Conference 7.286::dcu

    Minutes of previous special meeting.  If they are at all accurate, they
    would be interesting reading.

The Board does not have 90 days to merely announce the special elections.
The ambiguous interpretation of "called" applied to the Bylaws -- and even
then the NCUA had trouble giving a clear ruling.

"90 days" was in OUR motion.  There is no need to wait for 90 days hearing
nothing.  If the Board announces elections which will be COMPLETE within 90
days then let's get on with them.  If they intend to wait until late February
and then only make an _announcement_ they can save the trouble.  We can
implement Special Meeting II in "only" 30 days.

I've placed a follow-up to my call to DCU yesterday afternoon.  I identified
myself and said I wanted to plan for submitting petitions for candidacy. The
operator told me that "they are all" in a meeting "all morning".  Mary Madden
is to call me back this afternoon.

I will ask her for:

    o  confirmation that all seats on the Board will be filled by
       the special election

    o  the planned dates for balloting

    o  the deadline for submission of petitions

Re: .0

>> Explicit wording ... held within 30 days

   I don't  think  this  will work because the bylaws still state "called".
   The  petition doesn't alter the bylaw under which the meeting is called.
   We're  still  stuck  with  another  60  day  delay  (at least) after the
   petition is filed.

    There is a need to limit debate.  Can you imagine a ficticional case
    where one side argued long enough until all the oposing side left.
    
    There is a difference.  An honest moderator would have allowed a
    balanced debate prior to allowing a vote to question.  There was no
    debate on #2, only the position of the BoD.
    ed
    

"However, a proposal to HOLD new elections within 90 days passed easily."

[emphasis added]

Boston Globe, November 14, 1991, Business Section, page 53

Mary Madden called me back.  She was friendly and cooperative, and said that
planning for the special election is in the works.  They are "finalizing
details now".  She expects that she can give me dates next Wednesday or
Thursday;  I'm to call her again then.

.4>    There is a need to limit debate.  Can you imagine a ficticional case
.4>    where one side argued long enough until all the oposing side left.
    
    It's not fiction.  Ever heard of a Congressional "filibuster" ?
    
.4>    There is a difference.  An honest moderator would have allowed a
.4>    balanced debate prior to allowing a vote to question.  There was no
.4>    debate on #2, only the position of the BoD.
    
    The moderator cannot choose to allow or disallow debate.  The meeting
    passed a motion to call the question, properly made and seconded. 
    
    The moderator would have been totally wrong to ignore that, regardless
    of any other flaws he might or might not have exhibited.

    Re: .-1

    The moderator has the choice of recognizing people who want to argue
    the other side of an issue or recognizing the people shutting off
    debate.  His power comes in this ability to choose, and that is where
    the power was abused at the special meeting. A fair moderator would
    have ensured both sides were heard before recognizing a motion to call
    the question, and that is why the issue of who is moderator is so
    important.

    
    I think Robert's Rules specify that a moderator may and should
    rule out of order a motion that appears to be intended specifically
    to shut off debate.
    
    No?
    
    Steve
    

    re: .7
    
    You're wrong.
    
    While a motion was, indeed, made and seconded, this sort of thing has
    occurred in the Amherst town meeting several times.
    
    When this sort of thing happens in Amherst, the town moderator simply
    states, "In interest of fairness, let's give the opposing side a chance
    to air their views for a few minutes".  People never disagreed with the
    moderator when he stated this.  Of course, the town moderator never
    would have allowed time to be wasted at a town meeting; MS allowed over
    an hour to be wasted by his lack of experience and incompetance at
    handling a meeting governed by Robert's Rules.
    
    The Amherst town moderator is not biased.  He simply insures that each
    point is raised and explained, and then allows the voters to decide.  I
    think that MS can learn a lot from a FAIR town moderator.
    
    I can say lots of things about MS.  He's egotistical.  From everything
    I can tell, he thinks is the smartest guy around, and the greatest
    thing since sliced bread.  *AND* he is far from fair.  If he truely
    believes that he was fair at the special meeting, the guy's mind is
    warped.
    
    	-- Jeff

    being an old Vermonter, I've been to a few of these.  seen the tricks.
    
    Like I said, an fair, honest moderator would have insisted that the
    other side be heard [if desired].  Had a call to question been
    heard, he could have choosenb to ignor, given the reason of fairness
    of other side to be heard.  Had the audience of objected they
    could appeal.  The moderator of this meeting was neither fair nor
    honest.  I really don't think he was that ignorant of the details,
    tactics used, worked.
    

I suppose any petition article ought to have the traditional boilerplate:
"or take any other action in relation thereto" to allow amendments. 
This is the boilerplate added to articles submitted to Town Meetings in MA.

   Gary 

	Agenda items:

		2) Permanent rescission of the Information Protection
		   Policy.

					Tom_K

    I wasn't there, but this sounds like that was the time to introduce a
    priviledged motion declaring the chair vacant and holding elections for
    a new moderator.

Two dissenting comments on the basenote:

>	Mandate a secret ballot for all questions.

I believe this would be ill-advised.  We only needed it for Q2 on Tuesday
night.  Prolonging the meeting unnecessarily by conducting a secret ballot
on Q's 1 & 3 would most probably have done more harm than good.  

>	Provision for discussion: require no voting until all members
>	who wish to speak have been heard.

As others have indicated in preceeding replies, I believe that this, too, would
be ill-advised.  If the meeting is run by a proper parliamentarian (read:
trained and impartial), an opportunity for debate will exist.  It works in
the Congress (by some definition of "works" at least), it certainly can work
for DCU.

Otherwise, I think Tom_K's start is a good one, especially his addition of
the item to rescind the ICP (aka, to DCU, as the IPP).

Based on this week's experience, make sure to put the most important issues
first on the agenda, and make sure that all items are independent of one
another.

	Paul

re: .7:

>.4>    There is a need to limit debate.  Can you imagine a ficticional case
>.4>    where one side argued long enough until all the oposing side left.
>    
>    It's not fiction.  Ever heard of a Congressional "filibuster" ?

Yes, but (unless my memory is cross-wired) it's just the Senate (where they are
supposed to have long, thoughtful, insightful debates :-) that allows unlimited
time once you get the floor.  Speaking time _is_ measured in the House (where
they are supposed to just represent the opinions of the mere masses :-).  I
should watch CSPAN much more often.  (But there's probably another notesfile for
that. :-)

    
    	Slightly off the track, but Re: .17, yes, the House's rules always
    require time limits to be in place.  They implement it by giving XX
    minutes to the pro- and XX minutes to the con- side of a bill and let
    the main proponents and opponents divide their time as they see fit.
    (Basically, the same model I was suggesting for how the Special Meeting
    could be run.)
    
    	For contentious issues, the Senate can, and sometimes does (as in
    the case of the Judge Thomas debate on the floor of the Senate) vote to
    place time limits to the debate.  Voting to limit debate before it
    begins only takes (if I remember correctly) a majority vote to
    invoke the appropriate Senate rule, while voting to stop a
    filibuster takes 2/3rds vote.  Therefore, filibusters work "best" when
    its not appearant up-front that one might happen since they are
    easier to stop then than after one has been started.
    
    							-craig