Another benefit to paying board members is that there are no more excuses to accept mediocre or even lower performance just because they're volunteers. If board members are paid X, it means they should perform up to that value, however the credit union wants to measure it.

I attend many conferences and inevitably you hear, “What can you expect? They're volunteers.” The risk to the institution and the individuals is no less than a comparable bank. Credit union management, directors and members must accept nothing less than a full effort to keep up to date on the financial services industry, their members, technologies and governance issues.

The new authority will also help credit unions in these states diversify their boards. Credit unions opting to use this new power will be able to attract people with specific skills to the board that might currently be lacking.

Directly compensating board members is also clears up a messy ambiguity. Credit unions already compensate their boards with educational conferences that are held on an Amazon tour or aboard an Alaskan cruise ship. Setting a stipend and paying it for performance is much more ethical and transparent.

Take for example the $1.4 billion Trumark Credit Union, which pays its board members between $30,000 and $60,000 each per year for an aggregate of approximately $450,000. Sounds like a lot of money for an industry that prides itself on the volunteer leadership.

If you look more closely, Trumark earned $14.5 million in net income last year and appears to be on track to exceed that in 2013. According to the NCUA's financial performance reports, the credit unions in the peer group over $500 million in assets in the capital region averaged $2.5 million in net income last year. However, return on assets was in line with this group of peers. Did compensating board directors contribute to Trumark's high net income? It's definitely a matter to explore.

On the other hand, I know a board chairman who won't even accept personal mileage reimbursement to attend board meetings after retiring from his job and moving more than two hours away from the credit union.

What does bother me about these two pieces of legislation is why the bankers didn't bother to oppose them. They seem duty-bound to fight any new authorities credit unions try to obtain yet they maintained a cacophony of silence.

American Bankers Association Senior Economist Keith Leggett explained that the association viewed the issue as a mere internal governance issue, and that perhaps it would attract better-qualified credit union board members.

Particularly as the tax exemption issue raises its ugly head yet again, why aren't bankers attacking this “power grab?” Credit unions often point to their volunteer boards of directors as one of the justifications for their tax-exempt status. Do the bankers see this as an opportunity to weaken credit unions' case for maintaining the tax exemption?