Friday, January 08, 2016

The Parable Of The Skunk... Part II

"Vous idee´ was le pew!"
So, nobody helped out much on deciphering the skunk parable (link) with all its moving parts! Can't blame you really, it was sort of a dumb idea anyway. But let me tell you how it came about...

Early this week, I got "fussed out" by a credit union league president for "dropping the ball" on the CUNA/league /optionality issue. Told him I thought everybody had had more than enough of CUNA and most folks were more than ready "to move on". And, I think that's true, don't you? In fact it has appeared that "most regular credit union folks" never seemed to care all that much about CUNA's fits of distemper anyway - still don't!

But, told him I had found this little story... I'd try to work something up. So let's review. The characters in the news story are the skunk, the dogs, the owner, the State health lab, and the Animal Control officer. Decide how you match them up with their counterparts in the credit union world brouhaha: CUNA, leagues, credit unions, NAFCU, members. Got it?

CU TEST TIME: 1) What's the problem?
                                  2) Who's fault is it?

Bet most folks might agree that "the problem" is that the dogs got put down. But, think lot's of folks might miss and say the skunk is at fault - 'cause he started it - right?

Might argue with you that the skunk was just doing what comes natural when you've got rabies, which I'm sure the skunk didn't want! Same with the dogs, they're supposed to bark at rabid skunks and Animal Control officers are suppose to protect the public health by following the law.

It appears to me that the source of the problem is the owner, who didn't get his dogs vaccinated. The owner dropped the ball not the skunk...

Which leads to "the really big question"
if CUNA has "a problem"...

Or try a selfie...

...who is the owner?

(Time to vaccinate your dogs?) 


Anonymous said...

Have no clue what you are talking about but Jim Nussle is a skunk.

Greg said...

I got it now.

Many CU CEO's would rather just continue doing the same old thing, believing they are doing the right thing, and not have to make a tough decision. I guess the time is coming for them to take a stance, as much as they really don't want to. I think many of them have never really thought this out.

Anonymous said...

How about NCUA as animal control; they're putting down a lot of small credit unions supposedly to protect all of us.

Anonymous said...

Last year there was much said and written about the problems of CUNA and their league affiliates. There was a lot of finger pointing and an enormous amount of pontificating by the so called leaders that things are being done to solve the problems that exist. Don't worry they said, we hear that the credit unions want us to change and we will. Just not right now and maybe not until we are all sure that our self-interest and paychecks are protected. The smart people watching all this said nothing will change. The "leaders" are self-centered, egotistical morons.

It is now a new year and guess what, nothing is going to change. I admire you Jim waking up each morning and pursuing the charge of making things better for the masses. But until the masses get off their lazy butts and commit to joining the charge, it is going nowhere. It is so much easier just to write the check and not rock the boat. For every hard working credit union CEO, there are three who could care less and like the "leaders" are happy with their jobs, salaries, trips with their boards and fringe benefits that would cause a credit union member to pale.

Maybe the time has come to post the salaries of all personnel, the compensation board members receive, the trips they take to spend one hour at a meeting and three days at the pool, the money spent on trinkets for the board and staff. the money spent at the holiday parties and the holiday gifts.

If we are serious about change and improvement then the door should be open to discuss all that is there that could be changed.

Anonymous said...

I still think the leagues are the dogs and optionality is going to get the wrong guys killed.

Anonymous said...

I agree, optionality could destroy the CUNA system, especially the Leagues. CUNA Mutual did a deal with NAFCU. I will bet a League will soon announce an arrangement with NAFCU. Then the house of cards really tumbles.

Anonymous said...

If we can get the owner to shoot the skunk and the animal control officer everything will work out ok for credit unions.

Anonymous said...

Are you in this for the membership of your credit union or are you in this for the "cu movement"?
Have the leagues, CUNA, Nafcu and NCUA served to the best interest of the credit union members, you know, the supposed "owners"?

If you still pay member money, your "owner's" capital (your boss) to institutions that have a long term record of WASTING it... return on investment. value add. supplemental capital.
...remaining field of membership restrictions.
...restrictive business loan cap. budget transparency with your members money at NCUA.
...OTR questions.
...CCU losses unaccounted for and impossible to determine.
Then you own the problem. That's why there's a mirror on the blog post.
You work for an owner who silently expects accountability, not junkets. It's a higher calling to do the right thing when the owner isn't looking. At least banks are accountable.
You have a system that has even jailed you in by making exit perilous.
If you expect to continue with this dereliction of duty, then please do this...
...cease the incessant chest thumping hubris and false claims about how "great" we are for American consumers.
Leave that to the unaccountable trade associations, that's their mantra.
If we were that great, we'd have more Americans banking with us.
And congress knows it.
"It's the final countdown".
Burn burrito burn.

Jim Blaine said...

Wow, that last one had had too much coffee!