TCUL delegates pass new dues schedule, minus cost-of-living increase clause

SAN ANTONIO, Texas – It wasn't pretty, but delegates to the Texas Credit Union League's 68th Annual Meeting and Convention approved a new membership dues structure that will be fully implemented with TCUL's 2004 dues. Lengthy discussion, a string of amendments made and withdrawn, and malfunctioning electronic voting devices prolonged the approval process. When all was said and done, the proposed dues structure was approved as submitted with one exception. Delegates voted to strike language that would have allowed the TCUL Board of Directors to adjust the dues relative to cost-of-living increases. Wording stated, "The League Board of Directors may, based upon their assessment of the funding necessary to provide adequate programs and an acceptable operating margin, adjust the Base and/or the Factor, not to exceed the 36-month average Texas Consumer Price Index (CPI) factor." Proponents of maintaining the clause in the dues structure urged delegates to trust their officials who were elected to represent the interests of the membership. But ultimately, the majority sided with those expressing sentiments like David Roman, president/CEO, T&P FCU, who urged credit unions to "keep the review process in the delegates' hands." The new dues schedule, calculated entirely upon assets rather than the current asset/membership-based formula, is: Base Amount + Assets Greater Than Base x Factor. The schedule has 12 asset categories, reduced from 16, and will be phased in over two years – 2003 and 2004. The "cap," or maximum dues a credit union can pay, under TCUL's current dues structure, will be phased out over those same two years. While in the end delegates approved the dues schedule recommended by the TCUL Board, many individual credit unions voiced concerns prior to the vote about how the new system would affect them. Some smaller credit unions complained that under the new schedule they would experience dues increases of around 30%. Leon Ewing, who chaired the League's Dues Study Committee, which spent nearly a year researching and developing the new dues structure, responded that the committee focused more on dollar amount of impact on credit unions, rather than percentages. "We did, however, work to ensure there was no more than a 1% variance across the categories," he said. In general, delegates who took to the microphones appeared to support a dues increase and applauded the efforts of the TCUL Dues Study Committee. But several delegates questioned the size of the increase and offered alternatives they felt might reduce their exposure. Perry "Hank" Dews, president/CEO, Pegasus CU, said the fee-supported side of the League should have greater accountability for its revenue and expenses. Joe Wasaff, president/CEO, Kraft America CU, suggested that some of the products and services launched by the League had been "a big gamble." "We should keep our focus on the blue chippers, the products and services such as education and legislative assistance, that have proven their value," Wasaff said. At one point, an amendment was made and eventually withdrawn to limit a credit union's annual dues increase to 7.5% until they reached the level set on the new dues schedule. At another point, a new dues formula was recommended from the floor. Delegates responded by questioning the logic of supporting a "quick fix" as opposed to supporting a schedule that had been recommended after months of research. The final vote, which ended with approval of the originally proposed schedule, was taken shortly thereafter. In anticipation of the sensitivity of the topic and the delegates' potential desire for confidentiality in voting, TCUL arranged for each delegate to have a personal electronic voting device. Unfortunately, TCUL discovered early on that the devices were malfunctioning. Subsequent votes were taken by alternative methods, including paper ballot. In other business, TCUL delegates defeated a proposed amendment that would have allowed delegates to discuss TCUL's consolidated financial statements at the Annual Meeting. Opponents of the amendment stated that the Annual Meeting was not the "proper forum" for such discussions. -