I just read Editor-in-Chief Paul Gentile's April 26th column along with comments from Dave Adams and Marv Umholtz. I just want to thank Gentile for his comments and the open opportunity he has given any interested contributor to speak their minds regarding the conversion issue.

I agree with giving Marv ample space – we can certainly learn from multiple perspectives. This issue doesn't belong to a few, it's a movement issue.

Marv certainly raises some interesting points regarding his speculation of how a credit union could be hijacked. I'm certain these are not new revelations to Marv, the Coalition for Credit Union Charter Options or credit union CEOs and boards. We realize this could happen and that's one of the reasons we do our best to satisfy our members with the best products and services we can offer and stay vigilant to protect their interest in the credit union.

Marv suggested that we should fix this problem by closing what he calls a governance loophole. He states “It's imperative that the minimum number of members required to force a special membership meeting for any reason be a sufficiently large absolute percentage of the total membership to ensure fair representation.” Yet not long ago Marv and the CCUCO cried foul when the vote to convert Lake Michigan CU to a bank failed for lack of enough affirmative votes. It was said that the requirements for a two-thirds affirmative vote of the members voting to convert under the Michigan Credit Union Act was too restrictive and that the will of the membership was not fulfilled. It appears rather difficult to determine what a fair representation of the membership should be and is apparent that it's dependent on which side of an issue you're on.

I don't agree about closing this so-called governance loophole. It would simply replace what has served as a counterbalance to executive management power to something that would be very difficult to solidify and ultimately be a more restrictive governance procedure for the members. If anything needs to be changed it might be time to extend the time between the calling and holding of the special membership meeting to give management ample time to educate the membership on the issue(s) and express the importance of attending the meeting, be it town hall style or not.

Personally I think the takeover/conversion issues can be addressed better by adding a provision to federal and state regulations eliminating the opportunity for any insider enrichment. At least the membership would reap the benefit instead of a select few.

Terry Denmark CEO Dearborn Village Community CU Dearborn, Mich.