Better way needed to appoint NCUA Board members

The system in place to appoint individuals to one of three positions that constitute the National Credit Union Administration Board is pathetic. Credit unions deserve better. These facts are well-known in credit union circles: * Credit unions are far down the pecking order in the national political scheme of things. Let's face it, an appointment to the NCUA Board does not rank right up there with an appointment to the FDIC or U.S. Supreme Court, for example. Not even close. * NCUA is not exactly a household word in the White House from which Board appointments emanate. In fact, NCUA is best known for controversy rather than accomplishment. * The person supposedly recommended by the President of the United States does not have to know anything about credit unions, doesn't even have to be a member of a credit union, doesn't have to be qualified in any way other than to be alive, breathing, and be in the right political spot at the right time. * An appointment to the NCUA Board, like all political appointments, represents payback time to an individual who did something on behalf of the sitting President. Like current Chairman Norm D'Amours who helped Clinton get elected in New Hampshire. * An endorsement of an individual for consideration by CUNA or NAFCU is usually the kiss of death for that candidate. Is it any wonder, then, why so many past NCUA Board appointments have taken the credit union world by surprise? And why so many of them have started out like fish out of water? To the credit of some past unqualified appointees, they were quick learners and early on did some homework to find out at least a little bit about the industry that they were put in a position to regulate. To the credit of credit union people, they were polite, patient, and even helpful, during the new appointee's learning curve period. But that begs the real questions: "Are credit unions always getting the caliber of individual that they need and deserve for each of the three NCUA Board positions? Do recent appointees reflect the tremendous changes and improvements that the credit union industry has undergone? Has the political appointment process improved in any way since NCUA was first created?" The obvious answers are "no, no, and no." Unfortunately, no one, but those directly involved with credit unions seem to care who gets the appointment. Politics continues to overrule qualifications. A case in point is the recent revelation straight out of the blue that Goeff Bacino is the hands-on favorite to get the White House nod to move into the NCUA Board position currently occupied by Norm D'Amours. It may be done as quickly as the Easter holiday as a recess appointment. If that happens, from the time Bacino's name was dropped on the industry as the favorite son of the Democrats, until an actual appointment, it will have been accomplished in record time. I am on record as predicting that D'Amours will be gone by the end of this year. With a Bacino appointment, he will be. However, a Bacino recess appointment has almost no chance of getting confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Obviously, Republican Senators feel confident that their man, George Bush, will be the next President of the United States. That happening, President Bush and his new cadre of White House aides will expect to make their own appointments, especially since under that scenario the board seat in question is mandated to go to a Republican as would likely the chairmanship. Depending on the Bush-Gore outcome, the Bacino appointment could well be a short term appointment at best. But the system that thrust Bacino into the forefront is the larger issue because of the grave injustice it does to credit unions. Nothing against Bacino personally. He has been a long time associate and friend. Nevertheless, there are certain nagging questions that need to be addressed. Such as: * How and why did his name as a shoo-in come out of nowhere with little or no warning? As many credit union observers know, Bacino has lusted after a spot on the NCUA Board almost since the day he could spell credit union. Every time there has been a Board opening, his name surfaces only to quickly disappear. His personal lobbying for a Board position is well known. What is different this time? * Does he have the backing of CUNA? Of NAFCU? If not, who does? Is Bacino's appointment backed by D'Amours? Why? At what price? Is he supported by influential politicians? Which ones? Does he have high-placed contacts in the White House? Who? * Not that it really matters under the political patronage system, but is Bacino qualified for such an influential position? What is his track record with credit unions? With the National Association of State Chartered Credit Unions which he helped found and which disappeared after a short and largely unsuccessful existence? With credit union consulting firms? With the National Association of Share Insurance Corporations? What "get even" baggage would he bring to such a position of power and influence with NCUA? * If appointed, would he be another Norm D'Amours? Does he have an alliance with NCUA Board Vice Chairman Yolanda Wheat, a Democrat appointee, who is rumored to be slated to become the next NCUA Chairman if the Bacino scenario plays out with a Gore win? How ironic that credit unions have been propelled into the national spotlight by virtue of new leadership and major legislative victories only to be given cursory attention once again when it comes to appointing someone to the three-person NCUA Board. What's wrong with this picture? What's probably most wrong is that credit unions have almost nothing to say about the selection of three people who can greatly influence the future of the credit union industry. How pathetic! Comments? Call 1-800-345-9936, Ext. 15, or Fax 561-683-8514, or E-mail mwelch@cutimes.com.