"The survey, if anything, was to validate what we were already hearing from our credit unions to make sure we were doing our due diligence and that the board was doing its due diligence," LaPine said. "And ultimately, the motion was made and the board voted unanimously to grant Alabama and Florida credit unions membership choice."

LaPine noted that a significant portion of the industry was dismayed by the CUNA board vote and the lack of clarity regarding why interdependence was defined by the dual membership requirement.

"Despite decisions made by the CUNA board, I am and will remain a strong believer in a unified CUNA/League system," LaPine wrote in an email to credit union members Monday. "Our past and future success as an industry is predicated on credit unions, leagues, and CUNA working closely together. However, the model of requiring joint membership is no longer working to the betterment of credit unions. When the leadership of any organization is not listening and responding to its membership, what options are you left with?"

In reaction to the Southeastern league's decision, Tom Dorety, president/CEO of the $6.5 billion Suncoast Credit Union in Tampa, Fla., who served as chair of the CUNA System Structure and Governance Task Force, said the contentious choice issue is no longer about whether the leagues can offer direct membership to member credit unions.

"It's now a question of how they (CUNA leaders/board) are going to deal with leagues that offer choice," Dorety said in an interview with the CU Times.

Both Dorety and LaPine said they hope the CUNA board will reconsider its vote to retain dual membership.

"There are many great definitions of leadership. One of my favorites is 'Leadership is having the clarity to know the right things to do, the confidence to know when you're wrong, and the courage to do the right things even when they're hard.' I hope CUNA leadership and the board will listen to the growing groundswell of its membership and not just circle the wagons and impose sanctions against those that are willing to lead from the front," LaPine wrote in his email to members.

However, CUNA's statement in response to the Southeastern league's decision suggested it will continue to support dual membership requirements.

"CUNA and the leagues are local and national credit union advocates for removing barriers, creating awareness and fostering service excellence for credit unions. A unified CUNA/league system is the best advocate for credit unions to mobilize our movement to achieve these goals. It continually demonstrates an unmatched record of advocacy on behalf of credit unions," Senior Media Relations Manager Vicki Christner said.

The Southeastern league became the second trade association to offer direct membership choice. In September, the board of directors for the Michigan Credit Union League passed a resolution that enabled the state's credit unions to affiliate with the league in 2016 regardless of whether the credit union also affiliates with CUNA.

The action of these two leagues followed the CUNA board of directors' Sept. 18th announcement that it voted to maintain the longstanding dual membership requirement despite a final recommendation by the CUNA System Structure and Governance Task Force to offer credit unions membership choice in CUNA and/or a league.

In addition to the Michigan and Southeastern leagues, Dorety said he believes more leagues are considering the question of whether to offer their credit union members choice.

Outside of the New York Credit Union Association, which closed a survey of members Friday on the issue, Dorety acknowledged he is unaware of other leagues that are also asking their credit unions to decide the optionality question. The NYCUA board is expected to decide whether to allow its credit unions the option of choice early next month.

Dorety said the decision by the Michigan and Southeastern leagues may pressure other leagues to consider membership optionality.

It's reasonable to assume, Dorety said, that when credit unions see other state leagues offer choice, cooperatives in states that require dual membership will question why their state leagues don't offer it.

Ninety-three credit unions of the 266 Alabama and Florida credit unions answered the league's survey for a 35% response rate. LaPine noted only 30 Alabama and Florida cooperatives responded to the CUNA System Structure and Governance Task Force national survey that solicited credit unions' opinion regarding the choice question among other issues.

Dorety said CUNA needs to also offer choice and hopes the CUNA board will reconsider its vote to maintain the dual membership.

"CUNA needs to be able to have the same optionality that the league does. It's shouldn't be a one-way street, particularly when you start getting into three, four, five, six leagues that have done this." Dorety said. "It just can't work that way. I think they need to address that issue and I hope they will very quickly."

Although Dorety said he was disappointed in the CUNA board's decision, he understood and agreed that it needed to make a decision on the dual membership issue.

"I think they (CUNA board) felt like at the time they really needed to go ahead and make a reasoned decision as quickly as possible. And by the way, I agreed with them at that time," Dorety said. "In hindsight, I think they would have been far better served by saying, we've heard this, we're talking about it, now, let's go out and talk to our constituents and see what is going because that's what is going on, of course, with the league presidents and with all of this this activity going on at the league level."

Dorety, however, said he hopes that the controversy over dual membership and membership choice does not spiral into a legal battle.

"I think if this were to get into a legal battle, it would cause great harm to the system," he said. "I don't think the CUNA board would want to do that. That is why I think they are going to have to deal with this issue. At the least, I think, they need to make this a quid pro quo; it needs to be a two-way street."

Dave Adams, president/CEO of the Michigan Credit Union League, said his league's action to offer choice did not violate any CUNA bylaw or policy.

LaPine agreed.

"It should be noted that with this action, the MCUL did nothing to violate current CUNA or AACUL bylaws or established policy on the issue of membership choice," LaPine said.

While the Michigan and Southeastern league boards acted to offer membership choice, the Cornerstone, Northwest, Maine, New Mexico and Dakotas leagues said they would maintain CUNA's dual membership structure.