As the head of Government Relations with NASCUS, I think Mike Welch misses the mark in his "Time to move on from `modest means' survey fuss" column, February 9.
Mike insinuates that "NASCUS has turned an irrelevant survey into a states rights issue." In my view, it is never irrelevant when the NCUA gives directives to state credit unions.
What's been missed is that the NCUA has three separate roles and has been given three bodies of law under the Federal Credit Union Act (Act) to enable them to meet those roles.
The NCUA, as the regulator of federal credit unions under Title I of the Act, decided to ask its federally chartered credit unions what they are doing to conform with the social mission called for in Title I of the Federal Credit Union Act. Mr. Dollar and Mrs.Wheat decided that the NCUA, in gathering this information, was acting in its role as the regulator of federal credit unions and they specifically decided not to circulate the survey to state chartered credit unions.
NASCUS agreed. We do not think the independence and the autonomy of the state chartered credit union system are well served if state chartered credit unions try to explain what they are doing to comply with Title I of the Federal Credit Union Act - which does not apply to them in any way.
The autonomy and the distinctions of the state chartered credit union system have never been lost by one single event. Erosion is the sum of the parts and the NASCUS leadership is committed to stopping erosion, whether it takes the form of one large issue or the form of one small issue.
Sorry, Mike. It's never irrelevant when the NCUA messes with our state chartered credit unions. Mary Martha Fortney Vice President for Government Relations and Accreditation NASCUS
