It’s true. As a part of updating financial regulations, Senator Shelby is trying to change the way in which the presidents of the Federal Reserve district banks are selected, by removing the ability of the lending institutions subject to that Fed bank to nominate their new president, he correctly notes that, “Any institution that is going to be involved in any way picking their regulator is not good policy.”

As to the current governance structure:

Each of the 12 Fed district banks has a nine-member board that includes three bankers, three non-bankers chosen by banks and three non-banker directors picked by the Fed’s Senate- confirmed governors in Washington. The directors nominate a president who is approved by the Board of Governors. The presidents vote on interest-rate decisions on a rotating basis, with New York having a permanent vote.

The idea that banks can hand pick one of their primary regulators has always been a bad idea, so I would go further, and remove banks from selecting the directors of the regional banks too.

While we are at it, how about shortening the terms of members. It’s currently 14 years, and it’s too long, and makes the board far to unresponsive and insular.

Additionally, one of the controls on the behavior of the Fed is meaningful criticism of its actions in academic economic publications, but the central bank has control over most of the academic economic publications, because so many of the editors out there are also on the Federal Reserve payroll, so a legal injunction prohibiting anyone working for the fed from acting as an editor of an economics journal would be a good thing.