Keeping members where they are: Outdated fields of membership

While at a conference recently, a credit union CEO was discussing his credit union’s new online-only charter expansion with me. As he highlighted the new features the digital credit union would offer and what services he was planning on adding in the next few years, I found myself wishing the credit union was closer so I could qualify for its field of membership.

Because despite being a digital-only offshoot of the credit union’s original charter, the new credit union did not have a field of membership that extended to meet the potential of the online credit union. The credit union was limited to servicing a number of counties in their state. While I’m sure the NCUA could provide a list of regulatory reasons why a Michigan resident could not join a digital credit union states away, it was definitely a disappointment.

This particular example is merely one instance of an ongoing issue in the credit union industry: despite the leaps in technological capabilities and the shift in society toward digital services, the credit union field of membership system still bases its requirements on geographical location, assuming a traditional, in-person experience.

But the original decision to create such field of membership standards was due to circumstances of the time, and as such, isn’t it time they were altered to meet a more modern era to better serve both credit unions and members? Or do the original boundaries set still offer purpose? Does a field of membership keep credit unions tied to their communities and promote one of credit unions’ founding ideologies? Or have they become needless restrictions for both credit unions and members alike?

 

continue reading »