Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    An election-related poster were also removed from a TAY2 bulletin board
    (where it had been placed next to the DCU annual meeting notice and
    list of nominated candidates). I replaced it, and left my name and
    number on the new one with a request to let me know if it's necessary
    to remove it before 30-Mar. That one vanished yesterday, and no one has
    contacted me with a reason.
    

    Can you find out who is in charge of that particular bulletin board?
    There is generally somebody who "owns" a bulletin board.  If you
    get their permission to put it up, and it gets taken down...I think
    a formal complaint would not be amiss.

Is the bulletin board between the DCU office and the entrance the DCU
folks use? That's where mine was so I just asked at the branch. The person
in question proudly admitted that they were the one taking the poster
down. This person was the same one who verbalized negative comments
at me when I was handing stuff out in the cafe (in front of DCU) awhile ago
so this person was the first one I asked.

	I think that you should tell this person that this a a Digital Facility
  and not a DCU facility and that DCU employees have no right touching anything
  on a Digital-owned bulletin board.  If there is something offensive or
  otherwise unacceptable on the board there are proper channels for them to
  get it removed.

	This person's manager should also be informed, if necessary in writing,
  of what happened.  DCU employees don't have to like what they see in the
  building, but it doesn't give them any rights.

		Danny

    Maybe we should make a complaint to Ron Glover...
    
    Dave

The teller has been spoken to (I hear), I've put the poster back up, let's
see if it stays before we escallate things. My goal is to get the posters
to stay up, not to get anybody in trouble. Besides, when this thing is
over, there is much healing that needs to be done. The tellers will someday
hopefully understand that we're doing this effort for them too. Now is not
a good time to try to convince them of that fact unfortunately.

There was a discussion recently about DCU postings concerning the election.
When I looked for that discussion in this notes file, I couldn't find it
again.  The subject has kind of come up again here, so . . .

I had a thought about the election posters.  At this point, shouldn't the
election posters list ALL the candidates?  I would assert that any postings
at a DEC facility MUST list ALL candidates, with no preference given to
any.  That implies all in the same point size of the same type face, etc.
About the only other acceptable information would be a simple identification
like "Nominated by the Nominating Committee", "Nominated by Petition",
or "Incumbent".

Seems to me like anything else - or not including a candidate - would be a
direct violation of Digital's Policies and Procedures.  If I see such a
posting, I will personally take it to the site manager and personnel and
file a formal complaint.

Sounds like fun, doesn't it?

				- - Steve

    Did the posters ask for votes for one or more candidates?  If so, this
    could be interpreted as solicitation and as such be grounds for removal
    from bulliten boards.  However, this is DEC's call, not DCU's.  Below
    is a copy of the policy for posting material on bulliten boards in the
    HLO site.
    
From:	OBSESS::NEWTON "LISA NEWTON-ZETTLER, SERVICES & RECREATION HLO1/P7 225-4624  30-Apr-1991 1121" 30-APR-1991 11:54:16.85
To:	@SEC.DIS,KOCH
CC:	
Subj:	Bulletin Board Guidelines, please forward to your group.  tx, Lisa

CORPORATE GUIDELINES FOR POSTING INFORMATION ON BULLETIN BOARDS 


The following MAY BE posted on the bulletin boards with approval 
of Employee Services & Recreation (HLO1/P07) only.  All postings 
that are unapproved will be removed from the boards.

  o  Government posters, official notices from Personnel.

  o  Information relating to the Company's business such as job 
     vacancies, training, announcements, press clippings or releases.  

  o  Items for sale or rent by Digital employees may be posted on 
     the FYI bulletins boards located in front of the HLO2 Cafeteria 
     and next to the Hall of White Mist Cr. ONLY.  Items sold should 
     be "one-of a kind" in nature and should not be sold or rented 
     by, or as part of any business.  All notices must be dated and 
     removed after one month (except rentals).

  o  Information relating to Company-sponsored Employee Activities, 
     clubs & leagues or special events such as DECUS, DECWorld, etc.  


The following types of information may NOT be posted on Company 
property such as bulletin boards, newsletters or publicized via 
electronic mail.


  o  No advertisements or solicitations from outside individuals, 
     organizations or businesses selling goods or services to the 
     general public.

  o  No personal services such as daycare, lawn mowing or 
     business cards.  

  o  No advertisements or notices from external religious, social,
     fraternal or other such groups.


For more information contact Employee Services & Recreation 225-4624.

    DCU was asked to publicise all the candidates equally. They refused.
    They just want to publicise the nominating committee candidates. Other
    members think it important to publicise information on the petition
    candidates.
    
    As far who can post what there are boards where employees can post
    anything they want (subject it to be within DEC P&P).
    
    I think it is totally out of line to take down others posters (be they
    for nominating committee candidates, petitition candates, "REAL CHOICES"
    candidates or single candidates). The only person that should take down
    a poster is the person that runs a particular notice board. A lot of
    people are asking the appropriate people for permission before posting
    things. I'd strongly advise against touching anybodies poster. Sure
    asking the person who owns the board (facilities, personnel etc)
    whether a poster is meant to be there is totally appropriate.
    
    If I were to see anybody take down a poster of any sort that was
    legitimately posted I'd make a complaint on that employee.
    
    Dave

>	I would assert that any postings at a DEC facility MUST list ALL 
>	candidates, with no preference given to any.  


	I'm not so sure about that. Here in ZKO, many of the bulletin boards
	near copiers, coffee machines, etc, have cards announcing that
	so-and-so sells tupperware, does painting, has a house for sale or
	rent, etc. I don't think they are required to list everyone that also
	sells tupperware... As long as everyone has *access* to post things,
	that's the important thing.

					Tom_K

    If I represent DCU or Digital, I should present information on all 
    candidates.  But, if I represent myself (and I do - just spent $40 to
    copy the materials) I can present information on whomever I feel like.  
    However, as a courtesy, I am making a list of all candidates available to 
    me and not just the "Real Choices" candidates.  Information about all
    candidates is being made available though not as much for some as
    others.
    
    Steve

>    Did the posters ask for votes for one or more candidates?  

	No. The "standard Real Choices" poster lists the "Real Choices"
	candidates, and lists some points they are committed to.
	At the bottom of the poster is the statement "Please vote for
	a member owned, member operated credit union by choosing 
	seven candidates and signing your ballot." Not seven of the
	above, or seven "Real Choices" candidates, just seven candidates.
	No solicitation for any candidate or set of candidates, only
	a request to vote, which I think everyone is in favor if.

						Tom_K

    I will post in CXO the information of any candidate who asks me to post
    it.  As it happens, none of the nominated-by-nomination-committee
    candidates have asked me to post anything.  It is their choice.

�    DCU was asked to publicise all the candidates equally. They refused.
�    They just want to publicise the nominating committee candidates.
    
    Can we have a clarification on this.  The only publicizing by DCU that
    I've seen or heard about has been the recording when you call into DCU
    and get put on hold.  I haven't seen anything in the branches I've been
    in or on Livewire giving any information on any candidates.

Don't forget the special mailing they did after the nomination committee
made their 9 picks. I believe it was a first class mailing to everybody
($20K? $30K?) because (according to DCU) the schedule dates required it
(rather than mailing it with a normal monthly statement).

On my way back from the dentist this afternoon, I dropped in to the TAY2
DEFCU office.  Posted on the bulletin board is an official announcement
of the upcoming election that lists all the candidates nominated by the
Nominating Committe in one block, followed by another block listing the
candidates nominated by (now verified) petitions.

In my view, this is satisfactory.  At this point in time, providing a list
of all the candidates running is the only appropriate action that the
DEFCU may take as an organization.  I believe that nothing favoring one
candidate or another belongs on the "official" DEFCU bulletin boards.

Within DEC facilities, of course, you should be able to post anything that
you are willing to defend!


Re: .10

I'm sorry, Tom - that sentence SHOULD have read:

>	I would assert that any DEFCU postings at a DEC facility MUST list ALL
                                ^^^^^
>	candidates, with no preference given to any.  

At least, that's what I meant.  I didn't mean to imply that individuals shouldn't
be able to post information about one candidate or another (although I suspect
that anything which supported specific candidates would run afoul of the
company's bulletin board policy!).

				- - Steve

As of yesterday afternoon the poster was still up, but somebody had moved
it way to the right (away from most of the traffic) from where I had
replaced it.

    So you moved it back?

    
    My poster (TAY2 caf) was taken down again -- a few shreds were still
    hanging.
    
    A new one is in its place. I'm trying to find out who controls
    postings.
    

Well, I spoke too soon. The poster is gone again. I politely asked the
teller if she ripped it down or if she knew who ripped it down
and the teller got really huffy and said "she's never down that end of the
building anyway". However, I have seen some of the DCU tellers use the
upper Thompson St entrance (the one in question) and I suspect she came to
work thru that entrance this morning. All other entrances are much farther
away.  Sigh.

In MLO, all the tellers are wearing BIG buttons that say something like
"Vote" with no suggestion of endorsement which is good. There are a few
other signs up suggesting that people vote, and a sheet up on the wall
listing all the candidates both by nomination and by petition (in
separate, labeled paragraphs).

    The REAL CHOICES tents I placed on the canteen tables in CXN1 this
    morning were ripped off before 11:30am.  There were two witnesses who
    have alleged it was a DCU employee, and they supplied a name which I
    won't post.  I went to the local DCU office manager, who said she had no
    control over what the DCU employees do on their lunch hour. I called
    DCU HQ, asked for Cockburn and got Mary Madden.  I repeated the story,
    and Mary said she would check into it.  I said the only thing I wanted
    was no repitition when I put more tents out on Monday.

    Again, the identification of either a person of the person's employer
    has not been confirmed.

    >The REAL CHOICES tents I placed on the canteen tables in CXN1 this
    >morning were ripped off before 11:30am.  There were two witnesses who
    >have alleged it was a DCU employee, and they supplied a name which I
    >won't post.
    
    I like the new legal speak.  I see DEC will be training a bunch of new
    lawyers so we can enter notes into various conferences...
    
    >I went to the local DCU office manager, who said she had no
    >control over what the DCU employees do on their lunch hour.
    
    Well, I think she better take control of those employees, otherwise
    DEC might not allow these contracters (I think this is the correct
    term) to enter DEC facilities.  Sounds like she needs to understand
    this is serious.  She controls their actions.  I have heard of
    cleaning people who have been not allowed back on DEC property
    because of misconduct.
    
    >I called
    >DCU HQ, asked for Cockburn and got Mary Madden.  I repeated the story,
    >and Mary said she would check into it.  I said the only thing I wanted
    >was no repitition when I put more tents out on Monday.

    IMHO, this should be brought up to site personal so that it does not
    occur again.
    
    	- mark

    This also does not pertain to DCU employees, but similar ones are
    above, so I'll keep them together (or moderator, where does it belong?)
    
    I had a poster removed from my office tody - over lunch, I assume.  I
    am not in a high-traffic area - it just disappeared - no trace,
    no note.
    
    Jack
    
            

I wonder if any of this (should it be confirmed) would be adequate basis to
have the election overturned?

	Paul

    Re: .40
    
    After posting .40, I did take the issue to Hoffman (head of personnel,
    CXO). What he is doing before anything else is confirming that the
    tents on the cafeteria tables are legal.  He doesn't know that
    officially even though he gave me permission to post them there.
    
    He is doing a CYA before he says or does anything about the alleged DCU
    person, and I think that is the right thing for him to do.

    
    DCU employees destroying or altering election material are taking an
    active part in the election process and are in direct violation of
    DCU's Election Guidelines.  I am confident that severe disciplinary action
    will be taken against these employees as the guidelines state.  Oh ya,
    that's right...  DCU doesn't follow those guidelines.  They just hold
    them up when they need them for use against others.  Or is that the
    Bylaws?
    
    
    
    On the serious side, what we are witnessing is a pure example of what
    REAL CHOICES candidates wish to change.  Whether they are rules,
    guidelines or Bylaws, they MUST be adhered to.  People must also be
    held accountable for their actions.  It is VERY disturbing to see this
    blatant disregard continue after the enormous damage that has been done
    to OUR credit union.  Is this attitude just an isolated incident
    involving 1 or 2 people?  Hard to tell for sure, but it seems like more
    than that.  Does this attitude pervade DCU?  Where does it come from?
    Does it start at the top or the bottom?  It's mind boggling that not a 
    day seems to go by that we don't learn more about DCU that we wish we 
    hadn't.
    
    Just what is going on in this credit union?

    
    Oh yes, while up in the MKO cafe today A DCU employee came up to the
    table.  She was very pleasant and we told her about ourselves and gave
    her candidate writups (2 copies of everything).  So there are some DCU 
    employees who have stayed within the defined boundaries.  We should
    make every attempt to reach out to these people.  And the best part of
    this election is that the DCU employees will get to vote in the privacy
    of their homes.  Away from the watchful eyes that were present at the
    Special Meeting.
    
    She was also wearing a large white button that said "Vote in DCU's Board 
    Election".  Good idea.  Always nice to turn out the vote.  But the last
    DCU office I was in didn't even have a list of candidates posted.  I
    heard SHR chose not to post it.  I guess DCU is just learning how to 
    deal with a REAL election this year.

    <putting on my moderator cap>
    
    I've moved a number of replies out of this topic to a new topic, topic
    number 496. Two totally different issues were being discussed in this
    topic. Please keep this topic to the subject of "DCU Employees and the
    Election".
    
    Thanks,
    
    Dave the moderator

    More than anything else, I'd like to know WHY the DCU employees are
    feeling this way.  Are their managers saying dire things to them about
    what will happen if those "REAL CHOICES" candidates get elected?  There
    were apparently concerns expressed at the Special Meeting.  I think
    that the "REAL CHOICES" candidates should issue a statement to the DCU
    Employees in this matter to reassure them that their jobs are NOT at
    stake in this election, or as a result of the election.  What is at
    stake is the future of the DCU itself.  The only time that DCU
    Employees should worry about their jobs is if they violate personnel
    policies laid done by the DCU as well as that laid out by DEC for
    non-DEC employees on Digital Property.  In that case they are doing it
    to themselves.
    
    I think that it is important to make these things clear to the DCU
    Employees.  The Current Board of Directors appears to have placed them
    in the middle of a fight between the current Board and those Nominated
    by them and the people who are trying trying to oust the status quo as
    represented by the "REAL CHOICES" candidates.  They do NOT belong in
    the middle but they need to be reassured of that.
    
    	How about it Candidates?
    
    		Danny

    It was very clear in talking to the DCU manager in CXO that she
    believed very strongly that the REAL CHOICES candidates were not for
    the good of the DCU.  She said she had been reading notes and had
    formed her opinion from that.  I gave her a copy of "Why the DCU Needs
    New Leadership" and when I saw her next, I asked her what she thought
    of it.  Her reply was that she wouldn't honor it by deigning to read
    it. (Almost a quote.)  I asked her why the DCU BoD wouldn't answer the
    questions in it, and her reply was, "Because people like you will twist
    whatever is said."  I then said something very nasty I wish I could
    retract, but the moving finger having writ moves on.

    Now, this woman is in Colorado and perhaps isolated from all the
    Eastern goings on.  She said she reads notes (I don't know where or
    how), but I suspect that she actually believes whatever the
    higher-level DCU management is telling her.  She wouldn't tell me her
    version of any of the items in "Why the DCU Needs New Management", but
    her manner indicated to me she believed she had answers. Sort of a Mona
    Lisa knowing smile with no words. (I hope I'm not reading too much into
    her manner.)

    If she conveyed her feelings, impressions, and her version of the facts
    to her DCU employees, that would explain how they react.  I doubt if
    any of them have any other source of information.

    
    RE: .49
    
    Amazing. I wonder how that manager treats the membership in her day to
    day dealings?  also I wonder when all these violations of the Digital 
    network are going to be addressed?
    
    Since this all started I have received several mail messages from
    friends or relatives of those who work for DCU.  It sounds like this
    attitude is coming from the top down.  Whoever is responsible for this
    is severely damaging DCU employee and membership relations.  Can people
    with type of attitude be friendly, courteous, helpful to the membership
    if they think we are out to get them?  The next time they are asked to
    forego a fee, will they think, no, let's stick it to them?
    
    This is horrible, pathetic and doesn't need to happen.  In my opinion
    it could not happen and grow if it was discouraged instead of
    encouraged at certain levels within the credit union.  The fact that
    DCU employees were forced to vote in public, in front of their
    management, peers, and the Board told me all I needed to know.  Having 
    them all sit together told me even more.  They were being watched.
    Anybody in a position of authority who would do this to people is 
    unethical and immoral IMO.
    

    Re: .-1 and .-2

    When I bought my glider (airplane without an engine) a year ago, I
    needed to get a cash advance on my non-DCU VISA card which greatly
    exceeded the normal DCU limit of $5000 for such transactions.  She was
    very cooperative in arranging the exception for me. And when I bought
    my house last July, I needed a house-sized electronic funds transfer
    into my DCU account, and she was helpful in explaining how that all
    would work.  Neither of these transactions left any additional money in
    my DCU account, so there was no significant monetary gain to the DCU by
    helping with them.  Therefore I have only good things to say about her
    DCU business dealings with me.
    
    She is entitled to her own opinions on the current election, and I
    won't criticize her for those even though I strongly disagree. And I
    don't know what she is telling the folks who work for her. The only
    criticism I have was her disinterest in one of her employees allegedly
    taking the REAL CHOICES tents off the CXN1 tables and her comment that
    she had no control over what DCU employees did on their lunch break.

	Another data point. Here at ZKO, a DCU employee stopped by our
	info table and chatted a bit, and was given the complete packet of 
	info. Seemed friendly. After all, most (all?) DCU employees are
	DCU members too, they ought to have the access to the info we
	are making available to other members it they want it.

					Tom_K

FWIW, during the Special Meeting petition drive, the branch
manager for the HLO branch stopped by, picked up some material,
introduced herself, and we had a pleasant chat.  It seemed clear
that we didn't agree on at least some of the issues, but we
disagreed in a civil way.  She was very professional, listened
to my views, etc.

Not all DCU employees are being effected by this controversy in
the same way.  There are some who remain objective about things.

./chris

Re: .50

>     Amazing. I wonder how that manager treats the membership in her day to
>     day dealings?  also I wonder when all these violations of the Digital 
>     network are going to be addressed?

Problems like this will be addressed when YOU take action.

Something that keeps bothering me in this notes file is the assumption that
there is "someone out there who will take care of us".

There isn't!

If you believe that someone who shouldn't be is accessing the Digital
corporate network, you should immediately bring this to the attention
of Digital's management.  It would help if you could provide concrete
evidence that such a violation of policy was taking place.

If someone is removing materials from bulletin boards or offices, you
should file a complaint with the site manager.  It would help if you
could identify the individual.  If that individual is a contractor and
is violating company policy, it is likely that the individual will
receive at least a reprimand;  repeated or blatant offenses may well
result in that individual being barred from Digital facilities.

People also keep mentioning the NCUA as if it's going to step in and
make sure that every single DEFCU member is blissfully happy.  Sorry,
but that's not the role of the NCUA.  The NCUA exists to ensure that
credit union members, as participants in the national economy, are
protected from the failure of a credit union.  To that end, the NCUA
will regulate and monitor the financial performance of the credit
unions it guarantees.  Beyond that, the NCUA couldn't care less what
happens between the members and the managers.

The current election for the DEFCU Board of Directors is pretty much
irrelevant to the NCUA.  They have no role in ensuring an honest and
fair election - you're going to have to look elsewhere to ensure that.

You COULD make a case that any improprieties in the election process
should be addressed by Digital management, given the close relationship
between the DEFCU and DEC.  Ultimately, however, the only real clout
we have is through the courts.  Given the difficulty of winning a suit
in court, there is a lot of latitude for shady practices in conducting
an election - unless everyone who feels concerned works to keep the
process open, fair, and honest.

				- - Steve

    
    RE: .54
    
    The violations of network security were pointed out to a senior DEC
    manager.  The response?  "Well we all know that happens from time to time."
    
    So much for network security...
    

    Were they reported via the procedures in VTX SECINFO (the network
    security hotline), perhaps?  That should be harder to ignore.

    I have this awful feeling that DCU employees will be getting a FILLED
    IN ballot and asked to sign on the dotted line and told to get back
    in to the collection point.
    
    Don

    Re: .-1
    
    Hmmm.
    
    Which of the two oficially approved candidates will be left out?

    Re .-1
    
    Well I presume one would be Deepak Goyal because he refused to support
    Steinkrauss's flier. But as you know Deepak's instructions were ignored
    and his personal information was listed on that flier. Talk about
    violation of DEC P&P.
    
    Now who else hasn't got in line behind Mark Steinkrauss.
    
    Isn't it funny how Mark Steinkrauss 'decided' not to run but is now
    orchestrating a campaign to get the nominated candidates elected.
    
    Dave 

    	re DCU employees reading NOTES
    
    	Can't have it both ways, guys.  There are notes in this conference
    	calling for DCU participation here so that we can be better
    	informed.  Then when we hear of a DCU site manager not liking
    	what she sees here, we cry FOUL and push for security violations.
    
    	Let's be a little more consistent lest the participants herein
    	be written off as being confused about what they want.

    re -.1
    
    Whoah there guy!  I don't quite follow your drift.  I don't remember
    any complaints in this thread about people participating or not
    participating in this notes file.  The complaints to security concern
    the unauthorized solicitation during company hours.
    
    Maybe I missed something?

    Joe has a point.  There have been multiple requests in this conference,
    not necessarily in this topic, that the DCU folks get access to the
    conference so they can answer questions directly.
    
    Then when I repeated the apparent statement of one DCU manager that she
    had access to the conference, I got strong suggestions that I go to
    security and report it.
    
    As things stand, I think the two are consistent: we want them to have
    access but not UNTIL a secure method is set up that will protect the
    net.  So from a technical point of view, there is no inconsistency.
    
    But I think a good argument could be made (and probably will be made)
    that the *attitudes* expressed in those technical views are
    inconsistent. I think there is some merit in that.

.61>    Whoah there guy!  I don't quite follow your drift.  I don't remember
.61>    any complaints in this thread about people participating or not
.61>    participating in this notes file.  
    
    
    		This is what I mean:
    
    
    
    
.49>    She [a DCU manager] said she had been reading notes and had
.49>    formed her opinion from that.  
    
.50>    RE: .49
.50>    
.50>    also I wonder when all these violations of the Digital 
.50>    network are going to be addressed?
    

I agree that we want DCU employees to have access to notes.  However,
when I hear of DCU employees reading notes, the questions I immediately
have are, how are they getting access??   And to how much of the file??

If they are able to simple enter the notes file and read as much or as
little as they want, that's GREAT!  At least in terms DCU communication.
It does raise some serious network security issues, since I don't believe
they can currently access the DCU notes file without having access to every
other notes file on the network that is not members-only.  

But doesn't it seem more likely that they cannot, in fact, enter the
enet and read DCU notes directly?  If that is the case, it would imply
that someone is passing them notes out of DCU.  And if that is happening,
they are probably only seeing a subset of notes -- only those that the
person passing the data wants them to see.  

THAT'S what I fear is really meant by a DCU employee who says "I formed
my opinions from notes":  that all they've seen is a few extreme notes.

To cite a specific example:  last fall, Chuck Cockburn stated at his visit
to my site that the notes file had alleged that Mangone had an illegal loan.
There are two obvious conclusions from this:  first, someone was (in
violation of Digital policy) showing him notes, and second, he hadn't seen
the whole discussion.  Because although some individual notes may have
sounded like that, the discussion as a whole made it clear that the people
were not saying that Mangone had an illegal loan -- the message was rather
that the public record of Mangone's interest-only mortgage payment looked
awfully strange and people wanted to know what was going on.

Or to cite another example:  the famous "witchhunt" note from the Board
states that people have alleged in this file that they are compensated.
I don't believe there was any such note, although there were notes where 
people *asked* if they were compensated.  But if all I knew about the 
DCU conference is what the Board stated in that widely-distributed memo, 
I'd be pretty leary of the DCU notes file, too.  

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS *Note that I am not claiming an improper action by any individual.  The 
Board is entitled to dislike the notes file if they want.  And I have no
idea how DCU employees are seeing notes.

Then again, we may be jumping to innappropriate conclusions. When I read -

.49>    She [a DCU manager] said she had been reading notes and had
.49>    formed her opinion from that.  
    
I simply assumed that it was the extracts supplied to DCU to which she would
have been referring. Another possibility is that she has a spouse who is
a DEC employee and she has access to the network that way. While that may
be technically less than above board, I'm not sure it's the type of thing
we necessarily want to see "prosecuted", in that no corporate trade secrets
are at risk. Has no one ever let their spouse browse through the CHOCOLATE
conference, or GARDENING?

-Jack

    
    I think the real danger in DCU employees directly reading this
    conference is the fact that it may possibly scare people away from 
    reporting problems that may have had with DCU.  Right now where do members
    go for remedy if you feel DCU has treated you unfairly and you have
    tried to work it out with them, to no avail?  This is a place where
    they can air their grievance and see if others have had similar
    experiences.  Will members do this if they know that the local DCU loan
    officer is reading the file?  Are they jeoparizing their chances at
    future loans?  I believe these are all valid concerns.
    
    I believe there must be a definite dividing line between DCU employees
    and DEC employees and it should not be crossed.  DCU employees report to
    the management of DCU and the Board reports to the membership.  The
    system in place now will work if it is used by the Board.  I see the
    possibility of many problems (and confrontations) with direct DCU employee 
    involvement.
    
    I also believe that there needs to be a way for members to *directly*
    speak to and meet Board members on a regular basis.  If elected I will
    use electronic mail among other things to provide the membership with a
    direct line to me to air concerns, offer suggestions, receive offers of
    help, etc.  No message will go unanswered.  One thing I would like to
    implement is a credit appeal process.  If a member feels they have
    unjustly been denied a loan, then a committee of *members* and DCU loan
    officers will meet with the individual to address the issue and work
    things out, hopefully to everybody's satisfaction.  I think what gets
    people angry and resentful is the feeling that DCU just doesn't care or
    value their business.  If you don't stack up to their cold cruel
    qualifying numbers it's too bad.  But there is usually much more to
    consider than just numbers.  Sometimes, people just need a friendly
    hand to help them through some tough times.  Yes, the DCU may take a
    little more risk in some of these situations.  But it is the type of
    risk that it *should* be taking.  Not taking risks on Cape Cod real
    estate developers.
    
    I believe the above process will help both DCU and the membership in
    the short and long run.  DCU will build a solid base of loyal members
    who feel they *are* treated better at the DCU than they would be at
    their local bank.  We need to put people back into the process.
    
    Any thoughts on the above?
    

Well put, I completely agree.

I'm ready to get beat up for this stand, but in this one case I think
everyone's best interests are served if we assume DCU staff has access
to everything which is written in this conference, even if "official rules"
are still catching up to reality.

I'm aware that all the necessary checks, balances, and approvals have not
yet been developed to grant that access "properly", but everyone seems to
have agreed that they will be, given a little time.  In the meantime we
have something really important to the future of our credit union going on,
and better communication has to be of help, not only for the current election
but also to lay groundwork for the large dose of hard work which will come
afterward.

For what it's worth, when I spoke with Patti D'Addieco to get the material
for 471.0, she told me that she DOES get to see NOTES.  In fact, she
promised to read my posting (471.0) and get back to me if anything I was
quoting her on needed tuning or correction.  And I see that as all for
the good.

To say nothing of how helpful it will be when DCU has write access (and a new
Board which communicates, too!).

re: .66

At another credit union I belong to, if a member is turned down for a loan,
he may appeal directly to the credit committee in person or by phone.

BTW,  I'd also like to see the By-laws changed to include, at a minimum, the
DCU election guidelines prohibiting DCU employee involvement, other than
voting as a member.  This will avoid the 'these are guidelines only' way of
avoiding taking action against elections violations.

Bob

	DCU access to this conference would be a moot point if the
	Directors would simply read this conference, and reply to
	questions and inquiries entered here.

	Hopefully, that will begin April 23rd.

				Tom_K

    	One thing that appeals to me about having petition candidates
    	sitting on the board is that most (ALL?) of them are notes-
    	conversant and many are active electronic participants (here
    	and MAIL.)  Even if just ONE makes it!  (Though I'd like to
    	see 7 of them here in the notes file this summer.)
    
    	I wonder if their past history of "electronic visibility" (or
    	lack thereof) was a consideration in the selection of the DCU-
    	chosen candidates...
    
    	Joe Oppelt

.71>      I wonder if their past history of "electronic visibility" (or
.71>      lack thereof) was a consideration in the selection of the DCU-
.71>      chosen candidates...

That might have been one consideration.  Another (which just occurred to me
this morning) is political correctness, in the sense of being a team player
and going along with what top management wants.  Top management has shown,
for whatever reason, that they want to help run DCU.  "People like themselves"
don't even have to be explicitly told what to do.  Engineers, as is well
known (*), can't be told to do anything.  :)


---------------------------
(*)  Remember, before the special meeting, a Steinkrauss-level memo
     which said essentially that?  I think it's posted here somewhwere.

    
    RE: .72
    
    You hit the nail on the head.
    
    Wasn't it something like "These engineers don't care who you are."
    We should have used it for campaigning purposes.  If there is one
    statement that shows the difference between the Board and Petition
    Candidates, it's this one.  We don't care who you are, we want you to
    stay with the credit union. We don't care who you are, we will
    communicate with you openly and honestly.  We don't care who you
    are, we are concerned if DCU isn't doing right by you....
    

I entered the Mark Steinkrauss comment that is being referred to in .72 and
.73.  It isn't from a written memo -- Mark said it to me in a meeting, and
Mark gave me explicit permission to report on the meeting.  Mark told me that 
he told a lawyer "these are engineers -- they don't care who you are", meaning 
in the context that engineers aren't impressed by position.  I feel that this 
is a very perceptive comment on the typical attitudes of engineers.

	Larry

    
    Well, I found out something REAL interesting.  Seems Chuck
    Cockburn and all the rest of the DCU employees that have played an
    active part in this election, were NOT violating DCU Election
    Guidelines.  We are under the misperception that the
    guidelines that were used in the past, applied to this election.  In a
    conversation with Patty D'Addieco, she did not seem to believe they
    also applied to this election.  She asked if I had received them from
    her.  I can't really remember. 
    
    So there you go.  A credit union whose management has no qualms
    whatsoever with re-writing or discarding its own election guidelines
    without bothering to tell anybody.  But this just goes along with all
    the Bylaw changes they have been making.  For a financial institution
    whose currency is TRUST, this type of ridiculousness cannot and should
    not be tolerated.  Has the management of this credit union also started
    to act in ways that may result in damage to DCU or is this the current
    Board acting again?  This one could be either or both. 
    
    Looks like all DCU documents need an expiration date associated with
    them.  Is this anyway to run an election?  Is this any way to run a
    credit union?
    
    Why do I get the feeling we should ask DCU to verify that the
    candidates with the HIGHEST votes will win the election?

.75>  In a conversation with Patty D'Addieco, she did not seem to believe
.75>  they also applied to this election.  She asked if I had received them
.75>  from her.  I can't really remember. 

It's interesting that DCU should think which "Communications Director" gave
out the documents would affect anyone's perception of their validity.  But
in point of fact:  no, Patty didn't give them to us.  The Election Guidelines
were given out by her predecessor.  (Mary Madden.)

(A lot of the Guidelines did still seem to apply, though -- for instance,
the Nominating Committee's review of candidate statements.  Perhaps DCU
updates the Guidelines in a way similar to that in which the Board updates
the Bylaws?  11:00 at night, in private?)

How about you ask Patty for the current version and a log of the changes,
Phil?  I'll go in half on the Information Protection Policy fee.  Seriously.


.75>  Why do I get the feeling we should ask DCU to verify that the
.75>  candidates with the HIGHEST votes will win the election?


Wrong on three counts, Phil.

  1)  Not "should".  "Must".

  2)  Not "ask".  "Demand".

  3)  Not "DCU".  At least the auditing firm, and very possibly the courts.

I've made this observation before.  After the results are announced will
be too late -- this election needs an undisputable appearance of propriety,
and it's evidently beyond the vision of the current Powers That Be to see
that necessity in advance.  

It seems a pity that after all the effort so many people have put into
opening up the ballot, we shareholders now seem willing to allow the process
to continue to be whatever The Powers are magnanimous enough to dole out.
Even as one of the lesser volunteers, it irks me that my time and energy may
have been squandered by lack of follow-up.

�    Well, I found out something REAL interesting.  Seems Chuck
�    Cockburn and all the rest of the DCU employees that have played an
�    active part in this election, were NOT violating DCU Election
�    Guidelines.  
    
    Can someone summarize the alleged violations?

    
    The (old/outdated/ignored?(but nobody ever told us until now)) election
    guidelines state very clearly that no DCU employee will participate in
    the election except to vote.
    
    1) Chuck Cockburn, President of DCU, was one third of the nominating
       committee that selected the 9 nominated candidates.
    
    2) There is strong evidence that DCU employees, at the direction of
       DCU management, solicited DEC employees to distribute material
       supporting the nominated candidates.
    

Re: .77

The "Election Guidelines" I saw discussed a "hands-off" by employees
approach to the election.  Chuck Cockburn, DCU President, was on the
nominating committee.  After the ballots went out, I contacted Patti
D'Addiecco and inquired about employee involvement in campaigning
and was told that employees were allowed to campaign for candidates,
just not during working hours within DCU.  We've also seen instances
of employees tearing down posters on Digital property - although I tend
to think that griping about that is trivializing things somewhat.

Seems to me (my documents are not here at the office) that the election
guidelines mentioned something to the effect of employees not participating
in the election at all except to vote.

	DEFCU employee Chuck Cockburn served on the DEFCU nominating 
	committee. 

	It is alleged that Several DEFCU employees are active in 
	distributing campaign literature on behalf of some candidates.


	It is alleged that a DEFCU manager solicited other DEFCU employees 
	to distribute literature.

					Tom_K

    The person distributing the Qualified Board literature in Colorado
    Springs has a wife who works at the DCU.
    
    A DCU person in Colorado Springs removed all my REAL CHOICES literature
    from the CXN1 canteen.  There were two witnesses.

    From my (now outdated) copy of the DCU ELECTION GUIDELINES:
    
    p. 8:
    
    "Credit Union employees, because of their influential positions,
    shall not be involved in an election other than to cast their own
    ballots.  Refusal to adhere to this guideline will result in
    disciplinary action."
    
    Steve

    
    Tom, I'm sorrya DCUemployee took your things from the CXN1 canteen.
    
    Now, get the facilities person involved, and that persons manager
    involved. Lodge a formal complaint to security.
    
    Discussing in here won't get you anywhere. That person should be
    seriously reprimanded, and a complaint made to the NCUA.
    
    Simon

    I did talk to the manager in the CXO1 DCU office, and I did call the
    DCU HQ with the information.  I was interested in not having the
    literature ripped off again.  I didn't (and don't) see any constructive
    reason for getting any DCU employee reprimanded as long as the incident
    doesn't occur again.

    At 4:33pm today I personally witnessed the branch manager of the DCU at
    ZKO destroying the small yellow "Real Choices" cards that had been left
    in the lobby to Babbage auditorium, near the ATM machine.

    The way she did it was very "unusual."  Allow me to explain with just
    the facts and you can draw your own conclusions.  I was taking a while
    at the ATM while I made several transactions when I noticed the branch
    manager pacing behind me.  When I finished with the ATM and walked away
    from the immediate area, she walked up to the ATM and rested her hands
    on it for a few seconds, but she didn't actually use it.  I stepped out
    of sight for two seconds and then returned to see her tear into pieces
    the "Real Choices" cards she had picked up from the nearby table and
    throw them out.

    I asked her why she had done that and under whose authority she was
    acting.  She replied "because they don't have all the candidates names"
    and that security had given her permission.  We both then walked to the
    security desk in the ZKO1 lobby.  She arrived slightly before me and
    explained what she had just done because a gentlemen (me) would probably
    stop by and ask.  She then left as I discussed the situation with the
    two security people there.
    
    The security person manning the front desk just said no "political
    things" were permitted but didn't seem familiar with the DCU election
    situation.  When I explained it was my understanding that the people
    distributing the "Real Choices" information had gotten approval from
    personnel to distribute the literature, I was told by the other security
    person behind the glass window that I should see the ZKO facilities
    manager.  He also seemed somewhat confused, because he said they had
    been told by Mark Steinkrauss that distributing DCU election material
    was OK.

    I intend to follow this incident up with formal complaints to both
    Digital and DCU management.

    --Steve Realmuto    

    
    the thing that gets me boiled up over this is the lack of respect. DCU
    employees do not seem to realise they are on Digital property as
    guests.
    
    If it were constructive, I would walk into the branch and start
    rearranging the displays, leaflets etc. The point is, just because I
    don't like something doesn't mean I have the OK to correct it.
    
    I would,
    
    get the name of the security guards
    ensure your conversation with them is written in the security logbook
    ensure you communicsation with the facility management is in writing
    ditto DCU HQ
    then send the whole mess to the NCUA
    
    Simon

    
    Contacting the NCUA is a waste of time, paper and postage.  Maybe a
    demand to DCU headquarters for reimbursement of expenses due to the
    damage done by their employees is in order.  There have just been too
    many cases of it happening and it is still continuing.  If DCU wanted
    to stop it, they could in a second.  If reimbursement is not
    forthcoming, then there is always small claims court.  Hit them where 
    it hurts, the pocketbook.  This usually gets people's attention.
    

	re: ZKO

	Since the areas where the leaflets were left are not work areas,
	no permission was sought or received. I am told that the ZKO
	DEFCU Branch manager asked ZKO security if it was OK to remove
	them, and ZKO security told her that they had no objection.

					Tom_K

    
    RE: .88
    
    Is it the function of ZKO security to grant that permission?  What was
    their reasoning?  Was their decision based solely on what the DCU
    branch manager told them?
    
    But the greater question is why are DCU employees in DEC areas doing
    this?  Aren't they considered contract workers?
    

>    Is it the function of ZKO security to grant that permission?  

	They didn't grant permission. They simply said they didn't object.

					Tom_K

    So if we ask Digital security if we can pick up all the DCU literature
    from inside the DCU, and Security says they have no objection, then we
    are free to do it?

    	RE: .90
    
>    Is it the function of ZKO security to grant that permission?  
>>
>>	They didn't grant permission. They simply said they didn't object.
    
    But not objecting to a request to destroy materials IS approval IMO.
    Whether it was intended as such is another question.  I think security
    should be notified that the materials in question are NOT DCU materials
    and any questions or problems with those materials should be directed
    to the person on site who is making the material available.  DCU
    employees should not be receiving carte blanche to walk around and destroy
    other peoples materials just because they don't happen to like what it
    may say.  Has anybody witnessed DCU employees doing the same thing to
    QB materials?
    
    I firmly believe in cases where DCU employees have been identified as
    destroying materials which are not theirs, DCU should be made to
    reimburse the volunteer for the cost of the destroyed materials.  Since
    DCU charges us $.25 a page for things, the same charge should be passed
    back to them.  IMO this is the only way we're going to get DCU employees to
    stop destroying property that is not theirs to destroy.
    

re .91

  Can we claim all those things with pictures of presidents are literature?
I'll help you collect it ;-.]

	Yesterday, Steve Realmuto and Bill Sconce talked to Gloria, the
	ZKO branch manager. Gloria felt that the areas where I was leaving 
	"take-alongs" was sort of DEFCU turf (my words), and was concerned
	that folks would think that DEFCU was endorsing the material, hence,
	she was removing it. I can appreciate her view.

	Yesterday afternoon, Steve and I talked to Ken Madore, from
	ZKO facilities, and confirmed that in fact, DEFCU not only
	did not own the area, but did not even lease it, and had no
	responsibility for it.

	This morning, I talked to Gloria, and communicated the above facts to
	her, and told her that I would continue to leave "take-alongs"
	on the table by the ATM, and that I would expect the she would
	not remove them. I also told her, that although I did not believe
	anyone would think DEFCU was endorsing the material, I would not
	leave anything on the small desk outside the DEFCU, in respect
	of that possibility.

	I also suggested that much of the problem would be eliminated if 
	DEFCU would make available a small area in the branch where *any*
	candidate could post material. I pointed out that this would be
	a low cost, low time thing that would be of benefit to many members.

	Gloria seemed to take my points, and told me that she would 
	communicate the fact that I was leaving the stuff at the table to
	HQ, and speak with Ken Madore as well.

	I consider this closed, at least for now.

	Also, when Bill and Steve spoke to Gloria, they mentioned that
	posters were also disappearing from other parts of ZKO. Gloria
	said that neither she nor other DEFCU employees were doing that, but
	that ZKO security was. 

	This morning, Steve and I talked to Tim McCoy, head of ZKO security, 
	who confirmed that this was so. I believe that the removal was the 
	result of a memo that was designed to ensure that the "Members for 
	a Qualified Board" fliers, which violated DEC P & P, were removed, 
	and security simply mistook one for the other. Tim said he would get 
	back to me later this morning on whether it would be OK for me to 
	continue posting the posters, he is concerned that they do not list 
	all candidates.

					Tom_K

     
       Two weeks ago I reported that here at SHR (Shrewsbury), security
    notified Personell to remove the small "Real Choices" leaflets from
    the cafeteria tables. I indeed did place those leaflets there thinking
    not that any policy was being violated.  Precedent had apparently been
    set (with Personell's knowledge) this past Fall when many times I 
    "worked" the cafe for the Special Meeting petition drive.
    
       Now that policy regarding solicitation has changed.  I formally
    asked Personell to obtain from Corporate Security or Corporate
    Personell the written policy vaguely quoted to me.   I wish not
    to be in violation of any company policy and will play by the rules.
    
       Got the answer from Personell this morn:  1) Cannot use DCU logo
    on "Real Choices" material.  We are not.  2) Refer to your local
    Security on matters of policy violation(s) at your facility.
    
       When I mentioned to my rep that it appeared  "policy" varied
    from site to site, she replied that it was not relevant.  Individual
    sites may indeed vary in regard to solicitation.   I again pushed
    for the new corporate dictates, but none was forthcoming.
    
                                                             Ron

    
    People,
    
    Let's face it.  John Sims, Digital VP, has worked for the status quo so
    it should be no surprise (at least in by book) that other Digital
    corporate resources at his avail will also be used in support of the
    status quo, namely the use of security & personnel.  Now, DCU is an
    employee benefit.  And we are working for the betterment of that
    benefit.  Mr. Sims obviously does not agree.  But does that mean that
    Digital corporate resources should be used to harrass us?  They are
    well aware of who we are and where we are.  Yet, they have not stepped
    forward and said we are doing anything wrong.  Instead they appear to
    be trying to do this behind the scenes so that DEC's participation in
    this election process won't become more obvious than it already is. 
    I can guarantee that this will not be the case.
    
    The bottom line is that DEC doesn't want us participating in OUR credit
    union in this fashion.  Maybe DEC considers it an insult that many of
    us reject the hand-picked senior managers that have been put in front of
    us for our consideration.  Maybe it would be an embarrassment if they
    lose in the election.  But isn't that our RIGHT?  If DEC wants
    control of DCU then they should start their own BANK.  But until DCU is
    turned into a bank, we have a RIGHT to participate in it and nobody in
    DEC is going to stop me exercising my rights.
    

>    The bottom line is that DEC doesn't want us participating in OUR credit
>    union in this fashion.  Maybe DEC considers it an insult that many of
>    us reject the hand-picked senior managers that have been put in front of
>    us for our consideration.  Maybe it would be an embarrassment if they
>    lose in the election.  But isn't that our RIGHT?  If DEC wants
>    control of DCU then they should start their own BANK.  But until DCU is
>    turned into a bank, we have a RIGHT to participate in it and nobody in
>    DEC is going to stop me exercising my rights.
 
	I am DEC. You are DEC. KO is DEC. Of the three of us, as far as I
	know, only KO sets policy or speaks for DEC. While there are some
	indications that some DEC managers are not happy about what is happening
	with the DCU I don't think it's fair to blame the company. For either
	side. Let's not confuse senior managers with the whole company. I've
	had some people at some serious (to my way of thinking) levels tell
	me they've voted for me. I do not believe this is a case of DEC against
	its employees.

			Alfred

PS: See we're not a unified block if that's what you thought. Phil and I
disagree all the time. Though we do agree more often than not.  

    
    RE: .97
    
    Semantics Alfred.  When a DEC VP sends something out on company
    letterhead, in company envelopes, he is representing DEC.  If he
    wasn't, the company letterhead and envelope would not have been used.
    
    But let's not confuse *personal* support for *corporate* support.  I do
    believe MANY employees in both personnel and security are VERY
    sympathetic to us and will indeed vote for us in the privacy of their
    homes.  However, I also believe that if a memo comes down from above
    saying to do X, and X involves taking action against 'REAL CHOICES'
    candidates or their efforts, I do believe they will not risk their jobs
    by not doing X.
    

    
    I gave Jim Regan, DCU internal auditor, my copy of the "DCU Election
    Guidelines" for him to copy.  He hadn't seen it before.
    

    re: .99
    
    You're kidding!  (Aren't you???  Please say you're kidding....)

�However, I also believe that if a memo comes down from above
�    saying to do X, and X involves taking action against 'REAL CHOICES'
�    candidates or their efforts, I do believe they will not risk their jobs
�    by not doing X.
    
    Some seem to be forgetting that X also involved taking actions against
    "Qualified Board" candidates or thier efforts.

Re:  last few

Exactly what DCU "is" as far as the corporation is concerned
seems to be an interesting question.

I've heard/seen DCU characterized as "an independent outside company,"
or a valuable employee benefit that needs to be protected and
preserved.  These have always been cast as opposites.  But yet, both
definitions are used by DEC, seemingly whenever one is more 
convenient.

I wish they'd get it straight and stick with one definition. I receive
comments like "why don't you stop wasting all the Corporation's money
on an independent, outside company like DCU," while at the same time
getting mail telling me what an important benefit DCU is.  Seems just
a little inconsistent.


Re: Inside auditor

Not surprised he hasn't seen it.  My understanding is he's a new
guy, recently hired in from the outside.  I don't envy his position
at all.  Now that he has a copy of the guidelines, it will be
interesting to see what he does with them.

./chris

.101 is absolutely correct -- most people are not going to risk their jobs
for any set of candidates in this election.  So if security is ordered to
do X, they'll probably do it, whomever X favors or hinders, and whatever
the personal views of the security people.

And that's the point.  It's one thing for a person, whether a DEC engineer
or a DEC VP, to express or act on their personal view.  It's quite another 
to act *as a DEC official* or to make statements on behalf of Digital.

I believe that it is inappropriate for anyone, engineer or VP, to speak
on behalf of Digital about the DCU election.  If anyone sends an official
Digital statement that seems to be in favor of the Real Choices candidates,
I'll complain about it just as much as I did when I felt someone was 
sending an official Digital statement favoring the nominees.  I would like
to see Digital officially treat all of the candidates equally, and I would
like to see Digital enforce policy equitably on all candidates and their
supporters.  Anything less just isn't doing the right thing.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

.102>  Re: Inside auditor
.102>
.102>  Not surprised he hasn't seen it.  My understanding is he's a new
.102>  guy, recently hired in from the outside.  I don't envy his position
.102>  at all.  Now that he has a copy of the guidelines, it will be
.102>  interesting to see what he does with them.


It sure will.  I remember when Chuck Cockburn made his site visit at ZKO,
he made it perfectly clear that he expected his auditors to advise, and
NOT to tell him what to do.

Do you expect to hear back from him?

    After discussing the incident I witnessed with Bill Sconce and Tom
    Krupinski, we agreed it would be best to try and resolve the situation
    directly with the DCU ZKO branch manager, Gloria Fawcett, before
    pursuing any formal complaints.  Gloria was happy to meet with Bill
    and I to discuss the incident.

    During the course of the meeting she expressed her strong concern that
    election literature posted in the immediate area of the DCU might give
    the impression that the DCU endorsed the subset of candidates it
    listed.  She clearly felt this space (the endorsement table outside the
    door and the area around the ATM) was under the DCU's control.  I
    stated my opinion that while this was a reasonable position for the
    endorsement table and ATM machine itself, it was much less clear about
    the area around the ATM.  After all where do you draw the line -- at
    the nearby table owned by Digital, the wall/shelf ten feet from the
    ATM, the bulletin board across the hall?  I suggested that perhaps this
    was a matter between the DCU and Digital facilities.  Gloria also
    convinced me that she was not acting covertly in removing the
    literature from this space.  Prior to this incident she had indeed
    spoken to several security people working the front desk and even left
    literature she removed with them.

    When we mentioned that REAL CHOICES literature is disappearing from
    other locations throughout ZKO, she stated emphatically that no DCU
    employee is doing this.  She also said the security people told her
    that security was removing the RC literature they found posted in the
    facility because it was "political".  As Tom reported in a previous
    note, we have met with Ken Madore, the ZKO facility manager, and Tim
    McCoy, the head of ZKO security to pursue this issue.
        
    While we certainly did not agree on all points, I left with the feeling
    Gloria was sincere in her effort to do what she believed to be the right
    thing and she was not acting maliciously.  Accordingly, I decided a 
    formal complaint is not warranted in this case.

    --Steve

    
    RE: .100
    
    Unfortunately, I am not kidding.
    
    RE: .101
    
    Do you have proof that these actions have been taken by the personnel
    and security organizations themselves against the QB flyers?  Or are
    you referring to people bringing them into Personnel and asking them to
    deal with them?  There is a difference in that one is passive and the
    other active intervention.  In the case of security, it appears they
    are walking around and removing flyers.  We have not been told they are
    removing QB flyers though.

    
    RE: .105
    
    "Political"???  So DCU isn't an employee benefit anymore, it's a
    political entity.  So John Sim's letter was using company resources to
    engage in political activity?  This gets better by the moment. 
    
    But the other question really is, "how is this a 'security' concern?".
    Next time I see all those political posters advertising 'United Way' I
    think I'll call security.  After all, they clearly solicit
    contributions for only a subset of charities.  Ooops, I forgot, the
    company *supports* that involvement.
    
    Guess it's gotten to the point of having to ask DEC what causes we can
    and can't be a part of.  Seems some are more politically correct than
    others.  But no fear, we'll continue to 'do the right thing'.  Quite a
    clash of corporate culture we have going here...

    
    re last few about VP's expressing personal vs. corporate feelings.
    
    Bear in mind that John Sims is not only a VP, but is a member of the
    Executive Committee. Therefore, any correspondence from him on Digital
    letterhead to me is assumed to be a communication from Digital
    Equipment Corporation. There has, and always will be, an implicit
    difference, in the gravity of a memo sent on official letterhead from
    someone listed in the back of the Annual Report, than from any of the
    rest of us ordinary mortals. In particular, only Flag Rank folks can
    sign documents (i.e., cause the Corporation to be committed) on the
    behalf of the Corporation.
    
    I don't mind being solicited by VP's to support the United Way, but
    I resent the {exp. del.} out of being told who to vote for. Current
    Orange Book rules still (to my knowledge) prohibit political endorse-
    ments for candidates running for public office (I.e., Congress), do
    they not? So how come we're being told how to vote for the officers
    of a non-profit organization?
    
    

    I agree with you.  I consider the John Sims letter to be a
    representation that Digital endorses a particular subset of the
    candidates running for external political office.
    
    I expressed that opinion in a mail message to Ron Glover a week ago.
    
    He has not responded at all.
    
    I find that bizarre.

    
    John Sims most likely just signed the letter, I doubt he even read it.
    I am very certain that the catchy phrase "vote for the nominated
    candidates" never even caught his eye.
    
    You should be concentrating your efforts on finding the person who put
    him up to signing it perhaps,
    
    Simon

    
    RE: .110
    
    I find it a bit hard to believe that a Digital VP didn't read something
    that he put his signature to.  Particularly since it was for something
    that isn't in the normal course of his business.  If he didn't read it,
    he should have.  If he was tricked into signing it and it was a
    mistake, then I must have missed the retraction and the dismissal of
    the person responsible.
    

>    I agree with you.  I consider the John Sims letter to be a
>    representation that Digital endorses a particular subset of the
>    candidates running for external political office.
>    
>    I expressed that opinion in a mail message to Ron Glover a week ago.
>    
>    He has not responded at all.

    I expressed the same opinion to Ron Glover as well. I received an
    answer. In fact we have exchanged several messages. I suspect he's
    had so much mail on this that he has a huge backlog of it. Not 
    surprisingly he doesn't see the Sims letter as an endorsement. Other
    people, including some who voted for me, also do not see it as an
    endorsement. It is possible that we are reading more into it then was
    intended. Personally I'm pretty emotionally involved in this and it
    looks like an endorsement. But I'm a notes person and in notes I'm so
    used to people looking for hidden meanings and being picky about 
    wording that I expect it everywhere. 

    Yes, Ron Glover works for Sims. But do you mistrust everyone who works
    for a manager you don't like or trust?

    		Alfred

	Re:.110

>    I am very certain that the catchy phrase "vote for the nominated
>    candidates" never even caught his eye.

   Let's be correct about this.  The letter does not SAY to vote for the
   nominated candidates.  That is something that most people have read into
   the letter.  The wording leads one to interprete it to say that.

   I doubt that John Sims wrote that.  Most VP's rarely write these types of
   letters or memos themselves.  They have someone else do it, read it, change
   a few words and then sign it.  A cursory reading of the letter would not
   show anything wrong.  Dare I use the "W" word?  Don't look at John Sims to
   blame for sending the letter, even though he is responsible for it since he
   signed it.  Someone did this for him since they wanted a Digital endorsement.

			Danny

In these days of fiscal belt-tightening, TFSO, early retirement,
stock at 56 3/4, the Sims letter, and it's associated cost
(which I assume, perhaps incorrectly, cost as much as DCU offered
to charge me to do a mailing: in excess of $20,000) made me 
pretty mad.  I don't think it's Digital's responsibility to tell
us all to 'just vote' in the DCU election anymore than it's their
responsibility to remind us all to 'just vote' in the presidential
election.  I don't think it's proper for Digital to use it's 
Corporate name (implicitly used by the usage of Corporate letterhead
and by a VP signature) to endorse any candidate for any office - 
whether we're talking about a state election, or a DCU Board of
Directors election.  

I just don't get it.  How many salary actions can be funded by 
$20,000?  How much work can $20,000 do?

./chris

    re .112:
>    Yes, Ron Glover works for Sims. But do you mistrust everyone who works
>    for a manager you don't like or trust?
    
    I don't mistrust Ron Glover.  I do say that he has not responded to my
    mail in over a week, and I wonder why.  It did occur to me that I was
    asking him questions about whether his management's activities were
    proper, and that he might find that difficult to deal with.
    
    This is purely speculation, but I've been given nothing else to work
    from.
    
    
    By the way... my complaint was not just that the letter was an
    endorsement.  I'll summarize it:
    
    (1) Is it permitted for Digital property and funds to be used to
    express opinions about external political campaigns?
    
    (2) The letter states that "Digital urges" that voters in the DCU
    election read certain written materials before deciding how to vote. I
    have spoken with several Digital employees who would recommend that
    voters in this election consider other materials as well. Is it
    permitted for a single employee to speak for the entire Corporation in
    this manner, since opinions are divided?
    
    (3) Is it proper to make, in the name of Digital, a request that voters
    favor certain candidates over others?  (That is how I interpreted the
    request that voters reqd the Nominating Committe's report on
    qualifications before finding out anything else about the candidates.)
    
    I'm not sure whether or not these questions have already been asked of
    Ron.  I do know that my efforts to get him to consider them have not
    succeeded so far, in spite of two mail messages and a phone call.

    Two things.  First, there is no phrase in the Sims memo that says,
    "vote for these candidates".  It says, "vote for a new Board of
    Directors" and "vote."  The memo does not do any such thing.  What it 
    does do is start off by emphasizing the importance of reading the Report 
    of the DCU Nominating Committee.  There is no explicit violation of any 
    sort here, I don't think.  This can, at best, only represent an implicit 
    endorsement by Digital of the Nominating Committee and their choices.  My
    understanding is that implicit endorsement is not a violation of P&P.
    
    Second, the memo says, "Digital urges you to ..." which clearly
    indicates that it is representing a position from Digital and not from
    an individual.
    
    Steve

We've already established in another string that DEC is a member of the DEFCU.
There's no reason to doubt that they have substantial deposits there. DEC has
as much of a right as any other member to try to influence others to "vote
their way". Personally, I have no doubts that "controlling" the credit union
in such a fashion is in DEC's best business/financial interests by some
ways of reckoning.

The only thing about it that bothers me anymore is that DEC isn't willing
to just stand up and say "Look - this is the way we want it. Period." Of
course they aren't going to do that. But that's why this whole thing stinks -
their lack of honesty about their actions, not the actions themselves.

-Jack

	RE: <<< Note 493.107 by GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ >>>

>    Guess it's gotten to the point of having to ask DEC what causes we can
>    and can't be a part of.  Seems some are more politically correct than
>    others.  But no fear, we'll continue to 'do the right thing'.  Quite a
>    clash of corporate culture we have going here...

	In the last few years, I think the "corporate culture" that I knew
	has gone down the toilet.  The phrase "do the right thing" was from
	a VP who is no longer with Digital, and the whole concept was made
	"offical" back in 1974.  From what I have seen, the current batch 
	of VPs don't adhear to that concept.  In a dispute between an 
	employee and management, guess which side *personel* is on?  

	Digital is a wonderful company, but I sometimes think we are so good
	because of employee dedication in spite of management.  Just this
	small example of the DCU "employee benifit" being torn asunder by 
	our wonderful management is enough to make you sick.  The blantant
	manipulation and use of corporate resources really makes one wonder.
	Oh well, I guess it would be too much to ask to have good management,
	in the first place, that would work with the employees instead of 
	trying to lord over them.  (Maybe we should all go into the military 
	since we are not supposed to think and question.)

	(Some sarcasim in the above paragraph, so read it they way.)

	re: <<< Note 493.112 by CVG::THOMPSON >>>

>    Yes, Ron Glover works for Sims. But do you mistrust everyone who works
>    for a manager you don't like or trust?
				     ^^^^^
	ABSOLUTLY!!!!

	Ron Glover isn't stupid, and he will try to keep his job no matter
	what Mr. Sims does.  That's the Digital way.

�    Do you have proof that these actions have been taken by the personnel
�    and security organizations themselves against the QB flyers?  Or are
�    you referring to people bringing them into Personnel and asking them to
�    deal with them?  
    
    I'm just looking at the end result and going by what has been reported
    here and what I've seen in HLO (which by the way is alot of Real
    Choices literature and no Qualified Board literature).  In my
    experience, Personnel rarely gets involved unless a complaint is
    raised.  Do you have proof that Personnel on their own started removing
    Real Choices literature?
    
    The Real Choices literature was well thought out before it was posted. 
    It does not explicity solicit like the original QB flyers.  But is
    there really any question as to what they are trying to acheive?

�    "Political"???  So DCU isn't an employee benefit anymore, it's a
�    political entity.  
    
    Since when did you start taking things literally?
    
�    Guess it's gotten to the point of having to ask DEC what causes we can
�    and can't be a part of.  
    
    Actually there are some pretty clear examples already spelled out in
    P&P.

�    I am very certain that the catchy phrase "vote for the nominated
�    candidates" never even caught his eye.
    
    It certainly didn't catch mine.  Was this actually in the Simms memo? 
    I don't think so.

    
RE: .119    
    
>    I'm just looking at the end result and going by what has been reported
>    here and what I've seen in HLO (which by the way is alot of Real
>    Choices literature and no Qualified Board literature).  In my
>    experience, Personnel rarely gets involved unless a complaint is
>    raised.  
    
    Oh, OK.  You were speculating.  No problem, I just wanted to make sure
    whether it was speculation or a statement of fact.  It came across as
    the latter so I'm glad I asked.
    
    >Do you have proof that Personnel on their own started removing
>    Real Choices literature?
 
    Of Personnel, no.  Of Security, YES.   
    
>    The Real Choices literature was well thought out before it was posted. 
>    It does not explicity solicit like the original QB flyers.  But is
>    there really any question as to what they are trying to acheive?
    
    Hmmmm....  Aren't they trying to achieve the same thing Mr. Sims letter
    was trying to achieve?  Getting people to vote in the election?  And
    thank you for differentiating between material which solicits and
    material which does NOT.  One is allowed under P&P, the other violates
    P&P.
    
    RE: .120
    
    �    "Political"???  So DCU isn't an employee benefit anymore, it's a
�    political entity.  
>    
>    Since when did you start taking things literally?
    
    Who's taking things literally?  I'm just trying to figure out what DCU
    is!  Is it a credit union?  Is it a division of DEC?  Is it a bank that
    DEC controls?  Is it a political entity?  Is it an employee benefit
    program?  The list grows by the hour.  DEC management creates a new 
    description based on the need of the moment.  
    
�    Guess it's gotten to the point of having to ask DEC what causes we can
�    and can't be a part of.  
>    
>    Actually there are some pretty clear examples already spelled out in
>    P&P.
    
    Please list them for us all to read and consider.  Is participation in
    employee benefits listed???
    

�    Hmmmm....  Aren't they trying to achieve the same thing Mr. Sims letter
�    was trying to achieve?  Getting people to vote in the election?  
    
    Which makes the hullaballo over the Sims memo kind of ironic, eh?
    
�>    Actually there are some pretty clear examples already spelled out in
�>    P&P.
�    
�    Please list them for us all to read and consider.  Is participation in
�    employee benefits listed???
    
    I'm pretty sure I've posted the guidelines that HLO uses for bulliten
    board postings in this conference before.  They reference and quote the
    P&P.  On line copies of the orange book can be found in VTX.

�    Hmmmm....  Aren't they trying to achieve the same thing Mr. Sims letter
�    was trying to achieve?  Getting people to vote in the election?  
>    
>    Which makes the hullaballo over the Sims memo kind of ironic, eh?
    
    Ironic?  Only if you ignore all the other facts.  I could have sworn 
    we covered all this before but you must have missed it.
    
    You are comparing a mailing by a DEC VP on company letterhead, in 
    company envelops, on behalf of the company, which cost thousands of 
    dollars, to a flyer paid for out of the volunteers own pocket.  So I 
    guess you're saying we should be submitting expense vouchers to DEC 
    for our flyers.  A personal letter from a DEC VP is now the same as a
    flyer posted on a bulletin board?  Sorry, you have to work a bit harder
    to justify this comparison.  Might I also remind you that *we* do not 
    also speak on behalf of the company. 
    
>    I'm pretty sure I've posted the guidelines that HLO uses for bulliten
>    board postings in this conference before.  They reference and quote the
>    P&P.  On line copies of the orange book can be found in VTX.

    Come on now, no holding out on us.  A lot of people out there don't
    know how to use VTX to get the information.  You could do them all a
    great service.  Be a nice guy and post the info since you introduced
    the subject. 
    

�    Ironic?  Only if you ignore all the other facts.  I could have sworn 
�    we covered all this before but you must have missed it.
    
    I haven't missed anything.  I was only addressing the fact you brought
    up.  But this is one of the key issues in that whole discussion - was
    Sims endorsing candidates and soliciting votes?  If you hold that he
    was, then you can't possibly say that the Real Choices flyers aren't
    also endorsing candidates and soliciting votes.  And actually, Mr. Sims
    never mentioned any names unlike the Real Choices flyers.
    
�Be a nice guy and post the info since you introduced
�    the subject. 
    
    Actually, Phil, you introduced the subject.  You asked about P&P and I
    was kind enough to point you in the right direction to get your
    question answered.

    On second thought, since Phil did ask somewhat nicely and I had the
    following memo handy I'll repost it:
    
From:	OBSESS::NEWTON "LISA NEWTON-ZETTLER, SERVICES & RECREATION HLO1/P7 225-4624  30-Apr-1991 1121" 30-APR-1991 11:54:16.85
To:	@SEC.DIS,KOCH
CC:	
Subj:	Bulletin Board Guidelines, please forward to your group.  tx, Lisa

CORPORATE GUIDELINES FOR POSTING INFORMATION ON BULLETIN BOARDS 


The following MAY BE posted on the bulletin boards with approval 
of Employee Services & Recreation (HLO1/P07) only.  All postings 
that are unapproved will be removed from the boards.

  o  Government posters, official notices from Personnel.

  o  Information relating to the Company's business such as job 
     vacancies, training, announcements, press clippings or releases.  

  o  Items for sale or rent by Digital employees may be posted on 
     the FYI bulletins boards located in front of the HLO2 Cafeteria 
     and next to the Hall of White Mist Cr. ONLY.  Items sold should 
     be "one-of a kind" in nature and should not be sold or rented 
     by, or as part of any business.  All notices must be dated and 
     removed after one month (except rentals).

  o  Information relating to Company-sponsored Employee Activities, 
     clubs & leagues or special events such as DECUS, DECWorld, etc.  


The following types of information may NOT be posted on Company 
property such as bulletin boards, newsletters or publicized via 
electronic mail.


  o  No advertisements or solicitations from outside individuals, 
     organizations or businesses selling goods or services to the 
     general public.

  o  No personal services such as daycare, lawn mowing or 
     business cards.  

  o  No advertisements or notices from external religious, social,
     fraternal or other such groups.


For more information contact Employee Services & Recreation 225-4624.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    For the record, I have noticed that postings not meeting these
    guidelines dissappear very quickly from the bulletin boards here in
    HLO.

    
    
    RE: .125
    
    There is not just one issue with Mr. Sims letter.  Taken individually,
    out of context, I'm sure any one of them could be justified somehow. 
    Taken in totality, with context, many people couldn't justify it.  Hey,
    it's one of those interpretation things.  Or was it just another
    coincidence?  Just so many of both that it's hard to keep track
    anymore...
    
    Now wait a minute, I thought you already told me that our flyer did
    *not* violate P&P?  Now you imply it does.  Which is it?  
    
>    Actually, Phil, you introduced the subject.  You asked about P&P and I
>    was kind enough to point you in the right direction to get your
>    question answered.

    	Oh, did I?  Then thank you for pointing me in the right direction. 
    I already know where they are though, because I read them before this
    all started.  Maybe you should point Ray Schmalz and Mark Steinkrauss
    in the right direction?  8-)
    
    	RE: .126
    
    OK, Keith, I give up.  Where is the violation??? 

�    There is not just one issue with Mr. Sims letter.  
    
    I know there isn't.  I was just addressing the main one (is it
    endorsing candidates) and didn't take it out of context.
    
�    Now wait a minute, I thought you already told me that our flyer did
�    *not* violate P&P?  Now you imply it does.  Which is it?  
    
    The way I read the policy it doesn't because it doesn't specifically
    ask anyone to vote for the candidates listed.  I didn't imply that it
    does.  I only pointed out that if someone thinks that the Sims memo is
    soliciting votes then the Real Choices flyer does too.
    
�    OK, Keith, I give up.  Where is the violation??? 
    
    I give up, Phil.  I never said there was a violation.  In fact I said
    that the Real Choices candidates did their homework and presented a
    flyer that would pass P&P.

    The whole discussion has all the appearance of something from Alice in
    Wonderland, except that it isn't funny. I've completely lost track. 
    Perhaps it's just as well.

    
    RE: .128
    
    No, there are MANY issues, equally important, at least to me anyways. 
    They must all be judged as a whole on their own merit and not held up
    against something that is completely unrelated.  If I HAD to pick out
    one main issue it would be the use of company funds for something that
    might EVEN BE MISINTERPRETTED as trying to influence the election in
    ANY way.  And it seems there are people who took it either way.  But
    should it have been sent if there was even the chance that it could be
    interpretted as trying to interfere with the election?
    
    I never asked for votes on a flyer.  I can state my beliefs and goals
    and people can vote how they choose.  Mr. Sims did NOT endorse
    candidates in his letter.  He DID endorse the Nominating Committee in
    the eyes of many people (purely interpretational), and the Nominating
    Comm. endorses the Nominated candidates.  I would not believe for a
    moment that Mr. Sims would be so, well you know, as to blatantly
    endorse a set of candidates.  He didn't get where he is by making such
    elementary mistakes.  Ever hear of plausible deniability? 
    
    And I'm glad there is no violation.  So what was the point of posting
    it?  NEVER MIND!  I don't want to know.... 8-)
    
    
    RE: .129
    
    You aren't kidding!  Time to move on to the next fairy tale... 8-)

Note .119 refers to having seen "a lot of Real Choices literature and no 
Qualified Board literature" in HLO.

Actually, there has been a fair bit of Qualified Board literature in HLO.
In fact, out of the three days that I passed out RC literature in the HLO2
cafeteria, on two of them a QB person was standing just down the way,
putting the QB fliers into the hands of everyone who would take them.  She
may have come back on subsequent days -- I was away from the site during
lunch for the next couple of days, so I don't know.  But I think more
people walked away with her literature than with mine -- her distribution
style was more aggressive than mine (not that I'm criticizing it).

As for posters, I did not myself see any QB posters in HLO (other than the
one in the cafeteria), but I have spoken with people who have.  I've only 
seen one RC poster in HLO (other than the one in the cafeteria), but I 
believe there are a number of others that I haven't seen.  I didn't put
up posters (except, again, the one in the cafeteria), so I'm not familiar
with all the places they might or might not be.

I'll note one more thing that that I, at least, found relevant.  I approached
the QB flier person and politely asked if she might tell me where she got 
her literature -- just who were these mysterious "Members for a Qualified
Board".  And she politely answered that if I wanted more info, I should 
ask the nominees.  I tried asking in various different ways, and always
got the same answer -- ask the nominees if I want to know who the "Members
for a Qualified Board" are or if I want to know who is distributing the
literature she had.  Since I knew that at least one nominee (Deepak) had
nothing to do with them, I did not take her advice.  Nor do I believe that 
all of the other nominees are taking an active role with the QB fliers.

Later I asked Glover who the "Members for a Qualified Board" were, and he 
wouldn't tell me, either.  Actually he said, "you know who they are", to
which I replied, "no I don't, I can only guess".  Since I've tried hard
to make only statements I know to be accurate, I don't choose to guess.
And I really don't see why I should have to guess.

Anyway, I could state a long list of differences in the campaign methods 
used by the RC people and the QB people, but it's all been said before.
I'll just state it as my opinion that the QB people probably got as many
or more fliers distributed as the RC people.  I don't know what use the
QB people have made of electronic communication, but Board supporters made
extensive use of the enet before the Special Meeting, so I presume that 
they will do so here, too, if they feel it will benefit them.  

This notes file is really the only distribution method that the RC people
have that the QB people don't much use.  And I hope you've noticed that
the notes with reasoned comment and opinion don't usually get attacked --
for example, several nominees agreed to have statements entered for them,
and I don't think there was a single criticism.  The biggest attacks, I've
noticed, are drawn by notes that make agressive or sweeping statements 
(like "HE loans are the worst type of loan") with little in the way of 
information or reasoning to back up the statement.  Something about that
type of communication seems to annoy many people, and attacks typically
happen to that type of note, whether it favors or is critical of the DCU.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    When I asked nominated candidate Ray Schmalz who the "members for a
    Qualified Board" were, he said he didn't know.  (I asked several times
    so there was no possibility of misunderstanding.)  And Ray was
    organizing the distribution of the QB literature.

    
    RE: .132
    
    But Deepak Goyal also mentioned that Mark Steinkrauss called him. 
    Where does he fit into this picture?  He is sitting on the Board and
    had access to all of our statements, (and credit inquiries if you
    authorized them???), picked the Nominating Comm. and yet is involved in
    campaigning for candidates?  I guess this is the type of behavior we
    have come to expect.  But what does it say about him, and others who
    would be a part of it?  It is no surprise that none of these 'Members
    for a Qualified Board' wish to be identified.  If I was engaged in this
    sort of business, I'd be hiding out too.
    
    And what does Mark Robinson Holland Associates have to do with all
    this?  So we have a group of people who don't wish to be identified
    using a company as a distribution machinism for their materials.  Is
    this the way we want DCU run?  Is this what we can expect from people
    who proclaim themselves to stand for open communication?  I hope people
    look beyond the words to their actions.  The two are incompatible.