"NCUA Needs Vendor Authority: GAO Report," July 6

It shouldn't take a GAO study to determine the NCUA needs to look at third party service providers of insured credit unions. The majority of CUs are too small to employ staff with sufficient expertise in MIS and cybersecurity – [and don't have] sufficient depth to obtain and address issues disclosed in SOC 2 reports (assuming the servicer is providing them to the CU). Considering our federal government's track record it is only a matter of time before CUs are targeted. CU management should at the least have the same information/assistance with these matters as is afforded community banks – the majority of whom are larger, with more sophisticated data security programs than small CUs.

—Robin H.

"Digital Wallet Adoption Stagnant: Gallup," July 7

As someone who sees debit card fraud daily, I will take a tokenized digital solution on my phone.

—Sean M.

I can reach in my pocket and pull out a card. That's easy! Digital wallet? I have to turn on my phone, enter my passcode, and then activate a program to use a digital wallet. What's convenient about that?

—Greg Meyer

"Matz, McWatters Trade Oversight, Transparency Allegations," July 10

Ivory tower indeed? Methinks the pot doth call the kettle black. Five years? Really? How is that possibly in everyone's best interests. In any case, long live the healthy debate. Here's hoping the next administration does more than just talk transparency.

—Bill Board

I find it really amazing that whenever Rick Metsger talks you can barely see Debbie Matz moving her lips. It's a great act worthy of TV.

—BillyBobJim

"Alabama One CEO Sues Member for Defamation," July 14

Legitimate and functioning democratic governance, whether in the context of a government or a cooperative, must rest upon a sturdy foundation of free speech for its constituent citizens/members. Thus, the use of the threat of state violence (which, when you get down to it, is what a lawsuit is) by the leader of a democratic organization to silence a critic is a fundamental betrayal of cooperative values. It might be technically legal to file such a suit, but silencing is a morally unacceptable weapon for a small democratic leader to wield.

While I'm interested to see how the rest of this case unravels, on those grounds alone I would be willing to contribute to a crowdfunding campaign to help defray Mr. Walters' legal costs, should one be organized.

—Matthew Cropp

I wanted to read it first and not knee-jerk agree. I think it is possible for an owner to say something so defamatory and in such a venue that it is seriously harmful to the employee of their co-op and that legal action to stop that might be a valid course of action. I think it is highly unlikely, but possible. Having read this and looked a bit more into it, this is not one of those cases. Using the law to silence dissent I am wholeheartedly against, not just in co-ops.

—Jacqueline ZW Hannah

Agreed. Defamation is not something to take lightly…and even member-owners can be guilty of it. From the information available, however, this seems like a clear attempt to silence a member with legitimate concerns.

—Matt Davis

I am generally against the absoluteness of laws because I think it goes against our human ability to apply meaning and intention, or to discern what is right/legal within an acceptable window of action and behavior. I am in favor of laws/policies/rules such as executive limitations that detail the boundaries of what MUST NOT happen but leaves it up to the discerning expertise of that leader to decide exactly what and how things will move toward common goals. Our litigious society looks for absolutes and "gotchas" and completely misses the point. An owner that just wants to stir shit up because a 95% decent and functioning co-op has made a small mistake is problematic in the co-op system to me (but then I hope for democracy to come in appropriately and outweigh that sentiment due to lack of majority agreement) and an entity suing another because 'they technically can' pits us against each other in an environment of distrust and looking over our shoulders at every moment, which can only be our ultimate downward spiral. Long story short – I'd love to see us applying reason to law and actually adhering to the quest to accomplish our common goals above our self-interests.

P.S. In this specific case, I am in no way implying that this credit union is "95% decent and functioning as it should" – I agree with the general dialogue here and I believe that in this case, there is undue force being used to silence a legitimate concern toward the accomplishment of common goals that must not be silenced in this way.

—Holly Jean Fearing

"PenFed's Digital Transactions Dominate," July 16

This makes sense when you look at the membership eligibility PenFed operates with. No doubt they have members all over the world. So online access is going to be much greater than at other credit unions.

—Sean M.

Actually, this is the model that most credit unions need to aggressively adopt, unless you are a super small/niche credit union. Look at the growth / adoption rates by channel in your shop (especially those that drive revenue), and then look at the zip code distribution of your membership. I'm surprised that more organizations aren't pursuing this much more aggressively.

—Ron Nice

"New Bill Pushes for CFPB Rule Exemptions," July 17

My position from the beginning was that Dodd-Frank was a bad piece of legislation crafted by two very bad Congressmen. These two were major players in the financial meltdown of 2008.

—Wendall Fountain