Members of the $320 million Lafayette Federal Credit Union who opposed the credit union's attempted charter change have already complained to NCUA that the way the CU conducted the balloting differed from the voting procedures approved by the agency and shared with members. The voting margin only further elevates the potential impact of their complaints.

According to a Dec. 21 letter to Edward Dupcak, NCUA's regional director for Region II, the members questioned the way the CU conducted the vote, alleging Lafayette had solicited and accepted votes at branches in the last days of the voting, a practice which would not guarantee the members' votes would be sent to the independent inspector of elections.

The members also alleged that the CU had accepted ballots at the independent inspector of elections which had been postmarked by Dec. 16 when it had previously told members that it would accept only ballots which were received by Dec. 16.

These alleged actions may also have allowed the CU to collect the votes from members whom it expected to vote yes to the conversion proposal and to discourage or not collect the votes of members who seem inclined to vote no, the members said.

"Some people were allowed to vote in the branches, while others were required to mail their ballots," said Scott Steins, a member who works at USAID who has opposed the conversion. "We have received complaints that the board accepted ballots after the December 16 cutoff date. Both of these allegations, if true, are in direct violation of the rules the board itself established, and are prohibited by federal regulation."

The credit union announced that it had won the conversion balloting in December but, unlike other conversion voting results, did not reveal the voting tally. So far Lafayette's leadership has not answered questions from the media or the members about how many members voted on the conversion proposal or what the winning vote count had been.

The members also alleged that the CU had failed to disclose certain facts about the charter change or to answer their questions, particularly in regard to whether the CU was going to be able to keep its branch spaces in the headquarters of federal agencies where the majority of credit union members work.

Members indicated prior to the vote that the continued location of the branches near their workplace would have a bearing on whether they supported the proposal. In its disclosures the CU said that it had no intent of moving branch locations as a result of the charter change, but at the special meeting CEO Michael Heard said that the CU had not yet been able to lock down the branch locations in the federal buildings.

The members also complained about the vote to the CU's supervisory committee. The members asked that the committee investigate whether the board changed the voting procedures from those outlined in the ballot notice, noting hat the changed procedures might have allowed votes to be counted which had been postmarked by Dec. 16 and not merely received by Dec. 16, as the ballot notice had specified.

This "effectively disenfranchised certain members by not informing them of the extension," the members wrote in the Dec. 29 letter to the committee.

Attached to their complaint, the members included e-mails from Lafayette members who said they never received ballot notices and had called the CU to ask for them.

One, from a USAID member named Brenda Doe, emphasized that she had made repeated attempts to get a ballot.

"On Friday Dec, 8 I spoke with Claudia at the LFCU branch downstairs who said she was in charge of ensuring we got mailings/ballots," Doe wrote. "After checking my address, where I've lived since August 2005, she said the mailing and ballot would be in the mail….As of yesterday, Dec. 14 , I had not received a ballot or any of the mailings so I can't vote. Needless to say I am not happy with this."

The members also forwarded e-mail exchanges which had taken place on the Small Business Administration e-mail system as well as correspondence with the CU board with their complaints.

It's unclear, as of press time, what the NCUA will do with all this. The stakes have become significantly high since, essentially, if a mere 10 members can be found who either did not get ballots or who voted by dropping off ballots at a branch, the ballot results could be thrown into question and this, in turn, could force the agency's hand.

"All we can do is hope the agency takes its responsibilities seriously and looks at this balloting very, very closely," said Amber Brooks, an employee of the U.S. Agency for International Development and one of the members who filed the complaint with the agency. "We already know members were not given ballots and that other members were told to drop their vote off in the branches where we have no way of knowing they made it to the inspector of elections," she said. "This should make the NCUA pay very close attention to all of this."

Tom Carter, another USAID employee member said he was "encouraged" by the close vote, believing that would draw further agency attention to balloting that he and the other members believe was problematic from the beginning.

One member who did not want to speak for the record was more pessimistic, noting that NCUA had already been alerted to the CU leading members to believe the NCUA had approved the conversion because the agency had approved the CU's disclosure package.

"I will be delighted if the NCUA acts but, truthfully, I don't have much confidence in NCUA. I think there is still a pretty good chance that they will just rubber stamp this and move on," he said.

John McKechnie, NCUA Director of Public and Congressional Affairs confirmed that NCUA had received both the CUs data and the member complaints and said that it had contacted Lafayette with specific questions about them. He also said Lafayette said it could not answer the questions quickly due to the holidays and so the agency's review of the voting procedures remained "ongoing."

McKechnie said there was no target date for when the review might be complete.

–[email protected]