| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 343.1 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | DCU Meeting, see BEIRUT::DCU | Tue Oct 29 1991 17:13 | 28 |
|
Having read most of this conference, I can't remember where any
allegation was made that directors were compensated. As I recall,
someone asked the question, and someone else responded to the negative.
Perhaps, Susan, you can cite a reference for this allegation?
Also, I note your interesting use of the word "implications", as in
"Implications are that the DCU board manipulates the
election process."
This appears under your list of "allegations". I can remember no
reference that alleges the board manipulates the election process.
Certainly, some have complained that the timing, signature count
and candidate approval process make it extremely hard for outsiders
to run. This not an allegation that the board manipulates the election
process, but simply a statement of opinion. Again, perhaps you could
supply a reference.
What you may be thinking about are references to the fact that the 1988
election material seems to have contained incorrect instructions on
filling out the ballot, and that as a result of this an unknown number
of ballots may have been rejected. This information, along with the
fact that the board will not make available audited results of that
election, may imply to some "that the DCU board manipulates the
election process." This implication can be easily refuted by making
available the audited election results; I invite you to do so.
|
| 343.2 | Would you care to reply? | LJOHUB::SYIEK | | Tue Oct 29 1991 17:17 | 48 |
| Ms. Shapiro:
I will be very surprised if you respond to this reply. I suspect that the BoD
has had its say in the base note, and is uninterested in participating in open,
two-way communications. But a couple of your statements in particular are so
biased that I felt compelled to reply. Certainly many other of the participants
in this file will as well.
.0 In summary, a small group of members have conducted what
.0 would seem to be a "witchhunt" with the intent to
.0 discredit the board of directors and the credit union.
.0 Their efforts have culminated in a petition to remove
.0 the present board.
Do you consider the 1200 DCU members who signed that petition to be witchhunters
also? Furthermore, is there anything that can discredit the board of directors
more than losing close to 10 million dollars of Credit Union shareholders money?
The members who signed that petition want to exercise their right to elect new
board members; in effect, we are questioning the judgement of the incumbent
board, not impugning its integrity. No one in this notes file has accused any
board member of being a party to the fraud perpetrated in the Mangone loans.
They have simply suggested that the loans should have been more rigorously
reviewed.
.0 The removal of the board would be disastrous to the
.0 credit union. At best, the credit union would be
.0 paralyzed for several months. Given the board's current
.0 efforts to strengthen the financial condition while
.0 improving service, the credit union will be seriously
.0 undermined without strong leadership.
.0 If the entire board is removed, there is a substantial
.0 risk that a newly elected board would have NO experience
.0 in management, finance, or understanding of the
.0 credit union operations. It is, therefore, extremely
.0 important that members attend the Special Meeting and
.0 show support for DCU's current board of directors.
I think this is as insulting to the DCU membership as you purport some of the
comments in this notesfile are to the Board. You really don't think that there
are any other qualified people out of roughly 88000 members with the requisite
experience in management or finance? Several of the incumbent board members
have served for many years, and in light of recent events, it is time to open
up the democratic process and elect new members to the board who can bring new
experiences and abilities to the Credit Union.
Jim Syiek
|
| 343.3 | | CNTROL::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Tue Oct 29 1991 17:38 | 12 |
| � Furthermore, the board has held two informal member
� meetings, lasting 4 hours each, to discuss the credit
� union. These meetings were open. At each meeting a
� total of 15 to 19 members attended. Many of those
� members attending the first meeting also attended the
� second.
Was any notice of this meeting given outside of this conference? Even
if it was, how many people did they expect to drive to Parker St. on a
day or two's notice?
Will the basenote be mailed out to the Petition distribution list?
|
| 343.4 | This is completely against what DEC stands for... | STAR::BUDA | Lighting fuses as I go | Tue Oct 29 1991 18:14 | 28 |
| > DCU member, Phil Gransewicz has suggested that the board
> approved a 6.5% mortgage loan for Mr. Richard D. Mangone
> and that the loan was for interest only payments.
> Another VaxNotes writer suggested that the Mangone
> mortgage is not the only DCU loan of this type. These
> statements are ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. Mr. Mangone received
> a standard mortgage at prevailing rates and nothing
> more. Our members, including employees and officials of
> the credit union, are offered the same savings and
> lending rates and programs. Preferential loans are
> illegal and, if written, would be discovered by the NCUA
> examiners and our independent auditors. The responsible
> parties would be terminated.
If this goes into LIVEWIRE, then I will feel compelled to look into the
Open Door Policy. Naming a person in Livewire, is not a customery and
reasonable practice, UNLESS that person is allowed to respond in like
media. Knowing that DEC feels it wants to stay out of such problems,
they should not allow the above statement to be included.
DEC has always had a proud tradition of fair play and this is not. In
the notes file, Phil brought up what was in the court records and
mentioned that it could be a loan for 6.5%. As far as I know he NEVER
said it WAS. I know he asked and never received a direct answer
explaining the loan, which many of us are interested in.
- mark
|
| 343.5 | Yet another county heard from... | HOTWTR::OSSLER_KE | Soccus Carminium Admirari | Tue Oct 29 1991 18:22 | 41 |
| This 'communication' really takes the cake.
The arrogance of this board and its utter disdain for DCU's membership are
simply too much to take anymore. I simply will not keep my money in an
institution that insists it is doing me a big, unappreciated favor by
holding on to *my* money.
Mr. Mangone should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But it
should not stop there. This board BY DEFINITION is responsible. That is why
they are elected. And when they fail to protect the interests of the
members - to the tune of tens of millions of dollars - they should be
removed. Immediately.
I enthusiastically applaud the efforts of those who have sought to keep the
board's feet to the fire. No one should imagine for a minute that all this
has been wrought by a handful of malcontents. Thousands of your fellow
members feel exactly the same. But we also have jobs, families, and other
commitments that prevent us from prosecuting this issue full time. You see,
we thought we elected a board to BE ENTRUSTED WITH RUNNING OUR CREDIT UNION
FOR US. Again, that's why they're elected. They are NOT there to perpetuate
a dynastic secular priesthood, which alone has the mystical knowledge
necessary to run "Massachusetts largest Credit Union."
I have a degree in economics from MIT. I have worked in finance at Digital
for over eleven years, have been a manager, and have run a credit
operation. I have been a member almost since the beginning. I joined in
late 1980. I have resisted quitting over this unqualified SCANDAL, because
I had such a long affiliation with DCU. I would run for the board, were it
not for the great distance. It doesn't matter anyway, though. Do you think
the board would consider me qualified for such a lofty elevation? Not after
this letter. I am now a member of the unwashed masses, who would cause
unimaginable havoc should I even glimpse the inner workings of the
omniscient, omnipotent board.
Yes, your directorships, I am on the side of the board's opposition, but I
am no bumpkin agitator. Neither am I a fool. I'm paying off my loans and
closing my accounts within the next 60 days. There are plenty of financial
institutions who would APPRECIATE my business.
Most sincerely,
Kevin R. Ossler
|
| 343.6 | Sticks and stones | BUBBLY::LEIGH | Gone flat | Tue Oct 29 1991 18:26 | 63 |
| re .0:
> Despite the results of these investigations, however, a
> small group of members have used the VaxNotes and
> VaxMail to raise questions about the board's actions in
> handling this situation. This same group has
> continuously requested information about the credit
> union and DCU has responded by granting the majority of
> those requests. As the information was reviewed, more
> information was requested and false statements,
> unsubstantiated accusations and allegations increased.
As I understand it, the original questions were raised because the DCU's
annual report was insufficient to answer simple questions about the
financial status of the DCU, and multiple requests were made for the
information necessary to answer these questions because the initial
requests were refused. Some information necessary to understand the DCU's
status is still not freely available.
.0 seems to assume that it is necessary and proper for the DCU to deny
requests unless persuaded otherwise. I think that's backwards. If the DCU
(and its BoD) had been more open about communicating with its members and
less cautious about protecting information two or three months ago, then
removal of the BoD or protection of information would not be burning issues
now.
It's been my experience there are two ways of handling confidential
information:
(1) protect the information carefully and deny access unless
it's absolutely necessary to grant it.
(2) grant access tothose who need the information, but provide
a clear understanding of why the information is confidential.
Then trust the recipients to do the right thing, and pursue
the matter with them if they don't.
Personally, I have had better results with (2). It seems
to me that the DCU has applied (1) in most cases, and I think that's a
shame.
> In summary, a small group of members have conducted what
> would seem to be a "witchhunt" with the intent to
> discredit the board of directors and the credit union.
> Their efforts have culminated in a petition to remove
> the present board.
I consider "witchhunt" to be an inappropriate description. I resent the
implication that I attended the informal meetings with the BoD and with
Mr. Cockburn with the intent of discrediting anyone at all. I attended
those meetings in order to understand how stable the DCU's finances are,
how the DCU's affairs are being conducted in the wake of the Mangone
problem, and whether the DCU is a good place to keep my money. I believe
that this was true of most of the "small group" who attended the same
meetings I did.
I'm seriously annoyed that the BoD sees fit to call me names because I want
more information about the DCU than they have published to date. Detailed
information is available freely -- and at no cost -- from the other
financial institutions I deal with. The fact that such information is not
easily available from the DCU, and that they have characterized the
attempts to obtain it as a "witchhunt", will certainly bias me against
continuing to do business with them in the future.
Bob Leigh
|
| 343.7 | flabbergasted | BEATLE::REILLY | So I rewired it... | Tue Oct 29 1991 18:39 | 38 |
|
This is an even more "barbed" response than I expected.
I was thinking of responding point by point, but decided it won't be
read by the Board. The Board has made an empty and venemous response
to caring individuals. It has labelled those individuals witch-hunters
and has attempted to turn the rest of the members against those
individuals. For what? Questioning where questioning was warranted.
"Don't vote us out, the alternative is scarier; keep the status quo
or you'll be sorry" seems to be their best defense.
I, for one, cannot take credit for one iota of the discoveries the "witch
hunters" have made, but I'll tell you I *appreciate* their efforts.
You may agree with their aggressiveness or you may not, but they have come
up with a lot of facts that need explaining. They waited for replies but
only got a lot of "THAT IS UNTRUE"'s and scare tactics. I can't see where
they have responded to any of the questions with any substance. They
want people to defer accusations, but then deny the very data that
will prevent people from doing it.
You know what? They may win. Even if they don't, they'll blame the
wreckless witch-hunters, but I think they may have things worked out.
I hope I'm wrong, and I'll be there voting against them. They take
MY money and can't account for what they do with it. Fine, it is
a free country, and there are plenty of other institutions to go to if
I can't feel comfortable here.
This note has certainly erased any doubts I (*I*, not one of the "witch-
hunters, not one of the "inundaters with requests", not one of the
"accusers", just a member watching dedicated DCU members get
stonewalled for caring) had about "reasons to support the Board."
- Sean
P.S. I Guess the BOD forgot this is a networked company and that
information gets around pretty easily. Sad that so many other
Banks don't have that protection against their BOD's doing whatever
they please. No wonder they had to institue the IPP.
|
| 343.8 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Tue Oct 29 1991 20:57 | 3 |
| I sent Susan Shapiro (BoD member and poster of the basenote) a VAXmail
message asking for two specific pieces of information. Let's see if I
get an answer.
|
| 343.9 | Good for you, BoD! :) more postings wanted! | SUBSYS::SHERMAN | | Tue Oct 29 1991 21:01 | 55 |
| Hey, folks! A Board member has posted an official response in
VaxNotes! This is a SIGNIFICANT step and a GOOD thing! BRAVO,
both to the Board for coming into "our" territory and to noters that
have pursued this for so long that a board member is participating
here!
Now, a few thoughts. One attitude that I read coming from the Board is
that small efforts in communication have not given the results they
wanted. In fact, things went worse. Therefore, opening up
communication is a bad thing. I propose that this is the wrong model
for the situation. It is this kind of model that lead to the Japanese
taking over the video and audio markets. There were American companies
that invested in technology (such as quality control methods, VCR
technology, portable cassette technology) who abandoned these for similar
reasons. That is, the small efforts they put in didn't give them the
rapid returns they were looking for, so they abandoned the
technologies. Or, in catalytic reactions where energy is extracted you
have to add enough energy so that the reaction will complete. Or, with
a nuclear bomb you have to obtain critical mass. Or, with an
small business you have to have enough funding or the business will not
get off the ground. Take your pick of examples.
The bottom line is that just a little information is going to be
dangerous. There has to be enough to restore faith in the institution.
What you may have discovered is that your resistance to release
information has added fuel to the fires of those who are suspicious of
DCU's operations. Your assurances that Federal authorities have
blessed the "new" DCU also add fuel to these fires because shareholders
are also taxpayers and don't trust the Feds. Your assurances that the
Board is comprised of people with lots of credentials fuels the fires
because these credentials didn't save you from being tricked and didn't
help you to detect that Mangone might have had some conflict of
interests since he was a good buddy with the BCU. Even worse, Mangone
had excellent credentials, too, didn't he?
Here's how to stop adding fuel to the fire. Open up the data to
members as much as you can. Let Phil and others look at meeting
minutes, examiners reports, auditor reports as much as is legally
possible and at no charge. Get rid of the information protection
policy fees. Consider it an investment in member relations. Let and
encourage wide publication of the special meeting. Let it be
publicized in the media that have been provided to you at little or no
cost, just as you publicize the annual meetings or Chuck Cockburns site
visits. Have quarterly meetings with members, even if only 10 or so
show up at a time. And, if you don't have the time, step aside and
encourage others from among the shareholders to come forward and donate
the time.
I'm glad that the Board has posted a response here! I openly encourage
MORE such participation. Eventually, this low-cost, small-time
investment WILL pay off in a big way IF it continues!
Steve "one of the few costing the DCU thousands
versus the few costing DCU millions" ;^)
|
| 343.10 | | BLUMON::QUODLING | What time is it? QUITTING TIME! | Wed Oct 30 1991 00:49 | 26 |
| re .0
> This date was selected so we could provide ample notice
> to our members, offer a convenient time and location to
> the majority of our members and allow us sufficient time
> to prepare and print the mailing and reserve
> accommodations. For your information, it will cost DCU
> members over $35,000 to hold this Special Meeting.
35K. Gee, I have booked conferences in large venues often in my time,
and never seen a hotel charge like that. Unless, other costs are being
added in. Like the cost of the mailing. But didn't it go out with
monthly statements which are paid for anyway. (And come to think of it,
doesn't the DCU's mail room understand bulk rates, presort, zip+4 and
any of the other ways of doing things cheaply. But then, if they had
applied such sound thinking, in the first place, we (they) wouldn't be
in this mess. (wasn't one of the justification of the check fees, that
about 10% of the 90,000 customers had dormant check accounts. - Simple
only send annual statements on dormant accounts.)
Make profit by sound investment, not by abusing your customers.
q
|
| 343.11 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Wed Oct 30 1991 01:00 | 8 |
| Re: .-1
I can believe the $35K. Consider postage. 88K notices at $.29 each is
$25,520. Plus the paper and envelopes and printing and stuffing and
....
And of course the hall rental. I wonder if that $35K included legal
fees.
|
| 343.12 | | HPSRAD::RIEU | Read his lips...Know new taxes! | Wed Oct 30 1991 09:56 | 19 |
| Witchhunt eh! It's nice to see Susan has the Halloween spirit.
Maybe we should all show up at the Tara with our torches. If the Board
had made even a feeble attempt to communicate with the members this all
probably wouldn't have happened. Calling 2 'informal meetings' which
leave even more unanswered questions is NOT communication. Having Chuck
visit sites and then not bothering to get back to people with answers
is NOT communication. Having MAry Madden mislead callers who ask for
information on the Special Meeting (such as, she doesn't know who
started the petition drive) is NOT communication.
I attended the 1st meeting at Parker St. Mark told us he was going
to take the BOD meetings 'on the road' what happened to that promise
MArk?
I don't like to be called names, the arrogance of this board is
amazing! I think that if we try hard enough we can find enough people
who can at least match the lofty standards of the present board. I
think teir main concern is how their being tossed out will look on the
old resume.
An unwashed mass,
Denny
|
| 343.13 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Oct 30 1991 09:58 | 6 |
| re .10:
As .11 pointed out by implication, they didn't go out with the monthly
statements. This may have been for legal or logistical reasons, but
in any case, I don't think it's anything to complain about -- the
notice certainly got more notice than if it had been a statement stuffer.
|
| 343.14 | Re-clarification :-) | CLT::OVER::JACKSON | Collis Jackson ZKO2-3L06 | Wed Oct 30 1991 10:16 | 235 |
| I am submitting the following responses for the purpose of clarifying
possible mis-information that may have been circulated in the basenote. :-)
>DCU's Board of Directors is submitting the following
>statement for the purpose of clarifying mis-information
>that has circulated in this VAXnotes conference.
>We thank you for taking the time to read this statement and
>hope that it clarifies many of the issues that are of concern
>to all of us.
I thank you for preparing and posting this. Regardless of my
agreement or disagreement with the content, it promotes communication
which is good.
>They have concluded, without question, that no board member,
>official or staff member, except Mr. Mangone, was
>involved in any wrongdoing at the credit union.
I would be *very* surprised if anyone other than Mr. Mangone
was intentionally defrauding the credit union. However, the
issue is not only was anyone intentionally defrauding the
credit union, but was the board (or individuals on the board)
so negligent in their responsibilities as to be liable.
I don't know the answer to this. Are you making the claim that
no one on the board is liable in this way as well (i.e.
that the board did their job sufficiently well insuring
that the bylaws were upheld that no blame can be attached to
them for the loss of millions of dollars)?
>Despite the results of these investigations, however, a
>small group of members have used the VaxNotes and
>VaxMail to raise questions about the board's actions in
>handling this situation.
"small"? I think this is *very* misleading. 1200 petitions.
Straw vote of 105 to 3 (at last count) for removing the board.
(BTW, I haven't voted in the poll.) What does it take for
it to be a medium-sized or large group? It could more
honestly be said that the current board of directors is an
extremely "small" group trying to defend their actions.
>This same group has continuously requested information about the credit
>union and DCU has responded by granting the majority of those
>requests. As the information was reviewed, more information was
>requested and false statements, unsubstantiated accusations and
>allegations increased.
But are shareholders (or anyone?) entitled to this information?
If not, what are the appropriate controls (and can they be worked
around by a Board of Directors how wants to)? If they are, then
denying a request is inappropriate.
>This policy does not prevent information from being provided
>to members.
From what I have read, this policy *does* prevent information from
being provided to members. It may do other things as well, but
it *certainly does* do this.
>Some Examples of the Most Recent False Allegations
>DCU member, Phil Gransewicz has suggested that the board
>approved a 6.5% mortgage loan for Mr. Richard D. Mangone
>and that the loan was for interest only payments.
Phil, up front, released information which would lead to a
conjecture (which he, up front, admitted was a conjecture)
that the loan appeared to have a 6.5% rate. He requested
more information to either prove this one way or the other.
The request was denied.
In my opinion, this is *exactly* what he should have done.
This *is* a reason for conjecture on this issue. If the
credit union does not feel it appropriate to release information
about this (which I can see that in some circumstances it may not
be), then they will simply have to live with the reasonable
conjectures that result.
>Another VaxNotes writer suggested that the Mangone
>mortgage is not the only DCU loan of this type. These
>statements are ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.
Yes, conjectures abound when the facts are denied. It is unfortunate
in some sense, but it is also a known response that should have been
both foreseen and expected. I can't take the members to task for
speculating on what may or may not be true when hard evidence is
denied them. This is just the cost that must be paid for secrecy (and,
again, it may be appropriate to keep this information secret).
>The VaxNotes file has accused the board of being compensated.
I think you have misunderstood the VaxNotes file. Although a
question may have been asked or someone uninformed may have
said something to this effect, it was quickly corrected. This
is certainly not a subject worthy of mention in this letter,
in my opinion.
>It would seem that the actions of this small group of members is
>to harass the board until they quit.
More accurately worded, "It is apparent that the actions of
a growing number of members are directed to voting the current board
of directors out of office."
>The board will not allow members with limited or no finance or
>management experience to control Massachusetts' largest credit
>union.
I find this statement arrogant. This statement says to me,
"I (we) are in control and you peons have neither the right nor
the responsibility to do anything about it." Perhaps I worded
this too strongly, but perhaps not. This is what I hear when
I read this.
The facts are that the board of directors serve at the pleasure
of the membership and we ALREADY ARE IN CONTROL because the
bylaws give the ultimate control to the membership. It is true
that the power of the shareholders is a blunt sledgehammer
instead of a surgeons knife, but it is ultimately their power.
Enough said.
>VaxNotes file has stated that DCU is not complying with
>NCUA regulations on the Special Meeting. THIS IS UNTRUE.
I think a more appropriately word response is, "Our interpretation
of this wording is honestly different than your interpretation
of this wording", rather than implying that those who disagree
with you are liars.
>For your information, it will cost DCU members over $35,000 to hold
>this Special Meeting.
In my opinion, this is money well-spent.
>Implications are that the DCU board manipulates the election
>process. THIS IS UNTRUE.
I think you have a point. However, I think that those who have
discussed the election process also have a point in saying that
the power that incumbents have to maintain office as well as
the power that the current board has to elect a new member to
the board is immense. However, this is not the fault of the
board, but rather of the bylaws.
>Mr. Charles Cockburn joined DCU in early September, 1991.
Agreed, a positive step.
>1. Discontinued the checking account fee until the strategic
> plan is completed.
A positive step.
>2. Discontinued the DCU ATM fee for savers who do
> not have a checking account.
A positive step.
>3. Simplified rates for new and used vehicle loans.
A positive step.
>4. More flexible terms for new and used vehicle loans. This includes
> no maximum loan amount and 72 month financing.
A positive step.
>5. Eliminated the checking account requirement for having a line of
> credit or Home Equity Loans.
A positive step.
>6. Eliminated the need for branch staff to call the main office to
> waive fees and to make decisions that relate to member service.
A positive step.
>Internal Controls - The board has implemented or is in the process of
>implementing the following improved internal controls:
A positive step.
>In summary, a small group of members have conducted what would seem
>to be a "witchhunt" with the intent to discredit the board of
>directors and the credit union. Their efforts have culminated
>in a petition to remove the present board.
"Witchhunt" as you know, is a very emotionally charged term and
one that I do not think is appropriate (even if true!) in this
communication. When you feel persecuted, the best response is
not to attack the persecutors, but rather to co-operate with them
and explain your positions calmly and reasonably. In this way, you
gain respect and support. Unfortunately, you chose a different
course.
I am not familiar with any attempt to discredit "the credit
union". Perhaps you are implying that discrediting the board
discredits the credit union? I would agree with that to some
extent, but by naming both the board and the credit union as
being discredited, it appears that you are saying that these
people are attempting to discredit the credit union apart from
the board and the policies of the board. Personally, I have not
seen this to be the case.
>The removal of the board would be disastrous to the
>credit union. At best, the credit union would be
>paralyzed for several months. Given the board's current
>efforts to strengthen the financial condition while
>improving service, the credit union will be seriously
>undermined without strong leadership.
I believe there is some truth to what you say. When (or if)
a sledgehammer hits, there is much unintended impact. But
the shareholder's weren't given a surgeon's knife - just a
sledgehammer. Each shareholder will have to decide for
himself/herself whether or not to use it.
>If the entire board is removed, there is a substantial
>risk that a newly elected board would have NO experience
>in management, finance, or understanding of the
>credit union operations.
I think that this statement is pure hogwash and is intended
solely for the purpose of the next statement ("Vote for
retaining the current board"). If the shareholders were
wise enough to vote you in and you consider yourselves worthy
of the job, don't you think the shareholders will be wise enough
to vote in suitable replacements, given the chance? (Now, if you
instead believe that the shareholders made a mistake... - then you
have a case. :-) ) You can't have it both ways. :-)
Signed,
Collis Jackson
|
| 343.15 | | SQM::MACDONALD | | Wed Oct 30 1991 10:17 | 38 |
|
Re: 0
First I want to echo the thoughts of .49 and applaud the BoD
for taking the time to place a statement here but I also have
to echo the many other responses.
As I put in another note, the Mangone and Barnstable Credit Union
issue is NOT what is fueling this fire. What the BoD has done
in aftermath to pursue this issue and to recover assets for the
DCU is NOT what is fueling this fire.
In all of this, the DCU and BoD has succeeded in making at least
1200 or so of its members angry. That is what is fueling the fire.
WE ARE BOILING MAD AT YOU!
Some have recounted personal examples of being stonewalled and treated
with disdain and contempt. I don't have such an experience as that,
but I will tell you directly that the famous "Choice" brochure of August
ticked me off. I have no reason to doubt the many experiences and
opinions I've seen written in this file and recounted verbally, not
just in the past few months, but over several years. The DCU has not
received this poor reputation just over this. This is more of a
last straw than that.
I encourage you to read these other responses carefully and to try to
LISTEN to what they are saying to you. Try to understand, regardless
of whether you agree with the details or not, the larger problem of how
you are being perceived. You have a very serious image problem among
more than just a few and without being responsive to what they are
asking of you, it isn't going to improve.
In any regard, thanks for your communication.
Steve
|
| 343.16 | | TOMK::KRUPINSKI | Repeal the 16th Amendment! | Wed Oct 30 1991 10:18 | 9 |
| > DCU's BOD Responds to Mis-Information in Notesfile
This title is inaccurate and does not reflect the contents
of either the base note, or of subsequent replies. Would the
moderators please change it? I suggest:
DCU's BOD Responds
Tom_K
|
| 343.17 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 | Wed Oct 30 1991 10:28 | 7 |
| A little dry humor ... before Halloween it's fair to call it a "witch
hunt" if y'all want. But, since the meeting will be after Halloween
and before Thanksgiving, why don't we change the accusation to a
"turkey hunt"? Just to keep up the holiday spirit, dontcha know ...
;^)
Steve
|
| 343.18 | Is there room in their collective mouth for the other foot? | MLTVAX::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Wed Oct 30 1991 10:41 | 10 |
| .0> The board will not allow members with limited or no
.0> finance or management experience to control
.0> Massachusetts' largest credit union.
The arrogance is astonishing.
Since when is it "the board's" decision to make? It's "the membership's"
choice as to who sits on the board controlling the CU, isn't it?
-Jack
|
| 343.19 | Another possibility | HOTWTR::OSSLER_KE | Soccus Carminium Admirari | Wed Oct 30 1991 10:50 | 33 |
| RE: <<< Note 343.12 by HPSRAD::RIEU >>>
> I think their main concern is how their being tossed out will look on the
> old resume.
> An unwashed mass,
> Denny
No, I think their main concern is that if a new board gets elected, the
new board will start digging into whatever other garbage the old board
wants to hide. If a new board finds anything - anything at all - it has
a fiduciary responsibility to go after the old board. If they don't,
then the new board is itself liable to prosecution. The new board would
be legally bound to use the legal and financial resources of the credit
union to prosecute the old board.
I'm not saying there has been any wrongdoing by the old board. I'm
saying that the old board is scared stiff that something in the record
may be misconstrued as *possible* lapses of responsibility. And that's
all it would take to trigger legally mandated action by the new board.
And then the old board would be in a world of pain, even if eventually
found innocent.
In this day and age, there are many examples of completely innocent
people who have to spend all their time, energy, and resources on
fending off legal action. If you were now on the board, wouldn't you do
everything, including fight this rearguard action against their own
members, to keep the board in friendly hands?
We need a new board. We need some sunlight shining into the DCU vaults.
What are they hiding that we don't know about?
Kevin
|
| 343.20 | | AMAMA::PETERM | | Wed Oct 30 1991 10:54 | 3 |
| re. .17, I believe that the phrase is "turkey shoot". :-)
- Peter
|
| 343.21 | | ISLNDS::TOMAO | I hope you like surprises | Wed Oct 30 1991 11:13 | 17 |
|
> The board will not allow members with limited or no fianance
> or managemnet experience to control Massachusetts' largest credit
> union.
This is the most insulting thing I've every read. The arrogance in
this statement sends a chill down my spine.
I will be attending the special meeting in the mystery room on November
12th, and if anything, what will come of this will be my awareness level
of what I thought to be a safe institution, has been raised to a very
high and very cautious level. I also have an account with Bay Bank and
I thought I needed to worry and watch them but as it turns out I need
to keep a closer eye on MY credit union. Yes I said MINE and every
other person with an open account there.
Joyce
|
| 343.22 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 | Wed Oct 30 1991 12:00 | 7 |
| re: .20
Ah! You're right! After Halloween and before Thanksgiving the more
Politically Correct term is probably "turkey shoot" versus "witch
hunt". :^)
Steve
|
| 343.23 | Let's redirect our energy | PLOUGH::KINZELMAN | Paul Kinzelman | Wed Oct 30 1991 12:34 | 19 |
| Re: .-<I_lost_count>
The BoD *does* read this file. They have said so themselves. I
wouldn't be suprised if they spend their evenings intensly reading every
entry.
Remember folks, that no matter how angry we are, and no matter what we
say in this file, it will only reach a small minority. *Please* direct
this energy into getting other folks as upset as you are, or enough for
them to want to show up Nov 12. We *need* votes on Nov 12.
At this point it's clear to me that the BoD will do nothing to weaken
their position or compromise or anything. They are not interested in
dialog or discussion. The lines are drawn as we move into the endgame.
When you see an opportunity to pass out info or talk to people, *do it*!
Talk to folks that haven't heard about what's going on.
And the best reason of all, the more people that show up at the meeting,
the shorter the meeting will be and we can all go home! 8*)
|
| 343.24 | rebuttal to .0 | POBOX::KAPLOW | Vote to remove the DCU BOD! 11/12/91 | Wed Oct 30 1991 15:41 | 700 |
| [I apologize for the length of this reply. I just couldn't let
this sit, since I am one of the "small group", was denied access
to some of this information by the BoD, and this response
personally attacked me, although not by name.]
> DCU's Board of Directors is submitting the following
> statement for the purpose of clarifying mis-information
> that has circulated in this VAXnotes conference.
The DCU BoD could have contributed to this notes conference at any
time from the day this conference was created up until today. It
is open to any Digital employee to say anything they care to. the
fact that you were able to post this note here in the first place
is evidence of that fact. While you may not like the responses it
has generated, we do not deny your right to say speak your piece
in this conference.
The BoD chose to wait this long before speaking. That was their
decision. In the absence of official, accurate information, rumors
have been known to run wild. The blame for any wild rumors or
speculation can be placed nowhere else but at the hands of those
who have denied us access to the truth for so long.
Let me point out that files, VaxNotes conferences or otherwise, do
not accuse anyone of anything. An individual may write something
in a VaxNotes conference that accuses someone of something. For
example, I might say that I do not trust Phil because his name
ends with a "Z". This is my personal comment and not an indictment
on behalf of the conference or the rest of the participants in the
conference. When you reference something that was said in the
conference, please quote the specific reference you are referring
to, or include a reference to the note number in question.
Several times in this reply I will refer to my letter to the DCU
requesting information, and their letter that denied much of that
information. the text of my original letter can be found in note
289.35, and Mary Madden's response is in 289.36.
> We thank you for taking the time to read this statement and
> hope that it clarifies many of the issues that are of concern
> to all of us.
Thanks for taking the time to finally pass on this information. We
STRONGLY urge the BoD to continue this flow of information. The
BoD should be the seven MOST ACTIVE participants in this
conference. Look at any conference that is related to a DEC
hardware or software product. The most active participants are the
engineers responsible for that project. The BoD ARE the DCU
"engineers". It is up to the seven of you to keep this information
flowing to the members of the DCU thru any available channel. This
means using VaxNotes! If this open communication had started last
April, or several years ago, then we would not now be calling for
a special meeting and the removal of the BoD.
> DCU's Board of Directors
> Dan Infante
> Jef Gibson
> Charlene O'Brien
> Mark Steinkrauss
> Susan Shapiro
> Jack Rugheimer
> Abbott Weiss
> October 29, 1991
> During the past few months, the National Credit Union
> Administration (NCUA), our independent auditors and
> legal counsel have conducted extensive investigations of
> DCU to determine the extent of the fraud committed by
> the former president, Richard Mangone. They have
> concluded, without question, that no board member,
> official or staff member, except Mr. Mangone, was
> involved in any wrongdoing at the credit union.
I'm very glad that this is the case. Unfortunately, being cleared
of wrongdoing is not the same as having properly exercised your
responsibilities as members of the BoD. We elected the BoD to
oversee the operations of the DCU. Over the past several years,
the BoD has allowed fraud to slip under its noses. The fact that
the NCUA has cleared you of any wrongdoing does NOT mean that I
appreciate that you have allowed $18,000,000 of OUR money to be
lost. If the BoD is not accountable to the DCU members, then who
is? Whom else have we elected to run OUR credit union?
We have asked and been denied information relating to the bonding
of the BoD. Even thou the BoD may have done nothing legally wrong,
the DCU membership may still be able to recover some of its losses
thru the BoD bond, as it has done thru Mr. Mangone's bond. Why has
the BoD not followed up on this? Is the $3,000,000 bond that
covers the BoD not worth collecting on, while $200,000+ of
personal assets held by Mr. Mangone is worth running up large
legal fees attempting to recover?
> Despite the results of these investigations, however, a
> small group of members have used the VaxNotes and
> VaxMail to raise questions about the board's actions in
> handling this situation. This same group has
Raising questions is the right and duty of every DCU member. We
would be irresponsible to NOT as questions given the current
problems the DCU has encountered, and the current problems in the
savings industry today. If the board had been so eager to question
Mr. Mangone 6 years ago, then perhaps we would have no problems
today.
> continuously requested information about the credit
> union and DCU has responded by granting the majority of
> those requests. As the information was reviewed, more
> information was requested and false statements,
> unsubstantiated accusations and allegations increased.
As more unreleased information was released, more questions
occurred, demanding more information to resolve these issues.
Again, let me remind you that if the BoD had been open and
forthright over the past several years, that these questions would
not now be surfacing. The auditors reports should have been
published every year and sent to all members. DEC does so in its
annual report to its stockholders. WE are the DCU stockholders. We
depended on the BoD to manage our savings. You, the BoD have
failed in that trust.
That "small group of members" includes 1220 DCU members who signed
petitions calling for removal of the incumbent BoD. These
petitions were collected from across the country in only three
days of efforts by other DCU members. I collected 70 of them
myself from my facility alone. In fact, I had people standing in
line waiting to sign the petitions. In many cases I didn't even
need to explain what they were, they grabbed them from my desk and
signed them. Given a serious effort we could have collected many
times that amount of petitions, from many more facilities. Does
this sound like a small group of dissidents, or a mass protest by
the disenfranchised members/owners of the DCU.
The empowered establishment often tries to play down dissent by
claiming that it comes from a small group. Every revolution,
including the American Revolution that started this great country
of ours, started with a small group of dissidents. I have been a
member of this small group for almost 3 years. Others joined in
more recently. For many, the checking fees were "the straw that
broke the camels back". Still this small group outnumbers the
board of directors by a factor of 174:1. Given this ratio, it is
no wonder that the BoD is concerned that it might be removed.
Might I ask the BoD how big was the group that worked to form this
credit union in the first place. I'd be willing to bet that it was
much smaller than the 1220 members who signed the petitions.
> Furthermore, the board has held two informal member
> meetings, lasting 4 hours each, to discuss the credit
> union. These meetings were open. At each meeting a
> total of 15 to 19 members attended. Many of those
> members attending the first meeting also attended the
> second.
One of those meetings was called with only 24 hours notice. The
other was only publicized here in the VaxNotes conference that you
seem to fear so much. Had those meetings (and the current meetings
with the new president) been announced to all members, I'm sure
that the attendance would have been greater. The fact that many
members who attended the first meeting also attended the second
meeting tells me that these people are very concerned about the
condition of the DCU, and that all of their questions and concerns
were not answered in these meetings. I'm still waiting for the BoD
or Mr. Cockburn to come to my facility, out here in the Chicago
area. For that matter, I'm still waiting for the branch office
that the DCU promised us out here over 7 years ago.
I would also like to point out to the BoD that the attendance at
these unannounced meetings vastly exceeded the annual meetings
that the BoD should be encouraging all DCU members to attend. Tell
us if you would, how many DCU members, other than the BoD and DCU
employees, come to the annual meetings. Two or three? It would
seem that even informal 24 hour notification thru VaxNotes draws a
larger crowd than the BoD can get thru a mailing to all members!
It would also seem that VaxNotes is a more useful communication
method than mailings from the DCU. Is the BoD concerned about the
low attendance at DCU meetings, or is it concerned that by using
the powerful networking and conferencing tools made by DIGITAL
that we have a more powerful communication tool than the BoD, that
is totally outside of their control?
> Recently, the board has enacted an Information
> Protection Policy. This policy provides a list of
> information available at all DCU offices and asks member
> who have requests, other than those regarding products
> and services, to submit such requests in writing,
> stating the business reason for the request. The fees
Again, if the BoD had been open and honest with the DCU
membership, this information would not be requested because it
would already have been released over the years. If the DCU BoD
had not terminated member access to this information without
written request, there would be no need for staff to research this
information. Federal regulations require that this information be
available, but the BoD has instead chosen to complicate matters,
increasing the cost to the DCU.
> associated with this policy are to recover the time,
> labor and cost incurred by these unusual requests. This
> policy does not prevent information from being provided
> to members. It does, however, require a legitimate
> business reason and not merely for the purpose of
> harassment. Of course, some information cannot be
> released in order to protect the credit union and its
> members.
This policy might be reasonable, if it were not for the business
reason, the BoD approval, or the unreasonable fees for the
materials. We are the owners of the DCU. We have the legal right
to know what our credit union is doing with our money.
This is not an information protection policy, but an information
control policy. There is certain information that any financial
institution must keep confidential, such as individual account
balances. Election results, auditors reports, etc. are not among
them, and should have been disseminated without the need of
members to ask for them. The only reason I can think of for the
BoD to control access to this information is if it contains
information that might be damaging to the BoD itself. Please
release this information and prove us wrong.
Furthermore, the BoD has gone beyond restricting access to
information about the DCU, it has CENSORED members attempts to
communicate this DCU crisis to the majority of Digital employees.
The board has refused access to LiveWire by any group that
disagrees with their current position. This is a clear violation
of Digital's personnel policy and must immediately be rectified.
The BoD has the right to speak their side of the issue; they do
not have the right to silence those opposed to their actions.
> Some Examples of the Most Recent False Allegations
> DCU member, Phil Gransewicz has suggested that the board
> approved a 6.5% mortgage loan for Mr. Richard D. Mangone
> and that the loan was for interest only payments.
I find this statement to be as slanderous against Mr. Gransewicz
(whom I have never met personally) than anything I have seen in
the VaxNotes conference is towards the BoD or any employee of the
DCU. Spreading this information outside the contest of this
VaxNotes conference is certainly a violation of his rights
according to the orange book.
Phil did nothing but report what was contained in court documents
filed in the case brought by the DCU against Mr. Mangone. He asked
questions as to the nature of this loan. The BoD refused to answer
his questions, so all readers of the conference were left to
speculate on the terms of that loan. Simple mathematics results in
the numbers found therein. This is the first time the BoD has
responded to that request by disclosing that the loan was a
standard loan available to all DCU members. Again, the source of
this misunderstanding is not the DCU members, but DCU's own
information control policy.
> Another VaxNotes writer suggested that the Mangone
> mortgage is not the only DCU loan of this type. These
> statements are ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. Mr. Mangone received
> a standard mortgage at prevailing rates and nothing
> more. Our members, including employees and officials of
> the credit union, are offered the same savings and
> lending rates and programs. Preferential loans are
> illegal and, if written, would be discovered by the NCUA
> examiners and our independent auditors. The responsible
> parties would be terminated.
I consider this statement to be a personal attack on me. I suggest
you correct it immediately, or I will follow thru the ODP with
personnel on up as far as necessary if this allegation is spread
any further than this note. I personally asked in writing if there
were any other real estate loans to non members, such as the
fraudulent participation loans arranged by Mr. Mangone, but was
refused a response to this question. I simply want to know if the
full extent of the financial damage to the DCU has been disclosed,
or if there may be more skeletons in the closet. I suggested
nothing. I simply asked if there were any more, and the DCU BoD
response was that I could not have that information. If there are
no more such loans, why was I denied that information?
This statement also contradicts your previous statement. If the
loan to Mr. Mangone is nothing that is not available to the
general membership, then there are MANY more loans of this type
outstanding!
> The VaxNotes file has accused the board of being
> compensated. THIS IS UNTRUE. DCU's board members are
This is an absolute lie! If you wish to have this statement stand,
please extract the note that says this, and post it as a reply to
this topic. Members who did not have access to DCU's bylaws (that
information control policy again) ASKED if the BoD was
compensated, but were informed that the policy was unsalaried.
> volunteers, elected by the entire membership and
> responsible to the membership as a whole. They cannot
> and do not receive any added benefit for volunteering.
> The fact that the board was defrauded and betrayed by
> Mr. Mangone does not imply that the board has done
> anything wrong. As we have communicated previously, the
Again, the fact that the board has not done anything wrong does
not imply that they did everything right. In the financial
business anything other than a squeaky clean record is as good as
an indictment. Would any member of the BoD invest your life
savings with someone who was strongly suspected of bank fraud,
even if they had been found not guilty in a court of law? I
seriously doubt that you would.
> Federal Examiners have carefully reviewed all areas of
> our credit union, current board members, officials and
> staff and have cleared them from any involvement in the
> fraud. It would seem that the actions of this small
> group of members is to harass the board until they quit.
> The board will not allow members with limited or no
> finance or management experience to control
> Massachusetts' largest credit union.
I might suggest that the current BoD has shown insufficient
finance or management experience to control Massachusetts' largest
credit union. That is the reason I signed a petition calling for a
special meeting to remove the current BoD and call for new
elections. The BoD has kept members in the dark as to differences
of opinion between members of the BoD. If you or any other member
of the BoD can document your objections to the participation loans
of several years back, the increased member service fees, the
information control policy, or any of the other DCU actions that I
find repugnant, please say so now. I would be glad to support
anyone who has stood ground against the current BoD and been
outvoted by the ineffective majority.
> The board will not allow members with limited or no
> finance or management experience to control
The members and owners of the DCU will not allow ANYONE control
Massachusetts' largest credit union who do not follow the desires
and listen to the voices of those members. The DCU is not your
credit union, it is OUR credit union. As Mary Madden has told us
so many times, if you do not like our credit union, you are
welcome to shop around. If you are removed from office, you are
most welcome to form the "Board of Directors Credit Union". Do not
expect to see a large number of current DCU members eager to join.
> VaxNotes file has stated that DCU is not complying with
> NCUA regulations on the Special Meeting. THIS IS
> UNTRUE. On September 17, 1991, DCU received a petition
> from members to hold a Special Meeting. DCU validated
> the petition signatures on September 18, 1991.
> According to our bylaws and confirmed by our legal
> counsel, the Chairman of the Board, within 30 days, must
> call (i.e. choose a date, time and place) to hold the
> Special Meeting. On October 15, 1991, in accordance with
> our bylaws, the following date, time and place were
> chosen: November 12, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., at the
> Sheraton Tara Hotel, located at 1657 Worcester Road in
> Framingham, MA 508/879-7200. NCUA has issued no
> written interpretation on this issue.
This is NOT what Chuck Cockburn stated prior to the petitions
being turned in, nor is it what an NCUA official stated at that
time. Perhaps the NCUA official was incorrect. Perhaps Chuck
changed his position on the timing of the meeting. Again, the
VaxNoters received contradictory information from DCU management,
and the BoD failed to correct this information in a timely
fashion. If Chuck and the BoD had this position, they should have
stated it when Phil and the others submitted the petitions, not
almost a month later. Your story must be consistent if it is to be
credible.
> This date was selected so we could provide ample notice
> to our members, offer a convenient time and location to
> the majority of our members and allow us sufficient time
> to prepare and print the mailing and reserve
> accommodations. For your information, it will cost DCU
> members over $35,000 to hold this Special Meeting.
If the BoD had been open and honest in communicating with the
members, there would have been no special meeting called. If the
DCU had used normal mailing practices (zip+4, presorted), the
postage costs to send the announcement could have been cut 17%
(~$3600). If the DCU BoD had prepared the announcement earlier,
the announcement could have been sent with the monthly statements,
saving 100% of the postage costs (~$25520), along with some of the
printing costs.
I was concerned about the size of the meeting room for the special
meeting. I called DCU and was denied an answer to my question as
to the size of the room. I called the Sheraton hotel twice, and my
calls were not returned. I was then contacted by Mary Madden who
insulted me for attempting to find out how big the room was, and
told me it was none of my business. She then hung up on me.
I would caution the BoD against planning any "stunts" or improper
manipulation at this special meeting. Should such shenanigans
occur, you can bet that those members that collected 1220
petitions in 3 days will collect twice that many in half the time!
Then the BoD will then have to spend another $35,000 to call
another special meeting, unless the NCUA were to step in and
resolve the problem on our behalf.
> Implications are that the DCU board manipulates the
> election process. THIS IS UNTRUE. As with previous
> years, the October NETWORK has been a vehicle to
> communicate a call for candidates to run for DCU's Board
> of Directors. According to our bylaws, DCU must notify
> our membership of the opportunity to run. Utilizing our
> member newsletter saves the credit union thousands of
> dollars.
This too is not correct. I wrote a letter to the NCUA to complain
about the way the 1989 BoD election was run. That year the board
structured the election process in a manner that all but prevented
candidates to be nominated by petition. DCU then passed incorrect
information to the members when asked for write-in procedures. As
a result, I cast a ballot that was invalidated. Many other members
did not receive ballots in time to vote in that election
In 1990 my wife and I did not even receive ballots until the day
that the ballots were due in the hands of the auditors.
There were implications that the 1985 election was improperly run,
due to incorrect instructions enclosed with the ballots.
Unfortunately these are only implications, because the BoD has
refused to release the audited results of this election. I
personally requested this information in writing under the new
information control policy, but was refused because I had no need
to know. If you claim that the BoD has done nothing wrong, release
the audited reports of the elections from 1985 thru 1991 NOW,
before the special meeting!
This is the first year that I personally have been notified that I
can run for the BoD. The BoD constantly points out that they don't
use VaxNotes because it does not reach all DCU members, and then
announce the elections and call for candidates only in
publications that cover a small percentage of the country. I find
this attitude to be quite hypocritical.
> It is important to note that this process always runs
> approximately 7 months. At this time, 2 of the 3
> nominating committee members have been selected. None
> of them are DCU officials.
It has not always been seven months. These changes were instituted
as a result of the NCUA investigation over 2 years ago, prompted
by my letter to the NCUA. At that time the call for candidates
occurred in December, not September as was done this year.
You seem to have an opening remaining on the nominating committee.
I challenge the BoD to select a participant in this VaxNotes
conference to fill the remaining slot on that committee. If you
think that we have been asking the incumbent BoD difficult
questions, you can be assured that we will do the same to any
candidate that wants to run for this job.
> Rather than continue responding to other false
> allegations, we believe it is appropriate to summarize
> the positive steps the board has taken to recover from
> the fraud and to improve DCU's operations.
> New President/CEO - Mr. Charles Cockburn joined DCU in
> early September, 1991. Through member correspondences
> and statements, Mr. Cockburn has communicated DCU's top
> priorities, which are to ensure quality service and to
> improve the credit union's financial condition. In the
> next few months, the management team will collect and
> analyze information to develop a more insightful
> strategic plan that will enable the credit union to make
> long-term progress toward both goals. As part of the
> information gathering process, Mr. Cockburn is visiting
> many Digital facilities to speak with members and to
> obtain input from DCU staff and members on how to
> improve the credit union. In some instances, the
> changes suggested are being implemented immediately,
> others will take time. Some of the new changes include:
I applaud the board's choice of Mr. Cockburn. I urge you to give
him a freer hand in running the DCU. he seems to have a better
feel for the wished of the members and owners of the DCU that the
BoD does. If he should do something that we do not like, I can
assure you that we will let it be known. Until then, let him, and
the rest of the DCU senior staff do the jobs that you have hired
them to do without unnecessary interference.
> 1. Discontinued the checking account fee until
> the strategic plan is completed.
Mr. Cockburn did this in direct opposition to the wishes of the
BoD. I must give him credit for standing up against the 7 people
who hired him. I wish he would continue this practice.
> 2. Discontinued the DCU ATM fee for savers who do
> not have a checking account.
This too should have been done by the BoD years ago. On one hand
the BoD complains about the cost of carrying inactive accounts,
and on the other hand you set up policies that force borrowers to
maintain these superfluous accounts.
> 3. Simplified rates for new and used vehicle
> loans.
> 4. More flexible terms for new and used vehicle
> loans. This includes no maximum loan amount
> and 72 month financing.
> 5. Eliminated the checking account requirement for
> having a line of credit or Home Equity Loans.
> 6. Eliminated the need for branch staff to call
> the main office to waive fees and to make
> decisions that relate to member service.
Ditto my comments from point 2 on all of these.
> Internal Controls - The board has implemented or is in
> the process of implementing the following improved
> internal controls:
> Supervisory Committee - This committee consists of
> members appointed by the board. Their primary
> responsibilities are to ensure that proper internal
> controls exist. They represent "checks & balances"
> between the board, the staff and the membership. Mr.
> Cockburn will work with the committee to improve their
> effectiveness and to implement numerous policies and
> procedures at the credit union.
The BoD changed the way this committee works, which made it less
effective. Perhaps if it had been left the way it was, and had not
been interfered with by BoD actions, the Mangone fraud would have
been discovered earlier, or even prevented from happening. Please
tell us who is on this committee, and urge them to participate in
this VaxNotes conference as well.
> Outside Auditor - The Supervisory Committee also has the
> responsibility to select and work with an independent
> auditing firm. Mr. Cockburn has extensive experience in
> this area and he will recommend that the committee
> select an alternative firm who can provide a fresh
> approach.
This is necessary because the BoD previously chose an auditor that
was unfamiliar with credit union operations. If the BoD had
properly exercised their fiduciary responsibility over the past
years, a competent auditor may have warned us about the Mangone
fraud before it cost DCU $18,000,000.
> Internal Auditor - We will have a full time employee who
> conducts thorough audits of all areas of the credit
> union. This person will not report to the board, but
> will have a direct line reporting relationship to the
> Supervisory Committee and the President/CEO.
Again, why did the BoD not do this before. It seems that the
current BoD is competent to lock the barn door after the horses
have left. What I want is to have my money managed by a BoD that
has the foresight to see problems before they develop.
> General Counsel - The board has recently hired the law
> firm of Styskal, Wiese, and Melchione. Mr. Melchione
> has extensive experience with credit unions. As general
> counsel, Mr. Melchione works with DCU staff on
> compliance, employment, etc. One of his many roles will
> be to ensure appropriate credit union policies are in
> place, and to make sure checks and balances exist. All
> lawyers retained by DCU for mortgage closings,
> compliance issues or pending litigation are working for
> the credit union. They are not representing any
> individual, but the membership as a whole. DCU does not
> provide legal representation for any member or group of
> members.
Again, this is action taken too late.
> Legal Actions - The board had hired the law firm of
> Bingham, Dana & Gould to pursue legal remedies, and to
> recover any losses from all parties associated with the
> fraud. To date, the credit union has received $6
> million (the maximum) from our insurance carrier,
> commenced a lawsuit against Mr. Mangone and others, and
> has successfully attached $200,000 of Mangone's personal
> assets. In addition, we are cooperating fully with
> federal and state investigators.
Bingham, Dana, and Gould is an excellent law firm, and I am quite
familiar with their reputation and their staff. Unfortunately,
their expertise is in defending financial institutions accused of
wrongdoing, not in prosecuting the wrongdoers. Further, Mr. Jim
Rice of BD&G is not a litigator, but a financial advisor. If I
were Mr. Mangone, BD&G is the first place I would turn for legal
representation, only if I were in his position, I would retain
their chief litigator, Gerald Rath.
When I first saw that the BoD had retained BD&G it made me wonder
if BD&G was representing DCU against Mr. Mangone, or if they were
retained to represent possible suits from the DCU membership
against the BoD. The latter would be more in character with this
law firm. I asked this very question in writing, and was told that
I had no need to know this information. This further fueled my
curiosity.
The DCU Bylaws, under Article XIX, Section 8(a) (revised 10/89)
indicate that the DCU will provide legal representation to any
current or former official or employee of the DCU, including legal
representation. Thus it is reasonable for a member to ask whom a
particular lawyer retained by the DCU represents; be it the
membership, the BoD, a manager or officer, or even it's former
president.
> The membership will continue to be updated regarding
> these litigations. As with Mr. Melchione, none of the
> credit union's attorneys represent any member of the
> board.
> In summary, a small group of members have conducted what
> would seem to be a "witchhunt" with the intent to
> discredit the board of directors and the credit union.
> Their efforts have culminated in a petition to remove
> the present board.
That small group is over 1200 members! If we had spent another few
days collecting signatures, the small group would have easily been
larger than the number of members that elected any of the
incumbent BoD.
To the BoD, it may seem like a witchhunt. To those of us on the
outside trying to look in, it seems that the BoD is trying to
cover up its actions for the past few years. No one in the
VaxNotes conference started this process with the intention of
calling for the removal of the BoD. We had some questions, and
wanted some honest answers. The more we dug into the DCU, the more
the DCU resisted our digging. What started as a simple quest for
information was rapidly escalated by both sides. The current BoD
has put so many obstacles in our path that the only way we can be
100% sure of the condition of the DCU is to elect a complete new
slate of directors to run the DCU.
> The removal of the board would be disastrous to the
> credit union. At best, the credit union would be
> paralyzed for several months. Given the board's current
> efforts to strengthen the financial condition while
> improving service, the credit union will be seriously
> undermined without strong leadership.
I must agree that removing the board would be bad for the credit
union. I can only think of one thing that could possibly have a
worse effect on the credit union: allowing the current board to
continue to run the DCU the way they have been for the past
several years. The BoD has made it quite clear over the past 6
months that the DCU is THEIR credit union. 1220 members signed
petitions requesting that the BoD return control of the credit
union to its OWNERS, the DCU members. That is what we all want.
> If the entire board is removed, there is a substantial
> risk that a newly elected board would have NO experience
> in management, finance, or understanding of the
> credit union operations. It is, therefore, extremely
> important that members attend the Special Meeting and
> show support for DCU's current board of directors.
I find it hard to believe that in the 88,000+ members of the DCU
that there are only seven individuals with the kind of background
needed to run the DCU. In fact the nominating committee appointed
by the BoD for each election has always been able to find more
qualified challengers for each election than there are incumbents
running for those positions. Are you trying to tell us that all of
those challengers who have run for the DCU BoD in the bast were
not competent to sit on the board? That doesn't say much for the
nominating committee appointed by the BoD, does it?
> Signed,
> DCU's Board of Directors
In summary, the members of the DCU are not happy that Mr. Mangone
perpetrated a fraud upon our institution that may cost us in
excess of $100 per member. We are not happy that the BoD attempted
to recover these losses by charging service fees of its members.
We are not happy that the BoDs solution was to blame Mr. Mangone
for the entire affair, while proclaiming their total innocence of
any wrongdoing. We are not happy that the BoD does not understand
the difference between asking questions to uncover information,
stating facts that are in the credit unions own legal documents,
and making allegations against individuals. We are absolutely
outraged that the BoD has failed to disclose the facts surrounding
the operation of the DCU. We are outraged that the BoD has blocked
all reasonable attempts to get this information. We are outraged
that the BoD has given the membership no choice but to remove the
entire BoD in order to regain control of our credit union.
We are not willing to have our credit union controled by anyone.
We want a BoD that is open and responsive to the membership that
elected them to serve us. If you are willing to perform the
function to which you were elected, then do it, and stop hiding
behind unreasonable policies. If you are not willing to serve
under those terms, then I suggest you all resign, and save us the
effort of having to remove you from office.
Signed,
Robert G. Kaplow
DCU member and owner
|
| 343.25 | | HELIX::SONTAKKE | Vikas Sontakke | Wed Oct 30 1991 16:03 | 6 |
| I don't know if it will be such a bad idea to post .0 in LiveWire.
Most reasonable people will be appalled at the arrogance displayed. I
bet posting .0 in other high traffic conference will do wonders for OUR
cause :-)
- Vikas
|
| 343.26 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Ratholes for sale or rent. Flames for just .50� | Wed Oct 30 1991 16:09 | 11 |
| RE:.17 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN "ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326"
> "turkey hunt"
Having been to a "Throw the Board" meeting once before, "turkey roast" is
probably closer to the holiday spirit and the probable spirit of the evening.
It will be _hot_ up on that stage, if it's anything like the last one...
Phil
|
| 343.27 | Hmm... | STAR::PARKE | I'm a surgeon, NOT Jack the Ripper | Wed Oct 30 1991 17:04 | 8 |
| re.25:
(Posting the letter)
But we need to get permission, don't we ?
Cann't have the board's defense leak too far now.
|
| 343.28 | Add a name to the "small group" list | MILKWY::JSIEGEL | | Wed Oct 30 1991 17:35 | 81 |
| This base note has finally nudged me into responding in this notes file.
I have been reading all the correspondence going on in here for the past
month, and have seen many of my own thoughts expressed by others more
eloquently I could have done. But I wanted to respond to let the board
know that there are other members VERY concerned with what's been going on
who, like myself, have not felt it necessary to fill up space in the notes
file when their issues and concerns were already being addressed. For the
count, add my name to "small group of (concerned) members."
Let me note that even before I knew of the existance of this notes file I
wrote a letter to the management of DCU expressing my feelings of the
underhanded manner that the board chose to inform members of the fee
increases, and the negative direction I felt the DCU was going in. I
stated that I originally joined the DCU about 10 years ago because it was
very competative and an extremely attractive place to invest my money, and
that I no longer felt that that was the case. This was because of new and
increased fees, lower interest paid on accounts, and what I perceived as
a lack of integrity relative to open disclosure of new and increased
fees. Your "Choices" brochure made me feel like I was being sold a lemon
from a used car salesman! I was beginning to get concerned about how
my money was being managed. I then happened upon this notes file and found
that many others felt as I did.
Anyway, I'm getting a bit off track. I feel you completely missed the
point in your .0 note. I feel there are a few key issues or themes that
have been expressed in this file and rather than addressing them to help
resolve the issues you focused attention on other lesser and misinterpreted
issues.
You haven't communicated to respond to very reasonable requests to CLARIFY
issues that APPEAR to have been managed inappropriately. If any
allegations or expressed concerns were wrong, straight forward and timely
responses from the Board or from Mr. Cockburn could have quickly alleviated
those concerns. Instead you engaged in the behavior of a guilty party, by
not responding and by restricting access to information that could have
helped to allay members' concerns.
All along members welcomed input and clarification from the Board, but
until just now they got none. This note from the Board is a good start,
but should be the beginning of a healthy dialogue, not just a one shot
blast that will only fuel the fire.
I also feel that much of the dialog in the Notes file was reasonable and
objective (though admittedly emotional at times), with authors stating
their sources of information and reasons of concern. As such I feel that
your classification of their actions as "a witch hunt" is totally
inappropriate. People were just looking for explanations that would help
them understand and make them feel more comfortable and that their money was
secure.
As to the stated concerns: "If the entire board is removed, there is a
substantial risk that a newly elected board would have NO experience in
management, finance, or understanding of the credit union operations. It
is, therefore, extremely important that members attend the Special Meeting
and show support for DCU's current board of directors." THIS IS INCREDIBLY
ARROGANT AND REDICULOUS NONSENSE!!! If the Board feels they are
experienced enough in the required areas, and they came from the membership
population, then surely there are more people at least as qualified to
serve.
I would still love to hear a response to one of my major concerns (among
others), and would welcome some clarification from the Board:
I don't understand how a responsible, honest and open Board could have
approved the Participation loans and AT THE SAME TIME EXPLICITLY STATE THAT
THEY DIDN'T MAKE THOSE TYPES OF RISKY INVESTMENTS??? This is my
understanding, and nowhere have I seen or heard an explanation of how/why
this happened from the Board. And to add to any lack of trust generated
from this perceived impropriety, auditors notes explaining these investments
WERE REMOVED FROM ANNUAL REPORTS! Regardless of whether or not anything
wrong was done, there is sure no better way to make it look like something
was. Rather than tell members that the auditor's notes don't have to be
a part of the annual report, why can't the Board just explain why the notes
were excluded?
Having put a note in this file to begin communicating is a great first step.
I hope the Board can continue this communication and address the
membership's real and specific concerns. This will go a long way in helping
us to decide how we should vote come November 12. Not responding will also
help us decide.
|
| 343.29 | | POBOX::KAPLOW | Vote to remove the DCU BOD! 11/12/91 | Wed Oct 30 1991 18:04 | 11 |
| re: .25
It would not be proper for us to repost .0 without the permission
of the BoD, as it IS their note. Also, as I refered to in my
response to .0, there are some personal attacks in .0 that should
be either removed or toned down before this note goes anywhere
outside dcu.note Perhaps you should suggest to the Bod that they
should place their statement (edited for accuracy) and one from
"the dreaded committee" side by side in LiveWire, or wherever else
it will get maximum exposure. I don't think that either side
should object to both sides being heard together.
|
| 343.30 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Wed Oct 30 1991 22:21 | 11 |
| The basenote is posted in an unrestricted notes conference. It is
within Digital's rules for anybody to repost the note anywhere inside
Digital. It might not be polite, though.
It would be outside the rules to post a VAXmail message or to repost a
note from a restricted conference without the author's permission.
Those cases don't apply here.
As far as I'm concerned, the personal attacks are part of the "charm"
of the basenote and should be left in. Perhaps we should hear from the
attackee on that point.
|
| 343.31 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Wed Oct 30 1991 22:47 | 1 |
| The basenote has been reposted in HUMANE::DIGITAL as note 1639.33.
|
| 343.32 | | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | Someday, DCU will be a credit union. | Wed Oct 30 1991 23:05 | 15 |
|
RE: .30
I agree. The message stands on it's own. The BoD couldn't refute cold
hard facts, so has chosen to attack individuals and groups of people
with labels. They have pitted members against members. Fearing their
demise, they have resorted to scare tactics and threats of gloom and
doom to justify their retention. I have total and complete confidence
in the ability of DCU members to read this work of art and arrive at
the appropriate conclusions. Nobody could have written a better message
justifying their removal. Desperate people take desperate measures I
guess. All in fear of such a small group of members... ;-)
And all this time I had thought they had long since exhausted their
supply of toes and bullets.
|
| 343.33 | Permission has been granted, in any case | 11SRUS::SCONCE | Bill Sconce | Thu Oct 31 1991 08:40 | 29 |
| .30> The basenote is posted in an unrestricted notes conference. It is
.30> within Digital's rules for anybody to repost the note anywhere inside
.30> Digital. It might not be polite, though.
In this case, it turns out to be OK. Mark Buda asked Susan for permission
to re-post and forward the BoD statement, and she gave it:
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: HYEND::SSHAPIRO "SUSAN SHAPIRO DTN 297-3527 30-Oct-1991 1124"
30-OCT-1991 11:27:47.89
To: STAR::BUDA
CC: @DCUBOD
Subj: Yes, you have permission to forward this VAXnote provided it is not
edited or altered in any manner. Thank you, Susan
From: STAR::BUDA "Lighting fuses as I go 30-Oct-1991 1032" 30-OCT-1991
10:32:23.52
To: HYEND::SSHAPIRO
CC: BUDA
Subj: Notefile DCU Note 343.0
Can I get your permission to extract and share this message with other
DEC employees?
Thanks,
- mark
|
| 343.34 | Dear DCU BOD | STAR::PARKE | I'm a surgeon, NOT Jack the Ripper | Thu Oct 31 1991 10:08 | 9 |
| Thank you.
There were two votes, probably for you, on Monday. I was discussing the
whole mess (my point of view) with two associates who felt that it would
be improper to vote out the BOD at this time, to give them a chance to
make amends, fix the situation, whatever.
Your letter, with it's arrogance, has completely turned that situation around,
better than I. We now have two more attending votes, AGAINST the BOD.
|
| 343.35 | | VERGA::WELLCOME | Steve Wellcome (Maynard) | Thu Oct 31 1991 11:07 | 16 |
| Re: .0
Somebody is out of touch with reality, and I don't think it's the
1220 petition signers.
Seldom have I seen anything that so completely misses the point
of what is going on.
And the arrogance.... oy veh, or whatever the expression is.
The current BoD considers themselves to be irreplacable. I view
this as an *extremely* dangerous attitude and the best justification
thus far for their dismissal.
BoD, EVERYBODY is replacable, including you.
|
| 343.36 | | 80MMM::R_MAILLET | | Fri Nov 01 1991 14:22 | 9 |
| re: .-1
>>> BoD, EVERYBODY is replacable, including you.
Maybe the BoD feels that the _membership_ is replaceable?
-Ron- (one who was/is LIVID over "Choices")
|
| 343.37 | RE:.0 I like how the BOD points fingers. . . | MVDS02::LOCKRIDGE | Artificial Insanity | Fri Nov 01 1991 14:24 | 23 |
| re:.0
> . . . For your information, it will cost DCU
> members over $35,000 to hold this Special Meeting.
I didn't see anywhere in this BOD Mis-Information, err, response to
mis-information, how much it costs the members for the BOD's glitzy
"CHOICES" brochure and campaign, not to mention other costs (hidden or
otherwise) most of which are documented elsewhere. Oh let's see,
things like the millions their speculation costs us, legal fees to have
counsel at their informal meetings, legal fees for their defense at the
Special Meeting (you can bet that the lawyer will be there and not for
free), toaster insurance, etc.
But the "Witch-hunters" are costing the members over $35,000 to hold
the special meeting. (Shame on you! :-) ) This sure seems to be the
intent of this statement. Let's view things in perspective shall we?
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm talking about the BOD here.
-Bob
P.S. I surprised that the BOD didn't charge us $.25 a page to read
this wonderful communication.
|
| 343.38 | Wait a minute -- WHO caused the petition? | 11SRUS::SCONCE | Bill Sconce | Fri Nov 01 1991 14:48 | 6 |
| Wouldn't this wording have been more candid?
. . . For your information, by refusing to provide
answers to reasonable questions about the health of your credit
union, your current Board has caused the calling of a Special
Meeting which will cost DCU members over $35,000.
|
| 343.39 | | BEATLE::REILLY | So I rewired it... | Fri Nov 01 1991 16:21 | 15 |
|
� how much it costs the members for the BOD's glitzy
� "CHOICES" brochure and campaign, not to mention other costs (hidden or
� otherwise) most of which are documented elsewhere. Oh let's see,
...like when they screw up VISA statements and have to mail new ones
(late summer 1990)?
The "FYI $35,000" thing is just another in a long line of BOD arguments
that say, basically, "it will be painful for you to change things,
therefore don't - regardless of what we do." And it is painful. But we
have a right to know what's going on, and if we can't find out somehow, we
will go through the pain.
- Sean
|
| 343.40 | The letter of the law is not enough | TLE::EKLUND | Always smiling on the inside! | Fri Nov 01 1991 17:27 | 30 |
| I think that the members of the BOD are really missing something
here. If you want to evade the issues, you can EXPECT to be removed.
While I don't speak for everyone, I have come to appreciate the
openness which we all enjoy at Digital. More than that, I expect it.
When I ask for information, I expect that I will either receive it or
receive a good reason why not. I don't expect to be told, "that's the
way it is".
So, when I (or someone else) asks how big the room is, or where it
is, we expect an answer. When we ask why Mangone's loan appeared to be
at a low rate, we don't want to be told "It wasn't" -- we want an
explanation of what we see in his now public monthly statement. To do
otherwise is more than a little ridiculous.
The statement in .0 was a mistake. It serves to confirm what many
of us really did NOT wish to believe, namely that as a BOD you wish to
not directly respond to the questions raised in a convincing manner,
and that you unfortunately are stooping to the level of name-calling
which has become all too common in this file. Witch hunt indeed. I
expected more of you. I can only interpret this as confirming your
frustration and perhaps desparation.
As I have said before, I believe that you have totally
underestimated the power of a notes file such as this one. It
represents a way to ensure the openness that many of us find essential.
While you may be acting within the letter of the law, you have missed
its spirit by a whole lot...
Dave Eklund
|
| 343.41 | Which witch is which? :-) | POBOX::KAPLOW | Free the DCU 88,000 11/12/91! | Fri Nov 01 1991 17:56 | 0 |
| 343.42 | | STAR::PARKE | I'm a surgeon, NOT Jack the Ripper | Mon Nov 04 1991 14:04 | 24 |
| Re .0:
FLAME
DISCRIMINTATION
rathole ?
> The board will not allow members with limited or no
> finance or management experience to control
> Massachusetts' largest credit union.
This is NOT only Massachusetts largest credit union, in ownership, etc.
Participation and residence of the credit union includes
New Hampshire (probably the largest there also) Colorado, and wherever else.
With matching arrogance, I say that I won't want Massachusetts Executives
running New Hampshires largest credit union.
It is exactly this shortsightedness of the BOD that bring me to want
to replace them.
Are they tryng for another "Massachusetts Miracle" ? Wasn't one enough ?
|
| 343.43 | Calling the Vatican for certification... | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | Someday, DCU will be a credit union. | Mon Nov 04 1991 16:51 | 25 |
|
RE: .-1
>Are they tryng for another "Massachusetts Miracle" ? Wasn't one enough ?
Hey, there really was a Massachusetts Miracle! Even two...
First it is a miracle the state didn't go belly up...
Then it was another miracle that the participation loans
went bad before Mangone could have sold anymore to the BoD. We were
very lucky that all of DCU's equity was not wiped out, just an
estimated $9 million. And all this time you thought GETTING money was
lucky. We need to depend on more than luck in the future.
|
| 343.44 | | BUNYIP::QUODLING | What time is it? QUITTING TIME! | Mon Nov 04 1991 17:28 | 9 |
| Cleaning up my desk at home, I confirmed my suspicions. THe mailing
form the DCU advising us of the meeting is at the 29� rate. NO attempt
whatsoever to make use of bulk mailing discounts. With a "well"
automated system, and a fairly startic, albeit diminishing, customer
base, there is no excuse for not implementing reduced cost bulk
mailings.
q
|
| 343.45 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Mon Nov 04 1991 21:38 | 2 |
| All my other financial information comes with 29 cents postage.
I don't really see a problem here.
|
| 343.46 | | TOMK::KRUPINSKI | Are *you* going to the DCU meeting? | Mon Nov 04 1991 22:46 | 6 |
| Right, I'd expect that the By-laws would require that the members
be notified via First class mail, sent to their most recent
address on file with the DCU, and that any bulk mailing that
might result in a reduced rate is not First Class mail...
Tom_K
|
| 343.47 | | NEST::JOYCE | | Tue Nov 05 1991 09:03 | 16 |
| Re: .46 by TOMK::KRUPINSKI
> Right, I'd expect that the By-laws would require that the members
> be notified via First class mail, sent to their most recent
> address on file with the DCU, and that any bulk mailing that
> might result in a reduced rate is not First Class mail...
There are First Class mail rates which are less than $.29 per
letter. If you presort, or use zip+4, for example. I'm not an
expert in mailing so I don't remember all the classifications.
From discussions with people who do this, I've found that it is
possible to send mail first class but not at $.29 per letter.
With 88,000 members, the DCU should easily have the volumes
needed to do this.
|
| 343.48 | | STARCH::WHALEN | Vague clouds of electrons tunneling through computer circuits and bouncing off of satelites. | Tue Nov 05 1991 09:22 | 12 |
| First Class mail is probably required to insure a high probability of all
members receiving their notice a sufficient amount of time before the meeting.
Proper sorting would have been able to take a couple of cents off the mailing
rate though.
When you send things bulk rate it is very difficult to predict how long things
will take. My bicycling club sent out its latest newsletter two weeks ago. A
poll was taken at the general meeting last night and many people had only
received theirs within the past couple of days. Some people hadn't received
theirs yet.
Rich
|
| 343.49 | | CNTROL::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Tue Nov 05 1991 14:23 | 5 |
| �Proper sorting would have been able to take a couple of cents off the mailing
�rate though.
Which means the money not spent at the Post Office would have to be
spent internally.
|
| 343.50 | | BAGELS::BIGSOW::WILLIAMS | | Tue Nov 05 1991 14:49 | 31 |
| You can get reduced rate first class mail that's the same as you dropping
a $.29 letter in the mailbox. There are minimum number of pieces involved
(the highest minimum I've run across is 500), but the breakdown is as follows:
First Class Letter, first ounce .29
First Class, Zip + 4, non-presort .276 (min 200 pieces)
FC, Zip + 4, Barcode, non-presort .270 (min 200 pieces?)
FC, Zip, 5 digit presort .248 (min 500 pieces)
FC, Zip + 4, 5 digit presort .242
FC, Zip + 4, Bar coded, 3 digit presort .239
FC, Zip + 4, Bar coded, 5 digit presort .233
FC, Carrier Route presort .23
This is ALL FIRST CLASS MAIL!!! The post office will, ONE TIME, take your
electronic database of addresses and add the Zip + 4 information and the
Carrier Route for FREE. I have a program I paid $79 for that does all the work
for figuring out your mailing list in terms of the presorts.
If you figure that the DCU could have saved ~$5k by using the cheapest and
easiest (Carrier Route Sort), I'm surprised that they haven't figured this out
yet. Bear in mind that there are some mechanical requirements for how you have
to package and bundle the mail when using any form of presort that they would
have to use. But, it they are sending out 88K letters each month with a
potential savings of 50-60K would easily pay for it. Does anyone know (I'd
have to look at home) if the monthly statements are presorted in any way?
Perhaps there are other concerns, such as privacy, that prevents them from using
presorting... It wouldn't have prevented them from doing this for the special
mailing, however.
Enough ramblings for now,
Bryan
|
| 343.51 | They used 9 digit zip for me | RGB::SEILER | Larry Seiler | Tue Nov 05 1991 16:46 | 14 |
| FWIW, my special meeting notice came with a 9 digit zip code.
I certainly never gave them my 9 digit zip code number -- the
only time I know what it is is when I look at business mail.
Why would they go to the trouble of finding out my 9 digit zip
code if they weren't going to use it to save money? For that
matter, I think my monthly statement uses 29 cent postage, too.
This wouldn't bother me if Chuck hadn't personally scolded me for
heling force the DCU to spend $30K in postage to announce the
special meeting.
See you all at the meeting,
Larry
|
| 343.52 | | CNTROL::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Tue Nov 05 1991 17:33 | 6 |
| �This wouldn't bother me if Chuck hadn't personally scolded me for
�heling force the DCU to spend $30K in postage to announce the
�special meeting.
Nit: Chuck didn't mention the cost breakdown for the $35K for holding
the meeting.
|
| 343.53 | | BUNYIP::QUODLING | What time is it? QUITTING TIME! | Tue Nov 05 1991 17:42 | 5 |
| Well 29 � * 88000 is 25,500, then add room rental. etc etc.
q
|
| 343.54 | $35,000 is peanuts, just ask Bingham, Dana & Gould | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | Someday, DCU will be a credit union. | Tue Nov 05 1991 17:52 | 21 |
| �Proper sorting would have been able to take a couple of cents off the mailing
�rate though.
>>
>> Which means the money not spent at the Post Office would have to be
>> spent internally.
RE: . 49
I don't think they pay people to do this by hand. Computers, software,
machines, etc.
I would imagine DCU farmed this out to somebody. My letter had a New
Hampshire (Manchester I believe) postmark. Seems like a strange place
to mail from if many are destined for Mass. (please no flames from the
field, or New Hampshire (I work there)) Whatever the case, I've
learned a lot about postal rate here.
Whatever, this is all a red herring tossed out by the BoD. It's
peanuts compared to the lawyers they are paying. Now if you want to
see an expense, ask Chuck about THAT cost.
|
| 343.55 | | VAXWRK::NEEDLE | Money talks. Mine says "Good-Bye!" | Wed Nov 06 1991 00:06 | 16 |
| I can't remember the last time I read anything that made my blood boil more
than this arrogant note. I'm not going to waste my time replying to any of the
points except the one that might cost me money...
>> 2. Discontinued the DCU ATM fee for savers who do
>> not have a checking account.
Try as I might, I cannot get anyone at DCU to confirm this. Doesn't really
matter to me since I just keep an inactive checking account so my ATM card
doesn't cost anything, but I will still be assessed the $1.00 /month fee if I
cancel the checking account. No, this makes no sense to me, but why should it?
No big deal, though, since on November 13, I'm closing all 4 of my accounts
anyway (save my $5.00 DCU sacrifice).
j.
|
| 343.56 | | LJOHUB::BOYLAN | | Wed Nov 06 1991 18:52 | 3 |
| Hey, I know some real witches - should I bring them along?
- - Steve
|
| 343.57 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 | Wed Nov 06 1991 22:39 | 4 |
| Only if they are shareholders and aren't spooked by what they might
hear at the meeting ...
Steve
|
| 343.58 | Retrospective on the Board's memo | RGB::SEILER | Larry Seiler | Tue Feb 04 1992 00:38 | 67 |
| .0 was written October 29th, 1991. It's interesting to note how things
have changed since then. Note especially the last item, regarding
the DCU election process.
During the past few months, the National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA), our independent auditors and
legal counsel have conducted extensive investigations of
DCU to determine the extent of the fraud committed by
the former president, Richard Mangone. They have
concluded, without question, that no board member,
official or staff member, except Mr. Mangone, was
involved in any wrongdoing at the credit union.
The NCUA later stated that they didn't investigate anyone except Mangone.
Recently, the board has enacted an Information
Protection Policy... This
policy does not prevent information from being provided
to members. It does, however, require a legitimate
business reason and not merely for the purpose of
harassment.
The IPP was modified, which is very positive, but I think it should be
removed entirely. They never did substantiate their allegation that
people were asking for information in order to harass them.
The VaxNotes file has accused the board of being
compensated. THIS IS UNTRUE. DCU's board members are
volunteers, elected by the entire membership and
responsible to the membership as a whole. They cannot
and do not receive any added benefit for volunteering.
Someone told me that they called the DCU to ask if members are paid
for travel to Board meetings, and was told that no, they aren't, but
they are paid for travel to seminars. I've got no problems with the
Board attending financial seminars at our expense, but if that's actually
happening, I don't see how it squares with the above statement.
It would seem that the actions of this small
group of members is to harass the board until they quit.
The board will not allow members with limited or no
finance or management experience to control
Massachusetts' largest credit union.
This one remains as frightening now, in what it implies about the
attitudes of the Board toward questions and dissent, as it ever was.
Implications are that the DCU board manipulates the
election process. THIS IS UNTRUE... At this time, 2 of the 3
nominating committee members have been selected. None
of them are DCU officials.
And the third member that was selected? President Chuck Cockburn!
The Board members then listed a variety of changes Chuck made and a lot
of things they've done, e.g. internal controls. I haven't seen an
announcement about progress on the lawsuit against ex-president Mangone,
although .0 does say that they'll keep us updated. Maybe I missed it.
Enjoy,
Larry
|