Conference 7.286::dcu

The goal of this topic is to make it possible to use NOTES to create the
nucleus of the volunteer force for providing candidates with petition
and campaign support.  Petition support will probably be fairly straightforward
-- the earlier effort produced many more signatures than will be required,
and can serve as a prototype.  Campaign support (getting campaign and platform
publicity to the voters) can be the subject of more discussion.

But it all needs to start with some concrete action.  (And you and I both know
what comes next:  he who has proposed has volunteered...)



As a starting point, I propose:

     o  Anyone who has thought they might be available to help
        with petition tables, with distributing or mailing
        campaign literature, or with perhaps getting together
        in person as a steering committee, please send me MAIL.

     o  I will compile names and addresses into two lists.

     o  One list will be "open" -- that is, I'll send copies of
        the list itself to everyone who is on it, and will also
        provide a copy to any DCU member who requests it.

     o  Making the list open is partly directed to keeping from
        creating any kind of "secret committee" -- there's going
        be nothing secret about the petition drive, or about our
        desire to see that all interested candidates get a fair
        and as equal as possble a chance to be heard by the
        shareholders.  This includes the current Board;  we will
        distibute their campaign literature just like everyone's.

     o  The other list will be confidential.  If you'd rather not
        be identified (and I can understand why some people would
        feel that way, given where they might happen to work, and
        given some recent events), say so.  I'll put your name on
        the second list, WHICH I WILL NEITHER DISTRIBUTE NOR REVEAL
        TO ANYONE WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.  All that will happen
        is that you'll receive the same mailings that everyone else
        on either list does.  This also will have the effect of
        making it impossible to gauge the strength of the volunteer
        effort from the open list.


     o  I am NOT setting myself up as any kind of chairman.  I'm
        volunteering to help compile communications lists, that's
        all.  I'm just hoping to see us make a start toward creating
        the body of volunteers we all know we're likely to need.

     o  If a "steering committee" is needed (probably), I'd think
        the ability to meet face to face would be very helpful.
        Sorry to say, that would give preference to the Greater
        Maynard Area (again) -- but that can be discussed.  What
        you could do right now is indicate if you're willing to
        consider being on the steering committee.

     o  I'd think that if a steering committee is formed, the names
        of everyone on it should be taken from the "open" list.

     o  Let's get rolling.  "Write today!"  Posting a reply here will
        work (open list only!), or send MAIL.  All shareholders thank
        you in advance for your effort to create a better DCU.

               Bill Sconce
               MLTVAX::SCONCE
               ZKO1-3/J10
               DTN 381-1196

Dave Garrod and I were talking the other night about what we've all been
about in the Special Meeting and in the recent discussions in this
conference.  We were struggling with what most people would think are
the goals we are all pursuing here.

Here's what we came up with:

     o  A STRONG, HEALTHY CREDIT UNION

          +  strong implies good fiscals, good management
          +  healthy implies good relations between staff
             and shareholders, between shareholders, between
             Board and shareholders

     o  A HARMONIOUS, NON-DIVISIVE ATMOSPHERE


Everything we'll do in supporting the Special Election will be directed toward
these goals.  The Special Election effort should not take part in pursuing
the missing records, guessing what went on, or any of that -- others can do
that.  (Or Special Election volunteers can do that too, just not part of the
Special Election mobilization.)

The thought experiment by which we could determine if we've succeeded might be
to deliver a new DCU which members are glad to do business with, which they
trust, which is open with them, which listens to them, and to which formerly
alienated members bring back their business.

A possible starting point -- further thoughts are welcome.

    I'll do whatever organization is necessary
    to get petitions signed in Colorado Springs.

I suggest that you post the open distribution list as a note, so that
it can be used by anyone without going through you.  This can be kept
up-to-date by deleting and replacing the note as needed, so that we don't
have a lot of obsolete ones hanging around.  Also, for the people who try
to follow this conference, it would be better if there was not a long
sequence of "me too" replies here - there is one of those (with my reply in
it) elsewhere.  I will send mine by mail.

	Paul

From: MLTVAX::MLTVAX::SCONCE "Bill Sconce"	Date: 21-Nov-91 08:02 PM
To: @OPEN,@CLOSED,@CANDIDATES
Subject: Thank you

This is the first mailing to the new mailing lists.  It's been gratifying to
see the level of response, and the level of motivation, among us DCU
shareholders.  We're going to have good candidates running, and _I_ think
we're going to have a much improved DCU as a result of everyone's efforts,
past and still to come.
 
Thanks to each of you for sending your name.  Many who responded indicated
what they'll be willing to do;  not a few (myself included) expressed
reservations about how much time they could devote.  But that's all right --
what's important is that DCU owners from all over are coming forward to help
in the effort.  Grassroots democracy at its finest.
 
As I indicated to some of you in personal replies, it's my hope that I'm not
going to be chairing anything -- I just want to see that whoever needs the
services of us volunteers has some mechanism for reaching us, and the time to
get the distro lists in place is before they're needed.  What we all want is
a good, open discussion of the issues and of visons for DCU's future.  Then
(for the first time in years, probably) we may have an election in which
members actually read meaningful statements from the candidates, and in which
members actually cast thoughtful votes.
 
A couple of logistical items:
 
    o  For the moment, none of these distribution lists will be made
       available to anyone.  Your being on one or more of them is purely
       your business.
 
    o  Many of you who wrote did not specify whether you wished to be
       placed on the "closed" distro list.  I took the liberty of assuming
       that most of those who did not specify would be happy with being
       on the "open" list (that is, that in principle they would not mind
       having their name on a list which would likely be made available
       to any DCU member who asked.)  (In principle, you can be sure that
       includes the Board.)
 
    o  If you're one of those who did not request your name be kept
       confidential, let me know.  I'll move you to the "closed" list.
 
    o  Lest anyone be concerned, the "open" list is satisfyingly large.
       You won't stand out as the only volunteer!
 
The "closed" volunteers list and the candidates' list will be KEPT
confidential.  I'll destroy the candidates' list when the campaign opens.
The purpose here is not to create rosters, but to provide a way for
candidates (or committee chairmen, if any come forward) to reach us
sharelholders who want to be of help to the election when the time comes.
 
On the other hand, as I said in 395.*, "secret committees" don't sit well
in DEC's culture, and I for one don't want to be a member of one.  So although
some people may be in such a position that they wish not to be identified
as helping to support a meaningful special election, I intend to treat the
"open" volunteers list as non-confidential information.  The best way to
keep anyone from prying is to publish.  And I don't mind for a minute being
identified as one of those who tried to do the right thing.  THAT'S the
important thing about DEC culture!
 
So in the spirit of keeping everything aboveboard, and in the hope of making
it totally unnecessary for anyone to view organization of volunteers as an
effort to create a "committee", I think the best course is to assume from the
start that anyone who wants to know who's working for a better DCU can find
out by asking, and make it easy for them to do so.  Once enough time has
elapsed for any requests to be moved to the "closed" distro list to be
honored, the "open" distro list will be available.  And in the spirit of
accountability I'll plan to keep a record of everything which goes out
via this mechanism, so that anyone who might want to examine the history
of our correspondence can do so easily.
 
To everyone who has written so far, thanks again.  If you know anyone who
should be hogtied into joining us in this worthy effort, make 'em send in
their name.  (Or do it for them! :)
 
I'll wind this up by reviewing what we saw in 395.1 as our goals for when
all this is over:
 
         o  A STRONG, HEALTHY CREDIT UNION
 
         o  A HARMONIOUS, NON-DIVISIVE ATMOSPHERE
 
and by recalling that our mission will be to get the campaign information
for all candidates (including incumbents!) into the hands of the owners
of DCU.  I'm an owner too, and I am looking forward to seeing what the
candidates will have to say.
 
Thanks again
-Bill

    The election efforst seem to be real quiet.
    
    Has anyone heard anything yet?
    
    Is there a straw count on Non Bod candidates yet ?
    
    Is anyone still out there ?
    
    

	The deadline for applications was yesterday. I'm asuming that most
	people who put their names in are going to wait until after the
	interviews (schedualed for next week I believe) before saying much.
	The time for active petition signings isn't until after the official
	candidates have been named. Then we'll know if it's even needed.

			Alfred

The election process is moving along. The date for applying to be
nominated by the board just closed.

I just got a call today from Patty ? at DCU who's handling the election
process. Mary Madden (she's done this task in the past) is off doing
strategic planning as director of marketing something-or-other.

The nominating committee is interviewing on Jan 7 and Jan 11. There
are 42 applications including the incumbents. She said the incumbents even
have to go before the nominating committee to get on the ballot. The
nomination committee members are: Phillis Lengle, a DEC finance person,
Anita Cohen, from personnel, and Chuck Cockburn (You remember him, right? 8*)
I saw Anita at the 1st impromptu meeting last August. She had run by
petition in one of the previous elections but did not win.

The nominating committee has decided to give each candidate 150 words in the
statements to be mailed out with the ballots. The ballots will have names
in random order. Patty suspects that there will be "more than 7" people
picked by the nominating committee to be on the ballot.

I forgot to ask her directly if all the incumbents were going to run but
I got the impression that they would.

I specifically asked her if Chuck Cockburn was going to make some sort of
statement to go with the ballots about supporting incumbents and she said
she didn't expect that he would. I said this was a major concern of mine
considering what he did at the special election. She said that at the
special meeting, Chuck was acting "just as a DCU member" at the special
election. I said I didn't think he did.

    
    I wonder if it would be possible for a few people to look over the
    election package, to determine whether the instructions are clear and
    correct, and whether an air of impartiality is maintained. Who has the
    ultimate responsibility for the election package, anyway?
    

I don't know who personally is responsible, but if you called Patty (I didn't
get her last name) at 223-6735x239 I'm sure she'd know. That's a good
question.

I just looked at the "DCU Election Guidelines" and couldn't find out anything
about this. However, I did notice something interesting. The DCU president
is responsible for picking the nominating committee members so in this case
he picked himself as one of the members. That seems a bit strange considering
he's picking nominations for who's going to be his boss.

Furthermore, the guidelines say that (on page 3):
	Nominating committee members should be:
	-[several things]...
	-have a "reasonable amount" of Digital seniority

Chuck doesn't have any Digital seniority because he's not a DEC employee.

    
    I called; the name is Patty D'Addieco, and she's Assistant Marketing
    Director. She is in charge of putting together the election package.
    She's getting input from the election auditing agency, the NCUA and
    Sandy Ramahlo, the DCU Information Officer. She expressed as her
    number one goal the simplest, most correct and most impartial election
    possible; I offered my help in any way she might think of; she has my
    DTN.
    
    Look for a DCU election update in this conference, probably next week,
    containing such things as bios of the nominating committee, and info
    on staggering of the terms of office based on vote counts. Subsequent
    updates will contain more information on the logistics of the election
    process (eg concerning validation, rejection and signature
    confidentiality.)
    
    Some other points:
    
    o  the increase of candidate write-ups from 100 to 150 words was a
       compromise between the need to know more about the candidates, and
       the need to keep postage costs down and write-up booklet readably
       short
    
    o  The minutes of the special meeting will be available soon in this
       conference
    
    o  there is some discussion going on as to denoting incumbency status
       on candidate write-ups
    
    o  nominating committee should make choices known by 16-Jan
    
    o  signatures are not checked against signature cards by the auditing
       agency; ballots can be singled out for irregularity because of such
       things as using different pens to complete the signature,
       overwriting, or printing -- these may then be checked by DCU; no
       signature = immediate rejection, and is the overwhelming "signature"
       rejection reason
    

    
    Regarding Chuck on the nominating committee -- I have found it useful
    and rewarding in the past to have some input into the selection of my
    boss (ie, interviewing candidates), so it might not be altogether bad
    for him to be in the same position. Just as long as he doesn't have
    the final say.
    
    On the other hand, it's of questionable value considering that emotions
    with regard to impartiality are already running a little high...
    

    I strongly suspect that we'll see a total of 21 candidates, including
    incumbents.  That will (IMO) give the incumbents the best chances of
    staying on.  Their chances would be minimal with a total of 14
    candidates.  And, with less than 7 candidates versus 7 incumbents there
    would probably be outrage on the part of shareholders sufficient to get
    more candidates by petition.
    
    I, too, am a bit concerned about Chuck possibly not satisfying the 
    nomination committee guidelines.  Seems to me that without Digital
    seniority it defeats some of the intents of the bylaws in addition to
    the letter.  My guess is that Digital seniority means that nominating
    committee members should be more prone to act in the long-term interests
    of Digital employees because of vested interest.  Chuck has no such
    interests as he has, to my knowledge, never been a Digital employee.
    
    But, this may also be a red herring.  At this point, I'm not convinced
    that Digital seniority necessarily means that one will act in the
    long-term interests of Digital employees.
    
    Steve