Category: Cooperative Design

Posted on

Awakening the Members’ Spirit at SECU  (Part I-The Beginning)

Democracy is hard work.   Most people have  more urgent personal priorities than worrying about the direction and leadership of their credit union. Or for that matter even the circumstances of the many other organizations organized on democratic principles in which one participates.

However in credit union design, democratic governance–one person one vote–at the annual election of directors is the most powerful tool the member-owners have to exercise their oversight.  The reality is that contested elections are a rarity.   Most boards are self-appointed in a perpetual process of nominating just the actual number of internally selected candidates as there are current openings.

Even routine member Q&A at annual meetings rarely happens when the agenda comes to the “other business,”  item.  Comments are carefully controlled if even allowed.  “All questions must be submitted in advance.”  “Speeches will be limited to two minutes.”  etc

The annual meeting’s formal rules are controlled by the incumbents’ chosen parliamentarian who rules out of order,  any motions or conduct not consistent with the board’s intentions.

A Member-Owners’ Representative Takes the Floor

On October 11, 2022 at SECU’s annual meeting the unexpected happened. A member and  former long serving CEO, Jim Blaine, rose to make a statement about the “change of culture and new direction” the board and recently hired CEO were taking the credit union.

His statement had three parts.

  1. A history of SECU with its strategic and business priorities and overall performance since chartering in 1937.
  2. A description of six current activites for which further explanation to the membership was requested. These changes he called Open Membership, Merger with Local Government FCU, Introduction of risk-based lending (RBL) for consumers and business lending, Cancelation of the tax preparation service and Expansion outside North Carolina.
  3. Two motions were proposed after describing these initiatives. The first called for a response to specific questions about the six areas and the second: The Board update, publish, and make available to all member-owners its’ Strategic Plan for SECU no later than 90 days prior to the 2023 Annual Meeting.  

Several members spoke up in support.  Both motions were approved without any voiced opposition or objection.   Thus SECU’s member engagement and awakening began.

A New Blog: SECU-Just Asking

Blaine’s full statement given at the meeting is here.  He also posted it on his new internet blog called SECU-Just Asking.  The site evolved to become a public dialogue on the board’s response to the motions.  Almost daily updates are being posted on these topics and other events related to SECU’s priorities or performance issues.

Blaine’s writing style is forceful and creative relying on logic and data to support his positions.  He is an ardent advocate for his views.  He is committed to the daily task of presenting observations and alternative views to prevailing priorities.  The blog has become an open forum for multiple member comments.

As of now some of these six topics have been put on hold: the proposed merger with LGFCU, the change in FOM and expanded operations outside North Carolina.  Tax preparation services have been discontinued.

The most significant issue remaining at the forefront of current posts is the impact of  RBL and the financial performance of SECU.

Jim Hayes the CEO resigned in mid 2023 to become CEO at State Department FCU .  He was succeeded by longtime SECU senior executive and Chief Operating Officer Leigh Brady.  She has continued the RBL and other internal projects initiated by Hayes.

A First Takeaway:  What  Democratic Practice Entails

Most CEO’s to whom I spoke about this event were critical of Blaine’s 2022 spokesperson’s role in challenging the credit union’s direction.   Most asserted he had ended his tenure at leadership.  Now it was time for him to be silent and give the new CEO and the board who chose them, the freedom to take the credit union in whatever direction their collective judgement decided.

For Blaine this was not a solo exercise.  His statement distributed at the Annual Meeting was prompted by numerous calls from current and former employees, members and others who were deeply concerned about the direction and new “culture.“ They asked that because of his standing in the cooperative community, he take the floor to articulate their worries and seek public dialogue between the  credit union leadership and the member-owners.

Blaine’s presentation-request is the first lesson in member governance.  Democracy is a public, not a private event.  It entails open meetings with points of view which may challenge current wisdom or practice.  Such public dialogue is often uncomfortable for those in authority.

From the annual meeting video, the moderator seemed surprised at Blaine’s ask  on behalf of the owners.  The  members quickly approved the two motions made under the regular rules order for the meeting.

The first condition for democratic government is public “speech,” ideally full and open to all points of view.  It is no accident that the 1st amendment to the Constitution was for freedom of speech. Or that the public press in America is called the fourth estate, a necessary parallel to the proper functioning of the executive, congressional and judicial branches of government.

Uncomfortable in Public

For those in positions of authority, public dialogue can seem threatening to their prerogatives and assumptions about leaders’ roles.  The response to critics is often PR or marketing campaigns designed to overwhelm one side of an issue.  Sometimes even special crisis managers or experts in publicity are hired to promote the message.

For those in positions of public service, direct dialogue with constituents can be uncomfortable.  Written statements are preferred sometimes with FAQ’s attached, or “no comments” issued about key events.  Public board meetings are carefully controlled and sometimes cancelled.   Speeches by principals to their audiences are made over zoom avoiding live in-person contacts.

Democracy depends on public expression.  Whether it is public rallies to oppose a dictator’s rule as in Venezuela, or the weeklong public conventions shows by the two parties, democracy is best served by open meeting spaces.

The Next Event in Democracy’s Awakening at SECU

Readers can follow the details about the Board’s response to these two 2022 motions by going to Blaine’s blog.   I will pickup the story further down the road  when the board decided that this exercise in member democracy was too unsettling to be left open ended in future annual meetings.

The SECU board’s surprise to this event is itself instructive. Most persons in elected or appointed positions of responsibility believe in their presumed authority.  “I was chosen to make these decisions based on my personal ability.” Or just the explanation, “I’m in charge now.”

An outsider might ask of SECU’s leaders as they would any group in this situation: Were   there no ears to the ground?   Did the board and executives truly grasp the scope of the changes they were introducing?  Were the strengths and advantages of the previous SECU model and its decentralized leadership understood?

As one watches this two-year-old drama unfold, look around and assess one’s own awareness of the organizational environment in which one navigates.   Is there open dialogue on critical issues—or just public posturing?   Are leaders approachable or hiding behind a veil of press releases and written speeches?   Do boards actually meet and discuss vital issues, or just keep the group consensus intact to avoid personal controversy?

Democracy is hard work. It takes practice.  It entails public events.  Many are uncomfortable taking this role; but we can learn from those who do, whether we agree or disagree with their positions.

Posted on

Democracy Takes Work-Especially in a Cooperative

President Eisenhower:

“Dictatorial systems make one contribution to their people which leads them to tend to support such systems—freedom from the necessity of informing themselves and making up their own minds concerning…tremendous complex and difficult questions. But while this responsibility is a taxing one to a free people it is their great strength as well—from millions of individual free minds come new ideas, new adjustments to emerging problems, and tremendous vigor, vitality and progress…. While complete success will always elude us, still it is a quest which is vital to self-government and to our way of life as free men.”

This year’s election cycle is putting the issue of what American democracy means front and center.  Some believe it is about majority rule-the winner calls all the shots.  Others have a more nuanced view of participation, diverse representation and compromise.

One of the ways citizens in America learn about democratic practice is its use in the many civic and public organizations in which we all participate:  churches, local elections, volunteer and nonprofit groups.

Credit unions are designed to be democratically governed.  One person, one vote. The primary means for how this is process is exercised is at the members’ annual meeting and the election to fill board openings.

Practice Without Substance

In a conversation yesterday with a long-time credit union member ( joined at age 5 in 1966) he said he never saw an actual election.  Instead, as he learned,  the Chair would appoint a nominating committee led by the Vice Chair.  That committee selected just the number of persons as there were open seats. The candidates were all familiar faces from the existing board or “associate board” members.   The test was loyalty-would they “go along to get along” with the rest of the board.   The tenures of several of these board members extended over three and four decades.

This description would be familiar to many credit union boards.  The election process is managed so as to perpetuate the incumbents or their fellow travelers.   It is democratic in neither practice nor theory.  In the end the credit union is led by persons who believe in their special skills to remain in office for as long as they wish.

The justification for this self-perpetuating board selection is the idea of a “leadership class” like trustees, that should not have to answer to voting owners, let alone face a contested election.  This is especially so when external factors suggest satisfactory organizational performance.  Why tinker with success?  Aren’t we doing what is expected, and leading successfully?

However when a minority, no matter how talented, takes control of a credit union board and the selection process, the responsiveness and accountability of the institution to its member owners is at risk.  Which means the future of the credit union is not in the hands of the members, but of a small group who eventually may tire of the task and decide to merge—not find new leaders.

A Case Study of a Contested Board Election

Breaking this cycle of self-appointment without member choice is tough.  Democracy is not easy.  However there is an example unfolding at State Employees Credit Union (SECU) in North Carolina now it its second year of a contested board election.

In later posts I will cover the election procedures and efforts to provide alternatives to the traditional board self-nominations and election by acclamation.

The future of credit unions may depend on recovering their democratic roots and practices.  SECU is an example that even very large and powerful cooperatives can change when members engage.

Without the annual accountability of true elections, the “leadership class” will be tempted to just continue on its chosen course and priorities.  That isolation is one reason why the number of credit unions has fallen from 6,000 to 4,600 in just the past seven years.

These are not “safety and soundness” failures.   They are failures of leadership and morale.   And it all depends on having a passive, uninvolved member that will act as a customer and not an owner-especially at the annual meeting.

The Ultimate Goal of Democracy

Democracy is about something more than  elections.  Elections ultimately undergird freedom.  As Richard Rohr has stated in another context: But it’s a freedom we must choose for ourselves. It is almost impossible to turn away from what seems like the only game in town (political, economic, or religious), unless we have glimpsed a more attractive alternative. It’s hard to imagine it, much less imitate it, unless we see someone else do it first.

Future posts will report on how this effort is proceeding at SECU.

Posted on

Ugly Truths: Mergers, Kickbacks and Apostates

“The Ongoing Corruption of the Cooperative Credit Union System’s Ideals in America”  (with edit updates on August 9)

I have previously observed that  it doesn’t take an illegal activity to destroy a firm, an industry, or even bring harm to the broader economy.

I believe the credit union system is at a turning point.   Since the passing of NCUA’s merger rule in 2017/18, the amount of asset takeovers (AKA voluntary mergers) has only accelerated.  Some think this is a good thing.  I believe numerous examples prove otherwise.

According to Credit Union Times the numbers are increasing. The majority of second quarter 2024 merged assets in this latest update have nothing to do with safety and soundness issues:  The NCUA approved 46 mergers during the second quarter of 2024, up from the 26 consolidations that received the green light to consolidate during the first quarter and the 36 approved mergers during last year’s second quarter.

As discussed below some credit union CEO’s are “gaming” regulatory disclosure requirements to hide their significant personal benefits. Credit unions acquire sound, longstanding healthy credit unions through private deals which benefit and enrich the selling executive team.  The members are given nothing but future promises and empty rhetoric, most frequently, “bigger is better.”

The transactions increasingly contradict  any common sense understanding of financial equity or fairness for members.  The information provided members and approved by NCUA is meaningless for any considered owner decision.

The cooperative system’s unique purpose and public reputation are at risk.  These deals will be  seen as just more of the same wheeling and dealing as for-profit banks.   At some point these ongoing patterns of self-dealing will become the object of a business media story, a congressional inquiry or even consumer group action.

The good will and good works of the truly credit union spirited will be overwhelmed by the depredations of an ambitious few. The system may never recover from the consequences of these blatant examples of betrayal of the trust members placed in their “elected” board leaders and regulatory oversight.

In previous posts I have detailed cases from Exceed, Infinity, 121 Financial, Finance Center, and Vermont State Employees in which my analysis of the transactions made little or no economic or business sense-except for insiders. Members, who must vote any merger, have little or no power to object or even inquire. The process gives all the resources and media power to the incumbents initiating the deals.  Member participation is presented as a purely administrative step because the regulators have “already approved the merger subject to the member vote.”

A current Example: Member One FCU transferred to Virginia Credit Union

In last week’s post, I describe the members’ “rebellion” against management’s proposal to transfer all the assets of the $1.7 billion Member One FCU to VCU.  The opposition’s blog site was filled with multiple member voices against the change.

On July 30 after the vote closed,  Member One announced the result: 3,479 voted to approve and 1,404 against.  In the same release, the credit union stated it had become a division of VCU on August 1, or 24 hours after the vote.

Case closed or not?  Certainly, the two credit unions want to give that impression. However It is important to seek the truth apart from these two “facts.”  What other context is available about this event?  Were the members’ best interests truly served?

My first observation: the voting participation seems extremely low for this controversial action.  The  number in favor of the merger, 3,479 is just 2.3% of the credit union’s 155,000 members.   The total voters, 4,883, are only  3.2% of all eligible to participate.

This result means each Yes vote supported the transferred $474,000 of total assets and $44,560 of net worth to VCU.  That outcome would itself suggest the need for greater scrutiny.

Why was the turnout so low?   Were ballots sent to every member?  How was the process managed? By whom? How does this member participation compare with other similar sized or contested mergers?

The Opponents’ Efforts

There was spirited public opposition including a news radio interview.   The website Member One Vote No recorded over 80 member comments before being taken down.   These concerns  universally questioned the merger proposal.  A  Reddit link Member One Merger Cookies, is still active and provides a sample of the  many comments in opposition.

Members posed multiple questions about the $570,000 bonuses being paid to the the credit union’s five senior executives.  The members received nothing from their collective $155 million net worth and eight decades of loyalty.

The opponent’s Vote No site also included links to nine different VCU social media with postings by VCU members sharing multiple complaints about the acquiring credit union’s service, mobile banking, culture etc.  Did Member One’s Board do any due diligence prior to announcing the merger in January 2024?   If so, why was there no information about VCU’s business model or priorities, for example the reason for its recent decision to convert to a federal charter.

Twenty-Four Hours to End Member One’s Independence

My second question: why the rush to complete the merger in 24 hours after the vote ended, that is, by August 1?  The Notice and FAQs clearly state “There are no anticipated changes to core services and member benefits.  And, it will be 2026 before there will be operational integration.  In the meantime, there will be two operational centers.  No branches will be closed .

There are least two forms that must be sent to NCUA (6308A and 6309) both of which would take more than 24 hours, especially the combined financial statements, before a merger is finalized.

Why the speed to make this a done deal? The only effect is to remove Member One’s board and to give VCU immediate access to and full control of the credit union’s financial resources.  Is VCU that much in need?

The very low vote participation and the rush to close the deal points to the need for more information about what is really going on.

The Responsibility of Credit Union Directors

There are two sets of board members who oversee each merger event.  Member One’s board is very accomplished per their public resumes.   From the June 2022 announcement of new board officers, the leadership team presents extensive professional and Roanoke community experience.

The Chair, Joseph Hopkins, signed the Member Notice of the merger’s required meeting. He retired from a long career at Norfolk and Southern, has been on the Member One board for over 30 years and is a 50-year credit union member.

Penny Hodge, Vice Chair, retired in December 2018 as Assistant Superintendent of Roanoke Country schools after 31 years.  She is a CPA and became a Member One director in 2019.

A  new board member in 2022 was Tyler Caveness who graduated from Harvard in 2014  with an economics degree.   He is “founder and principal advisor at Caveness Investment Advisory, LLC, a boutique wealth management practice providing investment, income-tax minimization, and alternative financing strategies for the self-employed.”

Member One also appoints associate Board members. On May 23, 2023 the board announced three new associate members, all with excellent professional  and local credentials. These are brief biographical excerpts in the announcement:

Armistead Lemon has an 18 year career in leading independent  school education.

Mary Beth Nash is a local government attorney with 28 years experience representing private and public sector entities.

Rebecca Owens is Roanoke County Deputy Administrator, responsible for county’s financial administration and has 30 years in local government.

Why did these three experienced, Roanoke-based professionals support the ending of their local charter in a few short months after taking office?  The merger announcement was on January  11, 2024.  One presumes there was some preliminary discussion and due diligence by the board before this public decision.

It seems highly unusual these three experienced professionals would join an organization and then quickly turn around and support an end to their leadership role within just a few short months.  What role did they play?  What information were they given?

NCUA is very clear in its statements on the fiduciary role of directors.  From two 2011 letters by NCUA’s General Counsel:

“we (NCUA)also believe that fiduciary duties are properly owed to people, and not to entities. FCU directors must understand the people who are affected by the directors’ decisions and identify which people the directors are serving.

“The danger is that, if the directors are allowed to focus only on the credit union when making a decision – without regard to how the members are affected – the directors can justify making self- serving decisions, or decisions that serve primarily the FCU’s insiders, under the guise that the directors are simply doing what is best for the credit union.”  (emphasis added)

Failing the Members

There are no factual details or future commitments in the Member Notice that would meet this fiduciary standard for this merger.  Let alone Directors’ duties of care and of loyalty.  The only specific financial details are the bonus payments totaling $570,000 to five senior executives.  Of this amount, $250,000 is due the CEO, Frank Carter,  as of the effective merger date—which we now know was 24 hours after the vote closed.

Why did members receive nothing from their $155 million collective savings?  In any other institutional sale in the open market, owners would have received 125% to 200% of their book value net worth.  We know this because these are the routine multiples credit unions pay when buying banks.  Should not credit union owners be treated as well as bank owners?

From the very general information in the four-page Member Notice, the widespread member opposition published in social media, and the explicit, immediate benefits going to the CEO and senior team, this merger seems contrary to any reasonable understanding of fiduciary responsibility by the board and executives of Member One.

They not only failed the 155,000 member owners but also the greater Roanoke community and the eighty-four year legacy of prior generations that contributed to creating this $1.7 billion local institution.

The Other Board of Directors: NCUA

NCUA’s rule 708b provides the process for the Agency’s monitoring and approval of  every step of the merger process.  The agency’s merger checklist has 21 areas for potential submission and seven required forms.

The update of the rule was announced during the GAC conference in February of 2017 in response to published examples of merger self dealing and outright solicitations.  Chairman McWatters’ intent is quoted in this report of the merger landscape by Frank Diekmann in his CUToday analysis, Time to Talk About an Ugly Truth in Mergers:

McWatters: “The agency should diligently work to preserve small credit unions, as well as minority- and women-operated credit unions.  

“In addition, the agency should require all merger solicitation documents to provide, without limitation, a discussion of any change-in-control payments and other management compensation awards and agreements, and that such disclosures are written in plain language and delivered to voting members in a reasonable time prior to the scheduled merger vote.”

Since that speech, and the passage of the rule  Diekmann’s Ugly Truths have only gotten worse and disclosures minimized.

Member One’s merger is just the most recent example. No member owner, let alone an NCUA examiner,  RD or board member could make an informed judgment about this merger proposal with the information in the four-page Member Notice.

If any credit union had provided this level of detail to purchase a bank or by organizers to start a credit union, the request would have been summarily rejected.  Yet that is all the information credit union owners were given.

NCUA’s In Loco Parentis Merger Oversight

The impact of NCUA’s rule has been to put the agency’s judgement and fact review in the place of the members’ ability to make an informed decision.  Most of the information required by NCUA in its 21 point checklist is not shared with members.  For example, its review of the prior 24 months of board minutes are not disclosed along with multiple other filings.

NCUA then sends its approval of the Member Notice with its limited information which includes the date of the special meeting and ballots to vote.  Absent are any of the details NCUA used to approve the application and Notice.

Moreover, the Agency has provided an easy work-around spreadsheet to help determine what must be disclosed, if anything, about compensation commitments.  This is completely contrary to former Chairman McWatters’ statement of “without limitation” disclosures.  In essence, NCUA shows credit unions how to “game” its own disclosure rule.

Self-dealing by those who lead the organization, oversee the entire process and control all resources to communicate with members was the number one priority addressed in the 2018 rule.  Unlike state charters which must file IRS form 990 detailing board and executive compensation annually, FCU’s are not required to file or disclose any compensation data to anyone at any time.

The agency’s excel spreadsheet with sample entries helps to determine what portion, if any, of future compensation must be disclosed. Here is the form that credit unions can submit to show compliance or not, along with a required certification of No Non-Disclosed Merger-Related Financial Arrangements.

Future compensation is what the whole rule was intended to address, including conversions of previously funded SERPS and other benefit plans.

Why should NCUA be able to review this form, but not members?   In the Member One Notice only merger related bonuses of $570,000 were revealed.  However the credit union reported over $32 million in SERP and Employee Insurance Benefits in its June 2024 call report balance sheet that will either vest or be distributed under change of control clauses—but there was no disclosure of where those funds now go.

Reporting only merger related bonuses does not begin to reveal the compensation related commitments to senior employees in the merging credit union.  Most will enter into new employment contracts with the continuing credit union that are guaranteed years into the future versus being at-will positions.

To illustrate this under reporting, NCUA recently approved a merger that disclosed to members only $900,000 of bonus or salary increases for the five senior employees.  However, because the credit union was a state charter and the lengths of the new contracts were disclosed, the actual guaranteed payments were closer to $9.4 million for the  highest compensated employees.

This is how the disclosures of self-dealing are “gamed.”  NCUA has inserted its review in place of providing  essential information to the members for their decision making.  Members receive no facts, only rhetorical promises or future assurances.  In Member One’s case, this motto was “Bigger is Better” an assertion easily  contradicted by the diverse loan growth and ROA performances as of June 2024 reported by the top ten credit unions.

The Shortcomings Of the Merger Rule and an Easy Solution

There are two other serious information shortcomings in the merger disclosures.  Nothing is required to be shown about the continuing credit union’s business model, priorities, plans or culture.  In this case VCU’s social media posts suggest some potential cultural and operational issues.

If members are transferring the future management of all their assets to another organization, shouldn’t that organization’s plans and leadership intentions be part of the disclosures, even including the compensation of the continuing executives.

Voting by members in a merger is not about protecting their individual savings and loans.  If members don’t like the outcome, they can withdraw and go to another institutions.

Rather the voting is about the transfer and full control of all the assets, tangible and intangible created in a credit union’s long history, to a third party.   Now there is nothing required to be disclosed about the new organization’s taking over these accumulated resources except a summary balance sheet and income statement that is already available from call reports.

A second problem is that the voting process is deeply flawed.  It has the appearance of democracy and one person one vote.  In this case 97% of members did not vote on the future of their own credit union?  Why?

Moreover, the entire voting process and institutional resources are in the hands of one party which has a vested interest in the outcome.  Members who oppose have no way to easily contact other members, there are no resources for marketing or outreach. The credit union executives control all the messaging with its FAQ’s and in this case, free Oreo cookies.

This is not a democratic election process.  It is a monopoly managed by those in power who control all the variables in the very short time frame in which the messaging and balloting is done.  To end a charter should require a minimum number of members to vote, at least 20%, and provide a process for opponents to have access to members.

And the easy solution:  Require every voluntary merger where the dissolving credit union has 7% net worth, to issue a public RFP for bidders and that there be a minimum of two proposals received.

RFP’s are a routine process in virtually every consequential credit union decision including technology choices and even the hiring of consultants who submit proposals in response.

NCUA should lay out the minimum RFP contents and then review the numerous responses.  The credit union board has the data for why one option was chosen over another to recommend to members.  Here is how the process works in a good merger.

The Apostates

The word apostates refers to someone whose actions or inactions, suggest they have totally abandoned or rejected their core beliefs or principles.  Or maybe have no settled ones at all.

In this example of Member One’s executive suite and board’s professional credentials, the public record of merger disclosures versus  the aspirations presented on the credit union’s website, all combine to give the impression these leaders abandoned whatever belief they had in their 84-year old credit union. Rather it was the members whose voices spoke up for the credit union while those in leadership sold out. (See one example at end.)

The role of NCUA’s three person board is also critical.  What is their understanding of the  cooperative charter?  How is it different from banks, other than the tax exemption?  What are the role and rights of member-owners?   What does democratic governance, one person one vote entail, when board elections are rarely held?  When only 3% to 4% of owners vote on the continuance of their independent charter, how meaningful is this process for mergers?

If the board believes the proper policy is letting the free market work its will versus setting regulatory boundaries, why is there no support for actual transparent market solutions?   Why do bank owners reap rewards when bought by credit unions, but credit union owners receive nothing when control is transferred to a credit union third party?

Chair Harper, Vice Chair Hauptman and newcomer Otsuka have either turned a blind eye or have no problem with senior executives capitalizing on their positions for self-enrichment-and the members left holding an empty bag.

NCUA’s current board has taken no action on the growing number of examples where the fiduciary duties of all decision makers to protect members’ best interests have clearly fallen short of the clear standard presented by its General Counsel.

In the end this benign neglect will erode the financial and reputational foundations of the cooperative model.

Creating An Unsound Cooperative System

Ultimately this intentional or unintentional fiduciary  abandonment by all parties will only spawn greater and greater incidents of insider sell outs in the pursuit of growth and greed.  The result is  more and more risk put into fewer and fewer baskets.

This increasing concentration decreases the traditional advantages of local relationships and stability and reduces overall financial and business diversity within the credit union system.  The soundness of the system is narrowed; the variety of business models is reduced; and the traditional credit union advantages of local knowledge, control and earned loyalty are lost.

The unique design of democratic member-owned financial alternatives serving their communities faithfully over generations is sacrificed on the altar of bigness.

The cooperative model has been turned upside down.  It no longer serves members interests first, but rather the personal ambitions of the institution’s leaders.

One Member’s Voice

When those in governmental or private positions of authority forget where their accountability is owed, the prospect of member rebellion grows.  Who can forget the taxi drivers attending NCUA board meetings to lobby for member-focused solutions?

In the case of Member One, a person who served the credit union in leadership posted his logic for why this merger was not in the members’ interest on NCUA’s website.  When posting comments NCUA “will review, redact and post submitted comments” and “also reserve(s) the right not to post a comment that we believe is false, egregious, or unrelated to the proposed merger.”

Sometimes we call these critics prophetic.  When current leaders forget to whom their duties of care and loyalty are due, this comment presents a well reasoned, informed appeal for a return to core credit union principles.

The following is what this member “sees” versus what those in positions of authority  choose to ignore:

I, Dwight Holland, MD, PhD STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS MERGER AT THIS TIME as a former 7 year Supervisory Committee Member of M1FCU, and 2 years as a successful Chair of that Committee. My background:

I was on the Supervisory Committee of M1FCU from 1996 to 2003, with the last 2 years as the Chair. So, I know what I am talking about regarding Credit Union matters.

I was also the guy that pushed hard in 1996 to get on-line banking into the Credit Union when some of our Board Members weren’t sure what a domain name was, or why we should do this. So, I AM NOT opposed to change and adapting when necessary or it makes sense for our members.

The reasons I am opposed:

1. We lose LOCAL CONTROL and influence in the governance of the Credit Union because we are being swallowed by a bigger fish. The smaller fish in the pond of merger always loses its identity, culture and influence with time, despite promises by the Board and CEO of both Credit Unions.

2. We are a HEALTHY, overall well-managed credit union that has grown to around 1.6 Billion dollars. Why surrender this LOCAL achievement and control to a financial entity in Richmond?

3. MemberOne started out as the N&W Credit Union, and grew with our own economy, mergers and healthy acquisitions of struggling credit unions in a non-predatory way. That rich history and legacy will disappear with this merger into the mists. As member number 4404 that started as a 6 year old, I personally don’t like that notion. I can see people in leadership, and talk to them directly, and they will listen. Having control going to Richmond will dilute that “personal touch” dramatically.

4. I am the Treasurer of a state-wide Military Organization that uses a national credit union (over 10 Billion in size) for its banking purposes. Trying to get help with such a large organization is just like dealing with a large bank. It is tedious to get anything done, when something doesn’t go well, it took me and national level leaders in our organization over 1.5 years to get a very simple, but critical thing settled. The larger an organization is, the harder it is to get through the layers of bureaucracy. Staff sometimes in large orgs just doesn’t “need” to care about you for their performance reviews. That’s not true for more locally controlled orgs.

5. As M1FCU member, we often give forbearance to our friends and neighbors regarding loans and the like if they as for it, and work with them to help. Larger, more distant Credit Unions, cannot, and generally will not do this to the extent that a well-run locally controlled one will.

6. There are more reasons not to merge that relate to insurances, benefits, control of wages locally, etc, but I’ll let others deal with those.

The “incentives (for executives) to stay” at the end of the meeting notice seem extraordinary – why is such an incentive needed? There would certainly be others available to hire who are well qualified should these people choose not to stay.

Well more than a half million dollars is being promised to these five individuals! That amount would best serve members in so many other ways: beefing up certificate and savings rates or assisting those who need loans, for example, would certainly serve the members better than this huge amount flowing into individual pockets.

I do not see numbers that benefit members of the credit union except those receiving incentives to stay. Respectfully, there is no way those employees are worth that much to stay. How much would the rest of the members receive to stay rather than to take our business elsewhere? I see no way this merger benefits the members except the 3 or 4 mentioned in the letter we received.

 

 

 

Posted on

The Olympic Games and “Movements”

From the sporting contests in ancient Greece to the current day’s world wide athletic extravaganza, the Olympic movement has evolved.  This trajectory provides an example of how ideas and actions transform over time and political eras.

The games today are not the games of old.  Rather they have undergone multiple iterations in concept and competition. Their evolution may suggest parallels with the cooperative movement.  Or maybe not.  Anyway, the history is fun.

The Idealistic Origins: A Religious Celebration

The Olympic Games began as a religious celebration in ancient Greece, with competitions to honor their gods. But the Olympics declined once the Roman Empire replaced Greek power in the Mediterranean; the final blow came from the Christian Emperor Theodosius I, who saw the Games as a stage for paganism.

At the end of the 19th century, the modern iteration of the Games began – minus religion. This time, they were secular, with flags and patriotism replacing religious worship.  (source: Presbyterian Outlook)

Reinterpreting Sport in the 20th Century

At the 1912 Stockholm Olympics, the perfect brushstroke was just as likely to win a medal as the quickest sprint. That year, Pierre de Coubertin — co-founder of the International Olympic Committee — introduced a series of Olympic events in the fields of painting, literature, music, architecture, and sculpture, with the rule that all creations must be sports-themed.

Though many of the newly eligible competitors lacked the physical prowess of traditional Olympians, some excelled at both the athletic and the artistic. American marksman Walter Winans not only won a silver medal for sharpshooting at the 1912 Games, but he also took home gold for his 20-inch-tall sculpture of a horse-drawn chariot, titled “An American Trotter.”

In future Olympiads, the artistic events focused on even more niche disciplines. By the 1928 Amsterdam Games, architecture was subcategorized into design and town planning, while literature was divided into lyrical, dramatic, and epic works.

After a hiatus during World War II, the arts returned as official Olympic events one final time at the 1948 London Games. It was there that 73-year-old John Copley won a silver medal for his engraving titled “Polo Players,” becoming the oldest Olympic medalist in history.

Unfortunately for these more right-brained Olympians, new IOC president Avery Brundage led a campaign to remove the creative events from the official Olympic program, relegating the arts to exhibition status by the 1952 Games. All 151 artistic Olympic medals that had been awarded between 1912 and 1948 were stricken from the official record books. (Source lost)

Innovation, Money and Relevance in the 21st Century

The 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris began last Saturday, with 329 medal events planned for 32 different sports, including the debut of breaking and the return of sport climbing,  skateboarding and surfing. The Paris organizers said they chose these sports because they’re easy for beginners to pick up and popular with young, social media-savvy fans.

Maintaining relevance is crucial for the International Olympic Committee to justify the more than $3 billion it’s charging media companies to broadcast and stream the games. But many of the criteria that the IOC uses to select new events relate to much more practical concerns.

Games organizers dropped polo as an Olympic sport in the ’30s because it was too expensive to host  — each team needs at least 25 polo ponies and matches are played on pitches about nine times bigger than a football field.

The host city of the Games also gets to weigh in on which sports get added, often at the expense of others that are less popular in its country. That helps explain why baseball and softball won’t compete in 2024, but will return for the 2028 Games in Los Angeles. Whether karate returns to future games is less clear.  (Source: Bloomberg)

Movements and Change

While the modern games trace their origin to two thousand years ago, the current edition has the same longevity as the credit union movement in America.

The games have emerged from their idealistic beginnings to be revived with multiple expressions of sporting enthusiasm.  Today they are big business with ever expanding participation supported by billions of dollars of underwriting to celebrate individual, organizational and national triumphs.

Look  familiar?

Posted on

Can Merger Incentives Be Replaced by Better Comp Plans?

Editor’s note: The following guest commentary is a response to the NCUA board’s July 18 proposed rule requiring written succession planning policies for all credit unions.  One rationale was that this action would reduce the number of mergers now occurring due to a lack of available CEO or board candidates at times of leadership transition.

By Ancin Cooley

The succession planning discussion during last week’s NCUA proposed rule is about who will control the future of an organization’s resources: the member-owners versus transferred to an outside third party’s control?

Here’s the key question to keep in mind as you read my views:

Is the members’ loss of their charter and capital comparable to the costs of Board/CEO succession planning by any measure?

Bridging the Gap: “The Middle Way”

The solutions below are born of fatigue from reading about merger abuses and pragmatism. I’d rather a Board give a CEO what they feel he or she has earned in a manner similar to community bank compensation versus that same CEO attempting to convince their Board to merge for a “backend” payout from the surviving institution.

If we don’t openly address “backend” payouts post-merger, we won’t have a serious conversation on this issue. (Source: CU Merger Update Part II: More Management Comp Deals, Some Member Payouts, Usual Reasons and, Sometimes, No Reasons are Cited for Combinations)

Practical Solutions for Succession Planning

Let’s get down to business.

  1. Incentivize CEOs with Bonuses for Succession Planning Tasks: Offer financial incentives to CEOs for the annual completion of board succession tasks. This ensures that succession planning remains a priority and is executed effectively. (A colleague on LinkedIn thought this was a horrible idea, stating that CEOs are already getting paid to do their jobs. I agree with her logic, but I have also been working in financial institutions for 20 years. It won’t happen without a carrot.)
  2. Allow CEOs to Benefit from Capital Growth: Create a system where CEOs can benefit from the internal capital growth within their organizations, fostering a sense of ownership and alignment with the credit union’s success. For example, if a CEO starts with $8 million in capital and grows it to $24 million by retirement, they should access some of those funds in the form of a “liquidity event.” This approach reduces the risk of CEOs seeking payouts through unnecessary mergers.

Implementing these actions addresses the “elephant in the room” of self-interest driven mergers while aligning personal and organizational outcomes. The goal:  fewer mergers and more stable, mission-driven leadership transitions.

Who is going to object to the solutions I’ve provided above?

  1. Credit unions that rely on one solution for their continued growth-more mergers
  2. Firms that provide secondary capital that support mergers
  3. Lawyers that offer merger services
  4. Financial firms, brokers and consultants that provide merger services

This collective group drives the marketing and PR surrounding mergers, shaping the narrative to their advantage. During the comment period, this same group will prompt state leagues to oppose what is truly in the best interest of the members, thus prioritizing their own financial gains.

The institutional efforts to grow via industry consolidation is a feasible external growth strategy. But it belongs in the banking open-market world, not the credit union cooperative model. Credit unions with merger growth plans are playing tackle at a flag football game.  Cooperatives were intended to be perpetual by paying results forward, a different outcome entirely from private wealth accumulation. 

Common Rebuffs Against Succession Planning

  1. Regulatory Burden:

Ah, the classic “regulatory burden” argument—how many times have we heard this one? It’s a tired refrain. But let’s break it down: What is the regulatory burden, and for whom? For the management teams who find it cumbersome? What if this so-called burden is a safeguard for the members?

If we truly embrace free markets, then if one CEO finds succession planning too burdensome, the members, through their directors, can find a CEO who sees it as a manageable task. The framing of regulatory burdens should always consider who is complaining and why.

During the recent open discussion on the matter, NCUA Board Member Kyle Hauptman mentioned a CEO who claimed that implementing succession planning would force his credit union to merge.

Is it the managers’ place to suggest to their members that putting effort into leadership continuity—to protect their charter—is going to result in a merger? Imagine if you owned a commercial building and asked your property manager to implement a succession plan. If your manager rebuffed with, “If you make me put this succession plan in place, we’ll be forced to sell the property,” what would your response be?

  1. Flexibility Concerns:

Some feel that a one-size-fits-all rule for succession planning would not consider each credit union’s unique needs. The NCUA proposal allows for broad discretion in implementation, enabling each credit union to tailor its succession plans according to its specific circumstances and needs.

  1. Cost of Implementation:

While developing and maintaining a succession plan involves some time and cost, these are minimal compared to loss of the charter. NCUA’s new charters are required to raise a minimum of $500,000 t0 $1.0 million to open for business.  Thus, the loss of any charter for the membership, the community and the credit union cooperative system is huge. 

Conclusion

Succession planning is not just a procedural necessity; it is an organizational imperative to ensure the continuity of the mission and values of credit unions. As we navigate the complexities of leadership transitions, let’s prioritize the long-term health and cooperative principles that define our organizations. By doing so, we can safeguard the future of credit unions and continue to serve our communities effectively.

Implementing practical solutions, such as incentivizing succession tasks and allowing CEOs to benefit from capital growth, can harmonize personal and organizational interests, leading to a more stable and mission-focused future.

In short, THERE AREN’T TOO MANY CREDIT UNION TRUE BELIEVERS LEFT. COOPERATIVE IDEALS SEEM TO BE A THING OF THE PAST. IF THE MOVEMENT HAS ANY CHANCE OF SURVIVING, FOLKS GOTTA GET PAID. 

P.S. To all the institutions relying on mergers as their primary driver of growth.

The day after the merger, all the problems that existed before your merger will still be there. Only now they’re scaled and compounded.

Mergers teach you one thing: how to merge. You haven’t learned how to execute a strategy, build your brand, or manage the risks of a larger organization. You haven’t developed a talent pipeline. And candidly, you won’t have time to address any of these issues because you’ll be too busy dealing with the residual effects of the merger, such as core integrations and member withdrawals.

Mergers should accelerate a strategy that’s already working, not as the ignition for your growth. God bless and happy hunting.

If you are interested in further conversation, please reach me at acooley@syncuc.com or check out my YouTube channel here.

Posted on

Knowing When It is Time to Leave Office

For the past month, the public has watched President Biden struggle whether to continue his campaign as more and more questioned his leadership capacity.   His predecessor took a more forceful effort to remain in office on January 6, 2021.

It is extraordinarily difficult for appointed or elected public officials to know when to leave their roles.  These public positions are prized for their power, perks and prestige.  Stepping out of the limelight is contrary to the ambition that brings most persons to seek roles of public responsibility in the first place.

Moreover appointed positions frequently confirm a person’s sense of special purpose or even even self-worth.  As former NCUA Board member McWatters commented about his colleagues’ views in May 2015:

“Regulatory wisdom is not metaphysically bestowed upon an NCUA board member once the gavel falls on his or her Senate confirmation. NCUA should not, accordingly, pretend that it’s a modern day Oracle of Delphi where all insight of the credit union community begins once you enter the doors at 1775 Duke Street in Alexandria, Virginia.”

Compounding the difficulty of moving on, is that one’s closest advisors brought to new positions of responsibility that will be lost, are hesitant to tell the “boss” it’s time to go. So their counsel is to remain until external events cause turnover.

The Two Exceptions

Every NCUA board member and chair have stayed beyond their established term until the administration moved to replace them.  There are two exceptions-the first two Chairs of the NCUA Board.

Larry Connell left his six year term on January 1, 1982 following the appointment of Ed Callahan as Chair the previous October.  He became CEO of Washington Mutual Savings Bank in Seattle.  The thrift had 37 branches and was the largest and oldest mutual savings bank in Washington.  For Larry it was a clear move up in terms of personal and professional opportunity.

At the February 1985 CUNA GAC meeting in Washington DC, Chairman Callahan announced that he and his two colleagues, Chip Filson and Bucky Sebastian, would be leaving NCUA to form a credit union consulting company.  Ed’s resignation was effective May 1, 1985 or over two years before the August 1987 end of his six-year term.

Ed’s explanation for why he believed it was time to move on is insightful. He said that he had done what he came to NCUA to accomplish.  In a May 1985 NCUA News interview he listed these as “the deregulation of Federal credit unions, the decentralization of the agency, the capitalization of the NCUSIF. The result was that “most people at NCUA have a good sense of where the Agency is going and how they fit into the picture.”

The Example for Today’s Leaders

In Callahan’s view, his role as Chair was done. “It’s all working. The team is in place. There is a sense of confidence in the Agency, and it has infected the credit union movement as well.”

Time to move on.  Government employment was not his career goal or personal ambition.

Ed and Larry’s examples of leaving with time left on their terms illustrates the character of these two initial chairmen.  Their professional lives and contributions were not defined by their time at NCUA.  Both continued to make meaningful impact in multiple future leadership roles.

I believe the logic Ed used to describe his decision is important for  leaders today.  He became chair with a purpose and a plan.  When the results were accomplished, his role as chair was complete.  His tenure was not arbitrarily defined by the term of an appointment.  Or the next election outcome.

Without a clearly defined purpose, leaders within government and credit unions will resort to cliches about safety and soundness or people helping people. Leaders whose purpose is simply responding to unfolding events will not know when their role should end. For change is always happening.

The instinct to perpetuate one’s time in a role and then referring to one’s experience as the basis for continuation, will lead to stagnation.  This is the common justification for renominating current board members to fill annual vacancies in credit union elections.

Knowing when it’s time to leave is as important a skill as the effort used to earn the position in the first place.

President Biden has been universally congratulated for his decision to give up his effort to remain in power.  Likewise Ed’s service has NCUA Chair of just under four years, is recalled as a special time of “partnership” between the agency and the credit union system.   Isn’t this outcome what democratic governance is intended to accomplish?

 

 

 

 

Posted on

“Rush to Judgment”

An excerpt from Chapter 14 of Community Capital,  Race, Equity and the Credit Union Movement.  Co-author Michel McCray continues telling how NCUA closed  Kappa Alpha Psi FCU in 2010. (fourth in a total of five selections)

“The NCUA board members refused to dissolve KAPFCU at first,” I said. “They recognized that cash basis vs. accrual accounting increased expenses and created our net worth ratio problems.”

“That’s good.”

I explained, “Region IV officials convinced the NCUA board to liquidate KAPFCU based on a series of lies and false representations in an ex-parte proceeding.”

“Which is total bullshit.” Victor said, “We need to demand a personal meeting with Debbie Matz or get a hearing before the entire NCUA board.”

“They ain’t gonna listen to us, Vic,” I said. “They’re trying to screw us.”

“Well, if they won’t listen to us, then we need to get [Representative] Eddie Bernice Johnson,” Victor said, “and the whole freaking Congressional Black Caucus to reach out to NCUA on our behalf.”
“If that doesn’t work, Vic, we need to take them to court ASAP.”

Victor nods. “Who do we know in Washington, D.C.?”

Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) wrote a letter to Debbie Matz requesting a meeting or emergency hearing for KAPFCU. NCUA officials ignored the emphatic request from a distinguishedCongressional Black Caucus member.

They also ignored KAPFCU’s frantic meeting request in a last-ditch effort to stop the surprise liquidation.

I issued a press release announcing KAPFCU’s decision to sue NCUA. If successful, KAPFCU v. NCUA could be the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education case of the credit union movement.(pages 201-202)

Tomorrow: the Court Hearing

 

 

Posted on

Confrontation: An NCUA Examiner and Credit Union Leader

In Community Capital,  Race, Equity and the Credit Union Movement co-author Michel McCray tells the story in Part 2 of the closing of Kappa Alpha Psi FCU in 2010.

He creates first person accounts and reconstructed dialogue of some of the events from the participants.  The following excerpt is from a quarterly  meeting between the NCUA examiner and Victor Russell who was leading the credit union.

Confrontation  (From Chapter 12, Alice in Wonderland)

An angry sun glared off the tinted glass of a small law office in Richardson, Texas. I waited for my cousin, the proprietor, to return. Tall in stature but slight in height, Julius Thompson is a brilliant attorney who is the general counsel for KAPFCU. He provides legal expertise and guidance to the fraternity enterprise. He also offers his offices, file cabinets, and conference room to support the KAPFCU effort.

Friends and family call him the “Godfather;” Julius Thompson, the bald barrister with a caramel coffee complexion. Julius has a knack for networking and connecting people. He also recruited me to assist KAPFCU with government relations and community development expertise to help grow the fledgling credit union. . .

At 6:02 p.m., an alabaster male with stern, square cheekbones and thin lips walked into the conference room at Julius Thompson PLLC to conduct the quarterly examination of KAPFCU, the only federally chartered Black-owned financial institution in the state. He wore a dark conservative suit, a busy patterned tie, and polished leather shoes. He was clean-shaven with amber hair and piercing cobalt eyes.

NCUA Supervisory Analyst Tony Rausch personified the Texan view towards minority-owned financial institutions. Privileged, aggressive, and assertive, his demeanor was best described as “typical Texan,” exuding his white male privilege. Empowered as a federal official, he was assertive regardless of whether he was right or wrong. Ultimately, being a “Fed” means that you never have to say you’re sorry.

A loud commotion erupted inside the conference room of the small legal office and real estate title plant. Tony Rausch, a “good ‘ol boy” from Texas, versus Victor Russell, a fast-talking hustler from Chicago. They congealed like oil and water. However, Victor had transformed from Chicagoan to Texan, donning ten-gallon hats and ornate belt-buckles with Italian suits—even Black people do rodeo in Texas.

During the regular quarterly examination, Victor Russell described the current operations of KAPFCU and his plans to increase revenues by origination fees for residential or commercial mortgage transactions. Tony’s eyebrows rose. “Slow down, Victor, before you try to jump into high finance. You guys are just sitting on your deposits. If you want more money, make more loans to your members.”

Victor sat upright, interlocking his fingers. “We are trying to mitigate our risk. In banking, we say, ‘know your customer.’ We know our members and make loans to individuals we know will pay us back.”
“Very good, because that’s the only way you can legitimately make money to generate revenues,” said Tony.

Victor argued that KAPFCU was not issuing or holding mortgages on the credit union’s balance sheet. Instead, KAPFCU would only make referral fee income by finding qualified borrowers for other financial institutions. Rausch balked at this and declared that KAPFCU could not generate mortgage fee income because of real estate risk. “I will not let you do that, Victor.”

“What do you mean, you won’t let us do this? You don’t run our credit union—we do!” Victor bellowed.
“That’s not how small credit unions operate.” Tony replied, “You must grow your loan portfolio. Make your money from member loans.”  (pages 180-181)

Posted on

The Ultimate Coop Advantage

Every organization will face moments or periods of crisis.  These events can cause leaders to question the sustainability of their enterprise.

Sometimes the challenges are internal:  succession, mismanagement, poor leadership, or loss of confidence and purpose.   External threats seem  never ending from unrelenting competition, extraordinary climate events, and even the constant probing by criminal or ransomware bad actors.

What is the ultimate defense against these dual sourced  tests?   Some would say it is the level of capital (net worth ratio);  others, capable tested leadership; and finally some credit unions will reference the fact they are NCUA insured.

The irony of this last assurance is that NCUA has clearly demonstrated that it is not in the business of protecting credit union charters or even granting new ones.   Their approach is purely administrative: to note the steady passing and decline of  industry charters in quarterly updates.

The Strength in All Seasons

I read this mission-like purpose statement recently:

Our purpose is to manifest unity as:

We experience, practice and pursue community;

We share resources willingly to benefit one another;

We know and respond to other’s burdens;

We encourage, admonish and support each another;

So that together we achieve greater economic justice and individual well-being for this and generations to come.

Too idealistic?   Almost religious in tone?   Yet it captures the most important foundation of cooperative strength:  the support and belief of the member-owners working together, that is “community.”

When member confidence in a credit union is not the primary goal of every transaction or service, sooner or later, the owners will see that the organization as just another financial option.  It will have lost the unique cooperative foundation-the loyalty and belief of its members.

This confidence should be the principal responsibility of the board, to be visible and available in all seasons—the good and the challenges.

Because credit unions are in the financial business, it is tempting to assure success in purely financial numbers or goals.  However that has never been the credit union advantage.  Rather it is the relationships with members.  That is an outcome earned over months and years, not achieved with a branding or inventive marketing effort or even offering the latest technology.

Credit unions are organized on one of the most important aspects of life—what we seek is  relationships that reflect our values and priorities.

What matters to you in your activities and professional endeavors?  The $ signs or the relationships?

 

 

 

Posted on

A Book Illuminating Recent Credit Union Struggles

July 30, National Whistleblowers Appreciation Day, is the publishing date for Community Capital,  Race, Equity and the Credit Union Movement.  

Here is a brief excerpt by Clifford Rosenthal, one of the authors.  The book’s principal case study is in Part Two. It is the story of Kappa Alpha Psi FCU and its abrupt liquidation in 2010 as recounted by one of the participants, and co-author, Michael McCray

From The Historical Context, page 20, by Clifford Rosenthal (used with permission):

     On August 3, 2010, without notice, NCUA seized and liquidated KAPFCU, sending out checks to close member depositors accounts. KAPFCU was effectively dead and gone.

      Why was KAPFCU’s case so important? For decades before and since, a steady stream of liquidations and mergers decimated the ranks of Black and other credit unions serving communities of color. Our Federation lost many small credit unions, painfully including many Black credit unions with roots in the Civil Rights movement and even earlier.

    But KAPFCU did what no credit union in our movement had dared to do during my 30 years at the Federation: they fought the liquidation in federal court.

    KAPFCU’s fate could have been—should have been—different. Had KAPFCU prevailed in court, Michael argued, KAPFCU v. NCUA could have been the landmark Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education case for the credit union movement.

 On Vacation

Next week I will be away at a singing camp working on Ralph Vaughn Williams’ A Sea Symphony and Five Mystical Songs.  Upon returning, I will post a number of key moments from the book to illustrate both the content and the style.   It is a glimpse into NCUA actions long before the letters DEI were aligned together.

In the meantime it can be ordered on Amazon for those who can’t wait.