It may have been a peaceful negotiation, but the aftermath ofthe collective bargaining agreement between the NCUA and theNational Treasury Employees Union has been anything but.

On Tuesday, CU Times reported the NCUA had signed a five-year agreement with the NTEU that would keepemployee pay and benefits competitive with civilian financialservice regulators.

After the agreement was signed, Board Member J. Mark McWatterssaid he had not been given a copy of the final agreement andcalled for a more transparent board.

In a statement to CU Times, he wrote, in part, “TheNCUA board employed a professional staff to negotiate thecollective bargaining agreement. The staff reported to theindividual board members from time to time during the process.Receiving periodic, piecemeal briefings on the status ofcontractual negotiations hardly suffices for a formal,top-to-bottom presentation to the board of the entire contractfollowed by a vote to accept or reject the contract by the fullboard.”

Chairman Debbie Matz, whose term officially ended April 10 butwill remain on the board until President Obama appoints a newchairman, responded to allegations by McWatters that the NCUA was excluding him fromthe negotiating process.

“As I’ve said before, it behooves Professor McWatters to stepdown from his ivory tower, come into the office for more than histypical three days per month and engage in our policy-makingprocess,” Matz said. “Mr. McWatters had ample opportunity toraise any issues about the collective bargaining agreement duringthe briefings he received over the course of many months, but hechose not to. I look forward to the time when Mr. McWattersraises his concerns with the staff instead of through thepress.”

McWatters, however, said his concerns with thechairman were not personal and he was only interested in regulatingthe credit union community in an objective, professional andtransparent manner.

“In my 30-plus years of legal practice, I have negotiated manysophisticated contractual agreements,” he said. “One key lesson ofnegotiating is never to pass judgment on a contract based upon asnap-shot view of only a few provisions. To understand a contract,it's imperative to understand the entire agreement and the only wayto do that is to have the professional negotiators — those who areinvolved in the day-to-day negotiations — present and analyze theentire contract top-to-bottom for the benefit of those charged withapproving or rejecting the contract. That approach was not takenconcerning the collective bargaining agreement. My briefingsconsisted of a series of snap-shots. There was no top-to-bottombriefing or analysis and no action by the board.”

Vice Chairman Rick Metsger said he did not share those sameconcerns.

“The collective bargaining negotiating process is lengthy, itrequires give and take on both sides, and provisions are subject tochange until the agreement is finalized,” he said. “Throughout thenegotiating process, my staff and I were regularly provided updatesby NCUA’s negotiators. There was full transparency with the board.All of my questions were answered, and I was provided all theinformation I requested. I was also asked for, and provided, myinput on the negotiations, dating back since last year. I knowother board members had the very same opportunity I did from (the)staff to weigh in. It is a good agreement which will control costs,and equally important, make those costs predictable for fiveyears.”

According to the news release sent by the NCUA on Tuesday, theagreement included cost controls and pay caps and was hailed as avictory for both the organization and the employees. However, whatthe statement didn’t describe in detail was the pay raises, theadditional monies allocated to employees relocating to Washingtonand a few other additional costly benefits.

A confidential document obtained by CU Times spelledout the list of negotiating terms that included removing payfreezes for NCUA employees even if pay freezes were directed byCongress or the President.

On Thursday. Matz defended the final agreement.

“This contract is a fair and balanced agreement that I was proudto sign,” she said. “When all of the changes are factored in, thenew contract is projected to reduce future cost growth by over $17million over the next five years, compared to continuing the termsof the prior agreement, while enhancing the workplace. It giveseither NCUA or NTEU further flexibility to reopen negotiations, ifwarranted, on multiple articles after an initial 24-month period,as well. This agreement will help the agency contain costs andcontinue to attract and retain the qualified staff we need in acompetitive jobs marketplace. As a result, NCUA will be able tofulfill our mission to maintain the safety and soundness of thecredit union system.”

CUNA President/CEO Jim Nussle previously saidCUNA officials have consistently called for greater transparency inNCUA’s budget process.

“The credit union system, which funds almost all of NCUA’sactivities, has no input into or influence over collectivebargaining agreements; therefore, we expect that NCUA willnegotiate a deal in the best interest of credit unions,” Nusslesaid.

NAFCU also weighed in, urging prudence and questioning thefive-year agreement when previous agreements had been limited tothree years.

“As we saw during the financial crisis, circumstances can easilychange,” Carrie Hunt, senior vice president of Government Affairsand general counsel, said. “On its face, five years appears to be along period relative to this type of agreement.”

Hunt said NAFCU would like to see a more transparent board.

“NAFCU supports fair compensation,” she said. “We think that theprocess is very important because, as NAFCU has said earlier,credit unions don’t have a voice or a role in the process and itscredit union dollars which are funding the NCUA. We’ve consistentlycalled for budget hearings and additional transparency because wethink the more eyes that are on the process, the fairer it willultimately be.”

As for the board, McWatters said it would appear Matz’s“material issue” is that he is too engaged in the regulatory andadministrative activities of the agency, asks too many questionsand that he dissents when he disagrees with an approach taken bythe agency.

“Our differences are professional as we have different economicand regulatory philosophies,” he said. “I advocate for transparencyand full accountability of NCUA's budgetary process and believe theagency should not regulate the credit union community as a group oftoo-big-to-fail financial institutions. The time has come for thechairman to institute a policy of inclusion and cooperation. It isthe responsibility of the chairman to ensure such an environmentexists.”