Conference 7.286::dcu

Thanks, Dave!  This is very similar to the message that I was going to send
Ilene (only phrased much better).  Ilene has at least one less message in her 
in-box because the DCU notes file is so effective at spreading information.
Now if only the Board would figure that out... maybe a new Board will.

	Larry Seiler

Rob Ayres called me this afternoon, in response to a message I sent him
thanking him for the meeting that he set up and, by the way, asking if
he had really endorsed the Board, as Mark Steinkrauss said in his mailing.

Rob wanted me to know that he had not had anything to do with Ilene Jacob's
LiveWire posting, which was not an endorsement anyway.  Rob said he called 
Mark to let him know, but didn't feel that the issue was important enough 
to ask Mark to issue a retraction.  I agree with Rob's view, FWIW, and I
am impressed with his professionalism in fulfilling his liason role by
remaining strictly neutral.  I did say, though that I felt that Mark should
not refer to Ilene's livewire posting as an endorsement if it isn't one.

Well, that issue just became moot.  I just received the following message
from Ilene Jacobs, through a forwarding chain that I have deleted as 
allowed in DEC P&P.  No question, this is an endorsement of the status quo, 
though I notice that Ilene doesn't say anything about the Board itself.  
She simply states her valid concern about what happens if the Board is
voted out, then leaves the defense of the Board's actions to their own
statement as posted in this file.  That statement leaves a lot to be
desired in terms of fairness to DCU members, but so far as I can see,
Ilene has managed to "do the right thing" while expressing her opinion.

I'm content.  This isn't the whole story by any stretch, but it looks to
me like Ilene has expressed her viewpoint with the kind of decorum and
logic that I went to the second informal meeting expecting from the Board.
Maybe she would consider running for the Board?  :-)

	Enjoy,
	Larry




From:	NAME: SUSAN HOLMES @MSO             
	FUNC: Corporate Internal Audit        
	TEL:                                  <HOLMES.SUSAN AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>
To:	See Below


Please forward widely to any and all interested/affected parties.

The DCU issues being discussed are important.  It's critical that members 
are apprised of ALL available information.


 




From:	NAME: Bob Hult @MSO                 
	FUNC: Corporate Internal Audit        
	TEL: 223-7097                         <HULT.BOB AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>
Date:	07-Nov-1991
Posted-date: 07-Nov-1991
Precedence: 1
Subject: DIGITAL CREDIT UNION
To:	See Below



FYI - Digital Credit Union Memo from Ilene Jacobs.



                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     04-Nov-1991 02:21pm EST
                                        From:     ILENE JACOBS
                                                  JACOBS.ILENE
                                        Dept:     TREASURY GROUP
                                        Tel No:   DTN223-3400

TO: See Below

Subject: Special Meeting                                                        


As you may know, the Digital Employees Federal Credit Union (DCU) is 
holding a special meeting of its members on November 12, 1991.  A 
notice has been sent to the DCU membership.  One item on the meeting's 
agenda is the removal of all present DCU Directors.  No alternative 
slate has been proposed.  The proposal has come from the activity of a 
fairly small but dedicated group of Digital employees.

Should the proposal pass, the Credit Union would, for some time, be 
without a Board of Directors.  There would then be a 90 day hiatus to 
allow for a new Board to be elected.  During this time, a Federal 
Government Agency, the NCAU, might have to undertake responsibility 
for the DCU.

In my opinion, this would not be in the best interest of the DCU or 
its membership, Digital employees or Digital itself.  Confusion in 
the management of DCU could well result.  Concerns within the DCU 
membership, most of which are Digital employees, would likely occur.  
The viability of the DCU, now regarded by employees as an employee 
benefit, could be called into question.

The meeting to be held on November 12, 1991, is scheduled at 7:30 PM 
at the Sheraton Tara Hotel located at 1657 Worcester Road (Route 9) 
in Framingham, Massachusetts.  If you are a member of the DCU, please 
consider joining me in attending this important meeting.

Attached is a memo which has been sent out by DCU's Board.


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. 

	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.
         
         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.
         
         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.
         
         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 
         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.
         
         
         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.  
         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.
         
         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.  
         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 
         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.
         
         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 (ie. 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 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.
         
         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.
         
         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.
         
         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:
         
              1.  Discontinued the checking account fee until               
         the strategic plan is completed.
         
              2.  Discontinued the DCU ATM fee for savers who do          
         not have a checking account.
         
              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.
         
         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.
         
         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.
         
         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.
         
         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.
         
         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.
         
         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.  
         
         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.
         
         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.
         
         Signed,
         DCU's Board of Directors



 


To Distribution List:

NAME: Larry Abruzzese @MSO <ABRUZZESE.LARRY AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Bruce Andrews @MSO <ANDREWS.BRUCE AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Jim Benson @MSO <BENSON.JIM AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Paal Brandvold @MSO <BRANDVOLD.PAAL AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Rhoda Cobb @MSO <COBB.RHODA AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Jack Cohen @MSO <COHEN.JACK AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Dave Crawford @MSO <CRAWFORD.DAVE AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Rick Egan @MSO <EGAN.RICK AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Jeff Farley @MSO <FARLEY.JEFF AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Tom Fisher @MSO <FISHER.TOM AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Bill Foley @MSO <FOLEY.BILL AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
JANICE FRAMPTON @AKO,
NAME: Sophie Gorski @MSO <GORSKI.SOPHIE AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Karen Goulding @MSO <GOULDING.KAREN AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Stan Gustavson @MSO <GUSTAVSON.STAN AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Diane Hayes @MSO <HAYES.DIANE AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: SUSAN HOLMES @MSO <HOLMES.SUSAN AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Bob Hult @MSO <HULT.BOB AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Jane Jeffers @MSO <JEFFERS.JANE AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Mahesh Krishnamurti @MSO <KRISHNAMURTI.MAHESH AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Linda Krysieniel @MSO <KRYSIENIEL.LINDA AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Maury Lizotte @MSO <LIZOTTE.MAURY AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Rhonda Longmore @MSO <LONGMORE.RHONDA AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: ED MAGUIRE @MSO <MAGUIRE.ED AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Dan McCormick @MSO <MCCORMICK.DAN AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Tim Mckeown @MSO <MCKEOWN.TIM AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Tim Mckeown @MSO <MCKEOWN.TIM AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Doug Morin @MSO <MORIN.DOUG AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: MaryBeth Moynihan @MSO <MOYNIHAN.MARYBETH AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: SALLY MUOLLO @MSO <MUOLLO.SALLY AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Sheila Narayan @MSO <NARAYAN.SHEILA AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: FRED OLEARY @MSO <OLEARY.FRED AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Barbara Ostrowski @MSO <OSTROWSKI.BARBARA AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Yvonne Roessel @MSO <ROESSEL.YVONNE AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: BILL ROWE @MSO <ROWE.BILL AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Janet Simpson @MSO <SIMPSON.JANET AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Martha Smith @MSO <SMITH.MARTHA AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Randy Solomon @MSO <SOLOMON.RANDY AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>,
NAME: Barbara Spinney @MSO <SPINNEY.BARBARA AT A1 at IAMOK at PKO>

To Distribution List:

MULA @TADSKI @VMSMAIL,
LREID @AIMHI@VMSMAIL,
FLYNN @WMOIS@VMSMAIL,
SWEENEY @WMOIS@VMSMAIL,
NEWMAN @WMOIS@VMSMAIL,
FAVREAU @WMOIS@VMSMAIL,
PHYLLIS BAILEY @MSO,
JUDY BURGESS @MSO,
MARTHA CRAWFORD @MSO,
JANINE DENEGALL @MSO,
MILLIE DEWOLFE @MSO,
HENRY DONALD @MSO,
LUISA GARCIA @MSO,
BARBARA GOLDSMITH @MSO,
GONZALEZ @POWDML @VMSMAIL,
CONNIE HARTWELL @MSO,
LABBE @AYRPLN @VMSMAIL,
PAT MARSHALL @MSO,
BRENDA MATTHIS @MSO,
BOB MOORE @MSO,
DONNA ROGER @MSO,
CHERYL VALERA @MSO,
LIN VICKERY @MSO,
SEC_3MW @MILKWY@VMSMAIL

    Did Ilene Jacobs append the BoD's statement to her message?  And not
    append any contrary views?  If so, it is hard to come to any conclusion
    other than she is endorsing the BoD and doing so by spreading their
    false and self serving allegations.  I wonder if she knows any better;
    if she knows there is other information.  She won't know any better if
    her only source of information is the BoD.

That's good to hear about Rob Ayres.  Perhaps he could be a mutually
acceptable substitute chairman during the discussion of Agenda Item 2.
We may need one.

As far as Ilene Jacobs is concerned, there is still reason not to be content.
Ilene Jacobs is a Digital Vice President and Officer.  It was responsible and
appropriate for her to issue her earlier statement about Corporate support
for, and confidence in, the financial health and stability of the credit
union.  It might not be appropriate and responsible for her to express
Corporate concern about DCU being without its Board for the duration of new
elections, as that would, as Dave Garrod pointed out, be a question of one
corporate entity interfering in a dispute between another corporate entity's
Board and its shareholders.

But this later memo was a personal correspondence, and includes the all-
important phrase "in my opinion".  She is as entitled to a personal opinion
as anyone, and is as entitled to send it to @WORLD as anyone.  I respect her
right to that opinion, and indeed want to think about the things she suggests
may be consequences of removing the Board.  This is even though she either has
access to only one side's version of the story or has chosen to ignore the
other side's version, for her memo again includes the Board's slanted
statement as the sole attachment.  (That, too, is anyone's personal right.)

HOWEVER, her LiveWire posting had the effect of a Corporate pronouncement.
Her personal posting, even had it been even-handed, did nothing to retract
the implied Digital Corporate endorsement of DCU's Board circulated via
LiveWire.  In other words, nothing has changed.

    Re .-1
    
    Exactly. The reason I sent her that memo is that I was very upset at
    DIGITAL the corporation appearing to take a stand on the DCU issue.
    To be honest I think the posting in LIVEWIRE had been vetted by lawyers
    and couldn't legally be interpreted as DIGITAL putting itself behind
    the DCU Board.
    
    I think Mark Steinkrauss decided to misrepresent that. I was calling
    Ilene's attention to that. If indeed she did intend to put DIGITAL
    behind the DCU's BOD I am even more concerned. I rule out the
    possibility that LIVEWIRE allowed a personal opinion to be posted.
    As an officer of the corporation she seemed to making a formal
    statement on behalf of the corporation. To be honest I think that
    statement was nothing more than "DCU isn't going to fold tomorrow,
    it is currently financially sound". A true statement.
    
    Now as for Ilene sending out her memo, that's fine as far as I am
    concerned. She clearly said it was her own personal opinion, she is as
    entitled to her own personal opinion as anybody else and I support her
    in spreading that.
    
    Dave

    I found it interesting that she indicated the DCU was fine because of
    the insurance.  Remarking on the quality of that insurance, it was
    implied that it is pretty solid.  Then, she implied that the DCU is 
    fine with the current Board.  Then, she implied it would not be fine if 
    the Board was dismissed.  Let A be the state of the DCU.  Let B be the 
    insurance.  Let C be the current Board.  Condensing the argument leads to a
    conclusion that is not logically sound:
    
    Given:	A = 1 if B = 1	(DCU fine because of insurance)
    		B = 1		(insurance is fine)
    		A = 1 if C = 1	(DCU fine because of Board)
    Then:	if C = 0, A = 0 (DCU will no longer be fine if Board is
    					removed)
    
    A more correct argument might be:
    
    Given:	A = 1 if B = 1	(DCU fine because of insurance)
    		B = 1		(insurance is fine)
    		A = 1 if C = 1	(DCU fine because of Board)
    Then:	A = B or C
    		if C = 0, A = 1 (DCU will still be fine if Board is
    		since B = 1		removed because of the insurance)
    
    In other words, removing the Board cannot threaten DCU accounts because all
    accounts are insured.  Thus, it is not logical that anyone's accounts
    will be threatend by removal of the Board.  Yet, this strongly implied
    in the memo due to the reference to Deccies valuing the use of DCU,
    which requires having accounts there, and the implication that this
    relationship might be threatened.
    
    Even more ironic is the concept that removal of the Board would
    threaten the perception of DCU being a benefit to Deccies.  My
    impression is that many Deccies regard free checking as the main reason
    for doing business with DCU - and this was initially done away with by 
    by the current Board.
    
    So, I only disagree with the implications of the memo.  What it
    ACTUALLY says I can't disagree with.  I figure that is the intention.
    
    Steve

    
    re. -.1
    
    Bingo!  Her logic is the kind I see when someone is "squirming" around
    an issue they can't defend so well.
    
    I never liked the "You're okay because you have insurance" agrument.  I 
    don't want to be covered for catastrophe - I don't want the catastrophe to
    happen in the first place.  I'm trying to prevent any events that might
    cause the DCU to have to use the NCUA insurance.  It's so common these
    days to throw caution to the wind, do whatever we want, and then let
    someone (usually the government, sometimes a lawyer) come in and pick
    up the pieces.  WE ALL PAY FOR THAT in the end.  Does anyone think
    life would be hunky-dory if one totalled one's car *just* because they
    had insurance?  I don't want MY DCU to "be totalled" and when you
    tell me "Feel safe, you're insured" you're implying there is some 
    reason for me to believe I'll need to use that insurance.  DCU Bod -
    Make me feel like I won't need to use it;  avoid and prove to me you'll
    avoid in the future things like the Mangone fiasco and don't deny
    me the information I need to make responsible decisions about the DCU.
    
    Members - be responsible.  Don't let the government come in and bail out
    yet another irresponsible savings institution.  If you have doubts
    about anything that is going on in the DCU, attempt to fix it, don't
    buy the "Hey, lay back, trust us, you will be bailed out if we screw up"
    argument.  And if you like the DCU, be active, vote them some confidence, 
    not because "you're insured" or because they scared you into thinking
    about life without them and you feel helpless, but because you are happy 
    with them.  
    
    Someday, the beurocracy, the "it's always someone else's fault,
    don't blame me" attitudes, the power games, and the apathy have to stop.  
    Be responsible about your money.  Be responsible for YOUR DCU.  Be
    active.  Vote.  
    
    - Sean

    I have friends in Rhode Island who have money in the
    credit unions there that became 'uninsured' when their
    insurer went broke.  They haven't lost a penny....they
    also cant touch their money.  The accounts were frozen
    (an emergency, you see)....and they haven't been able to
    do anything with it.  What's the most amazing....people
    who had savings accounts and mortgages in the same place
    cant even move move money from their savings to pay
    their mortgage!

    
    RE: Digital endorsement
    
    A Digital corporate spokeperson said that Digital officially supports
    the Board.  Guess that settles the "Is it an endorsement?" issue. 
    Digital's hands off policy becomes hands on when the fate of some its
    senior level managers may be in danger from "a small group" of
    "dissidents".  Seperate entities my behind.  I now have copies from
    MANY high level managers in this company taking a stand and asking
    their employees to join them at the meeting.  Looks like the secret
    ballots may be needed for Digital people as well as DCU employees.
    

    This might be an issue for Ken ??
    
    

    
    I searched for a place where this really belonged and after reading Ms.
    Jacobs' memo determined that it belonged here. Ms. Jacobs appears to
    imply that voting out the BoD will cause confusion, chaos, and a loss
    of confidence in the DCU. I have a friend who is currently the
    president of a fairly large, solvent bank in eastern Massachusetts. I 
    asked him what he thought about a CU membership voting out a BoD and 
    the implications of such. He told me that this occurred a few years ago
    at a CU in southeastern Mass. He said that no chaos occurred and that
    CU is still in business and thriving today. So folks, there is a
    precedent out there. It has been done before and the institution
    survived.
    
    

    RE: .11
    
    Could you please provide a name and town?  This would be MOST useful
    for when the BOD starts saying what will happen when they are not
    around!
    
    My opinion is that DCU will run fine and will not have any problems...
    
    	-mark

    
    I'm sorry but I've forgotten the exact name. I believe it was one of
    the following: Sandwich, South Shore, or Southeastern Mass. 
    
    I tried to get hold of my freind last night but he was out of town.
    He is due back later today and I'll try to get the name from him
    later.
    

Ilene Jacobs's appeal to fear of "causing confusion" among the membership is
a pernicious aspect of her posting.  No "confusion" need result from offering
new elections as an opportunity for all members to vote their confidence in
the credit union.  After the Mangone embarrassment it is completely
appropriate for the Board to ask for a vote of confidence and to offer a
breath of fresh air.  This isn't confusing.  (Perhaps it is a little
confusing that the Board is doing the right thing UNWILLINGLY -- the breath
of fresh air having been forced upon them by petition.)  But having an
election isn't likely to be "confusing", especially if new candidates are
granted the opportunity to make real statements about why they're running.

On another front, at least one Digital organization has seen Ilene Jacobs's
personal posting trickle down through official management and the Personnel
organization.  So it turns out that her "in my opinion" article WAS used as
a Digital Official communication after all.

Perhaps one of the problems with the current BoD is that it has too many
Digital Vice Presidents on it...    :(

    
    RE: corporate endorsements
    
    I have even seen Ilene Jacobs letter with the BoD statement forwarded
    as another persons mail.  Don't know if this was a mistake or what
    but it certainly was bizarre to see another name on Ilene Jacobs words. 
    
    RE: too many VPs
    
    Unfortunately, this situation appears to have been turned into a
    class-type dispute.  Digital senior managment (and the BoD that are
    part of that group) vs. the average shareholder of DCU and our right to
    know what our credit is doing, and have reasons to believe what we are
    told, not disbelieve it.
    
    Personally, I would be offended if a senior manager in my organization
    asked me to join him at a meeting and support anything, based only on
    his word.  Guess I'm lucky I transferred out of that organization 7
    months ago, otherwise I'd probably be in a heap 'o trouble at this
    point.  
    
    I also find it very disturbing that senior management of this
    company would use scare tactics to try and achieve results.  I do
    consider this irresponsiuble on their part.  Scaring people does NOTHING
    to address the very real issues of this situation.  They also may cause
    people to take drastic measures (withdraw their money?) needlessly and
    in the result damage the credit union.  Guess we've all learned a lot
    about some of the managers that lead this company.  I know I have.