Conference 7.286::dcu

Wonder if the tellers are getting paid overtime for this.

Sure adds energy behind wanting a secret vote.

    
    I sent the attached to Mark Steinkrauss to see if I can get
    clarification on this point.
    
    Dave
    
From:	SMAUG::GARROD "Rumours are usually young facts  25-Oct-1991 1813" 25-OCT-1991 18:14:18.99
To:	PICKET::STEINKRAUSS
CC:	GARROD
Subj:	Question concerning DCU general meeting

Dear Mr. Steinkrauss,

I am writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of the DCU Board of
Directors. Regarding the attached which I extracted from the DCU
notesfile. I would like to know whether it is, or is not the official
policy of the DCU for DCU tellers to attend the special meeting. If
it is official policy I'd appreciate knowing whether this directive
was issued by the Board of Directors or whether it was issued by
DCU management without the knowledge of the DCU board of directors.

I am having a hard time understanding why (assuming that this is true)
that DCU employees would be required to attend the special meeting.

Your response would be appreciated,

Yours truly,

David J Garrod
DCU member


              <<< BEIRUT::R7XBOK$DIA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;4 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 338.0                DCU Employees Under Pressure                   1 reply
GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "Someday, DCU will be a credit u" 25 lines  25-OCT-1991 13:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I have received the following via mail from a DCU member who knows some
    DCU tellers.  
    
	Mail to me from DCU member:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil,  seems like the tellers at DCU are required to attend your meeting.  A 
teller told me its mandatory and its well known how they should vote.  Is 
    someone trying to "stack" the meeting?  Keep your eyes open.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
	Mail from me to DCU member:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    	Did you hear this from a DCU teller yourself?
	Can I post this?  Without your name of course.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    

	Mail to me from DCU member:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the teller told me this.  You can post it as long as you don't use
my name, location, etc.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    

    Five to one odds that you do not receive a direct answer to your
    question.

    
    I have confirmed what is written in .0 with another source inside DCU. 
    
    Funny how DCU has kept the DCU employees in the dark (away from
    petition tables where they could get information), doesn't want them
    discussing this and then wants them to go to the meeting.  But if you
    look at it as an extension of their information control policy, it does
    follow the pattern they have established.
    
    Another source within DCU has also informed me that all DCU employees
    were recently (3-4 weeks) given a raise after 2 years of a freeze.  I
    certainly hope that this raise and the request for meeting attendance
    was a coincidence.  After 2 years, the people certainly deserve a
    raise.
    
    

    I'm not at all surprised by this move, but it still stinks.  I hope we
    can make it clear to the average DCU employee that we don't hold them
    responsible for this mess, and that we don't intend to "clean house"
    at the credit union -- just the board.
    
    All the more reason why any votes taken at the meeting be by secret
    ballot...the opportunity for "peer pressure" will just be too great
    otherwise.
    
    Tim

>    Another source within DCU has also informed me that all DCU employees
>    were recently (3-4 weeks) given a raise after 2 years of a freeze.  I
>    certainly hope that this raise and the request for meeting attendance
>    was a coincidence.  After 2 years, the people certainly deserve a raise.
    
    I agree that the C.U. employees deserve a raise after a 2 year freeze.
    And for all we know, that raise may have been planned for some time, and
    may be wholly irrelevant to the issue with the BoD. However, to compare
    this with what may be an analagous situation (simply in terms of the
    voting (due) process), during a union organizing drive, federal law
    forbids employers from granting raises immediately prior to a union
    certification election, precisely to avoid the implication of "paying
    for votes" (and not just the implication, but the actuality too!). So
    the timing of this raise could certainly be curious.

    However, the real issue here is the BoD's strategy for the special meeting.
    Whereas originally some of us feared that they may have taken a small
    room with the intention of limiting attendance, it would now seem apparent
    that they are trying to "bring out the vote." The C.U. headcount is posted
    somewhere in this notes file, I don't remember where, but I believe it is
    200 +? Assuming that the majority of these employees are in the GMA, attend
    the meeting, and vote as they (may) have been told to, and that the board
    encourages all other supporters to attend (friends, relatives, people who
    work for them at DEC who are members) we may be looking at 200-300 votes
    (at least) to retain the board. Thus, it is becoming increasingly evident
    that it is IMPERATIVE for members who want to change the way the Credit
    Union is operated to attend the Special Meeting and exercise their vote
    (as well as encouraging their friends and relatives of similar opinion to
    do so).

    As for the size of rooms at the Sheraton Tara, I have their brochure, and
    there are nearly two dozen rooms, ranging in capacity from 20 to 1200.

    Jim

    
    RE: .6
    
>    for votes" (and not just the implication, but the actuality too!). So
>    the timing of this raise could certainly be curious.
    
    Just another on the already long list of "coincidences in timing" I guess.
    

	Does anyone have a count of the non-DCU employee members
who are planning to attend the special meeting? It looks like in 
the worst case scenario we will need 300 - 400 "dump the BoD" votes
to win. Do we have it?

	Has anyone found any information regarding forcing a secret
ballot. Is there anything in the bylaws or any info from the NCUA?
This may become the deciding and very sticky issue.

Thanks

Todd (who cannot attend due to distance)

P.S. My personal view regarding the disposition of Mary Madden is that
 assuming we prevail in ousting the Bod the same should happen to Mary.
 The "my superiors told me to do it" just does not wash.

Re: .8
>>	Has anyone found any information regarding forcing a secret ballot.

My understanding of Robert's Rules of Order is that anybody may make a
motion that balloting be secret.

    I am astounded to find out that DCU employees are voting members!!!!!
    If this is a DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORP EMPLOYEES Credit Union, then
    wouldn't voting membership be restricted to current, former, or retired
    DEC Employees????  I can see DCU employees being allowed to have
    accounts, but doesn't allowing them to vote amount to some kind of
    conflict of interest???  Is this issue addressed in the Charter or the
    by-laws?????
    
    Ron

    RE: .10
    
    The field of membership for DCU includes DCU employees.  The Bylaws do
    not divide the membership into voting/non-voting types.
    
    What I am shocked at is the blatant attempt to influence this meeting
    by somebody.  Who is that somebody?  If it is the BoD then their
    venture into the day-to-day operational area is disturbing.  If it is
    the DCU's senior management that took this initiative, it is highly
    questionable activity.  It doesn't sound like anything the new
    President Chuck Cockburn is professing at his meetings.  We need to get
    a firm grasp on where this "request" originated.  Along with the timing
    of the pay raises, the fragrance is not floral...
    

    Re: .- a few

    1.  Let's not get too aroused by attempts to influence the meeting.
    After all, the whole thing is a political process, and this notes
    conference is part of that process.  I suggest that everybody just do
    the best job they know how of the politics.

    2.  Let's not get upset by the DCU employees going (for whatever
    reason, requirement or not) to the meeting. Just get lots more people
    there than there are DCU employees.

    twe

Well, in defense of the BoD (if that's possible and not pointless), in "getting
the word out" about the actions of the BoD and the special meeting, we're also
trying to influence the meeting and its outcome.

I personally have canvassed my acquaintances to make sure they know about both
the meeting and the grievances, and I haven't done much of a good job of 
presenting the other side of the argument to them (for the life of me, I can't 
imagine what that is, though).  I am just as guilty of trying to influence the
outcome of the meeting as the BoD is in trying to get all the DCU employees
there.

True, if they put pressure on the DCU employees about which way to vote, that is
being unfair to the employee.  Outside of that, if the employees are already
predisposed towards the BoD, then it's just "us against them".

One thing unsettles me about this affair:  While I wholly support voting the
BoD out of office, I'd be terrified to see it happen at the hands of less than
5% of the DCU membership.  If, say, 1200 people can accomplish a goal that I
agree with, how many people would it take to accomplish a goal that I don't
find to be so much in my best interests?

Yes, we're an informed minority, but I still suspect that we're a minority.
Then again, the majority will probably put the BoD back into office at the
next election, anyway, making this whole process moot.

    Getting rid of the present board doesn't change any decisions by
    itself. Electing a new board MAY do that, and those elections will be
    open to 100% or the membership.  If the 95% of the membership who can't
    or won't attend the special meeting don't like what happens there, they
    can vote the present BoD right back into office.

    Coercing all DCU employees to attend the meeting just may backfire
    on the BoD - there's no guaranteeing that they will not vote them
    out.
    

Re: .15

   If the  balloting is done by show of hands, they could take pictures and
   identify  the  employees  and how they voted.  The way the job situation
   is,  I  can  imagine  the  DCU employees being scared.  If, however, the
   balloting is secret, there'd be no way to find out how people voted.  We
   don't  know  yet  how  it'll  be  run, but I think one of the very first
   motions will be for making the balloting be secret.

They will be secret.  If no one beats me to it I will ask for
secret ballot on all the major questions.  I decide about any
amendments as they come up.  I tend to do this at school
district meeting.

		Tony

    I do not know what procedure the chair will use for consideration
    of requests for secret ballots.  This meeting does not fall under
    the same regulations as a School District Meeting where a secret
    ballot is required on request of five members prior to or seven
    members after any vote.
    
    Robert's Rules says, "Any vote related to charges or proposed charges
    before or after a trial of a member or an officer should always
    be by ballot.  Except as may be otherwise provided by the bylaws,
    a vote by ballot can be ordered (without debate) by a majority vote
    - which may be desireable in any case where it is believed that
    members may thereby be more likely to vote their true sentiments."
    
    It may well require a majority voice or raised hand vote to cause
    a secret ballot.
    
    We can ask the chair to explain the procedure at the outset of the
    meeting. 
    
    Also, secret ballots will only be possible if the materials are
    on hand to conduct them - checklists, ballots, boxes, and a procedure
    to control for one vote for each member.
    
    Secret ballots may take some time, causing attendance to thin out
    as the hours drag on.  I suggest we use them judiciously, stay
    balanced.  Overuse is detrimental to the meeting realizing its
    democratic purposes.  The votes to remove from office the BoD seem
    to me precisely the right kind of item for a secret ballot (just
    as the BoD is elected by secret ballot).
    
    Jack

What is all of this talk of amendments.  The meeting is only allowed to deal
with the 3 questions on the petition.  NOTHING else is to be discussed, and
the questions cannot be changed.  Therefore, NO amendments are allowed.

With only 3 questions, secret balloting should be very simple and fast.

Ed..

    
    Re .19:
>> ...and the questions cannot be changed.  Therefore, NO amendments are allowed.
    
    What brought you to this conclusion?

    I do not know how it will play out, but the requirement of the
    by-laws is that, "Notice of any special meeting shall state the purpose
    for which it is to be held, and no business other than that related
    to this purpose shall be transacted at the meeting."  There will
    likely be a motion under the second item to divide the question
    to consider removal of each member individually (I believe that
    would be "related to this purpose").  Members will be in attendance who
    want to hear some deliberation before deciding their votes, and
    amendments may arise out of that deliberation which are also "related 
    to this purpose".
    
    I don't think we should go into the meeting believing it is all cut
    and dried or that every member comes into the meeting with a fixed
    position on the three items. 
    
    I do anticipate more than three votes in the course of the meeting.
    I expect a secret ballot, if conducted, to require between 20 and
    40 minutes, depending on the procedure and the number of members
    in attendance.
    
    Jack   
    
    
    

    There are posible amendments, such as dividing the question on the
    removal of the BoD so that each director gets a separate vote.  If a
    secret ballot is taken on each of those, the meeting will take all
    night.

    RE: .11
    
   > The field of membership for DCU includes DCU employees.  The Bylaws do
   > not divide the membership into voting/non-voting types.
    
    Note that certain types of accounts (i.e. club accounts) do not carry 
    membership with it. I have signatory authority for a five figure club
    account, but I am not considered a member for voting purposes. (I no
    longer have a personal account at DCU.)

>What is all of this talk of amendments.  The meeting is only allowed to deal
>with the 3 questions on the petition.  NOTHING else is to be discussed, and
>the questions cannot be changed.  Therefore, NO amendments are allowed.

    You can make amendments, as long as they are related to the item.
    
    IMHO, people are getting very parnoid over what will happen.  I am not
    as worried and feel people should slow down and think about it.
    
    The people that are present can override the chairman at ANY time.  It
    will take a majority or 2/3 to do it, but it is easily done, IF the
    members want it to occur.
    
    If the chairman of the meeting were to not do as the members want, they
    can have him removed...  I expect some minor problems, but in general
    it should go by Roberts without major hassle.
    
    	- mark

  Secret Ballots are wonderful BUT... Who gets to count them???  Little South
American countries have them all the time and Guess who wins...

    
    Amazingly, Robert's even covers this. Basically, whenever there is a
    counting of votes, both friends and opponents of the questions should
    participate.
    

    Rep to <<< Note 338.22 by SSDEVO::EGGERS "Anybody can fly with an engine." >>>

>    There are posible amendments, such as dividing the question on the
>    removal of the BoD so that each director gets a separate vote.  If a
>    secret ballot is taken on each of those, the meeting will take all
>    night.

    And if the  Moderator/BOD  is anything like my School District meetings
    are of late, the  Moderator  could  entertain  a motion from the BOD to
    discuss  the  merit of discussing  a  particular  item  on  the  agenda
    (seconded by another BOD member) and  end  we  end  up  voting  to  not
    discuss the item.  I see this happen all the time at my School District
    meeting to articles not endorsed by the School  board following Roberts
    Rules and perfectly legal, though quite underhanded, since there was an
    obvious hidden agenda between the Mod/School Board.
    
    Whose  the  Moderator  for this Special Meeting?  If Mark  Steinkrauss,
    then  there a definite conflict of interest here, I can definitely  see
    the scenario played out above.  who would want to moderate the  vote to
    vote themselves out?
    
    Might  be a good idea to have new petitions ready for signatures as  we
    exit the Special meeting on  the  12th if anything underhanded happens.
    This way on the 13th they  are  presented  to  the DCU President (etc.)
    with another petition to have a special meeting.
    
    Claude
    
    

If anyone really believes they want a separate vote on each BOD member, then
they are truly playing games.  The question is removal of the ENTIRE BOD,
not some small piece of it.  If you want to turn off the membership and show
that you truly have some secret plan, do just that.

I still believe there is no need for amendments.  There are three questions on
the ballot.  Vote on these and get it over with.  Some of you amateur politicians
may want to use this forum to campaign for BOD or to slur some of the BOD, but
in my mind the WHOLE BOD is responsible for our current troubles and should
ALL go.

Ed..

    
    RE: .28
    
    It's a tad sticky though.  The Bylaws do allow each Director a chance
    to speak before dismissal.  This is of course reasonable and fair.  I,
    personally, don't see how a single vote will work into this but I guess
    the will of the people at the meeting will rule.  Or that's the way I'm
    told these meetings go.
    
    I guess the way I look at it, individual votes don't exclude voting the
    whole Board out.  A single vote excludes the ability to retain
    reasonable Directors (if that is the wish of the people at the
    meeting).  So individual votes seems more flexible, reasonable and
    fair.  Sure, it may take longer.  But I think its more important to do
    this correctly than to save a few minutes.  These are not trivial
    matters being voted.  But of course this is only my opinion.

On the other hand, if the meeting attendees were able to vote out, say
all but two of the incumbent BoD, that would leave the entire direction
of DCU up to just two folks for the time between the meeting and the
special election.  Those two folks would have to do a lot of talking
to convince some members of the masses that they were squeaky-clean
enough to warrant that trust, IMO.

I'd say, better to leave things in the hands of the employees for the
duration.  They're professionals, and they'll KNOW their actions will
be carefully watched in such an environment.

And I still think this argument is overridden by the rights of the 87,000
members who won't be at the special meeting.  By what right shall we, the
attendees, leave any chosen incumbent in place?  That effectively deprives
some other person, possibly as yet unannounced, and possibly from outside the
Greater Maynard Area, from a slot which we should be making available.

Remember, each and every member of the BoD can run to regain their seat.
The real votes cast in the real (special) election are the only legitimate
mechanism for choosing among those who may wish to serve.

    Re.28 
    
    I am one who believes that consideration by individual is what the 
    by-laws provide for.
    
    I understand that we may differ, Mr Fultz, but I resent what I read 
    to be a challenge to my motives and my judgement in your phrases,
    "they are truly playing games....you want to turn off the membership
    and show that you truly have some secret plan....some of you amateur
    politicians may want to use this forum to campaign for BOD or slur 
    some of the BOD."  Do you mean that you would prefer that individuals
    who do not agree with you on this point be quiet and stay home?
    
    This seems to me a very serious business, touching the honor
    and reputations of Board members, testing the judgement and
    understanding of rights and responsibilites of the membership,
    and having some considerable potential consequences for DECU.
    Let's assume we are each doing what he believes to be right, struggling
    with difficult questions.
    
    I hope we will not hear this tone during the deliberations at the 
    Special Meeting.  I hope we will not see it again in this conference.
    I fear it will discourage attendance at the meeting and make the
    focal issue the verbal attacks of some members on others, rather than 
    consideration of BoD actions and the best interests of our credit
    union.
    
    
    Jack Hutchinson                                              

    Re: .-1

    Consider the following scenario:  director X stands up there and talks
    for the time he is allowed by the bylaws.  He makes a series of
    statements that all sound plausible but that we have no way of
    checking, given the time to research his statement and the stone
    walling that has already occurred and continues to occur.

    What do we do about that director?  Vote for him or agin him?
    Remember there is no way to determine the accuracy or completeness
    of his statement before you are obliged to vote.

    If any of the directors choose to make their statements known, in this
    conference for example, sufficiently *before* the special meeting so
    that their statements can be examined, then it might be reasonable to
    keep that person on the board.  Each of the directors is fully capable
    of doing this.  If a director chooses not to do it, then I will assume
    that that director is part of the stone walling and deserves to be
    removed for that reason alone.

    But unless some of the directors choose to become more open in their
    communications before the special meeting, then I don't see any choice
    but to remove them all and let them run again if they still want to.

    The assumption I'm making is that they have something to prove to me. I
    don't have to prove they should be removed: the present actions of the
    board, taken as a whole with no obvious dissent, makes the complete
    removal of the board my default decision.

    
    Re: .-1
    
    If the BoD intends to present anything at that meeting in defense
    of their actions, they will have to be able to verify it ON THE
    SPOT if they want me to take it into consideration before I vote.
    Otherwise, I have no choice but to vote based on what I have been
    able to verify to my satisfaction before I get there.
    
    I would propose that using that rationale is the only rational way
    to go about it.
    
    Steve
    

RE: last several

My position will be to vote them all out. If we find later that one or two 
were opposed to all this, we can vote them back in if they can convince the
membership that they are deserving of trust. Frankly, I wouldn't want to
believe any "death bed" confessions..

Bryan

    I have thought long and hard about whether each director ought to be
    considered separately. I have come to the conclusion that that is the
    wrong thing to do for the following reasons:
    
    	1) I have not heard one statement by any board member that has been
           made as their personal statement. All communications from the
           board have always been on behalf of the whole board.
    
    	2) Given no knowledge of individual board members view the members
           have absolutely zero data on which to judge individuals. What we
           do have is substantial data that "the board" has acted contrary 
           to how we think they should have acted. Given that fact they
           should all fall together. Once they are removed they will be
           much freer to state individual views. When they do that the
           membership can decide on a one by one basis whether each each
           individual is fit to serve as a DCU Director should that
           individual decide to stand for reelection.
    
    Dave

    Re: .18  Secret ballots will only be possible if materials are
             available.
    
    Sounds like the DCU members will have a good, thorough parliamentarian 
    present.  May I suggest someone (like a husband-wife team who can cast 
    only one ballot between them, anyway) station the significant other
    outside with 1 or 2 boxes of printer paper and a paper cutter.  That
    will allow for the ad hoc production of paper ballots.  Each 8�x11
    sheet should be able to make 6 ballots with 3 cuts.  You can probably
    stack the paper about 10-20 sheets deep, too.  The boxes could be used
    to collect the ballots.
    
    The news media, if invited, will probably enjoy taking pictures of the
    people outside using paper cutters to make ballots.  Computer paper
    would add significance.  Too bad we don't make printers that print fast 
    enough to print specialized ballots for each vote.
    
    
                                            Kurt

    Maybe I missed something.  But, at the meeting from a few days ago
    Chuck said the materials for a secret ballot would be on hand.  He just
    wouldn't commit to secret ballot.  This seems reasonable.  A motion
    from the floor seems to be the standard way for introducing secret
    ballot.
    
    Steve

        What makes you think that a husband and wife only get one vote.
        Each can vote if if they have two seperate accounts. This is even
        true if only one of them is a DEC employee. Essentially every
        individual (over 16) who got a special notice can vote.

�        What makes you think that a husband and wife only get one vote.
    
    This is the case if they own a joint account.  If they hold seperate
    accounts, they can each vote.