I think that the Volunteer dilemma is related obliquely to thecurrent brouhaha of converting credit unions. I call this an“Identity crisis.” It is a natural evolution of some credit unionsthat look, smell and act like banks; so that is what they become.Add to that the natural human need for preserving economicinterests, and we see other manifestations of the identity crisis.Everyone seems to be interested in looking out for number one, andthe members take the brunt. We no longer know who or what we are.We do not know who owns the credit union. Is it the NCUA, is it thetrades, could it be the CEOs or volunteers? No, the credit unionbelongs to the members, but no one seems to remember that. What weneed is something to re-establish just what a credit union is, andthe rest of the puzzle will fall into place. We need to adhere tothe basic principles upon which we are founded: A safe place tosave money for a reasonable return and get loans at reasonable(competitive) rates; not for profit, but for service; one memberone vote; and member owners. We need what I will call a SunshineAct for Credit Unions (i. e., SACU pronounced SACK YOU). This willrequire that we once again reaffirm the fundamental basis of themovement. That is, credit unions are financial cooperatives: from,by and for the members. We seem to forget that both theprofessionals and volunteers in the credit unions have a legal,moral, ethical and fiduciary responsibility to our members firstand foremost. We are not in the business of redistributing ourmembers' money to non-members. If that was our basic objective, wewould be called a government or at least a governmental agency. Thevolunteers must remember that they represent the members'interests, not their own. Too many volunteers have becomecomplacent with the status quo, even though they give it lipservice at every opportunity. They like the prestige and statusthat goes with the position. They look forward to the jaunts toexotic places, so that “they may better represent theirconstituents.” Just what can a volunteer learn at the London Schoolof Economics that cannot be learned at the Wharton School? And I amnot talking about state-chartered credit unions, where we may finda whole set of different circumstances. One state-chartered creditunion I heard about spends about $400,000 per year on theirvolunteers. I believe it even includes longterm care; does thatgive you an idea of longevity and inbreeding? There seems to be asymbiotic relationship between too many CEOs and longtermvolunteers. This result is in the volunteers letting the CEO makeall policy decisions. In many cases the chairman has no idea ofwhat mail comes into the credit union for board action. Theprofessionals do not own the credit union, and they have littlejustification to call it their credit union. They are notentrepreneurs in the classical sense, because true entrepreneursput their personal fame, name and fortune at risk in making asuccess of a venture. The trades do not own the credit unionsbecause they exist to serve, and are funded by the credit unionsthey are supposed to serve. NCUA does not own all thefederally-chartered credit unions either, because if they did theywould be in violation of law, in that they would be regulatingthemselves. We must realize that “not for profit” does not mean“after milking the earnings for as many expenses as can be legallyjustified.” This is not what is meant. Likewise, “one member, onevote” and “member owners” do not imply that members may onlyexercise their ownership and voting right in electing volunteers.In many instances, the members have no discretion or choice of whomthey get to vote for. This is usually decided by a committee of theboard, which is dictating in many cases, through the NominatingCommittee, just who will be elected by limiting who may run. On theother hand, just what policies do the members vote on? None that Ican think of; they don't even get a vote on a merger partner, ifthey are members of the acquiring credit union. We talk about asafe place to save at a reasonable rate of return and loans atcompetitive rates. Yet, in many cases, we see that we are justmeeting the bank rates, which we use as the rationale for keepingdividend rates as low as we can. On the other hand, we charge asmuch as we can on loans to just beat, but not always, the bankrates. Building capital seems to be the ultimate objective. I knowone volunteer that calls the Undivided Earnings the Stupidity Fundto cover any mistakes made by management. “But for service” is themost ambiguous of the basic principles. Have you ever looked at thefees we charge for “services?” I know the argument that we mustmake those using the service to pay for it. But we don't have thesame altruistic motive in paying our savers a rate commensuratewith the risks they are taking for letting us use their money? Ifwe are going to contribute tens of thousands of dollars tonon-member related endeavors and activities, return the money fromwhence it came – our members. I think the way to once againestablish the credit union movement to its former glory is for theNCUA to mandate, or Congress to legislate, reporting requirementsthat would keep the owner/members, voting members, fully informedof where their money is going. NCUA will dictate the makeup ofnational organizations, assuring that any organization avowingcredit union representation will have a given makeup of volunteers.The members would also know who is benefiting from their money, andto what extent. So I propose that the members be told yearly, intotally unambiguous terms and figures, just what expenses theircredit union experiences by major categories. For example,including but not limited to: salaries, pensions, travel andtraining, trade association dues, etc. Election procedures shouldbe standardized for all credit unions to provide for the mostdemocratic, multi-disciplinary approach. Related here would be therequirement for each credit union to publish data similar tocommercial, public corporations comparing their performance totheir peers. Members would also be given the right to vote oncontroversial changes in the way their credit union operates. Onlywith a totally informed and franchised membership can we trulyreturn to the original ideals of the credit union movement. Andthus can we avoid the impending implosion being cause by thelessening influence of the volunteers. Then we would not havequestions about representation of volunteers at the national level– volunteers will be sought as equal members of the family. StanKluckowski Director SSA Baltimore FCU Baltimore, Md.