Conference 7.286::dcu

	See if you can get VNS to post it.

	I suspect more people read VNS than LiveWire. 

						--D

Employee Communication                             Effective: 12-AUG-83
						   Section: 6.50         

                                                        Screen  2 of 4
 Policy 

 Digital Equipment Corporation encourages open communication between
 employees at all levels, particularly between employees and their
 immediate supervisors.

 It is Digital's policy to provide timely and accurate information
 on policies, programs, activities and decisions to employees.  The
 Company intends to give consistent information, to use the most
 efficient distribution channels available, and to maintain
 effective employee communication vehicles to support and supplement
 manager-employee communication.



 I expect that since a large segment of Digital employees are DCU members,
 that Credit Union activities ought to be included in the "open communication
 policy."

 Jim

    
    RE: .1
    
    They will only distribute news articles and the like I have been told.
    
    RE: .2
    
    I agree.  Except Mark Steinkrauss has now trampled over thousands of
    DCU members' and Digital employees' right to open communications.  But
    I suspect he is only trying to "protect" us all again with more of his
    policies.
    
    Every Digital employee should be aware that a single person can
    exercise such power over what they see and read.  What shocks me even
    more is that the Digital people that are doing this are people in
    positions of responsibility in this company.  Really makes me wonder
    where we are going as a company.

        Livewire did pick up the story that ran in the press a couple
        weeks ago, and VNS picked it up from there. I know how much many
        people want to keep this out of the press, but if Mark and the BoD
        are going to play dirty, then the press becomes the only way for
        us to get the word out to everybody.
        
        My suggestion would be to write up something appropriate for
        Livewire posting, and send it to Livewire, DCU, and the BoD. Tell
        them in no uncertain terms that either it is run in Livewire, or
        it is submitted to all of the media in the New England area. Then
        it becomes their choice as to where the article is run.
        
        I would also post the article in the DIGITAL and INVESTING notes
        conferences, and perhaps other popular and well read conferences
        as well.

    
    While some have expressed concern with press involvement, I must tell
    you that the article that appeared a few weeks ago went a LONG way
    towards informing many DCU members of the current situation.  Please
    remember that there are 20,000 non-DEC employees that use DCU.  They
    don't have the foggiest idea of what is going on unless they have been
    in touch with a DEC person that knows.
    
    Seems the DCU & BoD invite such scrutiny with actions such as theirs. 
    

    Since each member of DCU has been contacted individually about the
    special meeting, what is the point in having additional notices posted
    all over the place?

    
    People see notices from DCU all the time. You get to a point where they
    don't even register anymore. Only by continually bringing up the
    subject will we get a lot of DCU members to realize that something
    extraordinary is going on, something they should probably take some
    interest in. To that end, every possible means must be employed to
    bring the special meeting, and the grievances that brought it about and
    continue to mount, to the attention, repeatedly, of every DCU member
    possible.
    
    The BOD knows this -- why do you think they're suppressing the Livewire
    article? If they thought one notice in the mail was going to wake up
    everyone, they'd be saying "Go ahead, knock yourselves out!"
    

    If DCU will not allow the room name to be released, then there is a
    good chance that it will be awfully small.  They might try to turn
    people away at the door (...thus possibly invalidating a meeting...thus
    extending the time that the BoD has to stay in office).
    
    	My suggestion:  GET THERE EARLY!!! (before 6:30 if possible)
    
    	- Peter
    	(who is NOT normally paranoid, but not allowing the room name to be
    released is rude, impolite, certain to cause confusion, and obviously
    done on purpose.  WHENEVER such basic information is witheld ON
    PURPOSE, my paranoia level will certainly become measureable).

  <set paranoia level to HIGH>


     Picture this:  The conf. room holds about 20 people.  The BOD gets
15 of their supporters into the room real early and then turns away all
others since it would be a fire hazard to overstuff the room. 
  They have a quorum.
  They have *their* votes.
  They have held the special meeting.


  Pretty paranoid of me isn't it??  (Not when you read about the other crap they
                                     have been pulling!)


  <set paranoia level back to low>

    Has anybody asked a NCUA representative to be present at the meeting?
    
    Dave

    
    RE: .10
    
>    Has anybody asked a NCUA representative to be present at the meeting?
    
    	Yes.  I requested their presence.  Their reply is that they are
    "hands off" in these matters.  As I've said, they only care to pick up
    the pieces, not prevent the breakage.
    

Remember - you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

Bryan

>    Since each member of DCU has been contacted individually about the
>    special meeting, what is the point in having additional notices posted
>    all over the place?

This is the CLAIM that is made.  However, how many people never got ballots
to vote?  In fact, what evidence would there be if only 1/4 of the members
were actually informed?

-Joe

    I just called DCU to get an answer on being able to vote if you turn
    up.
    
    Mary Madden called me back and told me that if I turned up I would
    definitely be allowed to vote if I was a DCU member. I asked what would
    happen if the room wasn't big enough and she said it would be big
    enough. I asked if anybody would be turned away if too many people
    turned up. She assured me that they wouldn't be. I thanked her for the
    information and hung up.
    
    I guess Mary talks in a civil manner to people if they have not been
    black listed.
    
    Dave

    Thanks for checking that out... I wish I'd thought to call Mary M.
    
    My paranoia level has gone down a bit now...
    
    	- peter
    
    ps.  There is no sarcasm or insinuation implied in the above message, I
    am truly grateful for the work many people have been doing in helping
    get DCU straightened out.

    Let's get mad at policy, if we don't like it.  But, let's not take it
    out on Mary or any of the other DCU employees who are going through the
    difficulties of the present.  We have no quarrel with them.
    
    Steve

    It is important to broadcast this to a wider audience.

    What about the person who had his/her notice lost in the mail?  Who
    tells them?  

    	-mark

No one has made the obvious answer to the question of "why advertise the
meeting if everyone got a mailing?"

The answer is:  the mailing says there'll be a meeting and what the agenda
will be and that's it.  (Not that it should say anything else).

There's a lot more that needs to be said, though.  Why is the meeting
happening?  What are the issues?  Gee, those board members have been
running things a long time & they are presumably highly informed, so
why would any responsible person want to kick them out?  I imagine
that all of the above questions pass through the minds of most people
who have read the official letter and nothing else.

There are a lot of answers to the above questions, discussed in many 
places in this file.  People ought to hear them.  The members of the
DCU have a right to hear them, and to make their own decisions.

The board is cutting off the flow of information to members in many
different ways: no access to LIVEWIRE, DCU employees are not allowed to
talk with customers about the state of the DCU, board members read the
notes file but won't engage in discussion here.  Then there is the
information protection policy, which was the last straw for many of us.
And, let's not forget, a not-too-veiled threat against Phil for using 
email to spread publically obtained information about the DCU.

I should mention that I have been telling board members all along (first
Charlene O'Brien and later Mark Steinkrauss) that the way to gain back
the trust of disaffected members like me is to open up the process --
release everything possible, stop putting roadblocks in the way of
communication, and take an attitude that the members really do have a 
right to answers from the board about the running of the credit union.
It's too bad that this advice hasn't been followed, it could have saved
the DCU a lot of turmoil.  But then, given the expressed views of some
board members, I don't suppose it was possible to follow that advice.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    re: lots of notes in this conference...
    
    This has been enlightening.  I work in Washington State, so cannot
    attend this special meeting, so cannot vote.  I notice amongst the
    "locals" who can attend physically a distinct note of eagerness (shall
    we say). 
    
       I agree with the approach that says "Fix the policy, not shoot the
    people in front of you at the meeting".  It's unfortunate that this
    special meeting is not open to more DCU users, so we can cast our
    "vote" too (at least, politically -- I can always vote by taking my
    money elsewhere).
    
    Bruce Evans   (a relatively new DCU member)

    Will someone please post a short summary of the BOD actions that have
    set this wildfire of accusations/cross accusations? I have been a
    member for 10 years. What prompted the petition? I don't live in the
    New England area and may have out of touch as to what is going on.
    	Thanx
    	John

    I just found this file, read some of the entries, and understand
    the issues of the Special Meeting better.  Thanks to those who are
    doing this research, writing, and communications work.
    
    I wonder about the rules under which this meeting will be run -
    meaning such things as the power of the chair to make rulings and of
    the meeting to overturn those rulings (technically that would be
    a motion to challenge the ruling, followed by a majority voting
    in the negative on language to "sustain the ruling of the chair").
    To have an open meeting which results in an informed expression
    of the will of the membership, perhaps we should all understand the
    meeting rules.
    
    If the meeting were to overrule the chair and proceed in an illegal
    direction (for example take up substantive business not warned on
    the notice), then that would not be legal - might happen, but result 
    would be moot.  However, a chair can exercise considerable power over the
    outcome of a meeting.  Under standard parliamentary procedure the 
    membership has the right to decide the use of that power. 
    
    There may be many possibilites in procedure to consider and express
    the will of the membership.  It is all too easy to misuse the power
    of the chair.  I don't know what the plans are, but it is clear
    that there are questions of trust here - good time to know the rules
    - can anyone give a pointer to those, maybe someone from DCU?
    
    
    Jack Hutchinson  

    
    Re .23:
    
    In the letter I received from Mary Madden yesterday (noted elsewhere),
    she says:
    
    	"I refer you to Roberts [sic] Rules of Order, newly revised,
         which governs the credit union in the conduct of its affairs."
    
    I picked up a $4 copy of Robert's Rules of Order on the way home
    yesterday, at a mall bookstore. There are various versions available
    (I believe the rules are the same, associated guide and commentary differ). 
    Not the most inspiring reading, but I intend to understand what's going on
    at the meeting. (I suspect this will also help me stay awake at my next
    town meeting.)
    

    This should mean there is a great range of options available to
    the members within the meeting.  Under Roberts' Rules, the meeting
    is responsible for itself - sometimes a majority, sometimes 2/3,
    but there are many choices about rules, rulings, what is considered,
    limits of debate, etc.  The power is with the membership to conduct
    an open, participative meeting if that is their will.
    
    I'm involved in local government, so have learned those rules -
    be happy to help with the "hows" of this any way I can toward a
    goal of fair, informed, democratic outcomes.  I hope we'll see the
    chair offering to help this way during the meeting.  Roberts' Rules
    can be either constraining or empowering to the assembly.
                                                            
    Jack Hutchinson  

    
    Could be a minor glitch here...  The executive officer of DCU is
    supposed to chair the meeting.  The executive officer is Mark
    Steinkrauss, Chairman of the Board.  It used to be the President until
    the Mangone thing.  Then the Bylaws were changed to make it the
    Chairman of the Board.  I know because we had to turn the petitions
    into the executice officier.  Both Steinkrauss and Cockburn accepted
    them.
    
    Should be an interesting meeting...
    

       If they are removed, is it effective immediately? In other words he
    no longer chars the meeting if that's the case.
                                       Denny

    
    re .27:
    
    It seems like the motion itself should contain some words on when it
    becomes effective; eg, "effective ieemdiately", "...upon adjourmnent of
    this session"; "...on <date> at <time>". IMHO.
    
    Robert's considers various situations where the chairman is not
    present.
    
    ----------
    
    An interesting point on the chair: Robert's is pretty clear that the
    it is an extraordinary situation for the chariman to take part in the
    debate at hand. From Article VII, section 40:
    
    "The chairman sometimes calls a member to the chair, and himself takes
    part in the debate; but this should rarely be done, and nothing can
    justify it in a case where much feeling is shown, and there is a
    liability to difficulty in preserving order. If the chairman has even
    the appearance of being a partisan, he loses much of his ability to
    control those who are on the opposite side of the question.*"
    
    [footnote]
    * The unfortunate habit many chairmen have of constantly speaking on
    questions before the assembly, even interrupting the member who has the
    floor, is unjustified by either the common parliamentary law or the
    practice of Congress. One whe expects to take an active part in debate
    should never accept the chair.
    
    --------
    
    As has been said before, this should be an interesting meeting, if only
    from the perspective of pushing parliamentary procedure to the limits.
    

    FWIW, I think things are headed towards using the Modern Edition of
    Robert's Rules of Order.  FYI, other versions available include
    Robert's Rules of Order (1876), "countless modifications from one
    printing to the next" (from page 15 of the Modern Edition), Robert's
    Rules of Order Revised (made "several years later" and described as a
    completely new book) and the Modern Edition (my copy is copyright
    1989).
    
    Steve

	The base note was started because the Special Meeting 
	Notice was not published in Livewire.

	I note that the notice of the Annual meeting isn't there,
	either.

	Just more "open communications" I guess.

				Tom_K

>	I note that the notice of the Annual meeting isn't there,
>	either.
    
    It was there last week. It appears that they are currently only 
    having one item under the news briefs section. This would seem to
    be something easily fixed. The latest news item is about the new 
    rate changes.
    
    				Alfred