Regarding Editor-Chief Sarah Snell Cooke's column in the May 1 issue: Attracting and retaining qualified board members are critical challenges for credit unions. Similarly, board members deserve recognition for their responsibilities and also for their time, work and contributions. There is no debate about these points.

The payment of board members for their time, as the states of Washington and Tennessee now permit, is one method of addressing these issues. The Tennessee law's requirements–a board resolution about the need for expertise, a board policy on eligibility for compensation and publication of board compensation in the annual report–are both sound and obvious.

Paying board members as a means of recognizing their contributions and their duties may have merit. But whether paying board members is a necessary method or, as Cooke states, a "wise move" to address other issues, such as, for example, underperforming board members and diversifying board composition, is arguable for the following reasons.