T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
544.1 | some juicy bits | RGB::SEILER | Larry Seiler | Wed Apr 29 1992 23:16 | 17 |
| 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
|
544.2 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | ...57 channels, and nothin' on... | Thu Apr 30 1992 09:18 | 17 |
|
"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?
|
544.3 | A positive outlet for outrage | PLOUGH::KINZELMAN | Paul Kinzelman | Thu Apr 30 1992 09:34 | 6 |
| 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
|
544.4 | | SCHOOL::RIEU | Read his lips...Know new taxes | Thu Apr 30 1992 09:49 | 2 |
| House and Senate banking Committees might also be a good place.
Denny
|
544.5 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | ...57 channels, and nothin' on... | Thu Apr 30 1992 10:08 | 4 |
|
Re .4: Addresses?
|
544.6 | | RGB::SEILER | Larry Seiler | Thu Apr 30 1992 10:23 | 8 |
| 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
|
544.7 | | AOSG::GILLETT | Suffering from Personal Name writer's block | Thu Apr 30 1992 10:33 | 15 |
| > 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
|
544.8 | | CVG::THOMPSON | DECWORLD 92 Earthquake Team | Thu Apr 30 1992 10:40 | 4 |
| 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
|
544.9 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | ...57 channels, and nothin' on... | Thu Apr 30 1992 10:51 | 3 |
|
Re .6: Address?
|
544.10 | | SCHOOL::RIEU | Read his lips...Know new taxes | Thu Apr 30 1992 10:59 | 13 |
| 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
|
544.11 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | ...57 channels, and nothin' on... | Thu Apr 30 1992 11:21 | 5 |
|
(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.)
|
544.12 | | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | DCU, a new credit union in town! | Thu Apr 30 1992 11:41 | 10 |
|
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.
|
544.13 | Bonuses are normal | PLOUGH::KINZELMAN | Paul Kinzelman | Thu Apr 30 1992 13:01 | 5 |
| 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!
|
544.14 | Bonuses for WHO are normal | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | DCU, a new credit union in town! | Thu Apr 30 1992 13:20 | 25 |
|
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.
|
544.15 | I'd accept a 5% bonus if I earned $130k... | BTOVT::EDSON_D | that was this...then is now | Thu Apr 30 1992 15:07 | 19 |
| 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
|
544.16 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | I like it this way. | Thu Apr 30 1992 16:48 | 4 |
| 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...
|
544.17 | My guess | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | DCU, a new credit union in town! | Thu Apr 30 1992 17:07 | 4 |
|
RE: .16
They got what was leftover after the first X got the maximum bonus???
|
544.18 | draw lots? | CVG::THOMPSON | DECWORLD 92 Earthquake Team | Thu Apr 30 1992 17:16 | 4 |
| RE: .16 Perhaps they rotate who gets $1 less than the max so they can
say that not everyone got the max?
Alfred
|
544.19 | NCUA in the News Once More | CADSYS::FLEECE::RITCHIE | Elaine Kokernak Ritchie | Tue Apr 06 1993 10:24 | 41 |
| Banks Win Ruling By Court in Fight Over Credit Unions
By Kenneth H. Bacon
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
Copyright � 1993 Dow Jones & Co. from Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- Banks have the right to challenge an attempt by a credit
union at one company to expand by signing up employees of other companies,
the U.S. appeals court here ruled.
The issue arose when four North Carolina banks and the American Bankers
Association charged that the National Credit Union Administration illegally
allowed the AT&T Family Federal Credit on, which included employees at
several American Telephone & Telegraph Co. facilities, to include workers
at several nearby companies.
The banks argued that the agency, which regulates credit unions, violated a
law that limits credit union membership to "groups having a common bond of
occupation or association."
A lower court ruled the banks had no standing to sue, but the appeals court
reversed the decision. It found that the banks can sue because the law
"arguably prohibits" the increasing competition banks say they are facing
from expanding credit unions. Credit unions, which generally can lend only
to their depositors, are exempt from state and federal taxes.
Although the courts still must decide whether the regulatory agency did in
fact err by allowing the AT&T credit union to expand, an official at the
American Bankers Association hailed the ruling as a victory. It's the
first time that a court has ruled that banks have the right to challenge
credit union expansion under the agency's broad view of what constitutes a
"common bond." In 1986, another appeals court ruled that banks didn't have
the right to sue.
An official at the regulatory agency said the government hasn't yet decided
whether to appeal the ruling.
---
transmissionTime: 0322
originAddress: DJ
|
544.20 | IMO... | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Tue Apr 06 1993 11:57 | 17 |
| 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
|