Friday, April 14, 2023

Criticism Of H. 410 - Carolinas' Credit Union League Leader Dan Schline Is Preposterous!  Well now! The Triangle Business Journal (TBJ) has certainly caught on and taken notice of the shenanigans going on over at the State Legislature with H. 410 "Credit Union Updates"! [Here's the link...TBJ] 

Many smaller North Carolina credit unions are hesitant to speak out against H. 410 because they are certain Dan Schline, CEO at the Carolinas' Credit Union League (CCUL), is simply the "waterboy" on this legislation for SECU - his, by far, largest dues payer!

About H. 410, "Schline calls the criticism preposterous - describing the bill as a way to expand services to North Carolinians who need them the most". The NC Bankers are pointing out that it's not the criticism which is preposterous, but rather it's Schline's "juking and jiving", hyped-up political posturing on H. 410 which is preposterous

Very, very, very hard for me to say this, but for once in their lives, the bankers are right! (Really can't believe I just said that! Please don't quote me!) 

The whole history of H. 410, as put forth by the Carolinas' Credit Union League, is as Mr. Gwaltney, CEO of the NC Bankers Association, says "just a smokescreen" - intended to lull state legislators into believing that H. 410 is little more than a few, inconsequential "updates". To use Mr. Schline's favorite word that is preposterous!

H. 410 is a major, consequential rewrite of N.C. state credit union laws, eliminating three fundamental principles around which N.C. credit unions were created: 1) a limited membership, 2) a focus on North Carolinians of "modest means" (the working man and woman), and 3) operating on a member-owned and controlled, not-for-profit basis in the best interests of North Carolina. 

Eliminating those core credit union principles is...(you got it!)... preposterous! And, definitely not what the vast majority of North Carolina credit union members want - or need. Ask them!

Was quoted in the TBJ article as saying that Dan Schline and the CCUL had put a lot of "lipstick on this pig" - H. 410. Perhaps that was too harsh. 

What I meant to say is that our State Legislators -  via H. 410 - are being sold "a pig in a poke"


That sound better?