Search Results

< Back Dealing with Divisive Directors Jennie Boden Jun 27, 2023 Honor the principle of democratic member control even when you need to remove a board member. Like a lot of things in life, governance challenges seem to come in threes. There was the year that we had three clients struggling with their representative boards. Last summer, the trials were three different mergers and acquisitions. This spring, three of our clients have been grappling with how to hold a problematic board member accountable. And not just problematic board members, but very problematic ones. We’ve seen this before—and not just in threes. Let me begin by saying that, as a believer in exceptional governance, I value the cooperative principle that “credit unions are democratic organizations owned and controlled by their members. One board member equals one vote, with equal opportunity for participation in setting policies and making decisions.” But sometimes you run into a board member whose presence completely derails the democratic process. What to do when removing such a member would actually improve governance, the operation of the board and contribute to stronger organizational outcomes? The Principle of Democratic Member Control: Pretty Drastic The democratic member control principle drives three of the paths available to credit union boards when they believe that it’s time for one among them to leave their ranks. (These are the options available to federally-chartered credit unions as outlined in National Credit Union Administration federal credit union standard bylaws. Additional options may be made available for state-chartered credit unions by their regulators.) Article VI. Board of Directors, Section 8. Attendance and removal. a. If a director or a credit committee member, if applicable, fails to attend regular meetings of the board or credit committee, respectively, for 3 consecutive months, (choose one of the following) ____ or 4 meetings within a calendar year, or ____ 4 meetings within any 12 consecutive months or otherwise fails to perform any significant duties as a director or a credit committee member, the board may declare the office vacant and fill the vacancy as provided in the bylaws. Article IX. Supervisory Committee Section 5. Powers of supervisory committee—removal of directors and credit committee members. By unanimous vote, the supervisory committee may suspend any director, board officer, or member of the credit committee. In the event of a suspension, the supervisory committee must call a special meeting of the members to act on the suspension. They must hold the meeting at least 7 but no more than 14 days after the suspension. The chair of the committee acts as chair of the meeting unless the members select another person to act as chair. Article XVI. General Section 3. Removal of directors and committee members. Notwithstanding any other provisions in these bylaws, any director or committee member of this credit union may be removed from office by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present at a special meeting called for the purpose, but only after an opportunity has been given to be heard. If member votes at a special meeting result in the removal of all directors, the supervisory committee immediately becomes the temporary board of directors and must follow the procedures in Article IX, Section 3. These are drastic paths to have to take, and they put into play reputational risks for both the board member and the credit union. But there are other options besides the most drastic ones. Other Pathways, Starting With Accountability The name of the game, ultimately, is accountability—setting clear roles and responsibilities through the development of both board member and officer job descriptions (I encourage you to develop job descriptions for the supervisory/audit committee chair and members too); outlining expectations for behavior in a board member covenant and even a code of ethics that applies to everyone throughout the credit union, from the board to the tellers; and implementing accountability mechanisms to ensure that everyone is doing their job within the boundaries of the covenant and the code. But what do you do when that fails you? Here are some tried and true steps that you can take, in increasing order of seriousness: Solicit the help of the board member’s trusted peer (or peers) for a private conversation to address the behavior. Schedule a formal meeting between the board member, the chair and another board officer to address the behavior. Outline the offending behavior in a written reprimand letter, asking the board member to correct their behavior immediately. Call for a written apology from the board member to those offended. Require formal sensitivity/or related content training. Prevent the board member from participating in any trainings, conferences or seminars paid for by the credit union until select steps (such as those outlined above) are complete and the behaviors are corrected. Provide a copy of the written reprimand letter to the governance and nominations committee to inform the nominations process. Institute peer-to-peer evaluations and provide a copy of the board member’s results to the governance and nominations committee to inform the nominations process. And for especially serious cases: Stipulate that the board member will be formally censured or that their resignation would be called for unless select steps (such as those outlined above) are complete and the behaviors are corrected. Note to the board member that formal censures and/or a vote for their resignation will appear in the credit union’s public minutes. It’s Worth the Effort to Manage Divisive Directors I can tell you that all our clients who have adopted any number of the steps above did feel a sense of relief ultimately, as hard as it might have been. In most instances, the board members simply resigned, knowing that it was best for them as individuals and ultimately for their credit unions. While no process is ideal, and we at Quantum Governance certainly want you to honor and adhere to the principle of Democratic Member Control more than anything, sometimes a bully or undemocratic individual acting in bad faith needs to be stopped. Sometimes, that board member who refuses to adhere to the credit union’s policies must simply be shown that their behavior is unacceptable. And sometimes, their behavior becomes so antithetical to the very essence of a cooperative that you don’t have much of a choice. Previous Next

Michael Daigneault Founder & Lead Consultant Michael is a renowned expert on governance, strategy and ethics and has channeled this more than 35 years of expertise into a uniquely personable, engaging and authentic consulting and presentation style. Michael along with his wife founded Quantum Governance over a decade ago with the mission to improve the effectiveness of board and executive leadership through governance and strategy. Michael is a nationally recognized keynote speaker and published author on governance, strategy and ethics in both the credit union and nonprofit fields. Prior to founding Quantum Governance, Michael was President of the Ethics Resource Center (ERC) – the nation’s oldest, independent ethics center. During his tenure, the ERC launched the ERC Fellows Program; developed ethics centers in the United Arab Emirates, South Africa and Colombia; and spearheaded the rebirth of the National Business Ethics Survey. Michael also served as the Executive Director of the American Inns of Court Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to enhancing the skills, ethics, civility and professionalism of judges and lawyers. Michael is a three-time graduate of Georgetown University, holding a B.A. from the College in Philosophy, and both a J.D. and a Master’s Degree from the Law Center. He lives in Virginia with his family. Back

< Back On Being the Female Chair Leading a Predominately Male Board Gisele Manole Aug 25, 2022 Two female board leaders share their experiences and advice for promoting good governance—especially, but not only, as representatives of a minority demographic. Being in a leadership role—as a credit union board chair, for example—can be lonely at times. Sitting in the chair’s seat certainly puts you in a place of distinction. After all, you have been selected from among your fellow directors to lead them in their leadership role. So, consider the task of leading when you are from a traditionally underrepresented demographic—and say, for the purposes of this conversation, you are a woman leading a predominantly male board. I recently had the chance to connect with two women who shared with me some leadership advice for other women facing just this situation. What they said wasn’t at all what I expected. I anticipated hearing their perspective on having to do it better, faster and smarter than their male counterparts. But instead, their words struck a more nuanced and universal tone that stretched beyond gender differences. Don’t Wait to Be Invited A former CUES board member, Gerrianne “Winky” Burks can count herself among the trailblazers in the industry. After a 40-year career at $4.3 billion Northwest Federal Credit Union , Herndon, Virginia, the last five of which she served as CEO, she currently serves as the board chair. Burks’ advice is this: “Don’t wait to be invited to participate on a board or committee. You may be in the minority as a woman, but you bring a perspective that holds real value. “It’s so different now than when I started out,” Burks observes. “Now there is greater value placed on having a different perspective from the rest of the group. “I followed a male board chair, and frankly, I just did things a little differently than he did,” she adds. “Our communication styles, for example: My meetings may run a little longer, because I really want to hear from everyone in the room. I feel that is important. Neither style is better than the other, and the credit union has benefited from our different styles for many years.” Change Things Just Enough CUES member Janet Burgett Martin, board chair of $625 million Copper State Credit Union in Phoenix, has spent the last two years in the role of chair and recommends changing things up too. “For those new to the board chair position, I highly recommend you change the agenda so that the board understands that there’s new leadership.” Martin shares that she added a “mission moment” at the beginning of board meetings to recognize individual staff accomplishments. “This could be a member letter thanking an employee for excellent service or an award an employee received. It starts our meeting off on a positive note for both the board and staff in attendance.” When faced with assumptions or stereotyping, Martin recommends dealing with those challenges head-on when they first present themselves. Don’t wait to see if the presumption affirms itself, she advises. Find your voice and address it immediately and directly. “In my experience, when you make your expectations clear, presumptions correct themselves quickly. I am very direct but I also lead with compassion and enthusiasm,” she says. Both Burks and Martin stress the notion of being authentic. Burks says that while it may seem obvious, “[The other directors] don’t know what you know. I think that women have gotten much more comfortable in presenting their own thoughts. I pay attention to our board meetings being a place where everyone’s thoughts and ideas are invited.” While Martin encourages all board members to participate to make meetings more productive, she says “[I] always put it upon myself to be prepared by studying the full packet.” Participation requires preparation, and strong leaders model behaviors that they expect from others, she says. Add Your Takeaways to This Starter List As more and more women engage in credit union board service and rise to leadership roles within the industry, their collective learning will continue to grow. Here are some takeaways for developing leaders. Contribute your own advice in the comments section below. Don’t wait to be invited. Share your thoughts and perspectives now! Change things up and be intentional about it. Be authentic and clear in your expectations. And then hold your colleagues to them. Be prepared and model the commitment and behaviors you expect from your colleagues. Previous Next

< Back Gender Equity In The Boardroom: We're Not Done Yet Jennie Boden Aug 25, 2023 Boards still have work to do to support their female directors and wider DEI&B efforts. Gender politics, like all politics, can be polarizing. At the risk of taking a polarizing position, I can't ignore a string of recent encounters that prompt the question: Would that have happened if I (or she) were a man? If you’ve read my posts before, you may know I regret that as a society we still need a publication entitled Advancing Women , but I’ve come to realize that it’s an imperative. If we don’t call out the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) gender biased actions that minimize the voices of women, it’s akin to deferring to only the male perspective. After observing a recent credit union board meeting, I watched with concern as a female board member walked out with her head hung low. Later, I spoke with her as a part of our formal assessment process. I learned then that the board chair—a man—had admonished her about her behavior in the meeting—behavior that hadn’t even registered a raised eyebrow with me (and I’ve conducted hundreds of meeting observations over the years and seen and heard plenty of eyebrow-raising behavior). It’s interesting to also note that a male director had spoken very rudely to a fellow board member in that same meeting, and I don’t believe he received feedback from the chair regarding his behavior. While with another client, I witnessed a long list of follow-up and action items being delegated to the only female on the board, prompting a hearty round of laughs from her male colleagues. I, too, have had my own experiences in this regard. For example, I have recently been challenged by men both about my presentation and facilitation style, correcting my cadence and tone. These conversations are impossible to imagine if I were male. In these instances, I wondered: Would these men have acted in the same way toward us if we were men? The informal poll I’ve taken, among both men and women, resulted in a resounding “No.” Don’t Let DEI&B Efforts Disappear While gender is just one of the many elements of diversity, these three recent experiences tell me that a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging remains vital. And even more so now, given that LinkedIn released a report last year that found the hiring of chief diversity officers dropped in 2022 after “experiencing significant growth in 2020 and 2021.” An article on the Society for Human Resource Management’s website referenced the LinkedIn study and quoted Amy Hull, director and head of DE&I at Paycor, a global leader in human capital. Hull “said the LinkedIn and Revelio data shows that the pledge to impact change was not followed by genuine effort.” Even our own research at Quantum Governance suggests that our colleagues in the credit union space may not really value demographic diversity. One of our recent studies found that only 35% of credit union board members are women, compared to 51% of the total adult population in the United States. And when we asked those in the credit union community (board and supervisory/audit committee members, CEOs and members of senior management) what they valued most in their boardrooms, demographic diversity ranked sixth out of 13 . What’s of real interest, though, is that for two years running, Filene researchers Quinetta Roberson, Ph.D., and McKenzie Preston found that “creating governance and accountability systems” around DEI “are paramount to the development of a sustainable approach to DEI that activates real change and drives financial performance.” In the previous year’s study , those same researchers also noted that “diversity may create advantages in terms of market growth, enhanced member experiences, risk management and increased strategic performance. Yet … it is not enough to simply have diversity. Effective solutions for building and maintaining fair and inclusive work environments are needed to leverage the potential for DEI to achieve its performance objectives and develop sustained competitive advantage.” And, I would add, to truly achieve change. I will admit some people do need some coaching on their delivery, and I am always open to learning. Additionally, the board chair is certainly in a position to insist on civility in all manner of dialogue and address situations where it is lacking. However, it’s critical to apply “the rules” unilaterally—to provide a forum where every voice and perspective is heard and valued. Women serving on credit union boards are, like their male colleagues, professionals. They are not supporting members, taskmasters and coordinators. Their roles and responsibilities include the same level of strategic thinking, planning and inquiry as their male colleagues. And before you give a woman subjective and stylistic advice on her self-expression, consider whether you would be so bold as to provide the same advice or subjective feedback to a man. Previous Next

< Back A Deep Definition of Governance Michael Daigneault Jun 3, 2015 How does your board use its formal and informal authority for the good of the credit union? While there are as many definitions as governance as there are consultants in this world, here at Quantum Governance , we believe that governance ultimately deals with the legitimate distribution of authority throughout a system--whether it’s a country, a corporation or a nonprofit like a credit union. We believe governance is ultimately how organizational leaders use both the formal and the informal authorities vested in them. How they think, make decisions, develop strategy, persuade, develop future leaders, structure their board and execute initiatives. How they communicate with key stakeholders ... with their staff … with their customers … with their marketplace … with their constituents … and even with each other. Good governance also applies to how your board oversees your CEO; tracks its own performance and the CU's results; conducts its budgeting process; allocates its resources; addresses membership or constituent needs; moves in and through its community; adheres to ethics and financial integrity standards. And, yes, good governance is even about thinking in a genuinely strategic manner. There are some who say “good governance” centers on legal issues--bylaws and conflict-of-interest policies--and how an organization’s board oversees its audit process. But at Quantum Governance, we ask our clients to look much deeper, to how well the board is doing on the many aspects of governance outlined above. Previous Next

< Back Board Size Michael Daigneault Jul 28, 2015 There's no one-size-fits-all answer to how many directors you need. One of the questions I’m asked most often by credit union directors and CEOs is this: “What’s the best size for our credit union board?” There’s no fast and easy answer but, essentially, you want your board to be large enough so you can appropriately govern and help lead the credit union, and yet small enough so you function effectively as a cohesive leadership team. For your credit union, what size might that be? Our experience is that credit union boards of seven, nine or 11 appear to be most effective. Here is the essence of our reasoning: Boards of five or fewer are efficient but committee work, diversity and inclusiveness may suffer. With five or fewer members, the work of the board tends to be accomplished as a “committee of the whole.” This framework may be sufficient for certain small or relatively uncomplicated credit unions, but it quickly becomes a very real and limiting factor when considering how much work a small board can realistically accomplish. While we do not believe credit union boards should have an excessive number of committees, it does increase the board’s capacity to accomplish vital work when directors can divide themselves into a few committees and task forces. Having committees and task forces also helps develop a somewhat larger group of volunteers who can be potentially called upon to become board members in the future. Additionally, credit unions are cooperatives of many different types of people. What very small boards of five or less offer in terms of ease and efficiency, they typically lose in terms of diversity and inclusiveness. This lack of diversity is evident not only in terms of gender, nationality and race, but also will likely result in a lack of individuals who are of a different age or who can bring additional, valuable skills, perspectives, experiences, and the like to the board’s efforts. Boards of 12 or more can be complicated to manage, can pose challenge to trust-building, can be more expensive to run, and can make it harder to gain true consensus. Boards of this size do exist in the credit union community, but they are rare. They often arise for such reasons as : (1) mergers and acquisitions that combine two boards; (2) a desire to offer more members the opportunity to serve; (3) a lack of will or desire to “kick” long-term colleagues off the board as new members are added; and (4) a “representative mindset” that supports having a board with folks from a variety of stakeholder groups or geographic areas. If your board is on the larger size, do not let the executive committee become a “board within the board.” It will upset the balance of power, and often results in an “insider” vs. an “outsider” dynamic that can cause some directors to be too passive or disengage altogether. In all, size is a nuanced question, with a nuanced answer. The exact size that’s best can shift from credit union to credit union depending on many factors, such as the role the board is playing, the number of board committees, the complexity of the credit union, the history of the credit union, and the quality of its leadership. In the end, keep in mind that the role of your credit union’s board is to govern in constructive partnership with your CEO. In most circumstances (as long as you remain in the sweet spot of between seven and 11 members), the exact number of board members ends up being less important than your directors’ collective ability to work effectively, add real value and help move the mission of your credit union forward. Previous Next

< Back To Pay or Not To Pay Michael Daigneault Sep 22, 2015 Deciding whether to compensate credit union and CUSO directors is a hard question. There’s been a lot of buzz recently about whether credit union board members should be compensated. For a long time, this notion was taboo. For many, it literally seemed to go against the very essence of a cooperative credit union. Then the idea of compensation seemed to shift from being taboo to being merely uncommon. Though federal credit unions can provide compensation only to one member of their board, usually the treasurer, some state-chartered credit unions may compensate more broadly. A recent study published by Filene Research Institute (and underwritten by Quantum Governance and CUES, among others) notes that there has been a new and significant shift, with many beginning to support the notion of paying their boards, “with some even believing that doing so would soon be crucial to their ability to attract and retain effective board members.” The study, aptly titled Should Credit Unions Pay Their Directors? , goes on to report that “At 145 credit unions in 12 states, directors earn somewhere between $60 and $37,597 annually.” The report’s author, Matt Fullbrook, manager of the Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics and Board Effectiveness at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management shares that while “In most states, credit union director compensation is dwarfed by fees paid to directors of commercial banks …the pay trend is slowly catching on, especially among large credit unions.” On the one hand, such a trend makes some sense. Credit unions deserve engaged board members who feel appreciated and perhaps, at times, fairly compensated for their significant efforts. They bear significant burdens. They are, for example, legally responsible in ways that even the CEO isn’t. And I don’t have to tell you that there is a lot at stake: millions of dollars in assets for most credit unions and even billions for an increasing number in this age of consolidation. Credit unions need the best and the brightest board members to meet the tremendous challenges of the day, but it has become increasingly hard for many credit unions to recruit high-quality, dedicated directors. If compensation can help in that regard, perhaps it is one tool that should be utilized. Yet on the other hand …there is a rich tradition of board members serving their fellow members in a voluntary capacity. Indeed, you and your colleagues are in the business of running a cooperative credit union on behalf of your members. What About CUSO Boards? Like a credit union board member, directors of credit union service organizations are tasked with providing good governance, effective oversight, strategic vision and the like. But unlike credit union board members, they are guiding for-profit entities. And therein lies a very significant difference. CUSOs were created as “outside-of-the-box” business solutions – creative ways for credit unions to effectively address effective business needs. One argument for compensating a CUSO board certainly is that in order to attract and retain the most creative, “out-of-the-box” thinkers, compensation is a must. But as in the credit union community, there are also cons to the practice of compensating CUSO board members, many of whom are credit union CEOs themselves. That con list includes: the argument that the CEOs are already handsomely compensated by “the community”; that while the CUSO is a for-profit entity, it exists to serve a cooperative community and should, therefore, follow cooperative principles; and that it may send the wrong message to credit union members or the community, among others. The long and the short of it is this: There is no simple answer to the question for either credit unions or CUSOs. The notion of compensating a CUSO board (despite its for-profit status) can be just as perplexing. What I can tell you is that for both credit union boards and CUSO boards, answering the compensation question does require a board that doesn’t shy away from asking the hard questions. All of us should consider the long-term implications, as well as pros and cons of compensation at the board level, and dig deeper to find common ground on this challenging issue. Previous Next

Strategy Resources Double Your Fun: Tracking Strategic Planning For a Brighter Future Read More In Search Of The Strategic Board Discover how credit union boards can become agile strategic partners and lead their institutions to future success. Read More The Need for Evolution: One of Today’s Central Governance Challenges If your credit union has grown have you re-considered the balance of authority between your board and CEO? Read More Why Directors Are Chess Pieces, Not Checkers Every director should be ‘chair material’—even if they wouldn’t make a good chair. Read More The Concept of ‘Constructive Partnership’ Collaboration, more than control, fuels today’s high-performing boards. Read More Coming Together for the Common Good Consider multiple perspectives and build consensus— not unanimity—to ensure your CU is making good decisions. Read More An Antidote For Shifting Sands Your strategic planning process is as important as the plan and should be ongoing. Read More Advice from My Hero Six key responsibilities of every board, gleaned from my conversation with world-renowned expert Ram Charan. Read More 5 Data-Driven Recommendations for Governance Success Core Recommendations from a New Report Read More Help Your New Chair Move Up Here's what a top board leader needs to know to be successful—and what you need to know to help. Read More ERM Is Everyone's Responsibility 10 steps to take to ensure your leadership is doing all it can to identify and manage risk Read More Moving Beyond The Strategic 'Moment' Incorporate strategic planning and thinking into your routine discourse. Read More Fiduciary AND Strategic Thought Needed Finding the right balance between operational oversight and visionary dialogue in your boardroom is worth the struggle. Read More

The Michael G. Daigneault Excellence in Governance Grant The Michael G. Daigneault Excellence in Governance Grant honors our Co-Founder Michael G. Daigneault and his continued commitment to developing exceptional leadership in mission-driven organizations through governance excellence. This grant initiative aims to strengthen the governance effectiveness of nonprofits and credit unions, providing them with the tools and advice they need to drive positive, lasting change throughout their organizations and enhance their impact on the communities they serve. The grant provides one credit union ($250M in assets or less) and one charitable nonprofit (operating budget of less than $5 million annually) with a pro bono Governance Assessment inclusive of the following: a proprietary online governance survey a report comprised of survey data and expert recommendations based on survey results a facilitated workshop for the board and executive leadership resources such as policies, job descriptions, charters and more How to Apply Guidelines Before you apply, take a look at the eligibility requirements and timeline. Funding Guidelines & Timeline Application The application window for the Michael G. Daigneault Excellence in Governance Grant is May 4, 2026 through June 30, 2026. You can start your application, save it and return to complete it at your own pace. Click Here to Apply Today Questions? If you have any questions, please use the form below or email gisele@quantumgovernance.net Contact Us About Michael G. Daigneault Michael brings more than 45 years of governance, strategy and ethics expertise to boards and C-suite executive leadership of nonprofits, credit unions, governmental entities and other organizations of all shapes and sizes. He is credited for developing a proven methodology for assessing governance and strategy, including a proprietary survey tool for a variety of organizational types. Prior to founding Quantum Governance, Michael was a Senior Governance Consultant for BoardSource studying and advising nonprofit board leadership and Director of Advisory Services at DeLeon & Stang, a preeminent business management and accounting firm. Michael was the Founder and President of Ethics, Inc. – a private consulting and training firm specializing in business ethics for the private, nonprofit and public sectors. He also served as President of the Ethics Resource Center (ERC) in Washington D.C. Michael is a three-time graduate of Georgetown University, holding a B.A. in Philosophy from the College and a J.D. and a Master of Law from the Law Center. He was the first person to graduate from the Law Center with a Master of Law with a concentration in Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility. A lifelong learner, Michael went on to complete the Corporate Governance Training Program at the Columbia Business School in 2021. Statement of Confidentiality: We will keep all information learned in this application process confidential. No information will be disclosed to any third party unless compelled to do so by law or regulation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we may disclose information to our authorized contractors with an obligation to maintain confidentiality (e.g., Alchemer and data entry personnel) and personnel with a “need to access'' such information in order to review the grant applications.

Jennie Boden Managing Principal & Lead Consultant Jennie brings more than 30 years of experience in governance, strategy, leadership, and development to the field. Jennie leads a team of consultants, topical specialists and other experts to meet the governance and strategic needs of the firm’s clients. For nearly a decade, Jennie has been the catalyst for developing countless tools, products and services, as well as alliances with the firm’s strategic partners. Jennie has led complex governance and strategic planning engagements with boards and executives at organizations as varied as CUES, CUNA, Hudson Valley Credit Union, Redwood Credit Union, Rivermark Community Credit Union, Washington State Employees Credit Union, Camphill Village, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Con Edison, the Friends of the National Arboretum, the Gerontological Society of America, Morgan Stanley, Queens County Farm, the Tipping Point Community and so many more. She is widely published in CU Management, and she authors regular columns for Governance Matters and Advancing Women. Jennie served as Executive Director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MCASA) and as Vice President of First Candle’s National Campaign for Cribs funded with a $3 million grant by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The organization generated more than $23 million in revenue during her tenure. Jennie has held a director-level position at the National Mental Health Association, overseeing $3.5 million in corporate contributions and started her career as the Director of External Relations for the Ethics Resource Center in Washington D.C. Jennie earned a B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley and lives in New Hampshire with her family. Back

< Back Parity In The Boardroom Takes Patience, Planning And Process Jennie Boden Jun 25, 2021 But putting in the effort can definitely make a difference. I have to admit I’m not a big fan of publications like Advancing Women . I mean, I’m honored to write for it, but why, after all these years, do we still have to have special publications with a special focus on advancing women? I mean, really. You’d think we’d be further along by now. Women started pursuing equality way back in 1850, when the first convention for women’s rights was held in Seneca Falls, New York. Sixty-eight women and 32 men attended the convention that demanded a woman’s right to vote in the U.S.; sadly, the convention didn’t address the racism and oppression faced by Black women and other women of color. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony and 14 other brave women were the first of their gender to cast votes in a U.S. election—and they were arrested for it. It wasn’t until 1919 that the 19th amendment was signed into law. And it passed the Senate by only two votes. Worse yet, it wasn’t until 1965 that Black and Latinx women were able to vote. That was the year before I was born. And today, so many voting rights are being threatened and even rolled back in some states. And that’s just the challenging path to voting. Women Leading Businesses A 2018 study by Deloitte and The Alliance for Board Diversity found that women held only 25% of board seats in Fortune 100 companies. And just more than 3% of bank CEOs are women. In The State of Credit Union Governance 2020 , published by Quantum Governance and partners CUES and the David and Sharon Johnston Centre for Corporate Governance Innovation, we reported that the average credit union board has nine members, three of whom (36%) are women. This is better than the Fortune 100 companies by 11%. 2021 data from CUNA shows that a majority (51%) of credit union CEOs are women – more than 15 times higher than the rate of women CEOs at banks (3%); among U.S. banks and credit unions between $1 billion to $5 billion in assets, 13% of credit union CEOs are women versus only 2% of bank CEOs; at both banks and credit unions, women CEOs are relatively more common at smaller institutions; and a board member of a credit union is about twice as likely to be a woman—33% of credit union board members are women as opposed to 16% of members of bank boards. We’re clearly doing something right in the credit union community. But we’re not there yet. A soon-to-be-released special report from The State of Credit Union Governance series, COVID-19 and DEI: Revolution & Evolution in the Credit Union Community , found that while more than a third (34%) of credit union board members in the U.S. are women, that percentage falls well short of the total percentage of women in the country (51%)—a difference of 17 percentage points. I guess I have to admit, as much as I wish parity of all types were just inherently so, that if we’re going to make more progress, we need to do so intentionally and consciously—that gender parity, like any parity, doesn’t just occur naturally. That’s why we need publications like Advancing Women and organizations like Women in Governance , headquartered in Montréal, Québec. The nonprofit was founded to “support women in their leadership development, career advancement and access to Board seats.” In partnership with McKinsey& Company , Women in Governance developed a parity certification program that is now being offered in the U.S. The program helps “organizations increase the representation of women in sectors where they have historically been underrepresented, as well as in executive leadership positions.” It’s a shame that we need a parity certification program to ensure that women are seen as being as capable as men to hold leadership positions within an organization, just as it’s a shame to think that we need laws to combat racial bias in policing. But we do. And there’s proof from other fields that, with focus and intentionality on those areas where we want to have a positive impact, we can make a difference. A Success Story From Science In 1966, only 2% of the total doctoral graduates in the physics disciplines were women, and that number increased marginally to just 5% for those graduating with a bachelor’s degree. Leaders in the field, including at the American Institute of Physics and the American Physical Society, spearheaded a program led from the board-level focused on gender parity. While that’s still a work in progress, they have experienced tremendous success over the years. Source: APS125 By 2018, both percentages had risen to 22%, still below the overall percentage of women in the U.S., but a vast improvement. While it’s disheartening to think that gender parity, and all types of parity, aren’t just inherently a given, we can be reassured that with focused intent and effective processes and programs put into place, we can make a difference—even if it takes a little longer than we might like. Previous Next

< Back The Importance Of A Truly Independent Supervisory Committee Michael Daigneault and Jennie Boden Feb 25, 2020 If you’re shifting to an ‘audit’ committee instead, be careful not to sacrifice independent oversight at the altar of efficiency. We’ve seen an important trend relevant to a good number of state credit unions nationwide. It’s one of those quiet trends that we believe could—in the long run—have significant governance consequences, perhaps for the entire credit union community. It is the transition of a good number of supervisory committees to the form of an audit committee. And with more state regulations allowing such a transition, more and more credit unions are taking the opportunity to make it. While federally chartered credit unions are still required to maintain a supervisory committee, many state regulators have allowed the credit unions they regulate to operate with an audit committee made up entirely of board members, and the number of states (and credit unions) moving in this direction is growing. Further, some federally chartered credit unions, for various strategic reasons, are converting to state charters, thereby opening up the door to even more credit unions making the shift to an audit committee. The difference between supervisory committees and audit committees can at times be significant, and those differences often come down to two key factors: the scope of authority granted to such committees who is appointed or elected to them—that is, their composition Committee Authority Supervisory committees at federally chartered credit unions can exercise certain types of authority over credit union’s leadership, and the National Credit Union Administration’s Supervisory Committee Guide for Federal Credit Unions outlines two key actions a supervisory committee can take, namely: Suspending by unanimous vote any board member, executive officer or credit committee member Calling “a special meeting (by a majority vote) to consider any violation of the: a) FCU Act; b) Rules and Regulations; c) Charter; d) Bylaws; e) Any practice considered unsafe or unauthorized.” This can result in a board member officer or credit committee member being removed. The reality is, of course, that very few supervisory committees take either of these actions—even when perhaps they should. (Sadly, we have witnessed instances when we believe a credit union’s supervisory committee should probably have suspended or meaningfully investigated a board or committee member but didn’t.) The important thing to remember here is that they could take such actions in the interest of the credit union and its members if supervisory committees were properly charted, effectively trained as to their responsibilities and courageously led. The power to suspend or initiate a process to remove “any board member, executive officer or credit committee member” is a rarely used but still meaningful check on credit union leaders from engaging in acts that are unauthorized, unsafe or contrary to established laws and regulations. It is a far from a perfect means of deterring such misconduct, but when carried out thoughtfully and courageously by a determined supervisory committee, it can help save a credit union and its members from disaster. To be fair, some states give audit committees the same authority to oversee board activities as a federal supervisory committee, but some don’t. What happens when an audit committee does not retain the authority to oversee the board? Then one leg of the credit union’s three-legged governance stool has essentially been removed. Only two “legs” now remain: (1) the board (of which the audit committee is now a part); and, (2) management. In such instances, the three-part system of governance-related checks and balances has simply disappeared. This unique authority in the credit union realm to oversee the board may not, however, be the essential differentiator between the two types of committees. The real difference may lie in their composition. Committee Composition Traditional supervisory committees (both federally and state-chartered) that follow the federal credit union model are almost exclusively composed of members of the credit union who are not board members. The exception to this is that federal credit unions may have one board member appointed as a member of a supervisory committee. We find that this does happen sometimes but is not particularly common. In contrast, audit committee rosters are almost always composed of board members. This is often seen as efficient, more harmonious and certainly much simpler. What it gains in efficiency, however, it may lose in objectivity and independence. One must ask, for example, how likely it is that a committee composed of fellow board members will find fault with their own board’s governance efforts or even that of their individual board colleagues. Yes, in extreme cases it may still take action, but remember that’s if—and only if—they are in a state that still grants them the authority to do so. If one of the primary goals of both supervisory and audit committees is to serve as part of a system of checks and balances on board and management, it is little wonder that outright eliminating or even psychologically constraining such a role would result in significantly greater efficiency, harmony and simplicity. Therein, of course, lies the very danger traditional supervisory committees were designed to protect against! Effective supervisory committees play a vital role in the overall governance of the credit union and an adequate degree of independence must be a cornerstone of their design. Be careful not to sacrifice one of the foundation stones of the credit union governance system at the altar of efficiency. Previous Next