Conference 7.286::dcu

    re: .0
    
    How would you like it if you were told that you couldn't buy Digital
    stock because you were an employee?  Doesn't sound fair to me.  Neither
    would excluding DCU employees.
    
    You may be mad because they voted as a block against the recall, but
    that's the way it goes.
    
    Bob
    
    P.S. Ms. Moderator, could you please fix the errors in the topic title.

    It might have been fair to never let the DCU employess have accounts,
    but now that they do have them, it would not be fair or reasonable to
    take anything away, including their voting rights.
    
    I think owning DEC stock makes me work harder for DEC, and I would
    expect the same thing to apply to the DCU employees having an account
    at the DCU.

    Based on past experience, I find nothing unusual about including credit
    union employees among the class of people eligible for membership.  It
    seems to me less fair to exclude them.
    
    If, as noted in many topics since the special meeting, the employees
    voted as a block in favor of the directors, then the special meeting
    committee's error is obvious.  More effort should have been made to
    inform credit union employees prior to the meeting.
    
    Wes Plouff

    Allowing a secret vote would certainly clean up the act, though.
    
    I know very few people who would stand with more than a dozen other
    of their coworkers in front of their boss and their boss's boss and
    be the only one to dissent from the majority. The vote of the counters
    in the front of the room was shameful and sad. Even if I did not
    agree with my boss and wanted to vote in opposition to him,
    I would not want to stand against him in that fashion, and continue
    to work for him. I don't know that any of those counters would have voted
    any differently, but I wonder if even they know. Sometimes much too
    much is taken for granted.
    
    There was a counter complaining as we were leaving the meeting that
    she was insulted by the remark that the count might not have been
    unbiased, etc. She was sincere and I think truly believed what she
    said, that she "was there working for us" [the membership]. She could
    not see the conflict of interest. She had fooled herself. It's unfair
    to put people in this position.
    
    

    The counter's remark and belief is no more or less remarkable than
    the views more frequently posted here that the count must have been
    rigged.  

.5>      The counter's remark and belief is no more or less remarkable than
.5>      the views more frequently posted here that the count must have been
.5>      rigged.  

True.

So what, you say?

The point is that there should be no need to put anyone in such a difficult
position, on either side.  It was the Board's responsibility to implement
impartial mechanisms, and moreover to ensure the mechanisms had not even an
appearance of any impropriety.  Both the counter and those who are suspicious
have been ill served.

It appears that we should be in violent agreement.

    
    It should not be unusual for the DCU employees to be members
    as well.
    
    It has been reported, however, that they were told directly
    or that it was implied that the removal of the BoD could result
    in the DCU folding and them losing their jobs.  If that is
    true then they saw those wanting to remove the BoD as wanting
    to remove them as well.  It shouldn't be surprising then that
    they there were so hostile or voting en masse in favor of the
    BoD.
    
    Re: .5
    
    >The counter's remark and belief is no more or less remarkable than
    >the views more frequently posted here that the count must have been
    >rigged.  
     
    Will you please get off it once and for all.  I've seen NO account
    so far that definitively says the vote was rigged.  I've seen only
    accounts of how flawed the voting process was and an utter lack
    of confidence in the result based on that.  I've heard people say
    in conversation that they saw several opportunities where the 
    counters could simply have made a mistake.  Please either point
    to a clear and concrete example of an accusation of outright fraud
    or get off it.
    
    Steve
    

>It was the Board's responsibility to implement
>impartial mechanisms, and moreover to ensure the mechanisms had not even an
>appearance of any impropriety.  Both the counter and those who are suspicious
>have been ill served.

    As one of those who challanged the validity of the count, I'm also 
    in violent agreement with this statement.  However, the members who 
    weren't able to attend had a right to know just how it appeared
    to those of us who were there.  It was to this end that I posted
    the counting irregularities I observed.

    At this point, we should put aside these suspicions and work to
    ensure the Board does the right thing by implementing item 3,
    which is clearly the will of the members.

    --Steve

    I've been a member of the DCU for almost 10 years now. The DCU
    employees are part of the reason I continue to belong. In general 
    I believe them to be the friendliest and most helpful banking
    people I've ever dealt with. I have complete trust in them that
    their count Tuesday was as fair and honest as they could make it.
    I trust these people to count my money why not my vote.

    I know that they must have been told a very different story than
    what we read hear. I am sure that based on the information, or
    misinformation they had, they felt they were voting what was best
    for the Credit Union and it's members. Let's not make permanent
    enemies of these people. It is our responsibility to let them know
    what the real issues are.

    While I'm in here. If the management of the DCU did not make sure that
    both sides were heard by DCU employees then they may have done great
    harm to the DCU by allowing a wall to be built between members and
    employees. One certainly hopes that DCU management will do all in
    their power to improve relations between members and employees. 

    		Alfred

    This conference is starting to sound like a George Orwell's "Animal
    Farm"...
    
    DCU Employees have every right to membership that you have. 
    
    q
    

    
    RE: .10
    
    I agree, DCU employees have every right to membership in the credit
    union.  I hold DCU management and the BoD responsible for putting them
    squarely in the middle of this situation.  They were obviously only
    allowed to hear one side of the story and told something about the
    agenda that they believed would be highly detrimental to them.  They
    were also placed in a position of being active participants in 
    questionable voting procedures.  It's also hard to believe that their
    attendance was optional given the numbers there.  
    
    I will remember for a long time the vote counters face during the 
    entire meeting.  She was seated at the far right of the table at the 
    front.  It looked as though the poor woman thought she had an hour to 
    live.  The anxiety written all over her face was so obvious as to be
    painful.  It was truly sad.  I'm afraid that meeting may have done some 
    very real damage to DCU-DEC employee relations.  DCU management and the
    BoD used these people as pawns with no regard for them.  But I doubt
    our Directors lost any sleep over it.
    

Re: .1 by SCAACT::AINSLEY,

>    How would you like it if you were told that you couldn't buy Digital
>    stock because you were an employee?  Doesn't sound fair to me.  Neither
>    would excluding DCU employees.

DEC is a publicly held company. The DCU is not. The DCU is there for 
the sole purpose of providing services to Digital Employees. DCU 
employees are not Digital employees.

In this particular case, they voted, en bloc, against members'
interests in favour of their (supposedly) interests as DCU
employees. 


Re: .2 by SHRIMP::EGGERS,

>    I think owning DEC stock makes me work harder for DEC, and I would
>    expect the same thing to apply to the DCU employees having an account
>    at the DCU.

Which is why I clearly stated that there is no objection to them 
having accounts. I do not think they should OWN a piece of the 
action.


Re: .3 by KALI::PLOUFF,

>    It seems to me less fair to exclude them.

Why? Do Bank tellers automatically own shares? Do the caddies 
automatically become members of the golf club?

    
>    If, as noted in many topics since the special meeting, the employees
>    voted as a block in favor of the directors, then the special meeting
>    committee's error is obvious. More effort should have been made to
>    inform credit union employees prior to the meeting.

But there is no communication line open between us and them. They 
are not DEC employees, they have no access to Email or Notes.

    
Re: .4 by CGVAX2::LEVY_J,

>    Allowing a secret vote would certainly clean up the act, though.

Agreed, in that the conflict of interest would not have been as 
apparent. But, it would still have been there.


>    I know very few people who would stand with more than a dozen other
>    of their coworkers in front of their boss and their boss's boss and
>    be the only one to dissent from the majority.

Which is why I posted the base note in the first place.

The DCU has become its own entity, with will, power and interests of
its own, which may --or may not-- coincide with interests of its DEC
employee owners. We obviously are in a fight to regain control
over something which is ours to begin with. At this point, the BoD
appears to be an adversary - an exact opposite of its chartered
role. What's the point of allowing a 'fifth column' to weaken our
position and bolster the BoD's? 


Re: .7 by SQM::MACDONALD,

>    It has been reported, however, that they were told directly
>    or that it was implied that the removal of the BoD could result
>    in the DCU folding and them losing their jobs.  If that is
>    true then they saw those wanting to remove the BoD as wanting
>    to remove them as well.  It shouldn't be surprising then that
>    they there were so hostile or voting en masse in favor of the
>    BoD.

I agree.
    

Re: .10 by BUNYIP::QUODLIN,

>    This conference is starting to sound like a George Orwell's "Animal
>    Farm"...

Hah?

    
>    DCU Employees have every right to membership that you have.

Why? What, exactly, gives them **every** right? If DCU employees set up
a private club, would **you** have every right to belong? 

-- Ron
    

	The two counters in my section (I was at the back of the room) 
completed counting the "No" votes on item 2, then added their own two votes to 
the total. One counter said to the other "now we add own own votes, so that's 
two more" or words to that effect. I could not determine whether their votes 
were counted again when the counters were polled at the front of the room.

-stephen

	Re: .12

	The DCU employees have the ability to be members of DCU since the
bylaws restrict DCU membership (this is from memory...) to Digital employees
(including ex-employees if they had an account while an employee), DCU employees
(I presume the same "ex-" clause covers them) and immediate relatives.  Lets
not argue where they get their rights from or whether the rights are "right" -
the rights exist.  They are allowed to be full-fledged members like us
Digital employees.  Just because they voted consistantly to keep the board
has no bearing on whether they should be members or whether they are allowed
to vote.

	The hardest part of democracy is allowing people to disagree.

								-craig

    
    Re: .11
    
    >I will remember for a long time the vote counters face during the 
    >entire meeting.  She was seated at the far right of the table at the 
    >front.  It looked as though the poor woman thought she had an hour to 
    >live.  The anxiety written all over her face was so obvious as to be
    >painful.  It was truly sad.  I'm afraid that meeting may have done some 
    >very real damage to DCU-DEC employee relations.  DCU management and the
    >BoD used these people as pawns with no regard for them.  But I doubt
    >our Directors lost any sleep over it.
   
    I sat no more than 10 feet from that woman, and I couldn't agree more
    with your observation.  I had the very same feelings as I watched
    her glancing nervously, scanning the crowd as if she expected them
    to attack her at any moment.  You are right it was truly sad and
    that also adds to my utter lack of respect for how the BoD chose to
    manage that meeting.  The DCU employees were used and abused.  It
    was really quite shameful.
    
    Steve
    
     

Whether or not DCU employees should be allowed to be DCU members, it's
clear to me that DCU employees are the ones who will be the most affected
by the BoD's actions, our actions, or just about anyone else's actions that
are relevant to the DCU.

I have a lot of money in the DCU.  If the worst possible thing happened
(DCU folded, NCUA folded, RTC folded, ...), I'd just lose my money.  That
would be pretty awful, but it wouldn't have much of an effect on whether or
not I get another paycheck next week, from which I'd pay my bills.

The DCU employees have a lot more exposure here:  If the BoD was voted out,
and that caused a run on DCU, it'd have an immediate effect on whether they
can expect more paychecks.  If the BoD wasn't voted out, and people were so
disgusted that it caused a run on DCU, it'd have an immediate effect on
whether they can expect more paychecks.  Whatever happens to DCU, they're
the first ones to hurt.

I see the DCU employees as the closest things to innocent bystanders:  They
can neither control the actions of the BoD nor the actions of the majority
of the DCU members, yet they will ultimately be the first to suffer any
negative consequences if something goes wrong.  While I'm sure few here
would want to take any actions against the DCU employees personally, it's
clear to me that any slip-ups from any quarter could have a VERY personal
effect on them.

So, if they act defensive, and act like you're attacking them personally, I
can see where they might get this attitude.  If they turn out in large
numbers, it could well be as much because they have a personal stake in
this as anything else.

It's a shame that the DCU employess and some of the members have come to be
divided because of this.  Let's not make things worse by slinging
accusations at them around.  Let's try to understand their position.  As
stated earlier in this note, if they don't understand our position, it's
because:

1) The BoD didn't properly represent our position to them
2) Neither did we.

 > In this particular case, they voted, en bloc, against members'
 > interests in favour of their (supposedly) interests as DCU
 > employees. 

    I'd disagree with this statement. They *are* members, so if they
    voted against members' interest, they voted against their own
    interests. I'd also disagree with the blanket statement that they
    voted "against members' interests". They voted against what you,
    and many vocal participants of this conference, and maybe even I,
    take to be "members' interests" (although I believe the vote on 2
    went the right way, to open the issue up for the entire
    membership), but the DCU employees were (from accounts) not the
    only members voting against the question. Had they been, the
    question would have passed.

    Clearly, the DCU membership is divided as to whether the vote went
    in their interest or not. It cannot be said unequivocably what
    kind of vote would have been "against members' interests".

Amen to .16!  The DCU employees actually do *not* work for us -- they
ultimately work for the Board.  But that doesn't mean that they work
*against* us, or that they as a block have different concerns than the
members who are DEC empolyees, or ex-employees, or relatives.  I believe
that their concerns are probably much the same as ours, except that theirs
are much more intense, since they are in a position to get hurt much worse
than the rest of us by any problems at the DCU.

What I resent about the whole process is the fact that there was *no* 
way I could think of to even present my side of the story to the DCU
employees -- I felt they are far more in danger of losing their jobs
if the current Board is not altered than they are if it isn't.  I now
feel that the DCU and its employees will be hurt terribly if the special 
election isn't held in an obviously fair manner.  

A final comment.  Several people have said that we failed to get 
our viewpoint across to the DCU employees (true) and that we need
to do better in the future (also true).  I have one request:  if you 
think of such an idea, please *do not* post it in the notes file.
Act on it yourself, or send it to someone you think will act on it.
I say this because it's my opinion that the Board has in the past
impeded communication between DCU employees and the rest of us.
I don't know if they'd do so again, but why take the chance?

	Enjoy,
	Larry

	Hang on. While it is correct to point out the "chain of command",
	and who reviews and hires who, we cannot claim to be the owners
	of the DCU and at the same time claim that the DCU employees
	do not work for us. It just doesn't wash.

						Tom_K

    I have no problem with DCU employees being part of the "field of
    membership".  I also believe that DCU employees have traditionally been
    treated as "second class members" (they can't serve on the BoD, for
    example).  This whole effort made NO direct appeal to DCU employees and
    did NOTHING to counter any information they received from the BoD.
    
    Clearly, the DCU employees voted as a block at the Special Meeting
    because their understanding of the facts was MUCH different than ours. 
    Whether or not they were made to believe that their jobs depended upon
    retaining the current BoD, there is no doubt in my mind that they were
    AFRAID of what the passage of item #2 would do to them.
    
    We MUST learn to include DCU's employees in any efforts we make to
    "jump-start" the DCU.  They're betting their LIVELIHOODS on DCU's
    continued success.  Remember the "ham & eggs" distinction between
    "involved" and "committed" -- the chicken is "involved", but the pig is
    "committed".  DCU's employees are the latter.

re:  DCU employees being excluded from communications other than the
     party line.

Why don't we give them some insight into the problems?  I gave to the ZKO
folks copies of some of the important communications which had come with
permission to forward "to all DCU members".  They seemed very appreciative.
Whether or not doing so ever changed anyone's vote, it might make their
life easier to see that it's not the troops who are being challenged here.)

We could make a start by giving permission for extraction of NOTES.  SOME
employees -- Chuck, at least -- evidently already have access.  (Although
it's doubtful if he causes much to be communicated to the troops!)

If enough people grant permission, someone can prepare an "employees' handout"
and "our" DCU employees can be de-excluded from the discussion of why we're
unhappy with their management.

I'll go first:  I hereby give permission for any DCU member to extract and
forward to any other DCU member, including DCU employees, anything which
I've authored in this conference.

    
    RE: communicating with DCU employees
    
    When we held the petition drive in the cafes, DCU employees were
    noticeably absent those days.  Attempts to pass information to DCU
    employees, except under the most securest of situations, may have
    jeopardized them in ways we do not know about.  I would not feel very
    good about the fact that I tried to educate DCU employees at the risk
    of costing them their jobs.  
    
    So let's all be very careful on this topic because many are proposing 
    that we should have done what the DCU management and BoD did, put the 
    DCU employee in the middle of this situation.  What we DID OWE them was
    a secret ballot on item 2.  But the meeting attendees just couldn't be
    bothered with taking the time to protect those in the meeting who may
    have been under EXTREME pressure and scrutiny.  I am VERY disappointed
    in this aspect of the meeting.

>    DCU employee in the middle of this situation.  What we DID OWE them was
>    a secret ballot on item 2.  But the meeting attendees just couldn't be
>    bothered with taking the time to protect those in the meeting who may
>    have been under EXTREME pressure and scrutiny.  I am VERY disappointed
>    in this aspect of the meeting.

	Except that, at least from my vantage point Phil, many of the folks
	who hooted down the motion for a secret ballot on this question were
	the very same ones that might have been protected.

	Jim

    
    RE: .23
    
    I'm not so sure of this.  There weren't THAT many DCU employees there. 
    I, personally, had no problem with taking the time for a fair,
    verifiable, unpressured vote on item 2.  I wish others weren't in such
    a hurry.  It very well could have made a difference in the outcome.  It
    certainly would have made a BIG difference in the level of trust placed in
    the final count.
    

    Yes, I agree, I didn't mean to question the importance or worth of a
    secret ballot. I just meant that the folks seated around me (regardless
    of who they work for) who voted against the board's removal, also quite
    vigorously hooted down the motion for a secret ballot. But that probably
    was due more to the way the meeting was run (how late it was at that
    point), than to any natural opposition to a secret ballot.
    

Besides, when one says "they" hooted down the secret ballot, one must
distinguish.  _Some_ DCU employees might have wished to ensure sure that
_all_ DCU employees "went along".  Even if there were no more than one
DCU employee whose right to a private vote of conscience was denied by
hooting (and there were probably many), using the term "they" to characterize
all employees as hooters is unfair.

I agree with Phil.  WE (everyone else, including the Board) did all DCU
employees a painful injustice to subject them to a public vote.

  Bill, "one" = me, Jim. And I wasn't characterizing DCU employees as "them."
  I didn't mean just DCU employees, though by following this note trail I
  understand how it could seem that I was. In any case, I believe that you
  wrote .26 before reading .25.

  It's true, there should have been a secret ballot. But it's also true
  that there was a motion for a secret ballot which did not carry, for
  whatever reasons.

  Jim

Yep.  I started writing .26 before .25 was posted.  Sorry for any resulting
impression of attack, Jim.  None was intended.

    
    Yes, I think we are all in violent agreement here.  I also think that
    any hooting or hollering down should have been gaveled by the chair. 
    That type of behavior was inappropriate, on anybodys part, and is meant
    to keep people from expressing themselves.  I was particularly offended
    when Jack Hiutchinson raised very good points about the vote count and
    suggested very reasonable alternatives.  Only to be shouted down by the
    DCU contingent and with no action on Steinkrauss part to halt the
    inappropriate behavior when Jack had the floor.
    

    
    Re: .30
    
    > ...Only to be shouted down by the DCU contingent and with
    > no action on Steinkrauss part to halt the inappropriate
    > behavior when Jack had the floor.
    
    Phil, This same point was made to you several replies
    back.  From my vantage, the overwhelming majority (90%+) of
    the "hooters" on the secret ballot issue were from the DCU
    contingent.  Yes it is sad what was done to them as a group,
    but I personally saw no one whom I recognized as DEC employees
    who were also voting pro-BoD who shouted down a secret ballot.
    What would be the point?  IMO, the rudeness surrounding the
    secret ballot proposal came mostly from the people who would
    have benefitted most from it.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Steve, that segment you referred to was when Jack had the microphone
    and had to speak above the chants and cat-calls.  And it wasn't a brief
    outburst either.  I believe the fact the outburst supported
    Steinkrauss' position may have played a part in his not stopping it.
    

    Personally DCU employees are able to be members because the rules and
    regs. the members agree to allow it.  Unlike ex-employees who also have
    a stake in the DCU they have better communications and should be able
    to be reasoned with.  Change the rules to allow BOTH sides to be
    represented in any mailing concerning votes to be taken, and force a 
    secret ballot.
    
    Don't forget ex-employees in your haste.  Not all are as lucky as I
    have been to "happen" upon this.  Had I had more notice I would have
    arranged for "vacation" (an unpaid condition for contractors) and
    attended the meeting.  (My address changes often enough that I only get
    3-4 statements a year, and speaking of new charges, when I changed my
    address to KC,MO DCU changed my "home branch" to Alb. NM and charged me
    $10.00, like NM is really more convienient than New England!)
    
    /Tjp
    

Referring back a ways, to notes .16, .17, and .19:

I don't think it's at all academic to refer to the "chain of command"
that results in the DCU employees working for the Board, rather than
directly for us.  

Look at it this way.  I work for Ken Olsen, ultimately.  But if my own
direct boss were to take a position contrary to what Ken wants, the fact
that "I work for Ken" would be moot.  It's my boss who has the biggest
impact on whether I'm promoted, get raises, or am fired.  And if Ken had
to pass all his messages to me through my boss, I might not even know
that Ken and my boss disagreed.  I might think it was just troublemakers
and witchhunters on Ken's staff who were stirring up problems for my boss.

In a case like this, where some members have a dispute with the Board of
Directors, it is important to realize that the DCU employees, including
Chuck Cockburn, work for the Board, not for us.  Acting as if they work
for us only puts them in the middle of a bad situation.  Like Phil, I did
very little to communicate directly with DCU employees precisely *because*
that would be putting very unfair pressures on them.  The tellers were under 
Chuck's and the Board's direct orders not to talk with us on DCU property
(Chuck and Mark told me that).  If things are going well, the distinction
is moot, but when there are problems, we need to remember that they really
do work directly for the Board, and only indirectly for the members.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    Re: .34
    
>Look at it this way.  I work for Ken Olsen, ultimately.  But if my own
>direct boss were to take a position contrary to what Ken wants, the fact
>that "I work for Ken" would be moot.  It's my boss who has the biggest
>impact on whether I'm promoted, get raises, or am fired.  
    
    This can easily be shown to be true.  How many have read notes in
    other files authored by persons who have tried to "do the right
    thing" as requested by Ken or Jack Smith and have run head on into
    conflict with their direct management.  Notes is full of such stories.
    I have one in mind who was "packaged" out the door for what he contends
    was the result of "trying to do the right thing."
    
    Steve
    

�DCU employees are, for some reason, also members of the Digital 
�Credit Union. I am not sure why - they are not related in any way to 
�to DEC or anyone working for the corporation.
    
    As employees of the credit union they are allowed to use the credit
    union.  As depositors they have every right to vote.
    
�Their 
�interests as members are different from their interests as 
�employees, who'd better do what their supervisors tell them, or else.
    
    There have been enough lawsuits flying around the courts over the past
    several years involving employees who felt they were wrongly
    discharged.  I'd sincerely doubt that DCU would risk anything like this
    in an attempt to load a special meeting or anything like that.

�DEC is a publicly held company. The DCU is not. The DCU is there for 
�the sole purpose of providing services to Digital Employees. DCU 
�employees are not Digital employees.
    
    Well, if we throw out all DCU employees, then we will also have to
    throw out all ex-DEC employees.
    
�In this particular case, they voted, en bloc, against members'
�interests in favour of their (supposedly) interests as DCU
�employees. 
    
    They voted against the interest of about 500 members for sure. 
    Anything over that is shear speculation.
    
�Which is why I clearly stated that there is no objection to them 
�having accounts. I do not think they should OWN a piece of the 
�action.
    
    If you own DEC stock, you are allowed a vote in proportion to the
    number of shares you hold.

    But you are not allowed to ask questions at the annual meeting!

    >But you are not allowed to ask questions at the annual meeting!
    
    Well, maybe once a lifetime!!! (chuckle...)