Silence Can Be Controversial Too

At CU Times, we have a duty to cover the "nuts and bolts" of credit union executive concerns – regulatory changes, data breach news, HR issues and marketing strategies, just to name a few. But the stories that make me stop and realize what we're doing all of this for are those that feature a credit union growing closer to its community, like one we ran on April 6 about Oklahoma Educators Credit Union's recent support for teachers on strike.

During a walkout outside the Oklahoma state house over low pay and classroom spending, OECU employees set up a booth and handed out water bottles to teachers marching by, later tweeting that they had given away more than 4,500 bottles. The story stood out to me not because of the credit union's community involvement (announcements of CU scholarship handouts and food drives fill our inboxes daily), but because of its willingness to take a stand publicly on a political issue that severely impacts its members' lives.

Now, given that OECU's members are students, employees and retirees of the state's educational system, its declaration of support for higher teacher pay was a safe move. But what if employees of other credit unions, which may or may not serve people directly tied to the state's educational system, stood out there with them? Would they be overstepping a boundary, or would it be common sense knowing that surely, every credit union serves someone who believes teachers should be compensated fairly for having one of the most important jobs in their communities?

Since the 2016 presidential election, it seems we've been asking the question, "How involved should credit unions be in political issues?" more and more. When talks of President Trump's travel ban and proposed Mexican border wall saturated the news, some credit unions voiced their opposition to his policies by stating they welcome immigrants as members and will gladly assist them with their financial needs, while most remained quiet. Now, with mass shootings continuing to be real threats in the U.S., we're confronted with the issue of whether financial institutions should stop doing business with certain firearms manufacturers and retailers, and/or restricting gun-related card purchases.

Citigroup and Bank of America are already doing their part to help restrict gun sales, with the former forbidding retailer clients from selling bump stocks or high-capacity magazines, or selling guns to people under 21 or who haven't passed background checks; and the latter halting loans to manufacturers of military-style weapons for civilian use. And as our Tina Orem reported last week, New York's Office of the State Comptroller asked Mastercard, Visa, JPMorgan Chase, BofA, Wells Fargo and other card issuers and processors to consider rejecting purchases of guns, ammunition and firearm accessories.

So far, the credit union industry's response to these decisions has been a whole lot of nothing. When Tina reached out to six state leagues and NAFCU for her story, the New York and Pennsylvania leagues offered brief comments without taking a stance on the gun sales restriction issue; all the others had no comment. Last month, our competitor Credit Union Journal asked several credit union leaders if they thought FIs should stop serving gun dealers, and Power Financial Credit Union President/CEO Allan Prindle's response summed up the industry's hesitation to get involved: "The board unanimously agreed that to unilaterally make decisions on how members should spend their money was not the way to go. While it would demonstrate support for some, it would likely deeply offend many others."

We get that credit unions serve Americans with a range of beliefs about gun ownership, including those who are very passionate about their second amendment rights. Alienating these members is not the goal. But we're living in a society where kids now practice active shooter drills in class and many parents fear the worst when they send their children to school. Ask yourself what's more important: Avoiding offending members with a certain belief, or making a move that could potentially help save lives?

I should mention that not everyone in the CU industry has been mute on the gun control issue – former SAFE Credit Union President/CEO Henry Wirz wrote a bold, brave column for a recent CU Times print issue, in which he encouraged credit union leaders to help stop gun violence through advocacy. And in the CU Journal article, Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union President/CEO Linda Levy said she considered raising the issue of prohibiting opening accounts for gun dealers with her board.

As organizations whose mission includes helping improve their members' quality of life, credit unions have a duty to do what's best for their communities as a whole. And that may include refusing to open accounts for gun dealers or engaging in some other form of advocacy against gun violence, welcoming new members who have faced discrimination elsewhere or advocating for teachers to receive the pay the deserve. It may include committing to serve an underbanked market despite its controversial status, like marijuana businesses or the LGBTQ community.

Compared to banks, credit unions are in a unique position to take a stance on these types of issues, because while banks are primarily obligated to pleasing their shareholders, credit unions are primarily obligated to pleasing their members. CU leaders should ask themselves, what's currently threatening my members' ability to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives, and how can I help?

Yes, implementing a policy as bold as forbidding gun dealer accounts would be controversial for any credit union. And as we know, credit unions can be successful while remaining totally neutral on political issues. But keeping silent on the biggest issues in your community, especially when they involve the safety of your members, should be considered controversial too.

Natasha Chilingerian is managing editor for CU Times. She can be reached at nchilingerian@cutimes,com.

NOT FOR REPRINT

Natasha Chilingerian has been immersed in the credit union industry for over a decade. She first joined CU Times in 2011 as a freelance writer, and following a two-year hiatus from 2013-2015, during which time she served as a communications specialist for Xceed Financial Credit Union (now Kinecta Federal Credit Union), she re-joined the CU Times team full-time as managing editor. She was promoted to executive editor in 2019. In the earlier days of her career, Chilingerian focused on news and lifestyle journalism, serving as a writer and editor for numerous regional publications in Oregon, Louisiana, South Carolina and the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition, she holds experience in marketing copywriting for companies in the finance and technology space. At CU Times, she covers People and Community news, cybersecurity, fintech partnerships, marketing, workplace culture, leadership, DEI, branch strategies, digital banking and more. She currently works remotely and splits her time between Southern California and Portland, Ore.