Sounding Off on Bowing to Bank Pressure, Paying Directors and More

I strongly support director compensation. When I started in credit unions more than 36 years ago, directors were almost always supported by the credit union's sponsor. They received paid time off for meetings and other credit union events. Their credit union volunteer work was a feather in their cap with regard to their career. The credit union was part of the workplace and in many ways the directors’ time and effort were either directly compensated with paid time off or indirectly compensated through increased value to the sponsor company that employed the volunteer. Today the directors’ work takes more time and is much more complex. The risks are also much higher—just ask anyone who served on a corporate credit union board. The reasons often given for not supporting director compensation don't make sense to me. Some say it would undermine the credit union philosophy. Yet no one points to staff compensation as undermining credit union philosophy. Some say it will prompt Congress to remove our tax-exempt status. I think our tax exemption is based on the purpose and performance of credit unions rather than whether we compensate those who direct the purpose and performance of the credit union. The board of directors’ job is the most important job at the credit union and it should be compensated. I suggest that we allow those credit unions who want to compensate directors to compensate them. There is no evidence in the states that allow directors’ compensation of any ill effects. None!
Posted by henryw | Tuesday, December 22 2015 at 5:48PM ET