Trade publications are criticized by some as cheerleaders fortheir respective industries. They’re captives of the advertisers.Credit Union Times was founded in 1990 to provide unbiasednews coverage the industry was lacking. We work incredibly hard tokeep it that way, reporting the good and the bad.

Despite our efforts I received a letter from a reader regardingan article that appeared in the May 23 issue featuring anadvertiser–right next to an ad from said advertiser. The articlewas admittedly a softball piece on CU Members Mortgage marking its30th anniversary in business. We do these types of articles onoccasion to keep readers informed of milestones that variousproviders (as well as credit unions and others) reach and to breakup the hard news. Different readers enjoy a variety of stories.

However, as the reader pointed out, “When you see the article isplaced beside the large ad (two-thirds of a page maybe,) you haveto wonder what is this really about?” To his credit the reader alsodisclosed that he serves on the board of a competing CUSO.

It is precisely the fact that the editors don’t pay attention towhere specific advertisements are placed that this incidentoccurred. It was not intentional on the part of anyone at CUTimes. We didn’t become the most successful independent creditunion publication by operating like that, and we never will.Articles are placed solely on the basis of news value. We’rereviewing our production processes to determine whether any changesare necessary to avoid such an unfortunate coincidence in thefuture.

Contrary to the reader’s assumption (and, honestly, my own afteryhe fact) that CU Members Mortgage would be very happy with theplacement, they were not. They were concerned the placement besidethe ad made it look like an advertorial rather than an independentnews story. That attitude demonstrates a very sophisticated publicrelations stance, which isn’t always the case.

Trust and integrity are very important to our business as it isto yours. Unfortunately, a recent news report on FoxNews.com didn’t paint credit unions in a very positivelight. It highlighted the retirement compensation of David Maus at Public Service Employees Credit Union inColorado, who made more than $11 million in 2010 due to the payouton his retirement package. The Fox report noted that Maus’compensation was an extreme case but brought into question, as iffrom the American Bankers Association’s playbook, the federal taxexemption. And they’re right.

An Executive Compensation Solutions survey found that creditunions with assets greater than $1 billion paid their CEOs in 2011an average of $486,117, up from $460,234 in 2010. A similar surveyby the ABA found banks with more than $1 billion in assets paidtheir CEOs an average of $550,479 in 2011. The difference incompensation between the credit union and bank executives is nearly12%, and credit union CEOs aren’t eligible for nearly so sweetdeals in retirement as the bankers for much of the sameresponsibilities.

Overall credit union executives do earn significantly less thantheir bank counterparts, and while that alone doesn’t justify thecredit union tax exemption, it’s certainly a factor toconsider.

In the bigger picture, all credit unions–federal charters,too–will be better off disclosing their executives’ compensationpackages. Compensation can vary greatly between credit unions dueto location, lines of business, experience, field of membership,size or other factors. There are plenty of reasonable explanationsfor much of the differences. Operating in the sunshine is a goodthing, whether it’s for the government or its instrumentalities.Federal credit unions are one of the few, and possibly the only,tax-exempt entities that don’t disclose executive compensation. Notdisclosing makes it more suspicious than I suspect it really isbased on industry surveys.

The industry was up in arms when Grace Mayo’s compensation wasreported so high as Telesis sank into conservatorship. Disclosureis one way to guard against that type of scenario.

Credit unions do need to pay competitively to get the requiredtalent. The Fox News interview featuring the talking head equatingit to him justifying making George Clooney money because they’reboth in media was incredibly lame. Not only because the two menaren’t at all in the same business, but unlike the commentator,credit unions are the better-looking choice.