The chairman of the $63 million Montana First Credit Union ofMissoula, whose members three weeks ago shot down a merger bid froman out-of-state suitor, said Friday that his credit union plans totry again.

However, the next time, will be different, he said.

“We do look to engage our members in a new way as weadjust the process,” explained Mark Lodine, chairman of MontanaFirst's board of directors, as the CU reassesses what went wrong ina narrow defeat – 260 votes out of 7,200 – on a merger proposal extended by the $432 million Horizon CU ofSpokane Valley, Wash.

Montana First, he said, is now in the process of “establishingcommittees and doing various things” as it looks ahead to a revoteat a future date, said Lodine, a Missoula attorney.

He said he could not detail a timetable “since it all depends onwhat we put together.”

And that, he explained, would depend on how the Montana Firstboard decides it will “approach those individuals” who led theopposition to the merger plan by Horizon CU.

The Washington credit union was seeking its first entry intoMontana and a youthful college market in Missoula, the state'ssecond-largest city. Horizon with 16 branches has a presence ineastern Washington State and in the Idaho panhandle.

A group of Montana First members, apparently led by a retiredCEO, had conducted a December letter writing campaign in theMissoulian newspaper voicing worries about losing a hometown brand and fearing a loss of personalservice.

Montana First management, including Lodine, who also wrote anopinion column in the Missoulian, sought unsuccessfully to dissuadethe recalcitrant members against voting “no.”

The Montana First defeat has stirred wide industryinterest among CEOs, consultants and marketers on the do'sand don'ts of handling merger communications with members.

Communication issues also were cited in the defeat of aproposed merger this month by members of a Louisiana creditunion.

Lodine said he still remains a bit puzzled as to the defeat ofthe Montana merger but at the same time he understands there was“procedural confusion” and that members did not fully comprehendmerger benefits.