In his Dec. 21 Editor's Column, Paul Gentile stated, “I don'tthink that it's going to be uncommon going forward for leagues tooppose conversions. Many still think that's not their role, theyshould support credit unions' choice. No one is saying take awaythe choice, but if a league believes a particular CU's conversionattempt is bad for members, it may say so after this year'sevents.” Being a cheerleader for the CU charter is all fine andgood, but bad mouthing a CU to its members and engaging in alarmistposturing to the media are extreme behaviors unbecoming of a tradeassociation. Are leagues really qualified to assert a particularCU's conversion attempt is “bad for members?” How can any leaguejustify direct interference with the decisions of a CU's leadersand members? The answer is they can't. Mr. Gentile may find itironic that the leagues' ill-advised meddling has been among theCoalition for Credit Union Charter Options' most effectiverecruiting tools. Case in point is the American Association ofCredit Union Leagues' mislabeled “Protecting the Rights andInterests of Credit Union Members” 65-page “study” of theconversion issue. This self-damning document is routinely providedto potential coalition members to illustrate why they need tosupport the coalition's activities defending charter choice.Frankly, the AACUL's vehement advocacy of direct interference witha CU's membership vote dumbfounds most readers. After scrutinizingthe AACUL document, it becomes clear that the leagues want to talkout of both sides of their mouths. While giving lip service to anindividual CU's right to convert the institution, the leaguesblatantly advocate a lobbying and public relations strategy that“loads up” the conversion process with so many complicated andcostly impediments that it becomes impractical. With the recentannouncement of Michigan-based DFCU Financial's plans to convert toa mutual savings institution, Credit Union Times readers will havethe opportunity to see if the Michigan CU League has learned anylessons this past year from the successful conversion of Communityand OmniAmerican in Texas. When it comes to the conversion issue,the Michigan League has a shameful history of overstepping its roleand sticking its nose where it does not belong. How many memberinstitutions are league leaders willing to anger with thismisplaced anti-conversion zeal? These leagues are embarking on aself-destructive strategy that is sure to backfire. It will not besurprising to learn one day that a league executive got “impeached”for mishandling the situation. Independent-thinking CU leadersshould give their leagues “tough love” directives to stand down onthe charter choice issue or reap the consequences. Although it isthe wrong position to take, Credit Union Times should keepencouraging leagues to interfere in the strategic businessdecisions of their member CUs. It helps me meet my Coalitionmembership growth targets. Marvin C. Umholtz President & CEOUmholtz Strategic Planning & Consulting Castle Rock, Colo.(Editor's Note: Umholtz serves as membership director for theCoalition for Credit Union Charter Options.)