Conference 7.286::dcu

I think you're right to start looking ahead beyond the election.  And it's
a very good idea to be thinking of how to re-build some bridges.  The
heinous position DCU employees have been put in by the Old Guard, for
instance, should be one of the first mending jobs tackled by the new BoD.

As far as bridges between candidates are concerned, I don't see that there's
much which needs doing.  Candidates have not been attacking one another.
In fact, most of the Nominating Committee candidates (other than the
incumbents, of course, who have their record) have aired almost nothing about
their beliefs or positions.

(As usual, "most" here tries not to impugn a candidate such as Deepak Goyal,
who although a Nominating Committee candidate, HAS described his views and
positions.  And whom I would be pleased to see elected to the new BoD, FWIW.)

No attack on this point from here...

I've heard this concern in other circles too, and to some extent
it's one that I share.  On the other hand, I'm not too sure there's
much that can be done prior to the Board being seated.

In any election, like the current presidential election, it seems
like there's a good deal of spirited debate, lots of dialog (both
good stuff and trash talk), and then when the dust settles, people
more or less pledge to at least trying to work together.

As a candidate, I need to respond in kind to what is going on during
the election.  If one side if leafletting, then I need to as well.
If one side is debating, then I need to debate.  Such is the nature
of campaigning.  Unfortunately, it doesn't leave a lot of room for
"cross group" bridge building.

If elected, it's incumbant upon me to do what's right for the credit
union.  The right thing to do for DCU is *not* to cripple it with
a board so paralyzed by internal upheavel that it can't make a 
decision.  So, if elected, I will make "best efforts" attempts to
arrive at a basis of understanding with other board members.  It's
my hope that once the board is seated, that people are mature enough
and intelligent enough to realize that we need to find ways to
get along.

I disagree with the notion that 1 person cannot make a difference 
without the majority behind you.  Let's assume for a moment that
some group is overwhelmingly in favor of position X, but there is
one dissenter who holds to position Y, or at least !X.  That 
dissenter cannot carry the day, but she can work hard to make her
views known, and to share the decision-making process with her
"constituents."  

I would presume that if I were only one voice in
7 against, say, renewed participation loans, that my vocal
opposition during meetings and in other forums would be very 
effective in getting others to at least rethink their positions.

My $0.02 worth,
./chris

    I am eagering awaiting the response from the nominated candidates.
    
    To keep me a member of the credit union there needs to be a bridge
    between the board and me. The nominated candidates need to start working
    on that bridge. All they've shown me so far is a stone wall.
    
    Janet
    

Nominated Candidate Claire Muhm works in the same building as me (LKG1), so I
met her.  She has a very nice personality, one that I would like to see on the
BoD.  She has trouble working over the network, so she probably won't see this
discussion (or any other for that matter).  From the times I have met with her,
she would be eager to express her wishes to build bridges also.

    re:4
    
    Thanks for sharing that ...
    
    Chuck

    
    RE: .0
    
    Timing is everything.  IMO now is not the time to build bridges or
    walls.  Now is the time to move forward in the election process. 
    Bridges can and will be built when the time comes.  Walls should never
    be built.
    

re: .4

>BoD.  She has trouble working over the network, so she probably won't see this
>discussion (or any other for that matter).  From the times I have met with her,

Doesn't she have network access?  Not know how to use notes?

Bob

>>BoD.  She has trouble working over the network, so she probably won't see this
>>discussion (or any other for that matter).  From the times I have met with her,
>
>Doesn't she have network access?  Not know how to use notes?
    
    	Lot's of people have network access but are not comfortable with
    	Notes or other electronic communication.  We're not all "computer
    	people."
    
    			Alfred

    I am hopeful that the new board will operate in the interests of the 
    shareholders if the election is successful.  I have supported the RC 
    candidates in getting word out, but in no case have I told anyone to vote 
    ONLY for RC candidates or any other "slate" of candidates.  I have voted 
    for a mix of candidates because I chose those candidates I thought
    were the best from the choices available.  And, I am happy that I could
    choose between so many that seemed to be to be qualified.  (Would that
    we had comparable quality people running for public office ...)  I believe 
    that if all the candidates that are elected truly seek to serve the
    shareholders and operate in the interest of the shareholders, they will
    be able to do the right thing as a group and iron out any differences.
    
    Steve

One of Ron Glover's concerns about all this is how a mix of RC and QB
candidates if elected to the board would be able to work together. The
answer is that before the election we have conflicting goals - we all
are trying to get elected. After the election we will at least have the
common goal of rebuilding DCU and re-establishing its integrity. Having
a common goal should make it much easier to work together.

I also think that one person *can* make a difference. If that person is
able to have access to internal documents, s/he would be able to really
find out what happened. For me, re-establishing integrity means finding
out what *really* happened.

Could you provide the context for Ron Glover's concern?  I
assume you dont mean that in general he's concerned about having
a mix of views on the Board.  I would guess that some of the QB candidates
likely support the RC ideas and the other way round.

Perhaps you mean that he's concerned about the hard feelings
that might be generated from the heat of the campaign?  So far
it seems to me that people are being pretty darn NICE to eachother.
Imagine if the Republican National Committee  were running this
campaign....
bob

    	... or, to make things politically even again, Jerry Brown.
    
    Let's not not bring national politics into this, please.  We have
    enough problems of our own.

The context for Ron's concern was the latter; that the campaign has
become characterized by excessive negativity and spitefulness between
groups of candidates. I believe this is the same concern that Chuck
Boutcher is expressing and others have expressed.

Yes, there's a fine line between excessive negativity and putting out
facts especially in this election when the facts (IMHO) are so outrageous
and reasonable explanations are not forthcoming from those responsible.
I thought Jack Hutchinson's posting (496.142) contained excellent
thoughts on this (and other relevant things).

If the RC candidates (myself included) have strayed over the
line from time to time, it's because of the immense frustration of asking
reasonable questions and getting stonewalled. It's from watching a
general election occur in a way that most of the electorate sees only what
the powers-that-be wish them to see rather than all the facts. It's from
watching the phrase "do the right thing" fade into a distant memory.
It's from seeing decisions affecting DCU continue to occur in ways
not above suspicion.

All we're trying to do is to inform the members of what happened and we can
only reach a small fraction of members due to the lack of money. If what
happened is incredibly negative, then so be it. We didn't create those
negative events. If somebody tries to prevent us from informing those we
are able to reach, then yes, we're going to get frustrated.

This election to me is primarily about integrity and information.
Will DCU have integrity when the election is over? I hope so and so do a lot of
other folks. And if the new board is split between the RC and QB candidates,
I expect there will be loud discussions about what and how much information
should be given to the members. I know which side I and the other RC
candidates will be on.

    Paul,
    
    Good comments.  I really do understand some of the frustration ... I
    have felt it too, sometimes for different reasons.   I believe you are
    a person of integrety and will contribute to information getting out
    ... that is something one person can do.  I guess my point is that to
    truely be an effective board member and get the board to take action,
    it takes three others to vote your way.  I am only asking that we all
    look at that and understand what might happen after the election.  In
    any case, I appreciate and respect the tone and content of your response.