Mike Welch's May 22nd publisher's column, "Term limits provision could harm reg relief") is on target in spirit, but off target in fact. There is no question that those dedicated volunteers now sitting on credit union boards would be duly indignant if the regulatory relief legislation, now being considered in the House Financial Services Committee, imposed term limits on credit union boards. However, the bill doesn't do that. The regulatory relief legislation gives credit unions the authority to impose term limits-if the credit union so chooses. In other words, those sitting members of credit union boards would make the decision-one way or the other-about imposing term limits on themselves or their successors. The choice, indeed the flexibility, for credit union boards to do what is in the best interest of their credit unions would be firmly in the hands of those credit unions. No such choice exists today. During the Renaissance Commission hearings, this issue was one that was of major importance to many of those who responded to, or participated in, the input process. As a former member of the CUNA Renaissance Commission, I can unequivocally state that this provision in the regulatory relief bill is exactly in line with the spirit of the Renaissance Commission's findings. That is, to provide to credit unions the flexibility to take action, but leave it up to each credit union to determine which action to take, if any. Clearly, not all credit union boards will agree to limit their tenures. However, others may readily accept this action as a way of getting fresh blood into their leadership. Credit union boards want and deserve the right to decide whether term limits are a part of their credit union philosophy, or not. This bill simply gives them that right. Certainly Mike Welch, of all people, should not have a problem with freedom of choice. Tim Alford, CCUE President/CEO Rogue FCU Medford, Ore.