The petition fell flat, garnering just 98 signatures as of Jan. 6, about two weeks after its launch, and about half of those were anonymous or duplicates. There were a number of reasons for this. First and foremost is a lack of support. A handful of bitterly angry and vocal credit union executives are out there allowing their anger blind them to reality. Another is that many credit unions are scared to death to say anything negative about the regulator for fear of retribution. Still another is that it was not well-crafted or well-planned.

From what I can glean in conversations with credit union executives, most would rather have a flawed NCUA that could be reformed rather than a bank regulator that would not understand the nuances and very different business motive of credit unions.

Despite the petition's flair for the dramatic-just read the introduction-it does make one very valid point: the current restriction to one credit union professional serving on the NCUA board at a time makes no sense. Requiring two as the petition suggests is no better. Just because someone can run a credit union doesn't mean they understand the ins-and-outs of regulating and politicking. Both are important qualities for NCUA board candidates.

My proposal would be to allow more than one credit union professional to sit on the board but make them earn the political street cred needed to get the job. Last week a banker was named the White House chief of staff, and in a story we wrote on his consideration,First Security CU CEO Dennis Fisher posted a comment asking why credit unions weren't lobbying for the Republican National Committee chairmanship when, and if, Michael Steele is ousted. Great question!

Credit union trade associations have taken some hard knocks in the last couple of years. Why didn't CUNA see the corporate crisis coming, especially when you had executives on the boards? Where are the legislative victories to expand business lending and capital authorities? Tell me why I should pay my dues this year when I'm already losing income left and right?

Michigan Credit Union League CEO Dave Adams wrote his membership, asking them not to sign the petition. Given the petition was a nonstarter, the only thing Adams e-mail did was provide publicity to the cause. It was how Credit Union Times came upon the petition in the first place. The same may have held true for MCUL members.

But the language of his e-mail left much to be desired and made me think twice about the need for an outside voice. When I read it, I could imagine how I would feel as a credit union CEO being condescended to.

Adams made valid points about paying dues for the trade association to serve as credit unions' advocates every year, and experts are needed for lobbying. He noted a "shared passion for change" but discouraged credit unions from signing onto the "well-intentioned petition."

OK, I can accept that-except I might have forgotten it after I read, "I discourage it because it hasn't been properly coordinated with the trade associations that are hired to represent our industry. Further, I believe that the core positions being taken by the petition are counter to the current positions of CUNA and state associations." (My emphasis) So whose positions exactly are being taken? This appears a case of believing the tail wags the dog.

This response not only shined a light on a petition that wasn't going anywhere to begin with, but it also illuminates the trade association as master rather than credit unions' best friend.