[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14795-14799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6705]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
Guidelines for the Supervisory Review Committee
AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Final Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 95-1--
Supervisory Review Committee (IRPS 95-1).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement of
Act (Act) of 1994 was signed into law on September 23, 1994. Section
309 of the Act requires that NCUA establish an independent appellate
process to review material supervisory determinations. This process
must be established within 180 days of the Act's passage or by March
22, 1995. The Act also requires that the public be entitled to comment
on the proposed process. The NCUA Board issued proposed IRPS 94-2 on
November 10, 1994. The proposed IRPS would have established a
Supervisory Review Committee (Committee) consisting of five senior
staff members to hear appeals of material supervisory determinations.
Material supervisory determinations were defined in the proposal to
include composite CAMEL ratings of 4 and 5, significant loan
classifications and adequacy of loan loss reserves. The Board has
expanded the determinations subject to review in the final IRPS to
include composite CAMEL ratings of 3, 4 and 5 and all component ratings
of those composite ratings. The final IRPS reduces Committee membership
from five to three and shortens the time-frames for Committee action.
Additional procedural and technical changes are made in the final IRPS
as described in the Supplementary Information.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 22, 1995.
ADDRESSES: National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hattie M. Ulan, Special Counsel to the
General Counsel, at the above address or telephone 703-518-6540.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of
1994, Public Law 103-325 (the Act) was signed into law on September 23,
1994. Section 309 of the Act requires, among other things, that NCUA
and the federal banking agencies each establish an independent
appellate process to review material supervisory determinations. The
Act requires that the agencies provide the public with notice and
opportunity to comment on the proposed guidelines for the appellate
process within 90 days of the Act's passage. The NCUA Board issued
proposed guidelines establishing a Supervisory Review Committee
(Committee) (Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 94-2) on
November 10, 1994 (59 FR 59437, 11/17/94.) The guidelines were issued
with a 30-day comment period ending on December 19, 1994. The NCUA
Board then extended the comment period until January 18, 1995. (See 59
FR 61003, 11/29/94.) The Act requires that each agency's appellate
process be established not later than 180 days after the Act's passage
(by March 22, 1995).
Forty-nine commenters responded to the proposed guidelines. The
public commenters consisted of 26 federally chartered credit unions, 7
state chartered, federally-insured credit unions and 1 unidentified
credit union, 8 state credit union leagues, 1 state credit union
regulator, 3 national trade associations, 2 individual auditors and one
credit union manager. The commenters generally approved of the proposed
Supervisory Review Committee, however, there were several areas where
many of the commenters suggested changes. The Board has considered the
public comments and suggestions of NCUA staff as well as the proposed
guidelines of the federal banking agencies (Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, Office of Thrift Supervision, Office of Comptroller of the
Currency, and Federal Reserve Board) in devising its final guidelines.
An explanation of the comments received and the resolution of the
issues in the final IRPS follows.
Format--IRPS or Regulation
The Board specifically requested comment on whether an IRPS was the
appropriate method to establish the appeals process or whether the
process should be established through a regulation. Sixteen commenters
addressed this issue and the response was split 50/50. Several of the
commenters supporting use of a regulation believe it would have greater
force of law. The Board believes that the IRPS format is more
appropriate since it provides the Board with some flexibility. The
Board does not believe enforceability of the IRPS will be a problem
since notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure
Act have been followed in its promulgation. [[Page 14796]]
Committee Composition
According to the proposed IRPS, the Committee was to be composed of
five senior staff members: the Executive Director, the Director of the
Office of Examination and Insurance, the General Counsel, one Regional
Director, and one additional senior staff or Board staff member. The
Executive Director was to serve as Committee chairperson. The proposed
composition generated response from 32 commenters. Twenty-two of these
commenters suggested adding (or completely substituting) non- NCUA
staff to the Committee to ensure that the Committee would exercise
independent judgment. The Board does not have the authority to place
non-NCUA staff on the Committee. The Act requires that NCUA establish
an ``independent intra-agency appellate process.'' (Emphasis added.)
Non-NCUA staff presence on the Committee would not fulfill the
statutory requirement of ``intra-agency.'' Several commenters
(including ten who agreed that no non-NCUA staff should be on the
Committee) suggested eliminating the Regional Director and alternate
Regional Director from the Committee. Commenters believed that the
Regional Director members would find it difficult not to support one
another, even though they would not hear appeals occurring in their own
Regions. The Board does not wish to place the Regional Directors in
this position and has eliminated the Regional Director and alternate
Regional Director from the Committee. In addition, the Board believes
that neither the Executive Director nor the Executive Assistants to the
Board Members should serve on the Committee. The persons serving in
these positions report to and represent the interests of Board members.
In order to ensure a separate and meaningful final right of appeal to
the Board, as discussed below, these individuals should not serve on
the Committee.
A few commenters noted that a Committee composed of fewer
individuals may be better able to handle the appellate process. These
commenters noted that it may be difficult to accommodate all members'
schedules given their senior status and multiple job demands. The Board
agrees and has reduced the Committee from five to three. The Committee
will be composed of three senior staff members, none of whom are
currently serving as a Regional Director or Associate Regional
Director, the Executive Director or Executive Assistant to a Board
Member. One Committee member will be designated as chairperson. All
three members will serve for one year terms and can be reappointed for
additional terms. The NCUA Chairman will appoint the Committee members
and designate one member as Committee chairperson.
The proposed IRPS required that three of the five Committee members
be present at each Committee meeting and that a majority vote be
required for action on an appeal. The number of Committee members has
been reduced from five to three and a quorum of two must be present for
each meeting. A majority vote of the entire Committee (at least two) is
required for action on an appeal.
The proposed IRPS stated that regular Committee meetings would be
held quarterly with flexibility given to the Committee chairperson to
cancel meetings and call additional meetings, as needed. Many
commenters believed that more regular meetings should be scheduled. The
final IRPS retains the requirement for regular quarterly meetings,
again with flexibility given to the Committee chairperson to change
this schedule. It is the Board's intention that adequate meetings be
scheduled and held to complete action on all appeals within the time
frames set forth below. Time frames for Committee action have been
shortened as requested by many commenters. See discussion below.
Appealable Issues
The Act requires that material supervisory determinations,
including determinations relating to examination ratings, adequacy of
loan loss reserve provisions and loan classifications on loans that are
significant to the credit union, be subject to the appellate process.
The Board noted in the proposed IRPS that it understood the reference
to ``examination'' rating to mean a credit union's CAMEL rating. The
Board proposed that only a credit union's composite CAMEL rating of 4
or 5 be appealable; component ratings were not appealable to the
Committee. In addition, the Board noted adequacy of loan loss reserve
provisions and loan classifications on loans that are significant to
the credit union as appealable issues. The Board requested comment on
how it should define ``significant'' for purposes of identifying
classified loans subject to the appeals process.
A total of 30 commenters addressed the appealability of certain
CAMEL ratings. Most commenters thought the ratings subject to the
appeals process should be expanded. Thirteen commenters believed all
CAMEL ratings (or CAMELs 2-5) should be appealable. They stated that
credit unions with CAMEL ratings other than 4 and 5 have significant
objections to ratings and that their appealability would give credit
unions the ability to discuss ratings with their examiners. Ten
commenters thought that CAMEL 3s should be appealable. They noted that
a rating of 3 affects field of membership expansions and some CAMEL 3
credit unions get increased examinations and supervisory contacts and
are placed under letters of understanding and agreement. One commenter
stated that a CAMEL rating of 3 is perceived as unsatisfactory in the
credit union community. Fifteen commenters requested that at least some
component ratings should be appealable. It was stated that composite
ratings are made up of components, and if a component rating could not
be appealed, a composite rating could never be changed. The Board has
decided to expand the appealability of CAMEL ratings. Credit unions may
appeal composite ratings of 3, 4, and 5 as well of as all component
ratings of those composite ratings.
Eleven commenters addressed the issue of how to define
``significant'' for purposes of appealing the classification of a
significant loan. Seven of these commenters believe that each credit
union should determine which loans are significant. Two commenters
suggested significant be defined as a percentage of reserves, one
suggested a percentage of reserve plus dollar amount of the loan and
one suggested that significant loans be linked to reserve adequacy. The
Board has determined that each credit union may determine whether a
classified loan is ``significant'' for purposes of its appealability to
the Committee.
Several commenters believed additional disputes should also be
subject to the Supervisory Review Committee. Included are disputes
relating to fixed assets, credit union service organizations, field of
membership, mergers and letters of understanding and agreement. It was
also suggested that the Act requires that material supervisory
decisions ``relating to examinations'' are appealable and the Board's
interpretation of the Act as set forth in the proposed IRPS was too
narrow. The Board has determined not to further expand the types of
disputes covered by the review process initially. The Board may expand
the disputes covered after some experience is gained with the process.
In addition, disputes over field of membership, mergers, and other
material issues are already appealable to the NCUA Board by credit
unions not satisfied with the decisions of the Regional Director.
[[Page 14797]]
Resolution by Region and Timing Issues
The proposed IRPS stated that a dispute is ripe for review by the
Committee only when the credit union establishes that it has been
unsuccessful in attempting to resolve the matter with the Regional
Office. No time frames were set for resolving issues at the regional
level. Fourteen commenters believed that some time limit should be
imposed on the Region to make a decision. Suggestions ranged from 30 -
120 days, with most commenters favoring 30 days. The Board agrees and
believes that the Regions should respond to these disputes within 30
days. The proposed IRPS stated that appeals should be submitted within
30 days of the Regional Office's decision. Seven commenters suggested
that 30 days would not always provide adequate time for a credit union
to prepare an appeal. Some of these commenters suggested the 30 days be
expanded to 45 - 60 days. The Board believes that 30 days is adequate
time for a credit union to make a decision on whether to submit an
appeal and in an effort to complete the appeal process expeditiously,
will not increase the 30 days. In the event the Region does not
respond, the dispute becomes appealable to the Committee after the
first 30 days and within another 30 days (30 days for Region to
respond, 30 days for credit union to submit appeal to Committee). The
Board also believes that credit unions should be timely in their
attempt to resolve the dispute with the Region. Therefore the final
IRPS states that the credit union must contact the Regional Office
within 30 days of the examiner's final determination. Sixteen
commenters addressed the proposed time frames for the Committee to act
on an appeal. Most agreed that the time frames set forth would not
result in an expeditious appeal as required by the Act. It was proposed
that an appeal be submitted by a credit union within 30 days of
regional action and that the Committee would make a decision on the
appeal within 90 days. If additional information was needed, the
Committee would request it within 30 days of receipt of the appeal and
the information would be submitted by the credit union and/or Regional
Office within 15 days. Seven commenters specifically suggested shorter
time frames for the Committee to decide an appeal, several others just
noted that the time frame was too long. One commenter suggested
reducing the 90 days to 30 days, three others suggested reducing it to
60 days. Three additional commenters stated the whole process should be
limited to 90 days. The Board agrees that the time for Committee
deliberation should be reduced. The final IRPS reduces the time the
Committee has to request additional information from 30 to 15 days and
the time for Committee action on the appeal from 90 to 30 days.
Appeals by Federally-Insured, State Chartered Credit Unions
The Act requires that the appellate process be available at insured
institutions that NCUA supervises. It was noted in the preamble of the
proposed IRPS that in cases of material supervisory determinations made
by NCUA, the Committee would consider appeals from all federally
insured institutions and that NCUA would consult with the state
supervisory authority in appropriate cases. Six commenters addressed
the issue of appeals made by federally-insured, state chartered credit
unions (FISCUs). One commenter agreed with the proposal, one stated
that NCUA does not supervise FISCUs and believed the review process
should not be available to them and several commenters asked how the
FISCU review process would be implemented.
NCUA has clear responsibilities with respect to the safety and
soundness of all federally insured credit unions. NCUA works closely
with the various state supervisory authorities in both joint and
independent examination of FISCUs. There are two basic types of FISCU
examinations in which NCUA examiners are involved: a joint examination
with the state examiner; and an NCUA insurance review. Normally in a
joint examination, the state examiner is the examiner-in-charge and
there will be concurrence between the state and NCUA examiner on all
substantive exceptions noted in the examination report. Results of
joint examinations will normally be within the purview of the state
since the state examiner is the examiner-in-charge. Disputes arising
from these examinations would not normally be subject to NCUA's review
process. An insurance review, on the other hand, is done by NCUA
examiners; it does not involve state examiners. Disputes concerning
material supervisory determinations arising from insurance reviews
would normally be subject to the review process. The final IRPS states
that FISCU appeals of material supervisory determinations made by NCUA
examiners should first be pursued with the appropriate NCUA Regional
Office and then, if not safisfactorily resolved, submitted to the
Committee. The Committee chairperson will reverify that an NCUA
examiner rather than a state examiner made the disputed determination,
and the appeal will then be subject to review by the Committee.
Regional staff and the Committee will consult with the state
supervisor's office in appropriate cases.
Corporate Credit Union Appeals
The proposed IRPS did not specifically address appeals of corporate
credit unions. The corporate credit union program is managed by the
Office of Corporate Credit Unions located in NCUA's central office.
NCUA examiners (rather than state credit union examiners) normally
serve as the examiner-in-charge for examinations of corporate FISCUs.
All federally insured corporate credit unions (both FCUs and FISCUs)
should contact the Office of Corporate Credit Unions rather than the
regional office concerning material supervisory determinations made by
NCUA examiners. The same time frames and procedures apply. Staff from
the Office of Corporate Credit Unions and the Committee will consult
with the state supervisor's office in appropriate cases.
Written Appeal and Authorization by Board of Directors
Most commenters did not address whether the appeal should be
submitted in writing. Of the few that did address the issue, only one
commenter was opposed. The final IRPS reflects the requirement that the
appeal be submitted in writing. A related issue that the Board did not
specifically request comment on is whether the board of directors of
the appealing credit union be required to authorize the appeal. The
NCUA believes this to be a fair requirement. The board of directors
should be made aware of and authorize any appeal made to the Committee.
This requirement will eliminate the decision to appeal being made by
one credit union official.
Personal Appearance
The preamble to the proposed IRPS noted that personal appearances
would not be a regular part of the appellate process; that personal
appearances may be requested, but the final decision would be made by
the Committee. Twenty-nine commenters addressed personal appearance of
the appealing party and all agreed that the credit union should be
given the opportunity to make a personal appearance before the
Committee. The NCUA Board has reconsidered this issue and determined
that the decision on whether to make a personal appearance should be up
to the appealing credit union. Appealing credit unions will be
responsible for all [[Page 14798]] of their costs associated with a
personal appearance. In an attempt to save resources of both appealing
credit unions and the NCUA, the Committee chairperson reserves the
right to first attempt to work out the dispute via teleconference.
Stay of Decision Pending Review
Three commenters requested that any material supervisory
determination appealed be stayed pending the outcome of the appellate
process. This issue was not specifically addressed in the proposed
IRPS. The NCUA Board does not believe it appropriate to stay
examination findings pending appeal. Safety and soundness concerns
require that examination findings remain in place and that any action
that the NCUA deems appropriate based on these findings be taken.
Role of NCUA Board
The proposed IRPS required that all Committee decisions be
submitted to the NCUA Board. The Board would then have 7 days to review
the decision. If a majority of the Board members agreed, the decision
would become final. If a majority did not agree, the decision would be
considered by the Board on final appeal. Six commenters addressed this
issue. One agreed with the proposal and four stated that the decision
should not go to the Board, but that the appealing credit union should
have a right to appeal the Committee decision to the Board. One
commenter suggested that only Committee decisions opposed to the
appealing credit union should go to the Board. The Board has
reconsidered this issue and determined that all appealing credit unions
as well as the NCUA offices involved should have a right to appeal to
the Board. The Committee decision is appealable to the NCUA Board
within 30 days of receipt by the parties.
Other Appeals
One commenter requested that the Board include in the IRPS other
types of appealable issues that are available to credit unions and
credit union members. A section has been added to the final IRPS
setting forth provisions of the NCUA Rules and Regulations which
address various formal and informal appeals processes. Also noted in
this section are other types of disputes (chartering, insurance
applications, field of membership expansions, merger, etc.) which are
appealable to the NCUA Board.
Retaliation
The Act requires that NCUA ensure that safeguards exist for
protecting the appellant from retaliation by agency examiners. The
proposed IRPS stated that credit unions could seek redress from alleged
retaliation through NCUA's Office of Inspector General. Seven
commenters addressed this issue, with five suggesting rotation of
examiners if retaliation is found to exist. The final IRPS sets forth
the types of actions that may be taken against an NCUA employee,
including rotation of examiners, when retaliation is found to exist.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Two commenters asked whether a credit union would have to use the
appellate process before proceeding to court on a dispute subject to
the Committee's jurisdiction. Since the appellate procedure is part of
NCUA's administrative process, it appears that if a credit union did
not pursue the process and filed directly in court, it would not have
exhausted its administrative remedies. Unless otherwise noted, this
would be true for any of NCUA's appeal procedures. The Board has
determined not to address this issue in the IRPS, as it is a principle
of general administrative law.
Regulatory Procedures
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The NCUA Board certifies that the final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on small credit unions (those under $1
million in assets). The appeal procedures set forth apply equally to
all credit unions. The procedures are not mandatory. Only those credit
unions wishing to appeal are subject to its provisions. It is not
anticipated that small credit unions will use the appeal procedures any
more or less than large credit unions. Accordingly, the NCUA Board has
determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
Executive Order 12612
Executive Order 12612 requires NCUA to consider the effect of its
actions on state interests. The IRPS applies to all federally insured
credit unions (both federally chartered credit unions and federally-
insured, state chartered credit unions (FISCUs)), as required by the
Act. It may have a direct effect 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.
However, the Act requires that the process apply to FISCUs.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Although it was noted in the proposal that the IRPS would impose
paperwork requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, upon
further consideration, including consultation with the Office of
Management and Budget, the Board has concluded that the IRPS is exempt
from the Paperwork Reduction Act pursuant to 44 U.S.C.
3518(c)(1)(B)(ii). According to this section, the Paperwork Reduction
Act does not apply to an administrative action or investigation
involving an agency against specific individuals or entities.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board on March 13,
1995.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, IRPS 95-1
is established as follows:
[Note: The following ruling will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.]
1. Authority: Section 309 of the Riegle Community Development
and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-325.
2. IRPS 95-1 is established as follows:
Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 95-1--Supervisory Review
Committee
Section 309 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994 requires that NCUA establish an independent
intra-agency appellate process to review material supervisory
determinations. The NCUA Board hereby establishes a Supervisory Review
Committee (Committee) to implement Section 309.
It is NCUA policy to maintain good communication with all credit
unions it supervises. Credit unions, examiners and regional and central
office staff are encouraged to resolve disagreements informally and
expeditiously. The NCUA Board expects that most disputes will be
handled in that manner. The Supervisory Review Committee and other
appeals processes are available for certain disputes that cannot be
resolved informally.
A--Committee Structure, Scope and Procedures
The Supervisory Review Committee shall consist of three regular
members of the NCUA's senior staff as appointed by the NCUA Chairman.
None of the members shall be currently serving as a Regional Director,
Associate Regional Director, Executive Director or Executive Assistant
to a Board Member. One member shall be designated by the
[[Page 14799]] NCUA Chairman as chairperson. All three Committee
members shall serve for one year terms and may be reappointed for
additional terms. Each member of the Committee shall have one vote and
a quorum (two members) shall be present at each Committee meeting.
Meetings may be held in person or via teleconference. A majority vote
of the full Committee (two votes) is required for action on an appeal.
Regular Committee meetings shall generally be held quarterly.
Additional meetings will be scheduled or regular meetings canceled, as
appropriate, by the chairperson on an as needed basis.
Appeals of material supervisory determinations made by NCUA may be
made by all federally insured credit unions (federal credit unions
(FCUs) and federally-insured, state chartered credit unions (FISCUs)).
Material supervisory determinations are limited to: (1) Composite
CAMEL ratings of 3, 4, and 5 and all component ratings of those
composite ratings; (2) adequacy of loan loss reserve provisions; and
(3) loan classifications on loans that are significant as determined by
the appealing credit union.
An FCU, other than a corporate FCU, must contact the regional
office regarding the examiner's decision within 30 days of the
examiner's final determination. The decision must be appealed to
(postmarked or received by) the Committee either 30 days after a
regional determination or 60 days after the regional office has been
contacted if it has not made a determination.
A FISCU, other than a corporate FISCU, must contact the Regional
Office within 30 days of the NCUA examiner's final decision. The Region
will verify that the determination being appealed was made by an NCUA
examiner. If the decision was made by the state, the appeal will be
turned over to the state for appropriate action. If the decision was
made by the NCUA examiner, the dispute will be handed by the Region and
become appealable to the Committee either 30 days after a regional
determination or 60 days after the regional office has been contacted
if it has not made a determination. The Committee chairperson will
reverify that the determination was made by NCUA. Regional staff and
the Committee will notify and consult with the state supervisory
authority in appropriate cases.
All federally insured corporate credit unions (FCUs and FISCUs)
must contact the Office of Corporate Credit Unions concerning its
examiner's final determination and then the Committee within the same
time frames. Staff from the Office of Corporate Credit Unions and the
Committee will consult with the state supervisory authority in
appropriate cases involving corporate FISCUs.
The board of directors of the appealing credit union must authorize
that the appeal be filed. Appeals shall be submitted in writing and
shall be mailed or delivered to Chairman, Supervisory Review Committee,
NCUA, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Appeals may be made by letter, and shall include the name of the
appellant credit union, the material supervisory determination being
appealed and the reasons for the appeal. Appellants are encouraged to
submit all information and supporting documentation relevant to the
matter in dispute.
Appellants are entitled to a personal appearance before the
Committee. The Committee chairperson reserves the right, however, to
attempt to work out the dispute through teleconference.
The material supervisory determination remains in affect pending
appeal. The appeal does not prevent the NCUA from taking any action,
either formal or informal, that it deems appropriate during the
pendency of the appeal.
The Committee may request additional information from the appellant
and/or the Regional Office within 15 days of its receipt of the appeal.
The information must be submitted to the Committee within 15 days of
receipt of the Committee request. The Committee shall make a
determination on the appeal within 30 days from the date of the receipt
of an appeal by the Committee or of its receipt of any requested
additional information. These time requirements are subject to
adjustment by the Committee, whether on its own or upon request of the
appellant or the Region involved.
The Committee decision is appealable to the NCUA Board within 30
days of receipt by the parties.
B--Other Appeals
Procedures for various formal and informal adjudicative and non-
adjudicative actions and proceedings not covered by the Supervisory
Review Committee are found in Parts 709 (creditor claim appeals), 745
(share insurance appeals), 792 (Freedom of Information Act appeals) and
747 (appeals of various administrative and enforcement actions) of the
NCUA Rules and Regulations (12 CFR 709, 745, 792, and 747). These parts
should be reviewed to determine the procedures which apply for a
particular appeal. In addition, the NCUA Board serves as the final
administrative decision maker for major disputes that are not otherwise
covered by this IRPS or Parts 709, 745, 792 or 747. These include
disputes over chartering, insurance applications, field of membership
expansion, merger, certain corporate credit union matters, charter
changes and letters of understanding and agreement. These issues should
first be pursued through the appropriate Regional Office or the Office
of Corporate Credit Unions. Appeals concerning these matters should be
addressed to the NCUA Board and submitted through the appropriate
Regional Office or the Office of Corporate Credit Unions.
C--Retaliation
Alleged acts of retaliation should be reported to NCUA's Inspector
General, who is authorized by Congress, under the Inspector General
Act, to receive and investigate complaints and other information
regarding abuse in agency programs and operations.
Any retaliation by NCUA staff against a credit union making any
type of appeal will subject the employee to appropriate disciplinary or
remedial action by the appropriate supervisor. Such disciplinary or
remedial action may include oral or written warning or admonishment,
reprimand, suspension or separation from employment, change in assigned
duties, or disqualification from a particular assignment, including
prohibition from participating in any examination of the credit union
that was the subject of the retaliation.
[FR Doc. 95-6705 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P