I discovered that Credit Union Times' coverageof Telesis Credit Union's conservatorship and the actions leadingup to it were being used against credit unions' efforts to expandthe member business lending cap from 12.25% of assets to 27.5%.Specifically, the ICBA sent an email (obtained by CUTimes) to Sen. Mark Udall highlighting articles we had writtenabout the conservatorship of Telesis and the former CEO'scompensation.

As a journalist, my instinctual response to this discovery was,'The news is the news.' Credit Union Times is respectedfor balanced coverage of the credit union community—good, bad andugly. And even when it's not easy, deep down the industry expectsnothing less. 

That responsibility is something we take very seriously.Unfortunately, negative coverage of credit unions can bringammunition to those who would wipe them off the face of theearth. 

After a moment's reflection, the second feeling I had was pridein the power of an independent press. What Credit UnionTimes does matters to a lot of very powerful people in creditunions, in banks, in Congress, and even in the White House. Thethought is both awe-inspiring and humbling. An NCUA boardcandidate—a presidential appointee—recently withdrew fromconsideration, I believe in part, because of our reporting on hercredit union's poor performance.

As editor, I can say that none of this is easy. Our work isstressful. I'm not looking for pity, but only to explain thatCredit Union Times cares very deeply about the future ofthis industry and the people in it. We endeavor to demonstrate thatby providing balanced and relevant news coverage everyday. 

Frankly, for the bankers to use our news pages as support fortheir arguments against increasing the cap is disingenuous.“Telesis was allowed, by the NCUA, to go above and beyond the 12.25percent cap on member business loans and it was a contributingfactor to its demise. ICBA is adamantly opposed to any increase inmember business lending for tax-exempt credit unions,” the group'semail read.

In fact, I am a very strong believer in expanding credit unions'business lending authorities. So what can I do to fulfill the needto cover the news, unbiased, while still supporting one of creditunions' top legislative efforts of the decade?

I'd like to formally endorse S. 2231. Sen. Udall is 100% rightin stating how unbelievable it is the federal government won'tallow credit unions to expand their business lending efforts whencreating jobs is allegedly a top priority. Increasing employmentopportunities is also what will help everyone in Washington keeptheir own jobs this election season. According to a March 6 letterfrom CUNA, “We estimate that if this bill became law, credit unionscould lend an additional $13 billion to small businesses, helpingthem create 140,000 new jobs in the first year after enactment, atno cost to taxpayers.” 

At the same time the American BankersAssociation issued a release bragging that the nation's 2,000agricultural banks had created just over 6,000 jobs at those banks.That's three jobs per bank—three very important jobs, but stilljust three and the banks are only talking about themselves. Creditunions are talking about maybe 3,000 credit unions creating 140,000new jobs for businesses at no additional cost to the Americantaxpayers. When community banks were propped up in 2012 with$30 billion from Congress to get them to spend on smallbusiness business lending, their opposition can only be describedas ludicrous.

The bill has also received support from Treasury and the NCUA,which could have been another political hurdle to credit unionmember business lending expansion.

The NCUA is certainly laying the groundwork for telling creditunions like it is when it comes to regulating business loans,should the legislation pass and a credit union be approved. With anincreased ceiling on business lending would come increased scrutinyon concentration risk. The ICBA uses Telesis as proof that creditunions cannot handle expanded business lending, but one example (OKtwo if you include Texans) does not taint the 1,000-plus creditunions that are doing it right. ICBA's argument is absurd,especially as banks are cutting back their business lending.

You'd think credit unions were taking the financialinstitutions' world by storm rather than holding steady at a paltry6% market share.

The ABA had threatened to kill the JOBS bill if it had includedthe credit union member business lending hike. Two years ago theywere posturing to kill their own $30 billion infusion if creditunions were included. Exactly what are they afraid of? Followingthe bankers' logic, it would make more sense for them to supportcredit unions' business lending bill if they truly thought creditunions would not do a good job of handling the new authorities.

The fact is that the bankers don't fear credit unions' failureto make sound business loans—the bankers fear credit unions'success.