Conference 7.286::dcu

So yet again we've got some odd relationship between DIGITAL, the corporation,
and DEFCU?

Lessee, personnel, high ranking officials through VP's, the Law Dept., and
now Security, have alligned themselves with the DCU in some shape or form
for whatever reasons the members are unaware.

This is, how do you say, too fishy for words.

-Jack

    Re .0
    
    Makes you wonder what was in that report. Also makes you wonder why
    Digital Security conducted the investigation in the first place.
    What was happening way back in 1986 that prompted the investigation?
    Remember this was just at the beginning of the Mangone fiasco which
    ended up tipping tipping $18M of our money down the drain ($12M if
    you include the recovery of the $6M bond on Mangone from the bonding
    agency).
    
    Inquiring minds want to know.
    
    How much attention did the then current board (pretty similar to the
    current board in composition) pay to this report when it was done in
    1986?
    
    Inquiring minds want to know.
    
    Why are high level executives at Digital taking such an interest in
    this DCU election? Why is Digital spending money that in my opinion
    is aimed at persuading the general membership to vote for nominating
    committee candidates?
    
    Inquiring minds want to know.
    
    Dave

Yeah - I just keep asking myself -
   "If the DEFCU hadn't been formed years ago, and we as employees were
    still dealing with Workers CU, would any of these DEC organizations
    or personnages have any involvement like this?"
And I answer -
   "Not likely."
So then I ask myself -
   "What makes this any different?"
And that's where I start speculating, because, of course, we just don't know,
do we?

-Jack

    I forwarded the basenote off to Chuck Bushie, Digital's "Head of
    Investigative Services" at WITNES::BUSHEY.  When I talked to Chuck on
    the phone, he said the whole thing was before his time, but he would
    have Ray Humpheries (sp?) get back to me.

    
    RE: .4
    
    Good luck.
    
    I have asked Mr. Humphrey (Head of Digital Security) to read the
    report.  Access has been denied.  Why is Digital Security keeping a
    report about DCU underwraps?  They are seperate entities, aren't they?
    Or a better question might be, where do the two entities intersect?
    
    There is much more for DCU members to know.  The question is, will be
    *allowed* to know?

       There was a gentleman sitting in front of me at the Special Meeting.
    He wanted to get up and talk. He had several pages of notes with him.
    He told us "Mark knows who I am, and there's no way he's going to call
    on me". Turns out, he was a retired DEC employee, who worked in
    Corporate Security. And, Mark never called on him. 
       And no, I don't know what he was going to say.
                                           Denny

    I wonder if he knows of some of the dealings that have occurred?  It
    worries me, especially at DEC who says they have ODP etc., that this
    problem might occur.  DEC is starting to sound like any other company,
    in regards to how upper management acts.
    
    	- mark

    I hate to say it but, why do I keep thinking "60 Minutes" would love
    to tackle this whole DCU mess?  Or if not them, then maybe some network
    news.
    
    Don

They might like to, but the Information Protection Policy would prevent
them from gathering the story.


(JUST JOKING.  Political satire only intended.     :)

Re: 60 minutes, etc.

I think you're right, they'd probably be *very* interested. However, I'm
doing my best to cause the least harm to Digital while at the same time
getting to the bottom of DCU. That is why I have not tried to involve
outside press influences.

We have some raw data, but it's unknown how much made its way into the
final report. We do not have a copy of the final report nor have we seen
it.

    
    re. News/60 Minutes:
    
    I dunno if they'd be interested.  The RI Credit Union Scandal was and is
    a lot worse, and it gets little coverage out of RI.  We're talking
    many *failed* CU's and loads of corruption.  You hear about it in Mass.
    from time to time, but there is little media outrage (except in RI).
    
    One thing those CU's didn't have was a group of concerned members who
    are looking for warning signs, gathering data, and attempting to prevent 
    what happened down there.
    
    Another thing they didn't have is a network to connect so many of the 
    concerned members. :^)  
    
    - Sean

> Note 499.10
...
> Re: 60 minutes, etc.
>
> I think you're right, they'd probably be *very* interested. However, I'm
> doing my best to cause the least harm to Digital while at the same time
> getting to the bottom of DCU. That is why I have not tried to involve
> outside press influences.

> Note 499.13
...    
>    Another thing they didn't have is a network to connect so many of the 
>    concerned members. :^)  
    
Could be beneficial.  "Digital's technology breaks bank scandal..."

	Paul

we don't want 60-minutes, we want oliver stone on this.  i'll bet he could
figure it all out.  -ced 

Isn't Oliver Stone a VP in "The New Software Group"?

:-)

Bryan

    corrected version:
    
    I've just talked to Ray Humphrey in Digital Security. He confirms that
    Digital had an *inquiry*, not an investigation, in 1986, and says the
    inquiry is privileged and confidential, and that the "results" are not
    held by Kinzelman, Gransewicz, et al.

    
	RE: .11
        
>    I've just talked to Ray Humphrey in Digital Security. He confirms that
>    Digital had an *inquiry*, not an investigation, in 1986, and says the
>    inquiry is privileged and confidential, 
    
    Could he please explain the difference between an inquiry and an
    investigation?  The real questions is what did the 'inquiry' SAY.  What
    were the findings?
    
    And why is the result of an 'inquiry' about DCU confidential??  As
    shareholders of DCU aren't we entitled to know what that report says?
    What are they trying to hide or who are they trying to protect?  Do
    what DCU does, redact names and indentities but release the report.
    
>   the "results" are not held by Kinzelman, Gransewicz, et al.
    
	Thank you for this important correction.  Who has read the
    "results"?

    re .18
    
    You are thinking of David Stone...
    
q
    

    Re:.20.  No .18 is referring to the manager of the CALS program program
    office who took over from Mike Taylor.
    
    		Danny

    
    The definitions of "Inquire" and 
    "Investigate" are mutually
    inclusive.
    
    Inquire - To investigate
    
    Investigate - To Inquire
    
    cbc