Conference 7.286::dcu

Not only is this an answer to the wrong question, but it isn't even a
complete answer!  Board members have told me that their proposed changes
have to be approved by the NCUA.  Well, I'd rather that the *membership*
approved the changes instead of some government oversight agency that has
a policy of avoiding involvement unless the CU goes insolvent.  

	Larry Seiler

PS -- I suppose the next "witch hunters" memo will accuse notes readers
of claiming that the Board didn't have authority to change bylaws!  :-)
Nobody said they *didn't* have the authority -- people said they *shouldn't*.

    
    Member response to note 474.0
    
    Information on Federal Credit Union Bylaws
    According to the Federal Credit Union Act and the National
    Credit Union Administration (NCUA), member/owners are charged
    with the authority to unceremoniously dismiss cretinous board
    members who blatantly attempt to establish oligarchic control
    of the credit union by changing the bylaws with the express
    purpose of disenfranchising said member/owners.
    
    
    See you at the polls, bunkie.
    

    I've had a couple of people ask me why as moderator I posted this
    official DCU notice twice. Here is the reason.
    
    I posted it as a reply to the note it referred to have the reply in
    its logical place.
    
    I also posted it as a main topic because I believe all official
    communications from the DCU should have their own topic note.
    This enables a quick DIR/TITLE to find all official DCU communications.
    My policy will be to post all official DCU communications as topic
    notes.
    
    Sorry if it appeared confusing,
    
    Dave

�The question, of
�    course, is how--after having narrowly escaped a recall by an angry
�    membership--did they try to prevent special meetings like this from
�    happening again: 
    
    At the time of the special meeting concerns were raised over the
    appropriateness of 2000 members making a decision for 88,000 members.

>    At the time of the special meeting concerns were raised over the
>    appropriateness of 2000 members making a decision for 88,000 members.

All 88,000 members were notified of the special meeting.  Those that chose not
to attend effectively voted to allow those in attendance to make such a
decision.

Bob

Let's not go down the rathole of who could or couldn't attend the special
meeting.  The point is, that the main agenda item was the question of
whether all 88,000 should have the right to cast votes for the entire
Board, and it's interesting that the Board immediately acted to restrict
the possibility of doing that again.

	Larry

    Hey guys cut the DCU a break here.
    
    Now I know that this doesn't actually address the issue brought up in
    469.1. Instead it is a STATEMENT of FACT (I presume). Remember the DCU
    representative who composed this text is not a notes affionado. I think
    people are reading too much into the subject that was chosen of
    "Response to 469.1".
    
    Remember a plain English a response does not have to be an
    answer/explanation. A response can be a statement of fact only.
    Now just because most noters here expect responses to actually
    debate/discuss issues brought up in a note doesn't mean that you should
    expect every person/entity that posts a note here to do so.
    
    Hey one step at a time. Let's hope DCU continue to post information
    (and you've got to admit this is information). Next step is to maybe
    answer questions and the final step is maybe to debate.
    
    I'd like DCU to post more. I will be working on getting that to happen.
    But I'd assume they would only be ameniable to posting more if we
    value the way they choose to post information. Remember information
    sharing for some groups of people has to be learned, it doesn't come
    naturally.
    
    Dave

    
    More power to you, Dave. I only hope that when they see some of the
    scathing rebuttal here, they will not turn tail and hide, but will say
    to themselves, "Oh... they want *substance*!"
    

    
    RE: .8
    
    Dave, I'm sorry but I must disagree with you.  DCU has been posting
    responses to this conference for a while now.  They were receiving
    edited extracts officially and they have received UNedited extracts
    through undetermined means.  They know, or should know by now, what a
    reply is.  It was posted as a reply to one of my replies yet addresses
    none of the questions posed and states a VERY WIDELY known fact.  The
    reply borders on insulting IMO.  Along the lines of "The sky is blue."
    DCU's posting's that make announcements in here, on the other hand, 
    contain very detailed information and explanation.  Is it really 
    communication if DCU refuses to hear or respond to the difficult 
    questions?  And there are a lot of them.
    
    Now HOPEFULLY that reply was written by a complete novice and/or was 
    really a response to some other reply.  And HOPEFULLY future replies will
    address real questions posed and real issues being discussed.  By all
    means keep the door open, but a note to them might be in order to
    eliminate the possibility of any misunderstanding.
    

�It was posted as a reply to one of my replies yet addresses
�    none of the questions posed and states a VERY WIDELY known fact. 
    
    If it were indeed "VERY WIDELY known", then why all the amazement in
    here that they had that authority?  I was certainly surprised that they
    had it and wondered how they were granted that authority.

>    If it were indeed "VERY WIDELY known", then why all the amazement in
>    here that they had that authority?  

I think you were misunderstanding the replys in here, and hopefully the DCU
had the same misunderstanding.  The amazement was not that they had the 
authority, the amazement was that they had the gall to pull something as
raw as changing from 200 to 5000 signatures before we'd even gotten home
from the special meeting.  I think we can all agree on that one!

	Larry

    
    >If it were indeed "VERY WIDELY known", then why all the amazement in
    >here that they had that authority?  I was certainly surprised that they
    >had it and wondered how they were granted that authority.
    
    Maybe because a lot members aren't up to speed with what is in the
    Bylaws?  But their authority to change the Bylaws at will (with NCUA
    approval) has been an on going discussion in several topics.  Maybe you
    ARE reading another conference?   8-)  8-)
    
    One of your comments about whether 2000 members at a Special Meeting
    should have the authority to vote and make decisions confuses me.  Are
    you saying that Special Meetings should be banned altogether? 
    Obviously, trying to contact 88,000 people to see when they can all
    make a meeting isn't a possibility.  Would you suggest a majority? 
    44,001 people?  A Special Meeting is a very powerful membership right.
    It must remain as a viable option available to the membership to use
    should the circumstances warrant.  It helps keep the feet of the Board
    on the ground, in my eyes.

�But their authority to change the Bylaws at will (with NCUA
�    approval) has been an on going discussion in several topics.  
    
    Yes, but people, myself included, were still surprised that they could
    and cited examples of other organizations where the board did not have
    this authority.
    
�Are
�    you saying that Special Meetings should be banned altogether? 
    
    You are a master at trying to read more into than what is said.

�Are
�    you saying that Special Meetings should be banned altogether? 
    
>>>    You are a master at trying to read more into than what is said.
    
    No, you are a master of not expressing an opinion or idea of your own. 
    I was merely trying understand YOUR position on special meetings.  I
    replied before getting to your other note stating your position.  It
    was refreshing to hear you express one.  I even found myself agreeing
    with most of it!  I look forward to more opinions and less one-liners.