In his Dec. 21 Editor's Column, Paul Gentile stated, “I don't think that it's going to be uncommon going forward for leagues to oppose conversions. Many still think that's not their role, they should support credit unions' choice. No one is saying take away the choice, but if a league believes a particular CU's conversion attempt is bad for members, it may say so after this year's events.” Being a cheerleader for the CU charter is all fine and good, but bad mouthing a CU to its members and engaging in alarmist posturing to the media are extreme behaviors unbecoming of a trade association. Are leagues really qualified to assert a particular CU's conversion attempt is “bad for members?” How can any league justify direct interference with the decisions of a CU's leaders and members? The answer is they can't. Mr. Gentile may find it ironic that the leagues' ill-advised meddling has been among the Coalition for Credit Union Charter Options' most effective recruiting tools. Case in point is the American Association of Credit Union Leagues' mislabeled “Protecting the Rights and Interests of Credit Union Members” 65-page “study” of the conversion issue. This self-damning document is routinely provided to potential coalition members to illustrate why they need to support the coalition's activities defending charter choice. Frankly, the AACUL's vehement advocacy of direct interference with a CU's membership vote dumbfounds most readers. After scrutinizing the AACUL document, it becomes clear that the leagues want to talk out of both sides of their mouths. While giving lip service to an individual CU's right to convert the institution, the leagues blatantly advocate a lobbying and public relations strategy that “loads up” the conversion process with so many complicated and costly impediments that it becomes impractical. With the recent announcement of Michigan-based DFCU Financial's plans to convert to a mutual savings institution, Credit Union Times readers will have the opportunity to see if the Michigan CU League has learned any lessons this past year from the successful conversion of Community and OmniAmerican in Texas. When it comes to the conversion issue, the Michigan League has a shameful history of overstepping its role and sticking its nose where it does not belong. How many member institutions are league leaders willing to anger with this misplaced anti-conversion zeal? These leagues are embarking on a self-destructive strategy that is sure to backfire. It will not be surprising to learn one day that a league executive got “impeached” for mishandling the situation. Independent-thinking CU leaders should give their leagues “tough love” directives to stand down on the charter choice issue or reap the consequences. Although it is the wrong position to take, Credit Union Times should keep encouraging leagues to interfere in the strategic business decisions of their member CUs. It helps me meet my Coalition membership growth targets. Marvin C. Umholtz President & CEO Umholtz Strategic Planning & Consulting Castle Rock, Colo. (Editor's Note: Umholtz serves as membership director for the Coalition for Credit Union Charter Options.)