By Frank J. Diekmann
Toto, we’re a long way from Estes Park.
So what to make of all this sudden debate around the issue of membership in CUNA and the leagues? How has this become the hottest issue since what exactly defines “casual” on Casual Friday, with not just some (high-profile) credit unions disagreeing with other CUs over the long-held model of dual membership in a state association and CUNA, but now the state associations themselves taking differing positions on the issue?
Thank goodness, at least, it’s not happening at a time when every place I go someone is talking about the importance of credit unions speaking with “one voice.” (Usually when people say that, and this isn’t unique to credit unions, they mean their voice.)
So why in the name of Roy Bergengren and the gang is this taking place now after 80 years? Four reasons: timing, politics, a trend that has occurred in the last 20 of those years–and NAFCU.
Timing. The driver here of all this isn’t so much the release of the CUNA System Structure and Governance Task Force report that recommended credit unions be given a choice of belonging to their league or CUNA, but instead the Jeopardy-clicker quick rejection of the recommendation by the CUNA board. “What is the appearance of no discussion around this important issue, Alex?” “Correct, for $2,000. You control the board."
This seems to be the real crux of the issue from the CU folks with whom I’ve spoken. It’s not like from one Call Report to the next CUs suddenly became dissatisfied with the CUNA/league structure. The task force did a lot of research; it hosted town halls and focus groups and talked to CUNA/league-member CUs. It was much more in touch with the CU mood than the CUNA board and the recommendation it made reflected that. The CUNA board missed that point, and suddenly it was dues-ation without representation for a lot of credit unions and, by extension, their leagues.
Politics. Credit unions proudly point to the fact they are democratically run as a key point of differentiation. And that brings with it—and I hope you’re sitting as you are reading this—personal politics. During the California/Nevada league REACH Conference I had lunch with a guy who was relatively new to credit unions who seemed exasperated with me as I tried to explain all this. “But we should be doing what’s good for the entire movement,” he kept saying as we sat outside on a beautiful day in Palm Desert, Calif. But just as we’d also like politicians running for president to make decisions that are good for the entire country, often that isn’t how it always works.
A trend. Inside CUs we’re seeing the same tensions as in the broader U.S. democracy—dollars vs. voters. The big asset CUs (let’s call them the 1%) need different things from their leagues (if they need anything at all) than do the 99% (which need a lot), with the latter pretty worried about their futures.
A few weeks ago we at CUToday.info began asking small and medium-size CUs about the kinds of resources they would like and, believe me, we have heard loud and clear what’s on their shopping lists and what they don’t believe they are getting for their dues. Perhaps many within the majority of CUs, those under $100 million in assets, believe they can get a dues reduction by belonging to one or the other?
Or that they won't have to pay for all that DC “advocacy” stuff they keep hearing about and being asked to contribute to when there just doesn’t seem to be much ROI and they are wheezing and straining and breaking under all the paperwork that keeps arriving from that same D.C. Meanwhile, the largest of CUs, which aren’t nearly as worried about their own futures, wonder why their votes don’t count for more at the state league level since they are paying most of the dues.
NAFCU. In June, the NAFCU announced that essentially it’s name is now NAFICU, as it has opened membership to state chartered, federally insured CUs. But I listed NAFCU as the #4 factor for a reason. There’s never been an alternative to CUNA on the national level for state charters; now there is. Yet I don’t think for a moment the CUNA/league debate has anything to do with CUs announcing “We’re packing up our league golf tourney towels and heading over to NAFCU.” Instead, I mention it here because NAFCU made its membership move for a reason—there’s a shrinking number of CUs—federal and state—to draw upon as members. CUNA and the leagues are in a battle for those same dues dollars.
Last week in California CUNA CEO Jim Nussle said he will be unveiling some sort of new membership plan just in time for the holidays, but offered no details on what he’ll be unwrapping. (But that was no gift his board gave him when it returned the Task Force’s recommendations so quickly.)
So here’s hoping credit unions will not be as hasty as the CUNA board. It’s good that just as their affiliated CUs must do, the state and national associations need to demonstrate their value, too. There is an inherent value in having both state and national representation; everyone involved needs to take a longer view and remember what the folks who came together from east and west to meet in Estes Park realized—it’s about the dual, not a duel.
Frank J. Diekmann is Cooperator in Chief at CUToday.info and can be reached at Frank@CUToday.info or @FrankCUToday.