During this week’s GAC meetings the three NCUA board members discussed their view on potential Trump administration’s efforts to limit the NCUA’s independent agency status.
Board member Otsuka’s full speech is online. The two other board members’ comments are from interviews reported in the press.
All three took the same Oath of office to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office” which each now holds.
Here are their remarks on their obligation to the agency’s Independence.
Board Member Otsuka (Excerpts)
Congress has entrusted the NCUA with the responsibility to protect credit union members and the credit union system, and our ability to do so depends on a strong, independent agency, . .
Our independence is critical to maintaining confidence and stability in the credit union system. . .
NCUA understands the unique characteristics of credit unions and their members. Our independence from politics and distinction from other financial regulators allows us to focus on what matters to the credit union system.
. . .credit unions must continue to show the American people what the credit union difference means and live up to the mantra of “people helping people.” . . Too much is at stake to be seen as no different than a bank or a tech company or any other financial institution. The credit union difference is the ultimate competitive advantage.
Board Member Harper’s Comment
Harper told the DCUC’s Defense Matters meeting that the “NCUA board is going through some reconsiderations of how we are going to change the agency and what we are going to do. That’s what a new administration is and does. I’m confident we will get through this as a different NCUA but a strong NCUA.”
Chairman Kyle Hauptman’s Position
From CUSO Magazine coverage: “Hauptman sat down with Nussle to discuss not only the regulatory concerns of credit unions and his priorities as Board Chairman, but also the uncertain future of the NCUA itself, as executive orders threaten its ability to operate as an independent regulator and as speculation of consolidation calls the fate of the organization into question.
“On the topic of the NCUA’s future, Hauptman declined to speculate or advocate for one outcome or another, noting that while he does not shy away from controversial topics, he keeps himself from getting into debates when he has no authority over the outcome. The fate of the NCUA, he argues, is outside his control and lies in the hands of Congress and the White House:
“Congress created the NCUA in 1970, and there were 27,000 credit unions operating before then…my only view on it is that it is important for people to understand that credit unions are different. So whoever in the future is going to be regulating needs to be aware of this.”
From another news report: Hauptman also briefly addressed rumors that financial regulators could be consolidated, emphasizing that although he has “zero authority over this,” he’s not in favor of it.
What Next for Credit Unions and NCUA
There is much difference in the role that NCUA board members see for themselves to ensure the agency’s future independence.
Otsuka is the most clear and determined in her view. She aligns this position as essential for credit union’s to maintain their “difference” which she calls their “competitive advantage.”
Board Chair Hauptman is also clear. It’s not my issue. It’s up to Congress.
Harper takes no overt position except to predict a stronger NCUA, Once again displaying his adept use of the intentionally imprecise comment.
There were many topics raised at GAC clamoring for credit union’s attention and backing-from taxation to overdraft fee disclosures.
In almost all the most consequential topics, the outcome for credit unions will be decided by their political influence as manifested by their members’ actions not lobbying capacity.
Sooner or later some element of NCUA’s independent authority will arise. Who can the credit union system count on to support their point of view of NCUA’s status?