Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    [Permission to forward or re-post this note is granted.  However, the
     original note header and any names at the end of the note must be
     retained.  The contents of the note may be shared with any DCU member.]
     
    
>    			Information Protection Policy
    
    Brought to us by the same people who gave us "More Choices", good
    investments on the Cape and promised us more and better communication.
    
>    It is DCU's policy that our information be controlled and protected as
>    a vital business resource entrusted to the Board of Directors by the
>    membership.  Members requesting information from the credit union,
>    other than what is listed below, must do so in writing to DCU's
>    Director of Communications Office.
    
    "Vital business resources" such as the results of DCU elections have
    been denied to me.  What "business" value do vote counts have to DCU? 
    The BoD hasn't the slightest interest in protecting information.  They
    are interested in controlling it and feeding us only what they want us
    to see and know.  Their other interest is in protecting their
    collective rear-ends at this point in time.  I can point to at least
    *5* possible violations of the DCU Bylaws by this BoD.  And they claim
    to be protecting US?  We entrusted them to be honest and forthright
    with us, the owners of DCU.  We did NOT give them the power to censor
    the information which we are entitled to.
    
>    Stated in the written request, must be the business reason for
>    requesting the information.  All requests for information are subject
>    to review by the credit union.  The credit union reserves the right to
>    refuse to disclose any information not set forth in paragraphs numbered
>    1-4 below.
    
    I'll give you a "business reason".  Because the BoD have proven by
    their past acts of non-disclosure, that they cannot be trusted.  They
    have not given us the complete facts and have crafted text which paints
    a rosy picture while the numbers tell quite a different story.  We
    REQUIRE the full, uncensored facts to make our own determination of the
    situation.
    
    Another "business reason" is very obvious.  We own the information.  We
    are the shareholders of this credit union and are entitled to know what
    our credit union is doing and whether our money is safe.  We entrust
    the BoD with our money.  I have a very hard time entrusting 10 cents to
    people who wish to control information in this manner.  I guess I was
    not far off with my "Soviet Credit Union" analogy.  But given current
    events, I am insulting the Soviets by linking them to the BoD.
    
>    The following information is available, during normal business hours,
>    at all branches for review or duplication at .25 per page:
    
    Yes, people.  Welcome to "Fees are us", the new DCU motto.  Now even
    the information which we are entitled to receive BY LAW, we will be 
    charged for.  Now may I remind everybody that we ALREADY pay their
    salaries and pay for the paper.  Now they wish to charge us AGAIN.  
    
>    1. DCU's most recent annual report
    
    Trust me.  It isn't worth the paper it's written on.  You will find no
    better fiction.  The real information was not disclosed in the report. 
    The picture the text statements paint does not resemble DCU.  Banks
    have been sued by stockholders for this type of activity.
        
>    2. DCU's charter
    
    A one pager.  Let me know if you want a copy.  Tells who can join the
    credit union.  Cape Cod real estate developers isn't in the list. 
    Obviously the BoD hasn't read the Charter.
    
>    3. DCU's bylaws
    
    The copy I have has 29 pages so pay DCU $7.25 to find out what your
    rights of membership are.  Or you can just stand up in their lobby and
    read it.  Better yet, request to read a copy and read it at the teller's
    window.  They require we waste our time, why shouldn't we waste theirs? ;-)
    Again, anybody who wants a copy can contact me.  I'm almost afraid to
    mention this but DCU could get rich if they re-formatted the Bylaws
    to put 1 section per page.
    
>    4. DCU's most recent statement of financial condition
    
    Another one pager.  Actually has real numbers on it and no B.S. 
    Unfortunately, it's not easily understood by the average shareholder.
    
    >All other information is available only by written request by the
>    member, as set forth above, to the Director of Communications.
    
    DCU, please change "Director of Communications" to "Director of
    Thought Control".  I shudder to think you consider this communication.
    I must get a copy of the DCU dictionary.
    
>    If information has to be located, researched, duplicated, redacted and
>    disseminated, the member will be assessed a "search and copy" fee as
>    set forth below:
    
    And you can bet they will have to search long and hard to find the
    information that they don't want us to see; like auditor's notes,
    auditors election reports, etc.  I'm sure if the info was already
    requested by somebody, they will have to "search" their draw for the
    paper.
    
>    1. A .25 per page duplication fee.
    
    A piece of paper costs $.01.  So throw in a few cents for copier
    maintenance and call it $.05.  Is the other $.20 going to some other
    "investment" we don't know about and will have to pay twice to find 
    out about?  Once when the "investment" turns bad and then again when 
    we want to find out what happened.
    
>    2. An hourly rate of $25.00 for any information that must be located,
>    researched, redacted and disseminated.
    
	We are already paying Mary Madden a salary to "communicate" with
    us.  Why do we need to pay her again?  DCU should fire her and contract
    this work out to independents who can do it cheaper.  "and
    disseminated"?  All this information must be "disseminated" to the
    person requesting it.  Does this mean there is a minimum $25 charge?
    
    >3. Any "third party" fees, including, but not limited to attorney fees,
>    that DCU incurs with regard to the information.
    
    Here's a gem.  Now DCU can say "We had to have our lawyer's review all
    of the materials you requested.  They charge $125 an hour.  And then
    there is the cost of the accountants.  Another $100 an hour.  The cost
    of the auditors notes for 1990 is $500."  This beauty is designed to 
    discourage all requests for information.  Again, you pay twice for the
    privilege of "communicating" with your credit union.
    
>    An estimate of fees will be provided if the information is to be
>    released.  Such estimate must be paid by check or money order in
>    advance.
    
    Gee, can't you just take it right out of our back pockets?  DCU has
    gotten pretty good at that lately.  Why stop now?
    
>    Within 15 business days of a written request, DCU will communicate, in
>    writing, as to whether we will provide the requested information and
>    the reason(s) for our action.
    
    What?!  No charge for this???  Obviously a screw-up on somebody's part.  
    Maybe not.  The letter will not doubt come marked...
    
    
    
    
    				Postage Due
    
    
    
    
    
    	People, this is simply an outrage and an insult to us all.  If
    anybody held out hope that these people would "Do the right thing.",
    here is your response.  With this they declare that they will have to
    be dragged, kicking and screaming, out of the board room of DCU.  I
    urge every DCU member to join the ever growing group of DCU members who
    will grant the BoD their wish.  I wished it otherwise.  I think we all
    did.  The BoD has shown us a glimpse of our new and improved credit union 
    of the future.  Believe it or not, it's worse than the old DCU.
    
    	The battle lines have been drawn.  You can either:
    
    		1. Leave DCU in order to not deal with it.
    		   I'm sure the BoD will hold the door open for you.
    
    		2. You can just sit back and enjoy their new
    		   found openness, believe everything they have told you 
    		   in the past and trust them to tell you in the future.
    
    		3. Or you can DO something about it.  If we tolerate this
    		   behavior on behalf of people who we entrust with
    		   millions of our dollars we deserve whatever befalls us. 
    		   You cannot lay with dogs and not get fleas.  Join the
    		   movement to make this credit union one you can TRUST,
    		   one you can rely on to do the right thing.  You are
    		   needed more than ever.  you DON'T have to stand for
    		   this.
    

    EVERYONE OF THOSE @#$%^$^&* MUST GO!
    
    If for some bizarre reason they don't, I'm all for starting a REAL
    Digital Employees Credit Union. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
    
    Bob

    
    
      There may be a way around all the charges:
    
      What information is required to be supplied to the NCUA?  It might
    be cheaper to request this info under the "Freedom of Information Act"
    than to get it directly from DCU.
    
    
    						-al
    

Well, I received one of these statements of "information 
protection" on Saturday.  I keep wondering who they're 
protecting.

It's obvious to me they're trying to make it difficult for us to
get information.  Maybe we should coordinate our requests.  We 
should all request something different, and post it here when 
it's received.  That way we don't make the DCU rich on the fees.

Maryellen 

    RE: -.1
    
    I agree with Maryellen. I think we *should* coordinate our requests -
    I would even suggest an "information requesting" campaign. At least
    everyone on the special meeting committee could submit a request for
    at least one item - although duplicate requests would be fine. This
    would (assuming that much of the requested information is withheld)
    establish a record of non-compliance with the spirit (if not the
    letter) of the bylaws regarding the open dissemination of information
    to members. I think this could be important to demonstrate that the
    current board is protecting themselves, not information.
    
    Jim

    Tactics like "lets flood them with meaningless requests" are just going
    to spoil any serious efforts.  Noone is going to take the members
    seriously if the members are behaving like schoolchildren.
    
    Please be professional here folks.  Playing mind games like this will
    do nothing for those of us who are serious about returning this credit
    union to its members.
    
    I'm going to be honest here.  If this is the strategy that is going to
    be used, then I want even less to do with the possible new version of
    the Digital Employees Federal Credit Union than with the old.  The old
    DCU may have been foolish, blind, and uncaring, but at least they were
    grown up.
    
    I understand your anger, and even sympathise with it a bit, but if we
    don't watch our behaviour in public, then we will gain nothing and lose
    everything.
    
    Thank you.
    

    
    	I find DCU's new policy completely ridiculous, and and obvious
    attempt to withold information.  It simply Pi$$es me off!
    
    	I will drive the two hours to the special meeting and I will vote
    every single one of the ba$tards out!
    
    	Phil, can't se as members of the DCU retain a lawyer to represent
    our interests (the board has done so for themselves)???  The cost of
    this attorney should be paid for by DCU.
    
    	The sham the board is trying to pull should be handled by our
    attorney and should be addressed.
    
    	The crap the board is giving us must be dealt with on at the same
    level there giving it to us.
    
     - Bob
    

I think someone misunderstood my suggestion, or maybe it wasn't 
clear what I was suggesting.  I'm not recommending a meaningless 
'request for information' campaign.  However, some people do have 
serious interest in obtaining information from the credit union.

If those of us that want information from the DCU (I know I do),
request the same information we'll all pay the new DCU fees.  
However, we could coordinate our requests so that only one or a 
couple people request the same data.  Then share it with the rest
of the interested parties.  Result: we have the information we
want, the DCU does not get rich off the fees they charge.  Or,
they refuse to give us the information and several of us have
records of that. 

I'll start the information request list.  I'm going to request
minutes of the BoD meetings where they discussed the
participation loans.  i'll post the response to the notesfile 
when I receive it.

Maryellen 

    RE: .6, .8, & .9
    
    Yes, I think there was a misunderstanding by the author of .6. No one
    is advocating sending the DCU a "bunch of meaningless requests." In
    fact, it is arguable whether any request for information by a member
    could be "meaningless," since we are entitled to such requests
    according to the DCU bylaws and NCUA regulations. Certainly, I find
    it hard to take seriously the suggestion that any such requests would
    be "childish." In fact, I would consider them "professional," because 
    they are responsible exercises of our need and right to know.
    Furthermore, they will demonstrate to the board a widespread interest
    among the membership in ascertaining this information - just in case
    they're still under the impression that it's only a few "troublemakers"
    "sticking their noses where they don't belong."
    
    Finally, .5 should not have been taken as a formalized "strategy,"
    determined by consensus, but as my personal opinion, which I stand by.
    I think it could be important, if legal action becomes necessary, to 
    establish a record of what information was requested, and what was
    furnished (or not) by the C.U.
    
    I am also going to make a request and will post the (any) results in
    this note.
    
    Jim

    Re <several>:                                        
    
.6> Please be professional here folks.
    
    This was good advice.  There are too many loose allegations floating
    around right now.  (I'm assuming .11 & .12 were hidden because things
    got even farther out of hand.)
    
    It seems clear to me that the BoD sees the free flow of information to
    DCU members as a threat to their position, which it is.  In effect,
    they've already LOST this skirmish and are desperately doing what they
    can to prevent losing the rest.
    
    Assuming the Special Meeting will IN FACT occur in the near future (and
    that a majority of the DCU members in attendence choose to make changes
    to the make-up of the BoD), this policy SHOULD be short-lived.  I think
    we should continue to press for information, but that we must avoid
    drawing incorrect conclusions from incomplete data.  We MUST (as hard
    as that may be for some folks) consider the BoD (and even Mr. Mangone)
    to be innocent until PROVEN otherwise.  Loose allegations run the risk
    of being "actionable".  Let us NOT compound the problem (or blow the
    credibility of the people who are attempting to make the DCU a better
    place to do business) by dipping into the "low road".

   First of  all,  neither  Phil,  nor  I,  believe  we  are  directly  are
   representing  anybody.   I'm doing what I'm doing for me as a member.  I
   believe  the  Phil  is doing the same thing.  It so happens that lots of
   other  folks are appreciative about I am doing.  That's great, and we'll
   need that for the special meeting, but I'm still doing it for me because
   I  am  upset  at DCU.  I am submitting requests for specific information
   that  I  believe  is  relevant  for me to know whether or not the BoD is
   competent.   If other folks would like to know what I found, or what I'm
   looking for, great! If not, that's what the "next unseen" key is for.

   I'm not  advocating  flooding  DCU  with  stupid requests.  I'm going to
   request  certain info.  I'm not suggesting that others request it.  If I
   find something interesting, I'll post it.  I agree with Tony.  It serves
   no  purpose  to  flood  DCU  with the same requests.  But if people want
   their  very  own copy, go ahead.  You'll be contributing to DCU's income
   because of the charge they are doing now for information. 8*)

<taking it to the absurd>

I call to find out what the $xx charge to my account is for and am told
to submit my request in writing and state my business reason for wanting
to know.  And what if my request is denied?

<absurdity off>

Seriously, how can someone who has a fiduciary responsibility to ME
refuse to tell how that is being carried out/managed?  How can someone
who is elected to serve ME write a policy that limits MY access to MY
credit union?

*I think* we should:

	1.  Clean the B.O.D. slate.

	2.  Consider a class action to recover all the dividends we
	    have lost by the B.O.D.s failure to live up to their
	    fiduciary responsibilities.

	3.  File a formal complaint to the NCUA for the B.O.D.s 
	    attempt to limit the access of members to information
	    of their own association.

And yes, they are acting like grown-ups but much more in line with all
the professional S&L grown-ups.

Barb

    
    Are "Part Ownership" or
    
    	"Membership Request"
    
    				considered "valid business reasons" ?
    
    

    I don't get it.  If there is in fact a sound reason for all
    the secrecy (perhaps something to do with the Mangone lawsuit), 
    the BoD could win the support of members by explaining *why* the
    secrecy is necessary.  If they can't publicly explain why without
    compromising the case, they could find a "mutually trusted individual"
    to explain it to, who could then reassure the members that the
    the BoD policies are in fact justified.  It's sad to think that
    I can no longer trust the word of the BoD, but the fact is, I don't.
    
    If the reason is some sort of competitive business concern or
    something, I'm sure that could be explained in simple enough
    language so even us non-CPAs could understand it, without revealing
    any critical secrets of the DCU. 
    
    Right now, the only thing I see is truculant contempt for me as
    a member and what looks like a lot of self-preservation maneuvering.
    I hope I'm eventually proved wrong, but that's sure what it looks
    like from here.
    

    
    
    Please everyone - stick to the base topic or notes will be deleted and
    sent back to the authors.
    
    Nisreen
    a tired moderator.

    
	RE: . 6
        
    Who has said "lets flood them with meaningless requests"?  People have
    been requesting unfiltered, unadultered information on very important
    issues.  There is no "strategy" to this.  People have a right to know
    if the people in charge of their money are acting in their best
    interests.  I do not consider asking for information to be "behaving
    like schoolchildren" and am VERY displeased with any comparison of that
    kind.  People not being aware of what was going on has gotten us into
    this mess.  Withholding information will keep us in this mess longer.
    
        What possible reason does DCU have for withholding information on
    elections?  And information on when directors resigned and when
    directors were appointed?  Yet this information has been denied.  As a
    matter of fact, I believe it was this information that triggered this
    policy.  Mary Madden supposedly had this information and was supposed
    to send it to me, two days before the BoD issued their new policy.
    
    I have seen and read the auditors notes for 1985-1990.  They wouldn't
    allow copies to be made.  I wrote down the interesting auditors notes
    about the loans, losses and repossessions.  Any DCU members that reads
    the auditors notes can come to but one conclusion.  Significant
    financial information was withheld from the membership.  Significant
    losses due to the participation loan losses was withheld from the
    membership.  All this while the BoD and DCU maintained that there were
    no losses.  DCU members were defaulting more and that is what was
    causing the fee increases.
    
    Once DCU members read for themselves what the BoD has withheld, there
    would be no doubt that these people would be removed.  At this point in
    time, they have chosen to take the heat of this draconian policy
    because the heat is much less than the heat that the real information
    would generate.
    
    People who have nothing to hide don't need to implement such policies.
    

   I received  this  letter  yesterday  as  a  result  of  my  request  for
   information  request  of  Sept  26.   That's almost two months.  I guess
   they've  been  a  little backed up due to the "innundation of requests",
   huh? 8*)

   The letter:

   November 12 1991

   Please excuse  Chuck's  oversight  in  his last correspondence with you.
   Inadvertently,  the  date  of  the  meeting  specified  was October 10th
   instead  of  October  28th.

   We have  reviewed  your request for information made at the October 28th
   meeting  with Mark Steinkrauss, Chuck Cockburn, and Rob Ayers.  [Note: I
   merely  reminded  them  I had an information request outstanding at that
   meeting.]

   1.  Bonding  Information:  This  information  is  denied  as it bears no
   relation to your stated business reason.

   2.  Participation  Agreement:  On  the  advice  of  our counsel and as a
   result  of  litigation, being case number 91-1108-A, pending in Plymouth
   Superior  Court, we are refusing the release of this information pending
   further  discovery  in  this  case.   Our counsel believes that an early
   release of this information might prejudice our case.

   3.  Audited Financials: This information will be provided within fifteen
   (15)  business  days of receipt of your check in the sum of $75.00 which
   covers  an  estimated  two (2) hours of staff time and 100 pages at $.25
   per page.

   4.  Election  Results -- last 5 years: This information will be provided
   within fifteen (15) business days of recepit of your check in the sum of
   $103.75  which  covers an estimated (4) hours of staff time and 15 pages
   at $.25 per page.

   5.  Board  Minutes  --  This information will be provided within fifteen
   (15)  business days of receipt of your check in the sum of $232.00 which
   covers  an  estimated  (4) hours of staff time and 132 pages at $.25 per
   page.

   Should you  have any additional questions, please contact me in writing.
   Please  note  that any information provided to you must be kept strictly
   confidential.   All  members  have  an affirmative obligation to protect
   this information.

   Sincerely,
   Mary Madden

   [Such a  deal!  Only  $410.75 to get information from *my* credit union!
   Needless  to  say,  I'm  not  going  to  pay that outrageous fee for the
   information.]

    re .-1 
    Where does the figure of $232 come from?  All calculations to date
    have been based on a $25/hour charge.  4 hours worth is $100, leaving
    $132 for 132 pages at $.25 per page... this from a financial 
    institution.
    
    David

   5.  Board  Minutes  --  This information will be provided within fifteen
   (15)  business days of receipt of your check in the sum of $232.00 which
   covers  an  estimated  (4) hours of staff time and 132 pages at $.25 per
   page.

Gee, Paul, my bill for copies of board minutes was only $132 !!!  
Guess I'm getting a deal.

 

    
    RE: .22
    
    Or more of Paul's was redacted!!  All that blacking out is time
    consuming...  ;-)
    

I have a problem with charging "you" for information and then saying
you can't share it with other members of the DCU.  It might be reasonable
to dissallow it being posted in the notes file, which is accessible to
persons who are NOT members of DCU (DIGITAL has appx 120K employees
and some of the 88K DCU members are NOT employees).

But, the implication is that if I requested information, I should not share it
with Phil,  Phil, Bill, Mark, Mark, Dave, Paul or whoever who are all
members and have just as much businees need and right to this information as
I have.  The fact that I would be willing to share the information for free
(or .05 per copy at the local self copy machine) is as valid as DCU using
this as a moneymaking operation.

($100/hour for a clerk to find and copy documents.  Or is Mark doing it all
}8-)})

I'll save you the trouble Mary and Mark, I will NOT ask you for any information.
But who knows, maybe I will buy some }9-)}

    Any request to not distribute it to other DCU members should simply be
    ignored.

   Gee, I  didn't  even  check  the numbers.  I figured it was a moot point
   because  even if I paid that amount, I'm sure I wouldn't get anything of
   interest.

   They're not  really  big on dates either.  The incorrect date is not the
   first  date they've screwed up.  Gee, too bad Cockburn and Madden didn't
   get the date wrong of the special meeting, huh? 8*)

I got a copy of the same letter, because I was at the same October 28th
meeting.

I felt that it was an insult, but not for any of the old reasons.  The plain
message that various of us delivered to Chuck Cockburn and Mark Steinkrauss
at that meeting was that it would be very good for the DCU to "invest" in
member trust by providing free open access to information that would show 
us how the DCU was being run.  Mark asked *us* for a list of what we wanted
to see.  To then turn around and treat this as a request under the IPP is
absurd and offensive.  Yet more evidence that they simply do not get it.

The sad thing is, this is signed by Chuck Cockburn, and I thought that he
had the wit to understand what we were talking about.  To turn us down is 
one thing; to deliberately miss the point completely is insulting.  If he
missed the point accidentally, that's even worse, in my opinion.  I guess
I'm ready to believe now that the IPP really has Chuck's whole approval,
and that Chuck has a lot of sympathy for the "troublemaker" label.  I'd
be very happy to find out that this is all just a misunderstanding.

	Larry

    We have recourse to removing the board.......what about Cockburn?
    

The BoD hires and fires the President.

Bob

    
    RE: .29
    
    Wrong.  Cockburn can be removed just as well as the Board in a special
    meeting.
    

RE:.27 

>I guess
>I'm ready to believe now that the IPP really has Chuck's whole approval,
>and that Chuck has a lot of sympathy for the "troublemaker" label.  I'd
>be very happy to find out that this is all just a misunderstanding.

Larry, for what it's worth, in my opinion the IPP was created thusly:
the BOD said to Chuck, we have a problem with these information requests,
how should we handle them, Chuck deliberated on it, came up with the IPP,
brought it back to the BOD, they approved it, and now Chuck sees it as his
responsibility to implement it. Note that this is strictly my opinion and
is pure speculation, but here's how I got that impression:

              <<< BEIRUT::R7XBOK$DIA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;4 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 306.0                CC's 2nd Meeting Today at AKO               26 replies
LJOHUB::SYIEK                                       117 lines   8-OCT-1991 16:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My impressions of Chuck Cockburn's second meeting with DCU members,
    this afternoon at AKO1 (in random order) - 

The New Information Policy (NIP):

    I asked about the new information policy, its rationale, and how it
    helped to foster "open and honest communication" with DCU members.
    Chuck said the new policy has been instituted because he is inundated 
    with requests for information from a "very small number of members," who
    call week after week. He said that he's too busy trying to improve the
    Credit Union to spend his time handling such requests, and whoever else
    handles them has to be paid, so the member who requests the information
    should have to pay for it. Otherwise, those people who ask for 
    information are being subsidized by the general membership (something
    to that effect). I said it shouldn't matter if only one person wants 
    information to which members are entitled, it should be readily 
    accessible, but I don't think that made much of an impression. Chuck is
    generally very cool, but he got a bit flustered on this subject. 
    When I asked who had formulated the new policy (i.e., was it him), he 
    replied (this is a direct quote):  "That's none of your business." I 
    thought that was a bit ironic in light of his desire to communicate 
    openly and honestly, so when pressed, he admitted that the BoD had 
    approved the policy, and he was implementing it. But he wouldn't say
    who had formulated it, if it matters. 

    If it was a very small group of people asking for information
    I don't see the problem in giving it to them. If a large group
    asked for lots of information then I could understand the IPP (maybe)
    but one mustn't forget that the whole problem has been that
    information has been concealed from the membership. Concealed
    from a very small group of people via the IPP. Concealed from
    all the rest of us before and after the IPP. I can's see any
    way to justify this policy. Fancy talk and dancing around does
    not fool anyone.

	RE: .20

	Oh, yeah, while on the subject of the Information Protection Policy,
	I also meant to comment on how absurd it seems to be asked to pay
	for the minutes of the board meetings of a publicly regulated
	credit union. If we were merely asked to pay copying costs, that
	would be one thing, but the exorbitant labor costs are obviously
	meant to discourage open dissemination of the information. I'm
	surprised that this issue hasn't received more attention in the
	various press reports we've been reading. Can't you just see the
	headline:

		"Credit Union sells Board Meeting Minutes"


	Relax. That's a joke. But this really is ridiculous...

	Jim

    
    The removal of this totalitarian policy should be done the day after
    the new Board is elected.  It is in nobody's best interest to have a
    policy like this.  It does not foster trust, but mistrust.  It does not
    encourage openness, but secrecy.  It is not only counter productive,
    but very damaging to DCU and its members.

Suggestion to all those who may be considering running for the new Board:

  Any candidate who does not firmly promise to remove, dismantle, and
  laugh at the "Information Protection Policy" will have to have a LOT
  of other good things to say to just draw even with any candidate
  who does.

IMO, of course.

	There is one thing that I am seeing here that I really do not like. 

	The only time I have ever met Chuck Cockburn was at the special 
meeting after it was over. The other information that I have to go on is
various peoples impressions of him in the notes files (I haven't had the 
opportunity to attend one of his sessions). 

	My assesment from this information is that he is someone who definitely
has his own ideas about what should be done, but that he is in a position of 
being required to work with and for the current board. This has certainly put 
him into a position of having to sound very much like board in many ways. Even 
if he disagrees with them - he is in the position of having to do their will by 
virtue of the fact that they hired him. His only other choice would be to resign 
which I seriously doubt that he has any intention of doing at this early stage 
in his employment here. I would suspect that even if he completely disagreed 
with the current board, he would be the type person that would believe that he 
could educate them to see things from his point of view. Four months certainly 
isn't enough time to judge that.

	On the other hand, the current board did hire him, so it is possible
that he is very much on their wavelength. 

	I believe that we need to give him the benifit of the doubt at this 
point. It does bear watching, though.


	/s/	Bob

    Yes, give CC the benefit of the doubt at least until there is a new
    board that is more open in its communications.

    
    Re: .31
    
>the BOD said to Chuck, we have a problem with these information requests,
>how should we handle them, Chuck deliberated on it, came up with the IPP,
>brought it back to the BOD, they approved it, and now Chuck sees it as his
>responsibility to implement it. 
    
    If the BoD brought up the information requests to Cockburn as a
    problem and not the other way around, then that would be evidence
    enough that the IPP was specifically intended to discourage this
    information getting out and had nothing to do with interfering with
    normal day to day operations.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    In the interests of this member, just request one copy and permission 
    to distribute it to any current DCU member.  If the DCU objects I'll
    kick in to get an injunction against DCU prohibiting the dissemination
    of the information.  It's OUR information after all.  THEY are OUR
    employees (in a sense) after all.  If someone close gets permission
    I'd like a copy, just to keep in touch, I can't afford a trip back east
    at every meeting ( :-) for the humor impaired), but I'll be there if a
    second meeting needs to be called for.
    
    /Tjp
    

.39>    In the interests of this member, just request one copy and permission 
.39>    to distribute it to any current DCU member.  If the DCU objects I'll
.39>    kick in to get an injunction...


I'll kick in for the "redaction" fee, too.  But there's no need to request
any "permission", IMO.  Under what statute, NCUA reg, or Bylaw are they
going to prosecute information sharing among DCU members?  Their admonition
to not share WOULD apply to outsiders, but fundamentally it's vacuous.

The reason so far no one has posted this information is that the Information
"Protection" Policy charges (big) money for it.  Surprise.

    I don't see any any need for courts at all.  Just get a copy, give it
    out, and let the DCU decide what action they are going to take.
    
    Do you suppose they would go to court and allege loss of income?
    The idea of that is just too droll.
    
    Or copyright infringement by their own members?  I suppose the penalty
    would be the loss of income again.
    
    Or revelation of trade secrets?   Yes!  That must be it!  They don't
    want other credit unions to learn how to do the same sorts of things
    and thus have the DCU lose its competitive advantage!

    I got the same form letter.  I think the sky-high fees are to pay for
    copy machine repairs.  After all, when you run that many black pages
    (because of redacting) through a copier it tends to break down a lot.
    
    Steve  (half ;^)

I am happy they could cite chapter & verse as to what information is pertinent
to what court case.  (A BoD supporter sitting next to me at the special meeting
insisted that they couldn't release _any_ information such as auditor's notes
because the FBI was investigating.  She thought that that Mark S. "should be
given a medal for the wonderful job he's done."  [Quoted from memory and subject
to parity error, but that's close to what she said.]  I don't know if she worked
for the DCU or DEC.  We have to remember that the BoD members -- as they
reminded us often -- also work for DEC, and perhaps many BoD supporters are
their direct or indirect reports!  Another good reason for secret ballots!  But
that's another topic...)

Anyway, perhaps the DCU should get their copying done at Staples for $.03/p
instead of doing it themselves for $.25/p.

So, are people going to wait until there is a new board and make the request
again, assuming that the policy will be rescinded?  Or is someone taking
contributions to pay for getting the information?  If so, I'll contribute a
modest amount.

Didn't the fees get rolled back as a result of the first vote at the special
meeting?

If the answer was "Yes,"
then
	there's no need to pay the fees to get the information
else
	the question was worded so only the checking fees were rolled back
	and I can claim an "I told you so," based on my reaction to the
	original wording.

BobW

	The fees recinded at the special meeting applied were (specifically)
	the checking account fees.

				Tom_K

    Read the DEC confidentiality classifications.  I'm pretty sure these
    classifications would be interepreted the same way at any
    institutution/business/whatever.  I can show a DEC confidential report
    to a co-worker without fear of repercussion from DEC.  If I chose to
    show that to someone from IBM or the Boston Globe, I'm sure I would
    hear from DEC.  I imagine the same would hold true of confidential
    information from DCU.

    
    Re .46:
    
    Reasonable people can see why DEC would keep product information
    confidential, to gain a competetive advantage in the market. DEC people
    generate brilliant ideas that must be protected until they can be sold.
    
    DCU is not in the business of generating brilliant ideas to gain an
    advantage over it's competitors. It's sole advantages are it's
    select member base and it's non-profit agenda. It's only need for
    confidentiality is with regard to member accounts. So, with regard to the
    day-to-day business of the board and operational staff, reasonable people
    have asked, and continue to ask, "Why all the secrecy?"
    

    The "secrecy" is because DCU is NOT in the business of generating
    brilliant ideas.  ;^)  Wouldn't want too much proof of THAT to hit the
    streets ...
    
    Steve

    The DCU may consider their investment strategies are worth protecting
    from those outside of the membership.

    
>    The DCU may consider their investment strategies are worth protecting
>    from those outside of the membership.
    
    Considering the regulations around what credit unions may and may not
    do with their money, any ideas on why they may think their investment
    strategy is worth protecting?  I can't think of any off hand.
    
    But considering the consequences of NOT knowing it, I think I'd rather
    risk disclosure and any perceived advantage of secrecy and know what my 
    credit union is "investing" in.  People "invest" in some pretty strange
    things this days.  I don't think it unreasonable to expect our BoD to
    invest in things that they would feel comfortable discussing with the
    membership.  Hold the pork bellies!  8-)

    Phil, I wasn't questioning the rights of the membership to the
    information on investments.  I was merely looking at why the DCU would
    state that information given out should be considered confidential.  I
    interpret the "confidential" as the DCU not wanting the info
    distributed outside of the membership, much the same way DEC handles
    the confidential designation.

re .51:  I may have misread, but I think the letter I got from Chuck Cockburn
said that if I get IPP information, I shouldn't reveal it to *anyone*, not
even other members.  

It is certainly appropriate to treat some information that confidentially.
So far, though, I haven't heard of the DCU offering to give anyone that
sort of information.  It isn't clear to me that anyone has been offered
information that need even be restricted to members only, at least not if
the justification is the competitiveness of the DCU.  

So, while levels of confidentiality indeed apply to the information that
the DCU handles, the DCU is going way overboard in its application of the
confidential label.  I believe that some of the information that the DCU 
wants me to not reveal even to other members (assuming that I wanted to
pay for it), is available free and unrestricted at other financial
institutions.  Other such information could be of no conceivable
competitive value to other financial institutions.  So I see no business
justification for the DCU to label everything "your eyes only".

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    I guess the problem with discussing secrecy and confidentiality is that
    it cannot be generalized.  It is very dependent on specific pieces of
    information and the level of granularity.  
    
    Obviously, personal financial data has the highest confidentiality 
    designation.  However, when you roll up 88,000 members into very high 
    level reporting, the numbers lose their confidentiality because there 
    is no name associated with them.
    
    I guess what many, including myself, are struggling with is DCU's
    stance concerning information.  It is not in line with the majority of 
    financial institutions.  Blanket labeling of generic information as
    confidential and restricting its disclosure is contrary to the way the
    majority of financial institutions (or companies) operate.  The norm is
    that information is accessible until the organization states why it
    must be classified as confidential.  Not that everything is
    confidential and we must justify (business reason) why it must be
    accessible.  

DCU's position on the release of information is ridiculous, especially during 
these times of low member confidence in DCU's leadership.

I'll gladly chip in to help pay for the costs of acquiring and copying
the information.

Jim

This probably isn't exactly the right note in which to post this reply but it'll
have to do.

I happened to bring up the whole DCU debacle over dinner during the holiday.
My stepfather, a C.P.A., was incredulous in general.  He's also quite surprised
that the firm that did the audits didn't proof the annual reports that were
sent to the membership.  He says that the standard form his firm uses (and it's
patterned after some of the larger corporation) reserves the right to proofread
any copy of the annual report sent to shareholders before it is published.

He also strongly advised taking up a collection from the individual members
and hiring a lawyer.

    While filling out the 'member survey', I noticed that the DCU was
    asking for a lot of what I consider 'personal information' such as what
    banks and other institutions I deal with.
    
    I know that they want to compare - but since I'm in New Jersey and
    that's where my other banks, etc. are, my answer (on the survey) was
    "that is privileged, protected information".  Besides, what business is
    it of theirs where my other money is!
    
    	-Barry-