Conference 7.286::dcu

	>The following writeup was sent to the Cape Cod Times along with a
	>"Vote for a Qualified Board!" flyer in an envelop that was postmarked
	>in Boston on March 16th.  
    
    Was this published in the Cape Cod Times?  If so, when?
    

    There was no such thing as "Real Choices Candidates" at the Special
    Meeting.
    
    I must say that it is becoming curiouser and curiouser what the
    motivation could possibly be for these people to act the way
    they have been acting.
    
    It looks like Ms L was passing on material even before the submitter
    was contacted that his statement had been accepted. Is this correct?
    
    .....amazement.......I'll slowing close my mouth with my hand...
    and get on with the day.......
    
    Janet

    So how do you suppose the election will be invalidated? Frankly I am
    expecting that.

	Generally, when one uses words like "me" and "I", the name of person
	referred to is available. I wonder why the person chose not to sign
	it. He or she apparently did not believe in the content enough to
	stand behind it with his or her name...

	Just a few comments...


>	The nominated candidates clearly have the experience, 

	Can't disagree with that. Of course, all 21 candidates were nominated.
	9 were nominated be 3 members, 11 were nominated by over 500 members!

>	A Board dominated by "Real Choices" candidates leaves me VERY 
>	UNCOMFORTABLE about the credit union's future financial stability.

	But apparently not sufficiently uncomfortable to back up your
	statements with your name.

>	Progressive credit unions, like DCU, eliminated this system years ago
>	because it resulted in increased loan losses, slower service and less
>	confidentiality.

	Sorry, but I don't see the increased loan losses which resulted from
	elimination of the member credit committee as a good thing. Lets
	restore the member credit committee, and eliminate those losses!


>	MEETING MEMBER NEEDS (bolded and underlined) - The "Real Choices" 
>	candidates promise to restore members rights by ensuring all bylaw 
>	changes are approved by the membership.  Paul Kinzelman knows this 
>	is a false promise.  In a letter to Paul, NCUA, the federal regulatory
>	agency, stated that "Only Federal Credit Union directors, rather than
>	its members, may amend bylaws".

	But if by-law changes are submitted for NCUA approval *only* *after* 
	approval by members, then both are satisfied. Not a false promise at 
	all.


	Phil, did you contact the reporter to rebut this stuff?

						Tom_K

    
    
    
    Jeez, to me it sounds like a 'member' of the Nominating Committee with
    a great deal of *interest* as to whom becomes the next board of director's
    could have anonomously sent this... The wording sounds very familiar to
    what I (and others) heard on a certain journey around the facilities...
    Also, this same individual had the same type of 'speach' at the special
    meeting...
    
    This of course is my opinion...  No accusations, but rather a half 
    educated guess 
    
    
    
    John
    
    

re: .5

It's my understanding that DCU made all the candidate statements available
to all its employees prior to the publication of the official ballot.  The
list of people who had access to this material before the "rest of us" is
larger than just the nominating committee.

The document is a real slime job from the word go.  There are complete and
utter fabrications in it, and it makes some incredible assumptions (like
that since a candidate didn't mention financial soundness in their writeup
then they are obviously not committed to that principle).  It talks about
how Real Choices candidates intend to close branches and pull the plug on
ATMs to save money.  I've never heard a candidate in this election advocate
shutting down ATMs.  

The harping in hear about Phil claiming that Mangone had a favorable loan
(which would be illegal) is the same junk that the "BoD Responds to 
Misinformation" piece we enjoyed so much before.  

It's almost humorous to read this document until you realize that it's the
only 'information source' that some voters may have had.  I'd really like to
know what the circulation of this piece of junk is/was.

In this election we've seen all sorts of "campaigning" by anonymous sources
intent on discrediting the Real Choices candidates and casting aspersions
on their character, fitness for office, and moral fiber.  While I won't 
talk at length about what this sort of campaigning means, I will say that
despite our many imperfections, Real Choices candidates and their supporters
have never been afraid to sign their writings, and have never been afraid to
have people know who they are and what they stand for.

./chris

    
RE: .1
        
>Was this published in the Cape Cod Times?  If so, when?
    
    No it was not.  Anonymous material of such a nature is never published
    unless the newspaper is itching for a law suit.  But in this case, the
    reporter (Susan Milton) is extremely knowledgeable about the situation.
    
RE: .2
    
    >There was no such thing as "Real Choices Candidates" at the Special
    >Meeting.
    
    Janet, now please don't interject real facts into this.  ;-)      
    
    >I must say that it is becoming curiouser and curiouser what the
    >motivation could possibly be for these people to act the way
    >they have been acting.
    
    The $64,000 question that keeps coming up.  At this point, considering
    everything we have seen, I am almost afraid to find out, but more
    committed than ever to doing so.
    
    >It looks like Ms L was passing on material even before the submitter
    >was contacted that his statement had been accepted. Is this correct?
    
    I don't know who or where the leaks were coming from.  Remember that
    our friend Chuck Cockburn was also on the "independent Nominating
    Committee".  However, as Chairperson of the committee, I do hold Ms.
    Lengle accountable for this. 
    
>    So how do you suppose the election will be invalidated? Frankly I am
>    expecting that.
    
    Hmmmm, good question.  You think DCU & DEC want to keep this nightmare
    to continue longer?  Their actions throughout this election do raise 
    some very tough questions though about elections and interference.
    
RE: .4
    
    	>Generally, when one uses words like "me" and "I", the name of person
	>referred to is available. I wonder why the person chose not to sign
	>it. He or she apparently did not believe in the content enough to
	>stand behind it with his or her name...

    Embarassment?  Fear of law suits?
    
   >Phil, did you contact the reporter to rebut this stuff?
    
    No need to. 
    
    RE: .5
>    Jeez, to me it sounds like a 'member' of the Nominating Committee with
>    a great deal of *interest* as to whom becomes the next board of director's
>    could have anonomously sent this... The wording sounds very familiar to
>    what I (and others) heard on a certain journey around the facilities...
>    Also, this same individual had the same type of 'speach' at the special
>    meeting...
    
    Hmmmm...  now that you mention it.  
    
>    This of course is my opinion...  No accusations, but rather a half 
>    educated guess 
    
	Now John, be careful about making 'educated guesses' because we all
    know how stupid we are.  We just don't have what it takes to deal with
    such a financial organization as DCU and the people who would issue
    such garbage.  8-)
    
    
    I guess this points out what many of us, particularly myself, have been
    dealing with along the way to a reborn DCU.  I have never gotten
    involved in such an 'adventure'.  It is definitely the first time I
    have anything to do with running for an office.  I guess politics, even
    at the credit union level, is just plain dirty.  You never realize how
    dirty until you step foot in the ring.  It is definitely not the place
    for the faint of heart.  If my writings or opinions in here have seemed
    a bit hard, it is because of things like this.  I have seen many others
    also undergo the transition after having experienced the 'slime' first
    hand.  From a safe and comfortable distance, this all appears like so
    trivial.  I believe you would not feel that way if you experienced
    1/10th of what many of us have had to deal with in this situation.
    Now what was that statement about walking a mile in my mocassins?
    

    
    Re: .7
    
    Oh yes, politics on any level is gritty stuff.  I served on a local
    school board for one three year term.  It constantly amazed me how
    seriously certain people took the whole thing, the games they wanted
    to play, and to what lengths they were willing to go to get things
    done their way.  It makes me shiver to think of what must go on with
    national politics when I think of what I saw going on within just one
    NH town's school district.
    
    Steve
    

Why would they act like this?

I still get the impression that someone thinks it's "their" DCU, and they
just don't want anyone "taking it away" from them.

I don't see why we need to ascibe any evil motives to this when it's easily
explainable by normal human nature.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "normal human nature", but integrity
    and honesty doesn't seem too much to ask for in someone who wants
    my vote. I'm not cynical enough yet to give up on having quality
    directors on the board.
    
    I don't see the need for "anonymous slime".
    
    Janet
    

Well, no one said that human nature was all good.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.  I'd like to vote for someone with some integrity,
and no, I haven't given up on the idea of quality directors.

The point I was trying to make was that perhaps the reason people have been
acting the way they do has more to do with protecting their own interests,
rather than hiding some deep, dark secrets.  Either way, it boils down the
same way for me:  I want them out of there.

    
I've been following this appalling DCU saga for at least a year.  
It is so unnerving that these incidences persist in a continual series
of discovery.  Surely any reasonable person will have serious reservations
with regard to the veracity and credibility of the current management.
I am equally dismayed at Digital's apparent complicity in the whole
sordid affair.  Digital's transparent attempt at interference in the
election process of the Board of Directors should be rightly rebuked.  
Digital's admitted intimacy with the nominating process,  as well as 
its obvious partiality to the committee nominees was politics
at its worst, and should be an embarrassment.

There are individuals who deem their interests to be above accountability.
That is a very disconcerting attitude for individuals in financial
positions of trust.

Can you ever re-gain credibility?

Absolutely numb with disbelief!

Mike