Conference 7.286::dcu

I appreciate hearing your support of Susan.  I don't know her personally
and, thus, don't have the insight into the type of person that she
is that you do.  All I (and I expect the vast majority of those who
note here) have to go on are a small number of official communications
of the Board of Directors.

I agree with you that there is excessive pessimism in this conference.
However, I also understand why this is so.

.0 contains a statement of the complaints.  Almost without exception,
I think these are valid complaints.  If you desire to do more than
to call what is going on a witch hunt, please feel free to address the 
issues that .0 raises.  It is precisely because of these issues that 
I (and many others) will not vote for an incumbent.

Collis Jackson

Prehaps its the environment, but during times such as these, people
often need a scapegoat.  I have known some of the board members for
some time.  In particular, I have found them to be hard working,
responsive to discussions with members, honest and ethical. Susan
Shapiro has worked in my organization for some time, and has applied
the same characteristics to the work environment as she has to the
DCU. 

To those people who spend time and energy gathering data and joining 
in the pessimism, I would advise you to redirect your energies.

I would not term what we are doing "scapegoating". We have enumerated
a list of issues, none of which have been adequately addressed by the
BoD. Rather than address the issues, the board has issued a statement
labeling us as "witch-hunters". I appreciate opposing viewpoints being
aired in this file, but let me suggest that the BoD would be more effective
redirecting their energies to giving us pertinent answers to our questions
rather than sandbagging. The BoD may be hard working, honest and ethical,
I can't tell. But from my personal experience, they are definitely *not*
responsive to discussions with members. Quite the contrary.

If we had adequate answers for our questions, we would not be going thru
this exercise today. The BoD and DCU are acting like we are trying to
destroy DCU. This is clearly false. It would be far easier for me to must
move my business to a bank downtown.
The responsibility for the petition candidate drive
rests with the board, not with us.

    It's nothing to do with scapegoating, as far as I'm concerned.
    To my mind, anyone who views what is going on as "scapegoating"
    is totally missing the point.  
    

RE: .3

Thanks for your advice.


Jim

    
    Hmmm, missed .1, it's gone now...
    
    "Scapegoating" is what the BoD has done to Mangone IMO. They point 
    their finger at him regularly, while at the same time totally ignoring
    their actions and words.  DCU members have finally woken up and are
    holding their elected representatives ACCOUNTABLE  for their actions,
    inactions and words.  If Directors perceive this as being "scapegoats", they
    reinforce my belief that they just don't understand their
    responsibilities to the DCU membership.
    

.3> To those people who spend time and energy gathering data and joining
.3> in the pessimism, I would advise you to redirect your energies.

    Maybe I'm reading too much into this, or maybe I'm missing your point
    but, "...people who spend time and energy gathering data...", this line
    bothers me!  Are you suggesting that people should not know all of the
    facts?  If so, then I don't think this is good advice!

    If by adding the words, "and joining in the pessimism", you're suggesting
    that *all* who gather data are pessimistic, then I don't share your view.
    I believe that most, if not all of us, are for improving the DCU.

    Don

I just found out this morning that somebody high up in Digital has
lodged a complaint against most or all of the people who signed the
base note, requesting their personnel reps to contact their managers
so that they can be questioned about it.  The particulars seem to be 
that a small number of specific parts of it are thought to be in 
violation of the Sims memo.  

Accordingly, I have set it hidden until the problem can be resolved.

If I sound uncertain about exactly what is going on, it is because I am.
No one has yet contacted me, nor is my own personnel rep currently at
his desk.  So for now I only have hearsay to go on. 

It might be possible to repost the base note very soon.  The specific
problems that were cited to one signer should be easy to resolve by
simple wording changes -- eliminating some words and rephrashing
some others.  

On the other hand... I guess I'll find out.  I worked very hard to try 
to ensure that everything in that note was accurate, though.  I'll be 
very interested to see what my own personnel rep has to say about it.

	More later,
	Larry Seiler

    I have read the basenote and I don't see anything wrong with it. I have
    a copy and I will be happy to send the copy to anybody who sends me a
    VAXmail request.
    
    I will stop forwarding the note when the person or persons who have
    personal objections personally inform me of those objections.
    
    Perhaps we can also use the current complaint in process to have the
    BoD retract their "witchhunt" memo, which I personally object to.

Re: .9

Larry -

I didn't understand your explanation of why 450.0 was set "hidden".
Did someone explicitly request that you, as moderator, act to set the
note "hidden" until the issue has been resolved?  Or were you TOLD that
there is a question about the propriety of the base note?  If either is
true, then you made the appropriate response.

What bothered me was your third paragraph:

> If I sound uncertain about exactly what is going on, it is because I am.
> No one has yet contacted me, nor is my own personnel rep currently at
> his desk.  So for now I only have hearsay to go on. 

Hearsay is not, in my opinion, a suitable basis for acting to limit the
discussion in this notes file!

				- - Steve

    OK folks here is what is going on. Larry hid the base note (he was able
    to hide it because he entered it into the conference).
    
    I am a signatory to that memo as well. A complaint has been lodged to
    corporate personnel about certain statements in the base document.
    The personnel reps of all the signatories (myself included) have been
    contacted. These personnel reps are currently in the process of
    contacting our managers. We understand that each of us will be required
    to go to a meeting. I've been told that one of the questions to be
    asked is:
    
    	"Were you a willing signatory to this document"
    
    My answer will be an emphatic YES. Another complaint apparently is that
    the document violates the policy espoused in the recent Sims memo.
    I personally believe it does not violate the policy in the recent Sims
    memo and intend to present a case as to why.
    
    We'll keep you informed (by the way there were 7 signatories).
    I think people are getting worried that the candidates are are for
    change at the DCU might actually win the upcoming election (this is
    pure speculation on my part).
    
    Dave

      How many of the Signatories happen to be BOD petition candidates?
                                         Denny

re: .13

Three.

/chris

    
    Re:
    
>      How many of the Signatories happen to be BOD petition candidates?
    
    3 out of the 7 are DCU election candidates that have got onto the
    ballot by petition. The other 4 of us are DCU members/owners who
    happen to support these candidates amongst others.
    
    Dave

Since the document was first posted, at least one more petition candidate 
has asked to have his/her name added.  

When the document is reposted, I will be happy to add the names of anyone
else who wishes their name to be associated with it.  

It will be reposted in some form; however, if Digital formally rules that
some part of it violates company policy, I will, of course, alter that
part and resolicit the approval of all signatories before reposting it.
To do anything else wouldn't jibe with the most important and overriding
DEC policy of all -- Do The Right Thing.

	Thanks for the concern,
	Larry Seiler

PS -- I am the one who posted the note because I was the primary writer.
However, the data and words in the base note were the collaborative
effort of many people, who were all trying hard to make it be completely 
accurate and and accord with Digital policy.

PPS -- I have now heard from personnel, too.  

    Can you tell us who the "somebody high up in Digital" is who has
    complained?

    Re .17
    
    I don't know the answer to this at present. That will be the first
    question I ask.
    
    Dave

    Re: last few
    
    The Sims memo states that there "is no 'Public Figure' exception" in
    notesfiles, and that "statements that attribute improper, illegal or
    immoral motives or actions to others" are not permitted.
    
    Hmmm... yes, perhaps .0 does attribute certain actions to the Board.
    On the other hand, "improper" is very broad.  Am I prohibited from
    saying in this conference: "I don't think the Board should have done
    _____"?
    
    If I am, then the Sims memo is (in my opinion) unreasonable and cannot
    be applied in practice.
    
    If I am, then this conference had better be replaced quickly by a 
    different communications mechanism -- and not electronic mail, the Sims
    memo covers that too!
    
    If I am, then I'm glad this complaint was filed -- that tells me
    everything I need to know before voting in the upcoming election.

   What is the disposition of Note 450.0?  Whatever happened at the
   management meetings with the employees?
   
   I'm very curious.
   
   
   							Terza
   

	RE: .20 It's still there but hidden. I'm assuming that we'll hear
	something one way or an other when it's resolved. Since we've heard
	nothing I'm assuming that there are still discussions going on.

			Alfred

    
    RE: .20
    
    Yes, it's work in progress at this point.  We'll give you the facts
    as soon as we can.
    

    So who is the person who objected, or is the DCU still hiding behind a
    corporate facade?
    
    Meanwhile, I am still willing to provide copies of the hidden basenote.
    Send me VAXmail.

    
    Re .20 "Whatever happened at the management meetings with the
    employees?"
    
    Reminds me of the story of a little boy. He was very excited when he
    found out he would be going to school at the end of the summer. As the
    time grew closer he became more and more excited. The night before his
    first day of school he was hard to put to bed. The next morning his
    family came downstairs to find him up and dressed waiting by the front
    door for the school bus. 
    
    That evening he told his parents how exciting and fun the whole day had
    been. The next morning his parents had to wake him. He rubbed his
    sleepy eyes and asked them why they woke him up. They said you have
    school. He said, in disbelief, "What again"?
    
    Perhaps the BoD would voice similar disbelief if they were asked to
    wake up and do it again.

As mentioned in an earlier note, Ron Glover (Corporate Personnel), sent 
my personnel rep a memo stating that the base note (which I had posted)
appeared to be in violation of company policy.  He specifically mentioned
policy 6.54 as interpreted in the Sims memo, posted in note 436.0.  Ron 
wanted my personnel rep to verify whether I was a willing signer of the 
base note, whether I knew of policy 6.54 and the Sims memo, and whether I 
felt I had violated company policy -- my answers were yes, yes, and no.

When I heard about Ron Glover's memo, I set the base note hidden pending
resolution of the problem.  I also had extensive conversations with my local
personnel and management.  Their conclusion is that the base note clearly
violates company policy.  There is ongoing communication with Ron Glover, 
but regardless of that, I must abide by the decision of my own management.

Accordingly, I deleted the base note last week, and my name will not appear
on any subsequent version.  If you have a copy of that note that you wish to
forward to anyone electronically or via Digital internal mail, please remove
my name before doing so.

As a result of all of this, I will confine most of my comments about the
DCU and the DCU Board of Directors to verbal statements, statements made
off company property, and documents distributed during lunch period in my 
site cafeteria.  Policy 6.54 and the Sims memo restrict only communication 
that uses company-owned equipment.  Other company policies specifically 
permit a much broader range of communication (including solicitation) if 
it occurs during breaks or lunch, in non-work areas.

	Larry Seiler

    Larry, can you give specifics of which policies were broken and how?
    
    Keith

    
    RE: .26
    
    Correction.... ALLEGED were broken.
    

Phil, you forgot to put a smiley face on your message!  

Anyway, I'm sure that's what .26 meant.

	Larry

    I'd like to thank Larry and the other signers of the former base note
    for their forthrightness to present criticism of the BOD in the face of
    the BOD's connections in DEC's management.

    The contrasting BOD and dissident philosophies on openness can be seen
    in SOMEBODY's demand to delete .0 in contrast to the lack of similar
    demands over Susan Shapiro's note below which states:

         In summary, a small group of members have conducted what 
         would seem to be a "witchhunt" with the intent to 
         discredit the board of directors and the credit union.  
         Their efforts have culminated in a petition to remove 
         the present board.  

    I'm glad that Susan has spoken up and her note helps explain the
    conflict over the DCU. I believe that Larry's note should similarly be
    allowed to present his viewpoint.

    BTW, it would be informative to know who the SOMEBODY is that demanded
    .0's deletion.

    With the election so near, it's sad that no forums (similar to Chuck
    Cockburn's) have been held for the members to meet the candidates so
    This would take coordination w/ DEC facilities & management, but it
    appears that the DCU already has these connections but has only
    used them to stifle dissent.


                <<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 343.0     DCU's BOD Responds to Mis-Information in Notesfile     58 replies
HYEND::SSHAPIRO                                     249 lines  29-OCT-1991 16:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	DCU's Board of Directors is submitting the following 
	statement for the purpose of clarifying mis-information 
	that has circulated in this VAXnotes conference.  

	We thank you for taking the time to read this statement and 
	hope that it clarifies many of the issues that are of concern 
	to all of us. 

	DCU's Board of Directors
        Dan Infante
	Jef Gibson
	Charlene O'Brien
	Mark Steinkrauss
	Susan Shapiro
	Jack Rugheimer
	Abbott Weiss

         
         				       October 29, 1991
         
         During the past few months, the National Credit Union 
         Administration (NCUA), our independent auditors and 
         legal counsel have conducted extensive investigations of 
         DCU to determine the extent of the fraud committed by 
         the former president, Richard Mangone.  They have 
         concluded, without question, that no board member, 
         official or staff member, except Mr. Mangone, was 
         involved in any wrongdoing at the credit union.
         
         Despite the results of these investigations, however, a 
         small group of members have used the VaxNotes and 
         VaxMail to raise questions about the board's actions in 
         handling this situation.  This same group has 
         continuously requested information about the credit 
         union and DCU has responded by granting the majority of 
         those requests.  As the information was reviewed, more 
         information was requested and false statements, 
         unsubstantiated accusations and allegations increased.
         
         Furthermore, the board has held two informal member 
         meetings, lasting 4 hours each, to discuss the credit 
         union.  These meetings were open.  At each meeting a 
         total of 15 to 19 members attended.  Many of those 
         members attending the first meeting also attended the 
         second.
         
         Recently, the board has enacted an Information 
         Protection Policy.  This policy provides a list of 
         information available at all DCU offices and asks member 
         who have requests, other than those regarding products 
         and services, to submit such requests in writing, 
         stating the business reason for the request.  The fees 
         associated with this policy are to recover the time, 
         labor and cost incurred by these unusual requests.  This 
         policy does not prevent information from being provided 
         to members.  It does, however, require a legitimate 
         business reason and not merely for the purpose of 
         harassment.  Of course, some information cannot be 
         released in order to protect the credit union and its 
         members.
         
         
         Some Examples of the Most Recent False Allegations
         
         DCU member, Phil Gransewicz has suggested that the board 
         approved a 6.5% mortgage loan for Mr. Richard D. Mangone 
         and that the loan was for interest only payments.  
         Another VaxNotes writer suggested that the Mangone 
         mortgage is not the only DCU loan of this type. These 
         statements are ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.  Mr. Mangone received 
         a standard mortgage at prevailing rates and nothing 
         more.  Our members, including employees and officials of 
         the credit union, are offered the same savings and 
         lending rates and programs.  Preferential loans are 
         illegal and, if written, would be discovered by the NCUA 
         examiners and our independent auditors.  The responsible 
         parties would be terminated.
         
         The VaxNotes file has accused the board of being 
         compensated.  THIS IS UNTRUE.  DCU's board members are 
         volunteers, elected by the entire membership and 
         responsible to the membership as a whole.  They cannot 
         and do not receive any added benefit for volunteering.  
         The fact that the board was defrauded and betrayed by 
         Mr. Mangone does not imply that the board has done 
         anything wrong.  As we have communicated previously, the 
         Federal Examiners have carefully reviewed all areas of 
         our credit union, current board members, officials and 
         staff and have cleared them from any involvement in the 
         fraud.  It would seem that the actions of this small 
         group of members is to harass the board until they quit.  
         The board will not allow members with limited or no 
         finance or management experience to control 
         Massachusetts' largest credit union.
         
         VaxNotes file has stated that DCU is not complying with 
         NCUA regulations on the Special Meeting.  THIS IS 
         UNTRUE.  On September 17, 1991, DCU received a petition 
         from members to hold a Special Meeting.  DCU validated 
         the petition signatures on September 18, 1991.  
         According to our bylaws and confirmed by our legal 
         counsel, the Chairman of the Board, within 30 days, must 
         call (ie. choose a date, time and place) to hold the 
         Special Meeting. On October 15, 1991, in accordance with 
         our bylaws, the following date, time and place were 
         chosen:  November 12, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., at the 
         Sheraton Tara Hotel, located at 1657 Worcester Road in 
         Framingham, MA  508/879-7200.  NCUA has issued no 
         written interpretation on this issue.
         
         This date was selected so we could provide ample notice 
         to our members, offer a convenient time and location to 
         the majority of our members and allow us sufficient time 
         to prepare and print the mailing and reserve 
         accommodations.  For your information, it will cost DCU 
         members over $35,000 to hold this Special Meeting.
         
         Implications are that the DCU board manipulates the 
         election process.  THIS IS UNTRUE.  As with previous 
         years, the October NETWORK has been a vehicle to 
         communicate a call for candidates to run for DCU's Board 
         of Directors.  According to our bylaws, DCU must notify 
         our membership of the opportunity to run.  Utilizing our 
         member newsletter saves the credit union thousands of 
         dollars.
         
         It is important to note that this process always runs 
         approximately 7 months.  At this time, 2 of the 3 
         nominating committee members have been selected.  None 
         of them are DCU officials.
         
         Rather than continue responding to other false 
         allegations, we believe it is appropriate to summarize 
         the positive steps the board has taken to recover from 
         the fraud and to improve DCU's operations.
         
         New President/CEO - Mr. Charles Cockburn joined DCU in 
         early September, 1991.  Through member correspondences 
         and statements, Mr. Cockburn has communicated DCU's top 
         priorities, which are to ensure quality service and to 
         improve the credit union's financial condition.  In the 
         next few months, the management team will collect and 
         analyze information to develop a more insightful 
         strategic plan that will enable the credit union to make 
         long-term progress toward both goals.  As part of the 
         information gathering process, Mr. Cockburn is visiting 
         many Digital facilities to speak with members and to 
         obtain input from DCU staff and members on how to 
         improve the credit union.  In some instances, the 
         changes suggested are being implemented immediately, 
         others will take time.  Some of the new changes include:
         
              1.  Discontinued the checking account fee until               
         the strategic plan is completed.
         
              2.  Discontinued the DCU ATM fee for savers who do          
         not have a checking account.
         
              3.  Simplified rates for new and used vehicle      
         loans.
         
              4.  More flexible terms for new and used vehicle          
         loans.  This includes no maximum loan amount          
         and 72 month financing.
         
              5.  Eliminated the checking account requirement for          
         having a line of credit or Home Equity Loans.
         
              6.  Eliminated the need for branch staff to call          
         the main office to waive fees and to make          
         decisions that relate to member service.
         
         Internal Controls - The board has implemented or is in 
         the process of implementing the following improved 
         internal controls:
         
         Supervisory Committee - This committee consists of 
         members appointed by the board.  Their primary 
         responsibilities are to ensure that proper internal 
         controls exist.  They represent "checks & balances" 
         between the board, the staff and the membership.  Mr. 
         Cockburn will work with the committee to improve their 
         effectiveness and to implement numerous policies and 
         procedures at the credit union.
         
         Outside Auditor - The Supervisory Committee also has the 
         responsibility to select and work with an independent 
         auditing firm.  Mr. Cockburn has extensive experience in 
         this area and he will recommend that the committee 
         select an alternative firm who can provide a fresh 
         approach.
         
         Internal Auditor - We will have a full time employee who 
         conducts thorough audits of all areas of the credit 
         union.  This person will not report to the board, but 
         will have a direct line reporting relationship to the 
         Supervisory Committee and the President/CEO.
         
         General Counsel - The board has recently hired the law 
         firm of Styskal, Wiese, and Melchione.  Mr. Melchione 
         has extensive experience with credit unions.  As general 
         counsel, Mr. Melchione works with DCU staff on 
         compliance, employment, etc.  One of his many roles will 
         be to ensure appropriate credit union policies are in 
         place, and to make sure checks and balances exist.  All 
         lawyers retained by DCU for mortgage closings, 
         compliance issues or pending litigation are working for 
         the credit union.  They are not representing any 
         individual, but the membership as a whole.  DCU does not 
         provide legal representation for any member or group of 
         members.
         
         Legal Actions - The board had hired the law firm of 
         Bingham, Dana & Gould to pursue legal remedies, and to 
         recover any losses from all parties associated with the 
         fraud.  To date, the credit union has received $6 
         million (the maximum) from our insurance carrier, 
         commenced a lawsuit against Mr. Mangone and others, and 
         has successfully attached $200,000 of Mangone's personal 
         assets.  In addition, we are cooperating fully with 
         federal and state investigators.
         
         The membership will continue to be updated regarding 
         these litigations.  As with Mr. Melchione, none of the 
         credit union's attorneys represent any member of the 
         board.
         
         In summary, a small group of members have conducted what 
         would seem to be a "witchhunt" with the intent to 
         discredit the board of directors and the credit union.  
         Their efforts have culminated in a petition to remove 
         the present board.  
         
         The removal of the board would be disastrous to the 
         credit union.  At best, the credit union would be 
         paralyzed for several months.  Given the board's current 
         efforts to strengthen the financial condition while 
         improving service, the credit union will be seriously 
         undermined without strong leadership.
         
         If the entire board is removed, there is a substantial 
         risk that a newly elected board would have NO experience 
         in management, finance, or understanding of the 
         credit union operations.  It is, therefore, extremely 
         important that members attend the Special Meeting and 
         show support for DCU's current board of directors.
         
         Signed,
         DCU's Board of Directors

    The revised version of 450.0 is now posted in 492.0.