Conference 7.286::dcu

    At the State of Colorado primary earlier this month, the ballot came
    with a tear-off section on which the voter wrote his name, etc, as he
    received the ballot. The tear-off section was torn off just prior to
    putting the remainder of the ballot in the ballot box.

    I'd never seen that before either, and I don't quite know why it was
    useful, but I didn't see any harm in it either.

    The account number on the back is a different story.

The ballot states that we are supposed to be guaranteed anonymity.  Suppose we
ink over the account number to CARRY OUT THE GUARANTEE.  Would this be a condi-
tion to invalidate our vote?

    
    I would not in any way alter the ballot.  I have not yet received my
    call back from the accounting firm in charge of this.  A person I spoke
    with in the West LA office stated that DCU was responsible for the
    creation and distribution of all the materials.  She did not believe
    that they had even seen them.
    
    But hopefully I'll get some real info from the partner in charge. 

    I'm glad you're checking into that, Phil.  Doesn't hurt to verify
    the independence of the folks doing the counting.  I was greatly
    disappointed when, at the Special Meeting, we were told that the
    counters had been properly trained and within minutes and to our 
    dismay found this to apparently not be the case.
    
    Steve

    I too received my ballot, one day after John Sim's letter.  I didn't
    look as closely at my ballot as Phil did, but sure enough my
    badge/account number's there.  I don't intend to hide it or do anything
    else to it, after all I have nothing to be ashamed of and in any case
    if anyone ever raised the question, I would challenge them on where
    they got the information which was supposed to be confidential.  In any
    case, I don't think it is in the interest of O'Rourke & Clarke
    Accountancy Corporation to do anything to compromise the integrity of
    the balloting; they may never get the chance to do any business with
    anyone again if the confidentiality is broken.  Such companies are
    totally dependant on people being able to trust them (never mind the
    probability of lawsuits).
    
    The accompanying booklet containing the Nominating Committee Report
    and the Candidates is an interesting study in contrasts.  The Nominated
    Candidates come first followed by the Petition Candidates.  All
    Nominated Candidates have their "Qualifications" bolded and some of
    them have a few other parts bolded.  Of the Petition candidates only
    Richard Luciano has his qualifications bolded.
    
    Other items of interest:
    
    The Nominating Committee Report is printed on the front page of the
    booklet, which presumely means that John Sims saw this booklet or at
    least a proof copy before anyone else.
    
    Extracts from Abbott Weiss's statement:
    
    	"(DCU) must reinforce the basics
                   . Responsive, open member service
    		   . Competitive rates for savers and borrowers
    		   . Conservative financial policies"
         [the above points are bolded - PDM]
    
        "Those who work with me know my strengths: 
    			. Good at listenin
    			. Responsive to people's needs
    			. Receptive to change
    			. One who values conviction and integrity"
         [the above points are bolded - PDM] 
    
    And this is from an incumbent!  I wonder what he was listening to for
    the past 6 months?
    
    More when I get to it.
    
    		Danny
    

In addition to the above, I noticed that Susan Shaprio's first priority
is to "Make sound business decisions to **further** strengthen DCU's 
financial position"!  (the emphasis on the word "further" is mine)

Something odd, though... she says the DCU has 83,700 members nationwide.
I thought the Board was telling us there were 88,000 members last fall.
Was the earlier number inaccurate or has the DCU lost 5% of its members
in the past few months?

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    re.6
    
        Add to the 5% fewer members the accompany 8% loss in capital.
    

There can be very valid reasons for the account numbers on the ballots.  It
need not be a problem as long as the accounting firm to assures anonymity.

The tear-off section may be there to facilitate validation of signatures
when necessary.  That section can be torn off and given to the DCU for
validation while not making them privy to the vote cast.  Later, if the
signature is found valid, the actual votes can be counted.

I wonder if it will be possible, after the ballots have been counted,
for a member to ask if his/her ballot was considered valid?  That would be
a useful spot check if a large number of ballots are invalidated.

	Paul

    Phil,
       When you talk to the accounting firm you might want to ask them what
    the provisions are for holding onto the ballots in the event someone
    wants a recount. I'm sure you've probably thought of this though. Just
    a reminder.
                                            Denny

    
    ...and how much it's going to cost us :-)

    I sure am glad this notes file is in existance. Not only have we here
    at ALF _NOT_ seen the aforementioned flyer, I have not seen the Sims
    letter _OR_ received my ballot yet.  I wonder if they are trying to
    tell ME something.
    
    David

    
    RE: .6
    
    Now Larry, stop clouding the issues with facts.  Just because Susan
    Shapiro is the Treasurer of DCU doesn't mean she needs to know how much
    assets DCU has.  Heck anybody can make a $25 million error.  Or is that
    $18 million error?  Anyways, DCU's total assets are down $25-35
    million.
    
    As for the membership number, rest assured the membership total has 
    improved and is on target at -5%.
    
    Were these accomplishment considered by the 'independent' Nominating
    Comm. when they considered the incumbents?
    
    Unbelieveable.

    
    RE: .11
    
    We just got them yesterday up here in Mass.  Yours should hit the
    mailbox in a few days I would imagine.
    

A few other observations, without even looking for them:

Aside from the bolding, I noticed that, in general, the "nominated" candidates'
statements seemed to be more in a bulleted-list format, and the "petition"
candidates in paragraph form.

I'm not sure whether this was done by the "Real Choice(s)" candidates
intentionally, but some statements said "REAL CHOICE" and some said
"REAL CHOICES".

And, I had to laugh at this (sorry :-)), but on the back where the committee
said that they weren't responsible for anything anyone said (my paraphrasing),
they spelled the word "solely" incorrectly ('soley').  This stood out in my
mind for several reasons, one of which is professionalism, and the other being
that I just corrected another document recently that had the same error, but I
forgave him because he was an engineer :-)

Jill, who admits she's not perfect either

    Re: MIA Sim's & Ballot mail
    
    The Sim's letter just hit Phoenix yesterday.

    Sim's letter was waiting at home here in St. Louis.
    
    Dave
    

    I too noticed the logistical differences of the Nominated and the
    Petition candidates.  Nominated ones appear to more "professional".
    
    Also did anyone else get the impression from the wording of the
    Nominating Committees Report - that their choices are the only ones
    that are "qualified, experienced and skilled enough to do the job!!!!!
    
    and before they list the petition candidates they "emphazise" the
    fact......that "The following candidates were not selected by the
    nominating committee..."  (or read between the lines - NOT QUALIFIED,
    EXPERIENCED AND SKILLED ENOUGH.
    
    It has never felt this good to vote before..........we MUST believe we
    can make a difference.

    
    RE: .17
    
    no, no, no.  According to some people (guess who) you are reading
    things into the report that aren't there.  I believe that they have
    again under-estimated the membership.
    
    The very clear effort to portray anybody but the handpicked successors
    to the Board as unqualified and unskilled is an insult.  I keep
    thinking back through all this and keep remembering that whenever they
    couldn't address the real issues, they attempted to label the
    opponents.  It was the tone in the now infamous BoD witchhunters memo,
    where you will all remember that they would not let just anybody run the
    largest credit union in Massachusetts.  We see it again in the flyer 
    that is being circulated and now here on the election material.  I
    believe the appropriate term is arrogance.
    
    But why so much concern about petition candidates?  Could they be afraid
    that the membership has waited 12 years for an opportunity to vote for
    somebody other than a Digital senior manager?  Somebody who takes the
    time to go out to cafeterias to shake their hand and talk to them about
    their concerns?  Could they be afraid of DCU becoming a REAL credit union? 
    
    I sense that the membership is ready for change and wants a real credit
    union.  I hope I am right because the membership has dropped by 5% and 
    assets are going out the door with them.  And DCU and DEC are worried 
    about the petition candidates?  I think the worry is better aimed at 
    the current Board and hand picked replacements.
    
    
    * NOTE *
    [handpicked replacements = all nominated candidates with the exception
     of DEEPAK GOYAL who has shown himself to stand above the others in
     this group IMO.]

    Rep to << Note 502.18 by GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates next week" >>>

>    Could they be afraid of DCU becoming a REAL credit union? 
>    I sense that the membership is ready for change and wants a real credit
>    union.  I hope I am right because the membership has dropped by 5% and 
>    assets are going out the door with them.  And DCU and DEC are worried 
>    about the petition candidates?  I think the worry is better aimed at 
>    the current Board and hand picked replacements.

    In the past and recently I've heard thru various sources a statistic on
    the  DCU  demographis which was something like 15-20% of the membership
    own 70-80% of the Deposits.  Not sure if I had read this in here, but I
    had  heard  it being discussed by several prior to the Special Meeting,
    as well as talking to concerned members recently. 
    
    Now it not hard to gather  that  if  this  is in fact a true statistic,
    who the 15-20% are.  I think what  is  going  on is that the 15-20% are
    afraid  of  having  someone on the board who represents  the  remaining
    80-85% of  the  membership.    The people who have left obviously don't
    fall in this catagory.
    
    The wife and I have filled out  our  ballot  and  will  be mailing them
    tonight,  hopefully  we will end up with a  mixture  of  Nominated  and
    Petition  Candidates on the Board thereby allowing the mending  process
    to  move quicker.  I'm hoping for a minimum of  3  Petition  Candidate,
    thereby  making  it  hard  for  the  Status  Quo  to enforce a  Gag  on
    individuals  from  speaking  their  minds on DCU issues unlike what was
    evident at the Special meeting.
    
    Claude
    
    PS My cut on the Brochure was a  obvious attempt to paint the Nominated
    Condidate as superior to the Petition one.  Notice how all the Nominate
    Candidates had a similar style to their statements with Bullets lots of
    bolding on the key issues etc,  whereas the Petetion Canditates for the
    most part where entirely different.

>================================================================================
>Note 502.5                       Election Ballot                          5 of 5
>VSSCAD::MAYER "Reality is a matter of perception"    48 lines  17-MAR-1992 23:59
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              -< Comments and Quotes from the Election Material >-
>
>                        . One who values conviction and integrity"

I'm really glad he values conviction.  Whose?  On what charge?
	
	con-vic-tion n (15c) 1: the act or process of convicting of a crime
		esp. in a court of law  2 a: the act of convincing a person
		of error or of compelling the admission of truth  b: the 
		state of being convicted of error or compelled to admit the
		truth  3 a: a strong persuasion or belief  b: the state of
		being convinced   syn see certainty, opinion

	Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

Typos are mine...
BobW

    
    
    Has anybody 'attempted' to call the information protection people to 
    see if we can *protect* ourselves from having our account number on
    the ballot...  Like, what if we decided to cross it out, would our
    ballot be invalid?  I know the ballot says that only the accounting
    firm is going to have a look see at the ballots, but knowing the past
    dealings I wouldn't be surprised if the ballots were checked...
    
    BTW:  What kind of account numbers do DCU employees have....  I can't
    	believe that could have anything that could possibly resemble a 
    	badge number?   Right?   Could be a way to ensure certain balloting
    	couldn't it?   Yeah, I know paranoia, but...
    
    
    John
    

    RE:.21  Phil said earlier in this topic that he was trying to get
    clarification from the people handling the ballot.  Wait to hear what
    they tell him.  The only part that may be disturbing is if the DCU
    Employees feel intimidated to vote for the Nominated Candidates based
    on the A/C Number being there.  Not all DCU Employees support the
    antics of the current Board of Directors.  It could potentially
    invalidate the balloting. Note however that voting for items on the
    agenda at DEC's shareholders' meeting is not secret. If you look at the
    DEC voting card, there is no way of detaching the vote from the
    shareholder's information.
    
    At this point in time there are what I consider to be 5 blocks of
    voters:
    
    1) DEC Employees who regularly read this notes conference and/or
    receive mail and other material from others who are associated with
    this conference one way of another.  This block are the ones most
    likely to vote and to vote for the Petition Candidates;
    
    2) DEC Employees who do not follow this conference and are not
    receiving material on the election and DCU.  This includes some of
    Senior management as well as people out in the field far away from
    regular access to the network as well as others that I cannot otherwise
    catergorize.  This block is the most likely not to vote at all and if
    the do will either vote for candidates that they know or at least
    whose name they recognize or they will vote for one of the nominated
    candidates;
    
    3) DCU Employees who will probably almost all vote considering how
    important it is to them and their future.  This block is likely to
    almost overwelmingly vote for the Nominated candidates (though they may
    be smart enough to understand what's really going on here and surprise
    their management).  I base this conclusion on the way they voted at the
    special meeting, though this may be different since this is more likely
    to be a secret ballot.
    
    4) People who are no longer DEC Employees or DCU Employees.  These
    people are the least likely to vote unless the see someone's name they
    recognize.
    
    5) The only other catergory is Spouses or DEC or DCU Employees who will
    probably follow the lead of their spouses.
    
    The only question now is which is the largest block?  I think that the
    electorate is polarized that much.
    
                    Danny

I would expect the union of blocks 2 and 4 to be the largest set.

I'd also note that even a unanimous vote for nominated candidates by
DCU employees should be of little concern as they (DCU employees) make
up probably somewhere in the range of 1% or 2% of the total membership.

I worry about the large number in groups 2 and 4 who will vote for
nominated candidates because they are unaware of the issues.

-Jack

    re .23
    
    	Although the DCU employees might only make up 1-2% of the total
    membership, I suspect that they make up a significant (at a WAG: over
    15%) of the total _voting_ membership.
    
    	Just a nit.
    
    	Peter

Come to think of it, there may be a VALID reason for the account number on the
ballot.  Take the following example:

1) At the accounting firm, the initial person opens the envelope, sees the
   signature and badge number appear to be proper, then separates the ballot
   from the portion with the signature.

2) Someone else suspects (or a random check) something wrong with that signature
   and asks DCU to check the signature as valid.

3) DCU discovers the signature as INVALID, and the vote cast should be pulled.

4) Using the badge number, they ARE able to find the ballot cast and pull it.

This may be a rare occurence, but it does allow an invalid vote to be pulled
properly.  Oppinions?

    
    RE: account number on ballot
    
    I have still not received a call back from the auditor but Chuck
    Cockburn did return my call this morning.  I spoke with him and Mr.
    Regan (new internal auditor) about the ballot and process.  This is
    their understanding of the process.
    
    The ballots will be received by a professional mailing house and the
    vote tabulated.  It is entered into a computer.  The vote of each member
    is kept according to the account number.  The signature portion is
    seperated and examined.  If it is appears to be OK, no problem.  If
    somebody printed their name, rejection.  If it is blank, rejection.
    If the signature is illegible, it is put aside for verification.  If 
    the signature is later found to not match what DCU has on file, the 
    vote in the computer is deducted from the count.  Signing the ballot
    "P. Gransewicz" vs. "Philip J. Gransewicz" is reasonable and would not
    be grounds to invalidate the ballot.  It is not clear to me at this
    point *when* the questionable signatures will be validated; on an
    ongoing basis or at the end when if it is determined that x number of
    invalid ballots could make a difference in the election results or the
    terms people serve.  
    
    The independent auditors are not conducting the actual count.  They are
    only over-seeing and auditing the process.  Only they and the mailing
    house will have access to the running count of votes and detailed vote
    information.  Hopefully I will know more about this after speaking with
    them.
    
    A few other issues came up.  What do people put in the account/badge
    number line?  Several people have sent me mail asking so I thought I'd
    ask.  Will the badge number always be OK?  If people write the entire
    line of numbers that appears immediately below the entry for account
    number, will that be OK or invalid?  They are looking into this and 
    will get back to me.  
    
    One other issue I brought up was the matter of who serves how long.  I
    can't recall official DCU literature stating whether the top 2 or 3
    finishers will be serving 3 year terms.  They will be getting back to
    me on this one also.
    
    We concluded with a suggestion that DCU might want to set up a meeting
    with all the candidates, a representative from the auditing firm, mailing 
    house and DCU management to inform everybody of the process.  It might 
    go a long way towards addressing the many questions people, especially
    candidates, may have.
    
    This summarizes the conversation as best I can remember it.

I understand that the accounting firm may need to match the signature half to
the ballot half.  But they don't have to use your account number.  They can
just as easily start at 1 and keep going until they get to 345,000 (or whatever
the current number is).

But maybe it doesn't really matter.

Elaine

Re account numbers:

Would you rather it be a sequence number, or perhaps a random letter string,
or perhaps that the ENTIRE ballot be sent to DCU for signature validation ?

The counters cannot have DCU's records, DCU cannot have the raw, identifiable
ballots, how else to cross check.

Re .25,
	Probably the sequence is
		Open the envelope
		Ballot to ballot bin
		Signature/et to signature bin

	And yes, signature comes back invalid, you need to identify the SPECIFIC
	invalid ballot.

In any case, someone has to be able to make a one to one correspondence between
the signature half and the ballot half.

Now if only we employed New England counters and Lawyers, to help an economy
that needs it, ... But that's another matter (which I hope will be fixed).

>    A few other issues came up.  What do people put in the account/badge
>    number line? 

	My question is why is that line even there? The badge/account number
	is already imprinted on that part of the ballot.

			Alfred

Until we get a real report, here's how I tried to visualize how the process
will have to work:

   1)  At the accounting firm, the initial person opens the envelope,
       tears the ballot form into ballot proper and signature stub.

   2)  Ballots proper go into one pile, which remains at the accounting
       firm and gets sorted by the account number printed on the back.

   3)  Signature stubs go to DCU for signature verification.  (The accounting
       firm should not see signatures;  that's one way they can prove their
       impartiality.)

   4)  DCU inspects signature stubs.

   5)  DCU sends account numbers from rejected signature stubs to the
       accounting firm.

   6)  The accounting firm pulls ballots by account number and places
       them in the "rejected" pile.

   7)  The accounting firm tallies remaining ballots and reports the election
       results to DCU.


I would expect that all incoming-form control sheets, ballots, stubs,
rejection lists, and so on are retained, so that the propriety of the
process could, if necessary be verified afterwards.  (I hope that the "real
word", when we get it from the accounting firm, verifies that all proceedings
will be in this kind of sunshine.)

.30>     4)  DCU inspects signature stubs.

"Oh look, here's that Phil Gransewicz kid.  Isn't it a shame how he never
seems to be able to sign his name right -- and he's done it again.  Too bad.
We'll have to tell the accounting firm to reject his ballot.  Wonder who
he might have voted for?"


...Sorry.  But I DID make a photocopy of my ballot before sending it in.
Perhaps a few others may think it worth their time to do the same.

    re. last
    
        Indeed, I've mentioned to all voters that it would be a good 
    idea to photocopy that ballot.  Next thing I did after voting.

    Rep to <<< Note 502.29 by CVG::THOMPSON "DCU Board of Directors Candidate" >>>

>    A few other issues came up.  What do people put in the account/badge
>    number line? 
>>	My question is why is that line even there? The badge/account number
>>	is already imprinted on that part of the ballot.

    Like Alfred  I  question why the line was there.  as to what to enter I
    entered just my 5 digit  badge  number,  not the line that was below it
    because  even  though  the  my badge number was incoporated in whatever
    that  number  stood  for.    That line does not represent anything I've
    seen/used before  to  do  business  at  the DCU.  If my 5 digit badge #
    invalidates the ballot i'll be steamed as hell, since to do business at
    DCU all I ever  needed  was  the 5 digit badge # number followed by a -
    and the savings account # that I wish to do my business in ie 
    
           XXXXX-1 for regular savings
           XXXXX-3 for vacation
           XXXXX-4 for U-Name-It
           XXXXX-5 For Checking
    
    So in theory I guess I could of enter 4 different account #'s which one
    was  I  supposed  to  use,  the  ballot  was  not that  forthcoming  in
    information.
    
    When  my  wife  took  out her car loan from DCU 2  years  ago  she  was
    explicitely  told by the NIO branch manager that her Account number was
    my  badge  #  prefixed  by 1000.  The line printed below on her  ballot
    include several more  grouping  of  numbers  than  we  were  told.  I'm
    praying what was on  the  ballot  was  some  kind  of  sequencing  # or
    something.

    If it turns out mine  and  my  wife ballots are invalidate we should be
    allowed to vote again, since the ballot didn't say the number below was
    indeed your NEW Account/Badge # for use with DCU BoD election.
        
    Claude

    I just put my badge number on that line, so if that's grounds for
    invalidating my ballot PLEASE LET ME KNOW!  I guess I shouldn't have
    assumed that's all they wanted.
    
    I photocopied my ballot, at least the voting side.  I forgot to copy
    the signature side!  8-(  I had considered getting the ballot notarized
    by a notary public.  8-)
    
    Paranoia WARNING!
    
    I had wondered, should I pick a color of ink that is different so that
    no one would add another X to invalidate my ballot by voting for more
    than 7?
    
    Paranoia over!
    
    I want to thank the "Members for a Qualified Board" for their
    literature!  It was handy having that present when I voted!  8-)
    
    Phil, I will be interested in hearing what they decide on term length.
    I saw nothing on this topic on the ballot.  I kind of expected to see
    that written somewhere, either on the ballot or on the NC Report.
    I'm sure it'll end up that the 3 and 2 year terms will be for the
    nominated candidates and the 1 year terms will be for the petition
    candidates.
    
    Don

I believe this is discussed elsewhere, but the directors receiving
the highest vote will get the longest term.

    	How will photocopying our ballots help anything?  Do we really
    	expect to be notified of rejected signatures?  I suppose if it
    	got to a legal point where we subpoenaed such a list due to a
    	lawsuit, photocopies might be useful.  Does anyone even remotely
    	suspect that it would get that far?
    
    	But what the heck.  I'll do it too.  It only takes a few seconds.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    I forgot to add, we need to keep an eye on how many ballots get
    invalidated and for what reasons.  I want to see breakdowns!  Because,
    if too many are invalidated, the process will have to be worked.
    
    Don

    re .35
    
    Yes, I do believe this has been discussed elsewhere HERE!  I wanted to
    see that written on the ballot, or at least on the ballot instructions!
    As far as I know, the NC will decide the terms AFTER the election
    without considering the criteria "most votes".
    
    Don

.36>      How will photocopying our ballots help anything?  Do we really
.36>      expect to be notified of rejected signatures?  I suppose if it
.36>      got to a legal point where we subpoenaed such a list due to a
.36>      lawsuit, photocopies might be useful.  Does anyone even remotely
.36>      suspect that it would get that far?


No, it's a safe bet that no one will call you to let you know your ballot is
rejected, whether because of signature or anything else.

But yes, if the election should turn out to be suspicious in any way, and
should someone want to audit the auditors, it would help if that someone
could call on a few of the voters for photocopies of submitted ballots.

Remote?  Sure enough.  (But not incidentally, the chances that everyone will
ensure that the election avoids even the appearance of impropriety might be
improved if it's known that there's some undetermined number of photocopies
out there, which COULD be produced if necessary.)

I think the election will be conducted fairly.  It has to be.  It'll be even
better if the election is conducted in such a way that everyone is SATISFIED
it's fair.  I hope they do that right from the beginning, inviting independent
checks and balances, communicating openly, and so on.
    

.36>      But what the heck.  I'll do it too.  It only takes a few seconds.

Hey!  Maybe we'll want to frame them!

>I think the election will be conducted fairly.  It has to be.  It'll be even
>better if the election is conducted in such a way that everyone is SATISFIED
>it's fair.  I hope they do that right from the beginning, inviting independent
>checks and balances, communicating openly, and so on.
    
    I thought the same about the special meeting.  After seeing the
    performance of the people up front, I wonder myself...
    
    	- mark

    (This user interface is beginning to annoy me.  Half the time, it only
    stores the first 3-4 lines of my note!!!)
    
    Re: .34, .35, .38
    
    For the answer to your debate over which Director will have which term
    after the Special Election, I refer you to Note 413.0   413.0, "DCU
    POSTING: NOMINATING COMMITTEE OVERVIEW".  This is an official statement
    from DCU about the election process; the last topic addressed is how
    long each new Director will serve.  The candidates with the most
    votes will, indeed, according to DEFCU, serve the longest.
    
    				- - Steve
    

    
    Re: fairness
    
    I think all this worry is for naught.  I agree that although 
    there may be some little snares for unwary voters that all
    ballots filled out according to the instructions and returned
    in the prepaid envelope via U.S. mail will be properly counted.
    
    I rather doubt that an independent auditing firm is going to aid
    and abet an election fraud because they are buddies with Chuck
    Cockburn.  There are just too many ways it could be found out.
    
    Steve
     

    Did anyone but me get the idea that the nominated candidates write-ups
    were all done by one person?

    
    RE: .41
    
    Thanks for that pointer.  However it is not on official DCU letterhead. 
    I think I'd feel better if this would be sent out to all candidates. 
    It's a VERY important piece of information to all candidates.  Right
    now I know DCU has reserved me a seat and parking space for the annual
    meeting.  But I'd rather know some real info.
    
    Who wants my parking space?  I don't do perks.

    
    RE: .42
    
    Hmmmm...  
    
> There are just too many ways it could be found out.
    
    Got any ideas?  I'm all ears.
    
    But if it could be easily found out, does that also imply that DCU
    could easily find out things too?
    
    A running count is being kept.  What is the need for this?  If
    everything is on a computer then the count should be very quick.
    And we all know how secure information is on computers...  ;-)
    I wouldn't be so worried if the number being entered was randomly
    generated.

    
    Re: .45
    
    < Got any ideas?  I'm all ears.
    
    It is quite simple.  In order for there to be any shenanigans
    when you consider that an outside firm is doing the auditing too
    many people would have to be working together for a fix to work.
    All it takes is one person to make one comment in the wrong place
    and the rest is history.  Now you really don't believe that if there
    is any kind of fixing or manipulating going on that all the persons
    who are in the know are going to remain silent forever do you?
    Especially if they were able to pull it off.  The urge to brag and
    blab would certainly overcome someone.  Remember the guy working
    in the MIS department of a California bank who figured out how to
    transfer $10,000,000 to a Swiss bank without a way of then knowing
    where it went, precisely when or how?  He covered his trail so well
    that he was even able to resign from the bank and leave for Zurich.
    The jerk got nabbed several months later when back for a visit and
    couldn't resist the urge to brag about it.
    
    Steve
    

.42>      I rather doubt that an independent auditing firm is going to aid
.42>      and abet an election fraud because they are buddies with Chuck
.42>      Cockburn.  There are just too many ways it could be found out.


I think my worry was more that an even an independent auditing firm could be
manipulated, as for instance if DCU applied slightly more stringent
inspections to signatures of "certain" shareholders when telling the auditing
firm which ballots had to be rejected.

Actually, even that's not my real worry, since I don't think DCU would
consciously behave that way.  But it IS a real worry that DCU and Chuck's
auditors might fail to recognize that proceeding in the sunshine, with
open, easily verifiable checks and balances, is called for in this election
as is unlikely to have been the case in any other election they've handled.
This whole endeavour has shown that underestimating the need for sunshine has
been a consistent failing of the existing power structure.  (I.e., I'm
worried that the election count will be handled in such a way as to leave
doubts and cause yet more accusations, even though actually handled honestly.)

/Bill_the_disappointed_in_"top_management"

re .-2

  Tis true he stole $10,000,000 BUT... He invested it in Diamonds and by the
time they caught him he had $12,000,000 ;-.]

    
    I'd rather not have to count on somebody blabbing.  I'd rather feel
    comfortable about the election process, ballot, counting, etc.  That's
    why I suggested a meeting to Cockburn.  Let's see if he acts on it.
    
    RE: Bill
    
    DCU doesn't invalidate the signatures.  They send copies of signature
    cards to the mailing house for them to do the comparison.  I have no
    idea if the auditing firm will be doing random checks of ballots.  I
    hope so.  Especially of DCU employees and their families.  We have
    already seen their active role in the election.  We've seen one case of
    messing with DCU files for election purposes.  I want to make sure all
    their 1-16 year old children aren't getting ballots.

.49>  DCU doesn't invalidate the signatures.  They send copies of signature
.49>  cards to the mailing house for them to do the comparison.

(I assume Phil means "auditing house";  surely the mailing house is done with
their part of the job as we speak.)

But can that be right?  The signatures are verified by the auditing firm?
Then why the tear-apart ballot, with the signature on a separable stub?
Now I'm getting unhappy that the auditing firm is Chuck's old buddy again;
this (if true) makes it harder for them to avoid appearances of impropriety.


.49>                                                             I have no
.49>  idea if the auditing firm will be doing random checks of ballots.  I
.49>  hope so.  Especially of DCU employees and their families.  We have
.49>  already seen their active role in the election.  We've seen one case of
.49>  messing with DCU files for election purposes.  I want to make sure all
.49>  their 1-16 year old children aren't getting ballots.

Or that certain signature cards just happen to not get sent to the auditing
firm for verification of certain ballots.  (Or a hundred other paranoid things
I could think of, and probably will think of, if there's no way for ensuring
sunshine.)

There's GOT to be some way for the auditing firm's procedures to be overseen
and verified.  DCU, Chuck, and even John Sims should be able to see this.

    First, I was furious when the DCU lied about their new "choices" 
    chequing fees.
    
    Second, I was furious with the DCU board covering up the loan scandal.
    
    Third, I was furious when the Board nominating committee, set up by
    DCU, rejected nominations by some of the very people who gave up their
    time to expose the fraud and failure on behalf of the existing board of
    directors. This, after 45-minute interviews.
    
    Fourth, I was furious when I got the election pamphlet, clearly
    encouraging voters to vote for the people set up by the nominating
    committee, and putting their resumes in the front of the brochure, in
    nice bold type fonts, then putting those nominated by petition at the
    back, in scatty, non-aligned, non-spell checked format.
    
    Finally, I get a latter from John Sims encouraging me to read what the
    nominating committee said in the pamphlet, in a thinly disguised
    attempt to get me to vote for those people who were set up by the
    nominating committee, but with plenty of plausible deniability.
    
    That really pissed me off.
    
    The DCU have hereby guaranteed that I shall not vote for *any* of those
    set up by the nominating committee, particularly the incompetant 
    incumbents.
        
    Sincerely,
    
    Ray Thackeray.

    If memory serves me correctly, I thought I noticed that the member
    number (badge or account) appeared on the back of the ballot from where
    the member voted (lower area next to tear-line, on the ballot half you
    voted upon). *IF* this memory is correct, it would be a very simple
    matter for anyone to determine how an individual member voted by member
    number.

    Did anyone else notice this or am I restating something already
    discussed earlier that I missed or has my memory gone south?

    Carl

	Re:.52.  See .0.  It was one of the first comments that Phil made.

		Danny

My youngest son, who is NOT a DEC employee, is a member of our DCU. What
should he put in the "badge number" place on the ballot?

Thanks,

Art

I told my wife to put down her DCU account number in the "badge number"
space.  Her account number is my badge number prefaced by "100", and is
also the long number in the middle of the sequence up above her name.

I certainly hope that's right, and I really think it is.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    RE: .54
    
    Art, I have been trying to find this out from DCU for the last several
    days.  Even DCU couldn't give me a definitive answer when I spoke to
    Chuck Cockburn and Jim Regan last week.  I've been playing phone tag with
    Jim Regan since last Friday.
    
    As for the ballot containing peoples account/badge number, I still have
    not been contacted by the partner in charge of auditing this election
    for the accounting firm.  Having them located in California doesn't
    help either.
    
    

    
    You know, it's a real shame. Immediately after DCU announced the
    board-wide election, I called Patti D'Addieco, and volunteered my services
    to run through the ballot package and comment on the neutrality of the
    contents and the clearness of instructions (keeping in mind a previous
    election, when members were told to vote for too many candidates). I know
    I would have pointed out the possible confusion over "Account/badge", not
    to mention its irrelevance considering it's printed just below, because
    those things jumped out at me when I was doing my duty. I probably would
    have also commented on the difference in look of the candidate writeups.
    Unfortunately, I was never give the chance; Patti said she'd keep my
    offer in mind, and that's the last I heard.
    
    I guess Sims wasn't considering the human factors angle when he got his
    sneak preview :-)
    

    RE: 502.52 and 502.53

    Danny;

    Nice to know my memory is ok, just my ability to read is a little off
    {:^)>.

    Thanks,

    Carl

    
    Well, I *finally* got through to the independent auditor.  The person
    in charge of auditing the election is Mike Sacher of O'Rourke &
    Clark.  For those who attended the Special Meeting, he was the person
    in charge of conducting the vote on item 2.  O'Rourke & Clark is
    primarily located on the west coast.  They have been in business for 20
    years and audit over 200 credit unions.
    
    He would tell me nothing about the process or what they were doing. 
    Why?  "There is a very good reason."  He says that he has "gone to
    great lengths to make the procedures confidential".  He stressed that
    everything about the process is confidential and he couldn't discuss
    it.  He repeatedly emphasized that everything was confidential and that
    nobody has access to the ballots.  Nobody at DCU has access to tallies.  
    He wouldn't say if ballots with account or badge numbers was standard 
    practice for ballots at any of the other credit unions they audit.  He
    said people shouldn't be concerned about the fact that badge/account
    numbers appear on the ballot.  The whole conversation boiled down to 
    two words, trust them.
    
    He said he sent letter to Jim Regan, DCU's internal auditor, and that I
    can get a copy of it from him.  I will go to DCU HQ tomorrow morning.
    

    The whole point of having an independent auditor is that we
    won't have to "trust them" or anyone. The "independent" should
    guarantee fairness and seems to me like it should all be
    straightforward and upfront. Why the secrecy? What does it
    have to be secret?
    
    Is there an auditor to audit the independent auditor? Will we
    get full disclosure from him? Or will we have to audit him?
    HOW do we know the election is fair? How can we be confident
    that the count is accurate? Trust can come only with knowledge,
    in my opinion.
    
    Why does everything about the DCU these days seem so dark and
    behind curtains. When will the light be turned on? Mr. Sacher has
    not reassured me; in fact, he's somewhat alarmed me.
    
    

.59>           For those who attended the Special Meeting, he was the person
.59>   in charge of conducting the vote on item 2.

Ah, HIM.  The fellow who had DCU employees count the vote, and then stand
up in front of the whole room (and their boss) and hold up their own cards
for themselves to count.

    
.59>   He would tell me nothing about the process or what they were doing. 
.59>   Why?  "There is a very good reason."

The thought that he might be sincere in that remark, that there MIGHT be
a very good reason for secrecy, is precisely why people are going to have
trouble trusting his count.


.59>   nobody has access to the ballots.  Nobody at DCU has access to tallies.

So evidently there's no way to verify that Phil Gransewicz's signature card
was provided to them, or to verify that signatures aren't rejected because of
a missing middle initial, or to verify that Jim Morton's birthday hasn't been
updated to make him 14 years old and so to deny him a ballot, or in fact to
verify anything.


.59>                                  The whole conversation boiled down to 
.59>   two words, trust them.

Oh, sure.

I'll feel a whole lot better when we've retained an auditing firm of our
own to double-check their work.  (They ARE going to keep the election
materials around, aren't they?)

Well, in defense of the election process...

I've seen proxy statements and ballot cards for
either annual or special shareholder meetings for Navistar, 
AT&T, Disney, and Fitchburg Gas and Electric over the last
month.  All the ballot cards had the shareholder name and 
address.  Some had account numbers on them.  One (for the
Disney special meeting) has my brokerage account number
on it along with a reference number.

So, it seems clear to me that identifying information on
the ballot part of the card is not *too* unnatural.  It does,
however, strike me as quite strange that the auditing firm
wouldn't discuss it's verification and confidentiality 
controls, at least at a hypothetical level.

On the other hand, DCU could have avoided all this by simply
coding a reference number on both parts of the ballot rather
than people's badge numbers or account numbers.  Further, if
the ballot had been sourced, mailed, and completely handled
by an auditing firm, things would have appeared much better.

And I do agree that having election tellers
at the Special Meeting who were DCU employees, and then who
were made to vote in front of *everybody* (not just their
management) was completely inappropriate.  They should have
brought election tellers from the auditing firm.  I've seen
this done in the past with other companies.

./Chris

    
    [Permission to forward or re-post this note is granted.  However, the
     original note header and names at the end of the note must be
     retained.  The contents of the note may be shared with any DCU member.]
     
    
    [Letter given to Phil Gransewicz by Jim Regan on March 26, 1992. 
    Letter is on O'Rourke & Clark letterhead.]
    
    March 24, 1992
    
    Mr. Jim Regan, CPA
    Internal Auditor
    Digital Employees Federal Credit Union
    141 Parker St.
    Maynard, MA  01754
    
    Dear Mr. Regan,
    
    Per our phone conversation this morning, you have advised me that
    several members of the credit union have phoned you to inquire as to
    the balloting process regarding the current election for the Board of
    Directors of the credit union.  Specifically, the inquiries have
    concerned matters related to the confidentiality of the ballots.
    
    As you are aware, O'Rourke & Clark Accountancy Corporation has been
    appointed Tellers of Election.  We are an independent CPA firm with no
    interest in the outcome of the election.  Also, as you are aware, an
    independent outside firm specializing in mail ballot tabulation has
    been retained to control the receipt and count of the ballots.
    
    In order to assure the confidentiality and integrity of the election,
    we will not discuss the actual procedures with any credit union
    employee, official or member.  However, based on our review of the
    procedures, we believe that adequate measures have been taken to assure
    the confidentiality and integrity of the election.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    <signature>
    
    Michael J. Sacher, CPA
    Vice-President
    O'Rourke & Clark
    Accountancy Corporation

    So he's saying that Chuck Coburn knows no more about how they do it than
    we do?

    	From the response posted to the DCU in .63, it seems like they
    	asked questions that indicate they are as suspicious of the
    	balloting process as this topic is.
    

    
    RE: .64
    
    I'm not sure if Chuck Cockburn was speculating about the process based
    on past experience or if he knows about the current process.  According
    to the reply from the auditors, it sounds like the former.
    
    RE: .65
    
    DCU had asked questions of the auditors because members were calling
    DCU with questions and concerns.  I don't think DCU itself had
    questions about the process.
    

Let me see if I've got this straight.

The firm responsible for ensuring that the election is conducted
properly is the same firm that conducted the vote on Item 2 at
the Special Meeting.  In fact, the individual who conducted that
vote is responsible for the integrity of the Special Election.

Wasn't that the vote where all the tellers and those counting the
votes were members of one faction?  Where no one from any other
faction and no neutral individuals were permitted to participate
in collecting or counting votes?

I think I agree with "XCUSME::LEVY" - I'm not reassured, I'm alarmed!

Harebrained Scheme #1:  What would happen if either a Massachusetts
or Federal district court were asked for an injunction or court
order requiring that the Digital Employee's Federal Credit Union
conduct an election for all board positions which met the following
requirements:

     1)	Ballots are secret.
     2)	The auditing process is understood by all participants.
     3)	Methods are provided for any interested party to ensure that
	the vote was counted properly and accurately.

				- - Steve

    
    RE: .67
    
    You have all the facts correct.
    
    Your idea sounds great.  Got a few thousand dollars to put towards this
    court order?
    

Re: .68

>     Your idea sounds great.  Got a few thousand dollars to put towards this
>     court order?

Court orders and injunctions, by themselves, don't cost anything.  If you
go hire a lawyer, THEN you're talking money!

In fact, the court is required, to some extent, to ensure that cases
are properly pursued.  You can go a long way without a lawyer if you
can take the time to talk to the Clerk of the Court and figure out
how to go about it.

On the other hand, a lawyer can quickly tell you whether or not there's
any merit in an issue you're trying to bring before a court.

I haven't got "a few thousand dollars", but I'll tell you what.  I'll
put up $250 and the time for a consultation with a lawyer, to try and
figure out whether or not there's something really wrong here and
whether or not any legal action is warranted.  Another $250 and two
other people should buy us an hour.

Any takers?

				- - Steve

    I'll put up some of that fee (though I can't do 250, maybe 50).  I 
    think it is important that we become pro-active here.  My only 
    concern is that we now NOT look like we are trying to STOP the 
    election.  The election must go forward, has mandated by the special
    meeting, but the election must be fair.  Knowing my rights, as a
    member/share-holder/owner(?) of my credit union, seems like an
    appropriate thing for me to do.  I want to stand up, and be counted,
    before this election takes place.  It looks bad now, and I don't want
    to be asked 3 months from now, we I stood by and let a 'perceived'
    unfairness go unchecked.  Count me in.
    
    Mark
    
    Just a thought, could the purpose of the badge numbers on the ballot
    insure the ballots are not released to substantiate a re-count (i.e.
    accounting firm announces 7 of the 9 nominated candidates win, but
    since ballots can not be released, because of confidentiality, a re-count
    by anyone else is not possible.  I think that I am becoming paranoid as
    to what might take place in this election, but I have an obligation, as
    an interested member of this credit union, to find out what my rights
    are, and then to stand up for those rights, IF they are violated.  It's
    hard to believe we are all Digital Employees here :(.  Then again,
    maybe some of us are employees, while others are Employees.

I'll put up some of that fee too.  (I can't do $250 either, but let me
know what you need.)

Mark said it well.  We want the election to go forward, but it MUST be
fair -- and it must be OBVIOUS that it's fair.  I don't want to be hassling
three months from now with the aftermath of a "trust me" audit.

Count me in.

    
    another $50 from me
    

	Gathering money for the consultation is one thing, but what if the
outcome of the consultation says that we really do need an attorney to push
this for us.  Who pays for it then?  (Perhaps the initial court order could
order DCU to pay for the "reasonable and customary" costs for the attorney?)

							-craig

Way back when before the Special Meeting was held, a few of us
retained the services of a couple lawyers to provide advice and 
guidance whilst we wrestled with DCU.  Pretty expensive stuff 
as your average legal type bills out at something around 
$150/hour (that's for a general corporate practice type; litigators 
who specialize in fields like CU/S&L work can easily draw $500/hr 
and up...).

We were told that to pursue any kind of action requiring going
into court would probably cost between $5,000 - $10,000, assuming
that we lost and didn't appeal, or won and the other parties 
didn't appeal.  This is some pretty big coin, at least at my
income level.  And then there's the issue of how to deal with
50-100 "sponsors" who have each kicked in dough.  I don't think
it's within the realm of possibility to pull it off.

Note, too, that forcing your opponent to pick up the tab for your
lawyers is only used in situations where damages are awarded.  
Simply getting a court order would not be a situation of this type.

Caution:  I sense that with these types of discussions we are
          walking very closely to the edge with regard to the
          infamous orange book.  I know from observation that
          it won't be any fun to get pulled in on this stuff.
	          "Let's be careful out there."

Disclaimer:  I'm not a lawyer, so everything here is not based
             on expert opinion, but rather on what I've learned
             and/or been told.  

./chris

  Re:.69

>Court orders and injunctions, by themselves, don't cost anything.  If you
>go hire a lawyer, THEN you're talking money!

  You're wrong.  Court Orders and Injunctions DO cost money.  The fact is that
  before a court will act on anything, you have to file a Complaint.  THAT costs
  money.  It also depends on where the complaint is filed.  If memory serves me
  correctly, it cost about $110 to file a complaint.  The complaint then has to
  be served on each defendant, at a cost of about $35 each, even if there is
  more than one defendant in the same place.  I also doubt that a Court will
  issue and court orders or injunctions unless you can show that you have tried
  other ways to accomplish the same thing.  (That's to prevent Courts being used
  instead of grievance procedures clogging the Courts).

		Danny

    Uh, I wouldn't expect real fast turnaround, either ...
    
    Steve

    	How will this topic look when the entire board gets replaced
    	by petition candidates?  Are we going to be selective in our
    	contempt for the process?  Do we want the deep pockets of the
    	DCU to pick up on this idea if their nominated board is voted
    	out?

    	Just some things to consider.

    	Look at what is happening in this conference.  We have already
    	forced a special meeting.  We forced a special election.  We
    	got 11 "renegade" candidates on the slate.  BRAVO!!!  We are
    	now fighting the battle of the election.  But at the same time
    	we are also setting up court orders, and in other topics looking
    	to create a new credit union, looking to create a new NCUA,
    	looking to audit an auditing company ...  WHEW!  The Roman empire
    	collapsed because it got too big for itself.  Let's not create
    	our own Waterloo!

    	Historically the vote turnout has been low for BOD elections.
    	Perhaps I am being simplistic and naive, but I suspect the
    	heavier turnout will be a result of the petition vote, and it
    	will overwhelm the traditional "blind" vote.

    	Perhaps it is good to plan ahead.  But maybe it would also be
    	prudent to take all that pledged money and use it for campaigning
    	to ensure that the vote turns out the way we want it to.

    I won't be volunteering any funds.  This discussion sounds to similiar
    to the "They'll find a way to invalidate the Special Meeting", "They'll
    hold the Special Meeting in Sicily, Alaska", "They'll invalidate enough
    signatures to prevent petition candidates from getting on the ballot",
    etc.

Some of you can pledge money for something that would benefit all.  If it is for
the benefit of all, then I would think that all should contribute.  How many
members are there?  80,000+?  $1.00 each would probably get the entire job done.

But then you would have to GET that from everyone, and not all will pay even
that small amount.  Oh well - just a thought.

	Yes, it does. And I certainly admit to participating in that
	sort of speculation. I won't deny that I can be a bit paranoid.
	But better to anticipate and not have it happen than not anticipate,
	and have it happen. :-)

				Tom_K

    I don't have any problem with all the conjecture.  Sure, much of it
    contains scenarios that will probably never happen.  And more of it
    contains bad suggestions and bad ideas.  Most of those die in the
    ensuing discussions.  That's what discussions are for.  That's what
    notes conferences are for.

    But enough absolutely wild things have actually come to pass that I
    don't believe any of the conjecture is totally out of line.  Who, for
    example, could ever have predicted the antics of the BoD at the Special
    Meeting? Or the midnight session afterward to change the bylaws?
    Remember the discussion about the size of the room for the Special
    Meeting?  And the initial BoD refusal to give out the information?  And
    the final result that the room wasn't big enough?

    So given all the surreal things that have actually happened, I simply
    don't understand the objection to discussing more things that
    conceivably could happen.  It's called contingency planning, and the
    only unusual aspect of it here is that it is occurring right out in the
    open for everybody to see.  No secrets.  No redacted minutes. No
    information control policy (or whatever it's called).

And the ballot-counting is being conducted in such a way (i.e., even the
process being used is being kept a secret) that no one can tell whether
mistakes (OR purposeful misdeeds) may creep in.

It's not conjectural to want a process which at least LOOKS honest.

    First off, I said nothing about stopping the discussion.  I said that I
    wouldn't put any money towards a legal action.
    
�And the ballot-counting is being conducted in such a way (i.e., even the
�process being used is being kept a secret) that no one can tell whether
�mistakes (OR purposeful misdeeds) may creep in.
    
    Is it being done differently than in any other election of it's kind? 
    I don't think so.  There are no guarantees in life.  If someone wants
    to take advantage of a situation for personal gain bad enough, they'll
    find a way to do it.  Even home security systems aren't 100% foolproof.

.78>  I won't be volunteering any funds.  This discussion sounds to similiar
.78>  to the "They'll find a way to invalidate the Special Meeting", "They'll
.78>  hold the Special Meeting in Sicily, Alaska", "They'll invalidate enough
.78>  signatures to prevent petition candidates from getting on the ballot",
.78>  etc.

    All of those comments were made in this conference. As you imply,
    in hindsight and divorced from other recent actions, they look pretty
    paranoid.
    
    On the other hand, if we had been just a bit more paranoid and wondered
    aould whether DCU would ignore its own published election guidelines
    and declare them not applicable to this election.. why, we would have
    been right on the money!
    

�    All of those comments were made in this conference. As you imply,
�    in hindsight and divorced from other recent actions, they look pretty
�    paranoid.
    
    Imply, nothing.  When they were said I flat out stated they were
    paranoid.  In hindsight I was shown to be correct.

    
    RE: .85
    
    Yes, but what about all the shananigans that happened that you didn't
    predict?  We still need a better idea of your batting record before
    we'll bestow the rank of Honorable Fortune Teller on you... 8-)
    
    Oh well, does any of this really matter?  But I think it's good to start
    the weekend off with a good laugh though.
    

	So what is wrong with being paranoid? Sometimes it is warranted...
	
					Tom_K

    If it's warranted, by definition it isn't paranoia.

I don't think of it as paranoid, but rather prepared for
the possibilities.

If a community buys some fire trucks on the sole premise
that one day the largest building in town will be burned
to the ground, we don't call the city managers paranoid.

We've seen some really crazy things happen at DCU since
this whole thing began.  Hypothesizing about potential
problems, and either dismissing them as unreasonable concerns,
or preparing to react if they occur is not paranoia.
Hypothesizing about how to react when the Little Green Men
from Mars Come to Take Over America is paranoid because there
is absolutely no chance of it happening.

Think about what would have been "paranoid" 12 months ago:

	- BoD changes the by-laws to (effectively, IMHO) prevent
          another Special Meeting

	- DCU refusing to discuss how many seats would be 
          available at the Special Meeting

	- BoD suspending the credit committes and usurping it's
          power

	- DCU intimating that it had suspended its own BoD
	  election guidelines

	- BoD writing memos describing critics as "Witchhunters"

and the list goes on and on.   

So, hypothesizing about potential future events in this sort of
climate is not paranoid, it's prudent.

./chris

    
    RE: paranoia
    
    And the $15 million really isn't gone, Dick Mangone is
    just holding it for us since he had some spare room at his house.
    Wonder why DCU Comm. Dept. has issued this one yet???  ;-)
    
    If all that has happened is normal, then we are all in trouble.

    I'm merely addressing the concern that the DCU will rig the election
    through a conspiracy with the independent auditing firm.  They have
    shown throughout the whole process that they are being very careful so
    as not to give any hint to impropriety.  They don't want to give you
    witch hunters ;^) any more ammo.

If they didn't want to give ammo to the witchhunters, they would have used 
some reasonable methods for vote counting at the special meeting.

Quite honestly, their track record doesn't impress me that much.

    	I, too, think it's paranoid.  I have heard a saying, however.
    
    	Just because you're not paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not
    	out to get you.
    
    	Wasn't this auditor selected by NCUA, not DCU?  Then again,
    	there was talk somewhere else about NCUA being corrupt...

    I year ago, I would have thought it paranoid as well.  As I said
    earlier, I don't regard it as paranoid now.  I regard it as prudent.
    
    If I've understood correctly, the same person is in charge of counting
    the votes as was in charge of vote counting at the Special Meeting. 
    That does not give me a feeling of confidence.

    re the following;
    >          <<< Note 502.91 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>
    >
    >I'm merely addressing the concern that the DCU will rig the election
    >through a conspiracy with the independent auditing firm.  They have
    >shown throughout the whole process that they are being very careful so
    >as not to give any hint to impropriety.  They don't want to give you
    >witch hunters ;^) any more ammo.

    I love it!  I especially love the part where you said "They have
    shown throughout the whole process that they are being very careful so
    as not to give any hint to impropriety."  It reminds me of the Bull
    running through the glass shop, or a hippo taking dance lessons.
    I missed the facial expression for that sentence though.  That has to
    be the funniest statement of the year.
    
    Jim Morton
    

    
    RE: .93
    
    Joe, the auditor was DCU's auditor.  Chuck Cockburn brought them with
    him from California.  NCUA doesn't select auditors.
    
    And watch those aspersions guy, nobody said NCUA was corrupt.  Some
    might consider them inept or incompetent, hypothetically speaking 
    of course.   whew....  just dodged that P&P bullet.

Joe writes...
>   	Wasn't this auditor selected by NCUA, not DCU?  Then again,
>    	there was talk somewhere else about NCUA being corrupt...

Which auditor?  The DCU inside auditor is a recently hired DCU
employee.  If you mean outside audit, then that would be DCU's
recently retained accounting firm.

Either way, DCU hires 'em ,fires 'em, and pays the bills.

./chris

    
    RE: .91
    
    To many members, the account number on the ballot was a 'hint of
    impropriety'.  Especially, if the same members witnessed the
    professional job they performed at the Special Meeting.  And I don't
    think anybody can fault them for feeling uncomfortable with a "trust
    us" from the auditors.
    

    
    I was just chatting with a coworker, saw a REAL CHOICES flyer on his
    desk, and asked him if he voted.
    
    He hasn't gotten a ballot yet.
    
    How widespread is this??
    

Phil has heard from some number of folks that haven't gotten their ballot.
Hard to believe they've all gotten lost. It's impossible to tell how
widespread the lost ballots is. Have him call DCU and ask for
another ballot. One of the things the signature on the ballot does is to
give them a way to ensure that folks only vote once.

    
    Yes, I have gotten several calls and mail messages from people who
    haven't received their ballots yet.  It is starting to be more than a
    minor problem IMO.  And these are just the people who know to expect
    the ballot.
    
    If anybody hasn't received a ballot, they should:
    
    	1. Contact their local branch and make sure their address matches
    	   the one they have on file.  If it does *not* match, then the
    	   member will have to send something in writing to DCU.  They
    	   should call DCU HQ in this case and speak with Patty D'Addieco
    	   about getting a ballot and correcting the address.
    
    	2. Also, confirm that your birth date is correct and membership
    	   status allows voting (primary member).
    
    	3. Date of record for the ballots was Feb. 29, 1992.  If you joined
    	   DCU after then, then you won't get a ballot.
    
    
    At this point, anybody who hasn't received a ballot or if it was
    destroyed by accident, should call DCU HQ (DTN 223-6735) and speak
    with Patty D'Addieco (ex. 239).  They should be able to have the
    auditor send a new ballot.  But hurry, only 2.5 weeks left.
    
    I might also suggest that anybody requesting a duplicate ballot have
    the signature portion notorized before submitting it.  You might also
    want to include a note stating that this was a re-issuance of a ballot
    and that if they already have a ballot from you, there is something
    wrong.
    
    And remember, no voting twice.  This isn't Chicago... ;-)
    

	I did an info session in the ZKO cafeteria today. One person
	I talked to hadn't gotten a ballot, one said that he had
	lost his ballot. 

	I advised them both to contact DEFCU.

					Tom_K

    They did send me my ballot, after I request they resend it.  I will be 
    filling it out tonight.
    
    
    Jim Morton
    

    
    RE: .103
    
    Jim, was it re-sent by the auditor?  How long did it take from request
    to arrival?
    

    Phil,
    	Sorry about the late response.  I am not sure if it was the auditor
    or not.  I suspect it was.  It took about 3 working days to get it,
    from request.  Gail phoned them while I waited and watched.  Overall
    good service.
    
    Jim Morton