Conference 7.286::dcu

              <<< BEIRUT::R7XBOK$DIA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;4 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 364.41                  Special Meeting Reports                    41 of 41
MILKWY::RMARTEL                                      15 lines  13-NOV-1991 10:02
                               -< Denied access >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think it should go down on record that DCU was denying entrance to
    the meeting after 8:30pm.  Nowhere was it posted that there would be
    sign-in or sign-in hours.  I got there as soon as I could, only to find
    a group of other people in the same position as myself (i.e. unable to
    get in without a blue card and they stopped giving blue cards out). 
    The security guards would not let us in.  They said they were under
    instruction of DCU to keep anyone else who showed up (late) out of the
    meeting.  I asked to speak with someone who could make a decision on
    this, but no one was available.  I proceeded to call a local TV station
    about the story.  I left shortly thereafter.  Don't know if they ever
    showed up.  Some planned publicity was needed for this event.  DCU must
    be one of the largest credit unions in the State.  Getting this on the
    news would really have put some pressure on the board.
    
    Bob

Much as I hate the analogy, what would happen at a Town Meeting or a School
District Meeting?

Bryan

    RE: .-1
    
    They would move to a bigger room.
    
    -Glenn-

    My wife and I arrived just after the (arbitrary and unpublished) 8:30
    deadline.  There were quite a number of people who came, were refused
    entry, and left in the next hour or so.  While the number standing at
    the door was never large, my guess is that there were probably 50 or so
    similarly disenfranchised.  Where do I register my complaint?

>	Where do I register my complaint?

	Places I'd start: (in no particular order)

		DCU
		NCUA
		Attorney General of Mass
		Attorney General of State I reside in
		Congessional delegation of state I reside in

					Tom_K

    In answer to the earlier question about what happens to late comers
    at a town meeting...
    
    At all the town meetings I have attended, the only requirement was that
    no-one enter of leave the room while a vote was in progress.  You
    could show up for the first time (to get the town's equivalent of the
    blue card) at any time (several registered voters would sit in
    a separate registration room watching the proceedings on cable TV
    registering late-comers).  

    I'm suprised there hasn't been more discussion on this.  Do you all
    realize how significant this is?  An extra 50-100 votes could have
    changed the outcome of question 2.  I'm sure DCU knew that, which is
    why they got "their" people there early and didn't post any
    registration time deadline.  I'd still like to know why the final vote
    tally total on question 2 fell around 200 votes short of the total
    attendance numbers.  I'm sure anyone who showed up planned to vote.  Do
    we know how many blue cards were handed out?
    
    Bob

    
    
    re. .7...
    
    Part of the reason that the final vote tally was 200+ short of the
    total attendance numbers is that people left early because of all 
    the motions on the floor.. I counted at least 20-30 people from my
    vantage point who left shaking their heads and muttering "This could
    take all night"....
    
    It's very unfortunuate that the 'real facts' never got discussed *at
    the meeting*... Not everyone reads notes...  The meeting got started
    a half hour late (basically) so that's 8PM... The first question took
    a half to 3/4 of an hour of discussion and voting time... Most of the
    'discussion' was not about the fees in particular but rather clarif-
    ications of rules and order.. Which MS was not even able to appro-
    priately handle...   As soon as the second question started down the
    rathole of who should preside and other topics away from the main
    question people got upset.. SOME people wouldn't have minded staying
    all night, BUT there were more that really wanted to hear the issues
    and vote... How could MS stop someone from saying at the microphone
    what has been said in here over and over again.. He couldn't stop
    Chuck's comments... Once teh floor is open for discussion of the
    question there is no stopping... But all the motions and points of 
    order led away from the main points..
    
    This sad to say made people either leave or stay just to vote *FOR*
    the board...
    
    John
    

    It is within the rights of the individual to not vote (abstain).  Out
    of 1400 votes, 200 abstentions doesn't sound that unreasonable.

    
    Re: .9
    
    >It is within the rights of the individual to not vote (abstain).  Out
    >of 1400 votes, 200 abstentions doesn't sound that unreasonable.
    
    Yes, it is within the individual's right, but as in another topic,
    you had to be there to understand why this fact makes absolutely
    no sense to many of us who were there and witnessed what can't
    adequately be communicated in notes.
    
    Steve
    
    

    So Steve are you saying you don't believe there were 200 abstentions?

    I think what he is saying is that the process was so faulty that nobody
    can be absolutely sure of the results.  That has been stated in several
    other places by several other people.
    
    The issue of the special meeting should be over.  It is no longer
    useful to discuss it.  Whatever happened or didn't happen is now past
    history and nobody can do anything about it.
    
    People's efforts should now be spent on the special election: how to
    turn out the vote.  Perhaps a thousand people read this notes
    conference.  Mark Steinkrauss was re-elected last time with 6000+
    votes.  The conclusions should be clear.

    
    Re: .11
    
    > So Steve are you saying that you don't believe there were
    > 200 abstenstions?
    
    No, but I am saying that it is very unlikely that there would
    be that many.  It is the number that I am questioning not
    that there were any.  So my point is that ....
    
    From viewing the process used to count the votes, it seemed that
    there were so many ways that the counters could have made a mistake
    that some number of votes either way could have been missed or
    even counted with the wrong tally.  Who knows, they could have made
    mistakes such that the spread might even have been more than it was.
    It was impossible to tell, either for us who were watching OR for
    them who were counting.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .12
    
    > The issue of the special meeting should be over.  It is no longer
    > useful to discuss it.
    
    I agree to a point.  I agree that going over the events themselves
    isn't particularly useful, but I feel that helping anyone who was not
    there to understand what is diffcult to understand without having
    been there is very useful.  There were a number attending the meeing
    who came not knowing how they would vote, but left having decided from
    what they observed tht the BoD should go.  The tone of the meeting and
    the attitude of the BoD while conducting it are important data.  For
    some of us, the MOST important data.
    
    Steve
    

    I agree that it was necessary to get all that explained in the
    conference, but it seems to me that it has been explained and described
    by many people already and is here for anybody else to read.

    Do we really have to keep on adding more notes which say more or less
    the same things?  I don't mind that particularly, other than it
    detracts from what we now should be doing, and that is working to get
    new candidates nominated and many more people informed so they can vote
    with full knowledge.

He guys.  This note is asking why people were denied entrance.  This just
sounds like another case of the DCU being arbitrary.  It is also another
reason why people are leaving DCU in favor of other banking opportunities.

If I don't see some noticeable improvement in the member service level of the
DCU, I will be moving my accounts.  I am only giving them until the special
election to straighten out.  After that, someone else may well get my business.

Ed..
who is going to vote with his feet

    I think it would make more sense for you to take .-1 to some member of
    the BoD.  It is very clear from lots of notes in this conference that
    we simply don't know what all the rules were.  It's very possible that
    denied entrance was due to incompetence rather than anybody in the DCU
    being arbitrary.  Call Mary Madden and ask her.

As I said in .0, I sent mail to the BoD asking why this happened.

I received one mail response, one telephone call, and one Voicemail message
from members of the BoD.

One response was that the registrars were told to bring their member lists
into the meeting room so an accurate count could be done, and to stay inside
in case they were needed as tellers for a vote.  He/she acknowledged that one
person could have been left outside to register latecomers.

Another response was that the Tara cited fire laws and asked that no more people
be admitted to the room after 8:30 p.m.

Bob

The room was allowed by fire ordinance to hold 1000 people. More than that
were actually admitted before 8:30. The guards were not given clear messages
to give to people that came later and so they said simply they were not
allowed to permit people to enter that came later. Other guards seem to
have made up the answer based on things they had heard.