Of course, NASCUS weighed in with a 22-page comment letter of its own (plus a 34-page appendix made up of the landmark 2015 legal study, which found the OTR is subject to notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act). Our view made it clear: The current system is flawed, changes need to be made – and a number of alternatives are available for the agency to consider.

Other commenters echoed our views, and expanded on them. CUNA articulated its point that any overhead transfer of agency expenses to the insurance fund should be legitimate, substantiated insurance-related costs, consistent with fairness to state and federal credit unions and the FCU Act. Andrew Price, senior director of advocacy and counsel for the nation's largest credit union trade group, suggested that the agency is attributing too many actions to insurance-related costs, adding that "safety and soundness should not be a catch-all by which NCUA can allocate all of its activities for purposes of having the NCUSIF fund the agency."

NAFCU urged the agency to abandon the recently adopted policy delegating to senior staff (the director of the office of Examinations and Insurance) responsibility for setting the OTR. NAFCU President/CEO B. Dan Berger argued that the NCUA board should continue to use its own judgment and perspective in setting the rate.

State trade groups voiced their concerns about the OTR being a crucial issue for the credit union system. Maintaining a formula-driven approach is key, the Georgia Credit Union Affiliates wrote.

"We feel that any changes to the formulas should be presented for public comment before being approved by the Board," wrote Cindy Connelly, senior vice president/government influence for the association. "How these methods are calculated is of such great importance to credit unions that we do not believe any aspect of the methodologies should be delegated to NCUA staff."

Meanwhile, the Cooperative Credit Union Association in Marlborough, Mass., wrote that the OTR issue is a widely held concern among its membership.

"The Association conducted a survey of all credit union members in order to assess the impact the OTR and Operating Fee Schedule has on our local credit unions," wrote Paul Gentile, president/CEO of the group. "Nearly all respondents indicated that the OTR is a substantive issue that credit unions should be concerned about."

State regulators similarly weighed in, noting (among other things) their concerns with the dollars used from the insurance fund covering all safety and soundness costs, and not just insurance-related ones.

"It is very concerning that costs of being a chartering authority and costs of being an insurer are not separated or clearly defined," wrote Kim Santos, director of the Wisconsin office of credit unions. In her state, she stated, "the lack of separation of duties is seen on a recurring basis in that Wisconsin credit unions are visited by NCUA often but there is no separation of exam duties versus those of insurance duties. NCUA must clearly define and/or separate the insurance and chartering functions."

For BECU of Seattle, the future of the OTR has a direct impact on the credit union system at large.

"An equitable and fair OTR methodology is necessary to ensure the continued vitality of the dual chartering system," wrote BECU General Counsel Parker Cann in a 19-page comment letter, accompanied by a 27-page economic analysis.

And NASCUS' own view, supported by the legal analysis that the OTR is subject to public notice and comment, was also echoed in comments – by a legal analyst. Noting that how the OTR is determined, and the level at which it is set, are "substantive matters," Mary Mitchell Dunn, partner with the Washington, D.C., law firm CU Counsel, PLLC (and former deputy general counsel for CUNA), wrote that "We believe this conclusion regarding the OTR brings it squarely under the purview of the (Administrative Procedure Act), and the agency's review of the OTR methodology should also include the handling of this issue under the APA."

In all, the NCUA received letters from 14 credit unions, 12 credit union leagues, seven state regulatory agencies, and seven other organizations and individuals.

These are just some examples. But they illustrate widespread concern about the OTR across nearly all of the comments filed. The sentiment they express – almost uniformly – is prodigious: The current system cannot be sustained.

The second consistent message contained in nearly every comment letter we saw (including ours): Sincere thanks and gratitude to the NCUA board for bringing up this issue for public comment. This was a big step for the agency, especially in terms of transparency — and it is appreciated.

We hope the NCUA board takes into account all of the concerns and points articulated in the comment letters about the OTR methodology. Further, like many in the credit union system, we hope that this issue may be settled, once and for all, to the satisfaction of both state and federal credit unions, state regulators and the NCUA – and that the NCUA board takes action, soon.

Lucy Ito is president/CEO of NASCUS, based in Arlington, Va.