The Danger of Affiliation Wars

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santayana

Running to the polar extremes seems to be the order of the day in politics and other societal matters. We all bemoan the ability to get to good public policy because the people we choose are so locked into their positions that compromise and sometimes even conversation is impossible. Gone are the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil, who disagreed on political philosophy, but remained friends and found room to move public policy forward. When we refuse to even talk to one another (or talk past each other), we jeopardize our ability to move forward and influence one another in beneficial ways. We're talking only to those who agree with us, and it's a pretty sure bet there are plenty of others who don't who are doing the same thing. Our two largest trade associations seem to be busy doing that too.

Back in 1996, Truliant was at the heart of a threat to our very existence along with the rest of the credit union movement. The banking industry had successfully attacked our ability to serve more than one sponsor company, gaining legal standing and a win in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This was all about our serving a furniture factory in rural North Carolina where the local banks' community commitment was demonstrated by the presence of more than 13 different finance companies preying on a town of 30,000 blue collar, working families. The call came in from the NCUA general counsel to cease adding any new select employer groups and caution us that we may have to eject all of the non-core company members.

Through some of my connections from my time there, I arranged to meet with public relations firms Hill and Knowlton and APCO in Washington to discuss our options from a public policy campaign perspective. Armed with a video I entitled "The Doors of Asheboro," in which I had filmed the doors and signage each of the finance companies, I flew to Washington and met with Frank Mankowitz at H&K, former aide to Robert F. Kennedy (and uncle of House of Cards co-executive producer John Mankiewicz). Both Frank and the contacts at APCO thought we had something viable but relayed a clear caution: Don't attack the banking industry head-on. They're stronger with armies of lawyers and lobbyists that would be hard to fight. They also advised that we would need one well-focused campaign. As I was a member of the NAFCU board and executive committee at the time, they had the courtesy to send one of their staff members to the APCO meeting with me, where we heard the same message. I also reported my meetings to CUNA.

What happened next surprised me. Within a few weeks, NAFCU announced that it was rolling out its "Beat Back the Bankers" campaign and CUNA announced its own "Operation Secure." Both plans disregarded the advice from knowledgeable PR professionals and failed to bring the movement together to engage in the fight of our lives.

During that time and for many years prior, the National Credit Union Roundtable held annual meetings. They were freewheeling affairs with lots of animated discussion, respectful disagreement and comradery. While nominally organized by CUNA, everyone was invited to attend and there wasn't a sense (in my opinion) that this was another CUNA meeting; rather, it was a big tent meeting of the largest credit union CEOs and trade association executives playing a minor but invaluable supporting role in speaking to the issues as they were asked to.

I served as chair of the National Credit Union Roundtable Committee for two consecutive years, and with the support of the committee, we ensured that all the voices, particularly CUNA, NAFCU and NASCUS, were represented.

Fast forward to 2016 and 18 years since the passage of the Credit Union Membership Access Act. Numerous battles have been fought between the two largest trade associations. Some have called for the elimination of NAFCU, portraying it as duplicative and a creator of confusion. Other credit unions have left CUNA, and the duality issue created additional turbulence. NAFCU decides to add state charters, CUNA's leadership drops their usual meetings with NAFCU's leadership, NAFCU board members drop their CUNA affiliation in response, and yada, yada, yada, it's hard to say who is winning. But credit unions are losing and will lose big if we have another serious threat to our movement and are unable to organize quickly and efficiently to respond.

Truliant has been a loyal, proactive member and participant with both CUNA and NAFCU for decades. We have valued the work that each have done for us.

The American Bankers Association and the Independent Bankers Association of America (now the Independent Community Bankers of America) learned long ago that a fractured group can't get anything done in Washington. The reality is, as much as we may personally champion one trade or the other, the true credit union community has multiple voices. The more we insist that they become one, the more likely key credit unions or groups of credit unions will advocate for choice among trades. As leaders of large credit unions that are "eligible" for the national credit union roundtable in a broader sense, we must insist that trade association "leadership" is defined as being able to successfully defend credit unions. Irrespective of our loyalties to one or both trades, we cannot tolerate volunteer or paid leadership at CUNA or NAFCU that jeopardizes our ability to come together as we did, with some hesitation and internal conflict, for the 1996 Campaign for Consumer Choice. Doing otherwise may lead to an even more damaging outcome than repeating our history of delaying organizing efforts in 1996.

Marcus Schaefer is president/CEO for Truliant Federal Credit Union. He can be reached at 800-822-0382 or [email protected].