In response to the article on CUToday.info on (SECU CEO) Jim Blaine’s thoughts on CUNA/league membership, Mr. Blaine cited three reasons why the current structure of CUNA is no longer viable.
He states the following: “It was not financially sustainable given the persistent decline in the number of credit unions. The requirement to join a single league no longer reflects the multi-state membership reality of many credit unions. And a direct membership model for CUNA, similar to NAFCU, is more democratic and representative.”
I admit to not knowing all of the arguments for or against the current structure, but I feel compelled to address the reasons he cited because they reflect that of a $31 BILLION credit union. I am the president of a mere $25 million credit union. What Mr. Blaine does not seem to consider is that about 76% of all credit unions are below $100 million in total assets. I would bet that the majority of this 76% of credit unions do not do business in multiple states. (For perspective consider this. His credit union’s total assets of $31 billion equal 310 - $100 million credit unions or 620 - $50 million credit unions.) At that size how can he relate to, or speak for, 76% of the credit unions of which he is not a part?
Our credit union (as do many small credit unions) relies very heavily on our state league for lobbying and compliance help. We need state-specific guidance. Therefore, the direct membership model is probably not in the best interest of, or even on the radar for the majority of credit unions. His perspective is bias toward large credit unions, because he thinks large credit union.
The persistent decline in the number of credit unions would be accelerated, in my view, if we went to a national representation. Also, because his credit union dropped out of CUNA, the dues and fees have probably increased for small credit unions exacerbating their already tenuous situation. Yes, the number of credit unions is declining, but have large credit unions actually helped accelerate this negative trend? How much revenue have our trade associations lost to mergers? Who makes up the difference? The remaining credit unions, of which most are under $100 million, do. Who benefits? The large, merging credit union does.
The financial viability of any organization depends on the participation of its members. This is a tough row to hoe because of the number of personalities and the diversity of the makeup of credit unions. We all need to look at things from the perspective of other members. Everyone has to give for the benefit of our movement. Merging small credit unions in and then dropping your membership is a double whammy for our trade association. It is not a good solution and, in fact, sets a terrible example. It makes it easier for others to follow suit especially when you have a bully pulpit as a mega credit union.
We have to look at what is best for our industry. Not what is best for “me.”
Thomas C. Pinnow, President
County City Credit Union, Jefferson, Wis.