Conference 7.286::dcu

    Re: .-1

    Rewrite the petitions to eliminate the loopholes, resubmit 2500 of them
    next time, and do a much better job of turning out the vote.  That
    will dilute the DCU employess enough to pass the measure.

    Item 1 could be, for instance, to choose a moderator who is not on
    the BoD or employed directly or indirectly by the BoD, and to
    require a secret ballot on the main item, with independent vote
    tallying.

    But with some luck, there will be an election within 90 days and we
    won't have to go through all that again.  If there is not an election,
    I personally promise to collect enough petitions to have another
    special meeting.

    To any BoD member who reads this:  this is not a threat; it is a
    promise!

    
    Re: .1
    
    > Rewrite the petitions to eliminate the loopholes, resubmit 2500
    > of them...
    
    Actually on reflection, it seems that submitting the 1200 signatures
    may have been a tactical error.  It really alerted the BoD to how
    far reaching the opposition might be as evidenced by the support
    they managed to turn out.  They may have said a lot about a small
    dissident group, but it seems they were wise enough not to believe
    it themselves.  I think getting a commitment from 2500 to come and
    vote and submitting only the 200 needed to call the meeting would be 
    more in our interest.  I would also carefully watch whether the
    BoD might be considering raising the number of signatures needed.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    I agree that a high voter turnout is worth considerably more than a
    large excess in the number of signed petitions.

    
    RE: .1 - .3
    
    Should we have thrown out 1,000 of the petitions we collected?  Would 
    we have been doing the right thing for those that took the time to 
    sign the petition?
    
    As for "working harder to turn out the vote", I'm all ears.  What are
    your suggestions?  Short of kidnaping or bribing people to come.

Another avenue open to the BoD would be to have the election, but 
make it impossible for new nominees to penetrate. As a result, the 
only nominations on the ballot will be the incumbents.

-- Ron

    Regarding raising the number required for a petition for a special
    meting beyond 200. As far as I understand it the board can't do that.
    The NCUA mandates that 200 is the maximum number allowed. I also
    understand that that whole special meeting bylaw is required by NCUA.
    So the board can't conveniently delete it.
    
    As I said in other notes I feel that the board should do the honourable
    thing and put themselves up for re-election. If they don't and they
    cause another special meeting to be called (which I can absolutely
    promise them) then they'll have sealed for ever their chance of ever
    getting back onto the board. There has been enough arrogance already,
    that would be the icing on the cake.
    
    Dave

RE:.5 by MR4DEC::RON

> Another avenue open to the BoD would be to have the election, but make 
> it impossible for new nominees to penetrate. 

They can not do this.  Period.  Any member can get on the ballot by getting
a petition signed by 500 members,  and has thirty whole days to do it.  
Article VI section 1.


Phil

    Phil,
    
    Your question about *how* to turn out more votes is the right question.
    I did say in .1 that it would be necessary if another special meeting
    is called, but I'm not quite sure how to do it.  Kidnapping somehow
    doesn't seem productive however entertaining the thought.
    
    I'll try to think up ways.  I guess I've got at least 90 days.

    If the Board ignores the vote of shareholders, I expect the NCUA to
    take action.  To this date, the NCUA standard disclaimer has been that
    the shareholders have it within their power to make changes.  (That's
    the response I got when I complained to the NCUA about the "called"
    versus "held" interpretation of the bylaws.)  But, if the Board denies 
    them this power the NCUA will have no recourse but to take action, IMHO.
    
    Steve

Turning out more votes probably isn't necessary.  The will of the membership
was clearly manifest at the Special Meeting.  If another Special Meeting has
to be called, the same number of voters who went to Framingham would suffice,
unless DCU gets more employees in the meantime.

Even with the same makeup of voters, the next iteration of the Special Meeting
would go the other way, IMO.  For one thing, the parliamentary nonsense would
be unnecessary:  getting an impartial chair would be the first item, written
into the agenda.  For another, the progress of the meeting did not make the
Board many new friends, even among those who had been encouraged to come
support them.  And next time there will be a secret ballot.  At least a few
DCU employees would probably like to work for someone else, and would vote
for a change if their blue card didn't have to be held up in front of their
peers.

I WILL work to help get out the vote again, if we have to do this again.
But for now, it's time to begin planning the petition drive.  Let's see an
election where all sincere candidates get a chance to be presented to the
membership.

    
    Re: .4
    
    No, I'm not suggesting that they be thrown out, but only that
    by submitting all of them that it gave information to the BoD
    that turned out to be to their advantage, i.e. realizing that
    they had to pack the hall.  The actual number could have been
    circulated privately and could have been presented as part of
    the debate.
    
    Steve
    

    
    RE: .11
    
    I heard enough absurd and insulting remarks about a conspiracy by the
    "committee".  Acting as you have suggested would have been deceitful in
    my opinion.  That's not to say that there weren't suggestions to do as
    you suggest.  I would just rather err on the side of honesty than the
    side of deceit.

I think witholding petitions would have looked awfully funny, too.

It's true that those who don't care to play ethically can turn the loyal
opposition's openness to their advantage -- in the short term.  The BoD
packed the hall.  

The first time.

    
    Re: .12 and .13
    
    I see your point, but I don't consider it dishonest.  The point
    of submitting 200 petitions is just because that is what is
    required to have the meeting called.  Any more than that has
    no bearing on whether or not the meeting will happen and in fact
    the DCU made it clear that they stopped counting when they reached
    200 legal signatures.
    
    Steve
    

	The BoD does read this notesfile (or at least it has been alledged :-)
so what will they think if 200 (or a few more to allow for any invalidations)
signatures gets turned in next time?  You'd have to think them incredibly
naive to think they'd say "oh, its only 200 signatures this time so lets not
worry about a large crowd showing up"...

							-craig

    
    RE: number to submit
    
    What was particularly interesting about the submission was that DCU
    rejected 29 (I believe) out of the first 229 petitions because the
    signatures didn't match those on file.  Considering people also sign
    their yearly ballot, I wonder if the same "invalid signature" deal has
    been being applied to submitted ballots?  How can we make SURE that
    what we submitted can't be invalidated for this type of reason?  I was
    more than a bit surprised to see about 15% rejected.  
    

    
    This is a standard procedure for validating petitions.  We will
    have to encourage every member to check with the DCU for how
    their signature is on record with the DCU.  For example, if on
    their records your signature has a middle initial and you sign
    a petition without it, they can and apparently will invalidate it.
    
    Steve
    

    
    RE: .17
    
    Well now I'm concerned because I'm sure many DCU members aren't aware
    that there signature has to match EXACTLY what is on file.  I wonder if
    the name printed on the ballot (address) can be used to determine how
    the ballot must be signed?  I think this issue is DEFINITELY worth
    bringing up with DCU.  They should be working for a 0% rejection rate.
    And such a simple thing could invalidate a lot of ballots.
    

    Rather than only supplying the DCU with 200 signatures, I think that we
    should try submitting something on the order of 44,001 signatures.  We
    might not make it, but there is no honest way that they could claim
    that it was either a "small number" or a "minority" of DCU members
    acting on this if we could actually get that many signatures.
    
    	I think a more reasonable goal would be 15-20k though.
    
    	But rememeber, we only need to worry about that if the elections
    don't come through.
    
    	- Peter

    
    Re: .18
    
    I agree it is worth concern, but matching the signatures on the
    petition to the signatures on file is not a trick or even a 
    technicality.  That is standard procedure for validating petition
    signatures.  I've been involved with petitions before and never seen it
    done any other way.  The DCU does have to ensure that all signatures
    are valid.  How else would they do it?
    
    Steve
    

    
    RE: .20
    
    I realize that.  I'm not disagreeing with the necessity of doing it. 
    I'm saying that many people who sign these things are not aware of the
    fact that not putting their middle initial, or spelling out their first
    name, etc. will invalidate their ballot or petition.  This very
    important detail should be called out and explained to people who can
    then call DCU if they aren't sure of the exact way they need to sign
    their ballot.  Many people who THINK they may have been voting all
    these years, may have been instead ending up as "Invalid Signature
    Rejectees".
    

    
    It would seem appropriate to have a feedback loop, eg returning
    invalidated ballots.
    
    Might be an idea for a bylaw improvement.
    

    
    	If all these signatures are being rejected, HOW COME DCU IS
    PROCESSING THE DRAFTS THEY SIGN??
    
    

    
    Probably because the drafts aren't votes for challengers... 8-)
    

    I think it's simpler than that.

    I don't believe a bank, credit union, whatever, actually verifies the
    signature.  They may look to see that a check has one, but they do not
    get out the signature card and compare handwriting.  Perhaps they do in
    unusual circumstances, like very large checks.  If you get a charge
    against your account that is a surprise to you, then you can go ask
    that the signature be verified, and not until then will anybody bother
    to question whatever signature is there.  (I'm not absolutely certain
    of this, but one of the BoD members reading this can correct me if I am
    wrong.)

    In the case of the petitions, they apparently look at and verify each
    one.  In both cases, it is up to the interested party to verify the
    signature.  I don't have any trouble with the process, either on my
    checks or for petitions.

    Come to think of it, I don't know how I signed my signature card. Maybe
    there will now be a run on the DCU for members to look at their own
    signature cards.

    Re:  run on the signature cards ...
    
    Well they can't take up more than one page, so the most they can charge
    you for a copy is 25 cents.   8->
    
    
    MacaRoon
    

    The verification of signature procedure is obviously there to prevent a
    handful of people from sitting down and signing 200 petitions with
    various names.  I've seen petitions being collected and have seen
    signatures such as President Ronald Reagan, and Mickey Mouse on them.
    
    Can we stick to real issues for a change?

    re: .27
    
    >Can we stick to real issues for a change?
    
    Sure, will you?  We're discussing why signatures get invalidated and
    how will people know how to sign the ballot so that they don't get
    invalidated.  Nobody is questioning the necessity of signature
    validation.  Considering 15% of the petition signatures were ruled
    invalid, this is not a minor concern.  If 20,000 people vote next
    election, this is 3,000 votes that get tossed.  It could make the
    difference in a close contest.  
    

        There should be no signature validation for ballots. Only those
        eligible to vote are sent the ballots, and the original ballot
        must be sent back to count. There is usually some control number,
        or maybe even your name label (removed before counting) on the
        ballot. The actual ballots are counted by machine, not by a
        partial human.
        
        I haven't seen a problem in this area before in DCU elections.
        There WERE problems of people not getting ballots (sent to
        addresses 6 months out of date), getting incorrect voting
        instructions from DCU on how to vote, and not being able to handle
        write-in candidates. 

    
    Doesn't your signature have to be the same as the name on your account? 
    If that is so then all you have to do is check your last statement for
    your name.
    
    Chad