I like that you challenge us all to improve the status quo. We all need that. Certainly that is true for many credit unions as well as the CUNA/League System. It would be good to have a healthy, balanced debate about all that the CUNA/League System has done, and continues to do, as well as what needs to be fixed. But we have to find the right balance in change. The future of credit unions is equally threatened by those who want to change too little, as it is threatened by those who want to change too much!
As we work to address dues optionality, dues levels, advocacy effectiveness, participation levels, regulatory compliance support, and other challenges, lets do so with active, transparent debate and a will to build and improve what we have.
Hopefully your blog, your insights and those who join the "revolution" share an endgame that helps make the industry and its support system stronger.
But, where and when would you suggest that this "healthy, balanced debate" occur?
Will you participate publicly in a polite, fairly-moderated forum with an unfiltered Q&A? Will your peers in the leagues put themselves forward for an open dialogue with the credit union community?
Will Jim Nussle? Will Susan Streifel? Will Tom Dorety?
Exactly, Mr Adams we have a radio show that reaches thousands of CU professional every week. We invited you on the show and you said "no." We emailed you 4 very reasonable questions and you ignored them. I was a combat soldier in Desert Storm and know what real leadership looks like. When we catch CUNA or anyone in the CU marketplace wasting the members money and we call them on it, they block us on twitter or ignore us. The future of credit unions is most threatened by wasteful spending of the members money and the unwillingness of "leaders" to have an honest debate. We have never mis-treated anyone on our show. The co-host is the #2 at a Billion dollar CU brand in South Carolina and a phD. We welcome you and your team on our show and will extend to you the courtesy and respect all of our guests receive. My number is 830-708-4609 my email is jdias@eloquentonline.net I spoke at a Michigan League event in 2004 in Frankenmuth, and it was awesome.
I think many of us have been attempting that Jim. Not everyone likes the pace or the progress. That's the messy side of democracy I guess. We tend to focus most on on our sphere of influence and then participate respectfully but vocally outside that domain.
This blog is one of many contempory means of "unfiltered" dialogue in the social media age. I hope more will participate here and in all forums. And as you say, it should be open, transparent and respectful. I believe that as association leaders, we need to participate, listen and be responsive to input in all forums. Most of my colleagues attempt this very well. But we all need to get better at it!
Meaningful, disruptive change is often messy and painful in democratic systems.
But again, the shared noble goal needs to be to participate, fix, belong and then effect cooperative progress. Too many in our "System" just want to tear down and destroy, rather than do as I believe you are attempting to do....use debate to create change for the "greater good."
Thanks for challenging us to make our trade associations more efficient, effective and value-centric!
So Dave, not to try and put you on the spot or anything like that, but do you agree with Mr. Nussle that CUNA is "bloated, top heavy, siloed and inefficient"?
Aren't you glad I asked!
(Would ask Mr. Nussle, but seems to be in hiding....)
Mr. Nussle is best qualified to describe CUNA. I take him at his word that he is making necessary changes. His board and membership should continue to tell him how he's doing. I'm sure he welcomes advice and input.
Dave, can you at least tell us why the Michigan League, which you lead, is not afraid of giving your Michigan members the right to choose membership in the MCUL without joining CUNA? Won't that hurt the cooperative, unified front of the Leagues and CUNA?
Why don't you and your Board feel like you're hurting the credit union system with this option?
Should members that join a CU be required to register to vote? Required to join another local co-op? Should someone who buys a ford be required to also buy a Chevy so the truck lobby will remain intact. Mr Adams I know that with the young cu pros I am playing chess while they play checkers but I think you could at least say yes or no to our request to be on the show. A show that had more listens today than any tweet of the mcul has ever had favorited or shared.
We based our decision on the simple premise that, in the long term, a more unified and successful CU System (CUNA and Leagues), is one that listens, responds and trusts its members. But we also respect the right of each association board to set its own rules. Direct membership encourages accountability and trust more so than required dual membership, in our view. We want to help our association and the whole CU System be successful through this philosophy. We need a strong CUNA/League System!!
Didn't CUNA do this already and disregard the results? How can you have honest dialogue when the persons paycheck is on the line? The internet has dropped the margins on all businesses worldwide. How can Leagues keep raising dues when the paying audience is shrinking and the product is available from other sources for less?
Perhaps after cu's vote with their checkbooks later this year, we'll have a more open discussion.
Least you think I'm anti-League. I was in one of those focus groups and I was the only League affiliated cu there. My cu's have been League affiliated for a very long time and I've always said the League is good only if you use it. This is especially true for the smaller shops. I've also been in state-chartered cu's, so the NAFCU option never made sense till now. With the tight margins, many small shops have disaffiliated on a cost basis. I don't see this changing any time soon.
Our planning this year is regarding charter (DBO defaults to NCUA anyway, and why have two regulators at each review?) and affiliation.
It won't be the "same old, same old" for us this year.
First, thanks for hanging in here; realize it would be easier to "take a powder" and that you walk a tightrope without a safety net!
So, let me try to get you to talk "for" your Board's decision in Michigan and not "against" anyone else (since you have deftly avoided that "trap" anyway!). MCUL has made a decision to permit choice - a decision that clearly is not "in line" with the thinking of the CUNA Board, nor your peers in League leadership roles. No arguments there - right?
We all assume that the MCUL made the decision from a fully informed position - knew the pro/cons, knew the controversy, knew the "risks" to "the System" and to MCUL members, knew the potential "pariah" status that would result for the MCUL (and its CEO!) - and despite all that still made the call for choice!!!!
Dave, why would any astute group of leaders in Michigan step out on a limb like that? I hear you on trust/accountability/long range etc., but why put your League "in play" and your Michigan members at risk?
Where is the "upside" for the MCUL? You appear to be foolish, unless there is some driving, crucial, underlying principle or purpose which made Michigan take such a high risk stand for your league members?
None of this is about the credit union system, it's about the CUNA/League system. The credit union system is about democracy, choice and value which is the exact opposite of what has happened... which is protectionism at it's best (worst). The credit union system demands and deserves the best and they are not receiving it under the current CUNA/League system.
I would like to give Mr. Adams some credit for coming on and sticking his neck out there. It would be nice if some "others" would try and explain things on here as well.
I have always found Dave Adams to be an aggressive, challenging leader who oversees and effective and efficient organization. But Dave, CUNA has its chance with its task force and blew it. Tom and his group worked hard to put together a report that contained what credit unions across the country wanted only to be shot down by a grop of well paid, spineless individuals who had the nerve to make comments like " I agree credit unions should have a choice but I am voting against it because my fellow good old boys told me to do so". Hard to believe that came from one og f your own.
The real question is, can we find ways to fix and improve this cooperative CUNA/League System? And do we have to lambast and tear down all Leagues and CUNA?
What needs to be fixed? Raise voices on specifics? Dues optionality? A more aggressive legislative agenda? Better compliance support? Reduced dues?
There are a lot of hard-working, dedicated leaders and staff in these organizations. I know most of the leaders and I'm one of them. Do we have to tear everyone and everything down? Or can we work together to fix things?
Jim, I'm a big fan of yours! You know that! This blog is provocative. Now can it become a catalyst for progressive change? I think it can be!
Thanks again for continuing to respond; it would be helpful to all of us to simply hear the positive reasoning you and MCUl used to arrive at your decision that choice was the best course for Michigan credit unions.
Not sure why anyone would view providing the freedom for CUs to choose as an effort to tear anything or anyone down - don't understand the logic?
Can you help us understand why CUNA believes free, democratic choice for America's credit union cooperatives is such a destructive threat?
The tear down comment was directed at those on this blog, or anywhere, where broad strokes are used to say how utterly useless the System is. I have no problem with a respectful debate on dues choice.
I can't speak for CUNA and wouldn't try to. They have their process and the MCUL has its own.
As I said before, this was simple for us. We asked our membership. 88% said yes for choice. Our board then voted to give the membership what it wanted. Thats how we do things in Michigan. Every state league and CUNA have their own process.
I suspect many of them are discussing their policies between now and the end of the year. As it should be. States rights and independence are important. But all should work with CUNA to be successful too!
That sounds very reasonable... 88% sounds like a pretty strong mandate!
If 60 or 70% of the members of any organization (even Congress!!!) vote in favor of action, would assume the organization's Board almost has to move forward. Believe in politics it's called "a veto proof majority"!
22 comments:
Jim,
I like that you challenge us all to improve the status quo. We all need that. Certainly that is true for many credit unions as well as the CUNA/League System. It would be good to have a healthy, balanced debate about all that the CUNA/League System has done, and continues to do, as well as what needs to be fixed. But we have to find the right balance in change. The future of credit unions is equally threatened by those who want to change too little, as it is threatened by those who want to change too much!
As we work to address dues optionality, dues levels, advocacy effectiveness, participation levels, regulatory compliance support, and other challenges, lets do so with active, transparent debate and a will to build and improve what we have.
Hopefully your blog, your insights and those who join the "revolution" share an endgame that helps make the industry and its support system stronger.
Dave Adams- Michigan CU League
Dave,
A thoughtful, well-reasoned comment.
But, where and when would you suggest that this "healthy, balanced debate" occur?
Will you participate publicly in a polite, fairly-moderated forum with an unfiltered Q&A? Will your peers in the leagues put themselves forward for an open dialogue with the credit union community?
Will Jim Nussle? Will Susan Streifel? Will Tom Dorety?
Why not?
Exactly, Mr Adams we have a radio show that reaches thousands of CU professional every week. We invited you on the show and you said "no." We emailed you 4 very reasonable questions and you ignored them. I was a combat soldier in Desert Storm and know what real leadership looks like. When we catch CUNA or anyone in the CU marketplace wasting the members money and we call them on it, they block us on twitter or ignore us. The future of credit unions is most threatened by wasteful spending of the members money and the unwillingness of "leaders" to have an honest debate. We have never mis-treated anyone on our show. The co-host is the #2 at a Billion dollar CU brand in South Carolina and a phD. We welcome you and your team on our show and will extend to you the courtesy and respect all of our guests receive. My number is 830-708-4609 my email is jdias@eloquentonline.net I spoke at a Michigan League event in 2004 in Frankenmuth, and it was awesome.
I think many of us have been attempting that Jim. Not everyone likes the pace or the progress. That's the messy side of democracy I guess. We tend to focus most on on our sphere of influence and then participate respectfully but vocally outside that domain.
This blog is one of many contempory means of "unfiltered" dialogue in the social media age. I hope more will participate here and in all forums. And as you say, it should be open, transparent and respectful. I believe that as association leaders, we need to participate, listen and be responsive to input in all forums. Most of my colleagues attempt this very well. But we all need to get better at it!
Meaningful, disruptive change is often messy and painful in democratic systems.
But again, the shared noble goal needs to be to participate, fix, belong and then effect cooperative progress. Too many in our "System" just want to tear down and destroy, rather than do as I believe you are attempting to do....use debate to create change for the "greater good."
Thanks for challenging us to make our trade associations more efficient, effective and value-centric!
So Dave, not to try and put you on the spot or anything like that, but do you agree with Mr. Nussle that CUNA is "bloated, top heavy, siloed and inefficient"?
Aren't you glad I asked!
(Would ask Mr. Nussle, but seems to be in hiding....)
Jim,
Mr. Nussle is best qualified to describe CUNA. I take him at his word that he is making necessary changes. His board and membership should continue to tell him how he's doing. I'm sure he welcomes advice and input.
Well,OK fair enough (not really, but..)...
Dave, can you at least tell us why the Michigan League, which you lead, is not afraid of giving your Michigan members the right to choose membership in the MCUL without joining CUNA? Won't that hurt the cooperative, unified front of the Leagues and CUNA?
Why don't you and your Board feel like you're hurting the credit union system with this option?
Should members that join a CU be required to register to vote? Required to join another local co-op? Should someone who buys a ford be required to also buy a Chevy so the truck lobby will remain intact. Mr Adams I know that with the young cu pros I am playing chess while they play checkers but I think you could at least say yes or no to our request to be on the show. A show that had more listens today than any tweet of the mcul has ever had favorited or shared.
Jim,
We based our decision on the simple premise that, in the long term, a more unified and successful CU System (CUNA and Leagues), is one that listens, responds and trusts its members. But we also respect the right of each association board to set its own rules. Direct membership encourages accountability and trust more so than required dual membership, in our view. We want to help our association and the whole CU System be successful through this philosophy. We need a strong CUNA/League System!!
Not interested Jason, but thanks for the offer!
Didn't CUNA do this already and disregard the results? How can you have honest dialogue when the persons paycheck is on the line? The internet has dropped the margins on all businesses worldwide. How can Leagues keep raising dues when the paying audience is shrinking and the product is available from other sources for less?
Perhaps after cu's vote with their checkbooks later this year, we'll have a more open discussion.
Least you think I'm anti-League. I was in one of those focus groups and I was the only League affiliated cu there. My cu's have been League affiliated for a very long time and I've always said the League is good only if you use it. This is especially true for the smaller shops. I've also been in state-chartered cu's, so the NAFCU option never made sense till now. With the tight margins, many small shops have disaffiliated on a cost basis. I don't see this changing any time soon.
Our planning this year is regarding charter (DBO defaults to NCUA anyway, and why have two regulators at each review?) and affiliation.
It won't be the "same old, same old" for us this year.
Dave,
First, thanks for hanging in here; realize it would be easier to "take a powder" and that you walk a tightrope without a safety net!
So, let me try to get you to talk "for" your Board's decision in Michigan and not "against" anyone else (since you have deftly avoided that "trap" anyway!). MCUL has made a decision to permit choice - a decision that clearly is not "in line" with the thinking of the CUNA Board, nor your peers in League leadership roles. No arguments there - right?
We all assume that the MCUL made the decision from a fully informed position - knew the pro/cons, knew the controversy, knew the "risks" to "the System" and to MCUL members, knew the potential "pariah" status that would result for the MCUL (and its CEO!) - and despite all that still made the call for choice!!!!
Dave, why would any astute group of leaders in Michigan step out on a limb like that? I hear you on trust/accountability/long range etc., but why put your League "in play" and your Michigan members at risk?
Where is the "upside" for the MCUL? You appear to be foolish, unless there is some driving, crucial, underlying principle or purpose which made Michigan take such a high risk stand for your league members?
Why didn't you just "duck and run"? Wha't gives?
None of this is about the credit union system, it's about the CUNA/League system. The credit union system is about democracy, choice and value which is the exact opposite of what has happened... which is protectionism at it's best (worst). The credit union system demands and deserves the best and they are not receiving it under the current CUNA/League system.
I would like to give Mr. Adams some credit for coming on and sticking his neck out there. It would be nice if some "others" would try and explain things on here as well.
I have always found Dave Adams to be an aggressive, challenging leader who oversees and effective and efficient organization. But Dave, CUNA has its chance with its task force and blew it. Tom and his group worked hard to put together a report that contained what credit unions across the country wanted only to be shot down by a grop of well paid, spineless individuals who had the nerve to make comments like " I agree credit unions should have a choice but I am voting against it because my fellow good old boys told me to do so". Hard to believe that came from one og f your own.
Hope I didn't run Dave Adams off. Think there are still a very large bunch of CU folks willing to listen to all sides of the debate... I'm one!
But it's awfully quiet... "Dead man talking"?
The real question is, can we find ways to fix and improve this cooperative CUNA/League System? And do we have to lambast and tear down all Leagues and CUNA?
What needs to be fixed? Raise voices on specifics? Dues optionality? A more aggressive legislative agenda? Better compliance support? Reduced dues?
There are a lot of hard-working, dedicated leaders and staff in these organizations. I know most of the leaders and I'm one of them. Do we have to tear everyone and everything down? Or can we work together to fix things?
Jim, I'm a big fan of yours! You know that! This blog is provocative. Now can it become a catalyst for progressive change? I think it can be!
Dave,
Thanks again for continuing to respond; it would be helpful to all of us to simply hear the positive reasoning you and MCUl used to arrive at your decision that choice was the best course for Michigan credit unions.
Not sure why anyone would view providing the freedom for CUs to choose as an effort to tear anything or anyone down - don't understand the logic?
Can you help us understand why CUNA believes free, democratic choice for America's credit union cooperatives is such a destructive threat?
Jim,
The tear down comment was directed at those on this blog, or anywhere, where broad strokes are used to say how utterly useless the System is. I have no problem with a respectful debate on dues choice.
I can't speak for CUNA and wouldn't try to. They have their process and the MCUL has its own.
As I said before, this was simple for us. We asked our membership. 88% said yes for choice. Our board then voted to give the membership what it wanted. Thats how we do things in Michigan. Every state league and CUNA have their own process.
I suspect many of them are discussing their policies between now and the end of the year. As it should be. States rights and independence are important. But all should work with CUNA to be successful too!
Dave,
That sounds very reasonable... 88% sounds like a pretty strong mandate!
If 60 or 70% of the members of any organization (even Congress!!!) vote in favor of action, would assume the organization's Board almost has to move forward. Believe in politics it's called "a veto proof majority"!
Would you agree?
Although tearing the whole system down and starting from scratch has some merit to it if it actually produces a better result.
Post a Comment