Remember the 1980s when we were introduced to Grey Poupon? Mybrother and I, in elementary school at the time, would affectsnooty accents and ask, “Pardon me, would you have any Grey Poupon?”“But, of course.” Malcolm Gladwell, in his book What the DogSaw, points out that until that time, French's dominated themarket, but by the end of the 1980s there were several differentbrands and varieties of mustard.

Little has changed in the world of ketchup, however, Gladwellnoted. Heinz is the clear leader and there's practically novariety. In fact, the only real change has been from glass toplastic bottles that young children – including even adolescentslike my son who ketchups everything – can squeeze for themselves.Apparently there are ketchup tasting experts (my son should apply)who determined that Heinz ketchup is the perfect blend of the humantaste palate. The story concludes by quoting a formerly buddingketchup pioneer, “I guess ketchup is ketchup.”

The NCUA board chairman is credit unions' Heinz ketchup. Thepackaging may change, but the person in that position stillcontrols policy and the agency agenda. That person, in fact, has amonopoly over the agenda, which is seasoned to the political tastesof the day.

For a relatively minor regulatory agency in the grand scheme ofthings, the NCUA is certainly garnering a lot of attention rightnow. Talk of expanding the size of the NCUA board, giving theagency third-party oversight, budget hearings and studies offinancial institutions' level (or lack) of regulatory capture isrearing its head in Washington. But as campaigns ramp up, actualprogress typically winds down. Political activity tends to beinversely proportional to policymaking.

Talk is yet again kicking up about increasing the NCUA boardsize from three members to five. It sounds mundane even as I writeabout it, but it brings about some pretty strong feelings – likebenzoate as a ketchup preservative. Who knew?

NASCUS has long pushed to expand the board to includerepresentatives from the state regulators. NAFCU is opposed becauseas it stands, federal credit unions fund the operating budget ofthe NCUA; the board expansion would likely cost $1 million insalaries alone for the new board members and their staffs. CUNA hasbeen quiet on the issue thus far. The Government AccountabilityOffice is wondering whether a three-person board lends itself togreater potential for industry capture – despite the limit of onemember with direct credit union experience in the last year. HouseFinancial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling even givesadding a Credit Union Advisory Council a mention in his latestpiece of legislation to reform Dodd-Frank.

While I don't believeindustry capture is a concern at the NCUA, a five-member board willhelp avoid that appearance and the accusations that the bankerslevel all the time. They particularly won't be able to complaingiven the FDIC board comprises five members. Credit unions areusually asking for parity; here's an opportunity.

I'm not typically one for bigger government, but this just makescommon sense. Currently there are two board members on thethree-member board following the exit of former Chair Debbie Matz.One is a Democrat and the other is a Republican. Both are wellversed in the issues, but definitely seem to have different ways ofgoing about them. If a serious issue were to arise, the strongpossibility exists that each would have an entirely differentmanner of going about solving the problem. Where does that leavethe credit union community? This conundrum is less likely to arisewith five board members.

It's not as if this situation is an anomaly. Years ago Matzserved with then-Chair JoAnn Johnson, a Republican. At one point,then-NCUA Chairman Dennis Dollar was the sole board member. Imaginea situation the magnitude of 9/11 with only one sitting boardmember and no diversity of opinion or experience. What if that loneboard member had been a hardline dictator rather than alevel-headed person? It happens. Even normal industry regulationcan be held up while the board as it's currently structured awaitsa third member. The current set up is impractical.

Others may say quite the opposite. The NCUA board meetings couldrun on and on and on and on with the customary politicalpeacockery. Standard time limits can be set to eliminate thisproblem. The House can manage the preening of 435 representatives,so surely the NCUA board can handle five. The FDIC does.

The NCUA may not have the expertise or resources to overseethese companies, so that's a huge hurdle, but it seems thatsomething should be done. The agency could work with existingregulators of these companies to glean the information they need toensure the safety and soundness of the systemically importantorganizations. Most credit unions were just as dependent upon thecorporate credit unions as they are on some of their vendors; theonly difference was the direct hit to the share insurance fund.When trouble arose in that sector, the agency had to scramble tocobble together a solution that benefited the entire credit unioncommunity in the long run. The agency wouldn't want to be caught inthat position again, and the credit union community shouldn't wantto be either.

The ultimate question is, does the industry want good policy orcheap policy?