It’s not often that the Supreme Court is our leadoff hitter, but the arguments in the Trump v. Slaughter case that was taken up by the Court in December have huge implications on future NCUA board members and the decisions put forth by board members.

It appears that the Court is willing to weaken the independence of federal agencies, including NCUA, by ruling that the President can remove members of these agencies without cause. In essence, this would give the White House control over what have been previously recognized as independent agencies.

The ramifications if this were to happen would be huge for all the affected agencies, but let’s focus on NCUA.

Historically, NCUA board members could make decisions based on their best judgement without worrying about the Administration position. Board members were not impacted if their term spanned between Presidents of different political parties. If the Court determines that Trump’s actions were legal, the new norm will most likely be that any incoming Administration will fire the Board members of the opposite party and fill the posts with someone who will base decisions on what the Administration desires.

For example, if this decision had been in place when President Biden was sworn in, it would be expected that both Rodney Hood and Chairman Hauptman would have been dismissed shortly after Biden took office. My term could have been less than a week if President George W. Bush could have chosen to use my seat for a Republican.

The ability to make decisions and to expect a full term has been one of the hallmarks of an “independent” agency. The election of a new President would now result in agency actions coming to a complete halt.

Story continued below…

Should this become the new standard, the pool of qualified candidates willing to serve on the NCUA Board would dramatically shrink. Not many competent individuals would want to subvert their true opinions and position on issues just to keep their job. The reality would be that all regulatory decisions would be generated by the White House. In the end, the value of diverse opinions and backgrounds would give way to a sycophantic approach.

Against that backdrop of potential White House control over independent agencies, the current uncertainty surrounding NCUA’s leadership takes on added weight. As the Supreme Court weighs the limits of presidential removal power, questions about continuity and authority at NCUA underscore how consequential the Court’s ruling could be.

But a funny thing happened on the way to a new NCUA chair being nominated by the White House.

The White House announced that current Chair Kyle Hauptman was nominated to be a member of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Hauptman released a statement that he would stay in his current post at NCUA until his successor was confirmed. This is important for the sake of continuity as the Supreme Court has yet to rule on whether the Trump Administration has the authority to permanently remove former Board Members Todd Harper and Tonya Otsuka.

While rumors of a name coming from the White House have percolated for the last few months, the fact is that no name has been sent to the Senate. While Hauptman has agreed to stay on, what happens if the nomination process slows to a pace that doesn’t fit the plans at PCAOB? Should Hauptman leave, the next in l ine to run the agency would beExecutive Director Larry Fazio. Fazio, who has held a number of high-level positions within the agency would be an excellent choice to head the agency.

NCUA would be in sound hands as Fazio has the experience and knowledge to run the agency. The delegations of authority approved by previous boards gives him the ability to make decisions that best serve credit unions.