Conference 7.286::dcu

So there's a salary scandal at the NCUA?  Wow, who would have guessed it.

Don't you just love the justification for giving bonuses to EVERYONE who 
was allowed one, and ALL but one getting the maximum of 15-20% of salary?  
The NCUA Controller says they are a portion of a senior executive's salary
that is put at risk.  The risk, it turned out, was that someone would find
out they were doing it.  The executive director says that it's to bring
their salaries in line with other agencies, which happen to have 2.5 to 15
times as many employees.  And another NCUA bigwig says their competitive
salaries are a key to keeping the nation's credit unions safe and sound!

But what I love best is the comment that Credit Unions are easier to
regulate... a few make small business loans.  None are involved in the
kind of activities that have caused banks problems, such as loans to large
commercial real estate projects...

	Larry Seiler

    
    "At risk"???
    
    Is he referring to the risk of "regulating" an environment that, in
    normal situations, is controlled by the people who own the money?
    
    Or perhaps to the situations where they really go out on a limb with
    statements like: "The NCUA has not issued any formal opinion which
    would define...the term 'call'... Any consideration by the NCUA to
    interpret the bylaws...might be interpreted as support for a particular
    group".
    
    I take more risk walking the dog!
    
    This is absolutely disgusting. Who in our government would be a
    suitable target for complaints on this matter?
    

Sounds pretty outrageous to me. Best to turn this anger to formulating
letters - Kennedy and Kerry would be a good start

Ted Kennedy, 315 Russell Senate Bldg, Wash DC 20510

John Kerry, 421 Russell Senate Bldg, Wash DC 20510

       House and Senate banking Committees might also be a good place.
                              Denny

    
    Re .4: Addresses?
    
    

You might also copy letters to Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, D-Texas, who is
already demanding a justification from the NCUA, according to the story.

I was particularly struck by their claim to be doing so well regulating
credit unions, as contrasted with their apparent determination to remain
uninvolved in issues at credit unions unless they are about to fail.  

	Larry

> I was particularly struck by their claim to be doing so well regulating
> credit unions, as contrasted with their apparent determination to remain
> uninvolved in issues at credit unions unless they are about to fail.  

Hear, hear!  In the past disputes with DCU leading to the Special Meeting
and Special Elections, the NCUA took a sidelines stance, refusing to get 
involved at virtually any level.  And while I understand an unwillingness
to take sides in a shareholder/board dispute, I do not understand the kind
of "regulatory agency" which refuses to get involved with a credit union
until it is on the brink of collapse.  Witness the Barnstable Community
Credit Union.  Until it had failed, the NCUA didn't step in.

I don't get it...

/chris

	Since the President of the US (1600 Penn. Ave. Washington DC) appoints
	the board he might also be a good person to write to.

			Alfred

    
    Re .6: Address?
    

    re: Address?
       How about:
    Rep. Whatsisname
    US House of Representatives
    Washington, DC
    Or:
    Chairman
    House Banking Committee
    US House of Representatives
    Wash. DC
    ?
    Not really hard to figure out.
                                      Denny

    
    (Please forgive my questions. I don't write letters to high government
    officials very often; when I do, I like to get the details [like
    addresses] right.)
    

    
    Pretty unbelievable stuff considering what we have all just been
    through.  I believe I had made comments long ago about the need to
    look at the NCUA once DCU was back on track.  Looks like the comment
    was not off the mark.  No wonder things don't seem to work anymore.
    People must get involved, and STAY involved, to make sure the system
    works as it is intended to work.  It is not good enough to think
    somebody else is or will do it.
    
    Now, time to do some writing to Washington D.C.

I just spoke to Ed Roberts from the NCUA Watch (articles published elsewhere
in this notes file). He said that bonuses are standard operating procedure,
well known by insiders that it always happens. It's quite a suprise to
outsiders. Also, he said that the SEC folks usually get 50% bonuses, so
the 20% that NCUA people get is a bargain!

    
    I believe if 'bonuses' are normally and regularly given out then they
    are standard compensation, ie salary, and should be reported as such. 
    Doing things this way allows people to say their 'salary' is $50K, while
    receiving 'bonuses' that result in a REAL salary of $70K.  
    
    I can see where people involved in 'governmental agencies' like this 
    want to keep their 'salary' down.  They wouldn't want it to get out 
    they're making more than the President, Senators, or Representatives.  
    But I guess we don't really know how much they make either, just they're
    official 'salary'.  And then there are the perks which I'm sure exist
    for all these people.  We just found out about all the congressional
    perks.
    
    And sooner or later the statement will be made, "You get what you pay
    for.".  Well, I say, we better know what we're paying so we can
    determine if we are getting is worth it.
    
    But the real questions are who determines who gets these 'bonuses', who
    gets how much, and what criteria are used.  I think *that's* where this
    stuff usually gets REAL interesting.  Do you think the average NCUA
    examiner that does a great job gets a bonus?  The examiner that
    uncovers a situation that may ultimately save us all millions
    (billions?) of dollars?  THESE are the people who should be getting
    'bonuses' IMO.  I hope they do.

From .0

>According to agency documents, the bonuses were either 20 percent or 15
>percent of salary, depending on the position, and totaled $480,000.  They
>averaged $12,300.

>The largest, $26,000, went to Donald Johnson, the executive director of
>the agency.  Before the bonus, Johnson earned $130,000 in 1991.

>..............................................." said Loftus, who was
>awarded an $18,000 bonus on top of a $90,000 salary in 1991.


 Why do I get the feeling that the 20% bonuses go to the top $ positions
 and the 15% bonuses go to the lower $ positions?  Boy, talk about the rich
 getting richer!  That $26,000 bonus might be more than some lower level
 employee's salary PLUS bonus.

 Don

    	So how would you like to be the *ONE* person who did not get
    	the max allowable bonus?
    
    	I wonder why s/he didn't get the max...

    
    RE: .16
    
    They got what was leftover after the first X got the maximum bonus???

    RE: .16 Perhaps they rotate who gets $1 less than the max so they can
    say that not everyone got the max?
    
    		Alfred

Hmmm.  Hope this doesn't invalidate credit unions whose field of membership
is defined as "persons living or working in the cities of x, y, or z".  One
of the better ones I belong to has its field of membership geographically
defined.

On the face of it though, if it is the AT&T credit union, I don't see why
it should be allowed to open its membership to non-AT&T companies.  If it
was to change its field of membership to be "persons living or working in
x" that would seem to be O.K., but then it couldn't be the AT&T credit
union anymore.

On one hand, I have to applaud the CU for actively trying to expand its
membership, (unlike DCU seems to be doing), but on the other hand it
sounds like some CUs are being infested by ex-bankers who don't understand
the CU concept.

Bob