However, NCUA's Outreach Task Force Report has highlighted the agency's lack of data on credit union service to those of modest means. The report needed to be done in the wake of former House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas' (R-Calif.) "last hoorah" inquisition against credit unions. What becomes of it will be very interesting.

NCUA Board Member Gigi Hyland has said that the agency response to her task force's report could be to adopt all the recommendations, which include modest means data collection as well as executive compensation disclosure among other things, or none of them, or somewhere in between.

Additionally, the chair of the Outreach Task Force has said many of the recommendations could be adopted without the formal regulatory process of notice and comment, but because of the gravity of some of the issues addressed, it will be considered.

Could the adoption of the Outreach Task Force's recommendations head off CRA for credit unions? Probably not because, for one, they're not the same thing. The task force report suggests dissemination of aggregate data while CRA publicly reports on each individual institution. They also look at different measures of service.

I'm not an advocate of CRA for credit unions, but if it is applied, it would need significant tailoring to the unique characteristics of credit unions, including field of membership and product restrictions.

But the national scene is not the only level where the bankers have proven active, and worse yet, successful. Just last week, "compromise" legislation was agreed to on field of membership restrictions in Kansas. The same thing happened in Missouri last year despite league efforts. As I frequently quote my former political science adviser, when you compromise, nobody's happy. In both instances, I'm sure the bankers did not get everything they wanted but you can't tell me they aren't happy to further restrict credit union service.

I also feel the bankers are being very shortsighted; credit unions and banks have a lot more in common than they have disagreements. Additionally, credit unions are scrappy. Note how quickly the grassroots effort for 1151 came together. One day, they aren't going to take the abuse any more. Credit unions have generally not attacked the banks, but note CUNA's opposition to the thrift business lending increase in the regulatory relief legislative efforts last year and to a Zions Bank merger and the appearance of the anonymous bankerspank.com.

Legislators with strong banking ties were blamed for pushing the legislation through in Kansas. So, where are the credit union legislators? Credit unions generally have been late to the political table but are making strides in the right direction.

Credit unions need to push their political activities to the next level. While continuing to bolster lobbying efforts, they also need to look to groom the next generation of legislators and regulators.

Credit unions are beginning to chip away at that glass ceiling. Just look at former Mississippi legislator and NCUA Chairman Dennis Dollar's credit union and public service oriented career. Former NCUA board member and lifetime credit union career person Geoff Bacino is now serving on the Federal Housing Finance Board, and while he's happy there, I'm certain it's not his final political stop. Board Member Hyland is another who has spent her professional career in the credit union movement and had the political clout to receive presidential approval to serve on the board at NCUA.

Right now, Congressman Mike Michaud (D-Maine), a former credit union board member, is carrying a torch for credit unions on the Hill. Congressmen like Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) and others have shown that you don't necessarily need to come from within the credit union movement to be a big fan. However, it helps to have folks in high places who actually understand how credit unions operate day-to-day.

Credit unions should do more to develop the political motivations of young up-and-comers within the credit union movement. Political apathy can no longer be the norm among credit unions, not when the bankers are making such strong, and occasionally successful, frontal assaults on credit unions. Your national and state trade associations work hard for credit unions everyday, but grassroots depth can't be matched by any Washington or state lobbyist. No one can make the arguments for credit unions–whether it's field of membership issues or CRA or taxation–better than those in the trenches.

–Comments? E-mail [email protected]