Conference 7.286::dcu

                                                198 Linden Street
                                                Boylston, MA 01505
                                                November 13, 1991

     Digital Employees' FCU
     Attn:  Chuck Cockburn
     141 Parker Street
     Maynard MA 01754

     Dear Mr. Cockburn,

          I am writing to ask you to give very careful consideration to the
     advice that you give the Board of Directors on how to respond to the
     votes taken at last night's Special Meeting.  I expect the Board can
     find legal grounds for ignoring the vote on the final motion, which
     was clearly a strong demand for new elections for the entire Board.
     If the Board ignores that vote, the anger and frustration evident at
     the meeting, which did not find any other outlet, will very likely
     find an outlet in ways that are harmful to the DCU, such as transfer
     of deposits and loans to other institutions.

          In the parking lot after the meeting, I overheard three people,
     apparently not involved with calling the special meeting, bitterly
     agreeing that they were going to remove all of their DCU deposits and
     transfer their car loans.  I took the liberty of asking them to not do
     that -- at least not until after the vote called for by the meeting.
     As a person concerned about the future of the DCU, that was the most
     constructive advice that I could give.  They agreed to wait, but if
     the vote does not take place, they and others will no doubt act in
     what they see to be their own best interests by choosing not to be
     involved with the DCU.

          I'd like to thank you for your own comments at the meeting --
     they were another confirmation of the logic and forcefulness of your
     guidance of the DCU.  Naturally, you followed the Board's lead by
     ignoring the substantive issues that led to motion 2.  After all,
     Mark's snide comment to the contrary, you and the other DCU employees
     do not work for the members -- you work for the Board and it is
     appropriate for you to support them, within the limits set by your
     personal integrity.  It is the Board who is supposed to work for the
     members.

          I am surprised, though, that you felt you could say that there
     were no grounds for removing a group that, in spite of their great
     experience, had to be told to put a Supervisory Committee and Internal
     Auditor in place.  And surely you agree that that the fact that an
     elected official is not guilty of criminal wrongdoing is not
     sufficient grounds for keeping that official in office?  But as I
     said, since you work for the Board, you naturally defended them as
     effectively as you could.  I would be sorry to think that you believe
     that there was nothing wrong with their oversight of the DCU during
     recent years.
                                                                Page 2


          In conclusion, many people at the meeting clearly had concerns
     that went completely unexpressed except for the three votes on the
     motions:  an overwhelming vote to rescind all the changes in checking
     account fees (not just the one that you rescinded); a very close vote
     (in spite of all the institutional pressures brought to bear) on
     whether to remove the Board immediately; and a very strong vote to
     hold new elections for the entire Board of Directors.  I strongly urge
     you to advise the Board to give members the voice they didn't
     otherwise have at the meeting and schedule the requested elections.
     In the meantime, I strongly urge you to monitor the level of deposits
     at the DCU to help you decide whether those who are unhappy with the
     Board's public actions last night are really just a small group of
     troublemakers.

          I really believe that the future of the DCU for years to come
     hangs in the balance here.  I've never stopped hoping that the Board
     would do the right thing, although I've been repeatedly disappointed.
     For example, due to Mark's error-filled and partisan chairmanship, not
     one of those of us who wanted to speak against the Board on motion 2
     had a chance to do so.  In any case, you did once invite me to send
     you anything I thought would help you to understand member concerns,
     and this letter is my best attempt to do so.



                                                Sincerely,




                                                Larry Seiler



     cc:  other members of the DCU

    
    Again,
    
    	- Drop incumbent designations on the ballots.
    
    	- Each candidate gets a 1 page, uncensored write-up.
    
    	
    We also need to find out the involvement of the nominating committe in
    the process.  Also, with all positions open how will terms be decided?
    Highest vote total, 3 years, etc.?
    

To start off a discussion of election procedures, I'll state here briefly
that I think the key to that is finding ways to open up communications.

I'd like to see the election mailing structured in such a way that it is
possible for each candidate and sitting Board member to tell their own
version of the story.  That way, the general membership can look at all of
the information and make up their own minds.  

Hmm, and come to think of it, proxies are another issue worth debate.
I think no proxies should be allowed -- let everyone fill out their
own voting cards in the way they feel is best.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    Could someone address the use of proxies in the DCU?  How are
    unreturned proxies handled?  Is there a difference between
    proxies and 'ballots' in the DCU elections?
    bob

    
    Proxies are prohibited by the Bylaws.  
    

re .2

I doubt incumbency will be much of an advantage this time.  Perhaps I'll
be embarassed in February, but I rather imagine that incumbent status
won't be so much a star as a scarlet letter.  It seems unfair for me to
assume that other DCU members are slaves of the status quo who will cower
before "fear, uncertainly, and doubt".

\Joe

    
    RE: .6
    
    I wouldn't necessarily put it that way but there are still THOUSANDS
    of members that haven't been reached with all the facts of the matter. 
    Particularly, the 20,000 non-DEC people whose only source of info is
    DCU literature.  
    

    How many people actually return ballots?  What were some of the vote
    counts in the BoD elections?

    This is my first entry in this conference, having read most of the
    entries for the last couple of months as these very interesting events
    have unfolded.

    One question I haven't seen discussed here with regards to the
    election:

    If all the current board members will be standing for re-election, what
    happens to their terms should any be re-elected?  Or what happens if
    they should all be replaced by new members?  Somehow the terms need to
    be staggered to provide continuity in the future.  Perhaps we'll hear
    about that in the official announcement from DCU.

    Bruce

re: .8, Tom Eggers

>    How many people actually return ballots?  What were some of the vote
>    counts in the BoD elections?

This is an excellent question. Is this some of the information that's
unavailable to us?

I agree that there are literally thousands of members who wouldn't know
any better than to blindly vote for the incumbents.

-Jack

There are notes that post recent vote totals -- I think the top vote
getters were around 5,000 votes, with challengers falling short by
1,000-2,000 to the re-elected incumbents.  Sorry that I cannot post
a cross reference.

Considering the special meeting as a fraction of the total votes cast,
it's a pretty considerable number -- and especially considering the
number of DCU members who vote but were physically unable to attend.


Speaking of the people who don't look at the notes file, the DCU's
official position on the new election is a serious issue.  There were
reports (that I did not try to verify) of the DCU Director of
Communication making some highly biased remarks about the reasons for
the special meeting.  Chuck Cockburn sent me a letter saying that she
was always neutral but was free to express her personal opinions if
asked to do so.  I found that position appalling.

Therefore, I think one of the election rules has be a very short, and
publically available list of the *only* things that anyone speaking for
the DCU can tell anyone about why the vote is taking place.  A sample
statement might be "An election is being held for all Board positions
as a result of the Special Meeting held November 12th, and information
on the positions of all candidates running for the Board will be sent
out by ,name a date>".  Period.  I don't know if it is true that people
who called the DCU to ask about the Special Meeting were told about "a
small group of dissidents", but we need to make sure that the DCU as an
organization is absolutely and officially neutral.  That doesn't mean that
DCU employees cannot speak their minds.  It means they cannot speak their
minds when they are speaking for the DCU, as is anyone who answers a phone
call or letter at the DCU unless it is clearly a personal call or letter.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    Election Results:
    
    
    1988
    ----
    Mark Steinkrauss	4,605
    Charlene O'Brien	3,475
    Eliana Markoff	2,144
    Richard Luciano	1,824
    Jay R. Whittaker	  923
    Gerry Shusterman	  806
    
    
    1989
    ----
    Jack Rugheimer	4,417
    Jeffry Gibson	3,182
    Anita E. Cohen	2,359
    Haiping Chang	2,216
    Donald L. Elias	1,940
    Robert M. Brownson	1,308
    
    
    1990
    ----
    Peter Brown		2,735
    Susan Shapiro	6,921
    Dan Infante		5,913
    Abbott Weiss	5,483
    Richard Luciano	3,325
    Raymond Tunstall	1,440
    Len Huang		2,892
    
    
    1991
    ----
    Mark Steinkrauss	6,830
    Charlene O'Brien	5,160
    Richard Luciano	4,406
    Theodore Campbell	1,832
    Leo Quinn		1,133
    

					    
    1988				
    ----
    Richard Luciano	1,824	Mr. Luciano must have been doing something
				right. Note that his vote total has steadily
    1990			increased, though still not enough to unseat
    ----			an incumbent. I hope there is a more
				substantive reason for this other than all
    Richard Luciano	3,325	those members who habitually vote for a 
				familiar name :-).
    1991
    ----			Also, I wonder, is this year's election the
    Richard Luciano	4,406	closest anyone has ever come to unseating an
				incumbent (in a *regular* election, that is)?

Mark Steinkrauss told me, when I asked, that he thought an incumbent was
once defeated in an election, as opposed to choosing not to run.  Without 
discounting Mark's detailed explanation to me of how the nomination
process is independent of Board influence, I told Mark that as an
engineer, I am more interested in results.  If the system essentially
always returns the incumbents to office, I think there is something wrong
with the system.  Note that I am not accusing anyone of doing anything
deliberately wrong, I am saying that the election system needs fixing.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

�    	- Drop incumbent designations on the ballots.
    
    With the strong urgings to "vote the bums out", I'd think you'd want to
    make every effort to ensure that the members know who the "bums" are.

�                      -< An incumbent was once defeated? >-
    
    Is this any different from government elections held on a local,
    statewide, or national level?  There were plenty of cries heard in the
    1990 MA elections to unseat the incumbents and it didn't happen.

	Sorry folks but it's over. The Fat Lady has sung. DEC
	credit union will continue "Business as usual". 

	After the special election the present BoD will be firmly
	in place.  The "Witchunters" soundly rebuffed and the
	dissidents will again be encouraged to shop around.

	At the annual meeting it probably should be suggested that

	1.  DCU By-laws be suspended since they have no purpose.
	
	2.  Future elections be banned since they are only an exercise 
	    of ritual. 

	3.  Open BoD positions will be filled by appointment by the 
	    existing BoD. 

	Outrageous you say?  Hell, it's what has happened at DCU since
	it's inception and until the Mangone affair appears to have
	been acceptable by the almost all the members.

	Kinda makes me think of the kid who didn't talk until he was
	15.  At the breakfast table one morning he said to his Mom,
	"Gee Mom, this toast is burnt all to hell." His mother in total
	surprise asked "Son, why haven't you talked in all these 15
	years?" He replied, "Until now everything has been O.K."

	To the majority of the members the BoD only burnt the toast. 
	It will take an extremly strong effort to even contact them much
	less convince them that the whole meal is infested with worms.

	You dissadents don't have the ability to present your case to
	the membership. The DCU BoD has the advantage of being able to 
	make contact with each and every voting member and present to 
	them only those views that places them in a favorable light. I
	fear the effort to dislodge the present BoD cannot cast a big 
	enough shadow to dim that light.

	I hope I'm wrong..........    -Harold-

You're certainly right that any incumbent has a tremendous advantage.  But
that just means we have work to do.  The stockholders have NOT been rebuffed;
the special meeting accomplished the first two of its major objectives
(place the Board on notice of a widespread feeling of no confidence by
voting for them all to stand for re-election, and convey an overwhelming
sense of the stockholders that the fees as they had been proposed were
unacceptable).  The one motion which did not carry was to make the vote
of no confidence immediate instead of effective in 90 days -- and it
came very close.

So whether to be pessismistic or optimistic, as always, is the right of
the beholder.  There IS work to be done -- please be ready to volunteer!
If we fail, many people who are holding on for this one last chance will
bail out -- then, everybody loses.


.17>	You dissadents...

Please.  Write anything you like, but spell our name right.   :)

                                                              ^
                                                        SMILEY FACE !
                                                        SMILEY FACE !

>  �                      -< An incumbent was once defeated? >-
>      
>      Is this any different from government elections held on a local,
>      statewide, or national level?  There were plenty of cries heard in the
>      1990 MA elections to unseat the incumbents and it didn't happen.

It is certainly different than elections at *MY* local level!  

However, I hope you aren't suggesting that since "everyone is doing it",
it's ok for our own credit union to do it, too.  I'd fix the flawed
election process for the US Senate, too, if I could.  

I guess what you mean is that it isn't likely that we'll get the incumbents
out with this election.  Maybe not, though I'd be willing to bet that 
a number of current board members will be voted out if the election process
is fair.  Fairness includes the membership getting to hear both sides of the
story.  I have to say that, given the deceptive nature of the press release
the DCU issued regarding the special meeting results, I feel I have valid
grounds for skepticism about the fairness of the election process.  But
I continue to hope.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    I'm just curious as to how the election process will be "fixed". 
    Everyone has a vote.  Based on past elections it appears that only
    about 10% have chosen to excercise it.  There have been non-incumbants
    on the ballot.  The only difference in the amount of campaign material
    presented by incumbents vs nonincombents is that incumbents get an
    asterisk.  Usually the incumbants win.  These same issues occur in
    other types of elections.  How is the process at fault?

    
    Re: .20
    
    >  How is the process at fault?
    
    The process is at fault because it only provides one side of the
    story to the entire membership.  Whatever your opinion, there are those
    who have no confidence in the current BoD and have good reason not to. 
    Without the resources of the DCU i.e. the membership list, there are
    literally thousands of DCU members who may never hear or even *know*
    that there is another side of the story or EVEN THAT THERE IS A STORY
    TO TELL!  Since this special election will come very close to the time
    when elections are held anyway, it makes you wonder how many members
    won't notice anything unusual.  The DCU press release itself is a
    crock of baloney.  The BoD did NOT agree with what passed at the
    meeting -- they made that perfectly clear in a number of ways -- yet
    according to their press release they agreed and *they* can send
    that release to those thousands without any provision for a dissenting
    view.  How much more fault do you want in the process than that?
    
    Steve
    

    Everyone knew that there was a call for a Special Meeting and that a
    recall of the BoD was proposed.  A regular election seldom elects a new
    board.  There will have to be an announcement of the outcome of the
    Special Meeting.  Are you saying that the membership at large won't be
    able to put 2 and 2 together?

    !. So far there has been no report of the special meeting sent to DCU
    members.  Perhaps there will be, but I haven't heard about it.  Or
    received it.
    
    2. Putting "2" from several months ago together with "2" from a couple
    of months hence is likely to result in "2" since the first "2" will
    likely be forgotten.  The result will not be 4.
    
    The question isn't whether the whole DCU membership *can* put 2 and 2
    together and arrive at 4.  The question is *will* the whole DCU
    membership, or a large enough fraction of it, take the time and effort
    to put the 2 and 2 together.  Will they even realize they should take
    the time and effort?  Unless they are given both sides of the issue, I
    believe the answer is NO, and I do not believe they will get both sides
    of the issue well explained from the present BoD.  So far, the only BoD
    explanations of the "dissidents" position I have read have come  this
    conference, topic 343, and from the Mark Steinkrauss letter.  Neither
    begins to explain the whole story.

    >Are you saying that the membership at large won't be able to put 
    >2 and 2 together?
    
    No, that members won't be able to arrive at 4 (the answer) given 2 (one
    side of the "issues").  The Board continues to answer questions that it
    asks itself, and that it wants to answer.  If it needs new questions, it
    makes up new "issues" (as they did in their response) and thus appears
    responsive.  So now we have thousands of members that think the Board
    is "communicating" when all they are doing is dodging the real issues
    and tough questions.  
    
    Let's face it, 4 months ago, NOBODY knew what was going on because we
    all believed everything we were told.  Then information started coming
    out that indicated that maybe we weren't being told everything.  Then
    facts became available that directly contradicted what we were told. 
    Unfortunately, many DCU members are still back at stage 1.  We must
    work to inform ALL DCU members of ALL the issues and ALL the facts.  
    
    We blindly trusted the Board, and they knew it.  We should never blindly
    trust anybody where our life's savings are concerned.  It is the
    Board's denial of information that we all need to make informed
    decisions concerning DCU and its policies, that I take particular
    offense with.  Just give us the facts please.  Let us all draw our own
    conclusions and make our own decisions based on the facts.

	Re: 18

.17>	You dissadents...

	Damit I got it right the first time. .500 would make
	me a helluva baseball player.

	Not really trying to be pessamistic, just realistic.
	one thought that comes to mind is "What are the odds I
	could get in Vegas that I am wrong?"

	I appreciate all of the effort that *WE* dissidents have
	put forth. It's just that the only way we can get the
	message out to the voting membership is to take out an add
	in the National Inquirer. I mean, you surely don't think
	that MS and company will allow us to use their mailing
	list. Do you?  Kinda like the Chance Brothers, Fat, Slim 
	and None. (Retorical Question)

	I am trying to affect the education of as many members as
	I can. Not by espousing a party line, but by asking them to 
	ADD ENTRY BEIRUT::DCU, set seen/before=01-aug-1991 and read
	about what the issues and concerns of more than a few DCU
	members are. If they say they don't have time or don't care 
	then I hit em with my opinions and dog the poop out of them 
	until they see things my way. (just kidding)

	dissadents, dissadents, dissadents. :^)

		-Harold-

    If somebody will come up with the postage, I'll make the effort to get
    the mailing list.  I haven't heard that anybody has tried.

RE: .25

Harold, Are you having a "Catholic University" relapse? Sheesh, so pessimistic!

:-) :-) :-) :-)

Bryan

P.S. Harold used to be the account rep for Catholic Univ. It's an experiance
     in itself.

>    If somebody will come up with the postage, I'll make the effort to get
>    the mailing list.  I haven't heard that anybody has tried.

Let's see - assume $0.30/letter to cover postage and reproduction.  (It's
not enough at that, but keep things round.) With 88,000 members, we get
$26,400.  Think we can find 100 people to kick in $264 each, or 264 people
to kick in $100 each?  I don't.  Think we could get the BOD to include our
material in one of their mailings?

Unfortunately we are practically limited to personnal contacts and mass
media.  I think the best hope is that there will be a much higher incidence
of voting among those who are aware of the issue.  So if we could get to
20000 members via building meetings and electronic mail, we might have a
reasonable chance.

	Paul

    I've heard that there are somewhere around 20,000 DCU members in
    California, Oregon and Washington.  This is their Credit Union too.

re 374.15

�       - Drop incumbent designations on the ballots.
>
>    With the strong urgings to "vote the bums out", I'd think you'd want to
>    make every effort to ensure that the members know who the "bums" are.


     Actually, it would be good to drop the asterisks!  That way people need
     to educate themselves.  They can't just rely on the asterisk to tell
     them, gee I've got no problem with them so vote for those with the
     asterisks.  Or, gee I can't stand them so vote against the asterisks!

     Maybe, if they took a little time and checked to see who the incumbents
     were and tried to decide if they were doing a good job...

     Don

	If the marks are not on the ballot than people may (or may not)
	read the write ups. There they will see who is an incumbent and
	vote for or against them. Perhaps a few people who would vote for
	the incumbents if the mark was there will not take the time to
	read the write ups and so not vote at all. I doubt that will be
	too many people. About the same number of people will want to vote
	against incumbents but will also decide that it's not worth reading
	the write ups to find out who is who. This will probably even out.

			Alfred

re .19 and .20:

I'll just note here that I never said I thought the election would be
"fixed".  That word implies altering the vote totals and other sorts
of improprieties in the conduct of the voting itself.  I don't expect
anything like that to happen.

What I said was that I have serious doubts about whether the election will 
be conducted fairly.  All elections turn around the question of how the
candidates can get their message out to the voters.  THAT's where the
fairness issue comes in.  The Board controls communications to most DCU
members, and they have consistently and effectively used that control
to make themselves look as good as possible.  To cite a non-trivial
example, I've heard of several cases of people who called the DCU to
ask what the special meeting notice was all about and were told the
Board's party line.  So for many people, the only source of information
they know how to tap on the question of the special meeting was, in effect,
to ask the incumbent Board members!

Challengers, on the other hand,  currently have nothing more than 100 words
each in the campaign literature to try to get their message across to most
of the membership.  What other alternatives do they have?  If they don't
have $26,000 (assuming they could get the DCU mailing list), the alternatives
are using the public mass media or using electronic media, neither of which
can be used to reach more than a fraction of the members.  100 words is not
a whole lot more than the length of note .20, incidentally -- enough to 
state qualifications, but not enough to state why a candidate thinks there 
is something wrong with the status quo and what s/he'd do about it.

The DCU might increase the limit on campaign statements to significantly
more than 100 words.  This would be much more fair.  On the other hand,
the current Board might decide to stick rigidly to the current rules and
produce an election that does not give their challengers a fair chance to
present their side of the story to the membership.  If the membership
knows only the Board's statements that "a small group of dissidents"
forced a special meeting to pass motions that the current Board claims
to have always supported, then it wouldn't be surprizing if most of the
membership can't figure out why the challengers want to unseat the
current Board.  

All I want is for everyone to hear both sides of the story so that they
can make up their own minds.  

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    The ballot should be a NEUTRAL listing of all candidates in a random
    order.  Any designation whatsoever next to people's names is a
    classification of that individual which has nothing to do with their
    qualifications.  Whatever the classification, it IS an influencing
    factor which varies according to the voter.  A decision to vote for 
    a candidate SHOULD be made by an informed voter.  If ballot
    classifications are used,  the voter has now received information on
    some candidates, but not all candidates.
    
    Selection of candidates by the Nominating Committee is considered AN
    ENDORSEMENT by them.  Now petition candidates may receive "Petition
    Candidate" next to their name.  That designation may carry negative
    connotations to many people even though the candidate choose not to go
    through the Nominating Committee at all.  Let's let members decide for
    themselves after having read the candidate write-ups.  If they choose
    not to read them or to not vote, then that is their personal choice. 
    IMO, no vote cast in this case is probably better than a blind vote
    based on an asterisk.
    
    If we are going to have ballot classifications, I want to see
    "pro-IPP", "pro-Participation-Loan", "pro-Fees" instead.  At least
    those classifications will tell us something meaningful instead of
    circumventing the thought process.
    
    One thing I take particular exception to, is the "incumbent"
    designation being given to an APPOINTED Director.  While it may may
    TECHNICALLY true, it also implies other things which are not true. 
    Namely that the people has been elected by the members.  "Appointed
    Incumbent" is the more precise designation.
    
    DCU should allow candidates a chance to express their ideas in DCU's
    Network publication.  The BoD has been using this vehicle exclusively. 
    Our votes for BoD candidates have had to be made based on bland 100
    word write-ups that contain very little information.  Provide a means
    for candidates to campaign.
    

	Re: .27

	Hiya Bryan...

	Wow. Catholic University. A long time ago but after my 2
	years as account rep there I am probably the only back-
	sliding Baptist that goes to confession once a month..;^)
	and definately the only Mason to recieve their "Wizard
	of the year" award. Kinda proud of that...

	Anyways, glad to see you are not part of the Royal(oops)
	loyal opposition concerning the issues of which most of the
	recent verbage in this notes file is hashing about.

	I hope that this effort to "Throw the rascals out" won't
	be met with the same old "But not MY rascal" attitude that
	seems to assure that all the rascals are permanent fixtures.

	We just have to work like heck to get the real issues before
	the voting membership. But I fear it is, to coin a phrase,
	"Shoveling sand against the tide". If this effort to dis-
	lodge the current BoD is successful it should be in the
	Guiness book of records as accomplishing the 13th task
	of Hurcules..

	Guiness, I like that. Add two words. Irish & Stout
	yeah Guiness Irish Stout. Thats the ticket. Hey gang I just
	got a great Idea. Too bad it has to wait till 17:00.

		-Harold-


	

  Note:  It's ok to delete the * BUT... I hope they put the names
in Alpha order.  Remember... A lot of people just mark the first N.

Gee, I just noticed in the BoD candidate info package, that Mary Madden
says, "As a result of the Special Meeting, all positions may be open."
							  ^---!!!!!!!

I wonder what will determine whether they are all open or not.

�Gee, I just noticed in the BoD candidate info package, that Mary Madden
�says, "As a result of the Special Meeting, all positions may be open."
�							  ^---!!!!!!!
    
    Perhaps the package was prepared before the results of the Special
    Meeting were known.  The original call for candidates did go out
    between the time the Special Meeting was requested and the time it was
    held.

   Re: .37,  I  guess that's possible, but it's interesting that Phil wrote
   away for a BoD packet and got one dated a day previous to mine, and that
   one  said that there were only two positions open (probably the original
   notice before the special meeting happened).

    
    RE: .38
    
    Yes, the only changes appear to be the "may be" wording.  No dates
    changes were made in the revised letter.  And no mention that the dates
    may be changing was made either, right Paul?
    
    So to all potential BoD candidates, I would suggest getting your
    application in before December 2 just to be on the safe side.