This commentary was written by Barbara Conrey, a VSECU member, a retired state college professor and an architect who has lived in Montpelier for the past 35 years.
As a member of Vermont State Employees Credit Union, I received the ballot for the proposed merger with NEFCU. Being undecided as to my vote, I read the enclosed 12-page plan of merger carefully, and received several unwelcome surprises.
The reason for the merger seemed to be that we need more members to remain competitive while continuing to “offer a local alternative… in touch with the financial needs of its membership.” So just whom would that membership be? The document states there are 71,106 VSECU members and 95,701 NEFCU members; all VSECU members and an unknown number of NEFCU are Vermonters.
The total membership of a combined credit union would be 166,807 people, equivalent to 36% of the Vermont population 18 years or older. So the combined membership would represent a significant portion of the eligible population if only Vermonters were considered. Therefore, the “new” credit union must look for members outside Vermont. In reading information in the press, I understood that the “field of membership” would be Vermont, New Hampshire, and perhaps other New England states. How wrong I was.
Only in the plan of merger document are we told that the NEFCU “field of membership” includes (since a 2014 merger) any “persons who live, work, worship, volunteer, or attend school” in 4 counties in Michigan. These counties are 4 of the most populous in that large state (including Detroit), and combined have more than 3.3 million residents over the age of 18 (according to recent census data) who could become members. In addition, it includes an unknown number of people associated with Michigan BlueCross BlueShield and other entities who could be eligible for membership.
Why is that a concern? If the combined credit union wants to increase membership, where will it look? For whom will it tailor its services? Not for little Vermont, but rather for its much greater market potential in Michigan. The “…financial needs of its membership” will become the needs of the potential members in Michigan, not here. I moved away from one of those counties in Michigan; I certainly don’t want to be part of their credit union now.
The combined administrative facilities would include 2 addresses in Michigan: one the mortgage center and the other a BlueCross BlueShield service center.
As we see what’s in store for VSECU members I think it’s clear that members should vote no on the proposed merger.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Barbara Conrey: Surprises found on VSECU merger ballot.
