The big flap over the infamous NCUA credit union survey that is supposed to prove that federal credit unions are (or perhaps are not) serving people of modest means has been going from bad to worse since the issue first surfaced, but recently it has become downright ugly. The survey is a classic example of how a single issue can be blown completely out of proportion, take on a life of its own, become totally politicized, and embarrass an entire industry. It's also an example of how easily long-time friends and allies can be divided and quickly become adversaries. The cast of characters keeps growing. First it was NCUA Chairman Norm D'Amours crying in the wilderness seeking support wherever he could find it (including political buddies) for his pet cause. He demanded that credit unions be held accountable and prove conclusively that he was right, that credit unions are not serving the underserved. Inevitably, the other two members of the NCUA Board, Yolanda Wheat and Dennis Dollar, were drawn into the fray. They tried, but failed to give the Chairman's cause some badly needed perspective. As the decibel level increased, the only solution to the embarrassing and highly visible in-fighting was to seek a compromise of sorts and agree to a survey, but only if it were made voluntary and only for FCUs. The Chairman stood his ground. He not only insisted on a survey of all credit unions, he vehemently demanded that the survey be made mandatory. Even though NCUA clearly only regulates FCUs, the fact that most state chartered CUs are federally insured allows NCUA to get a foot in the state charters' door. In D'Amours' mind, that was enough of an opening to include them in the survey. Battle lines were quickly drawn. "Voluntary is a sham." It must be "mandatory," cried D'Amours. If there must be a survey, it has to be "voluntary" cried Wheat, Dollar, and CUNA. If there must be a survey, it should only go to those credit unions NCUA regulates, namely federal charters, cried NASCUS. "This is a dual-chartering issue," they added. It is clear that NCUA is not authorized to do such a survey cried NAFCU, and immediately set out to prove it. Credit unions themselves said little. They had more important issues to deal with. To fill it out or not fill out the survey, that is the question! Never mind the basic premise that the survey is worthless. Based on how the questions are interpreted, it could prove a case either way, but it's a sure bet that the results will show that credit unions serve all members, including people of "modest means." Nevertheless, this innocuous survey has allowed one man to use his power to focus negative internal and external attention on an entire industry that has a solid history of serving members from all walks of life. Ironically, while D'Amours is off to New Hampshire to help Vice President Gore in his quest for the White House, the credit union folks back home are slugging it out in public. The banking industry is certainly enjoying all the internal fuss. Credit union friendly politicians meanwhile find squabbles like this troublesome. It puts them between a rock and a hard place when it comes to supporting credit unions. And what signal is this sending to the public and media? CUNA is being criticized because it says just fill the darn thing out. If we fight it, says CUNA, the situation will only get worse. D'Amours will be back with something more ominous. By the way, isn't CUNA correct in attempting to represent its constituency, which happens to be leagues and credit unions with both federal and state charters? While the Chairman stands on the sidelines holding the coats of the participants, NAFCU is taking a defiant position that can only send a wrong signal to the competition and politicos that credit unions are not doing a good job of serving all of their members and maybe they have something to hide. NASCUS meanwhile has turned an irrelevant survey into a states rights issue. Is this really important enough for NASCUS and its prime membership, state regulators, to fall on their swords for? This is not to say that NASCUS doesn't do an excellent job representing state chartered credit unions. They do! And they have done an outstanding job preserving and protecting the dual chartering system. But should a meaningless survey be positioned as a deal breaker in turf protection? Accusations and threats are flying across the credit union landscape. Everyone seems to have something to say about the out-of-control political situation originally fathered by the one-trick pony NCUA Chairman, except credit unions themselves. Stop it! Stand back a minute and think of the harm all of these shenanigans are doing to credit unions and the very members who are supposed to be under consideration. Who will be the winners in this overheated battle? The losers? Doesn't anyone except the credit unions themselves remember and realize that, as Bob Bianchini, Oklahoma League CEO, said loud and clear, "the operative word here is voluntary"? It is ultimately policymakers and CEOs of individual credit unions who will decide whether or not to fill out the survey. Whether they decide to do it or not, based on their own criteria, or because they are influenced by NCUA, CUNA, NAFCU, NASCUS, state regulators, leagues, or whomever, CUs need to do it or not do it but either way, they need to get on with it. Individual credit unions need to demonstrate that they are aware that there are far more important issues with far greater consequences for credit unions and their memberships than a worthless survey designed to appease one man! Even if those credit union people in high places don't realize it.
Comments? Call 1-800-345-9936, Ext. 15, or Fax 561-683-8514, or E-mail mwelch@cutimes.com.
