Conference 7.286::dcu

    
>    The Board and the membership agreed unanimously on rescinding the
>    proposed checking account changes.  Prior to the petition, the Board of
>    Directors had already reconsidered and rescinded the proposed checking
>    account changes.
    
    Only one word will suffice here, lie.  This is such an insult to
    everybody, especially those who attended the meeting.  I guess I must
    have imagined 2 Directors get up and speak against this item, one
    stating why he thought it was illegal.  Before the meeting, they had
    delayed them pending Cockburn's "strategic plan".  Some of the new
    charges and fees have already been implemented.  
    
>    The most serious issue, which called for the removal of all of the
>    Board of Directors, failed to pass.  These Directors, who were elected
>    by the membership at large, will continue to represent the members of
>    DCU.
    
    Why does that last line bother me so much?  No mention of the vote
    count either.  One would think that a reasonably significant detail.    
    
>    On the final issue, it was voted to call for a special election within
>    90 days.  "While the details of the election have not been finalized,"
>    stated Mary Madden, DCU Director of Communication, "the Board welcomes
>    the opportunity to allow DCU's entire 88,000 members to elect a Board
>    of Directors."
    
    Sounds good.  Have to wait to hear the "details" to see how they
    reconcile with the statement above.
    
>    DCU is a full service financial institution servicing Digital Equipment
>    Corporation employees and their immediate families.  DCU has over
>    88,000 members nationawide with assets of over $375 million.  Its
>    deposits are insured up to $100,000 per account by the National Credit
>    Union Administration (NCUA), an agency of the federal government.

    You forgot those all important DCU employees that literally saved your skin
    BoD.  What gratitude...
    
    I do hope that a second special meeting is not needed. Please tell me
    these people should have gotten the message Tuesday.  I was hopeful
    until reading this press release.  Time will tell.  Meanwhile I would
    suggest keeping your calendars open just in case.  
    

    They got the message. Their public pronouncements show that they
    think they're above it.
    
    Maybe they are.
    

   Well, there  isn't  much more we can do right now other than wait to see
   how  they handle the election logistics.  In spite of the fact that this
   file  is  probably good therapy for us to vent our frustrations, maybe a
   week  is  enough and we may turn off people who haven't been as close to
   it  as we have.  I promise to try to keep my frustrations under control.
   Let's all look ahead and for now assume they will do the elections.  The
   main  concern  I  have at this point is what we should do if they try to
   whitewash the current board and severly sanitize anything that gets sent
   to  all  the  members  about the challengers.  I just hope our alternate
   access  path  to  the  members  will  get  to  enough  of them to make a
   difference.

>    The Board and the membership agreed unanimously on rescinding the
>    proposed checking account changes.  Prior to the petition, the Board of
>    Directors had already reconsidered and rescinded the proposed checking
>    account changes.
    
       I hope they're not telling us that the decision they made to not put
    the 'choices' into effect is all they're doing. Didn't they start charging
    more for 'stop payments' etc? These are supposed to be rolled back too,
    right? The 'had already reconsidered...' part is the one they were
    giving the press before the meeting. They claimed to have already
    delayed the fees, but they didn't delay all of them.
                                         Denny

    I intend to ask Mary Madden about that "unanimous" bit, but all I get
    at her number is a recording.

364.61>  "Unanimously"?  The only accurate analysis:
364.61>  A lie.

-------------------------------------
.1>  >    The most serious issue, which called for the removal of all of the
.1>  >    Board of Directors, failed to pass.  These Directors, who were
.1>  >    elected by the membership at large, will continue to represent the
.1>  >    members of DCU.
.1>    
.1>      Why does that last line bother me so much?


Some things along these lines, perhaps?

  ..."who were elected by the membership at large":  More of the party line
  which claims that the whole Special Meeting brouhaha was the work of a
  dissident few.  By now there are probably more people watching the current
  Board with critical interest than voted in the last election, even
  considering that 88,000 ballots were mailed out.

  ..."will continue to represent":  Cute -- slipping this by, if no one
  protests, infers that they STARTED at some point, which claim would in
  actuality be widely disputed.

  ..."represent the members of DCU":  It is now clear that they do not,
   and have never, represented ME.


-------------------------------------
    "DCU is a full service financial institution servicing Digital Equipment
    Corporation employees and their immediate families."

They mean "serving".  Yes, I know that this questionable usage is almost as
common as it's's.  But (especially considering how employees and families
were treated at the special meeting) I can't help remembering that where I
come from, Kentucky, "service" when used as a verb refers to something a
mechanic does for your car, and to something a stallion does for a mare.

.3>   Well, there  isn't  much more we can do right now other than wait to see
.3>   how  they handle the election logistics.

There sure is, Paul, and I've already seen you, as well as others, at work
here.  The petition drive is already being planned, and it's not too early to
be thinking about how to get out the campaign message for the new candidates,
indpendently of the sacred Nominating Committee.  If they see fit to throw
open the doors and conduct a non-censored election, fine -- but wouldn't that
be a surprise?

In the meantime, those of us who are NOT in the GMA are likely to be given
the opportunity to do something.  Most owners/voters are not in the GMA, and
many owners/voters have no access to NOTES or e-mail.  Those of us who do
have such access will have an obligation.  Be thinking about how you can help.
Be thinking how we can reach out with ALL pertinent information about the
election.

Things might begin with a NOTES conference in which (all!) (*) candidates can
publish their frank and honest views.  This would get them wide circulation
among DCU owners having access to NOTES.  All of us can help with further
distribution via e-mail.  (The candidacy petitions themselves will be no
problem -- 500 signatures have been shown to be only a couple of days' work.)

But the real test will come when we formulate plans for reaching beyond
the network.  It'll probably require volunteers to hand-carry master (*)
campaign packets (all candidates!).  It'll probably require resorting
to ordinary US postal service as well.

It's not too early that we be working on these things.  We will be ready for
whatever we have to do when DCU announces their rules.  If the rules are non-
censorious we'll have a pleasant surprise.  (But we WON'T be surprised if the
rules specify more business-as-usual, will we?)


-----------------------------------
(*)  "All" certainly includes all incumbents who choose to run;  they should
     get no less help from the distribution volunteers than do newcomers.
     (One suspects that they won't need petition support, however, as they
     have the Nominating Committee.)

     Wouldn't it be a delight to see from every candidate a platform statement
     which took a position on the Information "Protection" Policy?  (Shhh...
     what's that strangling noise?  :)

RE: .-1

>-------------------------------------
>    "DCU is a full service financial institution servicing Digital Equipment
>    Corporation employees and their immediate families."
>
>They mean "serving".  Yes, I know that this questionable usage is almost as
>common as it's's.  But (especially considering how employees and families
>were treated at the special meeting) I can't help remembering that where I
>come from, Kentucky, "service" when used as a verb refers to something a
>mechanic does for your car, and to something a stallion does for a mare.

Where I come from in Virgina, it has a similar meaning.  You just managed to
get in to say something about it first, Bill! :-)

    You know reading this release I get the impression that passing items 1
    and 3 was the Board's idea ...
    
    Steve

    If you can get me a campaign packet, I will make sure that all the
    people here in St. Louis get a chance to read about all the candidates,
    so they will be informed before they vote.
    
    Thanks for all the hard work!
    Dave
    

�    Only one word will suffice here, lie.  This is such an insult to
�    everybody, especially those who attended the meeting.  I guess I must
�    have imagined 2 Directors get up and speak against this item, one
�    stating why he thought it was illegal.  
    
    The only thing in the statement that could be considered a lie is the
    "unanimous" portion.  From what I've read, the directors questioned
    whether or not the membership had the right to vote on such a question,
    not whether or not they agreed with the motion.  The board did rescind
    the fees prior to the meeting.  I don't see anything in the defintion
    of rescind that makes it permanent and I don't see anything in the DCU
    statement claiming that fee cancellation was permanent.
    
�    You forgot those all important DCU employees that literally saved your skin
�    BoD.  What gratitude...
    
    If the estimates in this conference are true (150 DCU employees), they
    didn't represent a large enough voting block by themselves to turn the
    tide of the meeting.

�Most owners/voters are not in the GMA, 
    
    Does anyone have a real geographical breakdown of the membership of the
    DCU.  I really question the validity of that statement.

It's worth noting everywhere that this comes up that the Board *did* indeed
lie about the fee rescision.  They rescinded ONE fee, the monthly fee.
They did *not* rescind all those other fee increases that took place at
the same time.  Nor have they gone back to posting interest monthly (that
may not be a fee but it costs me money anyway).

I wouldn't argue that the vote on #1 is binding (even if it were, they
would still have the authority to undo it at any time).  However, they
seem to be pretending that the parts of that motion that they don't want
to see don't exist -- and by saying it over and over again, they seem to
be convincing people that they are right.  Sigh.

There are ways to word press releases such that they both tell the story
that you want people to hear *and* and the same time are strictly accurate.
There are also ways to twist language so that it simply looks like the 
press release is telling the truth if one doesn't look carefully.  The 
former course is chosen by people of integrity.  The latter course is 
chosen by our Board.  That distinction makes a lot of difference to me.

	Larry

    
>    The Board and the membership agreed unanimously on rescinding the
>    proposed checking account changes.  Prior to the petition, the Board of
>    Directors had already reconsidered and rescinded the proposed checking
>    account changes.
    
�    Only one word will suffice here, lie.  This is such an insult to
�    everybody, especially those who attended the meeting.  I guess I must
�    have imagined 2 Directors get up and speak against this item, one
�    stating why he thought it was illegal.  
    
.    The only thing in the statement that could be considered a lie is the
.    "unanimous" portion.  From what I've read, the directors questioned
.    whether or not the membership had the right to vote on such a question,
.    not whether or not they agreed with the motion.  The board did rescind
.    the fees prior to the meeting.  I don't see anything in the defintion
.    of rescind that makes it permanent and I don't see anything in the DCU
.    statement claiming that fee cancellation was permanent.
    
    Gee, if you would have been at the meeting, you would have heard 2
    Directors get up and speaks AGAINST voting for item 1.  Hardly
    unanimous Board agreement.  Mr. Macneal, please don't play the same word 
    games that the Board plays.  Many people now see how much DCU literature 
    is nothing more than half truths.  I suppose you also thought you were
    being given "More Choices".
    
�    You forgot those all important DCU employees that literally saved your skin
�    BoD.  What gratitude...
    
>    If the estimates in this conference are true (150 DCU employees), they
>    didn't represent a large enough voting block by themselves to turn the
>    tide of the meeting.
    
    Gee, if you would have been at the meeting, you would know that the
    second item failed by less than 100 votes.  There appeared to be AT
    LEAST that number of DCU employees there.  The BoD OWES their current
    status of Board members directly to the DCU employees IMO.