief executive officer voted on a merger proposal that included significant merger related compensation for himself. . .
Furthermore, members’ interest in the transaction extend beyond practical matters of access and service, because the merging FICU’s net worth belongs to the members. . .
The basis for NCUA’s concern about financial disclosure follows with emphasis added:
The prospect of a significantly higher salary at the continuing credit union could be a motivational factor in an individual’s choice to advocate for a merger both internally within the credit union leadership and with members. Credit union management may well have considerable influence with members, who may look to management for trusted opinions and advice about whether the proposed merger is in the best interest of the credit union and its members. It is not unimaginable that the prospect of a significantly higher compensation package could affect an individual manager’s thinking about the desirability of the merger. . .
The Space City CU merger proposal with TDECU violates a number of these explicit statements as well as the intent to protect members’ interest in NCUA’s merger rule.
The initiative was led by the CEO. The CEO and COO are paid directly by TDECU $850,000 in the transaction, a direct conflict of interest. These are described as “non compete agreements.” This is a nonsensical justification. Neither has ever worked for TDECU. Now they turn over their entire operations to TDECU after “competing” with this $4.8 billion firm for 30 years and are paid to “non-compete.”
The CEO is to be paid $3.5 million for not working for the next ten years. In fact he was the person who decided to close the credit union and turn over operations to TDECU and leave the workforce. The amount, as stated was in “honor of his retirement and in recognition and appreciation of his long tenure and outstanding performance.” This rationale is belied by the facts. Of the credit union’s net worth, only 39% is from his operational earnings and 61% from the net worth transferred by four other credit unions in mergers.
The members who own the net worth receive $346 each on average, or about 25% of their total ownership stake. TDECU has announced a definitive acquisition agreement to purchase Sabine Bank five months before the CU merger announcement. The bank owners will certainly receive their entire net worth plus a premium.
However, the credit union owners are asked to approve the same exact economic sale transaction as the bank owners, but will receive only a fraction of their ownership stake. The five employees arranged to pay themselves an amount $1 million greater than the 12,000 members whose loyalty built the credit union. Management is acting like owners, free to do whatever they wish with the credit union, and not as stewards for the members’ interests.
TDECU is showing credit union member-owners they are less worthy of equitable payment than bank owners.
Space City’s final defense and where the regulators could justify their intentional inaction is that the “members voted for it. “
But member voting is a process without substance. All of the critical financial disclosures were revealed only six months after the September 2024 joint announcement of the agreement. Once presented the facts, there was no opportunity to organize and find other options or learn critical factors in this decision.
There was no factual information why this was in their best interest or any relevant reasons why TDECU was the best option—or whether any other options were even considered.
In the Member Notice, it is “recommended” by “your” board of directors to vote yes. And for that vote, members would receive between $100 to $1,000. Vote no and you will get nothing and the implied continuation of the same leaders who decided to close the credit union.
The required member vote is nothing more than a managed event to ensure there is no time or ability for anyone opposed to raise questions or mobilize a counter view. Management in these so-called elections holds “all the cards” and resources. Management does not respond to questions from the press or members.
The only requirement to approve is that a majority of those who bother to vote, vote Yes. There is no minimum number as for example the 20% requirement in other charter changes. So only a tiny fraction of members participate. Normally the majority of votes are by mail-in ballot where the board says to vote Yes.
To call this one-time vote by members democratic in any sense of that term is a mistake. It is the same voting process followed by authoritarian governments in such well known democracies as Cuba, China, and Russia.
This relatively small voluntary merger of a 60-year old, financially viable credit union, may seem inconsequential for a $2.4 trillion system. But the details demonstrate the complete absence of any the oversight NCUA clearly lays out in its rule.
The two credit unions publicly declare the merger must pass regulatory approval, implying all they present and do has received the blessing of NCUA. However, it is a blessing in absentia. The data and reasoning is misleading, overtly self-dealing and provides no substance for a member-owner to make an informed decision. But what the heck–the regulator approved it.
There is still one final step in NCUA and the Texas Credit Union Commission’s role. They must approve the final charter cancellation. In the past this is a nonevent. Regulators have not even required the results of the vote be disclosed when members ask for details.
Will either the state or NCUA look at the totality of this event and decide if, under the rule, members’ best interests are being served? Is this cooperative charter termination with these payments the best option? Might a small fraction of the planned $11 million payments be used to find new management, request new volunteer leaders from the 12,000 members and give the owners back their credit union?
That would be the common sense and right thing to do. It would take courage. And if done, it would send a signal to the entire movement that the era of self-dealing and hypothetical future visions is over. If a credit union wants to buy another credit union and take over all of its resources, then members need to have a real ownership say and return.
Today there is an absence of any regulatory presence and studied inaction in the face of misinformation and self-dealing. This silence has encouraged mega mergers by competitors in local markets, across state lines and, in one case, across the country.
These proposals involving credit unions with tens of billions of assets are not because some superior business benefit is now feasible for members. These mergers are by credit unions with all the necessary resources and capability to carry out any business initiative that would better serve members.
Mega mergers only benefit is to the ambitions of CEO’s and their boards who believe size correlates with success. That view shows they have not looked at the track records of their billion dollar peers about the actual outcomes when exteral acquisitions are prioritized over internal growth. The record of the largest credit unions shows that internal growth is stronger, more stable and effective than external firm buyouts.
Moreover, these mergers of sound credit unions ignore the most important system reality. In these combinations, not a single new member is added, there is no market share gained, and no new markets entered.
Rather, these combinations reduce the number of independent firms with their own volunteers and market strategies, eliminate leadership opportunities for employees and volunteers, reduce independent community contributors and most critically, destroy the collaborative legacy of generations of members who sought more control over their and their children’s financial futures.
These mergers reduce the diversity and roots that have made credit unions a unique force in financial service options for America.
Who believes that the 12,000 members of Space City will now have a better financial relationship opportunity as part of a 380,000 member organization (soon to be 470,000) versus their current circumstance? And if someone wants that option, they can join TDECU today. But why eliminate the more intimate, personal option now available?
Since the 2018 voluntary merger rule was passed, transparency has illuminated an increasing cycle of cooperative self-destruction driven by institutional self-interest.
The regulators have abandoned the standards they explictly laid out as the foundation for their updated meger rule. The rationale appears that if you tell people you are taking the members money for whatever reason, then conflicts of interest, self- dealing or simply exhorbitant enrichment are fine.
I know of no illegal activity that is absolved by disclosing the facts of the deed. But that seems to be NCUA’s interpretation. CEO’s are increasingly brazen, as in the Space City example, to ignore all fiduciary standards.
There is no cop on the beat. The temptations will only worsen. In one California merger the CEO and Chair transferred $12 million of members equity to their sole control as part of the merger distributions. NCUA said and did nothing.
Merger stories are clothed with common PR phrases about similar cultures, values and enhanced opportunities for innovation in an evolving marketplace. There is nothing more than marketing rhetoric in these so-called merger plans.
But the current harm is real. Mergers of sound, long serving credit unions destroy the legacy of relationships on which every firm depends for success. They wipe away the past commitments and memories. New brands then try to portray a new reality but often show how shallow the relationships have become. For example, Empeople credit union or the retirement community sounding EastRise FCU.
For cooperatives, legacy matters. It is a design chosen by a community of interest wanting to take control of their future with collective action. Carrying that legacy to the future perpetuates this human effort as opposed to the cycles of firm destruction accepted as part of capitalism. A credit union instead conserves and passes to the future the shared interests founded on local focus, knowledge and community spirit.
Instead of building on this foundation to work together, merging stable credit unions results in just another generic financial institution removed from any past connections, constantly seeking new markets to conquer or expand. The past is over and done with.
While this approach might appear to work for a while, it sacrifices the most important foundation for any successful enterprise, the power of human agency. Agency means being part of a collaborative effort, that is a person’s belief that I am accomplishing something important in my life. This kind of relationship creates institutional resilience that no amount of resources can achieve. Sometimes we call these outcomes trust and hope.
Space City is just the latest poster child of this growing Art of the Steal. Its reasons are ridiculous and it may generate member resistance far beyond Houston. For the wider problem revealed in these transaction is that some credit union leaders don’t seem to know for whom they work.
A Space City member with deep concerns with this merger called and asked, Who do I go to for help? The person had spoken up, answered press questions, encouraged her friends to vote no. But she felt all this was in vain. Just her alone.
My response was you are doing exactly what democracy requires. It is not about creating a popular uprising to overthrow entrenched leaders in a moment of confrontation or voting.
One person standing up and publicly raising their voice will be seen. It will encourage other like-minded persons to learn their concerns are shared. Her courage will become contagious. It might even spark a regulator to do the job they are empowered to do.
Just one voice. It only takes one match to light a fire. Then watch the members respond with hope and goodwill. Credit union democracy needs many more such member-leaders.
in the late 1970’s Norman Gazer was a relatively new examiner in the Credit Union Division of the Department of Financial institutions (DFI) in Illinois. He had a bookkeeping background, understood accounting, and had a very quiet, reticent almost shy demeanor.
One of the DFI’s goals was that every one of the over 1,000 state charters must have an annual exam. This must be by the DFI examiners or completed by an independent CPA firm using our format.
An essential part of the annual exam was the verification of lndividual loan and share account balances. This was the primary function of the supervisory committee. In larger credit unions this would be done by an outside firm. When there was no record in smaller credit unions, the examiners would attempt to test the accounts.
Norman did this in two ways. He would run his own adding machine tape of the individual ledger balances to see if they equalled the general ledger total. Were their suspense accounts? Late entries etc? This was before computers. In some cases the cards were still hand posted.
I knew we verified external investments by sending out confirmation requests to firms holding these balances. But how did he verify members? He said it was simple. He just looked up the names in the telephone book and called.
It was this effort to verify accounts that led Norman to discover the credit union defalcation at Scott, Forseman and Company, the publisher of the children’s first reading books: “See Spot Run.” After repeated attempts to balance the share accounts, Norman determined the credit union manager of this $1 million single sponsor, was keeping two sets of books.
When confronted, the manager handed over the second set. The defalcation was almost $1.0 million.Norman’s documentation persuaded CUNA Mutual to cover most of the shortfall under the credit union’s fidelity bond.
In America today almost anyone can set up a platform to share their views about any issue. Politicians routinely present themselves as the voice of the neglected, unheard or angry.
We often choose the voices to follow by two criteria. Do we generally agree with the person’s point of view whether the topic is professional, personal or political. Secondly, we tend to believe those in leadership, or individuals whose opinions are based on their professional experiences and credentials (professors, doctors, lawyers, or regulators)
One of the commentators i respect is Ancin Cooley. His succinct postings are well reasoned and from extensive on the ground interactions. His comment on the recommendations of America’s Credit Union lobbiests to reduce NCUA rules caught my attention. And reminded me of Norman’s story of why we have supervisory committees in the first place.
This is Cooley’s response to ACU’s proposal to eliminate supervisory committee and succession planning requirements by NCUA.
What are we doing?
“Now its eliminate succession planning and Supervisory Committee audits?
We’re literally watching member money be used to advocate against the very guardrails designed to protect them and the institutions they trust.
At some point, someone has to throw a flag on the play. Come on y’all….
Succession planning shouldn’t even be up for debate. It’s basic governance. It’s only an issue because if there is a succession plan in place, it makes it difficult to merge the credit union when a CEO retires.
And now, Supervisory Committees? Yes, they can be a pain, but the function must remain intact and unweakened.
This one’s been locked-and-loaded for a while, especially given the quiet, strategic push to weaken audit committees through legislative efforts over the last twenty years.
If we let this trend continue, the very banks we claim not to be will end up with stronger governance and audit protections for their shareholders than we offer our members.
I’ve been asking this question repeatedly: Who do our associations and leagues actually represent?
The members? The credit unions?
Or the CEOs who sign the check for the membership dues?
Because if you said members—if you truly represent the membership—let me be clear: this proposal is not in the interest of any member-owner.
No bank shareholder would vote to eliminate their audit committee. Why? Because they have their actual money at stake.
Our members deserve the same level of protection. Their collective capital deserves the same level of seriousness and protection.”
This is plain spoken common sense by a person who knows what he is talking about. But there is still a worse outcome than bad counsel.
What could be more disastrous? Complete silence. Especially by those in positions of responsibility for credit unions. Tomorrow I will show how voicelessness communicates approval of bad behavior in The Art of the Steal.
Each month I receive 3 to 5 CEO staff briefings. While many share similar financial performance versus plan updates and emplyee recognitions, I find their specific topics \paraticularly interesting. These often convey the special role of credit unions. Here are edited selections from recent, multiple CEO communications.
We became affiliated with the Veterans Benefits Banking Program (VBBP). The VBBP is a partnership between the Veterans Administration (VA) and banks and credit unions which understand the financial needs of the Veteran community and who deliver excellent customer service.
Based on all our credit union does for and with the local VA Medical Center, it was clear that the we more than qualifies for the designation. VBBP connects VA benefit recipients with financial institutions who offer low or no cost accounts, provide financial education, and assist VA benefit recipients with various financial matters
We introduced an AI associate within our Podium text and chat platform on April 3 that answers general questions of members. The platform’s conversational AI employee, named Jerry, interacted with 240 members in its first week.
Contact center associates are monitoring the interactions, have encountered no AI hallucinations and report that Jerry is appropriately responsive to a member’s tone and is learning at a rapid pace.
Examiners from both the state’s Division of Financial Institutions and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) were both on-site and remote the past four weeks to perform a safety and soundness exam. As a state-chartered credit union, DFI is our prudential regulator while NCUA is our deposit insurer. Both agencies work closely together in order to share work product and reduce examination costs.
We expect to receive only one examination report jointly written by both agencies, likely to be in the next month or two. We also expect to be given our usual clean bill of health with only some minor findings in the exam report. Thank you everyone who dealt with the various questions of the examiners.
(my reaction: a month or two?)
Monica helped me get a new account set up, information I needed to be able to transfer money from my old bank account, and direct deposit information together for my employer. She was great to work with. I’m really excited to be changing to this credit union from my bank! Thank you for a great first experience!
I appreciate the small grace period as this economy is extremely difficult to just get by in. I got a great interest rate and if it weren’t for y’all, I would not have been able to graduate from NP school.
We had a pretty solid first quarter of the year. Our net income was slightly better than last month. We have had really strong deposit growth-growing 13% on an annualized basis. We have had loan growth but certainly not at that pace!
After presenting delinquency trends in each loan segment, the CEO continued:
Considering all the economic uncertainty we remain diligent and concerned about our members’ ability to make loan payments and are offering individual solutions when appropriate. Our delinquency and chargep-offs are the reason that we have tightened our underwriting criteria over the past year. This means we are saying “Yes” less often to members.
You may have noticed that our membership growth is slowing-though still positive. The slowdown started in October of last year and has continued. . . we are bringing in about 250 fewer new members per month from indirect lending.
If we look just at core members, those who choose to join the credit union, we are bringing in about 350 fewer new members per month than last year.
We have a team analyzing the trends and trying to better understand where the changes are occurring. . . the question we should be thinking about is what is causing fewer people to make the decision to join. . .I would love to hear what ideas or thoughts others have.
