SAN FRANCISCO–The National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors is looking to create Interstate Agreement 3.0, with an objective of being about more than just branching.
The organization representing state CU regulators first assembled an interstate branching agreement in 1998, and that has since been updated in 2009 with the Southeast Interstate Agreement and a 2015 agreement that included other states.
Parker Cann, the former Washington regulator who also served as CEO of Columbia Credit Union and as SVP/general counsel with BECU, has been volunteering to lead the effort to update the agreement by NASCUS.
In remarks to NASCUS’ State System Summit, he said the effort underway is now to create a “third generation interstate agreement.”
A Work in Progress
“It’s still a work in progress but it seeks to expand the breadth of the interstate agreement from interstate branching to interstate banking, and also to provide more clarity for state supervisor and state charters” said Cann. “We believe this is important to the value of the state charter. Credit unions need to have the ability to move interstate like banks and thrifts do, and like federal credit unions do.”
According to Cann, an interstate agreement can identify state law differences affecting SCUs’ interstate activity, allowing the elimination of many of the conditions in the current agreements.
“These kinds of refinements could reduce uncertainty and controversy among state supervisors and SCUs,” Cann said.
3 Bedrock Principles
Cann stressed three bedrock principles to be preserved:
- Home state supervisor is the primary regulator for supervision and examination
- Home state supervisor is the “single point of contact” for the filling of all applications and notices under Home or Host State law
- The interstate Agreement is subject to applicable state law
One goal is to get with the new agreement is to get something in place that does not require any changes in certain state laws, as that would delay agreement for an extended time, Cann said.
Other Goals
The goals of the draft agreement include:
- Broaden scope of agreement
- Identify interstate activities for each signatory state that trigger application or notice requirements under Host State law
- Agree on types of Host State law that apply to out-of-state CUs (which Cann acknowledged is a “thorny issue”)
- Address allocation of regulatory assessments and fees.