The Carolinas CU League joined state associations in Michigan, New York and Ohio in support of eliminating the longtime policy requiring credit unions to belong to both CUNA and their respective state leagues, putting additional pressure on the national trade group to rethink its own position.
Though only a handful of states have issued formal statements on the policy, the fact that most of them—so far—have come out in favor of ending the dual membership requirement is significant. But dual membership isn't without its supporters. In fact, if counted by the number of states, versus the number of leagues, it's a stalemate, with Colorado, Wyoming and Arizona (represented by the Mountain West CU Association) and California and Nevada supporting the status quo of league/CUNA interdependence—though the California and Nevada Leagues President Diana Dykstra did promise member credit unions that there would
As reported in late September, CUNA's board
The Michigan Credit Union League "led out on this issue," according to Dave Adams, its president and CEO. He noted the MCUL passed a board resolution in June asking the CUNA board to allow state leagues the option of allowing direct membership. In September, the MCUL board voted to allow Michigan CUs a direct membership option beginning in 2016.
"We took this early strong position because it was in alignment with the desires of our member credit unions after we polled them," Adams told Credit Union Journal. "We also wanted to influence the national narrative and process so that CUNA would likewise consider allowing direct membership."
The MCUL surveyed its member credit unions and 88% said that they favored the dues choice option. "This was about being responsive to our members, not about discouraging CUNA membership," Adams observed, adding, "MCUL only has control over its direct membership decision, not CUNA's."
Adams said the MCUL's June resolution, and its position on dues choice, has consistently been that CUNA and state leagues should each determine their membership policies independently, based on member input.
"Required dual membership or direct membership should best be considered on a state-by-state basis and by CUNA of its membership," Adams asserted. "This allows for a flexible, responsive, accountable credit union system, where all associations are respectful of the different policy decisions, just as we should be on different dues schedules, policies regarding service to non-members and other issues."
Adams stressed that he "has always championed, and will continue to champion" the benefits of the interdependent CUNA/League system. He said the MCUL has launched a Strength in Unity campaign to encourage the continued high affiliation rates with CUNA and MCUL — which currently is at 98%.
"Some have suggested that allowing dues choice will negatively impact affiliation, and by extension, the industry's advocacy success, but we believe the opposite to be true," Adams continued. "That is, allowing dues choice, or direct membership, will engender long-term trust and respect by member credit union leaders. This trust and accountability are underpinnings of successful associations. Failure to listen and respond to member concerns and input has the opposite effect."
Adams said success in advocacy is dependent on a strong, bold agenda and good execution by associations and their members. "It has nothing to do with structure or membership requirements. Again, membership and engagement comes from credit union leaders who feel respected and listened to. Each state association should engage in its own processes independent of CUNA and we are seeing that happen now. But CUNA has its own membership to listen and respond to."
At the end of this process, Adams said what "truly will matter" is what credit unions, leagues and trade associations get done together for credit unions in those "essential performance areas" of advocacy, education, compliance, promotion of credit unions and high quality solutions that help credit unions grow and succeed.
"This will depend heavily on having a responsive, clear value proposition that drives membership and engagement," Adams said.
Weeks after the Michigan league made its stance known, New York came out with its own statement on the issue.
"To me, the membership requirement issue is really about empowerment and engagement," said New York CU Association President and CEO William Mellin. "Empowering credit unions to make their own choices on what trade they wish to join, or not join, will lead to more engagement and more effective advocacy for credit unions."
Mellin, who also serves on the CUNA Board, added, "you cannot force engagement but you can create an environment that fosters it. That's what I hope the CUNA Board will focus on during its December meeting."
Not long after New York took its stand, the Ohio CU League told Credit Union Journal where it came down on dual membership, saying that its its board had unanimously voted in support of the CUNA Task Force's recommendation of league-level membership optionality.
"We agree with the CUNA Task Force that choice presents the strongest long-term framework for robust CU engagement in a strong three-tiered system of CU unity, advocacy, and support," OCUL stated. "We agree with the CUNA Task Force that interdependence between the Leagues and CUNA provides the best operating model for CU advocacy."
OCUL also noted that a "majority" of Ohio credit unions favor membership optionality.
"We will work in close collaboration with CUNA to earn the membership of Ohio credit unions in both the Ohio League and CUNA," it added.
John Radebaugh, president and CEO of the trade association that serves North and South Carolina, issued a statement late Thursday afternoon that said: "This issue is not new to the management or board of the league, who have been discussing and considering the issue for nearly two years. The board decision to offer membership choice recognizes that we are a membership organization and that our member credit unions throughout the Carolinas told us definitively that they want choice."
Radebaugh's statement went on to say the Carolinas CU League does not view its relationship with CUNA "any differently." He said CUNA and its team play a "vital role in ensuring we can provide the support that credit unions in the Carolinas need and expect."
"In turn, CUNA relies on the local connectivity of leagues and credit unions as it advocates on Capitol Hill," Radebaugh said. "The Carolinas League and CUNA are interdependent, and the board and I are strongly encouraging credit unions to affiliate with both associations in 2016."
Radebaugh emphasized there still is a "need" for credit unions to work together at the local, state and federal levels to achieve advocacy success that is "as relevant and important today" as it has ever been.
"The change in dues structure is simply a change in the way we fund the system," he said. "We have seen great successes when credit unions, leagues and CUNA have spoken with one voice, and we know there are many to come."
Tom Dorety, CEO of Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union, a $6.6-billion institution based in Tampa, Fla., told Credit Union Journal that he believes more leagues move in this direction in response to the desire of their member credit unions to have a choice with their league/CUNA membership—a prediction he made before the Carolinas CU League announced its decision.
"As a result, CUNA finds itself in the difficult position of opposing the wishes of a growing number of leagues and credit unions," he said. "They are also in the awkward position of enabling a growing number of credit unions to have the option of joining a league and not CUNA without having the option of joining CUNA and not the league. That just doesn't make sense."
Dorety, who is a former CUNA chairman,
"Once that happens I think we'll see more focus from CUNA and the leagues to work together to prove their value proposition as separate but interdependent trade associations," he said.
Support For Dual Membership Model
It should be noted, however, that some leagues currently support the stance taken by CUNA. For instance, the board of directors of Mountain West Credit Union Association (MWCUA), which represents credit unions in Arizona, Colorado and Wyoming, endorsed the CUNA board's existing dual membership structure.
The MWCUA board stated that "the most effective model for credit unions is one in which credit unions are members of both their league/association and CUNA."
Scott Earl, president and CEO of the MWCUA, told Credit Union Journal the importance of speaking with one, united voice is paramount.
"Our credit unions have made it clear that the No. 1 priority for our association and CUNA is advocacy. That said, dual membership is a tool that credit unions have which requires CUNA and the leagues to work together," he declared. "When you focus on advocacy, our board could not see an upside to separating membership in the two organizations."
Diana Dykstra, president and CEO of the California and Nevada CU Leagues, advanced a similar line of reasoning during the Leagues' recent Annual Meeting and Convention.
"Offering choice without considering the ramifications could lead to loss of unity," Dykstra predicted. "The winner would be American Bankers Association. They are waiting for the breakup of this powerful system. The CUNA/league system works well together."
The American Association of Credit Union Leagues declined to comment.
