The credit union plate is full and getting fuller

Time for another potpourri look around the world of credit unions: * The Credit Union House in Washington, D.C. is moving along much more quickly than most observers thought it would. It appears that it will be a classy operation, in a premier location, with the size and flexibility to meet a growing range of credit union needs in the nation's capital. Kudos to CUNA for coming up with the idea and bringing it to fruition in record time. The $2.4 million, 8,300 square foot, multi-purpose structure is expected to be operational in 2001. When up and running, Credit Union House is going to be a first class credit union nerve center. I am continually amazed at the greatly increased visibility credit unions have achieved in recent years. I well remember the days when credit union representation in Washington consisted of little more than a retired general and a couple of support staff tucked away in an off-the-beaten-path office building. It's a shame that not all state leagues got behind CUNA on this worthwhile project. But apparently the door is still open to obtain 100% league support. Credit unions in those 15 or so leagues not signing on need to ask their leadership, "why not?" * Turning from the positive to the negative, one has to wonder what is going through NCUA Board Vice Chairman Yolanda Wheat's head these days. Out of the blue, she has resurrected one of Chairman Norm D'Amours' and the banking industry's high-priority goals, namely to get credit unions under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Despite her good intentions, it's simply a very bad idea. Call it what you will (a rose by any other name), community action plan (CAP), CRA-Lite, or just plain CRA, it is unneeded and unwanted. It also has the potential of causing grave harm to credit unions. Plus, it already has irritated those that support CUs, like Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm (R-Texas). Credit unions need less regulation as in RegFlex, not more. Wheat has opened Pandora's Box! Wheat, like D'Amours before her, has gone from regulating safety and soundness to micro managing credit unions. She appears to be utilizing her NCUA position to set social justice goals for credit unions. CAP will fail, but not before it encourages even more credit unions to dump their federal charter. *Conversion numbers should convince anyone that the state charter has become the charter of choice. The fact that some credit union leaders are so fed up with NCUA that they are clamoring for a recreation of the credit union share insurance fund, and have already stepped forward to put their money where their mouth is ($1,000 a pop), is further proof that grassroots credit union patience is rapidly running out. If the new entity gets off the ground, it will be private. That translates into state-charter credit unions no longer having to have any relationship whatsoever with federal regulator NCUA. More specifically, state charters will no longer have to subsidize a federal regulator that continues to grow as the number of credit unions decline. Nor will they need to endure double regulation without representation. * Speaking of NCUA and their outstanding ability to spend credit union money, it's a sure bet that behind closed doors NCUA officials are fuming at CUNA's creation of a commission to study the agency's budgeting process, something that is also of major concern to NAFCU. NCUA probably doesn't like the smell of this project any more than CUNA and NAFCU would appreciate NCUA appointing a commission to study the budgeting process of the credit union trade groups. Unfortunately, NCUA's actions and attitude made it come to this. Credit unions everywhere, check books in hand, will be eagerly awaiting the outcome of the deliberations. I'd say don't hold your breath. When all is said and done, NCUA will probably say, "thank you very much for your interest and attempt to help us manage this federal regulatory agency." And then conduct business as usual! * Finally, as proof that CUNA seems to be almost everywhere the word credit union is mentioned these days, they are also devoting some resources and leadership to an initiative that is long overdue. It's another commission. This one will be dealing with taking a close look at the ultimate horse and buggy of the credit union world, the 1934 Federal Credit Union Act. In a pro-active approach, about two dozen credit union leaders will be appointed to come together as the Credit Union Renaissance Commission. They'll huddle regularly with CUNA staff and leadership to take a look at where credit unions came from, how they got there, and most important what needs to happen legislatively and with regulations to have a successful future. I for one am excited to finally see an effort being made to do something positive for credit unions, rather than only going after those who throw up roadblocks to credit union modernization and their ability to better serve the American consumer. The banking industry got H.R. 10. Credit unions fought to salvage what they could after a disastrous Supreme Court decision. It's called H.R. 1151. It is not an H.R. 10. It is not what credit unions would have proposed if they hadn't had to mount a massive defense instead of a thoughtful offense. The Renaissance Commission knows all that and that's why it will be a positive action program, not another exercise in keeping the wolves from the door. I'll have much more to say on all these topics, especially the Renaissance Commission as it gets rolling. For now, the big thing I see wrong with Renaissance is not including NAFCU and NASCUS. CUNA alone, although admittedly the dominant player, is not the entire credit union industry. This undertaking is too important not to involve other key players that can make a significant contribution. Comments? Call 1-800-345-9936, Ext. 15, or Fax 561-683-8514, or E-mail mwelch@cutimes.com.