Conference 7.286::dcu

    Grrr.
    
>" The dissident shareholders called for the vote because, they maintain, 
>credit union directors other than former President Richard Mangone may have 
>been involved in the alleged scam."
    
    The Middlesex News is just as out to lunch as the BoD.  At least they
    have an excuse.  Hopelessly inaccurate statements like this help no
    one.
    
    K.

    re: .1
    
    Actually, it may not be distorted at all -- especially if they got this
    information from the DCU or the BoD directly.  This seems to be the
    charge that the DCU BoD insists is the issue (largely because it is the
    easiest charge to diffuse, IMHO).
    
    I do like that NCUA correction, however.  I hadn't heard that one
    before.
    
    -- Russ

    
�   I do like that NCUA correction, however.  I hadn't heard that one
�   before.
    
    Yeah, looks like NCUA isn't giving the Board any more than they gave
    the members.  It looks like, at least, "hands off" is a policy they 
    implement fairly.
    
    - Sean

> "The directors have denied any such involvement. They counter that a federal
> oversight agency, the National Credit Union Administration, has participated
> with an outside auditor and the board in an investigation exonerating the
> other directors."
> 
> "But NCUA trail attorney Richard Schulman yesterday said his agency had done 
> no such thing."

Has anyone verified this?  If this is true, Cockburn and the board have
blatantly lied.

Ray

    The base note refers to a 13 November article that did not appear in
    the edition sold in Maynard.  If Paul Hanna or someone else has this
    Wednesday article, I would appreciate seeing it.  The Thursday
    Middlesex News article is here as reply 1 to the "newspaper articles"
    note a few topics down.
    
    Wes

    I couldn't find it in the Milford-Franklin edition of the M'Sex news
    either, on Nov 13.  I didn't buy a Nov 14 paper because I assumed it
    was only published in the Framingham edition.  Not too many people know
    about the 600 DEC employees down here in Franklin, so close to Rhode
    Island, the credit union disaster captial of the US!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Ron

    In our little meeting with Chuck and Mark I specifically asked them for
    the auditor's/examiner's reports from the NCUA or whoever it was that
    investigated them and said things were fine.  I was told I couldn't see
    it.  No wonder ...
    
    Steve

    .6  I did see it in the Middlesex Edition you refer to.  I live in
    Bellingham and I saw the article and was *quite* shocked!

  As listed in todays VNS news:


--------------------------------------------------------------



 DEC Credit Union - Critics call for communication
	{Middlesex News, 14-Nov-91, p. 5A}
	{Contributed by: Wes Plouff}
    .
    .
    .
   Meanwhile, shareholders expressed surprise that a National Credit Union
 Administration attorney on Tuesday denied his oversight agency had conducted
 any investigation into whether any other board member participated with
 Mangone in the alleged fraud. The credit union directors said an NCUA
 investigation exonerated them of any such wrongdoing.
   "If there was a formal investigation, I would have been involved in it,
 because I am the attorney assigned to that particular credit union, and there
 has been no investigation of any other board members," said Richard Schulman,
 a National Credit Union Administration attorney in Washington, D.C.
    .
    .
    .


--------------------------------------------------------------------


   The BOD lives up to expectations again!  8^(

    At what point would the NCUA attorney have been required to commence
    investigation?  Just because there wasn't a formal investigation by
    this attorney, doesn't mean that someone from the agency cleared the
    board.  Based on the attorney's statement, it sounds like he would only
    be brought in if there was a case to prosecute.

.10>    At what point would the NCUA attorney have been required to commence
.10>    investigation?  Just because there wasn't a formal investigation by
.10>    this attorney, doesn't mean that someone from the agency cleared the
.10>    board.


Right.  We now appear to have no evidence that anyone from the agency cleared
the Board.  That's the problem -- they've been claiming loudly that someone
did. (*)

That leaves a lot of people trying to understand what to make of the things
the Board has been telling the stockholders.



--------------------------------------------------------
(*)  Viz:

         				       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.


(One, and not the only, pronouncement along these lines from the Board.)

RE: .11

Well, if NCUA didn't do it, that leaves the "independant" auditors and legal
counsel, who work for: guess who? The BoD! (I know, I'm stretching it).

However, common English says that the word "they" refers to NCUA, auditors,
and legal counsel - all three. If NCUA wasn't involved in any investigation
of the board, then the wording is misleading/incorrect at best, and an outright
lie at the worst. Given the BoD's track record of "misleading" statements in
the past, I would have no reason to believe that the wording wasn't 
intentional.

However, to avoid the appearance of "witchhunting", I think I'll write a
letter to both DCU and NCUA and ask for clarification. 

Bryan

    I think that the BoD has convinced itself that it spoke truthfully
    regarding the "investigation".  There has been some investigation
    regarding Malone.  The NCUA has been involved.  The Board wasn't thrown
    out by the NCUA.  Not being thrown out constitutes an endorsement,
    much as the defeat of item 2 in the Special Meeting will probably be
    claimed as an endorsement one of these days ...
    
    Steve

>    I think that the BoD has convinced itself that it spoke truthfully
>    regarding the "investigation".  
    
    I agree.  Just as they have convinced themselves the participation
    loans weren't a bad idea and that we really were being given more
    choices.  It's a sad day when all DCU and Board communication must be
    translated from doublespeak to English.
    
    >There has been some investigation
>    regarding Malone.  
    
    Make that Mangone.
    
    >The NCUA has been involved.  The Board wasn't thrown
>    out by the NCUA.  Not being thrown out constitutes an endorsement,
    
    As the NCUA has stated, only in the case of fraud or insolvency will
    they step in.  So no big surprise there.  Just because the NCUA will
    tolerate mismanagement and lack of due care, doesn't mean we have to. 
    After all, it wasn't THEIR money that was being carried out the back
    door.
    
    Guess if we set our standards low enough, the current Board could meet
    them.  I expect more from people we entrust with hundreds of millions
    of our dollars.  And the LAST thing I expect from them is to be
    deceived.
    
>    much as the defeat of item 2 in the Special Meeting will probably be
>    claimed as an endorsement one of these days ...
    
    You're probably right.  Let me write it up for them...
    
    "Your Board of Directors received a resounding, unanimous vote of
    confidence at the Special meeting.  Not one member spoke out against
    the Board.  The efficient and evenhanded running of the meeting by 
    your devoted chairman was roundly applauded and all members present
    rushed forward to congratulate him and encourage him to keep up the
    good job of watching our money and to keep offering us even more
    choices in the future."
    
    

    The sort of sarcasm in .-1 is no longer productive.  I'm not
    commenting on its truth, only its present utility.

    
    RE: .-1
    
    Pointing out how the current BoD twists very simple facts and 
    reports X as Y and Y as Z is not sarcasm.  It is reality.  Until
    members realize that it is happening, then any effort you or other make
    to "inform" them will be 100 times as difficult.  When members realize
    what they are being told in the "official DCU publications" is 50%
    fact, 50% propaganda, our job becomes much easier.
    
    Also, please spare me your productivity evaluations.  What is the
    "present utility" of the input in .15?

    Re: .-1
    
    The following from your note is sarcasm.  Good, funny sarcasm, but
    sarcasm none the less.
    
    "Your Board of Directors received a resounding, unanimous vote of
    confidence at the Special meeting.  Not one member spoke out against
    the Board.  The efficient and evenhanded running of the meeting by 
    your devoted chairman was roundly applauded and all members present
    rushed forward to congratulate him and encourage him to keep up the
    good job of watching our money and to keep offering us even more
    choices in the future."
    
    I don't believe this sort of thing is useful anymore.  In fact, I
    believe it is counterproductive.  The tone of this conference must
    change if it is to be used to communicate with a broader audience that
    we both hope will elect a more responsive BoD.

re:  .15, .16

Hey, guys.  The Board would be very happy to have the shareholders turn on
one another.  You're on the same side here.

To Phil:  there's merit to Tom's observation that almost all of the people
who will get there information from NOTES are probably convinced already.

To Tom:  there's merit to Phil's observation that thousands of members
undoubtedly have not gotten the information they'll need to make informed
choices yet.

To all:  NOTES can play a part, and we all want to keep up to date on late-
breaking news.  (Mary Madden STILL hasn't called me back, BTW.)  So let's
keep NOTEing.

And let's be thinking of what subset of the material available here can or
should be gotten to the wider membership.  (Anyone want to volunteer to be
an editor?)  A volunteer network which will help with the distribution is
already forming.

    Reading what is written and taking it in it's literal sense is less an
    instance of word twisting than trying to read between the lines.

    
    RE: DCU "Communication"
    
    >Reading what is written and taking it in it's literal sense 
    
    You may do this.  In which case, you will be getting half the story,
    with half the facts.
    
    >trying to read between the lines.
    
    Or you may do this.  In which case, you will may determine the half of the
    story and facts that you didn't receive.  But where can you find this?
    
    
    Guess what I'm looking for is communication from my credit union that 
    I can read and take literally without having to read between the lines.
    This is one of the pitfalls of being caught telling half truths. 
    Regaining credibility is a tough thing to do.  DCU's press release
    illustrated that DCU and the BoD have learned nada about open honest
    communications with the membership.  To say they just don't get it is
    the understatement of the century.