Conference 7.286::dcu

Mark Steinkrauss once told me of a warning he gave somebody (I think it was
a lawyer) about the treatment he could expect at the second informal meeting
with the Board last September.  Mark told me that he said about the attendees:

	"Remember, these are engineers -- they don't care who you are."

That's a true statement.  As an engineer, I *don't* care what your position
is, whether you are a high priced lawyer, a Digital VP, or whatever.  I care
about whether what you are saying makes sense -- and if it doesn't, I don't
scruple to say so.  (Politely, I hope).

The implication here was that the lawyer would normally expect to be treated
with deference because of his position, and may feel that he was being treated
unfairly or unreasonably when that didn't happen.  For that matter, it seemed
to me that Mark expected the same thing, but that's a side issue.

I entirely disagree with that view of fair treament.  I feel that people's
job or position in Digital is irrelevant to the question of whether they
are being treated fairly in *any* discussion regarding the DCU.  In fact,
one of the things that angers me about the present Board is the impression
I get that they as a group expect to be treated as important people.  Real
politicians never expect that from their constituents -- they know better.
Tip O'Neil stayed in politics so long partly because he never forgot that.

But again, I digress.  This is one example of a way in which someone might
be perceived to have been treated unfairly.  If it's your view, then I'm
afraid that this notes file will probably always seem unfair to you.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- Lest anyone quibble about what Mark really meant, he said a lot more
than the words I've quoted above, and I have accurately rendered his meaning
in context.  And, in any case, I agree with what he said in this case!

There's a note that says "I've heard that three of the nominees work for or
used to work for Ilene Jacobs".  There's another note that says that's unfair.

Is it unfair?  Let's apply this test: imagine that someone said those
people used to work for John Doe.  Who is John Doe?  You don't know.  
Would you then feel that something negative had been said about the
people?  Of course not, no matter whether the speaker thought so or not.

On the other hand, suppose someone said "these candidates used to work
for Sadaam Hussein".  We've all heard of him, and most of us don't think
very highly of him.  Assuming it's true, is it unfair to say this in notes?

Maybe.  My reaction in this case would not be, "I know these people are 
scumballs because they worked for Sadaam Hussein".  But I would want an 
explanation, and be just a bit suscpicious if I did't hear one.

Now the case we have on the table is nothing like saying somebody worked
for Sadaam Husseion.  I believe that Ilene Jacobs made statements that
improperly supported the current Board, and this makes me feel that she
is part of the problem at the DCU, not part of the solution.  That doesn't
make me think everyone who worked for her is part of the problem, too.  It
*does* make me wonder whether they share her way of thinking.  And that's
why I want to hear from the nominees -- to find out if that's the case.


What it comes down to is this:  it's unfair if the statement is made in
a forum that the candidate doesn't have access to, since it can raise 
questions in the readers' minds that the candidate cannot respond to.
However, it *is* fair if the candidate does have access to the same forum
and can comment on the data.

So to make this fair, each of the nominees must have access to the DCU
conference in some form.  That is probably very easy to arrange.  The
only remaining question is, will they use it?  If they don't, then I do
feel that there is some unfairness going on, but they are being unfair
to themselves, and no one here can help that.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

RE: .1

Steinkrauss finally got something right.  I wouldn't have thought to phrase it
that way but it is certainly a true representation of the way I and most of my 
coworkers approach things.  Maybe that's why I don't understand Harvard MBAs!
� :-)

    I do not feel that it's fair for persons to voice innuendo without
    their name being attached to them.  That is effectively what happened
    when some of the nominees were linked to Ilene Jacobs.  I do not
    respect opinions that are submitted anonymously.

Re .4
I don't remember what others said, but I think I was one of the ones who
posted a concern about the close ties of some of the nominated candidates
to Ilene Jacobs. I posted it under my name and I stand behind it. As noted
previously, I didn't say they *were* bad, just that given all that's gone
on with DCU so far, I'm concerned and suspicious that so many potential
BoDs all come from the same place and under Ilene Jacobs. Larry explained
why very well.

I called Ilene after her famous message endorsing the BoDs before the special
meeting. I wanted to ask her on what basis did she represent Digital in
her endorsement. I would not have had a problem with a personal endorsement.
After I identified myself to her secretary, her secretary said "She does
not wish to speak with you." If somebody is going to represent the company,
I believe they also have a responsibility to respond to questions concerning
that representation. Ilene Jacobs would not respond to me nor to others that
(I heard) tried.

I think it's necessary to have independent BoDs (not closely
tied together by friendship or work). A healthy dose of skepticism is
essential. If I were on the board, and a good friend of mine were on the
board also, I'd be less likely to question what they said than if the
person were unknown to me. In fact, that's a good reason for people not
serving many terms, so
that those "possibly overly trusting" friendships won't develop as easily.
We don't want BoDs at each other's throats all the time, but they do need
to be independent thinkers.  Isn't that what being on the board is all
about?

Incidently, I have heard good things from friends concerning two of the
nominated candidates. I would very much appreciate seeing them (and the
rest for that matter) participate in this notes conference so we could
find out their views on things. I'd feel better about anybody willing to
put forth their views on things and be willing to discuss them here or
anywhere. If I get on the board, I certainly will.

    
    I also posted a reply containing information which I received in
    confidentiality.  The person involved has dealings with the
    organization from which many of the nominees come from.  This person
    was concerned about possible repercussions or reprisals.  I consider 
    that a VERY valid reason, especially these days.  
    
    However, I consider it information which all DCU members should be aware 
    of.  As a DCU member, I would be VERY concerned if a group of close 
    friends ran the credit union.  I would be VERY concerned about friendship 
    getting in the way of responsibilities.  It is my opinion that this very 
    thing may have played a role in the Mangone scandal.
    
    As an aside, I also called Ilene Jacobs to discuss her posting in VTX. 
    I was given the EXACT line that Paul was when I gave my name.  This
    from a high Digital officer who has been named as a contact for the new
    open door policy.  I must be missing something here.  I have also been
    told that Ilene Jacobs, along with Rob Ayres (personnel), are the
    Digital liasons to DCU.  As a member of this credit union I have very
    real concerns about how independent an organization DCU really is. 
    When all this started, I tried to contact our Supervisory Comm. to take
    action.  But one of them was a Director, one of them was from personnel 
    (at MSO) and the other was another DEC V.P. at the Mill (who Rob Ayres 
    reports too!).
    
    Now add in the fact that the Chairman of the Board APPOINTS the
    Nominating Committee, the Supervisory and any Director replacements,
    and I believe there is a very real POTENTIAL for what I'll call the 
    "country club credit union" (A credit union run by a small, closely 
    knit group of people)
    
    YES.  I AM concerned that there may be a problem here.

    >I also posted a reply containing information which I received in
    >confidentiality.  The person involved has dealings with the
    >organization from which many of the nominees come from.  This person
    >was concerned about possible repercussions or reprisals.  I consider 
    >that a VERY valid reason, especially these days.  
    
    We disagree, then.  I do not consider it a valid reason.  If getting
    the word out is so important, one should do it openly and trust DEC's
    policies to protect you from reprisal.  Postings from anonymous sources
    are suspect, in my opinion.  Newspapers do not normally print "letters
    to the editor" that are not signed.  We should have their integrity.
    
    Mark

    
    RE: .8
    
    You're right, we disagree.  In an ideal world there are no
    repercussions or reprisals.  Last time I looked out the window I was
    still on earth though.  ;-)
    
    Newspapers will print material from anonymous sources if they have
    confidence in the source and state openly that it is anonymous.
    
    I have confidence in the source and have stated the origin of the
    information, same as any newspaper would.  People who read it can then
    place the weight on it that they wish.  You place less on it than
    another may.  But at least you had the chance to hear it and evaluate
    it yourself.
    

Re .7
>> do it openly and trust DEC's policies to protect you from reprisal.  

Just to re-emphasize what Phil said, in an ideal, fair world I would agree
with you and I'm working hard to make the world around me more like that.
However, in large anonymous organizations where people can make decisions and
statements and hide behind their title, it's not a fair world. I have
personal experiences in cases such as this at Digital. It happens.

I believe that one of the results from my meeting with Jack Smith last Aug was
the revitalized open door policy this fall because I pointed out to him that
he had done nothing to prevent reprisals. The new
open door policy is movement in a positive direction, but unfortunately
the open door managers are themselves part of the "establishment". I was
disappointed that Jack did nothing to distance any of the open door policy
from the standard management structure. Politics is often dirty. The open
door policy goes against normal politics. Therefore, any truely effective
open door policy must go outside the normal chain of command.

    If you guys don't trust DEC, then why in the world are you only trying
    to reform the (tiny in comparison) credit union?  Our livelihoods
    depend on the Company.  Why aren't there special meetings and petition
    drives on behalf of DEC?

    
    Re .10:
    
    Probably because DEC is owned by others, at whose pleasure we
    continue to receive a pay check. Many of us have suggested that there
    are better ways of doing things in DEC, but there is precious little
    leverage to drive the necessary changes.
    
    On the other hand, DCU is owned by *US*, for *US*, and we choose not to
    let the current BOD, who supposedly represent *US*, continue to believe
    and act otherwise.
    

Getting back to the issue of fairness, I think it is a valid point that an
"anonymous accusation" is inherently unfair.  Also, it is a good point that
newspapers demand that people identify themselves when they wish to have 
their opinions printed on the letters-to-the-editor page.

But does this situation qualify on either of those counts?  

    1)	I don't see that it can be considered an accusation.

    2)	Saying that someone worked for Ilene isn't a statement of opinion,
	it is a objective statement that can be verified as true or false.

    3)	The implied opinion that people should find out more before
	voting for someone who is linked to Ilene isn't anonymous --
	Paul Kinzelman is the person who implied that.

Here are some ways that I can see for it to be considered unfair:

    1)  If the candidate hasn't got access to this forum.

    2)	If it is not true.

    3)	If the posted information is a rumor or libelous.

    4)	If it is considered unfair to post *any* information about
	a candidate.

I don't think 1) applies.  None of us know if 2) applies, and may not
unless the candidates choose to respond here.  I personally don't think 
this information can be labeled as a rumor or libelous, although that's
certainly subject to interpretation.  And I personally don't agree with
4), although some might.  So I still don't see it as unfair, although I
can see why some might.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    On another question: would board members be treated fairly in this
    notesfile? At the first meeting w/ the board members, they were asked
    to participate in the discussion here.
    
    Susan Shapiro replied that one reason why she didn't use the notesfile
    was because of the insults. The moderator asked Susan to send her
    copies of the notes that she felt were insulting, and Susan agreed to
    do so.
    
    Dear moderator, has Susan Shapiro sent you the insulting notes?
    
    Although I haven't read everything here, I haven't found insults. There
    *are*  however sharp criticisms with backing facts. Perhaps it's a
    matter of style and expectation of those in power. People from
    management, finance and personnel maybe used to the typical business
    memo's - indirect statements that reflect their position in the power
    structure. Moreover these memo's usually don't get criticised openly by
    line workers. Workers may take on the issues more directly, especially
    when their money is at stake and they are not dealing with their own
    managers.
    
    I would welcome fuller participation by board members. I'd like the
    minutes of board meeting to be posted (so I can see how I'm being
    represented) just like I put notes on technical meeting in notesfiles
    accessible by others working on the project.

    Re .13
    
    Probably, this is too public a forum for posting the minutes of Board
    and Credit committee meetings.  It is the fundimental right of DCU
    MEMBERS to access this imformaion, but DIGITAL wide (including non DCU
    membership) disemination, of potentially sensitive information, is
    probably not wise in all cases.
    
    This would, though, be up to the new board to determina if summaries,
    or edited minutes would be appropriate here.
    
    Bill
    

Re: .13

>> The moderator asked Susan to send her copies of the notes that
>> she felt were insulting

Last time I spoke to Nisreen about this (long time ago but well after Susan
promised to send the notes) Susan had not sent her anything.

    
    RE: .10
    
    I think we are all trying to make our own little corner of DEC a better
    place.  One small step at a time, as the opportunity arises.  I am a
    DEC stockholder and I am concerned about the company and some of the
    things I see and hear.  However, being a pragmatist, I realize I cannot
    rework the entire world.
    
    But DCU is VERY different.  People CAN make a difference there because 
    of provisions in the Bylaws which grant membership involvement.  That is 
    why I get VERY concerned anytime the Board of Directors weakens or 
    eliminates the rights of the membership without our consent.  When
    enough of the membership rights are eliminated or rendered useless
    (with impossibly high signature requirements), DCU will have completed
    its transformation to a bank.
    
    Back to the topic now...
    Could the person who thinks posting somebody's organizational ties
    please explain why that is wrong?  If it is not fact, then I'm sure
    corrections will gladly be posted.
    
    As for insults being tossed at the Board, I have only one thing to say. 
    This is NO placed for the thin-skinned.  While the Board may be high
    level managers of this company, their role in the credit union is one
    of SERVANT.  Yes, they SERVE as Directors at the will of the membership.  
    As such, they can expect very strong statements when their bosses (us)
    find out that $15 million of OUR money has been taken.  And as far as I
    am concerned, Susan Shapiro is the last person to be crying about
    insults.  Her statement in the 1990 DCU Annual Report was the ultimate
    insult to the membership.  And then there was the infamous
    "witchhunters" memo.  But as Paul Tsongas was saying the other day, when
    they start naming you, calling you names and responding to your issues, 
    it just means you have "arrived" (they are now taking you as a serious
    threat).

    
    RE: .13,.15
    
    It is true. Susan Shapiro complained about the notesfile at the first
    informal meeting. I approached her to to find out more about it, and
    to try to correct matters if there is a problem.
    
    She complained to me of personal insults and some vulgar
    language (if I remember correctly). She said she had extracted the
    notes, and she promised to send me copies of the notes she was
    complaining about. She never did.
    
    
    Nisreen

    I assume that Susan figures (rightly so, IMO) that her time is too
    valuable to waste it getting all hot and bothered about personal
    insults.  Few of us have that kind of time available.  We all have
    better things to do.  I still appreciate the limited participation she
    has had in these notes.
    
    Steve

Here's a new fairness issue.  Susan Shapiro made it very clear at that
informal meeting with the Board that she despised the notes community.  
I was amazed at the amount of dislike she put into her brief statement
before she left.  Nothing unfair about that -- she has a right to express
her opinions.  And we are not here discussing whether behavior is
appropriate, just whether it is fair.

BUT she also made a public charge that she had been mistreated in the notes
file, and she used that charge to justify her criticism of the DCU notes 
file and of the noters who had come to the meeting.

Was this a fair thing for her to do?  Here's the criteria I see:

    1)	It was unfair if her accusation was false.

    2)	It was unfair if she will neither retract it nor back it up.

In short, having made a public accusation of misconduct, it doesn't matter
how busy she is -- she needs to retract it or show her data.  If she 
figures that her time is too valuable to waste it getting all hot and 
bothered about personal insults, then she should never have made the
public accusation in the first place.

Note that unlike saying that "so-and-so worked for Ilene Jacobs", Susan
Shapiro's statement really was an accusation of misconduct, leveled against
a whole group.  And it's open to question just what basis she has to make
that claim anyway.  If it was in a note, then why did no one else see it?
If it was in a personal mail message, then why is she blaming the whole
notes community for one person's action?  And was it even something that 
the notes community would judge offensive?  We can't answer any of these
questions, because having made her accusation, Susan refused to back it up.

In short, Susan Shapiro was not being fair.  This isn't a big thing in the 
grand scale of what's been going on, but that's the way I see it.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

.1> Mark Steinkrauss once told me of a warning he gave somebody (I think it was
.1> a lawyer) about the treatment he could expect at the second informal meeting
.1> with the Board last September.  Mark told me that he said about the 
.1> attendees:

.1> 	"Remember, these are engineers -- they don't care who you are."

.1> That's a true statement.  As an engineer, I *don't* care what your position
.1> is, whether you are a high priced lawyer, a Digital VP, or whatever.  I care
.1> about whether what you are saying makes sense -- and if it doesn't, I don't
.1> scruple to say so.  (Politely, I hope).

The issue of fairness, brings up an leadership worry that upstarts are
behaving outside of proper bounds toward their betters. Working for a year in
China and dealing with a silent & restrictive bureaucracy, brought home the
lesson that those in power can often win by simply maintaining a "polite"
silence when dealing w/ impassioned  but powerless supplicants.

When leaders are in a public forum, they should expect to be questioned
closely. For example, at the second meeting with the board, they were asked to
disclose their financial interests in the DCU. VP Dan Infante gave a lengthy
statement that he favored disclosure. Only when he he was specifically
questioned, did this turn out to mean disclosing just what was required by law.

.7> If getting
.7> the word out is so important, one should do it openly and trust DEC's
.7> policies to protect you from reprisal.  Postings from anonymous sources
.7> are suspect, in my opinion.

Due to my own timidity, if I was working under one of the officials, I
would hesitate to question them closely. Holding public meetings and
communicating in this notesfile allows freer communication.

*******************************************************************************

.14> Probably, this is too public a forum for posting the minutes of Board
.14> and Credit committee meetings.  It is the fundamental right of DCU
.14> MEMBERS to access this information, but DIGITAL wide (including non DCU
.14> membership) dissemination, of potentially sensitive information, is
.14> probably not wise in all cases.

I don't feel that personal info such as what the credit committee might decide
on should be public. However, I don't see that there is much sensitive info
in the DCU minutes. The DCU isn't in a race to produce new technology. It
appears that the minutes that have been obtained already have been largely
censored. Some info relating to the Mangone case probably cannot be publicized.
However other info might be "sensitive" only because DCU members might object to
decisions taken by their representatives.

This is a common reason for withholding info. For example, security institutions
refuse to release info to their own public on the grounds of national security,
but the info is already known by the opposing country.

*******************************************************************************

.18> I assume that Susan figures (rightly so, IMO) that her time is too
.18> valuable to waste it getting all hot and bothered about personal
.18> insults.

To me it appears that Susan Shapiro was bothered but didn't
point out what offended her. (The moderator requested she mail the offending
notes due to the responsibility to keep the notesfile in good order).
    

    
    
    A gentle request for everyone..
    
    Let's please drop Susan Shapiro's issue from this discussion. Unless
    someone feels that something constructive would come out of this
    discussion, I don't see the point in it. 
    
    Actually, I believe something negative has already come out of it, 
    and I'll let it go at that, and I hope everyone else would too.
    
    Nisreen 
    Conference moderator.
    

    I was contacted by Susan Shapiro, reminding me that we had a telephone 
    conversation at one time (I believe she contacted me about a statement 
    that the BOD was planning to put in the file). Susan mentioned that 
    we discussed the offensive note and requested that I make a statement
    in the Conference to that effect.
    
    I recall the conversation at the time being around putting a statement
    from the BOD in the notesfile. That was just prior to the special
    meeting. I remember asking her about the notes she referred to 
    previously (at the first informal mmeeting with the BOD), and I also
    recall reminding her that she had not forwarded the notes to me. She
    mentioned a specific phrase used in a note describing the BOD.
    
    (Susan and I don't agree on the specifics and the order of events, but
    we are both in agreement on the result).
    
    I searched the notes in the conference, found the note, and the note 
    was set hidden. Since then the note has been deleted.
    
    I agreed with Susan that the note was offensive. I agreed with it being 
    offensive because the target of it was offended.
	
    When Susan Shapiro brought up the issue at the first informal meeting, 
    the impression she gave was that there were many notes that were 
    offensive, but I was told about only one, if others are pointed out, 
    I would be more than happy to take action.
    
    The note in question was handled as all complaints are handled in this 
    conference, in a timely and responsive way, and I am sure I would be 
    reminded if that was not the case.
	
    I would like to point out that in the past I have removed notes that were
    not conforming to the guidelines of the conference and Digital P&P.
    This will continue to be the policy of this conference. Notes that are
    outside the bounds of policy will be removed, and if complaints are made 
    a response and/or action would be taken as it has always been the case.
    
    I ask everyone to refer back to the guidelines in the introduction note
    of this conference 1.* and read it. I would also ask everyone to be
    adults (not that everyone isn't), but to continue in helping to keep the
    conference compliant with the guidelines and the policy in place.
    
    I appreciate all the support and help I have received from everyone.
        
    Sincerely,
    
    Nisreen Sunnaa
    Your moderator