We read with interest a Credit Union Times Web story from a few weeks ago where the CEO of the Michigan Credit Union League, Dave Adams, talked about the Coalition for Credit Union Charter Options. He laments how "no national group exists to help ensure members are informed about conversions" that would counter the coalition's influence. He alleges that anti-conversion member groups lack the resources for "going up against high-powered consultants and credit union attorneys," and without backing they face a tough challenge. The fact is there is already plenty of money being spent making noise on their behalf-by leagues, trade associations and NCUA-in trying to put a stop to conversions. The coalition is the real underdog in this battle, drawing on voluntary contributions to fight an uphill battle to keep the charter conversion option open against heavily entrenched forces who have a big financial stake in the status quo and millions of dollars at their disposal. NCUA, league and national trade association officials seem quite prepared to spend real money and precious political capital trying to interfere with conversions, when their energies would be more beneficially invested looking after the people who want to stay. The latest numbers for the NCUSIF indicate that the number of credit unions with CAMEL 4s and 5s has risen to 280 at year-end 2005, representing 1.1% of insured shares, the highest in a decade. And of the 414 credit unions in Michigan, 14% lost money last year and almost half (47%) earned just 50 basis points or less in net income. One would think the MCUL would have enough to do looking after struggling credit unions in their own backyard. Perhaps they should put some of that $30 million windfall they earned a few years back from its stake in an EFT network sale to better use helping the credit unions in their own state instead of playing self-appointed saviors of the industry. Michigan has a fairly liberal state charter, at least in terms of field of membership, but apparently it isn't enough to hold some of their large credit unions. Thus, the MCUL has adopted a two-fold strategy: Throw up more regulatory obstacles in the way of conversions until they become impractical; and intimidate, impugn and insult the dedicated credit union leaders who are brave enough to try to run the gauntlet. Unable to prove actual harm to members or disprove the positive benefits of conversions, these critics elect to demonize the proponents of conversions. They assault the integrity of the courageous people who lead this evolutionary trend by making claims that conversions are driven by greed. Their rhetoric about self-dealing, insider enrichment and conflict of interest is rich, coming from representatives of credit union leagues and trade associations whose real goal is preservation of their dues-paying base. The mutual charter means a progressive local institution can better position itself to gain market share and relevance in its community and serve its current and future members better. Ironically, these facts are substantiated by these same credit union industry representatives who, in an effort to gain expanded powers, frequently point out to members of Congress the manifold legal restrictions that hinder credit unions' expansion. In practice, credit unions and mutual savings banks are more alike than different-a fact easily recognized by the majority of members who approve these transactions. And so we wonder what all the fuss is about. Why close off the conversion option? What is to be gained, other than preservation of monopoly power? Lee Bettis Executive Director Coalition for Credit Union Charter Options Washington, D.C.