Newsflash: Credit union leaders agree on very little in 2007. It's true. Yes it's a cooperative industry (or movement, for those of you who cringe when you hear industry). Yes, credit unions share information, successes, failures, etc. more than other businesses would dare to. Yes, credit unions rely on each other in many ways when you consider some of the mega CUSOs out there who supply vital services. Yes, shared branching is a unique credit union concept that shows credit unions cooperate to better serve members. Yes, credit union leaders meet in some locale nearly every day to talk shop and address pressing issues. Yes, credit unions support many of the same charities and have made remarkable monetary contributions that have benefited millions of people. Yes, credit unions provide terrific support to two primary national trade associations and many other associations for the betterment of all credit unions.

But ask credit unions what they think of private insurance (a topic I will be dedicating an upcoming column to very soon), or about the ability to convert to a bank, or whether or not indirect lending, risk-based lending or subprime lending is good or bad for credit unions and you will quickly see a divergence. Ask if there should be one big trade association or two smaller ones. Ask whether it would be much easier on all credit unions if a flood of mergers happened to streamline the industry. Ask whether or not boards of directors should be paid or if boards should have term limits. Ask whether credit unions are funding too many similar organizations and wasting money. Ask whether credit union CEO compensation information should be made public. Ask whether Camel ratings should be made available to members. Ask whether there should be a national credit union branding campaign. I could go on all day long. These are just a few questions where you will find widespread disagreement.

This disagreement is natural. How boring would it be if we all thought the same way? The problem is credit unions do need to be unified on certain issues, issues that are too important for the survival of all credit unions for there to be disparate voices out there. Many of these issues haven't even come up yet, others have.

In Washington, lawmakers do not want to see a dividing line separating credit unions. They want clarity on the issues. Just so you know, lawmakers aren't close to being experts on most issues they face. They learn as they go and a unified message is powerful. When credit unions are clear on their position, they are giving lawmakers what they want. When the trade associations give mixed messages, as they are more and more, it weakens the cause.

I have written many times in this column that large credit union CEOs control this industry, and I firmly believe that. I am a fan of many of these CEOs, but how many do you see speaking out about the need to pass the Credit Union Regulatory Improvements Act. Some could care less if it passes or not. Why? They may be blessed with a field of membership that keeps on giving and can deliver killer growth every year whether the law changes or not. Maybe some of them are just waiting out the smaller CUs that will eventually make it into their fold via mergers. They have fortunate situations, good for them. But it is important the big guys who are thriving speak out. They have impact. People listen to the leading credit unions. They may be quiet because CURIA is just a blip on their radar. They may not even fear taxation. But credit unions need the risk-based capital, ability to open up to underserved areas and the expanded business lending powers that CURIA offers. Credit unions can't afford to give up their tax-exemption or the entire system could collapse.

Sure, every year big credit union CEOs get together at roundtable meetings and others, but what's really getting done?

Why isn't there more national partnership on big picture problems?

Every credit union CEO has to protect his or her turf to some degree, but must also remember they have the playing field they have because of the structure of credit unions and the system. If the system breaks down, their advantages can break down. Even the big credit unions can become appetizers for big banks that would love to swallow up their capital and dedicated member base.

If credit unions become nothing more than banks with no taxes, they become vulnerable.

Credit unions must be able to align quickly to react to new situations. Here's one that is coming. There has been increased chatter of late about a pending move by a bank to acquire a credit union in a very unique manner. The bank will offer members either a payout (as Wings attempted to and failed in the Continental case) or the ability for the member to simply transfer their ownership into shares of the new bank. That's a new wrinkle and one credit unions will have to address. Start thinking strategy now. What should the response be to this new approach that could sidestep some of the problems Wings had in taking over Continental?

Get on the same page before it's too late.

--Comments? E-mail [email protected]