Chip Filson
The Seated Boxer, an iconic ancient Greek work of art, shows a grizzled veteran of the ring, equal parts resigned and ready to spring into action.
What I like is a sense of respite from competition, the powerful athletic physique and the tiredness that surrounds his humanity. Is he a winner this day? Are there more fights to go? How will his efforts be remembered?
These are questions that all of us encounter, in literal or figurative ways, in our daily efforts.
On April 13, CU Daily reported on a conversation that SAFE CU long time member Scott Rose had with the CEO Faye Nabhani. The article detailed Scott’s objections and the CEO’s response on SAFE’s new merger effort. (link)
The proposal to transfer control of the $4.4 billion SAFE and its 245,000 Sacramento area members to Boeing Employees Credit Union has had coverage in the local press (Sacramento BEE) and on blog sites. For example this post on SECU Just Asking lists four fundamental objections to the surrender of the state charter. It poses the question whether the California CU Regulator is Asheep at the Wheel? (link)
Much information has been provided by Scott and others about what this charter loss would cost SAFE members and the community. Less analysis has been provided about BECU’s leadership and financial trends. Nothing has been in the SAFE’s press releases about BECU’s performance, leadership culture, or strategy.
Last week I wrote a post describing BECU’s high cost culture resulting in an operating expense to asset ratio of 3.33%, much higher than the large credit unions in California. The nine BECU directors were paid an average compensation of $118,000 in 2024 with he Chair receiving $154,000. In California, state regulation prohibits director compensation which is the federal credit union legal situation
But what was new about the situation was the almost dozen responses to the CU Daily article by readers, They all describe a very disturbing leadership environment at BECU.
They report situations that only employees would be aware of. Have these issues been discussed by the SAFE board? Has there been any onsite due diligence? Is this a leadership culture that one would want in charge of 245,000 members’ future?
Whatever the full story might be, there is a lot more for members to know if their future should be put in hands of the BECU board and their
CEO’s recently arrived senior team.
Performative at best.
Glad these conversations are happening and that he’s asking the right questions—he’s pushing in the way more people should.
What’s becoming clear, though, is that the credit unions don’t really have strong answers—they just have strong PR. BECU, in particular, is very good at managing perception.
Underneath that, the leadership approach feels far more like a traditional bank than a credit union. The new CEO comes across as performative at best—saying the right things publicly, but not reflecting that same philosophy behind closed doors.
Internally, employees have described leadership as political and calculated—always saying the right thing publicly, but the moment anyone questions it, they’re pushed out, fired, or laid off.
BECU isn’t new to working the layoff systems with minimal NDA’s and severance packages. Last April, several employees were let go, and shortly after, nearly identical roles were reposted and filled—often through existing networks or familiar circles. All while moving forward with a costly (millions!) and terribly structured naming rights deal.
You can’t claim credit union values while operating like that.
100% a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Just because you “meet them and they said all the right thungs” doesn’t mean they are not well coach and performative AF. What that leadership teams says in public and what they do behind thr scenes are two very different things. . .
Anonymous says:
Someone from SAFE should ask why BECU’s General Counsel, Chief Auditor, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Impact Officer, and Chief Business Officer all decided to leave, more or less at once. Nothing normal about that.
Don’t forget the ENTIRE executive team that left within months of the new CEO coming on. It’s a revolving door in the C-Suite for a reason.
Most of the employees at BECU were very excited with this hire even knowing the CEO came from Wells Fargo, she seemed to say all the right things, talk about the movement, the members first philosophy, actually we all felt a little inspired and then reality hit.
3.5 years later BECU is a shell of what it was and there is no stewardship towards the CU movement AT ALL behind closed doors, it’s 100% toxic and performative. They have pushed out so many of the employees and leaders that made that place special.
So I am so glad Faye liked her and that Bev said “all the right things” but it is shallow and performative just like others have mentioned. She is a very very good actor in public, she very much slips up behind closed doors. To having the table slammed in front of you while profanities were flying to lying about how she was “listening” to employees with “listening sessions” but behind closed doors was saying “Gotta go pretend that I care about what they say” (jaw dropping really….) to being shushed in meetings for no reason, to tearing people up because they got one thing wrong in a speech she was giving.
The executive team is no longer local to Seattle, they live in Atlanta, New York, and LA – flying in on the companies dime with no connection to the region or any care about moving the community forward. Yes, they EMT and Board are being incentivized for a merger, so they chose a “SAFE” merger (pun intended) to get their bonuses and show they increased they asset size, cause their net growth is not great.
Good someone is asking the right questions. Fact is, Bev Anderson and her cadre of big bank execs she brought on Talk the Talk but don’t Walk the Walk when it comes to credit union values. She gutted the original EMT and slowly but surely pushed every exec who challenged what new operating values and the way people are treated out the door.
As another commenter said here, she’s amazing in public but behind closed doors treats people terribly. There is a verb in use at BECU now that you’ve “been Bev’d”, and that means she cursed at you, yelled threw a tantrum and most likely in front of your peers or even subordinates. Very inappropriate. Not to mention the Wells Fargo and Equifax background, hiring of other execs who have no clue about what Coops mean and ongoing performative gymnastics. It’s sad what BECU has become over the past few years. The board should be ashamed of themselves.
Many think of April as the month taxes are due. For the untaxed credit union system there is a more relevant event. In America, April is volunteer month. The country honors the millions of citizens who serve their communities and neighbors by sharing their most precious resource—their time.
This volunteer spirit is a vital part of American history and culture. Because the role of government was either nonexistent or limited in the country’s early years, citizens would volunteer to solve common needs. In 1736 Benjamin Franklin organized the first city fire department for Philadelphia, all volunteers. Today 65% of the country’s fire fighters are volunteers. Their collective effort is estimated to be valued at $50 billion if they were paid.
Down through history to the present day in every community, volunteers are at the center of vital social, civic and cultural activities It is an essential part of American culture. People take pride, have a sense of duty and enjoy the camaraderie these efforts offer. Just inventory your own involvements.
The credit union movement was built by volunteers with governmental oversight often rushing to keep up. In the beginning, volunteers borrowed their “authority” to start the first coop and called it St. Mary’s Bank.
This essential contribution to the coop system’s creation is embodied in the public “definition”—non-profit, member-owned and volunteer-led. Until recently, “volunteer” meant unpaid. which is still the rule for federally chartered credit union board members.
Every credit union active today gained their charter from the sweat equity of volunteer organizers. Often the first managers and staff were unpaid or seconded to oversee the effort while on the sponsor’s payroll. The physical location of these coop startups was donated either by a sponsor or even in a person’s home. These home-based coops were still common enough that in December 2013 the NCUA under Chairman Matz voted 2:1 to prohibit the practice in December 2013 board meeting. The effort was dropped.
The volunteer ethic is embedded in cooperative values. The seven cooperative principles (now eight) all infer or embrace the ideals of self-help and mutual interdependence. The words of the first principle: Credit unions are voluntary, not-for-profit financial cooperatives . . .
Today volunteers remain a vital component of credit union leadership. One example of this energetic leadership potential is from a recent a linkedIn profile. The student is donating part of her undergraduate career to a startup credit union on campus: Student at UNC Chapel Hill *4X World Record Mountaineer*3X TEDx Speaker*Blogger and Research Consultant*MUN Enthusiast*Cyclist* Runner-HM&FM*Badminton player*Artistic Roller Skater.
In the first fifty years of state charters, regulators were also worried about the temptations always present when managing other people’s financial resources.
In the early history of Illinois charters for example, senior managers, officers and directors could not borrow from their own credit unions for concern about self-dealing. The solution was to create chapter credit unions providing leaders an independent coop alternative. While this prohibition was changed, the call report today still monitors the total number and amount of loans outstanding to directors, committee members and senior management.
Unlike the federal system in 22 states the credit unions are permitted to pay directors, some with formal rules, other with authority more open-ended.
For example, several years ago I worked with a state charter where directors met three of four times per month in board and committee meetings. This frequency was because compensation was based on the number of meetings attended. Meetings multiplied.
One rationale for paying directors is the need for qualified volunteers. A long- serving CEO whose directors were paid his entire tenure said the practice had the opposite effect. Less attentive directors became harder to replace as they did not want to give up their extra income.
What can be learned from the increasing payments going to directors of state charters? Are these credit unions better performing versus their FCU peers? Are they more innovative? Are directors contributing in ways that unpaid volunteers may not?
While these are important issues, I believe one factor and the historical concern is already obvious and concerning. Specifically, does paying directors distort decisions away from what is in member-owners’ best interest, into what is in leadership’s personal interest or benefit?
There has been much public commentary and analysis of the proposed merger between Sacramento based SAFE and Tukwila, OR headquartered Boeing Employees Credit Unions (BECU). An important difference in the two states’ chartering rules is that state charters can pay their directors in Washington but not in California which follows federal practice.
Boeing Employees Credit Union’s 2024 IRS 990 shows the total compensation for the directors as $1.065 million. Chairperson Somberg received $154,375. The average pay for all nine was $118,352. Each reported working six hours per week for the credit union which equates to a $380 per hour rate.
In addition, the former CEO Benson Porter who retired as BECU President in December 2022 received $931,665 with zero working hours. The CEO Beverly Anderson who succeeded Benson reported working full time for 2024 compensation of $2,708, 880 or 17 times the average employee’s salary of $159,327.
One result from this compensation culture is that BECU has one of the highest operating expense ratios to average assets at 3.33% much higher than every California credit union over $10 billion. SAFE’s operating expense ratio in 2025 was 2.56%.
If SAFE directors were truly seeking a better performing opportunity, here are California based credit unions who are much superior to BECU in financial management and branch availability:
Golden 1 (Sacramento) Assets: $21B OpEx: 2.20% Br: 62
SchoolsFirst (Tustin) Assets: $35B OpEx: 1.81% Br: 69
Patelco (Dublin) Assets: $10B OpEx: 1.84% Br: 37
First Tech (San Jose) Assets: $30B OpEx: 2.83% Br: 56
San Diego County (S. D.) Assets: $10B OpEx: 1.84% Br: 44
Redwood (Santa Rosa) Assets: $10B OpEx: 2.28% Br: 21
Logix (Valencia) Assets: $10B OpEx: 1.84% Br: 37
Star One (Sunnyvale) Assets: $10B OpEx: 0.73% Br: 7
A second outcome of this high expense environment from one analyst’s review: members of BECU, on average, pay more for loans and earn a whole lot less on savings… The cost of operating BECU is @+15% higher than all other CU peers! (link)
Given this clear underperformance by BECU versus its peers and local California options, why did the directors of the $4.4 billion SAFE sign a “definitive merger agreement” to transfer control of all operations and all assets to an out of state credit union with no local connections, experience or proximity?
The definitive agreement has not been disclosed, except to announce that several SAFE directors will be given seats on the BECU board where in 2024 the average compensation was $118,000. SAFE directors, as a California charter, are unpaid.
Who will benefit from this compensation if the merger proceeds has not been disclosed. What is known from safecu.org and clicking on SAFE management, is that only three of the current 12 directors were members prior to being nominated to the board of SAFE. SAFE bylaws clearly state that nominees must be members in good standing. In other words the board nomination and selection process would appear to be closely controlled if not irregular.
Following the money helps understand motivation. The new director compensation available post-merger raises important questions. What are the conflicts of interest as SAFE’s board decided to transfer the entire future of this strong local Sacramento institution and its 245,000 members’ $400 million of equity gifted to BECU for free? Especially as BECU’s performance on most all critical financial measures trails large California credit unions and BECU’s national peers.
The founders of coops understood human nature. Payments today to state credit union volunteers follow no common pattern or rules, are limited in or disclosed long after the facs in IRS 990filings, and lack transparency and context. In such circumstances human temptations are set loose.
Today there are very limited, if any, checks and. balances on volunteer compensation. As in the multiple situations where millions of dollars are paid to CEO’s who merge their credit unions, the regulators always seem to look away from these instances of self-enrichment. No one and no set of organizations will ever be perfect. Moreover, as BECU’s results suggest, there is no relation between performance and director pay, especially at a high level.
The ongoing credit union merger free-for-alls are opening up this new form of compensation incentive payments. If SAFE is approved, there will be lots of travel to California by credit unions whose boards are paid—think of Colorado and Washington as initial sources.
But the issue is more fundamental than old-fashioned corruption. The director pay practices in some state charters are leading credit unions to an even more critical cliff edge. Recall the public coop definition of non-profit, member-owned, led by volunteers. It is “volunteers” that govern how the other two characteristics of coops evolve. Can paid volunteers be entrusted with protecting these two defining credit union charter characteristics when their own personal well being is involved? Have credit unions morphed into more for-profit leadership behaviors and rewards? But without market accountability?
What’s at stake in the SAFE-BECU proposed merger and in other similar director paid merger initiated combinations is trust in the cooperative system. For the oldest test of character is: “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. And if you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.”
Sometime in the next 12 months the proposed Carolina Students’ Credit Union will be launched.
The crew of 31 students is backed by a support team of faculty and credit union interested folk. As noted in yesterday’s post, new charters are rare with fewer than two a year succeeding after lift off.
What motivated these fulltime students to organize this coop venture?
Shiva Rajbhandari is originally from Boise, Idaho. When he arrived on campus as a freshman, he was unable to deposit his scholarship check remotely, so he searched for a financial option in Chapel Hill. As a climate activist, he wished to avoid large banks with their investments in fossil fuels.
When he couldn’t find a credit union available to UNC students, he decided to start one. Shiva is now a junior studying Public Policy and Sociology. He is also the President and founder of the student chartering team.
Founder Sarah Galdi, from Apex, NC, is a sophomore studying Economics and Mathematics. A life-long credit union member, she took for granted the value they provide communities. Then at college she realized not everyone has access to not-for-profit financial services. She describes three situations of immediate focus:
When I first came to the U.S. at 17, I was completely on my own — new campus, new country, no idea what I was doing.
And one of the first walls I hit was just trying to access the basic financial system.
I couldn’t get a debit card because I was under 18. I couldn’t work because I didn’t have a Social Security Number yet. And without an SSN, I couldn’t apply for a credit card It was an exhausting loop—every door seemed to require a key I didn’t have.
The hardest part, honestly, wasn’t even the bureaucracy. It was doing all of it alone. I was just figuring it out as I went, confused, frustrated, and sometimes just worn down by it.
That experience stuck with me. The system isn’t just complicated — it’s genuinely inaccessible for international students, especially those who arrive young. And that’s something I really want to change.
The witer, Hasvi Mariki, joined the credit union luanch crew.
Through the support of Carolina credit unions and ACU, three student founders attended last month’s GAC. Here is one participant’s account.
At a Credit Union Roundtable, we told the people at our table our story. They got so excited for us, they grabbed a mic. Then they asked me to stand up and share our mission with the 100–200 people in the room. They gave us a standing ovation. People were inspired that we are encouraging young people to join credit unions and work in the credit union industry. We affirmed that cooperative finance is relevant and worth building for the next generation.
An observer at that session sent me this note: The students are choosing to build. Not because it’s easy. Not because the system makes it straightforward. But because they see a gap between what finance is and what it could be.
An outreach committee is seeking the initial $500,000 capital now required to receive a charter. Junior Mohammad Qureshi from Greensboro, NC, is the Chair for this task.
“I came to UNC on the pre-med track. From a young age, I knew I wanted a career centered on helping people, and becoming a physician felt like the natural path. But early in my sophomore year, I realized I wasn’t happy.
I switched to economics, as i was surrounded by business growing up. But something still felt off. Most business careers prioritize profit over people, and that bothered me. I’d lost my sense of purpose; sold out on doing something meaningful.
When seeing the opportunity to join the startup, I didn’t know much about credit unions, but I’d always heard of them. I researched and something clicked: high-impact finance that puts people first.
This has been one of the most transformative experiences of my time at UNC. Bringing a credit union to campus has become my way of leaving something meaningful behind, proof that purpose and business don’t have to be in conflict.”
This is a more consequential effort than founding one more credit union. It demonstrates the next generation’s belief that coops can make a difference.
Whenever a brand, a product, a company or even fan loyalty created by the founders is not renewed for following generations, consumers’ interest will atrophy and die.
This de novo effort has multiple projects and specific support needs. You can learn about these by contacting Sarah Galdi, Scgaldi@unc.edu or President Shiva Rajbhandari, Shiva.rajbhandari@unc.edu.
The credit union’s website is here. Individuals can make tax exempt donations through CU De Novo, linked here.
Support of this startup will have an impact on campus for students, on the NC credit union system and the public’s perception of coop’s relevance. But most importantly you will feel good knowing you made a difference.
If you have any hesitation, I recommend you talk with one of the founders. That is what convinced me this is a special group who will complete their mission.
What would such an event mean for the coop system?
Whether the termination of new coop charters was due to administrative policy, legislative chartering overhaul, or competitors’ making good on their legal challenges, what would credit union leaders say?
The reality is that those who might aspire for a coop charter will have no voice. The only persons with standing to oppose would be those who already have the benefits of a charter-the members , the employees, directors and senior management. Would would be your reaction?
“No new charters are opening anyway, so how would this be any different?”
“Consolidation will just continue so preserving charters is not a movement priority.”
“We’ll be ok because we have plenty of capital. If necessary, we could even switch charters if the system atrophies.”
“Credit unions were created in a very different era with limited consumer choices. Now there are many options inclding CDFI for underserved communities and low-cost fintech options available to almost anyone.”
“We’d be disappointed. Credit unions have done much good. We still have our charter though. I have more urgent priorities keeping my credit union going, so this would not be a top issue for me.
Finally,” I don’t like shutting the door for others, but what can I do about it? It’s not my problem.”
Denise Wymore, founder of CU De Novo Collective, reports the following new charter results from the past 8 years (2018-2025):
Of the 20 total charters issued, 16 are still active and 4 or 20% are closed.
The distribution by size: 7 are under $1.0 million in assets, 7 are between $1-$10 million, and two are over $10 million. At various times NCUA has reported having at least 90 new charter activities in various stages.
In this same eight years NCUA in it’s 2025 Annual Report (page 165) shows 1,191 total mergers of which only 12 were assisted. That means most mergers are by credit union with adequate capital ratios. Leadership chose to give up their genreations-long charters.
A new charter survival rate of just two per year, would not appear to be a viable response to the loss of independent credit union operations.
By doing nothing about this charter drought, the industry is just accepting the reality of the headline- no new charters- but without any discussion or angst.
Two reasons. No new charters means the industry is dying. One can make all sorts of counter arguments, such as we have more members, more assets, more branches, while average asset size increases to $570 million.
But it is not size, but rather the diversity and applicability of the charter to very different circumstances that makes a coop charter so attractive. Credit unions were never intended to come from a common mold.
In most areas of human endeavor, one of the most powerful ties that bind is “local.” Coop power is unleashed when when human beings show up for one another.
But the reality is that fewer and fewer communities have access to their own locally controlled and focused independent financial cooperative. Decisions about members’ savings, loan priorities and even market presence are made elsewhere.
A dispersed financial operation over multiple states and different communities compromises one of the primary advantages of cooperative design. That does not mean credit unions cannot grow large; however ever increasing size requires careful thought to preserve the strengths of member-owned credit unions.
Secondly, there appears to be from NCUA’s own tally and from reported activity in other financial charters, widespread interest in new financial startups. Certainly, there are multiple groups today that are interested in managing their own financial institution.
The problem may not be on the demand side but rather the “supply” process. That is the regulatory hurdles that requires interested groups to invest years of volunteer time, energy and expense with application steps and then given a start up capital requirement before the charter is active. Just like a bank, only smaller scale.
What if the next credit union revolution were to start on a campus? What if a new generation believed in the fundamentals of cooperative design so strongly they were willing to devote their student years to founding a credit union? And then making it their legacy for all future students?
What if they were so motivated and capable that the facts above did not phase the group even a little?
What might we learn, or re-learn, from their embrace of a cooperative solution for their community? With multiple online financial options available to students, why is a credit union charter needed?
Tomorrow we will meet a group of 31 coop entrepreneurs tailoring a new coop for their generation. I believe it can remind all of the need and ongoing appeal for owning and controlling one’s own financial institution.
This is the group showing the way for the next generation of coop leadership. Will this new era the credit union story start on a campus, versus a mill in Manchester, New Hampshire? Their efforts tomorrow.
Following are two examples of non-profits reaching out to like-minded organizations to improve their institution’s effectiveness for stakeholders. The first example is from Next City in an article : Inside a Kentucky City’s Unusual Experiment in Citizen Led Governance. This is a co-governance model.
The credit union applications seem obvious. For in the early years of a credit union’s efforts the sponsor often participated in co-leadership role.
The best example however, may be the co-governance leadership of the CLF from 1983 through 2008. In these decades, NCUA and the corporate network joined to bring all credit unions access to the liquidity facility. The model was broken by NCUA when it conserved US Central in 2008. The CLF has not functioned in a liquidity role since.
Here is the opening description from the Next City article:
Public trust in government is near historic lows. But Americans’ trust in their local government far outweighs trust in the federal government. It’s been this way since the mid-2000s, when the State of the Nation Project began keeping track. . .
For the past month, 36 randomly-selected residents of Lexington have been meeting regularly to develop and deliberate over policy recommendations for revising Lexington’s charter to produce healthier and more effective local governance.
Marjan Ehsassi, executive director of the Federation for Innovation in Democracy (FIDE) says local co-governance models like these are part of the solution to rebuilding American democracy from the ground up: “People are feeling like, ‘I can control my local [government]. I can control what’s happening locally.’”. . .
Across seven sessions, the assembly members learned about the people and systems that keep Lexington’s roads paved and city hall lights on. They heard from subject matter experts and members of the public. They built mutual trust, changed their minds, and came to difficult compromises.
And when the assembly issued its final recommendations on March 29,2026 members ultimately decided to trust their council representatives enough to recommend a large pay bump, in addition to pushing for increased attendance and accountability requirements. . .
At a time when NCUA is inundating credit unions with almost two dozen reviews of regulations following tradtional bureaucratic processes, this assembly approach might result in mre effective outcomes.
Have you ever attended a strategic planning session where no new ideas came out? There was nothing proposed to get excited about?
A linkedIn post describes a strategic brainstorming effort between a non-profit School the World and Boston University special help group.
Here is the opening: Last night I saw the power of AI, collaboration, creativity, and youthful energy come to life at Hack4Impact BU’s Nonprofit Build-a-thon.
The challenge given the four teams was to create a solution for thinking of ways to sustain engagement with our student service learning volunteers after they return from their week-long trips in Central America. Is there a way to continue to integrate these students in a continuing role in the charity’s educational purpose?
The post describes four strategic options created by the BU teams in 45 minutes of collaborative AI powered research. (link) Each volunteer team outlined very different approaches to continuing the student’s role beyond their one week on the ground at a foreign primary school. Here is one example:
Team Project Social took the idea of how students could use their in-person and online social networks to expand the involvement of students with our mission. I was most excited about the idea they had to connect students in Central America with the volunteers back home in the US through a tutoring interface. They really took their lived experience and applied it to our challenge.
Lexington’s city government and the non-profit School the World, engaged with outside resources from universities to discover better ways for organizational effectiveness. The local universities were not experts in the organizations they assisted.
The co-governance model effort took almost 18 months. The strategic brainstorming session lasted an evening. Both were cooperative, collaborative efforts assisting the leadership of local organizations. Bringing in outsiders, even employing AI, created enthusiasm and ideas often lacking in traditional planning or problem-solving efforts. The city and the non-profit leaders went outside their usual planning efforts.
Can these examples help credit unions go beyond the usual ways of evaluating business strategy and options?
The co-governance process has worked before with credit unions. It was how the 1984 redesign of the NCUSIF was implemented. Today it would seem a novel way to engage members for their insights to credit union strategy. Especially as most boards have opted out of any direct dialogue or engagement with members.
Can new insights for the cooperatives be generated by innovative brainstorming with groups like Boston University’s Hack for Social Impact process? Isn’t this the way cooperatives were initially conceived, by out of he box thinkers?
It is a leader’s deeds, more than words, that create confidence in those who rely on an organization’s performance.
Chairman Hauptman became the only NCUA board member and its primary publicly accountable leader when President Trump fired his two other board members in April 2025. That Presidential executive action is still in litigation.
Hauptman has repeatedly stated that his solo leadership will be business as usual at NCUA even citing previous precedents. One would assume a single point of authority could result in more direct staff outcomes. Constituent credit unions could have clear direction. No need to compromise to gain board approvals.
However Hauptman’s leadership intentions are not clear. Are his priorities to implement executive orders from Trump to show his political fealty? The administration has made no secret of its intent to take a wrecking ball to government agencies.
Or is he motivated by the circumstances of the cooperative system which NCUA regulates?
How will his previous statements as a minority board member shape his current priorities on regulatory burden or the NCUSIF’s financial structure?
He is a lame duck whose term has expired . He has already been nominated to a board position at the PCAOB for twice his $156,000 NCUA salary. Does agency staff have any incentive to implement changes knowing a new leader or full board may be just months in the future?
What interest and capability do Hauptman and his team have in managing Agency outcomes? Or are results staff’s responsibility and he is just an orchestra conductor, waving his verbal policy arms?
It was with great interest, and some trepidation that Chairman Hauptman’s first significant initiative was to implement the President’s executive order to reduce agency headcount by at least 20% in 2025.
Later in the year the agency proclaimed targeted staff cuts had been exceeded. Moreover, NCUA was still fully capable of doing its work even with much reduced staff resources.
On April 1 , 2026, the NCUA’s 2025 Annual Report of almost 200 pages was published. The press release included Chairman Hauptman’s statement: “As promised, we’ve delivered millions in cost savings to credit unions. Our agency-wide effort on efficiencies has paid off, as NCUA will emerge from our reorganization a nimbler, more focused agency. . .”
However a day later Credit Union Times released an analysis that showed there had been zero cost savings, In fact the agency spent more on salaries and benefits than the prior year. Here are some excerpts from the article: NCUA Report Shows Highter Costs for Fewer Workers.
The NCUA’s 2025 annual report released Wednesday showed the agency spent more money on fewer employees last year.
The NCUA went from 1,211 employees on Dec. 31, 2024 to 940 on Dec. 31, 2025 after instituting a voluntary separation program. . . a 23% headcount reduction. . .
The article’s writer created a spread sheet because operating numbers for 2024 had been omitted from the current edition. His analysis showed the following comparison for NCUA’s most recent two years salaries and benefits:
Employee wages and benefits were $121.7 million in 2025, up nearly 10% from $111.1 million in 2024. Those expenses rose 8% to $102.772 million in 2024 as its workforce grew by four employees.
Based on year-end employment, the NCUA spent an average of $129,461 per employee in 2025, up 41% from $91,718 in 2024.If you divide by the year’s average employment (averaging the year’s starting and ending employment), average pay rose 23% to $113,150.
Overall, the NCUA’s operating fund expenses grew 6% to $160.7 million. (bolding added)
The Times article quoted an NCUA spokesperson explaining that there were multiple incentives paid to meet the agency’s staff reduction goals. In essence NCUA had to spend more to save money.
I followed up this explanation across all three funds whose costs are paid by credit unions. So far the trends in total salaries and benefits are exactly the same as in the article-higher costs for fewer employees.
Operating Fund salary and benefits for January 2026 versus 2025:
2026: $ 10,791 million versus 2025: $10.112 million a 6.7% increase.
NCUSIF does not show separate salary and benefits expense. However the OTR for 2026 increased by .1% and presumably the salary pass throughs would show he same increase.
The CLF presented its annual budget at the January 2026 board meeting. The initial slide was highlighted by the statement: CLF’s 2026 Budget is 12% BELOW its 2025 Budget
The CLF will spend less, right? No, instead it will spend more! Through February 2026, salaries and benefits are $329k versus $267k in 2025, or a 23% increase. Not the forecasted message of a cost reduction. This increase funded by almost $1 billion in credit union capital for a facility that has played no role in credit unions since 2008.
NCUA is spending more on salaries and benefits so far in 2026 after a 23% reduction in total headcount at the end of 2025.
The failure to actually reduce expenses shows a lack of management oversight at the highest level of the agency. One of the truisms of government reorganization when delegated to staff, and not overseen by top leadership, is that success in the staff’s terms is not about cutting back, but about getting more.
If Chairman Hauptman’s words about millions of dollars in cost savings to credit unions is not correct from the agency’s own numbers, one has to be skeptical of more subjective claims such as, being a more nimble and focused agency.
If NCUA leadership does not manage their own internal financial trends, what does that suggest about their knowledge of the most critical credit union issues? Are changes in credit union merger payoffs and fintech investments leaving regulators in the dust?
Are the current multiple public announcements of NCUA deregulation proposals any more than agency PR “proceduralism”? That is government pretense for appearing to seek change, but nothing is different in the end.
For if NCUA really sought to reduce burden then the largest, most involved and unsubstantiated rule ever imposed on coops, risk based capital, would be at the top of the “burden” list. Or at a bare minimum resetting the NCUSIF’s NOL at its historical 1.30%. This has been the outcome for the prior four years as shown on page 165 of the Annual Report. But no dividends have been paid to credit unions as board keeps the NOL at 1.33%.
This is Chairman Hauptman’s time at the helm. There are no other board members to appease. He proclaims NCUA is doing business as usual. The question is, what does usual mean?
This could be a special opportunity to align agency priorities with actual, urgent cooperative system needs. Or usual may just be more words, fairy tales, to curry political points or create a flawed impression of leadership.
The flight of Artemis II has captured the attention of the world. The thunderous launch, the flight around the moon’s unseen surface and the pictures of earth floating alone in space.
The voyage is both a technical triumph and a remarkable achievement of human spirit and courage.
Over two centuries earlier, radical technology was being introduced at the beginning of England’s industrial revolution. Wordsworth’s romantic style celebrated the beauty of nature; but he was similarly awed by the potential of these new technical creations.
He wrote of the future hope promised by human inventions. His poetic sensitivity elebrating these innovations could easily portray our spirit as we track the Artemis II voyage. His final stanza seems almost prescient of this deed, especially the use of the word space.
Motion and Means, on land and sea at war
With old poetic feeling, not for this,
Shall ye, by Poets even, be judged amiss!
Nor shall your presence, howsoe’ er it mar
The loveliness of Nature, prove a bar
To the Mind’s gaining that prophetic sense
Of future change, that point of vision, whence
May be discovered what in soul ye are.
In spite of all that beauty may disown
In your harsh features, Nature doth embrace
Her lawful offspring in Man’s art; and Time,
Pleased with your triumphs o’er his brother Space,
Accepts from your bold hands the proffered crown
Of hope, and smiles on you with cheer sublime.
Passion with courage and perseverance can result in extraordinary human accomplishment.
Competitive success as a member of a sports team is particularly memorable. It requires shared effort, not just individual achievement. March Madness is the term for this intensity in the just completed NCAA college basketball national tournament.
But athletic striving extends far beyond basketball.
The following story is about my daughter Alix who returned to compete at the highest level in women’s rowing while also raising a family and building a professional career in credit unions.
Alix’s ultimate competitive accomplishment came March 14-15 in Amsterdam in an international rowing regatta competition, the Heineken Roeivierkamp. The event was conceived in December 1972 by two Dutch rowing coaches to break the monotony of winter training and bring excitement to the early-season rowing.
The regatta’s competition was inspired by the multi-distance format of speed skating and the spectator appeal of the Henley Royal Regatta in England. It is now one of Europe’s most distinctive and enduring rowing competitions.
Held annually in the heart of the city, the course runs through the historic waterways with long head-style stretches combined with shorter sprint segments. The four distances—5000m, 2500m, 750m, and 250m—create a unique, all-around competition for speed and endurance for crews of varying strengths.
In March 2026, the 54th edition drew more than 165 teams with over 400 crews (more than 3,800 rowers) representing 11 European countries plus the US and Canada. Entries spanned elite, student, junior, and masters categories. A minimum average age of 27 determines eligibility of a boat’s crew in the masters division.
Founded in 1869, the Potomac Boat Club (PBC) has long been a cornerstone of rowing in Washington, DC. Its Women’s Sweep program brings together former collegiate athletes and returning rowers who share a commitment to high-level competition and early-morning workouts on the Potomac.
The team’s year-round training mirrors the rhythm of the sport: fall head races such as the Head of the Charles Regatta in Boston; winter training on the erg; spring regattas that build speed and cohesion; and a summer peak at events like the Rowfest (formerly Masters Nationals).
For 2026, PBC’s schedule included two women’s eights (intermediate and masters) and three men’s master sweeps traveling to Amsterdam.
The members of PBC’s Masters 8+ included former college club rowers at Division I institutions and a former US national team member. One of the eight was a Dutch collegiate gold medal rower who inspired the trip.
Master rowers’ minimum age is 27 to enter. PBC masters average was in the low 30’s. Just one rower, Alix, was married and had a family. At 54 years old, Alix’s age was exactly the same number as the of times the Amsterdam regatta has been held.
Alix has 40 years of varied rowing commitments. She first began crew with four years in high school. At the University of Michigan she rowed in the bow monster’s seat in four years of varsity racing.
After earning her degree in Japanese language and literature, she spent a year working at Tokyo Electric Power’s DC office. She went back to Michigan to coach for a year just as the women’s team became part of the University’s athletic department versus a club sponsored team.
She returned to school and received a degree from Johns Hopkins School of Strategic and International studies (SAIS) in Washington DC. Next, she embarked on a three-month round-the-world solo backpacking venture across Australia, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Returning in the fall she took a “temporary job” with Callahan & Associates.
During her graduate school years and early career, she sought coaching opportunities that included positions as an assistant coach at BCC High School in Bethesda, the head coach of the Sidwell Friends high school women’s team, and a stint with a community rowing club.
Alix married Scott Patterson September 15, four days after 9/11. During the next few years, she had two boys while working full time at Callahans. Competitive rowing interests were on hold. The year after her second son was born, she went back to school to earn an MBA from the SAID Business School at Oxford University, taking her family with her.
As her sons went through school she introduced them to the sport. The oldest, Emmett, became a high school varsity rower as a sophomore. That year his DC high school’s Wilson (now Jackson Reed) Crew team won the Scholastic Rowing Association of America (SRAA) – the premier national crew championship for high schools. Although seeded sixth in the final, rowing in the outermost lane, they came from behind to win in the final 200 meters. (link)
Supporting the high school team was a multi-parent responsibility as the school’s athletic administration had no budget to cover the expenses of coaches and boats. Alix served for years on Wilson’s parent volunteer board.
Emmett continued to compete at Cornell University, gaining a seat in the first varsity lightweight eight all four years. Parent encouragement and support was still vital and included many weekends traveling to regattas.
While involved as a parent during the last decade, Alix had not rowed competitively for almost 30 years. Then, as both boys went to college, she tried out and became a member of the PBC masters rowing program. In February the coach chose her to be in PBC’s senior masters boat for the Amsterdam regatta.
Alix rowed in the 6th seat, as part of the engine room, traditionally the team’s strongest rowers. Four races in a weekend were chaotic yet colorful and mixed with fun–plenty of free Heineken!
The result: After the two days of international competition, PBC’s women’s varsity placed 4th out of nine boats in their division and 9th out of all 44 women’s boats entered. A record setting outcome by any standard.
Alix’s next competition is the 10-mile Credit Union Cherry Blossom run in DC on Sunday, April 12 at 7:30am. Emmett, while now working full-time, coaches his former DC high school’s third varsity boy’s rowing team in their early morning workouts.
I share Alix’s rowing Odyssey as a proud parent (Alix’s mom died when she was 13) who has seen the ups and downs of this rowing quest. Including the quixotic drive to compete again at midlife, starting the cycle of 4:00 am wakeups for workouts.
But seeing her sheer joy as she recounted the Amsterdam weekend made it all seem worthwhile.
Passions give our lives purpose and often endless challenge. We celebrate and learn from the examples of what personal motivation can achieve. These examples restore our hope in the power of people to make a difference, both in their own or in others’ lives.
Now that the ides of March have passed, it is time to pay attention to events in April, past and present.
On this day in 1917, the United States officially entered World War I. President Woodrow Wilson tried to keep the U.S. out of the war, even after a German U-boat sunk the passenger ship Lusitania, until British intelligence intercepted a secret German communication to Mexico. Apparently, Germany had promised Mexico their former territory in the US if Mexico would support the German cause. (Source:; Garrison Keilor’s Writer’s Almanac)
See the details in the Zimmermann telegram Wikipedia writeup.
From Endymion
Book I
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases, it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.
Therefore, on every morrow, are we wreathing
A flowery band to bind us to the earth,
Spite of despondence, of the inhuman dearth
Of noble natures, of the gloomy days,
Of all the unhealthy and o’er-darkened ways
Made of our searching; yes, in spite of all,
Some shape of beauty moves away the pall
From our dark spirits.
Excerpt from “Endymion” Book I by John Keats.
Or the beauty of song from Ukrainian Easter service.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZwLwyDqFTs)
The 18 month no layoff should be little assurance. BECU needs those employees until they get on the same system. After they do, and when the SAFE CEO leaves at 18 months, there won’t be local leadership and no one to protect the local employees and community. Since BECU’s expense issue is so severe, there will be a lot of job reductions in CA.