Conference 7.286::dcu

    How about flipping a coin?  That happens even in government elections.

How can the chairman cast a vote? At least in this case, he probably
already has voted. One man, one vote?

Bryan

If the Presidential candidates fail to get a majority of the electoral
college vote, the House of Representatives gets to vote (one state one
vote). You can argue that those representatives get to vote twice.

Perhaps in the event of a tie, these attending the annual meeting can
cast the deciding votes.

Gim

    
    
>Perhaps in the event of a tie, these attending the annual meeting can
>cast the deciding votes.
    
    You mean just like the Special Meeting?  I can tell you what the result
    would be now and you don't have to pay me anything...
    
    This is all very unlikely and probably not worth worrying about until
    we come to it.  Besides, what makes you think DCU is now all of a
    sudden going to start documenting anything about this election?  The
    "DCU Election Guidelines" aren't being used.  That leaves no known
    rules that I am aware of.  DCU makes them up as they go along and as
    they see fit.  Welcome to politics at DCU.  Any wonder why people have
    a hard time trusting the place?
    

�    "DCU Election Guidelines" aren't being used.  
    
    According to the bylaws, the President has the power to appoint the
    Nominating Committee.  Apparently the Guidelines were written before
    this bylaw change.
    
    As far as other DCU employee's inolvement, this appeared to be
    happening at only a couple of sites and could very easily have been
    individually motivated rather than DCU motivated.  In the cases
    documented, it appears that issues have been resolved.
    
    In the DCU branches I've visited I've seen all nominees names listed on
    literature posted in the branch, and signs and buttons that encourage
    people to Vote.

    
>    According to the bylaws, the President has the power to appoint the
>    Nominating Committee.  Apparently the Guidelines were written before
>    this bylaw change.
    
    	Correct.  The 'new & improved' Bylaws now give the power to the
    President instead of the Chairman of the Board.  It still is not clear
    to me how the President is going to know that many members in order to
    choose them.  I wonder if he is going to solicit volunteers?
    
    The Election Guidelines covered much more than this item though.    
    
>    As far as other DCU employee's inolvement, this appeared to be
>    happening at only a couple of sites and could very easily have been
>    individually motivated rather than DCU motivated.  In the cases
>    documented, it appears that issues have been resolved.
    
    It happened at more than a couple sites.  And these were just the sites
    where activity was actually proven to be that of DCU employees.  How
    were the issues resolved?  Do you know something we don't?
    
>    In the DCU branches I've visited I've seen all nominees names listed on
>    literature posted in the branch, and signs and buttons that encourage
>    people to Vote.

    Yes, as the Bylaws require. (except signs & buttons)
    

�    The Election Guidelines covered much more than this item though.    
    
    I asked the question in here as to which Guidelines were not being
    followed and the answer I got was the President's involvement with the
    nominating committee and candidate information distribution/removal by
    DCU employees.
    
�    It happened at more than a couple sites.  And these were just the sites
�    where activity was actually proven to be that of DCU employees.  How
�    were the issues resolved?  Do you know something we don't?
    
    I'm going by the info posted in here.  I believe that ZKO and CXO were
    the only branches that were discussed.  I also believe that the people
    raising the issue have said that the issue has been resolved.

.7>    I'm going by the info posted in here.  I believe that ZKO and CXO were
.7>    the only branches that were discussed.  I also believe that the people
.7>    raising the issue have said that the issue has been resolved.


I might be able to comment on ZKO.  "Resolved" isn't quite the right word
for an issue which has resulted in Open Door letters to Worldwide Employee
Relations and the Senior VP of Operations, and in threat of Corrective Action
-- all still in process.  That info is posted in here.

DCU employees aren't responsible for how things have unfolded at ZKO, of
course.  Their actions were only the seeds.  Still, those who raised the
issues at ZKO would prefer that you not believe that the "issue has been
resolved".

    
.5>  As far as other DCU employee's inolvement, this appeared to be
.5>  happening at only a couple of sites and could very easily have been
.5>  individually motivated rather than DCU motivated.
    
    See note 496.43 for evidence against the theory that DCU employee
    involvement in the election was individually motivated. The crux of
    that note is reproduced below:
    
DECie:      "Who distributed the [Vote for a Qualified Board] flyers?"
Branch mgr: "Digital employees were asked to volunteer their time to distribute 
             the flyers."
DECie:      "Who asked for these volunteers?"
Branch mgr: "I did.  On my own time."
Teller:     "Headquarters told us to solicit volunteers."
Branch mgr: "That's correct.  On our own time."

    CXO Branch Manager:  We have no control over what DCU employees
    			 do on their lunch break.
    
    
    Mary Madden called me back to say that DCU HQ had discussed the issue
    with the CXO branch.  The problem of removing RC literature did not
    repeat.

    .9's note references BTO, so there are at least 3 sites.  I can't
    prove it, but I'd be willing to bet that it has happened at more
    sites than you'd care to know about.
    
    Don