Conference 7.286::dcu

    RE: .0
    
    Larry, this matches the information given to me.  The words used were
    "under marshall law".  The people we come in contact with on a day to
    day basis at the windows are good people.  As much as we deserve a
    better credit union, they deserve a better place to work.  It is too
    bad.  They are in a tough spot.  I hope they can all hold out until we
    can make DCU a better place for us AND them.

I spent part of Friday afternoon talking with Mark Steinkrauss, chairman
of the Board of Directors, at his invitation.  On this topic, Mark said
that the Board's instructions to employees are not at all like what I
described in the base note.  He said that the employees were told not
to waste time on the phone and at teller's windows talking with customers 
about this stuff, since they are paid to do a job, not to waste time.
And further, he said that many DCU employees don't know enough about the
situation to talk about it, so they shouldn't.  Instead, customer inquiries 
should be redirected to Mary Madden and Patti (I forget her last name).

Mark also stated emphatically that no one was threatened with termination,
although it's possible that some teller somewhere misinterpreted what
the board meant.  Mark agreed that it would be reasonable to pass another
communication down the line to make sure that the DCU employees understand
what the board really meant with this policy.

I have three basic reactions to what Mark told me.

1)  I stand by my interpretation of the reactions of the particular
employee(s) I spoke with.  I don't think the misunderstanding, assuming 
that's really what it is, is on the part of just a few isolated employees.

2)  It's kind of ironic that the board should tell DCU employees to
redirect customers to Mary Madden.  Recent notes have suggested that the
long suffering Mary Madden hasn't felt free to answer very many questions
lately.  Of course, I could have the wrong impression.  Mary was certainly
very busy even in early September -- I'd hate to have her job now!

3)  I have some objections to the command even in the form that Mark
explained it.  If some employees don't know enough about the situation to
talk about it, then they need to be given information, not ordered to be
silent.  While I agree that tellers shouldn't get in long arguments with
customers, they deserve to be well enough informed to admit to knowing
what the customers are talking about if they raise a complaint!


The other thing Mark brought up was my offensive language in the base note.
In what way, he wanted to know, does it help the situation to make references
to Stalin or to gangrene?  Surely I was trying to offend him.

I don't know whether Mark believes me, but I was not trying to offend him.
Not that I was in doubt that he and other board members would be offended by
that note.  But I pointed out to Mark the progression of my own notes:
starting with a carefully unbiased account of the second informal meeting,
and progressing to the point where I felt that I had banged my head against
the wall too many times to give the board the benefit of any more doubt.
Various noters are at different stages on that particular journey.  I
have some hope that there'll be more communication from the board soon.

In any case, I used language in the base note that I carefully chose to
precisely and graphically express my strong feelings on this issue.  I've
learned that if one wants to say something so that it is heard, it doesn't
do any good to temporize.  I'm seldom sure enough of the rights and wrongs
of a situation to take such a firm stand, but in this case I was.  I would,
however, be happy to be proven wrong.  And perhaps the strength of my
language helped convince Mark that this was an issue worth the effort to
clear up.  I don't know -- at this point I'm waiting on further events.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    If Mark Steinkrauss wishes his stands and opinions to be in this notes
    conference accurately, then he is free to post them himself and avoid
    any possibility of misinterpretation by third parties.

    He has chosen not to enter any notes.

Yep, I agree that that is the right course, and I hope he does it.
In general, I don't intend to act as a go-between for the Board --
if they feel there is misinformation in the notes file, the power to
correct it is in their hands.  In this case, though, I wanted to post 
my reactions to what he said, and that implies posting what he said.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    Actions speak louder than words.  The actions of the BoD have caused
    them to be compared to people who they now find distasteful.  That is
    NOT our fault.  If they wish to be compared to more truthworthy people,
    then their actions should reflect that desire.  In short, accept
    responsibility for your actions Mr. Steinkrauss.

RE: <<< Note 302.3 >>> and others...

>    If Mark Steinkrauss wishes his stands and opinions to be in this notes
>    conference accurately, then he is free to post them himself and avoid
>    any possibility of misinterpretation by third parties.

>    He has chosen not to enter any notes.

To be FACTUAL; Mr. Steinkrauss and other BoD members are represented by
entries entered as "Official DCU Response"s bearing Mary Madden's name.
This means of communication was the method followed since 1987. A
DIR/TITLE=OFFICIAL *.* (I think) would show the number of entries.

Also true; it is not decernable (sp?) which "Official DCU Response" entry
or portion thereof can be attributed to a specific BoD member, etc.
Over the YEARS, BoD members I have spoken to have indicated a belief that
noting is too time consuming for them to use.

I understand that the author of .3 wants Bod members, like Mr. Steinkrauss,
to participate directly. I would too. I have also tried (since 1987) to
get the DCU to establish direct notes file participation. I don't believe
there is a legal blockage (an existing DCU/DEC non-disclosure agreement
would seem to allow the required accounts and access to ENET). I have
heard Mary and John (Tulley?) before her also indicate the belief that
noting is too time consuming.

My humble point; The reluctance to note by DCU BoD or DCU Communication Dept.,
directly, has been a constant since 1987. As pointed out elsewhere in this
conference, each person has a prefered means to communicate. Some persons
have adversions to certain methods (I hate writing letters). Noting can also be
viewed as intimidating, as noters use the media as a FRANK (sometimes BLUNT)
message system.

I look forward to the day that the FLOW of information resumes (membership to DCU).
I hope that BoD members will contribute directly, in the meantime.

Carl

>I look forward to the day that the FLOW of information resumes (membership to DCU).
>I hope that BoD members will contribute directly, in the meantime.

That should include the FLOW DCU to membership too!

Carl

    I have never been impressed by the argument that noting takes too much
    time.  What that argument actually means, I believe, is the person
    is not willing to take the time to answer questions by noting OR BY ANY
    OTHER MEANS.

    I really don't believe that person X can save himself both time and the
    possibility of (unintentional) misrepresentation by having person Y
    express X's opinions.  Mr. Steinkrauss does seem to be concerned by
    misrepresentation.

    Note .6 would carry more weight if Ms Madden were answering the
    questions that have been posed for Mr. Steinkrauss, but as far as I can
    tell, many of the questions aren't being answered at all.  For example,
    when will the special meeting be held?  I presume the answer to that
    question is already known so why can't the answer be posted by
    somebody, be it Mr. Steinkrauss, Ms. Madden, or somebody else?

    Not that it is that important butI believe the term is
    
    "martial law," not "marshall law."
    
    Chad