In fact, I applaud Matz for addressing House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling's request that his Oct. 13 letter requesting the NCUA hold off on finalizing the rule be read during the meeting. While Matz said such a request was unprecedented, she also said she respected the committee's interest in the rule and had the letter entered into the official record. That was a classy move, considering committee members hammered Matz during her July 23 hearing.

Metsger, however, repeatedly mocked H.R. 2769, the Risk-Based Capital Study Act, which would require the NCUA to review its risk-based capital rule and report back to Congress the impact the rule would have on credit unions and their members.

Metsger referred to the rule at least 20 times during his 30-minute speech; it was overkill. He spoke longer than Matz and even lawyer McWatters, who joked before speaking if those in attendance wanted to nap while he spoke, he wouldn't be offended.

Metsger made a good point that the NCUA stopped and studied its risk-based capital rule when it withdrew its first proposal and offered up RBC2, which included several changes to risk weights and removed concentration and interest rate risk elements.

Tragically, his sarcasm invalidated his arguments. I appreciate good snark, but Metsger went too far when he jeered official positions released by both CUNA and NAFCU and scoffed at the bill's sponsors and the financial services committee.

Following are some of his statements.

“Are we acting too hastily? Some have argued we should stop and study before we issue a final RBC rule, preferably not until the return of Halley's Comet in 2061,” he said. “The reality is that our action is not precipitous. If anything it is too late, not too early. We have stopped and studied this so many times I am actually beginning to feel a little whiplash here.”

Metsger then reviewed an exhaustive history of each time the NCUA started, stopped, studied and restarted working on the rule.

“In the preamble to today's rule, we have also responded to all the comments we have received, even the form letters,” he said, taking a dig at CUNA member comments. “Now I have lost track of how many times we have stopped and studied during this five-year period. Those in the industry that have continued to ask us to stop and study either have not read the preamble and rules, or they really want us to stop and bury.”

Read Metsger's complete prepared statement here.

Even former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich wasn't immune. In speaking about Gingrich's opinion that the NCUA lacks the legal authority to enforce a two-tiered risk-based capital rule, Metsger said Gingrich jumped on the H.R. 1151 bandwagon late in the game, one year after the bill had been introduced, and wasn't involved in any of the decision making or intricacies of the legislation.

Credit union lobbyist John McKechnie, who worked at CUNA at the time, said Metsger's history was flawed.

“Speaker Gingrich played an absolutely central role in the passage of H.R. 1151,” McKechnie said. “When the Supreme Court ruled against credit unions in February 1998, he strode to the podium at the CUNA GAC and announced his co-sponsorship of the bill, which is a very unusual for a speaker to do. Talk about a powerful signal. Gingrich also intervened at several critical points during the process to ensure that the legislation made it through the House Financial Services Committee and the House floor, including one very memorable meeting in his office when I saw him personally involved in lobbying some reluctant lawmakers.”

Metsger also made my jaw drop when he stressed how most credit unions have so much capital, the risk-based rule won't affect them at all. He should have stopped there, but added that instead of complaining about the rule, credit unions should be critical of themselves because holding on to that much capital is a misuse of member funds. That might be true, but it's not smart to state it on the record during a board meeting.

He also said he found it ironic that credit unions asked the NCUA to hold off on finalizing RBC2, but wanted field of membership reform approved as quickly as possible. Again, perhaps that's true, but don't publicly say so when your stakeholders are listening.

Congress was also listening: Staffers working for the bill's sponsors and the financial services committee tuned in to the online feed. I feel bad for the NCUA's lobbyists. They have some 'splaining to do the next time they head to Capitol Hill.

A firm position from a regulator is fine, but Metsger's attempt at what I assume was humor came off as unprofessional and made the NCUA board look like amateurs compared to other regulators.

Another move that could have negative consequences was CUNA CEO Jim Nussle's decision to accompany World Council executives to Cuba to promote credit unions. If CUNA wasn't faced with turmoil regarding the board's decision to reject the task force's membership recommendation, leagues that are reconsidering dual membership and reports CUNA is reducing staff, the trip wouldn't have raised eyebrows.

But CUNA appears, at least from the outside looking in, to be a house in chaos. Its top leader should be focused on righting the ship, not sightseeing. SECU CEO-turned-blogger Jim Blaine is already having a field day with this one, and I anticipate he'll milk it for all it's worth.

I was also disappointed to hear Nussle was a no-show at the NCUA board meeting. The CEOs of NAFCU and NASCUS were there, as were some league CEOs and representatives from large credit unions. CUNA did send a couple of executives, but considering that RBC2 was one of the most important rules to be finalized in years, the face of the industry's largest trade association should have been there, too.