The March 25 article titled "Bankers amend suit to protect credit union customers" does not present a complete picture and may be misleading.
The bankers did indeed amend the suit; however, it was not a new move to protect credit union members. The ability of credit unions to retain current members was not in question. And if it were in question, the only reason those individuals' credit-union membership would have been in jeopardy was because of the bankers' action.The article later quotes Howard Head-lee, Utah Bankers Association (UBA) president, "Our contention is with a handful of credit unions who have broken the law." Utah's credit unions haven't broken any laws; members have been served with complete legal authority. Interpretation of the statute has been correct in granting Utahns the ability to choose their financial institution.
It is unfortunate that the UBA is looking to reduce viable financial options for consumers and decide what financial choices Utahns should have available.
The article also states that the UBA says it doesn't make sense that all Utahns can belong to any credit union. What doesn't make sense about all Utahns having a choice in where and how they receive financial services?
I suggest that Utahns deserve the right to choose where they put their money. It is, after all, still their money.
Scott G. Earl
Utah League of Credit Unions Inc.
Salt Lake City