Those bylaws can only be changed by credit union members at the league's annual meeting in May 2016, he added.

"We took the approach of providing them with some context unlike (what) has been the case in other places," Mercer said. "We talked at length about the potential implications on both sides of the argument, which we presented in recent months, and as a result, the feedback we got wasn't polarized. There were some that sort of leaned toward choice and some that had feelings the other way."

In the October edition of the Georgia league's newsletter, Owner Insight, a 1,826-word essay detailed both sides of the CUNA's dual membership requirement and membership optionality.

In addition, during Mercer's 10 roundtable discussions held throughout the state in October, he gathered comments from credit unions about what they thought about the dual membership issue.

Mercer said he met with about 40 credit unions. About 15 credit unions expressed comments favoring dual membership and eight said they were for choice. But Mercer noted the largest response category were from participants who expressed no opinions or observations.

"Everybody is trying to figure this out and make sense out of it.  And some are trying  to think down the road a piece  about the implications," Mercer said. "Moving to membership optionality by itself is sort of like dropping a coconut, letting it crack and seeing where the milk goes. I think most folks are trying to say, 'OK, where do we go from there?''

On the other side of the nation, Diana Dykstra, president/CEO of the California Credit Union League and the Nevada Credit Union League, wrote in a Nov. 12 letter to members that both boards are considering the issue.

"Both league boards have begun the study of choice, and throughout the course of several months, will contemplate the best way to accomplish the change our credit unions seek," Dykstra wrote in the letter. "We will engage our credit unions in this process and will keep you all informed."

Dykstra also wrote that the California and Nevada boards support the task force recommendation to enhance CUNA/league cooperation and interdependence in delivering strong advocacy as evidenced by mutual commitment agreements that hold them accountable to one another.

"It is true that a majority of credit unions answered positively to the question on choice. In addition, a majority also indicated they supported both their league and CUNA," she wrote. "I would suggest that instead of asking the question of "Do you favor choice?," we should be asking, "Do you believe advocacy effectiveness will be enhanced through choice? I welcome the continued dialog from our members and I only ask that you give us the time to get it right."

On Sept. 18, the CUNA board 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.