After reading the April 11th cover story titled, “Beyond Emotion, Buzz, Wings' 'Takeover' Sounds Alarm on Complacent Credit Unions”, I felt compelled to comment. This story, although well-intentioned, seems to condone the tactics used by Wings FFCU or at least to suggest that in some instances, these harsh tactics might be warranted.

The reporter asks the question, “…but beyond the emotion of it all, are hard and immediate strategies needed by some credit unions to survive?” She also suggests that, “some have disagreed with the approach and tactics Wings Financial has used.” Well, the reference to “some” have disagreed is a little light. I'm not aware of a single credit union leader who agrees with the tactics other than Paul Parish. In fact, I have never witnessed a more broad-based expression of outrage in our credit union community. The article focused on quotes that suggested that, “Wings is being entrepreneurial” and that “credit unions should conduct examination of their offerings to stay competitive.” Where is the balance in this journalism? Even the quotes from two excellent CU leaders, Bucky Sebastian and Jim Blaine who I know would be outraged and indignant about the tactics used, seemed to be taken out of context, quoting these two leaders as talking more about credit unions needing to be more progressive to avoid “self-liquidating.” I suspect that almost every credit union leader agrees that most mergers are done out of necessity with the full support of each board and the credit unions' membership. Most credit union leaders also agree that all credit unions need to be progressive in serving their members and if they can't be, perhaps they should consider a merger. Diversity in viewpoints is always a good thing, but this article badly missed the mark in suggesting that this is just an “emotional” reaction by “some” and that this should be a wake up call to run better credit unions. The article's premise was a good one: Credit unions need to be on guard against these hostile takeover attempts by running good shops and being prepared with a proactive defense. However, I believe Continental FCU has done both. Tying these concepts to the Wings/Continental situation does a tremendous disservice to the Continental FCU Board, management, staff and members who are the victims here. Outsiders should not interfere and meddle in individual credit union business decisions. Period. This hostile takeover attempt demonstrates the very worst in creative growth strategies and should be condemned by all who believe in credit union democratic principles. As always, Credit Union Times does a fine job of publishing provocative stories that challenge “status quo” thinking. However, in this case, the article improperly minimizes and almost condones the outrageous tactics used by Wings FFCU. David Adams Chief Executive Officer Michigan Credit Union League Plymouth, Mich.