Proposed Rule2022-20927
Federal Credit Union Bylaws
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 3, 2022
Issuing agencies
National Credit Union Administration
Abstract
On March 15, 2022, Congress enacted the Credit Union Governance Modernization Act of 2022 (Governance Modernization Act). Under the statute, the NCUA has 18 months following the date of enactment to develop a policy by which a federal credit union (FCU) member may be expelled for cause by a two-thirds vote of a quorum of the FCU's board of directors. The NCUA Board (Board) is now proposing to amend the standard FCU bylaws (FCU Bylaws) to adopt such a policy.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 190 (Monday, October 3, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59740-59748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20927]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 701
[NCUA-2022-0132]
RIN 3133-AF51
Federal Credit Union Bylaws
AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 15, 2022, Congress enacted the Credit Union
Governance Modernization Act of 2022 (Governance Modernization Act).
Under the statute, the NCUA has 18 months following the date of
enactment to develop a policy by which a federal credit union (FCU)
member may be expelled for cause by a two-thirds vote of a quorum of
the FCU's board of directors. The NCUA Board (Board) is now proposing
to amend the standard FCU bylaws (FCU Bylaws) to adopt such a policy.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 2, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by RIN 3133-
AF51, by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one
method only):
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
The docket number for this proposed rule is NCUA-2022-0132. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Mail: Address to Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of
the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
<bullet> Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.
Public inspection: You may view all public comments on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, as submitted, except
for those we cannot post for technical reasons. The NCUA will not edit
or remove any identifying or contact information from the public
comments submitted. Due to social distancing measures in effect, the
usual opportunity to inspect paper copies of comments in the NCUA's law
library is not currently available. After social distancing measures
are relaxed, visitors may make an appointment to review paper copies by
calling (703) 518-6540 or emailing <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#206f67636d41494c601c4100485245461d" http: ncua.gov">ncua.gov</a>">OGCMail@<a href="http://ncua.gov">ncua.gov</a></a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Roberson, Deputy Director, Office
of Consumer Financial Protection; Paul Dibble, Consumer Access Program
Officer, Office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion; or Rachel
Ackmann, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 1775 Duke
Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428. Lisa Roberson can also be reached at
(703) 548-2466, Paul Dibble can be reached at (703) 664-3164, and
Rachel Ackmann can be reached at (703) 548-2601.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) and standard FCU
Bylaws, there are currently only two ways a member may be expelled: (1)
A two-thirds vote of the membership present at a special meeting called
for that purpose, and only after the individual is provided an
opportunity to be heard; and (2) for non-participation in the affairs
of the credit union, as specified in a policy adopted and enforced by
the board.\1\ These requirements are set out in the standard FCU Bylaws
in
[[Page 59741]]
Appendix A to part 701 of the NCUA's regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 12 U.S.C. 1764.
\2\ 12 CFR part 701, app. A. Section 108 of the FCU Act requires
the Board to prepare periodically a form of bylaws to be used by FCU
incorporators and to provide that form to FCU incorporators upon
request. 12 U.S.C. 1758. FCU incorporators must submit proposed
bylaws to the NCUA as part of the chartering process. Once the NCUA
has approved an FCU's proposed bylaws, the FCU must operate
according to its approved bylaws or seek agency approval for a bylaw
amendment that is not among permissible options in the standard FCU
Bylaws. 12 CFR 701.2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCU Bylaws were last amended by the NCUA Board in 2019 (2019
Bylaws Final Rule).\3\ The 2019 Bylaws Final Rule was a comprehensive
update that sought to modernize, clarify, and simplify the FCU Bylaws
and was the culmination of several years of engagement between the NCUA
and FCUs. During the 2019 Bylaws Final Rule rulemaking, several
commenters expressed concern that the FCU Act expulsion provisions
discussed previously made it difficult to proactively limit security
threats or financial harm caused by violent, belligerent, disruptive,
or abusive credit union members. Specifically, commenters were
concerned about the burden from requiring members to call a special
meeting to seek to expel such members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 84 FR 53278 (Oct. 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2019 Bylaws Final Rule, however, did not modify the procedures
for expelling an FCU member as the procedures for expelling a member
are governed by the FCU Act. Instead, the 2019 Bylaws Final Rule added
a new section to the FCU Bylaws on limiting services for certain
members. The 2019 Bylaws Final Rule created the concept of a ``member
in good standing.'' \4\ So long as a member remains in good standing,
that member retains all of the rights and privileges associated with
FCU membership. A member not in good standing, however, may be subject
to an FCU's limitation of services policy. For example, an FCU may
limit all or most credit union services, such as ATM services, credit
cards, loans, share draft privileges, preauthorized transfers, and
access to credit union facilities to a member who has engaged in
conduct that has caused a loss to the FCU or that threatens the safety
of credit union staff, facilities, or other members in the FCU or its
surrounding property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 12 CFR part 701, app. A. Art. II, sec. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2019 Bylaws Final Rule was clear that, without question,
certain actions warrant immediate limitation of services or access to
credit union facilities, such as violence against other credit union
members or credit union staff in the credit union facility or the
surrounding property. The Board also stated clearly that an FCU may
immediately take actions such as contacting local law enforcement,
seeking a restraining order, or pursuing other lawful means to protect
the credit union, credit union members, and staff. Nothing in the FCU
Act or the FCU Bylaws prevents an FCU from using whatever lawful means
it deems necessary to address circumstances in which a member poses a
risk of harm to the FCU, its members, or its staff.
Even a member deemed not in good standing, however, retains
fundamental rights as a credit union member. For example, a member not
in good standing has the right to attend, participate, and vote at the
annual and special meetings of the members and the right to maintain a
share account.\5\ Those rights may only be terminated through a
member's expulsion, and the Board explained in the 2019 Bylaws Final
Rule that it cannot amend the statutorily prescribed expulsion
procedures for members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Assuming there is no restraining or protective order from a
court in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2022, however, Congress enacted the Governance
Modernization Act to revise the FCU Act procedures for expelling
members.\6\ The legislative history of the Governance Modernization Act
focused on FCUs' concerns that their ability to address violent and
aggressive behaviors of certain members was inadequate. Similar to
comments raised during the 2019 Bylaws Final Rule rulemaking, the
legislative history included concerns that FCUs lacked the tools to
adequately protect employees and other members from violent and abusive
members and included concerns that members had threatened the life of
an employee or in another case physically attacked a service
representative. To address these concerns, Congress modified the FCU
Act to provide FCUs with an option for expelling a member for cause by
a two-thirds vote of a quorum of the board of directors. Additionally,
the legislative history also described the need for using this
authority as a rare option and focused on more extreme examples of
member behavior. This statutory authority, however, is not self-
enacting. The legislation gave the Board 18 months following the date
of enactment of the statute to develop and promulgate pursuant to a
rulemaking a policy that FCUs may adopt to expel members for cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Public Law 117-103 (Mar. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board notes that it is focused on improving access to financial
services, in part, through its Advancing Communities through Credit,
Education, Stability and Support (ACCESS) initiative.\7\ As part of
this initiative, the NCUA is working to expand the availability of
credit to stimulate economic growth and improve the financial well-
being of all Americans. The Board believes that the expulsion of
members is an extreme remedy that may have the effect of denying
individuals access to financial services. In addition, as financial
cooperatives, the expulsion of a member-owner by a credit union is an
expressly significant action. Therefore, the Board concurs with certain
statements in the legislative history that use of the authority under
the Governance Modernization Act should be rare and saved for egregious
examples of member behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ <a href="https://www.ncua.gov/support-services/access">https://www.ncua.gov/support-services/access</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The Proposed Rule
The NCUA is now issuing a proposed rule to adopt a policy by which
an FCU member may be expelled for cause by a vote of two-thirds of a
quorum of an FCU's board of directors. The proposed rule would also
make conforming changes to Article II of the FCU Bylaws regarding
members in good standing. These proposed changes are discussed in
detail below.
Member in Good Standing
As discussed previously, the 2019 Bylaws Final Rule codified the
concept of a ``member in good standing.'' So long as a member remains
in good standing, that member retains all of the rights and privileges
associated with FCU membership.\8\ A member not in good standing,
however, may be subject to an FCU's limitation of services policy. The
primary reason for permitting FCUs to adopt a limitation of services
policy was to provide FCUs with an alternative to holding a special
meeting to address certain egregious member behavior.\9\ The passage of
the Governance Modernization Act, however, has provided FCUs' boards of
directors with direct authority (subject to the NCUA Board promulgating
a policy) to expel a member for cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 12 CFR part 701, app. A. Art. II, sec. 5.
\9\ 84 FR 53278 (Oct. 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would retain the member in good standing
provisions. The Board believes including both authorities in the FCU
Bylaws provides additional flexibility for FCUs to address certain
disruptive member behaviors. First, through a limitation of service
policy, an FCU may pursue a more targeted approach to deal with certain
disruptive behaviors that may not otherwise warrant expulsion. As the
[[Page 59742]]
Board noted in the 2019 FCU Bylaws Final Rule, expulsion from
membership is a very serious remedy, and it may be beneficial for FCUs
to have the option of choosing other remedies short of expulsion to
deal with certain disruptive member behaviors. For example, a member
may have caused losses due to credit card delinquencies. An FCU could
limit such a member's access to certain credit products, but otherwise
allow the member to maintain access to share accounts. If the FCU
expels the same member, their access to both types of accounts would be
terminated. Or, for example, a member may have repeatedly cursed at
credit union employees such that the member is prohibited from physical
access to a branch, but otherwise may electronically access the FCU's
products and services.
Second, an FCU may use the limitation of services policy in the
case of a violent or abusive member who has yet to be expelled. The
Governance Modernization Act requires certain procedures before a
member's expulsion, including a 60-day period in which the member may
request a hearing. As stated in the 2019 Bylaws Final Rule, without
question, certain actions warrant immediate limitation to FCU services
or access to credit union facilities, such as violence against other
credit union members or credit union staff in the credit union facility
or the surrounding property.\10\ So an FCU may use its limitation of
services policy, in conjunction with its ability to expel a member for
cause, to immediately address circumstances in which a member poses a
risk of harm to the FCU, its staff, or its members. Therefore, the
proposed rule has retained the member in good standing provisions in
Article II, Section 5 of the FCU Bylaws. Finally, use of a limitation
of service policy does not require a board vote. Therefore, it may be
easier and more expeditious for FCUs to exercise these restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Further, an FCU may immediately take actions such as
contacting local law enforcement, seeking a restraining order, or
pursuing other lawful means to protect the FCU, its members, and
staff, and nothing in the FCU Act nor the FCU Bylaws prevents an FCU
from using whatever lawful means it deems necessary to address
circumstances in which a member poses a risk of harm to the FCU, its
members, or its staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would include a few substantive changes to the
member in good standing provisions. Specifically, the current
definition of a member not in good standing would be removed. This
definition includes a list of behaviors that if engaged in by a member
could trigger limitation to FCU services. However, the Governance
Modernization Act also includes a list of behaviors that may warrant
termination of membership. Instead of including two separate lists of
disruptive, abusive, or violent behaviors, the proposed rule would
define a member not in good standing as a member who has engaged in any
of the conduct listed in the Governance Modernization Act, as
implemented in Article XIV of the FCU Bylaws. The proposed rule would
also make other technical conforming changes. For example, the proposed
rule would amend the requirement that the disruptive, violent, or
abusive behavior have a logical relationship between the objectionable
activities and the services to be suspended. This provision would be
removed because it is not included in the Governance Modernization Act.
The Board expects an FCU board of directors to use appropriate
discretion and only limit services when necessary; however, the
proposed rule would remove the express provision related to the nexus
between the behavior and the limitation of services for consistency.
Question 1. The Board seeks comments on whether the limitation of
services policy should remain in the FCU Bylaws. Should the Board
retain the current language regarding a member not in good standing or
should the Board reference the for-cause termination provision in
Article XIV? Should the Board retain the current language regarding a
logical relationship between the objectionable behavior and limitation
of services? Should the final rule require the conduct to occur at the
FCU? Depending on the input the Board receives, it may modify this
provision in the final rule under one of these alternatives.
Expulsion and Withdrawal
Under the Governance Modernization Act, a member may be expelled
for cause by a two-thirds vote of a quorum of the FCU's board of
directors. An FCU may only use this process to expel a member after the
NCUA has developed and promulgated pursuant to a rulemaking a
corresponding policy for expulsion and implemented such policy through
rulemaking within 18 months following the date of enactment and the
credit union has adopted the standard Bylaw amendment. The proposed
policy for member expulsion is discussed below.
Notice of the Expulsion Policy
Under the Governance Modernization Act, an FCU's directors may
expel a member only if the FCU has provided, in written or electronic
form, a copy of NCUA's expulsion policy to each member of the credit
union. As such, before an FCU expels a member under these provisions,
it must send a copy of its Article XIV to each member. It would be
insufficient for an FCU to post a copy of Article XIV on its website,
as the Act states the FCU must provide the policy to ``each member''
and also uses the phrase ``distribution of policy to members.''
Additionally, the Governance Modernization Act states that the policy
has to be provided in written or electronic form. Under the proposed
rule, an FCU could only provide a copy of the policy electronically if
the member has elected to receive electronic communications from the
FCU. The Board believes this requirement is a reasonable balance
between burden on FCUs and transparency to members. Members who have
not elected to receive electronic communications from the FCU may not
expect important communications being received electronically and
therefore may be less inclined to read the notice.
The proposed rule does not include a standard disclosure form of
the NCUA expulsion policy outside of the language in Article XIV of the
FCU Bylaws. However, the proposed rule states that the communication of
the expulsion policy, along with all notices required under the
proposed rule, must be legible, written in plain language, and
reasonably understandable by ordinary members. The Board is not
including a standard disclosure form in the proposed rule to provide
FCUs with additional flexibility. The Board understands FCUs may adopt
variations to their Article XIV. For example, some FCUs may provide
additional information to members on how the FCU would conduct a
hearing before the FCU's board of directors and may permit in-person
attendance at the hearing. Any variation to NCUA's expulsion policy, or
Article XIV, would constitute a bylaw amendment and is subject to NCUA
approval.
Question 2. The Board seeks comments on whether the final rule
should include a standard disclosure for all FCU members separate and
apart from the language in Article XIV. The Board requests comments on
whether FCUs should be required to get NCUA approval for all bylaw
amendments related to expulsion procedures. Should certain
modifications be considered fill-in-the-blank type provisions and
therefore not require NCUA approval? For example, if an FCU opts to
permit an in-person hearing, should NCUA approval be required? Should
the Board also consider requiring both mail and electronic delivery of
notices, even if the consumer has elected to receive electronic
communications?
[[Page 59743]]
Expulsion Vote and Notice of Pending Expulsion
The Governance Modernization Act provides that an FCU's board of
directors may vote to expel a member for cause by a two-thirds vote of
a quorum of the directors of the credit union. Under the proposed rule,
if an FCU's board votes to expel a member, the member must be notified
of the pending expulsion, along with the reason for such expulsion.\11\
Such notice shall be provided in person, by mail to the member's
address, or electronically. Electronic delivery is only permitted if
the member has elected to receive electronic communications from the
FCU. The proposed rule would require that the reason for the expulsion
be specific and not just include conclusory statements. For example, a
general statement saying the member's behavior has been deemed abusive
and the member is being subject to expulsion procedures would be
insufficient as an explanation. Instead, the FCU should include a date
of the interaction(s) and specific information describing the
interaction, including a general description of the member's conduct.
Likewise, a notice stating the member violated the membership agreement
would also be insufficient as an explanation for the expulsion. The
notice should include specific information about the how the member
violated the agreement and include other relevant information as
appropriate. The Board notes that the member would be relying on the
provided notice if a hearing is requested. As such, the notice must
include sufficient detail for the member to understand why he or she is
being subject to expulsion so that the member has a meaningful
opportunity to present his or her case against expulsion and an
opportunity to respond to the FCU's concerns in a requested hearing.
The notice must also tell the member that any complaints related to
their potential expulsion should be submitted to the NCUA's
website.\12\ Finally, the notice must also clearly state the member's
right to request a hearing, but if a hearing is not requested,
membership will automatically terminate after 60 calendar days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ As discussed previously, in the case of a violent member or
a member who threatens violence, the FCU should take immediate
action to protect its staff, other members, or its premise. An FCU
may use its limitation of services policy to restrict access to FCU
facilities or may contact local law enforcement as appropriate.
\12\ Currently complaints can be submitted to the NCUA at either
<a href="http://mycreditunion.gov">mycreditunion.gov</a> or <a href="http://ncua.gov">ncua.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. How prescriptive should the NCUA expulsion policy be
regarding the content of the notice of expulsion? Would additional
requirements on the specificity of the notice be necessary or useful to
include in the policy? It is the Board's intent to balance the
potential burden to FCUs with concerns regarding transparency and
fairness for members subject to expulsion.
Hearing
Under the Governance Modernization Act, a member has 60 calendar
days from the date of receipt of a notification to request a hearing
from the board of directors of the FCU. The proposed rule further
provides that the FCU must maintain a copy of the notice provided for
its records. The Board notes that the member has 60 calendar days from
the date of receipt, not the date the FCU provides the notice. The
member also has 60 calendar days to provide the FCU with their intent
to have a hearing. Therefore, the member may mail the notice 60 days
after the notice is received. As such, the FCU may not receive the
notice within 60 calendar days. Therefore, the Board recommends that
FCUs provide sufficient time for both the member's receipt and the
FCU's receipt before expelling a member.
Question 4. Should the Board require the FCU to maintain a copy of
the notice provided? Is this proposed requirement burdensome for FCUs?
If a member does not request a hearing, the member is automatically
expelled after the end of the 60-day period. If a member requests a
hearing, the board of directors must provide the member with a hearing.
The statute is silent on whether the hearing must be in person.\13\ The
Board does not believe it is necessary to require FCUs provide an in-
person hearing and is concerned that an in-person hearing may be
problematic in cases of expulsion due to violence or threatened
violence. Additionally, the Board believes a virtual hearing that
provides the opportunity for the member to orally present their case is
sufficient, but FCUs may permit in-person attendance at the hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Board notes that in other contexts, the use of the term
``hearing'' under federal law does not necessitate that the hearing
must be held in person. See generally, Jeremy Graboyes, Legal
Considerations for Remote Hearings in Agency Adjudications,
Administrative Conference of the United States (June 2020). As such,
the Board does not believe that the statute requires an in-person
hearing. However, as discussed previously, the Board is proposing to
require that the hearing must provide the member with an opportunity
to present their case and is soliciting comments on whether the
final rule should provide for a default mandate that FCUs provide
in-person hearings, with limited exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5. The Board is proposing that the hearing may take place
other than in person, but the Board solicits comments on whether
fairness or other principles or other law may call for an in-person
hearing. Depending on the input it receives, the Board may modify this
requirement in the final rule to account for any compelling basis to
require in-person hearings.
Under the proposed rule, the FCU may not raise any rationale or
reason for expulsion that is not explicitly included in the notice to
the member. This requirement is intended to ensure members are given a
fair opportunity to present their case against expulsion and an
opportunity to respond to the FCU's concerns. If additional conduct
that may warrant expulsion occurs after the expulsion notice is
provided to the member, then the FCU may either not discuss the
subsequent conduct at the expulsion meeting or provide the member a new
notice with a 60-day window to request a hearing that includes the
subsequent conduct.
The proposed rule would not include prescriptive requirements
related to the structure and procedure for the hearing. The only
requirements included in the proposed rule related to the hearing are
that it permits the meaningful opportunity for the member to orally
present their case to the board and that the FCU board does not raise
any new fact or cause for expulsion. Instead, the Board believes that
each FCU should have the flexibility to conduct a hearing as it deems
appropriate. Additionally, the Board expects hearings to be held in a
fair, reasonable, and consistent manner that provides members a
reasonable opportunity to present their case. Finally, the member may
choose to provide a written submission to the credit union board
instead of a hearing with oral statements.
Question 6. Should the proposed rule include additional
requirements related to the structure and procedure of an expulsion
hearing? Should the rule specifically provide that a member may request
to provide a written response instead of a hearing with oral
submissions? Should the final rule include any requirements related to
appropriate safety procedures for FCUs choosing to do an in-person
hearing? The Governance Modernization Act does not include an explicit
appeal right for the member. Should the final rule consider adding an
appeal right for members? For example, should the supervisory committee
be required to review records related to expelled members?
[[Page 59744]]
FCU Board Vote
After the hearing, the FCU board of directors must hold a vote in a
timely manner on expelling the member. The proposed rule defines a
timely manner as within 30 calendar days.
Question 7. The Board invites comments on whether the rule is too
prescriptive and instead of a 30-day timeframe for the board vote
following a hearing, should the timeliness be left to FCUs' discretion?
The Board notes that if a member requests a hearing or provides a
written statement, the FCU board must vote twice on the member's
expulsion. The board of directors would first vote to expel the member,
which initiates the 60-day period after receipt of the notice, and then
would vote again after the requested hearing. If a hearing is not
requested, then the member would automatically be expelled 60-days
after receipt of the notice and a second board vote would not be
required.
Notice of Expulsion
If a member is expelled, either automatically at the end of the 60-
day period after receipt of the notice or after the board votes to
expel the member after a hearing, the FCU must provide notice of the
expulsion. Under the proposed rule, the notice must provide information
on the effect of the expulsion, including information related to
account access and any withdrawals by the FCU related to amounts due.
Specifically, the notice should include pertinent information to the
member, including that expulsion does not relieve a member of any
liability to the FCU and that the FCU will pay all of the member's
shares upon their expulsion less any amounts due. The notice should
include a line-by-line accounting of any deductions related to amounts
due. The notice should also include when and how the member will
receive any money in their accounts. The notice must be provided to the
member in person, by mail to the member's address, in written form or,
if the member has elected to receive electronic communications from the
credit union, may be provided electronically.
Question 8. The FCU Act does not require FCUs to call the members'
outstanding loans or other obligations if the member is expelled.
Should the final rule include a minimum amount of time before an FCU is
permitted to call in an existing obligation or offset amounts owed to
the FCU? For example, should the rule prohibit any offsets or calling
of credit for 90 days following a member's expulsion?
For Cause
Under the Governance Modernization Act, an FCU's board may expel a
member for cause, which means: (A) a substantial or repeated violation
of the membership agreement of the credit union; (B) a substantial or
repeated disruption, including dangerous or abusive behavior (as
defined by the National Credit Union Administration Board pursuant to a
rulemaking), to the operations of a credit union; or (C) fraud,
attempted fraud, or other illegal conduct that a member has been
convicted of in relation to the credit union, including the credit
union's employees conducting business on behalf of the credit union.
Regarding a repeated non-substantial violation of the membership
agreement, under the proposed rule the FCU must have provided written
notice to the member at least one time prior to the notice of
expulsion, and the member must have repeated the violation after having
been notified of the violation. Further, under the proposed rule, the
written notice must state the specific nature of the violation and that
if the conduct occurs again the member may be expelled from the FCU.
The Board believes this is necessary to ensure members are aware that
they may be expelled for repeated, non-substantial violations of the
membership agreement. The Board notes that this warning notice before
the notice of expulsion is only for potential expulsions related to
repeated violations that are not deemed substantial. The FCU's board
may act to expel a member immediately for substantial violations of the
membership agreement and does not need to provide a warning notice for
substantial violations of the membership agreement.
Question 9. Should there be a limit on the time between the FCU's
notice of a violation and the repeated behavior? Should the Board
provide, for example, that the repeated behavior must occur within two
years of the notice? Or should the Board consider another period
designed to ensure that repeated but insubstantial violations that are
remote in time do not lead to expulsion under this provision?
Question 10. What are typical violations of a membership agreement
that cause concern for FCUs? Do FCUs consider causing a loss to be a
substantial violation of their membership agreement? Would FCUs
consider any loss a substantial violation? Or would only material
losses be considered a substantial violation? If so, the Board is
interested in commenters' opinions on what threshold constitutes a
material loss?
Question 11. Should the Board try to define substantial violations
versus more minor or immaterial violations? An earlier version of the
Governance Modernization Act expressly permitted expulsion for causing
material losses to FCUs. This express authority was removed, which may
imply that FCUs cannot expel a member for causing a loss. However,
under the current version of the Governance Modernization Act, members
may be expelled for substantial or repeated violation of the FCU's
membership agreement.
The Board understands that it is customary for membership
agreements to prohibit members from causing a loss to the FCU.
Therefore, under the proposed rule, FCUs may expel a member for causing
a loss. Should the Board consider prohibiting FCUs from expelling
members for causing a loss outside of fraudulent or other criminal
acts? The Board understands that FCUs currently may expel a member for
causing a loss after holding a special meeting of the members. This
authority would not be impacted by the proposed rule. However, the
authorities in the Governance Modernization Act provide an expedited
process for expelling members for more egregious conduct.
If FCU boards of directors are permitted to expel members for
causing a loss, should the Board require FCUs to adopt a policy such
that it is applied consistently across members? If the final rule does
prohibit FCU board of directors from expelling a member for causing a
loss, should the Board change the proposed member in good standing
provision to expressly permit members to be denied services for causing
a loss? Are there violations of the membership agreement other than
causing a loss for which FCUs would seek to expel a member?
Under the proposed rule, a member may also be expelled by an FCU
board for a substantial or repeated disruption, including dangerous or
abusive behavior, to the operations of a credit union. The proposed
rule would define dangerous or abusive behavior as: (1) Violence,
intimidation, physical threats, harassment, or physical or verbal abuse
of officials or employees of the credit union, members, or agents of
the credit union (this includes actions while on FCU premises and
through use of telephone, mail, email or other electronic method); (2)
Behavior that causes or threatens damage to FCU property; and (3)
Unauthorized use or access of FCU property. The proposed rule would
further provide that expressions of frustration with the FCU
[[Page 59745]]
or its employees through elevated volume and tone; expressions of
intent to seek lawful recourse, regardless of perceived merit; or
repeated interactions with FCU employees are insufficient to constitute
dangerous or abusive behavior. This definition is derived from the
current definition of a member not in good standing.
Similar to repeated violations of the membership agreement, if the
FCU's board acts to expel a member for repeated disruptions that are
not substantial, the FCU must have first provided written notice to the
member after an instance of such disruption. In contrast, substantial
disruptions, including any conduct that would constitute dangerous or
abusive behavior, may be grounds for immediate action and termination
of membership. Additionally, as discussed previously in connection with
limitation of services polices, an FCU may immediately take actions
such as limiting services, contacting local law enforcement, seeking a
restraining order, or pursuing other lawful means to protect the credit
union, credit union members, and staff, and nothing in the FCU Act or
the FCU Bylaws prevents an FCU from using whatever lawful means it
deems necessary to address circumstances in which a member poses a risk
of harm to the FCU, its members, or its staff.
A member may also be expelled for cause if the member has engaged
in fraud, attempted fraud, or other illegal conduct that a member has
been convicted of in relation to the credit union, including the credit
union's employees conducting business on behalf of the credit union.
Under the proposed rule, a criminal conviction is not necessary for
membership expulsion related to fraud or attempted fraud. The Board
believes that the Governance Modernization Act does not require a
conviction related to fraud and attempted fraud, and a conviction is
only required for the catchall category related to any other illegal
conduct. This interpretation of the Act is reasonable given the concern
that many factors may affect whether a person is convicted of fraud or
attempted fraud, including local prosecutorial resources. The Board is
aware that local authorities are not always able or willing to
prosecute every instance of fraud or attempted fraud.
Question 12. Should the Board define fraud or attempted fraud?
Should FCU boards be permitted to terminate membership only when a
member has been convicted of fraud or attempted fraud? If a member is
convicted of other illegal conduct and the conviction is later
overturned, should the rule provide for automatic reinstatement or
otherwise include a required procedure to allow for reinstatement in
this circumstance? Alternatively, does the Governance Modernization
Act's reinstatement process (discussed in the next section) adequately
cover this scenario by affording an expelled member the right to seek
reinstatement?
Reinstatement
Under the Governance Modernization Act, a member expelled by a two-
thirds vote of an FCU's board of directors must be given an opportunity
to request reinstatement of membership. The member may be reinstated by
either a majority vote of a quorum of the directors of the FCU or a
majority vote of the members of the FCU present at a meeting. Under the
proposed rule, such a meeting would have to be a special meeting. A
member would not be entitled to attend the meeting in person, as the
Governance Modernization Act provides in a rule of construction. But
the statute also does not bar the FCU from permitting in-person
attendance. Accordingly, the proposed rule would allow the FCU to
determine whether to permit in-person attendance. The proposed rule
would also specify that an FCU is only required to hold a board vote or
special meeting in response to a reinstatement request once.
Question 13. Should the Board require FCUs to vote on members'
reinstatement more than once? For example, should the proposed rule
state that FCU boards need to reconsider reinstatement requests only
every six, twelve, or eighteen months?
Class of Members
Under the Governance Modernization Act, an expulsion of a member by
an FCU's board of directors must be done individually, on a case-by-
case basis. Further, neither the NCUA Board nor any FCU may expel a
class of members. All anti-discrimination laws and regulations are
applicable, and expulsions of a class of members based on any class or
characteristic such as, but not limited to, race, religion, national
origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, familial status, or disability
status, are strictly prohibited. An FCU may have liability if it
exercises its discretion in a manner that has a discriminatory purpose
or effect under anti-discrimination laws. In addition, members cannot
be expelled solely due to or in retaliation for their complaints to the
NCUA or any other regulatory agency, such as the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, and members who are employees or former employees of
the FCU cannot be expelled for any protected whistleblower
activities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 12 U.S.C. 1790b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, under the proposed official staff commentary, the
prohibition on expelling a class of members would explicitly include an
FCU board acting to remove all members who engaged in a certain
violation of the membership agreement, or all delinquent members or a
class of delinquent members in one action. For example, an FCU board
may not remove all members who have caused a loss of $500 to the FCU or
have been delinquent for 90 days or more. The Board would interpret
such action as removing a class of members and therefore prohibited by
the statutory requirement that expulsions through a vote of directors
of the credit union be done individually, on a case-by-case basis.
FCUs also should be aware of the potential for disparate treatment
among members. An FCU must ensure that its implementation of the
authority to expel members for cause is done consistently and does not
violate anti-discrimination laws or regulations. FCUs may consider
adopting a policy related to when its board should expel members,
especially if the FCU intends to expel members for violations of the
membership agreement. To enable NCUA examiners to review relevant
information related for cause expulsions, the proposed rule would
require FCUs to maintain records relating to expelled members for five
years. The rule would not specify necessary documents for the record,
but the Board notes it would expect a record to include general
documents related to the member, such as their last known contact
information, membership agreement, or loan files, and specific
documents related to the cause of the member's termination.
Question 14. Should the possibility of FCUs expelling some members
but not others for engaging in certain behavior be a cause for concern?
Question 15. Should the Board include a record retention
requirement related to expelled members? Do commenters suggest any
alternative to a record retention requirement? Should the Board choose
a shorter or longer retention period than five years? If so, how long
should the Board require FCUs to retain their expulsion records, and
why? The Board seeks comments on whether it should specify certain
documents or information that FCUs are required to maintain.
Implementation
If the proposed rule is issued as a final rule, FCUs will have the
option to
[[Page 59746]]
amend their bylaws to provide their boards of directors with authority
to expel members for cause. FCUs seeking to adopt these authorities
would amend their bylaws through a two-thirds vote of their boards of
directors. Such FCUs would not need to submit the amendment to the NCUA
for its approval provided the amendment is identical to the language
included in any final rule issued by the Board. However, the amendment
included in the proposed rule is optional, and FCUs would not need to
amend their bylaws or take any other action in response to any final
rule issued.
Past Member Conduct as Grounds for Expulsion
FCUs cannot use member conduct that occurred prior to the effective
date of the final rule as grounds for expelling members. For example,
if a member caused a loss to the FCU before the effective date of the
final rule, the FCU may not expel the member due to that loss. The FCU
could only expel the member if additional conduct that warrants
expulsion occurs after the effective date of the final rule.
Question 16. Should the Board consider alternative dates for which
member conduct may be considered as grounds for expulsion? Should the
date be related to when notice of the policy is provided to members,
when the FCU board adopts the Bylaws, or when the Governance
Modernization Act was enacted?
III. Request for Comments
The Board welcomes comment on all aspects of the proposal.
IV. Regulatory Procedures
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in
which an agency creates a new or amends existing information collection
requirements.\15\ For purposes of the PRA, an information collection
requirement may take the form of a reporting, recordkeeping, or a
third-party disclosure requirement. The NCUA may not conduct or
sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to an
information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number. The current information collection
requirements for FCU Bylaws are approved under OMB control number 3133-
0052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR part 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notice requirements to be provided to the member are: (1) the
notice of potential expulsion for cause, (2) the notice of expulsion,
and (3) the notice of expulsion due to repeated, non-substantial
violations of the membership agreement or repeated disruptions for non-
substantial conduct. These notices will be provided to the member by
the FCU as prescribed by proposed Sections 2 and 3 of Article XIV of
Appendix A to Part 701. The information collection requirements
associated with these disclosure notices vary depending on the number
of respondents. It is estimated a total number 3,997 responses will be
generated, taking an hour per response, for a total of 3,997 burden
hours associated with the notice requirements. Additionally, FCUs are
required to retain and maintain all records associated with the
proposed expulsion policy and is estimated average 30 minutes per FCU
for a total annual burden of 1,230 hours. Therefore, there is a total
burden of 5,227 hours associated with this proposed rulemaking. The
total burden associated with OMB Control Number: 3133-0052 is as
follows:
OMB Control Number: 3133-0052.
Title of information collection: Federal Credit Union Bylaws,
Appendix A to Part 701.
Estimated number respondents: 3,076.
Estimated number of responses per respondent: 347.
Estimated total annual responses: 1,066,603.
Estimated total annual burden hours per response: 0.35.
Estimated total annual burden hours: 376,033.
The NCUA invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or
start-up costs and cost of operation, maintenance, and purchase of
services to provide information.
All comments are a matter of public record. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments to (1) <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this particular information collection by selecting the
Agency under ``Currently under Review'' and to (2) Dawn Wolfgang,
National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Suite 6032,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428; Fax No. 703-519-8579; or email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#78282a393b1715151d160c0b38441958100a1d1e45" http: ncua.gov">ncua.gov</a>">PRAComments@<a href="http://ncua.gov">ncua.gov</a></a>. Given the limited in-house staff because of the
COVID-19 pandemic, email comments are preferred.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that when
an agency issues a proposed rule or a final rule pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act or another law, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis that meets the requirements of the RFA
and publish such analysis in the Federal Register. Specifically, the
RFA normally requires agencies to describe the impact of a rulemaking
on small entities by providing a regulatory impact analysis. For
purposes of the RFA, the Board considers credit unions with assets less
than $100 million to be small entities.\16\ A regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities and publishes its certification and a short,
explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NCUA IRPS 15-1, 80 FR 57512 (Sept. 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board does not believe the proposed rule will result in any
burden to small entities. First, adoption of the flexibilities included
in the proposed rule is optional, and FCUs would not be required to
amend their bylaws. Additionally, even if FCUs revise their bylaws in
response to the proposed rule, it is within FCUs' discretion to
exercise the authority provided in the proposed rule to expel a member.
As such, the proposed rule includes no affirmative requirements for
small credit unions and will not affect the competitive balance between
small and large credit unions. Therefore, the Board certifies that the
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to
consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. The
NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5),
voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental
federalism principles.
[[Page 59747]]
This proposed rule only applies to FCUs and would not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The NCUA
has therefore determined that this rule does not constitute a policy
that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule would not affect
family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701
Credit, Credit Unions, Federal Credit Union Bylaws.
By the NCUA Board on September 22, 2022.
Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Board proposes to
amend 12 CFR part 701 as follows:
PART 701--ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759,
1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789.
Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31
is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981 and
3601-3610. Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42 U.S.C. 4311-4312.
0
2. In Appendix A to part 701:
0
a. Revise Article II, Section 5;
0
b. Revise Article XIV;
0
c. Revise Official NCUA Commentary--Federal Credit Union Bylaws,
Article II(iii); and
0
d. Revise Official NCUA Commentary--Federal Credit Union Bylaws,
Article XIV.
The revisions read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 701--Federal Credit Union Bylaws
* * * * *
Article II. Qualifications for Membership
Section 5. Member in good standing. A member in good standing
retains all their rights and privileges in the credit union. A
member not in good standing may be subject to a policy that limits
credit union services. A member not in good standing is one who has
engaged in any of the conduct in Article XIV, Section 3 related to
for-cause termination of membership. In the event of a suspension of
service, the member will be notified of what accounts or services
have been discontinued. Subject to Article XIV and any applicable
limitation of services policy approved by the board, members not in
good standing retain their right to attend, participate, and vote at
the annual and special meetings of the members and maintain a share
account.
* * * * *
Article XIV. Expulsion and Withdrawal
Section 1. Expulsion procedure. A credit union may expel a
member in one of three ways. The first way is through a special
meeting. Under this option, a credit union may: call a special
meeting of the members, provide the member the opportunity to be
heard, and obtain a two-thirds vote of the members present at the
special meeting. The second way to expel a member is under a
nonparticipation policy given to each member that follows the
requirements found in the Act. The third way to expel a member is by
a two-thirds vote of a quorum of the directors of the credit union
for cause. A credit union can only expel a member through a vote of
the directors of the credit union if it follows the policy for
expulsion in section 2.
Section 2. A credit union's directors may vote to expel a member
for cause only if the credit union has provided, in written or
electronic form, if the member has elected to receive electronic
communications from the credit union, a copy of this Article to each
member of the credit union. The communication of the policy, along
with all notices required under this section, must be legible,
written in plain language, and reasonably understandable by ordinary
members.
If a member will be subject to expulsion, the member shall be
notified of the expulsion, along with the reason for such expulsion.
The notice must include sufficient detail for the member to
understand the grounds for expulsion and cannot include only
conclusory statements regarding the reason for the member's
expulsion. The notice must also tell the member that any complaints
related to their potential expulsion should be submitted to the
NCUA's website. The FCU must maintain a copy of the provided notice
for its records. The notice must clearly state the member's right to
request a hearing, and if a hearing is not requested membership will
automatically terminate after 60 calendar days. The notice shall be
provided in person, by mail to the member's address, or, if the
member has elected to receive electronic communications from the
credit union, may be provided electronically.
A member shall have 60 calendar days from the date of receipt of
a notification to request a hearing from the board of directors of
credit union. A member is not entitled to attend the hearing in
person, but the member must be provided a meaningful opportunity to
orally present their case to the FCU board. The member may choose to
provide a written submission to the Board instead of a hearing with
oral statements. If a member does not request a hearing, the member
shall be expelled after the end of the 60-day period after receipt
of the notice. If a member requests a hearing, the board of
directors must provide the member with a hearing. At the hearing,
the board of directors may not raise any rationale or reason for
expulsion that is not explicitly included in the notice to the
member.
After the hearing, the board of directors of the credit union
must hold a vote within 30 calendar days on expelling the member. If
a member is expelled, either through the expiration of the 60-day
period or a vote to expel the member after a hearing, notice of the
expulsion must be provided to the member in person, by mail to the
member's address, in written form or, if the member has elected to
receive electronic communications from the credit union, may be
provided electronically. The notice must provide information on the
effect of the expulsion, including information related to account
access and any deductions by the credit union related to amounts
due. The notice must also tell the member that any complaints
related to their potential expulsion should be submitted to the
NCUA's website. The notice must also state that the member has an
opportunity to request reinstatement by either a majority vote of a
quorum of the directors of the credit union or a majority vote of
the members of the credit union present at a special meeting.
A member expelled under this authority must be given an
opportunity to request reinstatement of membership and may be
reinstated by either a majority vote of a quorum of the directors of
the credit union or a majority vote of the members of the credit
union present at a special meeting. An FCU is only required to hold
a board vote or special meeting in response to a member's first
reinstatement request following expulsion. FCUs are required to
maintain records related to any member expelled through a vote of
the directors of the credit union for five years.
Section 3. The term cause in this Article means (A) a
substantial or repeated violation of the membership agreement of the
credit union; (B) a substantial or repeated disruption, including
dangerous or abusive behavior, to the operations of a credit union,
as defined below; or (C) fraud, attempted fraud, or other illegal
conduct that a member has been convicted of in relation to the
credit union, including the credit union's employees conducting
business on behalf of the credit union.
If the FCU is considering expulsion for a member due to repeated
non-substantial violations of the membership agreement or repeated
disruptions to the credit union's operations, the credit union must
provide written notice to the member at least one time prior to the
notice of expulsion, and the violation or conduct must be repeated
after having been notified of the violation.
The written notice must state the exact nature of the violation
or conduct and that if the violation or conduct occurs again the
member may be expelled from the credit union.
[[Page 59748]]
Dangerous or abusive behavior includes: (1) Violence,
intimidation, physical threats, harassment, or physical or verbal
abuse of officials or employees of the credit union, members, or
agents of the credit union. This includes actions while on credit
union premises and through use of telephone, mail, email, or other
electronic method; (2) Behavior that causes or threatens damage to
credit union property; or (3) Unauthorized use or access of credit
union property. Expressions of frustration with the credit union or
its employees through elevated volume and tone; expressions of
intent to seek lawful recourse, regardless of perceived merit; or
repeated interactions with credit union employees is insufficient to
constitute dangerous or abusive behavior.
Section 4. Expulsion or withdrawal does not relieve a member of
any liability to the credit union. The credit union will pay all of
the member's shares upon their expulsion or withdrawal less any
amounts due to this credit union.
Section 5. An expulsion of a member pursuant to section 2 shall
be done individually, on a case-by-case basis, and neither the NCUA
Board nor any credit union may expel a class of members.
* * * * *
Official NCUA Commentary--Federal Credit Union Bylaws
Article II. Qualifications for Membership
* * * * *
(iii) Violent, belligerent, disruptive, or abusive members: Many
credit unions have confronted the issue of handling a violent,
belligerent, disruptive, or abusive individual. Doing so is not a
simple matter insofar as it requires the credit union to balance the
need to preserve the safety of individual staff, other members, and
the integrity of the workplace, on one hand, with the rights of the
affected member on the other. In accordance with the Act and
applicable legal interpretations, there is a reasonably wide range
within which FCUs may fashion a policy that works in their case.
Thus, an individual who has become violent, belligerent,
disruptive, or abusive may be prohibited from entering the premises
or making telephone contact with the credit union, and the
individual may be severely restricted in terms of eligibility for
products or services. So long as the individual is not barred from
exercising the right to vote at annual meetings and is allowed to
maintain a regular share account, the FCU may fashion and implement
a policy that is reasonably designed to preserve the safety of its
employees and the integrity of the workplace. The policy need not be
identical nor applied uniformly in all cases; there is room for
flexibility and a customized approach to fit the particular
circumstances. In fact, the NCUA anticipates that in some
circumstances, such as violence or a credible threat of violence
against another member or credit union staff in the FCU or its
surrounding property, an FCU may take immediate action to restrict
most, if not all, services to the member. This may occur along a
parallel track as the credit union begins the process of expelling
the member under Article XIV. In other situations, such as a member
who frequently writes checks with insufficient funds, the FCU may
attempt to resolve the matter with the member before limiting check
writing services. Once a limitation of services policy is adopted or
revised, members must receive notice. The FCU should disclose the
policy to new members when they join and notify existing members of
the policy at least 30 days before it becomes effective. The credit
union's board has the option to adopt the optional amendment
addressing members in good standing.
* * * * *
Article XIV. Expulsion and Withdrawal
As noted in the commentary to Article II, there is a fairly wide
range of measures available to the credit union in responding to
abusive or unreasonably disruptive members. A credit union can limit
services under Article II for a member not in good standing. A
credit union may also expel the member for cause after two-thirds
vote of the credit union's directors.\11\ Dangerous and abusive
behavior is considered any violent, belligerent, unreasonably
disruptive, or abusive behavior. Examples of dangerous and abusive
conduct include, but are not limited to, a member threatening
physical harm to employees, a member repeatedly purchasing gifts for
or asking tellers on dates, a member repeatedly cursing at
employees, and a member threatening to follow a loan officer home
for a denying loan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 12 U.S.C. 1764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A credit union must provide notice to the member of the
expulsion. The notice must include the reason for the expulsion. The
notice must be specific and not just include conclusory statements
regarding the reason for the member's expulsion. For example, a
general statement that the member's behavior has been deemed abusive
and the member is being subject to expulsion procedures would
generally be insufficient as an explanation. A credit union is
prohibited from expelling a class of members under this provision.
That would include a board acting to remove all delinquent members
or class of delinquent members.
If a special meeting of the members is called to expel the
member, only in-person voting is permitted in conjunction with the
special meeting, so that the affected member has an opportunity to
present their case and respond to the credit union's concerns.
However, an in-person meeting is not required if a member is
expelled by a two-thirds vote of the board of directors. In
addition, FCUs should consider the commentary under Article XVI
about members using accounts for unlawful purposes.
[FR Doc. 2022-20927 Filed 9-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 3, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.