For their part, CEOs are suggesting that what the savings and loan industry lacked in supervision, the credit union movement is more than making up. And while some CU presidents and managers say the stringent new regs are understandable, they also say NCUA's inexperienced and tactless examiners are not.

For its part, NCUA has a few complaints of its own, not the least of which is having to deal with rules it had no say in making.

As an NCUA spokesperson told CU Times on July 2, "What people don't understand  is that Congress wrote the law. It's mandated in FIRREA. I guess people don't understand what 'mandate means."

Meanwhile, NCUA chairman Roger Jepsen stated, "It's interesting to note that at the same time war are accused of being too tough, credit unions and the share insurance fund are having their best year ever."

The ramifications of FIRREA appear to extend beyond just the letter of the new laws. Other factors are also contributing to the new environment, not the least of which is the current attitude toward financial institutions in Congress. CUs are also feeling the effects of the studies being conducted by both the Treasury Department and the General Accounting Office on the CU system and insurance, especially the GAO report section related to capital adequacy. NCUA wants to be able to show CUs with not problems building capital. Credit Union Times has reported over the past several weeks of the strong reaction via comment letters to NCUA from CUs on a variety of proposals.

At the same time, credit unions also find new NCUA regional directors in all six regions. One person has suggested the regional examiners are still trying to figure out their new bosses and that to either impress them, or to ensure no mistakes, are going strictly by the book.

But not everyone agrees that increased supervision is something new.

"It's not strictly FIRREA induced," said Charles "Chip" Filson, president of the consulting firm Callahan &  Associates, Washington, D. C.  Filson said that over the past three to four years a pattern of increasing supervision has developed.

"The (Letters of Understanding and Agreement) episode was an outgrowth of the increasingly take-charge attitude on the part of NCUA." About a year ago NCUA stepped up efforts to correct problems and Code 4 and 5 CUs.

At NCUA, Bob Loftus, director of public and congressional affairs, again stressed the number of laws created by FIRREA.

"In each case," he said, "they were laws that were passed by Congress that didn't give NCUA any choice. Congress is very determined that nothing like the s&l debacle happen again. In some cases, they're overreacting. However, it is fair to describe NCUA as an appropriately aggressive agency. I think credit unions should be grateful to NCUA. They wouldn't want a regulator like the Federal Home Loan Bank."

But many CU CEOs are saying they don't particularly care for a regulator like NCUA either.

"NCUA is justified in taking the stronger corrective action, " said Everett Swearengin, who was brought in by NCUA as president of Air Defense Center FCU, El Paso, Texas, when it was under conservatorship in 1985. "However, their methods leave a lot to be desired. They need to train their auditors to be more tactful. Another problem is that NCUA can identify a troubled CU's most massive problem, but they don't tell the credit union how to correct it. NCUA gives mandates rather than solutions."

Much harsher words can be found from a CEO in Weirton, W. va.

"I respect the NCUA, but I don't think they know what they're doing. They come into our credit union like the Gestapo," said Donald C. Granato, president, Steel Works Community FCU, which has grown from $59 million in 1985 to $105 million today.

"We're the largest credit union in West Virginia with a capital asset ratio of 12 or 13 percent. We know our town and we know our members, but we can't get that through to NCAU. And they tell us how to run our credit union. Every CU is different. If you do everything they say, you'll go out of business. I tell you , it won't be the bankers that put credit unions out of business. It will be NCUA."

In Valdosta, Ga., Jerry Jordan, with almost two decades of CU experience, recently resigned as president of Moody FCU after two NCUA-advised merges began dragging the CU down. Said Jordan, "I've had probably 10 times as much experience in dealing with NCUA than most CU managers in my 18 years. I've had good experiences and bad experiences. The bad experiences have almost always not been invoked by regulation, but by the interpretation of those regulations by some examiners. "

"NCUA is putting inexperienced examiners out there that have too broad an interpretation of regulations. A credit union's capital number is NCUA's measure of success. We measured success by the number of member complaints. I think the local examiners' business thinking is as limited as their laptop computers."

But others within NCUA play down the perceived changes in supervision.

"There may be additional regulation due to FIRREA," but, suggested Jim Baylen, deputy regional director with NCUA's region six office in Concord, Calif., "Many of the measures we use to promote safety and soundness were in place before FIRREA. I think credit unions perceive themselves to be scrutinized more thoroughly than before, because of the increased regulation. It's probably more of a perception than a reality."

Layne Bumgardner, director of NCUA's region one office in Albany, N.Y., added, "I don't attribute the perception to FIRREA. One thing that's clearly happened is that NCUA is using letters of understanding and agreement to help troubled CUs. It's having the desired effect. Credit union managers are more aware of our renewed commitment to working with them in terms of helping them solve their problems."

Offerieng a unique perspective as the NCUA's former chairman and current CU CEO is Ed Callahan of Patelco CU, San Francisco. Said Callahan, "I welcome the increased scrutiny. Anybody who understands the numbers and where they're supposed to be, would understand the reason for supervision when the numbers are falling. We all suffer when credit unions fail."

"Conversely, I feel that with all the publicity, it's easy for regulators to look tough," Callahan continued. "But their time would be better spent regulating troubled credit unions than regulating a steel curtain around 16,000 credit unions. NCUA's philosophy seems to be avoid problems at one credit union, take the option away from all credit unions."

Without any evidence of grave risk to credit unions at large, why is NCUA passing all these regulations- especially when the research is so sloppy up front, Callahan asked.

Another former NCUA board member agreed but empathized with the current board's position.

"What (Callahan) is talking about is regulating to the lowest common denominator," said David Chatfield, who now heads up the Filene Research Institute, Madison. "I don't agree with that approach either. Regulation should be done to alleviate a widespread problem, not to paint everyone with the same brush. Credit unions have handled deregulation very responsibly. I don't think credit unions call for widespread re-regulation. I think NCUA is being forced to some extend to regulate to the lowest common denominator."

Added Dick Ottow, president of the National Association of State CU Supervisors and Commissioner of Wisconsin CUs, "If you're saying regulation is becoming more strict in general, I agree. I'm not sure that's not the right approach. We've become more vigilant here in Wisconsin. On the national level (of state supervisors), it's not specifically anything to do with FIRREA. FIRREA is 1,100 pages. I'm pretty certain most regulators have not read it. "

At the trade association level, the criticisms have been heard but few are willing to go on the record.

"We have heard some credit unions complaining, but we see no documentation," said Larry Blanchard, director of public affairs for CUNA's governmental affairs office. The fact is, under FIRREA, NCUA has been granted more enforcement powers. The real question is whether NCUA is becoming overly aggressive. Again we've heard things, and we have asked people to document cases of overzealous examiners. We have none. Until that happens, we have nothing to operate on but hearsay. We are sympathetic to both sides."

Finally, NAFCU president Ken Robinson confirmed that he, too, has heard complaints from member FCUs.

Robinson recently met with NCUA chairman Roger Jepsen and NCUA staff to discuss those complains, specifically focusing on two issues: CUs' use of undivided earnings and changing of CAMEL ratings.

Robinson noted that while NCUA has completed examinations of over half the FCUs, return visits are becoming more frequent with the almost exclusive intent of examining real estate portfolios. Based on those visits, CUs are finding their CAMEL ratings failing, Robinson explained. "They're wondering how many times is NCUA going to keep coming back with changes?"