NCUA just this last week was called "arbitrary and capricious" for the second time in recent memory. That judgment against the NCUA in the case of Members 1st Federal Credit Union in Pennsylvania, et al. really stings for a regulator. At the time the agency was looking to expand credit union field of membership powers to the very edges of the statutory lines; apparently, the judge felt the agency crossed those boundaries, ignoring too much pertinent information that went against the community charter approval.

The banks now have had three legal victories over the agency in the last few years between this most recent ruling, the mutual savings bank fiasco in Texas and the underserved areas approval and repeal in Utah. While I certainly feel the Treasury Blueprint is 100% wrong in combining all the financial services regulatory agencies, OTS and these recent decisions against NCUA aren't helping to make the argument against it.

The decision was also a boost to the ego of the American Bankers Association, which filed the lawsuit. Expect more to come from them every chance they get. The already rabidly anti-credit union Pennsylvania bankers in particular will be more vociferous as well.

This at a time when the credit unions and banks really need to pull together for the common good. Credit unions should be picking up members and mortgage market share in the aftermath of the banks' missteps and taking full advantage. However, a systemic crash of the for-profit banking system would not be good for anyone, a point CUNA President/CEO Dan Mica made at America's Credit Union Conference.

Yet even the credit union trades are intent on bickering among themselves and one-upsmanship, none of which is constructive for the future of credit unions. Everyone wants and deserves credit for their work and accomplishments. Pride in one's work is part of what makes it perpetually better, and competition is another factor. But bragging rights--or knocking others' efforts that are basically aligned with yours--should be balanced with the larger good. In this instance, that's the future of the entire credit union community.

For those credit unions that belong to both CUNA and NAFCU, think about it. You're putting funds into one to beat up on the other. Though this is certainly not either association's primary purpose or major focus of their work, it seems to be a growing pastime, and it goes both ways.

Both groups have many strong points and membership in both is advisable to those credit unions that see value in both. But, the dual-membership credit unions, and even some of those that only belong to one or the other, need to knock some heads together. CUNA and NAFCU must work together and coordinate as much as possible where there aren't substantive differences between federal and state charter interests. Otherwise, everyone's wasting time and money duplicating efforts as well as fighting each other.

In this environment, how are credit unions and banks supposed to make nice to effectively work on common goals, such as fighting legislation that would limit interchange income or curb certain predatory practices to just the right degree so as not to interrupt legitimate and responsible banking business?

Each of these legislative and regulatory concerns is the trades' primary job, with credit unions' lobbying assistance, but ultimately, they impact the way each and every credit union is run.

--Comments? E-mail [email protected]