The question of the value of in-person meetings came up during an April 23 House Financial Services subcommittee hearing on regulatory burden.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-Mo.) posed that question to NCUA Director of Examination and Insurance Larry Fazio, referring to the NCUA's discontinuance of budget hearings in favor of posting budget information on its website.

Fazio had told Mulvaney budget hearings had been discontinued, in part, because NCUA Chairman Debbie Matz felt they weren't productive.

Mulvaney pressed Fazio on whether in-person meetings were more productive than just posting information online, using congressional hearings as an example. Begrudgingly, Fazio admitted that in some cases, in-person hearings are more productive, although his one-word answer stopped short of specifically applying that opinion to budget hearings.

NCUA budget hearing productivity is a matter of perspective. For the NCUA, it's a work-intensive process to which other financial regulators aren't subjected. The resources required to make relatively minor adjustments to the final budget wouldn't seem productive from the NCUA's point of view.But from the perspective of credit unions, their trade associations and the press, they are very productive and important.

I understand Matz's position that the budget hearings have an element of regulatory capture to them. Nobody likes to be regulated, and if the NCUA's operating budget were entirely up to credit unions, the agency could easily be gutted at the expense of safety and soundness.

Matz said that already happened – it was called the corporate crisis. I disagree. I have a hard time believing the NCUA's budget hearings were responsible for inadequate oversight at corporates.

But I can definitely appreciate why Matz called the hearings a dog and pony show. NCUA budget hearings (much like congressional hearings) are probably more show than substance.

Think about it: The NCUA would have a pretty good idea of what the trades and other stakeholders would oppose in the budget each year. So anticipating those requests, if the NCUA had any negotiation skills whatsoever, it would just ask for more than it needed. The trades ask for a reduction, the NCUA concedes, and everybody's a winner.

But what did credit unions really get? Exactly what the NCUA wanted in the first place. So why even bother?

Because industry feedback helps the NCUA effectively apply its resources, and can also help it avoid unintentional consequences.

Surely there's a way to improve the process so it is productive for both the agency and credit unions.

Mulvaney pressed Fazio on whether the NCUA has decided to reintroduce the hearing process for the 2016 budget. Fazio replied with the diplomatic answer that the board has not yet made a decision on the matter.

I'd venture to guess the board has already informally decided on a 2016 budget hearing, with two opposing a hearing and one supporting it.

I wonder how many credit unions that support NCUA budget hearings would conduct their own for the benefit of their members. After all, members fund the credit union, and unlike the NCUA, members own the credit union.

While I support NCUA budget hearings, I find that a bit ironic.

Heather Anderson is executive editor of CU Times. She can be reached at [email protected].