Conference 7.286::dcu

>         (2 members of the current DCU Board of 
>         Directors are seeking re-election and have submitted 
>         applications.)
    
    Is this a typo or have 5 members of the board decided to step down?
    (or has my mind ceased to function properly?  8^)
    
    If the above statement is correct, then it would appear that the
    "battle for the Board" has already produced one victory for those
    seeking change:  regardless of the outcome, the elections will produce
    a Board dominated by "new blood".
    
    Now, the task at hand is to select 7 people who represent "new ideas"
    and not just "new bodies".
    
    -- Russ

    Re .0:
    
>        DCU has received 43 applications for the 1992 Special 
>        Election.  All applicants will be interviewed on January 7th 
>        or January 11th. (2 members of the current DCU Board of 
>        Directors are seeking re-election and have submitted 
>        applications.)
    
    Trusting that this is NOT a typo, the return of DCU to member control
    (for better or for worse) IS at hand.  8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
    
>        TERMS FOR BOARD POSITIONS
>        Terms for DCU's Board of Directors will be staggered as 
>        follows:
>        
>        1. The two (2) candidates receiving the highest number of 
>        votes will be elected for a three (3) year term.
>        
>        2. The three (3) candidates receiving the next highest number 
>        of votes will be elected for a two (2) year term.
>        
>        3. The two (2) candidates receiving the next highest number 
>        of votes will be elected for a one (1) year term.
    
    This is another win for the electorate.  It's only fair, and it avoids
    jockeying for position in multiple sub-races.
    
    Soon it will be up to the membership to make informed choices and
    mandate the recovery of the Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union. 
    We will have no-one but ourselves to blame if the new BoD fails.

I had an interview with the nomination committee today and they confirmed
that there were only two incumbents seeking nomination again. Gee, they
could have saved everybody lots of hassle if they'd just resigned last
fall.

    If this is true (re: only 2 incumbents running), then I postulate
    that it's a classic case of "I've done nothing wrong and I'm
    not resigning!" Then about a month later, poof! They're gone.
    
    For example: J. Sununu, Comissioner of Police in LA, Micky Roach -
    Boston (placing my bet now.) etc.
    
    Ben
    

    My guess would be that the members of the BoD who are not running
    are not stepping down because they feel they did anything wrong.
    More likely they are feeling especially unappreciated. Since we
    don't really know how things were run during BoD meetings we really
    don't know what we're missing in these people. Sure it's easy to
    tar them all with the same brush but I've served on a number of
    boards and seen one or two strong people run things by some really
    well meaning people.
    
    		Alfred

I spoke to somebody today who knows one of the board members and spoke
highly of him and said that he had much integrity. From what I saw at
the special meeting I have my doubts, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
It's certainly possible that
some of the board got buffalo'ed by a couple of BODs who
pushed all these "questionable" things like cape cod loans, but we have
no way of knowing and the individual board members won't talk. So,
unfortunately, we are forced to paint the entire board with a broad brush
*by their own choice*. Perhaps we will be missing some very good board
members but we have no way of telling whether or not this is true.
I agree they are probably feeling very unappreciated, but as far as I
can tell, they haven't given us anything to appreciate them for.

    re: .5
    
    I agree with Alfred.  I believe the entire BoD has been lynched without
    regard to individual beliefs or actions.  Of course, I stated this
    during the heat of earlier debate and was flogged accordingly for not
    conforming to the vocal majority opinion.  Be that as it may, I do not
    equate failure to run for re-election with an admission of wrongdoing.
    
    Dick.

Re: .7

I really think that the term "lynched" is overstating it a bit. Granted,
things have gotten rather heated at times, but the board has *never*
been forthright in their communications. If they would provide answers to
the many questions we have, perhaps all the negativity could have been
avoided. We've even *told* them point blank how to take the wind out of
our sails by providing direct answers to our questions. They consistently
agree that it would be a good idea and will "look into it" and we never
hear back from them.

Furthermore, the board members will not respond on an individual basis
to the questions. What method would you propose to figure out what each
BoD stands for?

I agree that failure to run is not an admission of wrongdoing. We haven't
said yet that the board is guilty of wrongdoing. So far, all we've said
is that they haven't acted in our best interests and in a competent manner.
We don't have the data yet to say anything more.

    If the Board members had tended to respond individually then I would 
    probably treat each Board member individually.  But, they have insisted
    on being treated as a group.  I see no need to hold personal grudges
    against any particular Board members.  The Board as a whole, however,
    has been a disappointment.
    
    Also, it always looks better to choose not to run during an election
    than to step down under fire or be forced out.  This doesn't really
    bother me.  I say, let individual Board members bow out gracefully at
    this point.  I'm not interested in revenge.  They are still Digital 
    employees or former employees and are still on "our" side, I hope.  
    I want the right things to happen with DCU and it looks to me like 
    things have a chance to improve.
    
    Steve

I'm glad that the authors of .5 and .7 (and several others) have stuck
with the file, in spite of feeling that their opinions were unappreciated.
It is really important that this file *not* be the private preserve of
those who have problems with the DCU, and I'm sorry that things have been
pretty hot for those who have defended the Board.  

I agree with you both that there are undoubtedly well meaning members on
the BoD right now.  But I disagree that they've been attacked without 
regard to their individual beliefs or actions.  True, in most cases I
do not know what their individual beliefs are.  But I do know two key
examples of their individual actions:

    Each BoD member decided not to dissent from the deceitful tactics 
	used by the Board as a whole over the past 12 months.  In my 
	ethic, they therefore must bear some responsibility for the 
	actions taken in their names.

    Each BoD member signed the "witch-hunters" memo accusing people like
	me of harassment and trying to take over the DCU, when all I
	wanted was to be told things I feel I have a legal right to know.

Anyway, given what the Board as a whole has done (as well as the egregious
actions of several individual members), I don't think it's unreasonable of
me to demand that the remaining Board members demonstrate that they are
fit for office.  The Board as a whole used up the trust I had for it.  I'd
be *very* happy to hear individual Board members speak about themselves,
their beliefs and their actions, and I've taken part in a variety of
forums where they could have done so.  For the most part, they didn't.
That's too bad, and I wish they'd done otherwise, but it was their choice.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    I agree with several of the previous notes:  since the individual board
    members were not willing to speak as individuals, each of them gets
    labeled by the actions taken by the board as a whole.
    
    If they had been willing to speak individually, we could have treated
    them individually.  It was their individual choice, and they made it on
    their own.

    
    As someone who was beheaded said "silence gives consent."
    
    Which in this case would seem to indicate that individual Board members
    are, by their inability to respond, failing to deny their culpability.
    
    Ben
    

    Having 2 former members, depending on who, reelected to the board
    could provide that transition that Chuck felt was important.

    A total new board will need to evaluate and reset current polices and
    procedures, potentially in a partial vacuum.  If there were a remaining
    member to provide a "knowledge transfer", not necessarily a 3 year
    term, this might actually be beneficial.

    Now, the question is, would I vote for either of the incumbents running
    ?   Again, it depends who, some (possibly both running) I will vote
    against, guaranteed.

    I dunno.  There are others that can do that knowledge transfer that
    aren't on the Board.  And, won't new members have access to the minutes
    without redact?  
    
    Steve

    >I agree with Alfred.  I believe the entire BoD has been lynched without
    >regard to individual beliefs or actions.
    
    They were given MULTIPLE chances before the special meeting and
    especially during to speak up.  In the end, they stood together firm as
    one unit.  They got in the boat together and will sink in the boat
    together, is my view...
    
    >Of course, I stated this
    >during the heat of earlier debate and was flogged accordingly for not
    >conforming to the vocal majority opinion.  Be that as it may, I do not
    >equate failure to run for re-election with an admission of wrongdoing.
    
    Also note people explained WHY they disagreed with you (BOD members had
    chance to talk but would not).  
    
    	- mark

>                      (2 members of the current DCU Board of 
>     Directors are seeking re-election and have submitted 
>     applications.)



Yes, I was really surprised to see this, too - so surprised I
couldn't believe it, so I did the obvious and called Patti
D'Addieco.  It's true - only 2 current Board members have
applied to the Nominating Committee.

A number of replies here are out of place in discussion of the
election - and some are downright offensive to me.  The first
couple of replies offered positive, constructive comments -
this is, indeed, a chance to re-start the credit union with
new directors and new ideas.

I'm not entirely sure it's truly a "triumph of democracy" or
even an unmixed blessing.  My view of democracy is based in
part on making decisions by sharing information - a major part
of my annoyance with the still-current Board, and a cause of
my frustration with the conduct of the Special Meeting.  One
thing I will miss a lot in the coming election is individual
board members discussing their performance in the past and
attempting to convince the membership (e.g., me!) that they
did the right thing.

Yes, it IS true that one problem has been that the current
Board members have refused to act as individuals.  I was kind
of hoping that the election would allow that to take place.

What's offensive to me is the whole idea of trying to "paint
the entire board with a broad brush".  That's unjust, un-
democratic, and downright rude.  Even though the individual
Board members refuse to speak or act as individuals there is no
justification for speculating that they have done something 
"wrong" or are "hiding" anything.  Nobody has shown any
individual Board member or the Board as a whole doing something
"culpable".

Yes, it is true that individual Board members were given many
opportunities to speak out as individuals.  So what?  These
individuals chose to act as a body.  Perhaps they even believed
they were doing the right thing.  At this point, it's clear that
the membership of the Credit Union disagreed.  Let's us do the
right thing, and knock off the sniping at the past Board members.

Who's running for the new Board of Directors, and what will you
do to improve the Credit Union and ensure that such a gulf between
members never comes up again?

				- - Steve Boylan

    As others have stated, it is general procedure for a Board to act as a
    unified body in front of the people it represents.  It is generally not
    considered to be doing the right thing for an individual to jump up and
    say "The Board decided this, but *I* didn't agree".

    Re .13:
    
>   Having 2 former members, depending on who, reelected to the board
>   could provide that transition that Chuck felt was important.
    
    I agree.  Chuck's concern about having a complete replacement of the
    BoD is well-taken.  For those of us who had been frustrated by the old
    BoD's closed ranks and denial of responsibility, the training of a new
    BoD became the lesser evil.
    
    I serve on a church board that had a "bug" in the implementation clause
    of the constitutional section that created it.  As a result, instead of
    approximately 1/3 of the positions expiring each year as intended, the
    terms of only 4 of the 22 members expired in 1991.  That's fine for
    now, but 8 will expire in November and the other 10 in 1993!  If we can
    avoid amending the constitution (a 2-year process), we can fix things
    by adjusting the terms of just four members (at re-election this year
    and next) so they expire in 1994.
    
    This has NOTHING to do with DCU, but it DOES relate to the wisdom of
    staggered terms.  If a large percentage of ANY board is replaced in a
    single election, it takes MONTHS before the new board becomes competent.

    
    It may be true that a board ususally acts as a unified body, but there
    is obviously some point at which that rationale is not acceptable.
    
    I believe the current board crossed that point when they instituted
    a policy and a smear campaing aimed at disarming the "few" members
    who disagreed with their actions.
    
    Since each director individually accepted what I consider the unacceptable
    actions of the board, by not at very least resigning, I consider each one
    unacceptable for the new board.
    

    
    
	RE: .16

>What's offensive to me is the whole idea of trying to "paint
>the entire board with a broad brush".  That's unjust, un-
>democratic, and downright rude.  Even though the individual
>Board members refuse to speak or act as individuals there is no
>justification for speculating that they have done something 
>"wrong" or are "hiding" anything.  
    
    Steve, I believe you are mixing two different gripes about the current
    Board here.  I have never heard anyone say they thought BoD members did
    anything wrong because they chose not to speak up on an individual
    basis.  Several people have suggested that we evaluate individual Board
    members actions and positions.  That is a fine suggestion.  However, it
    is impossible to implement given the actions of the Board as a single
    entity, with no exceptions. 
    
    >Nobody has shown any
>individual Board member or the Board as a whole doing something
>"culpable".
    
    Well that depends what one considers wrong or erroneous and is very 
    subjective.  Personally, I believe the Board is culpable for the
    institution of the "Information Protection Policy" at a time when
    exactly the opposite action was required to deal with the situation. 
    Their own actions added to and reinforced many peoples' beliefs that 
    they were hiding things.  IMO, as a single entity, the Board, they have made
    several errors along this line over the last several months. 
    Therefore, I must paint them with that broad brush since they are a
    single entity.  In an ideal world, it might be otherwise.
    
>Yes, it is true that individual Board members were given many
>opportunities to speak out as individuals.  So what?  These
>individuals chose to act as a body.  Perhaps they even believed
>they were doing the right thing.  
    
    So what?  I think it matters quite a bit.  People in here have accused
    others of acting inappropriately because they didn't know what each
    individual board member did or said or thought on a particular issue. 
    And it was thus possibly unfair to some board members who might have
    opinions counter to the actual actions of the Board.  But time after
    time board members chose to NOT give us insight into their individual
    beliefs and opinions.  At the Special Meeting they flatly refused. 
    IMO, I believe they were given ample opportunity to address the
    membership and refused it.  So I believe it is unfair to accuse people
    of being rude for a situation which they did not create and indeed,
    tried to change.
    
    >At this point, it's clear that
>the membership of the Credit Union disagreed.  Let's us do the
>right thing, and knock off the sniping at the past Board members.
>Who's running for the new Board of Directors, and what will you
>do to improve the Credit Union and ensure that such a gulf between
>members never comes up again?
    
    	I agree 100%.  Let's get the ship off turned around, pickup all
    those members that were thrown overboard over the last several months
    and make sure our credit union never forgets it is a credit union.
    
    All in all, some very positive steps have occurred and I'm sure there
    will be more coming down the pike over the next few months.  Here's to
    a new year and a new credit union.
    
    

    re: .20
    
    If you really agree with the notion that we should put the past to rest
    and forge ahead to better days, perhaps you could assist in this
    healing process now by abandoning your time-worn tactic of quoting
    dissenting opinions in their entirety and dissecting them line-by-line
    with the sole intent of discrediting the opinion of the author.  When
    you refrain from further use of this tactic, then maybe I'll believe
    that you're serious about moving forward.
    
    The existence of dissenting *opinions* is good.  Whether they fit your
    interpretation of the situation or not is irrelevant.  No one here
    appointed you arbitrator of what is right or wrong, and I for one would
    appreciate it if you would stop playing that role.
    
    Dick.

Re: .21

Gee, I thought Phil's .20 reply was one of his more low key ones. I read
what he said and thought that what he said *was* positive and forward
looking. I believe he quotes the note to which he is replying so that the
reader can tell to which previous comment he is replying. I find it helpful
sometimes to be reminded of the context of a reply. Would it have made a
difference if he merely replied without reproducing quotes?

I agree and think he'd probably agree of the value of dissending opinions.
Just because I don't agree with a dissenting opinion doesn't necessarily
mean I think anybody who disagrees with me is bad. In fact, elsewhere in
the file I've even thanked some of the folks disagreeing with my position
on something for continuing in this notes file.

    
    RE: .20
    
    Whoa!!  Slow down here.  "Time worn tactic"???  All this time I thought
    it was a aid so readers wouldn't be reading replies to replies that
    were 3 or 4 back and didn't know what was being referred to.  I'm sorry
    if you consider this a "tactic", I certainly do not and I will continue
    to do it because I personally find it helpful when reading and responding
    via notes.
    
    As for being an "arbitrator of what is right or wrong".  I believe you
    have bestowed that title upon me in your own mind and only you can
    remove it.  As a DCU member I too am entitled to my opinion and will
    continue to state it even though you seem to be mis-construing it as a
    declaration of right or wrong.  I believe every reader out there has a
    mind of their own and they use it to weigh the facts of the matter to
    arrive at a right or wrong determination.  So maybe you should just try
    reading my replies instead of reading into them.  You probably do a
    set mode arbitrator when you see a reply with my header on it.  Try a
    set mode opinion instead.
    

re:  Quoting previous notes....

Extracting the entire or partial contents of a note, and then following
pieces of the posting with your own relevant comments is a time honored
practice used by folks who post on the Internet.  This is done mostly
as a method of "following the thread" since messages tend to come in
out of order, or several days apart given the geographic size of the 
internet user base.  It's not uncommon to see a thread that goes 
several layers deep in it's quoting.

Quoting from a previous posting, as long as it's only extracting
relevant points is helpful in making the postings easy to read. 
There are some points of etiquette that should be followed.  For
example, it's considered bad form by many to quote an entire article
when you want to reply to only one sentence or paragraph.  Additionally,
it's considered bad form to alter the intended meaning of the original
author (and similarly, it's considered improper by many to chop apart
sentences).

I've not seen many cases here where people use quoting to change the
intent of the posting, or other stuff.  So, I would hardly call the 
quoting a "tactic" (that is, if you mean "tactic" as "some stratagem
by which to do harm to your opponent").  In what way do you see quoting
and replying as being a harmful (or helpful?) "tactic?"

/chris

    Do we know yet which two BoD members are running for office again?

    
    One of them is Susan Shapiro (Treasurer).  No word on the other.

    I wondered when somebody would ask "Which 2?"

    I was kinda planning to wait until the formal announcement until
    probing further.  As far as I'm concerned, it's still rumor and
    possible for any or all Board members to seek re-election even at the
    last minute.
    
    Steve

My understanding is that if a member of the current BoD has not applied
to the nomination committee to be put on the ballot by now, the nomination
committee will not put him/her on the ballot. The person would have to
collect the 500 signatures to get on the ballot by petition. I can't
imagine anybody would want to go thru that trouble and not apply to the
nomination committee first. So if the report is true that only two current
members have applied to the nomination committee, it's most likely that
there will be a maximum of two incumbents on the ballot. The decision
of the nominating committee is supposed to be made by the 16th and those
of us who interviewed with the committee will be notified by certified
mail of the results. DCU said we would be able to find out the names of
all those chosen by the nomination committee on the 16th of Jan.

Re: .19 & .20

Looking back at my orginal reply, I think I could have made
my point a lot better.

CNTROL::MACNEAL in .17 matches my point - the Board members have
the right to choose when they wish to speak as individuals.

I'm not sure what the intent of WLDBIL::KILGORE was in the
comment in .19:

> It may be true that a board ususally acts as a unified body, but there
> is obviously some point at which that rationale is not acceptable.

What needs a "rationale"?  That the Board members wanted to appear
unified in the face of a perceived crisis?  They were quite within
their rights to act as a body.

What really burns my toast is people reacting as if the Board
members were engaged in some diabolical plot to disenfranchise
the rest of the DCU membership when they make the choice to act
as a body and not discuss their individual positions.  They
have that right.  There's nothing wrong with them doing so.

We did the right thing in offering the Board members the
opportunity to speak as individuals.  Given the state of affairs
at the DCU, to NOT give them that opportunity would be an attempt
to stifle the debate.  However, they have every right to
NOT speak is individuals.  The offer should be made, politely,
once - and "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Under the circumstances, of course, that means that every Board
member was allowing the infamous "witch hunt" memo to represent
their opionion of their fellow DCU members - which was one of the
key reasons why I voted to remove the Board (since they did want
to be considered as a body).

				- - Steve

    Now that the Nominating Committee has had the chance to interview the
    43 people (including 2 unidentified incumbents) who filed papers for
    the spring election, it's time to find out who (and how many) were
    chosen to appear on the ballot.
    
    One friend has already received his rejection (form) letter.  Who's
    been accepted?  Are there enough GOOD candidates that the other 43 - n
    won't need to run by petition?

    I was turned down. Abbott Weiss met with the committee the same day
    I did so I'd guess he's the second incumbent who filled. I'd like
    to know who was nominated before I decide to look for petition
    signatures. I had hoped that the list would be here by now as all
    those who filed should have recieved their letters by now. I hope
    they are not waiting for all the return reciepts to make it back
    to the main office.
    
    			Alfred

    I decided to run for the BOD and also did not make the ballot yet
    here is my background:
    
    BBA in Finance
    MBA
    AVP in charge of Loan Review, MCORP, Dallas (65 member bank holding
                                                 company)
    Commercial Bank Examiner, Texas Banking Department
    4 Years at Digital Equipment in Finance
    
    How much more relevant experience is needed to get on the ballot???
    I haven't decided if it is worth it for me to try and collect 500
    signatures....like others, I guess I'll wait to see who else and
    how many people were actually nominated.
    
    Regards,
    
    Tanya L. Dawkins

RE: .32

You said, in part, " Abbott Weiss met with the committee the same day
    I did so I'd guess he's the second incumbent who filled.[sic]"

I probably missed it but did someone indicate who the first was?

-r

>I probably missed it but did someone indicate who the first was?

Someone earlier said Susan Shapiro (reply .26).

		Alfred

    
>    BBA in Finance
>    MBA
>    AVP in charge of Loan Review, MCORP, Dallas (65 member bank holding
>                                                 company)
>    Commercial Bank Examiner, Texas Banking Department
>    4 Years at Digital Equipment in Finance
>    


These look like very good credentials to me.  What were their stated reasons
for the rejection?

al

>These look like very good credentials to me.  What were their stated reasons
>for the rejection?

	My letter had no reasons for rejection. I'm assuming that we all
	recieved form letters.

				Alfred

I just got off the phone with Patti D'Addieco concerning the nominations.
The person who normally posts this information from DCU must be busy or
something, because this info was sent to him to be posted yesterday.
I have read what I typed to her and she OK'ed this note to be posted.

Anyway, here are the list of people chosen by the nomination committee:

	Deepak Goyal
	Gail Mann
	Tom McEachin
	Paul Milbury
	Claire Muhm
	Rick Sample
	Ray Schmalz
incumbents:
	Susan Shapiro
	Abbott Weiss

They have sent a special mailing to all voting members (72000 letters at
a cost of $20K in postage alone) notifying everybody of the selection.
I asked why DCU went to this extra expense. They were unable to make this
notification in the mailing of statements due to date constraints as a
result of the special meeting.
She said the mailing was done for several reasons.
First, there are datelines and regulations surrounding elections. To make
the required deadlines, DCU felt that it had to do the special mailing.
Also, DCU felt that the interest level this year was high enough that it
was important to let people know what was happening. Furthermore, the
petition process has certain deadlines and DCU wanted to give people as much
notice as possible about this deadline.

    Here are the ELF listings for the 9 (I can't believe there are only
    9) people picked. Are any of them reading? If so I hope they'll tell
    us what their qualifications are.
    
              Name:  DEEPAK GOYAL
               DTN:  226-5461
    DECnet address:  DELNI::GOYAL
Internal Mail Addr:  LKG2-1/X2
          Org Unit:  THE NEW SOFTWARE GROUP

              Name:  GAIL MANN
               DTN:  223-2206
    DECnet address:  WITNES::MANN
Internal Mail Addr:  MSO2-3/F13
          Org Unit:  LAW DEPARTMENT

              Name:  THOMAS MCEACHIN
               DTN:  244-7371
     ALL-IN-1 mail:  MTS$::"MSO::THOMAS MCEACHIN"
Internal Mail Addr:  MSO2-2/C22
          Org Unit:  CONTROLLER

              Name:  PAUL MILBURY
               DTN:  223-7824
    DECnet address:  AKOV13::MILBURY
Internal Mail Addr:  MSO2-2/F23
          Org Unit:  CORPORATE TREASURER

              Name:  H MUHM
               DTN:  297-5051
    DECnet address:  FRICK::MUHM
Internal Mail Addr:  MRO3-3/B16
          Org Unit:  PERSONNEL

              Name:  RICK SAMPLE
               DTN:  297-9765, 291-0520
    DECnet address:  CSGDEC::SAMPLE
Internal Mail Addr:  MRO1-3/T2
          Org Unit:  APPLIC/INDUSTRY MKTG

              Name:  RAY SCHMALZ
               DTN:  223-7736, 223-7729, Telephone: 508-493-7736
    DECnet address:  FIDDLE::SCHMALZ
Internal Mail Addr:  MSO2-2/F19
          Org Unit:  CORPORATE TREASURER

              Name:  SUSAN SHAPIRO
               DTN:  297-3527, Telephone: 508-467-3527
    DECnet address:  HYPER::SSHAPIRO
Internal Mail Addr:  MRO1-1/T33
          Org Unit:  INFO SYSTEMS BUS ENG, Information Systems Business-Mkt

              Name:  ABBOTT WEISS
               DTN:  264-5718
     ALL-IN-1 mail:  MTS$::"MKO::ABBOTT WEISS"
Internal Mail Addr:  MKO2-2/E17
          Org Unit:  APPLIC/INDUSTRY MKTG

So that means the nominating committee is picking who is on the board.  
I thought this was to be an open election that the members would vote for.

Surly they could have obtained more then 9 qualified people from the forty some
who applied.

Looks like there should be some signiture drives.

Ken

    
    What is of particular interest is how many of these finance people have
    past banking experience.  This is not necessarily a plus in my book.
    What is particularly strange is that there are no names of people who
    ran in the past and got decent vote totals.  The one in particular I am
    thinking of is Rich Luciano.
    
    As for having 9 people for 7 positions...  Were you expecting MORE
    CHOICES????  Sorry, couldn't resist.  8-)
    

GAIL MANN       MSO2-3/F13
THOMAS MCEACHIN MSO2-2/C22
PAUL MILBURY    MSO2-2/F23
RAY SCHMALZ     MSO2-2/F19

H MUHM          MRO3-3/B16
RICK SAMPLE     MRO1-3/T2
SUSAN SHAPIRO   MRO1-1/T33

ABBOTT WEISS    MKO2-2/E17

DEEPAK GOYAL    LKG2-1/X2


*4* people from MSO2 and *3* from the MRO cluster. 7 of 9 from two
locations. What is is about these two facilities that attracts credit 
union expertise. Or is this merely a coincidence?

				Tom_K

�*4* people from MSO2 and *3* from the MRO cluster. 7 of 9 from two
�locations. What is is about these two facilities that attracts credit 
�union expertise. Or is this merely a coincidence?
    
    Maybe it has something to do with the type of work performed at these
    facilities.
    
    It is the nominating committee's job to winnow down the list of
    candidates.  There are provisions to get others on the ballot who were
    not selected by the nominating committee.  How much more open does the
    system need to be?  Even state and federal elections have some type of
    pre-selection process prior to the popular vote.

    
    RE: .42
    
    Excellent question!  Must be the air.  8-)
    
MARK STEINKRAUSS	MLO3-2/T98
SUSAN SHAPIRO		MRO1-1/T33 
DONATO INFANTE		MSO2-2/E7  
CHARLENE OBRIEN		PKO3-1/14J
JACK RUGHEIMER		MSO2-3/C7
JEFFRY GIBSON		MLO2-2/T83  
ABBOTT WEISS		MKO2-2/E17
    
    Looks the same as the last batch.  Geographically anyways.

    
    I have received the following information from somebody who wishes to
    remain anonymous, yet wishes to inform DCU members of the people
    selected:
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Ray Schmalz - US Pension Mgr - works for Eileen Jacobs (Treasurer)

	Rick Sample - mid level (ex?) finance person - worked at one point for
	Eileen Jacobs and was sponsored by her a few years back for an overseas
	assignment 

	Paul Milbury - Asst Treasurer - works for Eileen Jacobs
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    

    
    This is pretty obviously the "old boy" network at its finest.
    
    As pointed out in .43, the nominating committee has only done its job;
    it (and through it Chuck Cockburn) has declared that the DCU is best
    steered by the stratoshperic financial type; the same type that steered
    us directly into this mess.
    

    
    This line isn't mine but I wish it was:
    
    "Meet the new board, same as the old board."

    
    OK, so where are the petitions for those who couldn't pass
    muster via the committee.  I'll sign.
    
    Steve
    

RE: .43, Keith MacNeal

�*4* people from MSO2 and *3* from the MRO cluster. 7 of 9 from two
�locations. What is is about these two facilities that attracts credit 
�union expertise. Or is this merely a coincidence?
    
>    Maybe it has something to do with the type of work performed at these
>    facilities.
    
>    It is the nominating committee's job to winnow down the list of
>    candidates.  There are provisions to get others on the ballot who were
>    not selected by the nominating committee.  How much more open does the
>    system need to be?  Even state and federal elections have some type of
>    pre-selection process prior to the popular vote.

	That's true, and as often as not the result is to exclude
	candidates who are "undesireable" to the established political
	parties from appearing on the ballot. I.e. it's a way of exercising
	political power and influence over the election process *before*
	there can be a popular vote. And naturally over time, the system
	becomes prejudicial against those candidates who are not aligned
	with the established political entities. Which is precisely, in my
	opinion, what has happened with this nominating process.

	I was hoping to see a fully representative (of the entire DCU
	membership) and heterogeneous panel of candidates. One might expect
	that to have been part of the nominating committee's job. We can
	debate endlessly which is more important for DCU BoD membership -
	financial expertise or a commitment to the needs of *all* members.
	Obviously, the ideal is a combination of both. In my opinion, we're
	more likely to obtain such a combination with a diverse BoD drawn
	from the diverse and widespread DCU membership. I don't see that
	that choice has been offered so far.

	Unfortunately, the onus is placed on non-approved candidates to
	work their way onto the ballot. I for one, will do what I can to
	help some of them on, so that there will be more diversity on the
	ballot, and so that I will have a greater opportunity to vote for
	candidates who I think are most likely to represent me on the BoD.

	Jim

.32 Alfred

.33 Tanya

I hope you will consider running by petition. Please see note 418.

Jim

>	Unfortunately, the onus is placed on non-approved candidates 


	An important point. The nominating committee *nominated* these
	candidates. They did not approve them, they have no authority
	to approve, only to nominate.

	We now have candidates nominated by the nominating committee, I 
	expect soon we will soon also have candidates nominated by
	the membership.

					Tom_K

�	I was hoping to see a fully representative (of the entire DCU
�	membership) and heterogeneous panel of candidates. One might expect
�	that to have been part of the nominating committee's job. 
    
    That's a pretty harsh criticism of the nominating committee without
    knowing what they had to work with.  How many folks from CXO, for
    example, applied?
    
    Some folks are screaming for geographic representation.  People have
    speculated as far as that there may be more employees outside of New
    England than in New England.  I have asked for some actual numbers on
    this, but haven't seen any.  A local newspaper article reports that DEC
    employs over 26,000 people in MA alone.  That is a little over 1/5th of
    the number of employees in DEC worldwide.  The DCU geographical
    diversity might not be as great as some would like to think.

    
    RE: .52
    
    According to the materials that get sent out, the fact that these
    people have been selected by the Nominating Comm. is an endorsement by
    the Nominating Comm.  Of course, this implies that they do NOT endorse
    petition candidates.
    
    I have spoken to somebody who has been selected by the Nominating Comm.
    for the last *3* years.  His vote totals have been gradually
    increasing.  He was getting closer and closer to unseating an
    incumbent.  What I would call a strong candidate.  He applied this time 
    and was "rejected".  Why could we vote for him for the last 3 years but 
    now he is not worthy of their selection even though there are 7 
    positions open?  IMO, this is a tad odiferous.
    

    
    Re: .52
    
    >	An important point. The nominating committee *nominated* these
    > 	candidates. They did not approve them, they have no authority
    > 	to approve, only to nominate.
    
    Strictly correct, but the process of using a nominating committee
    to decide who will be on the ballot and having all others appear
    only by petition certainly creates the impression that the committee
    approves of some and not of others.
    
    Steve
    

�    Strictly correct, but the process of using a nominating committee
�    to decide who will be on the ballot and having all others appear
�    only by petition certainly creates the impression that the committee
�    approves of some and not of others.
    
    It's not simply an impression, it is a reality.

>    I have spoken to somebody who has been selected by the Nominating Comm.
>    for the last *3* years. ... He applied this time and was "rejected".  

	One wonders about this. Did this person do something that disqualified
	him or her in the eyes of the current nominating committee? Or did the 
	three previous nominating committees make an error in nominating him 
	before?  (We know previous nominating committees made other errors,
	after all they did nominated the present board).


					Tom_K

          <<< Note 413.57 by TOMK::KRUPINSKI "Congressional Slave" >>>

>    I have spoken to somebody who has been selected by the Nominating Comm.
>    for the last *3* years. ... He applied this time and was "rejected".  

>	One wonders about this. Did this person do something that disqualified
>	him or her in the eyes of the current nominating committee? Or did the 
>	three previous nominating committees make an error in nominating him 
>	before?  (We know previous nominating committees made other errors,
>	after all they did nominated the present board).


	It could be none of the above. It just might be that he's much
	more likely to be elected given the current environment. IMHO.


	Jim

    
    	Interesting.  9 candidates made up of 7 "new" people and 2
    incumbants for 7 seats.  Therefore, even if you wanted to vote only for
    people who weren't currently on the board, you're restricted to voting
    exactly and only for the 7 selected "new" people.  Sounds awful fishy
    to be pure happenstance from a field of 40 nominees, especially seeing
    that a previously-qualified candidate was rejected this time around.
    
    							-craig

    I sure hope that the people back east will get the word out, that what
    is happening is not acceptable. Please encourage people that want to
    file via petition, that there are people out here that will elect them.
    
    I do not like the so called choice that has been put before me. I
    personally think it is a slap in the face. Also they are saying we do
    not care what you the members want, we will run the credit the way we
    want to, if you do not like it, go somewhere else. They did not get the
    message from the people that called in, and complained about how the
    credit union is run.
    
    	It is now up to us to get the vote out for the people that want to
    run the credit union for the people, and by the people. It seems to me
    that you do not have to be a rocket scientist to run a credit union. 
    Ever since this has happened at DCU, I have been actively going around
    to numerous credit unions here in the St. Louis area. They are not run
    by financial wizards, but ordinary people, working for ordinary people.
    
    Why does DCU have to be different?????????? All the credit union's that
    I have visited are doing very well for their members.
    
    This is my own opinion, these choice candidates should not be elected.
    Other candidates have to be elected to bring the DCU back to the people
    it is supposed to be serving.
    
    Thanks Dave
    

I just received the mailing from the DCU listing the candidates.
It actually says:

  "We were impressed with the amount of interest in this year's
   election, and found the decision to be very challenging."

If they found the decision so challenging, why did they select so few
candidates? Possibly they were counting on a number of petition candidates
to round out the ticket.  I guess we must meet their expectations.

Based on what I have seen with corporate elections, I assume that when the
ballot and candidate statements come out there will be a clear distinction
between:
1) Incumbents
2) Nominating committee candidates
3) Petition candidates

This may actually be an advantage - it will give voters a clear distinction
- additional data beyond the 150 word statements.  This may be helpful to
those voters who are aware of all the controversy.  Meanwhile, voters not
aware of the controversy are likely not to vote, as in the past.

	Paul

Re: .0

>         INTERVIEW SCHEDULE/CANDIDATE WRITE-UPS
>         Because there have been numerous requests to increase the 
>         number of words in candidate write-ups, DCU's Nominating 
>         Committee has voted to increase the limit to 150.  They 
>         believe this will allow candidates to adequately state their 
>         position, assure readability and contain postage costs to 
>         $.29 per member.
         
150 words is not very much to establish a position on the issues in this
election - only a half of a screen or so, when I would like to see a page
or two.  I have an idea about some things to do about it which could
reach a significant percent of the voters without incurring significant
costs:

1) allow longer candidate statements to be posted on VTX.  Ideally this
   would be done with the support of the DCU itself, but perhaps that
   is not necessary if it cannot be obtained.  To keep things from getting
   ugly, this should probably be restricted to a single statement
   (length optional) from each candidate - no debates in VTX.

2) Have the same statements posted in each DCU branch for the benefit
   of those without access to VTX.  If we could arrange for (1), then
   it might be possible to make a case for this with the DCU.

3) Have the availability of these longer statements referenced in the
   ballot mailing, probably in the intro to the official statements.
   If the DCU refused to do this, it could go into the statements of one
   or more cooperating candidates, though this would be a major sacrifice
   of realestate.

Does anyone else like this idea?

	Paul

    I am very interested in hearing, both from the nominated candidates as
    well as the petition candidates, what their views of the nominating
    process are, and how they might improve it if elected.
    
    Brian

I think the nomination process as specified is fine if you have people
willing to do the "right thing" (IMHO). If you have people that are
interested in making sure that it's business as usual, no amount of
rules is going to help.

Re: .38

It occurs to me that DCU is blaming the special meeting for a lot of
extra expense that's unwarranted. For instance, Patti claimed the extra
mailing was done at great expense due to constraints as a result of the
special meeting. It occurs to me that this year should be *no* different
than any other year except for the quantity of slots open. If I can
remember, I'll try to ask her next time I talk to her.

Also, she said the mailing was a result of complaints about the lack of
DCU communication. The problem isn't a lack of this type of information
to the membership. It's lack of answers to specific questions we've been
asking for a long time.

Re: .45,
    
>	Ray Schmalz - US Pension Mgr - works for Eileen Jacobs (Treasurer)
>
>
>	Paul Milbury - Asst Treasurer - works for Eileen Jacobs
    
    One needs to be more careful about assuming guilt by assocation or
    location.  (I work in Workstations Engineering and not in MSO and have
    no working relationship with the above. I am also not happy with having
    only 9 candidates for 7  positions.)
    
    The Digital Pension fund is  considered by external pension managers
    and actuaries to be extremely conservatively but well managed. Some
    examples based on Form 5500 filed on 2/91:
    	- use of multilple investment managers,
    	- well diversified portfolio (stock, bonds, real estate, etc.),
    	- exclusion of DEC stock in the common stock portfolio.
    
    The pension fund assets of  $1.6 Billion puts it in a totally different
    league. Perhaps if the DCU assets were as well managed, we would not be
    in the current situation.
    
    Gim Hom
    

Re: .66

Agreed - one must not *assume* guilt by association but on the other hand,
remember that Ilene Jacobs was the VP that misrepresented Digital as
endorsing the BoD previous to the special meeting. She also refused to
answer questions or even speak to anybody who called to find out why she tried
to represent the company rather than just herself (which would have been fine).
It does tend to make
me suspicious that so many nominees are closely related to her and out of
the 42 applications, the committee couldn't find *any* good nominee from
(for instance) a technical branch of the company. More data
is needed to really be able to say anything.

Furthermore, the pension fund may be well managed. I'm not
competent to judge. However, merely because the fund has lots of money and is
diversified, and has multiple investment managers, are not reasons for me to
believe it's well handled. I believed
DCU was well managed until one person discovered the participation loans and
the major drop in income on the 1990 annual statement,
and then everything else. In fact, if those facts hadn't been discovered,
I'd still be believing today that DCU was well managed and had lots of money.
The BoD very nearly got away with sweeping the whole thing under the rug.

One thing we must remain cautious about is hanging the nominees before anything
is known about them.  It would be wrong for us to assume that simply because
of a Maynard mail stop and a working relationship with Eileen Jacobs that they
are somehow part of some conspiracy to assure that the composition of the board
remains mostly the same.

I believe the issue regarding candidate selection is one of diversity of the
representation we receive on the board.  In my opinion, a degree in economics,
a background in finance, and years of experience crunching numbers as an
accountant, comptroller, or bank officer is not necessarily required in order
to represent members of a credit union on its board.  It is certainly desirable
to have some people with these backgrounds either on the Board or in the 
employ of the credit union.  But I feel that a Board of Directors for a credit
union (which, by definition is a group of people pooling their money for the
purpose of loaning it to one another)_ needs a board which is composed, in
part, of "common members." 

It's easy for a Board to get seduced by the power of managing a few hundred 
million dollars.  It's easy to forget that DCU is not a bank and that it must
be managed in a way more respectful of member needs.  I think that one of the
roles a board member must play is that of "reality checker."  Somebody needs
to be diligent in hearing the concerns and objectives of the membership as a
whole and in carrying those concerns back to the Board.   In my opinion, if the
present board, or at least some of the members thereof, were more active in
this type of role, DCU would never have gotten into the current mess it is
in - both politically and investment-wise (after all, how many people would
have been happy knowing about DCU's Cape Cod real estate interests if a 
full disclosure had been made while the loans were being made?).  

If you know something of money management, and you have a good ear for 
listening to the needs of members, and you understand something of the 
economy, and most of all you have a lot of common sense, then you are as 
qualified to be on the Board of Directors as anybody else.  Remember, too, 
that the Board sets *strategic direction* for the credit union, and establishes 
policy.  The tactical aspects of operating DCU are in the purvue of people 
like Chuck Cockburn.  It's important to have a handle on how the cycle works,
but certainly you don't need a degree in bank management or an MBA from
Harvard to help a Board of Directors chart a course of action, or implement
a personnel policy, or decide to accept or reject a recommendation to foreclose
on a loan (or grant a loan...).

Personally, I do not see the type of diversity amongst many of the candidates 
selected by the nominating committee.  If you also feel this way, the I would
encourage you to be active by supporting candidates who choose to run by 
petition.  If you don't see anybody you can support in the field of candidates,
then become active as a candidate for membership yourself.

If we simply take the easy way out by whining and complaining about the 
work of the nominating committee, we become easy targets of the current board
as chronic complainers who cannot be satisfied.  On the other hand, if we all
work to support nominated or petitioned candidates who we (individually) feel
will provide high quality representation, then the current board and DCU
management can say nothing.  

Just my opinion,
./chris

I don't understand why DCU's mailings aren't done at a cheaper first class
rate, as discussed earlier. We certainly have the technology - you can buy
it for a PC for $79, and the Post Office will do the rest for free.

What gives?

Bryan

�Meanwhile, voters not
�aware of the controversy are likely not to vote, as in the past.
    
    Aware of the controversy or not, I wouldn't be surprised by the above
    scenario.  Attendance at the Special Meeting was about half of the
    total signatures calling for the meeting.  According to the recent
    mailing only 16% of the surveys that DCU sent out a month or so ago
    have been returned.

�I don't understand why DCU's mailings aren't done at a cheaper first class
�rate, 
    
    And as discussed earlier, bulk mail is not a cheaper first class rate. 
    Bulk rate mailings generally take longer to get to the desired
    destination than first class.

	NOT ALL First Class Postage costs  $0.29 per ounce.

	ZIP-sorted, etc. is CHEAPER and IT IS First Class!

	Check your next bill from the Electric Company, the Gas Company,
	your VISA or MasterCard company!!!

	Al

>	Check your next bill from the Electric Company, the Gas Company,
>	your VISA or MasterCard company!!!

	As it happens, I have my DCU Visa bill in front of me.  It says
"PRESORTED FIRST CLASS", and has been metered at $0.242 postage.  So, not
only can one get a cheaper rate for first class, but it appears that DCU
knows how to use it when it suits them.

Mark

I noticed that the special mailing with the list of candidates had a
9-digit zipcode and 29� postage.

    
    RE: .70
    
>    scenario.  Attendance at the Special Meeting was about half of the
>    total signatures calling for the meeting.  According to the recent

    Incorrect.  1220 signatures were submitted.  Attendance at the meeting
    was over 1300.  Also, MANY more DCU members are very interested in
    their credit union at this point.  The fact  that so many did take a
    night out of their personal time and drive (some a considerable
    distance) to the special meeting indicates very real interest.  I think
    they have seen that they CAN make a difference.
    
    RE: latest mailing
    
    One of the reasons DCU has given for only increasing candidates
    writeups by 50 words was increased mailing costs.  I wish they would
    understand the need of DCU members to know more about the candidates
    and stop using this excuse when it is convenient.
    

    
    Re: .70
    
    >Aware of the controversy or not, I wouldn't be surprised by the above
    >scenario.  Attendance at the Special Meeting was about half of the
    >total signatures calling for the meeting.  According to the recent
    >mailing only 16% of the surveys that DCU sent out a month or so ago
    >have been returned.
    
    Professional polsters will tell you that a 16% return is almost unheard
    of and certainly shows significant interest in the issue at hand.
    
    Re: .74
    
    >Incorrect.  1220 signatures were submitted.  Attendance at the meeting
    >was over 1300.  
    
    Yes, but I think the point is that since fewer than 600 people actually
    voted to remove the BoD suggests that quite a few who signed did not
    care enough to show up.    
    
    It is very unlikely that of the 1300 who showed up many or even any
    who voted down Agenda item 2 had also signed the petition.
    
    Steve
    
    

>    It is very unlikely that of the 1300 who showed up many or even any
>    who voted down Agenda item 2 had also signed the petition.

	Not true. I had thought that too, but after the meeting, I found
	out that for a significant number of people, question 3 (new election)
	was more important than 2 (remove the Bod). Apparently, the 
	question of operating without a BoD was enough of an issue that
	many folks who signed the petition and voter for 3, voted against 2.

						Tom_K

    
    Speculating about who was or was not at the special meeting and whether
    they signed the petition or not if pretty irrelevant IMO.  What is
    significant was the total turnout.  I don't think anybody would have
    predicted such a turnout before the meeting.  The interest is
    definitely high among DCU members.  I think there has been simmering
    discontent with the credit union among many of its members.  For the
    first time in 12 years, there was and is an opportunity to make real changes
    and turn DCU back into a credit union that serves ALL of its members. 
    I am personally committed to help make that happen.
    

	I hope that the candidates nominated by petition will make an
	issue of the fact that an appearance of impropriety exists
	in having the DCU Nominating Committee include the President
	of the DCU.  

	Having the very person who is supervised by the DCU Board of Directors 
	play a major hand in selecting the persons who will be his immediate
	superiors creates an incestuous relationship that raises questions 
	of the independence of those nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee.

	This is most unfortunate, since the composition of the DCU Nominating
	Committee is something the majority of the candidates nominated by 
	the DCU Nominating Committee had no say in. However, there is a way
	to resolve the question.

	I call upon each candidate nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee to
	separate themselves from this question, by going through the same
	petition process that candidates who were not nominated by the
	DCU Nominating Committee are now going through. Failure to do so
	will, in my mind, leave the question of the independence of such
	a candidate, unanswered.

	While I like most of what the DCU President has done so far, and 
	believe he is honest, the memory of a DCU President having undue 
	influence, and pulling the wool over the eyes of the DCU Board,
	at great cost to the DCU membership, is far too fresh in my mind to 
	allow even the slightest question of the independence of the Board
	members.

					Tom_K

.79>  	While I like most of what the DCU President has done so far, and 
.79>  	believe he is honest, the memory of a DCU President having undue 
.79>  	influence, and pulling the wool over the eyes of the DCU Board,
.79>  	at great cost to the DCU membership, is far too fresh in my mind to 
.79>  	allow even the slightest question of the independence of the Board
.79>  	members.


I'll bet a lot of people feel that way, Tom.  Including me.

Interestingly, the official DCU Election Guidelines say (on page 8):

     Credit Union employees, because of their influential
     positions, shall not be involved in an election other
     than to cast their own ballots.  Refusal to adhere to
     this guideline will result in disciplinary action.