One reader said the disagreements revealed a “governing body that blatantly exhibits its self-serving interests,” while others labeled the debates “partisan politics” and “political posturing.”

Another reader said board members can disagree but should not use the media to air the disagreements.

“Everybody doesn't have to be a yes person to the chairman,” wrote another respondent.

Johnstown, Pa.-based consultant Orlando Hanselman commented on a LinkedIn post of the poll, writing, “A board that always agrees is dysfunctional. Board issues are complex particularly in these uncertain and volatile times. Robust, fact-based debate is critical to successful decisions.”

He continued, “If there is always board consensus, then some members are either disengaged or fail to understand the gravity of the issues. Choices and alternatives abound. It is a board chair's responsibility to hear members' thoughts on issues and to stimulate debate and vigorous discourse. Recording and making such debate public increases credibility and demonstrates an active, thoughtful board. If all members always agree, several members are no longer needed. I applaud learned, fact-based debate and disclosure.”

Jim Hayes, president/CEO of the $1 billion Andrews Federal Credit Union in Suitland, Md., and former NCUA examiner, said simple disagreements make the rulemaking process stronger.

“I think that disagreements can be a healthy part of the rule making process as long as both sides maintain a posture of compromise,” he noted.

“Disagreements that cause key parties to choose absolute sides (us against them) tend to move into an unhealthy unproductive process where nothing gets done. But simple disagreements and healthy tensions can make the process stronger and promote a better end result.”

Addressing the differences between Matz and McWatters on budget hearings, Hayes said, “I would not object to budget hearings; however, overall my expectation is that NCUA leadership is doing all they can to control costs without public scrutiny.”

James Norris, president/CEO of the $105 million Montgomery County Employees Federal Credit Union in Germantown, Md., said he was aware of the recent debates among board members but had not formed an opinion. He added he was waiting to see how the situation developed over time.

Jim Blaine, president/CEO of the $29 billion State Employees' Credit Union in Raleigh, N.C., said he did not view differences of opinion between NCUA board members as disputes.

“I believe the current transparency at the NCUA board level is not only healthy, but long overdue,” he offered. “[The] NCUA was developing a reputation, perhaps unfairly, that it would not even tolerate discussion, let alone dissent. That growing perception needed to be changed.”

During the agency's November 2014 board meeting, Matz disagreed with McWatters when he said the agency should hold budget hearings.

McWatters said the agency should adopt more transparency and allow stakeholders to publicly comment on the budget before it is voted on by the full board.

Vice Chairman Rick Metsger called the hearings a dog and pony show, while Matz said such hearings could lead to regulatory capture.

“I believe that providing that information to the trades really would result in regulatory capture which is what existed previously,” Matz said. “We had hearings on the budget. We reduced FTEs by a total of 71 in a five year period. When I came on in 2009, the industry was on the verge of collapse and we didn't have the resources that we needed in order to protect the industry so we were playing catch up.”

McWatters responded that public hearings would not lead to regulatory capture.

“We are using other people's money. It seems fair. It seems reasonable for people to look at the budget and come and present their thoughts on the budget to us in an open meeting. Trade associations meet with members of the board all of the time,” he said.

Following the January 2015 board meeting, Matz claimed McWatters violated law firm Paul Hastings LLP's confidentiality policy by quoting the firm's legal opinion on the risk-based capital proposal at the meeting.

“My statement during the open meeting on Jan. 15, 2015, clearly and deliberately referred to the oral opinion,” Matz said. “Regretfully, Board Member McWatters quoted directly from the firm's written opinion during the open meeting and, in so doing, violated the firm's policy regarding the confidentiality of that opinion.”

In response, McWatters said Matz violated the confidentiality agreement before he delivered remarks at the meeting.

“By the time I spoke at the bard meeting the cat was out of the bag, as the key legal conclusion of both the oral legal opinion and the written legal opinion of Paul Hastings was already in the public domain. I merely commented on what had been disclosed by the Chair,” McWatters said.

McWatters, who voted against the revised risk-based capital proposal, said Matz' actions were distracting from the amount of money the agency spent on the legal opinion.

“The chair's accusatory statement directed at me is nothing more than an attempt to obscure the true issue at hand – she directed NCUA to waste $150,000 of credit union funded resources to obtain an opinion that offers modest support for a two-tier RBNW system,” he said.

McWatters directed further criticism at Matz and questioned priorities.

“With so many critical issues facing the credit union community today, the ongoing attempt by the chair to discredit my efforts to provide meaningful transparency and inform credit unions of what is taking place within NCUA demonstrates a sad state of affairs at the agency,” McWatters added.