Without Passage of H. 410, SECU Can Not Procceed With Its Intent To Have Open Membership, Expand Outside North Carolina - And Eliminate LGFCU! - Designed To Deceive #4

   Apologize for the highly detailed posts, but it is an effort to give you the precise reference background so that you can "string the pearls" together in a few days - and say:  "Aha, now I see what's up!"

KEEP ASKING YOURSELF:❓What is so important in H. 410 that the Carolinas' Credit Union League (CCUL) and SECU are willing to sacrifice anything and anybody to get it passed?

Going to make you do most of the work on this one, ok?. In 1979 SECU was asked by the N.C. League of Municipalities and N.C. Association of County Commissioners to permit local government employees - not served by an existing credit union - to join SECU. The N. C. Administrator of credit unions approved the change. 

The banking and savings and loan interests sued to stop the addition of these folks. On April 7, 1981 the N.C. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the banks. The N.C. Supreme Court said that state credit union law defining who was eligible to join a credit union was limited and did not allow varying groups to join together within one credit union - like state employees and local government employees at SECU.

The current, existing state law defining membership in North Carolina credit unions is exactly the same state law on which the N.C. Supreme Court rendered that 1981 prohibition. 

Here's where you can read the full opinion of the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1981 on limiting credit union membership eligibility.:

 [Justia...  April 7, 1981N.C. Supreme Court Decision on North Carolina credit union membership]

 So, SECU can not legally allow open membership and proceed to take over LGFCU without changing the existing State laws which limit their "current members-be-damned ambitions" - now re-read that "❓" question above.

... will the facts matter at CCUL or SECU, or are we just "casting pearls before swine"?

H. 410 - Credit Union "Updates" - Designed To Deceive #3 - The Red Herring - " The Con-Census Map"

 

 

 ❓What is so important in H. 410 that the Carolinas' Credit Union League (CCUL) is willing to sacrifice anything and anybody to get it passed?

The first slice of the red herring filet served up by the Carolinas' Credit Union League was the "Maybe Baby" head fake (see the 4/29 post) on serving low income folks in North Carolina.  Hope you agree that smells mighty fishy!

The second serving, in CCUL's effort to distract and mislead, is that now infamous "financial desert" map, which purported to show all the places in North Carolina where folks didn't have access to financial services. That "financial desert" map, - which coincidentally, when you did an overlay comparison with a map of our national and state parks, bogs, swamps and national forest preserves matched up almost identically - also smells of fish!. But, lets take a slightly different look at the whole idea behind that map. 

Here are the proposed changes in H. 410: [here's where you can see the full bill] 

§ 54-109.28. Other credit unions.unions and specially designated common bonds. [Changes are underlined]

 (2)Persons residing in census tracts in North Carolina where the center of population, as defined by the United States Census Bureau, is more than 8 miles from a bank branch, as defined in G.S.53C-1-4(11). 

 👍Believe the actual "financial desert" map (see 4/15/16 posts) has been ridiculed enough, so lets look at this change in membership language from a different viewpoint. How do you determine who becomes eligible under this expansion? When a person walks in to join, you need to determine at least 3 things under this proposed law: 1) which census tract the person lives in, 2) where the population center of that census tract is, and 3) where the nearest bank branch within 8 miles is located? This is simply, to use Dan Schline's favorite phrase, "preposterous"... or does this little bit of foolishness also smell of fish? Who came up with this preposterous Rubik's cube - and why?

Couple of simple questions for you:

1) How many census tracts do you think there are in North Carolina? My guess was about 200 - one for each county, plus 10 or 15 more for each of our higher population areas - Charlotte, RDU, G'boro/W-S, Asheville, Wilmington, Fayetteville, Hickory, Greenville - so @ 200. What's your guess? [check the Duck!]

2) Do you know which census tract you live in?

3) Do you know where the center of the population is in that census tract (in which you don't know you live)?

4) So how would just regular North Carolina folks ever determine they might be eligible for membership in a credit union? And, does "the desert" change as new homes are built and population centers change or (heaven forbid!) a North Carolina community bank decided to open a branch out toward the "desert"?

So is this change "for real" or just a sham? Another "con" - The "Con-census" Map - contrived by Dan Schline and the CCUL to give the illusion of "con-cern" for lower income folks and imaginary "financial deserts" in North Carolina?

Guess just like the "Maybe Baby",  the logic and practicality of the "Con-census Map" doesn't really matter if they are "red herring" never actually intended for use. Just more...

 Videri quam esse! - "To seem, rather than to be!"

 

... there are 2,195 census tracts in North Carolina!!!

This fish is beginning to reek of rot.

 

H. 410 - Credit Union "Updates" - Designed To Deceive # 2 - The Red Herring - "Maybe Baby?"

❓What is so important in H. 410 that the Carolinas' Credit Union League (CCUL) is willing to sacrifice anything and anybody to get it passed?

 § 54-109.28. Other credit unions and specially designated common bonds. [Changes are underlined]To facilitate the provision of financial services to underserved populations and communities, any credit union organized under Articles 14A to 14L of this Chapter may also permit membership of the following located in this State:

(1) Individuals and families that earn income at or below the federal poverty threshold

 👍Those proposed changes sound very positive, don't they! Who in there right mind - especially if they were not-for-profit credit unions organized to serve North Carolinians of modest means - would object to that? 

 

New data released last week by the U.S. Census Bureau, measuring poverty and income, provides insight into how North Carolinians are faring. The data finds that last year, 1.4 million North Carolinians lived in poverty, making North Carolina the state with the 15^th highest poverty rate.

👍As the graph and blurb above shows, every state-chartered credit union in North Carolina would be able to add 1.4 million North Carolinians as potential members - and who needs credit unions more than North Carolina families below the federal poverty threshold?

But there is a potential catch and it "lies" in those words "all" and "may". Every state-chartered credit union is not required to take advantage of this new opportunity to help those most in need in North Carolina. 

If Dan Schline and the Carolinas' Credit Union League are being honest about their sincerity and desire to help North Carolinians living in poverty, then certainly Mr. Schline will have no objection to changing "any" to "all" and "may" to "shall" would he? 

👍Hope the Senate will be sure to ask him!

Would also assume that all state-chartered credit unions will remain "united" behind passage of H. 410, when the new law reads: "... all N.C. state-chartered credit unions shall permit membership for families living below the federal poverty threshold." [Even better, CCUL can add language requiring low/no cost "Lifeline Accounts" for these new members!]

North Carolina banks are required to serve low income folks in North Carolina - on what basis could Dan Schline and CCUL  justify not accepting this small positive change?

Fair is fair, right? or....

Videri quam esse - "to seem, rather than to be"?  

Maybe baby?