[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::dcu

Title:	DCU
Notice:	1996 BoD Election results in 1004
Moderator:	CPEEDY::BRADLEY

Created:	Sat Feb 07 1987
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1041
Total number of notes:	18759

471.0. "Answers from DCU about petition handling and ballots" by MLTVAX::SCONCE (Bill Sconce) Wed Feb 19 1992 17:48

Back on 27 January I posted a note (429.16) saying that I'd placed a call to
Patti D'Addieco to ask some questions about what happens, or might happen,
to petition candidates after they've submitted their forms.  In particular,
there had been speculation in this conference about whether the Nominating
Committee might exercise some kind of veto, especially in light of the
petition form's language by which the candidate is asked to "authorize
DCU to make such credit inquiries as are related to my petition to run
for DCU's Board of Directors".

After Patti called back (and missed me), and after I called back (and missed
her) we finally got in touch.  A couple of my questions required her to do
some research, so it took two phone conversations.  (It'll be a great day
when DCU gets an E-mail address!)

Anyway, once we did get together on my questions and answers, we talked about
my posting them.  Patti said she'd be happy to have the word spread, providing
I write up my notes and let her see them first, before "quoting" her.  I
thought that was a great idea.

What follows is not really "quotation", but transcription of my notes from the
telephone conversations Patti and I had, organized and cleaned up a little.
Patti has seen what appears below (somewhat hurriedly, what with the petition-
validation effort going on).  But she did quickly scan the answers, made a
couple of corrections, and said that it looked accurate at first glance.
The words are mine, though, as is any ambiguity.


Q.  What information does "such credit inquiries" refer to?

A.  Just a basic credit check regarding obligations to the Digital Credit
    Union.  The Nominating Committee is just looking for the kind of thing the
    membership should be made aware of before electing a candidate to the
    Board of a $375 million credit union.  Not just a late payment on a credit
    card, or anything like that.

Q.  Does the permission for a credit check have to be signed?

A.  No.  However, that might then be noted on the ballot sheet
    by the Nominating Committee, in a matter-of-fact way.

Q.  Some people have been asking what further powers the NC has,
    or conjecturing that the Nominating Committee might deny a petition
    candidate a position on the ballot.  Let's put it this way:  if a
    petition candidate does have all the required signatures, that
    candidate assuredly gets on the ballot?

A.  Yes.  Once the petition signatures are verified.

Q.  Is there ANY reason a petition candidate could be denied a
    position on the ballot?

A.  Assuming verified signatures, and assuming the candidate is a member
    of DCU, no.

Q.  How critical are the requirements for signature match?

A.  Reasonable criteria will be used.  If a member's name is Richard,
    but the signature says "Dick", with membership numbers matching,
    the signature would not be rejected.

Q.  I assume that there would be some method of recourse should rejected
    signatures cause rejection of a petition candidate.

A.  Of course.  The candidate would be able to review the rejected signatures,
    and see why they were rejected.

Q.  Is there any chance that candidates will get more than the previously-
    announced 150 words in the ballot mailing?

A.  Considering the number of expected candidates and the need to control
    mailing costs, we do not plan to extend the 150-word limit.

Q.  Will candidates' status (incumbent, Nominating Committee candidate,
    candidate by petition) be indicated in the ballot mailing?

A.  Yes.  This has been the practice in past elections, and we intend
    to continue it.

Q.  How will the order of appearance of candidates' names on the ballot
    be determined?

A.  The order of names on the ballot will be determined randomly, by
    a drawing of lots.

Q.  How will the order of appearance of candidates's statements in the mailing
    be determined?

A.  Probably by category (nominated and petition), and within category
    probably alphabetically.

Q.  The Nominating Committee expects to edit candidates' statements.  Will
    candidates have the opportunity to review such edits before the statements
    are committed to the print run?

A.  Yes.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
471.1	validated by when?	PRIMES::ZIMMERMANN	@COP, Greenbelt MD, 341-5318	`Wed Feb 19 1992 19:00`	5
	My only concern is that there is no assurance that signatures will be validated by the time the ballot goes out. I know this is a silly concern, but.... also, considering the fact that DCU wants to change us for any researrch done on our/my behave, who is paying for this signature validation.
471.2	They can take as long as they like	SMAUG::GARROD	An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late	`Wed Feb 19 1992 19:04`	7
	I believe that all candidates should make the prudent assumption that DCU will take their time validating the petitions. Someone somewhere may assume that this will curtail their ability to campaign. That of course won't be the case because the candidates had the good sense to submit far more than the required 500 signatures each. Dave
471.3	randomize statements too	CIMNET::KYZIVAT	Paul Kyzivat	`Thu Feb 20 1992 08:02`	13
	> Q. How will the order of appearance of candidates's statements in the mailing > be determined? > > A. Probably by category (nominated and petition), and within category > probably alphabetically. If I was a candidate, I would argue that the order of the statements should be the same random order used to list the candidates on the ballot. The logic behind randomizing them is the same for both lists, and having them in identical order is of clear benefit to the voters in terms of convenience. Paul
471.4	They should re-issue a PROPER authorization	GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ	Vote for DCU Petition Candidates	`Thu Feb 20 1992 09:15`	60
	>"authorize DCU to make such credit inquiries as are related to my >petition to run for DCU's Board of Directors". >Q. What information does "such credit inquiries" refer to? > >A. Just a basic credit check regarding obligations to the Digital Credit > Union. The Nominating Committee is just looking for the kind of thing the > membership should be made aware of before electing a candidate to the > Board of a $375 million credit union. Not just a late payment on a credit > card, or anything like that. I had a fairly long conversation with Patty about this. It raised an eyebrow on the candidate applications and then re-appeared on the form that every petition candidate had to sign and submit with their signatures. I crossed it out and noted I required more information concerning WHO was seeing this "credit inquiry", what was being looked for, and needed written guarantees concerning confidentiality. She then said that the 'credit inquiry" was a DCU credit inquiry only, ie. are you a member in good standing (no loans in default?). But this is clearly NOT what people are authorizing. If that is what they need, then their authorization is very badly worded and vague enough to be interpretted as a regular credit history check with a credit agency. I then told her that I would send her authorization for a DCU ONLY, member-status check. I will authorize no detail information, just a statement from a DCU employee stating whether or not I am in good standing with the credit union. Funny thing, she said nobody ever objected to this authorization before. It seems to me that DCU has been making the rules far too long with little, or no, attention from the membership. I have no problem with providing appropriate information to the appropriate people at the appropriate step in the process. Hopefully, they will also start thinking along these lines and start realizing the membership is now paying attention. Before anybody jumps to any conclusions, my credit history is impeccable. I am debt free except for a mortgage. A long credit history with no defaults, bankrupcies, missed payments, etc. I throw away numerous offers every month for additional credit. I even qualified for and received a DCU VISA card! No small feat from some of the stories I've heard and read. >Q. Does the permission for a credit check have to be signed? > >A. No. However, that might then be noted on the ballot sheet > by the Nominating Committee, in a matter-of-fact way. Did she actually say "in a matter-of-fact way"? While candidates can't say anything about other candidates, DCU can interject a statement that clearly raises suspicions about a person without a corresponding statement from that person as to why the authorization was denied. Even though these credit authorizations aren't required, and they can't be used to deny a member their right to run for the Board, DCU feels can use a denial for access against a candidate. Even though it is a clear VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW (as mentioned numerous times by Mr. Cockburn) to publicly disclose personal information concerning a member of DCU. Should DCU chose to follow through of this, I suspect they might find themselves involved in another law suit, as a defendent.
471.5	"Petition" = "unnominated" in DCU's eyes	MLTVAX::SCONCE	Bill Sconce	`Wed Feb 26 1992 09:54`	20
	Another thing about my conversation with Patti struck me after I posted .0. Several times Patti used the term "Nominated Candidates", referring to the candidates nominated by the Nominating Committee. We had a very specific discussion (reported in .0) about the order of names on the ballot and on the bio sheet, how the bio sheet would be categorized, and so on. Patti's terminology for the categories was "Nominated Candidates" versus "Petition Candidates". She corrected me on my terminology at one point. This bothers me. The correct descriptions would be "Candidates nominated by the Nominating Committee" and "Candidates nominated by petition". To imply by choice of terms that petition candidates have not been nominated sounds like trying to tilt the field. But as it stands I expect the bio sheets will say "Nominated Candidates" and "Petition Candidates". (I placed a call to Patti on Tuesday and left a voicemail message with this question; she hasn't called me back. But she said in our conversation of .0 that she sees the notesfile, and if she sees this and wishes to correct me I'll be happy to post a retraction.)
471.6	"nominated" = "DCU endorsed"	GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ	Vote for DCU Petition Candidates	`Wed Feb 26 1992 16:01`	16
	RE: .5 Allow me to quote from the "DCU Election Guidelines", page 7 paragraph 3: "ONE FINAL POINT... BY CHOOSING, THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE GRANTS ITS ENDORSEMENT TO EACH NOMINEE. THIS IS NOT TAKEN LIGHTLY BY THE MEMBERSHIP, NOR SHOULD IT BE GRANTED LIGHTLY BY THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE." So I'm not surprised that DCU doesn't wish to have the word 'nominated' associated with any of the petition candidates. It is a word served to indicate endorsement of the Nominating Committee. I expect to see an endorsement from them of the 'Nominated Candidates' in the materials DCU sends out.