This commentary was written by Barbara Conrey, member of the VSECU, retired professor from a state college and architect who has lived in Montpellier for 35 years.

As a member of the Vermont State Employees Credit Union, I received the ballot for the proposed merger with NEFCU. Being undecided about my vote, I carefully read the attached 12-page merger plan and received several unpleasant surprises.

The reason for the merger appears 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 members”. So who would that membership be? The document indicates that there are 71,106 VSECU members and 95,701 NEFCU members; all members of VSECU and an unknown number of NEFCUs are from Vermont.

The total membership of a combined credit union would be 166,807, or 36% of Vermont’s population age 18 or older. Thus, the combined members would represent a significant portion of the eligible population if only Vermonters were considered. Therefore, the “new” credit union must seek members outside of Vermont. From reading news reports, I understood that the “membership field” would be Vermont, New Hampshire, and possibly other New England states. How wrong I was.

It is only in the merger plan document that we are told that NEFCU’s “area of ​​membership” includes (since a 2014 merger) all “people who live, work, worship, do volunteer or attend school” in 4 Michigan counties. These counties are 4 of the most populous in this great state (including Detroit) and combined have over 3.3 million residents over the age of 18 (according to recent census data) who could become members. Additionally, it includes an unknown number of individuals associated with Michigan BlueCross BlueShield and other entities who may be eligible for membership.

Why is this a concern? If the combined credit union wants to grow its membership, where will it look? For whom will he adapt his services? Not for little Vermont, but rather for its much larger market potential in Michigan. The “financial needs of its members” will become the needs of prospective members in Michigan, not here. I left one of those Michigan counties; 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 lies ahead for VSECU members, I think it is clear that members should vote no on the proposed merger.

Did you know that VTDigger is a non-profit organization?

Our journalism is made possible by donations from our members. If you appreciate what we do, please contribute and help keep this vital resource accessible to everyone.

Filed under:


Tags: nefcu, New England Federal Credit Union, Vermont State Employees Credit Union, VSECU


About Feedback posts 12-18 comments per week from a wide range of community sources. All comments should include the author’s first and last name, city of residence, and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, pressure groups, or special interests. Authors are limited to one comment posted per month from February to May; the rest of the year, the limit is two per month, space permitting. The minimum length is 400 words and the maximum length is 850 words. We ask reviewers to cite sources for quotes and, on a case-by-case basis, we ask editors to support their claims. We do not have the resources to verify comments and reserve the right to reject opinions for matters of taste and inaccuracy. We do not post comments that are endorsements of political candidates. Comments are community voices and do not represent VTDigger in any way. Please send your comment to Tom Kearney, [email protected]

Email: [email protected]

Send us your thoughts

VTDigger now accepts letters to the editor. For more information on our guidelines and access to the letter form, please click here.

Recent Stories