Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Credit Union Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to allow state-chartered credit unions to let members vote to pay board members
Summary
A bill that would let members of New Hampshire state‑chartered credit unions vote to authorize compensation for board members drew support from credit union representatives who said modest pay could help recruit and retain directors; sponsors and witnesses stressed the change would be optional, not mandatory.
Senator Dan Innes, representing District 7, introduced Senate Bill 25 to the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee, saying the bill would allow members of state‑chartered credit unions to vote to permit compensation for their elected board members. The bill is enabling legislation that, if enacted, would let each credit union’s membership decide whether to authorize director pay; it would not require any credit union to pay directors.
The bill’s sponsors and witnesses told the committee that today’s governance demands — including cybersecurity, asset‑liability management and other complex oversight duties — are greater than in the past and that modest compensation could help attract and retain qualified directors. “Nothing in this legislation would force a credit union to compensate board members,” Senator Dan Innes said. “It’s enabling legislation only.”
Adrian Velasquez, chief advocacy officer for the Cooperative Credit Union Association of New Hampshire, said the change responds to evolving responsibilities and technological complexity that require more time and expertise from directors. “We’re not talking about salary,” Velasquez said. “We’re talking about anything from daycare to compensate someone for a course on cybersecurity or accounting, anything that advances the mission of the [credit] union and the financial institution.”
Ken Sinos, president and CEO of Saint Mary’s Bank, described directors’ current duties — monthly board meetings and multiple committee assignments such as supervisory, compensation and asset‑liability committees — and said compensation could improve recruitment and retention of directors who must commit significant time. “There’s so many complexities in the credit union system right now similar to the banks,” Sinos said, describing continuing education, pre‑meeting materials and the lengthy commitment directors undertake.
Representatives asked several operational questions: whether paid directors must be members (witnesses said yes), whether proxy voting would permit membership votes on compensation (witnesses described existing ballot practices that allow members to vote by mailed ballots in some credit unions), and whether the membership or the board would decide pay (witnesses said the membership would vote on compensation in an annual meeting or by ballot). Committee members also asked whether a maximum compensation would be set; witnesses said credit unions commonly disclose the exact amount in the membership vote and that some states use a cap in the ballot language.
Witnesses and sponsors referenced other states’ experience: they said 16 states allow similar member votes for credit union director compensation and that Rhode Island is an example in the region. Those testifying emphasized the change would be optional and subject to each credit union’s bylaws and member vote.
No formal committee action or vote on SB 25 was recorded during the hearing. The public hearing on SB 25 was closed at the end of the credit union testimony.
