One last thought on all this...
What if we said that "the skunk" represented "change" - that "threat" (or promise!) that the future was not going to be the same as today. "Change" scares most folks and that would explain why the owner, the dogs, animal control - everybody - is out to get the skunk.
That would also seem to fall in line with CUNA, the leagues, and many credit unions getting uptight about the possibility they were about to be bitten by a rabid idea called "Choice".
The "skunk of change" which has arrived uninvited at CUNA's doorstep is, of course, the relentless decline in the number of credit unions. That unfortunate fact of life confronts CUNA with two problems - both bad! There will be fewer credit unions in the future to "feed the beast" and those credit unions which remain will be substantially larger - more demanding, less willing "to pay up" without measurable results.
Well apparently, "the skunk is in the house at CUNA" after the December CUNA Board vote and we may soon see how this all works out. No one seems optimistic about the outcome, given the repeated lapses in judgment and leadership at CUNA over the last year.
Initial statements by CUNA would indicate that they don't quite know what to do with the skunk yet and have decided to wait for the 2016 dues report to see if they get bitten by disaffiliations before they act. If all they do is lose a few dogs in the process, well that may not be such a hard price to pay in the short term... and maybe the skunk will die off or just go away - could happen!
But what is most interesting about CUNA's "Pro-Choice" decision is that any league which permits a credit union to chose league membership at this time without requiring CUNA membership is in violation of CUNAs bylaws... and the league has, at least in theory, encouraged the individual credit union to also violate those same bylaws.
Which kind of ties back into the original story! CUNA is so perturbed by "the skunk of change" that it still hasn't ....
 |
Bad
business! |
... "vaccinated the dogs"**!
[Ya' just can't decide to ignore your bylaws , can you?]
** Da' "dawgs" are you and me - the leagues and credit unions!
.jpg)
1 comment:
The shrinking of credit unions does not necessarily mean less money for the coffers. If you follow the reasoning of NCUA, less is more. Despite the fact that the number of credit unions they regulate and insure have substantially decreased, the agency's annual budget and the amount they spend has increased. So it stands to reason that CUNA, also run by incompetents, believes that sustainability does not relate to how many you collect from but rather how much you collect from the number that remain.
Post a Comment