Conference 7.286::dcu

    I did get the petitions that were signed for me on Friday and submitted
    my petitions that same day.   I am very greatful to those that took
    the time to sign my petitions, thus allowing me to be a candidate for
    the BoD of the DCU.   Since I was one of the petitions candidates that 
    was not present on Thursday I wanted to make a quick response to Larry's 
    recollection of the meeting - posted in this note.  
    
    I had difficulty with the original concept for the meeting, as I
    understood it, to restrict the total number of people running on
    petitions.  I voiced my concerns in one note here, but much more so in
    correspondance sent out to the individual organizers and all the
    petition candidates I knew were running.  I had finally
    decided that I would attend the first 40 minutes of the meeting to
    voice my concerns and then leave for a prior commitment.  That
    commitment had a change in scheduled time and had to take priority over
    my concerns with the meeting process, so I did not attend any of the
    meeting of the "volunteers".
    
    This morning I received a memo with an updated listing of candidates,
    the title of which read "Boutcher dropped".  No explaination, just
    "Boutcher dropped".  Although I think I understand, now, after reading
    Larry's notes, but an explaination might have been nice to have.  It
    was done based upon my failing to attend this last minute meeting and
    for my efforts (or lack there of) to attain signatures for other
    candidates.  I was only able to get 10 to 20 signatures for each of the
    candidates running due to time constraints here and the fact that there
    is just not as much emotion about the election here (CXO) because there is
    only one candidate that will be on the ballot from outside of New
    England area, and that is me.  
    
    I wanted to respond to insure there is clarity on this issue, and also
    voice my concern to the other petition candidates running.  Whether you
    want to put a spin on this that the group of "volunteers" is just an
    interested group in reforming the DCU or a political force for the
    candidates to deal with, you need to look at what is really happening
    here.
    
    This effort began for More/BETTER choices.  Anyone that chose to could
    get petitions signed for those running as petition candidates.  No
    conditions attached.  Now, distribution lists of information and access
    to groups is being limited because "effort" is being evaluated through
    participation in meetings and number of signatures on petitions.  You
    are talking about candidates forming a political ticket (of sorts) to
    which those elected will be indebted.  It seems like we are moving from
    one small group of people in control of the DCU to another, not opening
    up the process to everyone, as I first understood was our intent.  You 
    may disagree, but from someone sitting out here in Colorado, that is 
    what it looks like to me.  I did not understand that support of this 
    group would be dependant upon the number of signatures you got on a piece 
    of paper.  Now I understand ...
    
    I will continue to be a candidate without the support of the
    "volunteers".   I still think that I can make a difference.  I only
    hope we don't see the pendulum swing from one extreme to the other.
    Do we really believe More/BETTER Choices or was that just one way to
    get people to sign petitions?  I wonder if we believe that the
    membership of the DCU is smart enough to elect the people they want to
    support them on the DCU?  I guess time will tell.
                               

I'm sorry you feel that way. I believe you are misunderstanding our intentions.

First off, I have put in over $200 of my money and lots of time, including
at least 1.5 hrs on each of the 3 main days we were collecting signatures.
There are lots of other things I could be doing and spending my money on.
I (and I think I speak for others in the "group") are not doing this for
ego trip or personal gain. Remember that BoD does not pay anything. I'm
doing it because I'm upset at the attitude of the management of DCU. I
think we can fix DCU to be more like a credit union (like that other note
posted by Jim Syiek about his other credit union). If I am elected on the
board, I guarantee there will be openness of information DCU has not seen
since it began.

There's also nothing special about the group - anybody willing to spend
some time helping improve DCU could be part of the group. Anybody additional
who wants to be part of the group can show up anytime there's a meeting as
they are posted publically. *You* have chosen not to be part of the group
because you have chosen other things as being more important. I don't mean
that in a negative way - everybody must choose what they want to spend time
on. I'd like to be able to spend more time on lots of things but I can't so
I'm not part of "those" groups. I have chosen to be part of the "improve
DCU" group. You could have also.

I also resent the implication that it's a closed "clique". That was one
thing that made folks uncomfortable with my proposal for the meeting
agenda so it was scrapped. We wanted to make it clear that ours was not
a closed group. But please don't chose not to spend time being part of
the group and then complain that we are closed. That's not fair. Accept
responsibility for your decision.

    
    Chuck, the commitment to you was kept.  We collected signatures and got
    your name on the ballot.  What more did you expect or feel you were
    owed?
    

    
    Re .0
    
    Chuck I would like to draw your attention to two parts of your note in
    .0.
    
>    I had finally
>    decided that I would attend the first 40 minutes of the meeting to
>    voice my concerns and then leave for a prior commitment.  That
>    commitment had a change in scheduled time and had to take priority over
>    my concerns with the meeting process, so I did not attend any of the
>    meeting of the "volunteers".
    
>    I was only able to get 10 to 20 signatures for each of the
>    candidates running due to time constraints here
    
    I was one of the people that went to the meeting to meet the
    candidates. As you know we went to considerable effort to include you,
    up to and including calling you on a speakerphone.
    
    As you say in .0 you had more important things to do than con-call
    into this meeting (even for a few minutes). You also state that you had
    very limited time to help collect signatures for other candidates.
    
    As I'm sure you recognise reforming the DCU is a huge effort that has
    required a lot of effort by a lot of individuals (I myself have written
    documents, contributed to other documents, helped in the petition drive
    etc). Many others have done a lot more work than me.
    
    Everybody involved in the reform DCU movement to get better
    representation on the BOD has to be committed to the cause. Sacrifices
    have to be made.
    
    All the candidates at this meeting agreed to help each other, as
    equally as possible. Now you're saying you're short of time etc.
    As was said in .-1 you were given every opportunity to join the process
    and your signatures were gathered just as everyone elses were.
    The least that could have been expected was that you you joined the
    meeting to help plan for the future. In your own words something else
    had priority. I'm sure a lot of the other candidates could have spent
    their time doing something else. But they made the personal sacrifice
    to come to the meeting and form a team to work together.
    
    The above is just my own personal opinion.
    
    Dave

    
    Chuck, I think you should tell people how many signatures you
    collected for yourself and the time involved in doing it.  I think it
    played a role in peoples' perception of your effort, rightly or
    wrongly.
    
    As for CXO people not being very enthusiastic, I'm pretty surprised. 
    There seems to be a very keen sense of awareness from what I see and
    read.  I would have hoped that as part of the organized effort to get
    more people on the ballot, you would have worked extra hard to combat
    the field/HQ syndrome.  Do people in CXO really dislike people back
    east that much???  Didn't you tell them how much us easterners were 
    working to help you out?  Didn't it matter?  I just don't understand
    how this got to be an "us'n'them' type of thing.

    It isn't CXO vs northeasterners as far as I'm concerned.
    
    twe, CXO1

Chuck -

	I find your comments a little surprising, too.  I work at the Atlanta 
CSC at a facility similar to CXO (the Colorado CSC).  Because I was out of 
town during "Petition Week" I was only able to gather petition signatures for 
two days.  I sat at a table near the cafeteria for just one hour on two days.

	I am surprised that you found little interest from employees at CXO.  
There was a LOT of interest here and I found people surprisingly well informed 
about the election.  In those two hours I gathered about 35-40 signatures for 
each of 12 petition candidates.  If there was more time (or I had set up a 
larger booth with more petitions) I could have gathered many more.

	One of the common questions that I was asked was "Which of these 
candidates are from somewhere besides the Greater Maynard Area?".  Many people 
recognized your name and encouraged others to sign your petition.  You seem to 
have a pretty good reputation in Atlanta - maybe you should move your 
"campaign headquarters" here!

	In short, I share the concern of others that you were only able to 
gather 10 or 20 signatures due to "time constraints" and "lack of emotion here 
at CXO".  Given the good reputation that you have with many of my friends 
here, I will seriously consider voting for you.  However, given the few 
petition signatures you collected and your choice not to at least attend part 
of the 2/13/92 meeting, I am concerned about how much time and effort you 
would commit to serving on the board.  I think that this is an issue that you 
might want to address during the campaign.

						Gary Hicks
						Realtime Product Support
						Atlanta CSC

    Let's get one thing straight right now, this is not an issue between
    any sites or regions of people.   I made choices that I will gladly
    live with and I hope the other candidates, all of them, will do
    likewise.  I was attempting, although ineffectively I must say, to 
    indicate that there appears to be a considerable pressure being placed 
    on petition candidates to join to each other in a form of political 
    party and I wanted to point out my concerns around that issue.  
    Individually, anyone can choose to support anyone.  As a collective, 
    which this has turned out to be, there are expectations those that join 
    must abide by or suffer from being an outcast of that group.  There are
    conditions being placed on folks to participate and that is the choice
    of the organizers, but the participants must also make choices.
    
    To answer previous questions, I collected 170 signatures for myself
    BEFORE there was any organized effort.   I was traveling the week the
    group petitions were available and returned with 3 days in which to
    gather additional signatures for other candidates and send the
    signatures overnight to the east coast.   In that time, I
    collected 30 signtures for myself as well.   I did have other
    priorities in support of Digital.   I have time to perform duties for
    the DCU because, in most cases, those will be planned activities with
    ample warning as to time and place.  For this meeting, I could only
    participate if I waited in my office for a call to come in.  I am not
    complaining about that, it is just a statement of fact.   My statement
    about the interest in my candidacy versus others here was an attempt to
    explain the signature discrepancy, not create questions of like or
    dislike between people in different locations.   I am surprised at the
    way some of this is being turned around, but I guess I should have
    expected it.
    
    I appreciate the fact that I seem to have a good reputation with my
    partners as CSC/ALF and I work hard to maintain that reputation.  I am
    involved in many activities both at DEC (including the redesign efforts
    for the CSC) and outside of DEC (County Planning [where I went to
    instead of this meeting due to a last minute change in meeting times],
    American Red Cross Disaster Services, Lions Club, EMT/FF, etc.) and
    have proven an effective contributor in each of these due to my level of
    expertise and ability to manage time.   I will continue to manage my
    time in the most effective manner I can and live with the choices I
    make.
    
    I really have no interest in the amount of personal money a person has
    contributed to the effort of collecting signatures.  I contributed
    money to the pizza in this meeting to say thanks, and that's all.  Not
    to act as a metric for my commitment to changing the DCU.
    
    I can sum up the intent of my comments as follows:  The intentions to
    positively impact the DCU are great but, I for one, do not think that
    the "end justifies the means".  I ask the petition candidates to watch
    how they are being influenced by this process because my impressions
    (and my impressions only) are that they are being heavily influenced.
    
        

I have been a "silent reader" of this notes file for some time now, but have
to admit that this note string is giving me a bad feeling and leaving me a
bit confused.  It may be that I'm a bit oversensitive to the campaigning 
and party system having just survived voting in the NH primary ;-) !!  Before
I pass any judgement here, though, could someone please speak to the goals
of the "improve the DCU" ( your nomenclature ) group.  I thought they were
self-explanatory, but I'm not sure some of the recent discussion here
supports my original view.

Anyone associated with this group please comment.

Thanx,

Sharon

>Anyone associated with this group please comment.

Ah, now there's the rub. There is no spokes person and there isn't a party
line. There are issues that we all seem to agree on and I suspect some we
don't. I think I've been pretty clear on my goals in bits and pieces in
other notes. I'm still trying to put together a complete statement of those
goals as well as my 150 words for the ballot. It will all be posted in this
conference when it's ready.

			Alfred

    
    
    If I was Chuck and got a memo entitled "BOUTCHER DROPPED" I'd be pretty
    angry and wonder who/what dropped me.
    
    People have other responsibilities and can't always devote 100% to any
    one cause. In this case his schedules didn't coincide well and
    geographical seperation sure didn't help! If Chuck gets on the board I
    think he'll proabably carry the lesson of this little episode with him,
    and learn how to plan things to involve members not in GMA.
    
    I'll be voting for Chuck!
    
    Simon

    I would comment that if you read 476.0 and look at the alternatives
    presented as well as the verbage used to describe the evening's
    activities, you DO have a "party line".   At every turn there seems to
    be more and more pressure being placed on candidates to conform to that
    party line.   The effort to organize for signatures was commendable,
    but now it has taken on a different tone and it should be recognized as
    such.  

It's interesting that in .1, Chuck implies that we are a "political force"
that seeks to be "one small group of people in control of the DCU", but in 
.10 he criticizes us because "there is no spokes person and there isn't a 
party line."  Which does he really think?  And why does .1 contain so many
innuendos and groundless accusations about our conduct and goals?

However, I tried to make it fairly clear in .0 what the key issues are for 
candidates to be involved with "the group".  Here's a more explicit statement.
Especially note item 4 below:

    1)	The candidates in the group must have consensus that they are all
	interested in reforming the DCU, with general agreement on many
	key issues;

    2)	The candidates in the group must have consensus that they are all
	qualified to be on the Board;

    3)	The candidates in the group must have consensus that they will all
	be actively campaigning for the others; and

**  4)	The candidates in the group must be willing to be part of the group.

I thought Chuck had made it pretty clear in private correspondence that
he did not wish to be part of a defined subgroup of candidates, but insisted
that he would only take part if everyone is accepted without conditions.
That's also how .1 reads to me.  If I'm misunderstanding, then I'd be happy 
to accept a correction and explanation.  I expect points 1-3 could have
been worked out, but if Chuck disagrees with 4), there's no point.

I'm mystified by the various charges and innuendos in .1.  A political
force?  Once the elections are over, I'm no longer involved:  either the
new Board will fix things up, or I failed and I'll quit trying.  Limiting
access to information?  He accuses us of that because I thought he wasn't
interested in the group and took him off a private mail distribution list,
but in fact, nobody kept information from him.  Why does he think we are
reporting all this in the notes file?  Also, signatures on the petition
forms has nothing to do with anything, as Chuck would know if he had
bothered to *ask* anyone about it instead of making unbiased accusations.

Strangest of all is Chuck's claim that since there were few conditions 
attached to who I collected signatures for, that I should therefore
campaign for *anyone* with no conditions attached.  Why should I do that?
The official Nom Comm didn't offer enough choices.  Now that problem is
rectified -- there are lots of choices, including Chuck.  OK, *now* I want 
to decide who I personally want on the Board and then tell other people.
If Chuck thinks I shouldn't do that, then we have very different ideas
about what democracy is.  

I regret the impression Chuck got that he was being slighted -- there 
were a number of misunderstandings going on.  For example, Chuck had
told us that he would not attend the meeting at all, so people begged
him to come to at least present his views.  At 4:18pm, he said he'd speak
briefly at the start and then leave, but when we called around 6pm, he wasn't 
there due to his last minute schedule change.  That's too bad, but what are 
we being blamed for?  And was I wrong to conclude that Chuck did not want
to be part of a group as defined by points 1-4 above?  

Anyway, we all have got to make choices here -- that's what democracy is
all about.  I will continue working for reform at the DCU, being open
about what I am doing and what I think and who I personally support.
I regret some of the choices Chuck has made, but he has a right to make 
them -- including his choice to suspect the motives of people who are
trying to do their best for the DCU and have gotten absolutely nothing
for all that this past year's struggles with the DCU Board have cose us.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

Re: .12
>> conform to that party line.

There is no party line! I have a list of goals that I want to see happen
if I'm elected. They are published elsewhere. I think most if not all of
the folks at the group are in favor of them, tho possibly not. It doesn't
matter.

What matters to me is that we spend time trying to get the word out
to folks to not just vote for the DCU recommended choices and why not.
One of the results of the last meeting was that we were
all comfortable with any one of us getting on the board, not that we all
agreed with everything that was said. It'd very important you hear that.
	-->We didn't all agree about everything!<--
		-->THERE IS NO PLATFORM<--

DCU and the BoD has restricted our ability to get the
facts to members. That's really what we are fighting. If DCU were running
a clean election with a level playing field, we wouldn't have to help
each other out in this way. But then, if DCU were running a clean election,
I wouldn't be running in the first place. I've got lots of other stuff I
could be doing. I REALLY don't care about taking over the credit union. I
care about restoring it to what it should be and restoring integrity to
DCU. That's the same thing I've been doing in Digital with Jack Smith stuff.
Not as much changed as I'd hoped for, but I was willing to stick my neck out
and do the right thing there, and I believe I'm doing it here (with DCU) too.

So, with that said, if I'm going out spending my time and $ (and I do think
that $ shows committment at least in my case because I'm cheap :-) telling
people about the other 8 candidates, I'd like to think the other 8
candidates have the initiative to go out there and try to get the word out
about me too.

re .9 and .11:

I beg you to not believe Chuck's assertion that the candidates were being
heavily pressured to conform unless he actually provides evidence -- such 
as comments from candidates who were at the meeting!

As an example of how little the candidates acted pressured, one of them 
made a point of saying that s/he plans to vote for Susan Shapiro!  Reason: 
to provide continuity.  Several of us tried to convince him/her that the 
sort of continuity that Susan Shapiro would provide is not what the DCU 
needs right now.  This candidate agreed to look more carefully into Susan
Shaprio's past actions before voting, but did not retract his/her position.

What it comes down to is that Chuck really doesn't know much about what
happened at the meeting.  He is reading things into .0 and into a message
he got indicating that he had been taken off the distribution list of
candidates in the group.  Yes, I'd be annoyed, too -- but I'd ask in
private what the hell was going on before tossing accusations in public!
And since Chuck has stated that he doesn't wish to be involved (and said
it clearly in private before the meeting), I don't really see why he is 
complaining about no longer being on a mailing list of those interested.

My personal goal, and that of everyone in the volunteers group, is to
help see that some intolerable problems at the DCU are solved.  450.0
is a consensus description of what some of the volunteers see as being
wrong.  Many of the candidates explicitly said that they agreed with it.  
Some had not read it in detail and wanted to study it before taking a
stand.  They are still in the group -- doesn't that make it obvious that
there is no "litmus test" going on here, beyond the general one of wanting
to reform the DCU and recognizing some of the problems?


I have a few more comments to add about what's been going on in this note.
First, I sent Chuck a private message pointing out that he took some things
personally that were never meant so -- e.g., it wasn't Chuck I was talking
about when I said that *most* candidates not present hadn't done petitions.
I also pointed out to him that .1 contains some groundless accusations and 
invited him to repost it without those comments.  I got no reply, except
an indirect one via his other replies here.  I encourage everyone to decide
based on the evidence whether we are acting with openness and integrity.

It's hard to list the specific reforms that "the group" supports, because 
"the group" consists of 9 candidates and a bunch of volunteers, all with
varying ideas.  We have some pretty general agreement about what is wrong
(as posted in 450.0 plus the "More Choices" document), but as Chuck said
(but later retracted), we have no party line on exactly how to solve the
problems.  In some cases the solution is obvious, in others not at all.
Several candidates refused to commit to specific actions on the grounds
that they need to be on the Board and see what's really going on before
they can know how best to fix it.  More evidence of lack of pressure.

One final comment -- what really happened at last Thursday's meeting 
was that the candidates heavily influenced the volunteers, *not* the
other way around!  After all, several of us went in with the idea of
trying to pick a set of 7 candidates.  The candidates as a group didn't
like that idea, so it wasn't done.  I am astounded that Chuck thinks that
because the volunteers proposed something, and have strong (but sometimes
conflicting) opinions, that that means that the candidates are being
"heavily influenced".  I wouldn't vote for someone whom I thought would
cave in to pressure just because I state my position.  The former Board 
let Magone influence them, and look where that got us!

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- I encourage candidates who were at the meeting to send comments to 
Chuck about whether they felt pressured to conform.  Or post them here.
If there was a problem, I'm not aware of it and it should be fixed.

    Just as a point of clarification, Larry (re:13) The comments in .10
    were not mine and I did not retract any statment I made earlier.  As
    for the remainder I will not participate in the bantering back and
    forth.  This is my last contribution to this string, but I wonder if
    you are not protesting too much.

>    This is my last contribution to this string, but I wonder if
>    you are not protesting too much.

And I wonder why you are exiting with yet another innuendo, without
having offered any evidence to support your earlier innuendos.  You
didn't use innuendo when discussing things with me in private, why are 
you doing it in public?  

However, to respond to the substance of the above (such as it is), my 
last message was not addressed to you.  It was addressed to the people
who have doubts raised in their minds by your claims.  Surely the last
Presidential campaign has proven to everyone that if someone smears you,
you have to respond or people will think it's true.  That's why I replied.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS:  Thanks for the correction -- I did not understand .10 as you intended.

    STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
    STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
    STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
    STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
    STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
    STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP
    STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

    This debate isn't doing anybody any good!

    There is no question in my mind that the east coasters (I live and work
    in Colorado) are doing things in the open.  I am reading the notes and
    I detect agreement on some issues and disagreement on others.

    There is also no question in my mind that time pressures sometimes
    cause difficulties.  There is absolutely no further point in trying to
    cast aspersions or second guess some other persons motives on this
    subject.

    The meeting was announced sufficiently in advance.  Anybody who wanted
    to go was allowed to.  Questions about the meeting have been answered.
    Why some people were not able to go has been answered.

    There is nothing more to be gained by continuing this discussion. If
    this topic were mine to write lock, I would do so!

    STOP!

People:

I am one of the candidates who was pushing earlier for some rational
attempt to reduce the number of candidates who filed for the election.
Never did I suspect in my pondering that such an idea would generate
the kind of response that it's gotten! :-)

At the meeting on Thursday, I got feedback from many people that the
notion of trying to dissuade some folks from running in favor of 
others was not a popular idea.  So, the idea died a quiet death while
the group moved on to other issues.  While I did (and to some extent
still do) believe that some sort of "primary" would have been helpful,
I support the efforts of the group to simply raise the visibility of
the candidates, and to help each other to get the most votes possible.
The proposal(s) floated by myself and Paul Kinzelman regarding a 
primary process with candidate elimination were simply that - proposals.
As frequently happens within the Digital corporate culture, the 
proposals were looked at, discussed, and set aside as it was felt that
such a notion was not The Right Thing.  So, what has been described as
"seeking to limit the rights of others" turned out to be a reaffirmation
of abiding by the will of the majority.

As I see it, the petition candidates already have 2 strikes against
them in terms of visibility, while the nominated candidates have 3
balls and no strikes.  The key to getting ANY petition candidate 
elected is to increase visibility.  My belief is that all the candidates
who met on Thursday are in favor of working together to establish a
level playing field and to help each other out with the effort in
spreading the word to everybody.  My belief is that the volunteers who
turned out are generally in favor of the same thing.  I have strong
disagreements with some of the candidates on certain issues, and I
will probably not vote for a slate of 7 candidates be they petition
candidates, nominated candidates, or otherwise.  But since we're behind
the 8-ball already, it's important for us to work together to spread
the news.  If somebody asks me how to vote, then I'll give them as 
much data and PR as I have available for ALL the petition candidates
and urge them to review it and come to their own personal decision.

So, in summary, I see this "group," as being a collaborative educational
effort rather than a dark conspiracy to control DCU.

As for Chuck's statements, he indicated in the original pizza meeting
that he "want[ed] this [the petition process & election] to be a two-way
street."  He agreed to help gather petitions, and then meet following
the petition gathering to discuss our next move.  After the petition
drive, he sent private correspondence in which he said he felt we were
seeking to limit the rights of others and indicated he would not
participate any further. The "Boutcher dropped" thing was simply a mail
message disseminating a mailing list of candidates without including
him SINCE HE INDICATED HE DIDN'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE!  Personally, I
feel that Chuck had an obligation to attend the second meeting and voice
his opinions and try to achieve concensus.  But, he didn't and that's
his own choice - promises were kept on the part of the volunteers and
his petitions were shipped to him.  

One thing I'm really confused about, and I'm hoping that we can clear
the air here in some calm, rational, manner, is what all the hoopla
is about.  There is no "Reformist Party."  If there ever is, or if a
lobbying group who's ideas I share springs up, then I would most likely
joi, but where's the harm in that? And if there was a party, why would
it be a problem?  Every hint of organized efforts to facilitate change
within DCU seems to be met by a hoard of dire warnings about the dangers
of conspiracies.  The Special Meeting Petition drive could not have 
come off without some organization.  The Special Meeting was not an
attempt to take over the credit union - in fact, the outcome of the
meeting was not as many of the petition drive organizers would have
wished.  Instead, the Special Meeting was an opportunity for members
to express their wishes for the future of DCU.   The petition candidates
drive to be elected, and the organization supporting this, seems to be
an attempt to help insure your rights to understand and know who your
choices are.  So, I'm confused about why people find organized lobbying
for their shareholder rights frightening.  Any comments that can shed
some light on this are most welcome.

Lastly, the MOST important thing here is to get new blood, new ideas,
and new people onto the Board of Directors.  I think all the petition
candidates would like to be on the Board.  But, I think that all those
same candidates will be absolutely thrilled to see any of the other
candidates get on the Board as well.  The Pizza Meeting was conducted 
in an atmosphere of "let's get some of these people on the Board,"
not "let's get X & Y on the Board."

Please, read your ballots, collect information on the candidates,
and VOTE in the upcoming election.  Your participation is most vital
to the health and well-being of DCU.

Of my soapbox for now.... :-)

/Chris

I agree with Tom in .-1. Everything in this string except .0 does more harm
than good and could easily be twisted into something not so nice by anyone who
so desired, if you get my drift. If I were y'all I'd delete my replies in
this string.

-Jack (who normally abominates deleted notes, 'cuz they're usually not on issues
       as critical as the proper control of the DCU)

    
    Having been involved in this effort for a while, in many roles, I have
    seen this same type of thing happen several times.  And quite
    frankly, it is a bit disturbing.  There has been more than one episode
    of paranoia and outburst against these "groups" of people trying to do
    this or that, and just who are they, and they don't represent ME, and
    now watch out, they're trying to form a party.
    
    If anybody out there thinks that any of this would happen without at
    least some organization, OR GROUP, or herd, or whatever you want to
    call it, you are seriously deluding yourself.  To accomplish ANYTHING,
    takes an organization.  I stated that in my reply when I brought up the
    possibility of a special meeting way back in August.  We are up against
    an entrenched organization with great resources at its disposal.  They
    have used and continue to use anything they can to hinder or hurt our 
    cause.  If each one of charges their position waving a stick, we will 
    get cut down in an instant, with NOTHING being accomplished.  Sorry, I'm 
    not into martyrdom.  I'm into winning.  As a group, we stand a far 
    greater chance of accomplishing something positive.
    
    Now if people don't understand this then my opinion is that you should
    re-evaluate your position.  We are all (petition candidates) in a 50 
    foot deep hole.  If we help each other to get out, we stand at least a 
    chance of getting ahead.  If we don't, then we better get used to the hole.
    
    SO CAN ALL THIS "GROUP" INNUENDO PLEASE STOP!  Yes, I'm part of a group
    of people, who I didn't know before this DCU scandal came to light.  Many of
    us share the same opinions and goals.  Some of us have different views,
    which is just fine and I'd be worried if there weren't some
    differences.  I am also part of the DCU membership!  And that's a
    group.  Condemn me, but I don't share your paranioa.
    
    As for a party line, what's the big deal anyway?  If a group of people
    all agree on issues A thru F, then why can't they put their names to a
    statement saying so?  I must be missing the sinister side of this.
    
    Now if somebody doesn't want to be part of the group for any reason,
    that is also fine.  I just think it more than a bit ridiculous to blame
    the group for that personal decision.  We welcomed, and ENCOURAGED,
    your attendance, your opinions.  I guarantee you Chuck, you would have
    stayed on for the whole meeting had you chose to participate.  But
    please don't start tossing speculation without at least speaking to
    people who were there.  I don't think it does you or us any good.
    
    So can we start pulling together, as a (fill in your favorite term), to
    accomplish what we ALL want to see, a DCU that better serves the 
    membership at large.
    
    Sorry for the wordiness but this 'group thing' has been grating on me
    since August...
    

    Just for some humor, look at this topic from the perspective of the
    present DCU BoD.  I'll bet they are getting a real kick out of seeing
    the petition candidates bash each other instead of bashing them. And
    for some similar reasons: conspiracy, secret decisions, or whatever. I
    don't think the present BoD could ask for anything more in their
    wildest dreams.
    
    But maybe one of "them" is secretly one of the petition candidates and
    is acting as an agent provocateur.  Pretty neat idea, huh?  And it fits
    right in with the paranoia, justified or not, that many noters in this
    conference already feel toward the present BoD.
    
    And because I'm sure somebody will take my last two paragraphs
    seriously, let me state that they are intended to be taken as a joke, I
    don't mean them seriously, and I don't believe they are true.
    
    But then ...

Ah, but the truly paranoid person could imagine that Mangone has a mole that
was participating in this "dis-unity" effort in order to regain control of the
DCU.

No, I don't believe a word of what I have just written.

Mark

    That's what I get for reading Smiley's People.

re: last couple

    :-)

Thanks for putting things back into proper perspective...


:-)
/chris

�    Sorry for the wordiness but this 'group thing' has been grating on me
�    since August...
    
    Of course there isn't any problem applying this "group thing" to the
    current DCU board or employees.  And people wondered why the "other
    side" were upset about the conspiracy theories and accusations being
    thrown around.

    
    RE: .26
    
    Please re-read my reply...  You totally miss the point.
    

    Mr. MacNeal, you have done it again.  There is a very great difference.
    Even if there were "a group" organized as such, the situation is still
    drastically different:
    
    1. They respond as individuals.  The DCU BoD does not.
    2. They answer questions in VAXnotes.  The DCU BoD mostly does not.
    3. They invite others to their meetings.  The DCU BoD does not.
    
    Your comment in .26 is without merit.