Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    Work in progress.
    

    I would like to see more work by the board in this area. Paul and Phil
    have posted a lot of notes but to be honest they don't say much. The
    most substantive note was the one posted by Tanya which COMMUNICATED
    in BLACK AND WHITE the titles of all the board members. Beyond that all
    I've seen are things like: "we're looking at that", "we can't say more
    than this at present".
    
    By now I'd have expected to see the minutes of the first board meeting
    posted. Paul offered what sounded to me like an excuse. Basically
    because some changes had to be made to the minutes of the first board
    meeting at the second they couldn't be posted until the third board
    meeting. Somebody replied saying it was pretty customary to post
    minutes if only minor revisions were needed. Ie have a staffer make
    the corrections, post them and say. Not finally approved yet.
    Doing this would show real commitment to the phrase posted in .0.
    
    I, and I hope everybody else, expects to less of this board than we
    demanded (but didn't get) from the last board.
    
    I'm concerned that even simple things like posting information on board
    compensation policies (or rather the lack of them except for the
    treasurers dues) haven't been posted. Many people have asked for the
    facts to be posted on the Disleyland and Bermuda trips. All that is
    asked is:
    
    	1) Who payed for them
    	2) How that was justified by DCU policies
    
    Until that information is posted the unsaid assumption is that DCU paid
    for the board to go on a junket. It can't take much to either support
    or refute that suggestion.
    
    I am also curious on what the current board feels th future policy
    should be on off site meetings. Put it in the open it won't hurt you.
    
    I'm sorely tempted to dig up some phrases from some of Phil
    Gransewicz's pre-election asking the old board for information which
    was not supplied. I'm sure Phil would agree that if the requests were
    appropriate then then they're just as appropriate now.
    
    This series of notes is just on election promises. I'm more than
    willing to wait a little longer to see some of the issues brought up
    in the "Martin Luther" document addressed.
    
    Just trying to keep you honest guys and gals,
    
    Dave 

Re:  562.2

  >By now I'd have expected to see the minutes of the first board meeting
  >posted. Paul offered what sounded to me like an excuse.

Do you believe Paul or don't you?  Either you believe him and minutes
are only released to the public after approval by the board (which makes
perfect sense in my mind, although I'd like to see minutes that are
substantially correct, too) or he's misinformed or he's lied to you.
Pick one.  If you pick the first option, then I think you are using
very prejudicial language to say that it sounds like an excuse.

  >I'm concerned that even simple things like posting information on board
  >compensation policies (or rather the lack of them except for the
  >treasurers dues) haven't been posted.

We have vastly different expectations.  I, like a previous noter in
this string, expect answers to most all of the questions we were
asking in 6-9 months.  I expect very few answers in the first 2-3
months.  It sounds like what you want are a few answers which will
be symbolic of the boards willingness to supply more answers.  Perhaps
I'm just more patient and understanding than you.  Enough people 
(including Phil and Paul) have already said that this is a long process.
Do you believe them?  Personally, I'd be surprised if it wasn't.  The
problem is not with the Board, in my opinion, but with your expectations.

  >I'm sorely tempted to dig up some phrases from some of Phil
  >Gransewicz's pre-election asking the old board for information which
  >was not supplied. I'm sure Phil would agree that if the requests were
  >appropriate then then they're just as appropriate now.

But the issue is NOT getting the information.  The issue is WHEN
the information will be supplied (assuming that Paul and Phil have
the support of the other Board members).  You want it now; they agree
to supply it later.

I think I'm patient, but I am somewhat impatient at the number of
replies expecting a few new members of the Board to do some things
right away - at the cost of providing effective leadership to DCU,
in my opinion.

Collis

        Re: .2

>    By now I'd have expected to see the minutes of the first board meeting
>    posted. Paul offered what sounded to me like an excuse.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        Don't mince words!  It was an excuse!  (One of the definitions
        of excuse in my dictionary:  a note of explanation of an absence.)

        But, remember, there's nothing wrong with giving an excuse. 
        Since the minutes weren't ready, his only other reasonable
        option was to not say anything.  His third option, which I don't
        consider reasonable, would be to release the minutes and ruin
        his working relationship with the rest of the board.

>                      -< Where's the open communication? >-

        How many times did the old board say `we want you to have the
        minutes of our last board meeting, but there will be a delay
        while we make sure they are correct'?

        					B.J.

    Collis - 
    
    For once you and I are in whole-hearted agreement!  :-)
    
    Nanci

    
    RE: .2
    
>    Just trying to keep you honest guys and gals,
    
    Dave, when we have shown that we need to be kept honest then by all
    means do it.  But until then I consider this remark unnecessary and
    border line insulting.
    
    IMO, your expectations are way out of line.  We are not the old board,
    yet you are treating us like the old board.  You haven't even given us
    time to develop our style and approach before placing our feet to the
    fire.  We've agreed and disagreed in the past, and I'm sure in the
    future.  If you and others wanted instantaneous, real-time performance 
    from the new board then you should have stated that long ago.  I would
    have told you then that your expectations were unreasonable. 
    Unfortunately, I must do it now.
    
    I am choosing to communicate though I'm sure many would just clam up
    leaving you and everybody else in complete silence.  Please don't label
    it as 'excuses'.  It is the best we can do at this point in time, given
    the current state of things.  If you have a hard time understanding
    this then I'm sorry.  We will probably never meet your expectations. 
    But I never expected to meet everybodys expectations.  I only promise
    to do the best I can do.  I am one of seven Directors.  I can't do
    anything single-handedly.
    

�We are not the old board,
�    yet you are treating us like the old board.  
    
    Interesting turn of events, eh?  Why do you feel you shouldn't be
    treated like the old board?  If anything, you did set yourself up to
    harsher scrutiny after your diligence in going after the old board. 
    People are just following your lead.  Weren't you one of those
    advocating the members to take more interest in the operation of their
    credit union?  
    
    I don't think expectations are any different of the old vs new board. 
    The old board took action in the Mangone case.  Members started asking
    questions which apparently couldn't be answered (and apparently still
    can't be).  Their mistake was mainly in the public relations front
    which this board seems to be avoiding (where the old board just didn't
    supply information, members of the new board are at least giving some
    plausible reasons as to why they can't give out certain information). 
    The net result is the same.

	And Phil and Paul *are* communicating here. Fairly frequently, and in 
	plain English. And they've yet to label anyone a "witchunter".


					Tom_K

.7>  �We are not the old board, yet you are treating us like the old board.  
    
.7>      Why do you feel you shouldn't be treated like the old board?  
    
    Maybe because the old board won distrust the old-fashioned way, by
    earning it.  And over a long time.
    
    What have Phil and Paul and the other "real choices" done to merit the
    same level of mistrust right away?
    
    Lighten up, for petes sake.  After reading some of the recent posts
    here, I'd be surprised if anybody that cares about what us noters think
    would ever want to run for the board in the future.  (unless, as I hope, 
    the lynch mob mentality proves to be a small minority)
    
    --bruce

    I can understand the need for the official minutes to be correct when 
    published.  I can not understand why we can't get one directors views
    of how the meeting went, what topics were discussed, etc.  I get that
    from my towns council meetings in the next day's paper.
    If they haven't got the time, maybe they could allow someone to sit in
    the meeting such as a notes reporter and get what going on for us.
    
    I sincerely believe the new board has displayed a FAILURE to
    communicate with us.  'trust us'
    
    ed
    

Come on guys, give us a break...
I regard the first meeting as a non-meeting because we didn't know anything.
All we did was elect officers and minor stuff.
I regard the second meeting as a half-a-meeting because we only got thru
some stuff. We ran out of time and we'd just spent more than 1.5 days
learning. Give us until after the next meeting before you lower the boom.
The system is that the BoD *as a whole* decides policies like how to
communicate. Let's give the system a chance to work first. I fully expect
the next meeting to be crucial regarding the communications issue.

�I can not understand why we can't get one directors views
�    of how the meeting went, what topics were discussed, etc.  
    
    This was a common criticism of the Old board; that they would only
    spout the "party line" and we couldn't tell who stood for what as
    individuals.  Will this change with the new board?

    
    RE: . 12
    
>    This was a common criticism of the Old board; that they would only
>    spout the "party line" and we couldn't tell who stood for what as
>    individuals.  Will this change with the new board?
    
    I can only speak for myself but I intend to communicate my positions
    and votes fully as soon as the communication issues are resolved.  If
    they are off-the-wall in your opinion, then throw me out on my rear!  If
    not, then let me continue to work to achieve them.  Very simple in my
    eyes.  Others can speak for themselves.
    

    
    Ed, you're starting to make Atila the Hun look like a flaming
    liberal... 8-)
    
    What we have here is not a failure to communicate, because Paul and I
    HAVE been communicating.  IMO, what we have here is a failure on your
    part to understand our current situation which we have tried to explain
    over and over to no avail.  We are currently restricted to operating
    under the current policies, procedures and Bylaws because we haven't
    been able to remake the DCU world after *1* meeting.
    
    Sure, I can reply in here as you wish and risk being suspended for
    violating current DCU policies put in place just before we took office. 
    But what good would that do anybody in the long run?  I've been telling
    people for a long time that this was a long term project.  Now that I
    see all that has to be done, I believe it is a loooong term project. 
    If 3-6 months go by and you see nothing happening then flame
    away.  But right now the best thing you and others can do is back off
    and give us some breathing room to try and do things.  The process we
    find ourselves in does not lend itself to "we want it NOW".  For very
    good reasons it is a bit slow and deliberative.  I have time to do it
    right.  I don't have time to do it over.
    
    

    you got my attention, Phil.  What policy is preventing giving the
    responce I requested?
    
    by comp[aring the communications I'm getting now and what I got from
    old board members, I find them EQUAL.  You see, they also responded to
    me, talk is cheap and information is power.   talk <> information.
    
    ed
    

�    Sure, I can reply in here as you wish and risk being suspended for
�    violating current DCU policies put in place just before we took office. 
    
    Can you be more specific?

I'm somewhat confused by the hostile attitude toward the new board of 
directors.  And why the personal attacks on Phil and Paul?  

My calendar says that the new Board has been seated for 48 days.  14 of
those days are weekends, and 1 of those days was a holiday.  So, really,
the Board has had only 33 business days since they were seated to do 
anything.  During this time, the BoD has met twice, plus attended some
orientation sessions.  There is a *significant* ramp-up period here, 
simply in terms of the volume of data that needs to be comprehended.
Consider just the issue of DCU v. Mangone.  A team of lawyers has been
hard at work on this case for well over a year creating a mountain of
paperwork.  And the lawsuit is just one of many issues hanging fire 
right now.  Before the Board can do anything about issues, they need to
understand them. That takes time.

The Board is NOT (unfortunately?) all Real Choices people.  Therefore,
not everybody on the Board is committed to the same philosophies and
ideals as the RC people.  Since not every vote the Board takes can carry
on a simple 4-3 majority, it's not possible to simply muscle the non RC
people around to press the RC agenda.  A large fear expressed here by RC
detractors was that they would not be able to get along with non-RC Board
people.  Given the political realities, the RC people MUST build a 
coalition with the non-RC people and get along.  This takes time.  Were the
board completely RC people, I could understand some frustration about the
lack of immediacy in implementing a couple quick fixes.  But the realities
of life is that not everybody on the Board believes in removing the
information protection policy, not everyone on the board likes the notion
of term limitations, and not everybody is going to think the way the RC
people think.  And like it or not, until these policies are properly changed,
ALL the Board members are obliged to conform with them - whether they like
it or not.  If there's an IPP which prevents Paul or Phil from being as
forthcoming as they like, then they are obliged to keep their mouths shut
and work for a change in the policy.  And concensus needs to be built
amongst the board members for such a change.

Many of the new board members are not as up-to-speed on all the issues as
are Phil and Paul.  The people who aren't need time to ramp up.  Asking 
these folks to take a stand on issues they do not fully understand is
asking for failure.  We need to be patient while the Board members who
weren't as "fully engaged" during the previous months come up on all the
issues.  Give them some time.

Note well the composition of the current board versus the previous board
in terms of job descriptions.  The new board isn't all managers and VPs.
The new board has engineers, finance people, lawyers, and others.  These
people, agree with them on the issues or not, all work very hard for DEC.
They don't have 40 hours a week to give DCU, nor should this be expected.
In an earlier posting during my candidacy for the Board, I mentioned 
spending something like 20-30 hours/week on DCU issues, and people wrote
to suggest that spending that many hours was unreasonable.  So don't 
expect it from the current board.  Also, many RC people gave a large 
number of hours to the cause before the election.  Like myself, I'm sure
that Phil and Paul feel a responsibility to return some of those extra
hours to Digital.  As has been noted, this company is in dire straits and
everyone needs to work hard to save the company.

With regard to the release of minutes, SOP for any corporation is to 
approve minutes from the previous meeting at the next, and then release
the public portions of the approved minutes forthwith.  The Board has
committed to doing this by placing the minutes at DCU branches.  In my
opinion, this is a completely reasonable thing to do.  My complaint with
the previous board was that they simply would not turn over minutes,
at first under any circumstances, and finally only after being paid an
exhorbitant amount of money.  

When you voted for Tanya, Lisa, Phil, and Paul, you were voting for people
whom you believed you could trust.  You voted for people to represent you
and act on your behalf in the strategic management of DCU.  You did not
vote for personal envoys to run your errands, and you did not hire them 
simply to jump through whatever hoop detractors care to hold up.  It is 
necessary for the membership to place a certain amount of trust in the 
Board, and it's up to the Board to maintain that trust.  While it is
absolutely essential to remain vigilant and watchful over our credit union,
we should also trust that our board is working, and will continue to work.
For now, I'm willing to give the board some space...like all of you, I want
a full accounting of many things that happened during the previous board's
watch.  But I do not think it at all reasonable to attack Phil simply 
because he didn't run right out and pull the cost accouting from all the
off-site meetings.  I'm certain that right now, there are probably a few
things more pressing than this particular issue.  If we don't see closure
on some of these issues in a few months, THEN it's appropriate to complain.

We've heard from Tanya, and from Phil, and from Paul.  Phil and Paul in
particular have remained active here after the election, and are making
efforts to provide information.  I would guess that there are probably
more post-election postings from Phil and Paul than from all other previous
board members combined in the history of this notes conference.

So, I would respectfully ask if we could refrain from Board bashing for 
a while.  They need some time to ramp-up, to establish themselves with the
DCU management, to build a working relationship, and to get together on
common ground.  As for a perceived lack of activity, I would rather see the
board make 5 great, well-thought-out decisions, than 50 questionable,
knee-jerk reactionary decisions.  Like Ford, at DCU Quality should be Job 1.

./chris

    If I graded them on open communications, Phil and Paul would both get
    "A" for effort.  I'm sure that the others are busy, and maybe they
    communicate in other forums.  Also, I'm sure that there's lawyers
    telling them to watch their words...

It's easy to read things into written messages that were not intended,
since there is no body language or tone of voice to indicate emotion.
A comment that may be meant lightly could be taken as an accusation by
someone else, and a defense against the perceived accusation could be
taken as an attack.  And on and on.

It would really help if everyone tries to bend over backwards to avoid 
giving or taking offense.  There's a lot of pressure on the new Board
members, and there's a lot of pressure on those of us who put so much
of ourselves into getting them there.  Please, let's all try to read
each other's messages in the best possible light.  Assume the best
motives for each person's reply, and respond based on that assumption.
That will really help open communcation, in both directions.

	Sincerely,
	Larry

�But the realities
�of life is that not everybody on the Board believes in removing the
�information protection policy, not everyone on the board likes the notion
�of term limitations, and not everybody is going to think the way the RC
�people think.  
    
    This is true not only among board members, but also the membership at
    large, which is probably as it should be to allow for true
    representative government.
    
�The new board isn't all managers and VPs.
�The new board has engineers, finance people, lawyers, and others.  These
�people, agree with them on the issues or not, all work very hard for DEC.
    
    So, managers and VPs don't work very hard for DEC?
    
�So, I would respectfully ask if we could refrain from Board bashing for 
�a while.  
    
    I think only a portion of what has been brought up can be construed as
    bashing.  

    re: 562.17 and 562.19
    
    Thank you Chris and Larry.  I think the publication of minutes in
    due course (one month lag is standard process) will reflect how
    much we as a BOD have accomplished in a very short time frame.
    Please judge us on those actions.  
    
    Regards,
    
    Tanya
    
   

    
.15>    you got my attention, Phil.  What policy is preventing giving the
.15>    responce I requested?
    
.16>    Can you be more specific?
    
    One of the last items put in place by the outgoing Board was a
    "Confidentiality Policy".  It needs to be 'revised' IMO.
    
.15>    by comp[aring the communications I'm getting now and what I got from
.15>    old board members, I find them EQUAL.  You see, they also responded to
.15>    me, talk is cheap and information is power.   talk <> information.
    
    You just don't seem to be listening Ed.  They are the same because I am
    under constraints which were in place.  They are NOT MY constraints. 
    Hopefully when the constraints are changed (as Paul has said over and
    over) communication content will improve.  For the hundreth time, we
    are working on it!  I apologize if our schedule does not meet your
    schedule.
    
.18>    Also, I'm sure that there's lawyers
.18>    telling them to watch their words...
    
    Have you been eavesdropping on Board meetings?!
    

> �The new board isn't all managers and VPs.
> �The new board has engineers, finance people, lawyers, and others.  These
> �people, agree with them on the issues or not, all work very hard for DEC.
>    
>    So, managers and VPs don't work very hard for DEC?
 
You can draw that conclusion if you would like.  My observation has been
that as you ascend the food chain, work time tends to be less structured, and
demands focus on different things - compared with "cranking out the grunt work"
that lower-level people are typically responsible for.

Of course, wasn't it Ken Olsen, when asked how many people worked for DEC
replied, "About half of them" ?

./chris
   

    
    I can't believe how impatient some of you are!  Lighten up!  The DCU
    wasn't rebuilt in a day.  My expectations of the new board are for slow,
    steady improvement.  I'm willing to wait 6 months to a year for
    significant, positive changes to take place.  Sure, I'd love to know
    who funded the infamous trips to Disneyland and Bermuda, but expecting
    Phil and Paul and Tanya to devote themselves fulltime to this
    particular pursuit, like some Channel 4 I-Team, is inane.  There is a
    bigger picture and an acclimation to the machinations of a BOD which
    must be learned and assimilated.  Try to put yourself in their place.
    I have, and I'd feel unjustly harassed by some of you.  Give them
    every chance to work FOR you rather than spending their time in here
    rebutting your needless bashing.
    
    Lou
    

        Much of  this has been said before in recent days, but it bears
        repeating.  The  folks  we  elected  need  time  to  get things
        straight - and as  we  all  know, there are many aspects of our
        Credit Union which need to be straightened out.
        
        If  it applies.  put  yourself(ves)  in  the  position  of  new
        project or program manager, or even better, as a project member
        -  no-one  reading this has ever experienced  "the  new  broom"
        syndrome,  right?  The person who _sweeps_ in  with  a  minimal
        knowledge  base and then proceeds to "make decisions" involving
        you  and  the project you know inside out because you've  lived
        with    it   since  it  was  born;    decisions  you  know  are
        uninformed...? I don't want fast but barely informed action.
        
        Sure, keep an eye  on  things,  but be realistic.  The folks we
        elected are aware of our  concerns  - put it another way - when
        was  the last time anyone saw  notes  from  any  of  the  board
        members in here in the quantity we're seeing now?  Those people
        are working their day jobs too, so give them the  time  and the
        trust to do the job we elected them to do and do it *right*.
        
        Andy
        
        P.S. To  the  BoD;  one proviso - please don't  fall  into  the
        "Gee,  maybe  it's  better  if  "they" don't know this" trap  -
        that's all I ask.  I'm a big boy now and  can  be  trusted with
        bad news!  :^) <== Smiley!!!
        

re: .several "sounds like the old board all over again"

You may be forgetting the arrogance of the old board. I haven't seen
any indications that the new board displays this. Don't you recall
the "we won't allow the DCU to be managed by . . . " statement? I'm
sure I can dig up a reference in here if need be . . . 

-Jack

Can you tell us what the BOD "confidentiality policy" is, or is it confidential?
[almost :^) ]

This is the first time I have seen or heard of this.  I don't recall
Paul or Phil or anyone else having posted any words which directly
reference this policy in the past.

Clarifying this "policy" will probably clarify the constraints that
you BOD folks are currently under.  That will help a lot.

Thanks,

K.

    Re: .22
    
    I've just called the DCU and asked for a copy of the "Confidentiality
    Policy".  I mentioned Phil's name.  They took my DTN and said they
    would call me back after they found out if there were any charges for
    it.  (They also asked for my SSN, which I refused.) No suggestion of
    requiring a "business reason".
    
    I'll wait and see what the return call says.

Come on guys, can we chill out for a bit? Give the process a chance to work
before you come in with guns blazing. Wait until after the next meeting.
Irritating tho it may be, you haven't really given the new board as a whole
time to address the issue that's foremost on your minds right now. Generating
requests for stuff right now costs everybody time and distracts from
improving DCU. Please, please hold up on requests for information until
after the next board meeting. See what the decision of the board is. I
know what my opinion is, but I'M NOT THE BOARD. Then revisit the issue if
you are not satisfied. You have not given the process a chance to work.
You may get all the information you are interested in much more easily
after the next meeting.

Furthermore, I hope that you folks will continue to display a high
degree of interest in, say, six months. An informed and interested credit
union membership can be a real asset. Please don't just be interested
until you find out who spent what on the Bermuda trip and then fade out
into the sunset. DCU needs your interest (sorry, I only realized it after
I typed it :-) over the long haul.

RE: ALL 'hostile' noters.

You folks really take the cake.  If the new BoD met every day, I could easily
see your disgust.  But since they don't meet anywhere near that number of times,
you are being really unnerving to say the least.

	HOW ARE THESE FOLKS SUPPOSED TO BE ENCOURAGED TO DO WHAT THEY
	HAVE CAMPAIGNED TO DO IF YOU ARE UNREASONABLE WITH THEM?

Paul, Phil (and all other new BoD members), PLEASE disregard these noters!  They
ARE being unreasonable.  I personally have been pro-DCU for quite awhile.  I
want you to do what is best and am GREATLY ENCOURAGED by what I have seen.  I
have a great deal of faith that you will be able to clear most if not all of
the major problems.  But, as you have (NEEDLESSLY) repeatedly stated, you need
space and time to accomplish the task.

	AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, TAKE ALL THE SPACE AND TIME YOU NEED!

PLEASE do not be discouraged or disheartened due to these few unreasonable
people.  We need GOOD folks in the BoD to do GOOD things for DCU, and I feel we
DO have a GREAT START.  KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

    I guess it would be interesting to see who you believe is being
    "unreasonable" so we know who, by your standards, should be
    disregarded.  Maybe we should put tag lines on all notes that are
    considerd "unreasonable" so eveyone knows that they will not be
    responded to ... Although, I wonder how many note entries from 
    before the election would also carry this tag?  
    
    

    
    RE: .28
    
    >I mentioned Phil's name.
    
    Tom, please explain the context within which you 'mentioned' my name.
    

    I said Phil G mentioned a "confidentiality policy" and I would like to
    get a copy.  Nothing more.

.31> I guess it would be interesting to see who you believe is being
.31> "unreasonable" so we know who, by your standards, should be
.31> disregarded.

Any note that makes any kind of demand for an answer when it has ALREADY been
mentioned that the information WILL BE FORTHCOMING is unreasonable.  Since the
election, it has been mentioned MANY times that we should all be patient, that
the information is still in the process of being obtained.  Even with these
pleas, requests for this information STILL PERSIST.  This is totally unreason-
able and very discouraging to the people that are TRYING to clean up years of
mess.

The bottom line is that they CANNOT be expected to maintain a high degree of
devotion to the tremendous task of cleaning up this mess if they are continually
and unreasonably pelted with requests for information that interferes with their
primary task.  Let them do their job.  I certainly believe they WILL come forth
with the information.  If after 6 months to a year they still haven't, THEN I
will side with the complainers.

Put yourself in their shoes.  Suppose, for the sake of an example, that you
WERE trying to get information for someone.  But your main task was running an
organization, fetching information being only secondary, but still important.
Suppose that person persisted in getting the information from you in spite of
your reply saying the information was forthcoming when you had a chance.
Wouldn't YOU feel frustrated?  Would YOU still have a high degree of devotion
to an organization where some members did NOT show respect for what YOU were
trying to do?

    "Message to the new Board"
    
    Take your time.....
    
    Make the right decisions for ALL.....
    
    Take all information coming from this notes file and filter 
      the good from the bad (all inputs are a right of the membership).....
    
    Use that in which will be helpful to heal the DCU membership.....
    
    And disregard the rest.....
    
    And above all.......
    
    Remember... there will always be the silent MAJORITY out here 
      who voted for you and are still standing behind you all the way!!!!!  
    
    I figure if it took years for the "OLD Board" to mess things up.....
    
    Any intelligent person would deduct that it will take longer 
      than a month to correct!!!!!!
    
    
    Comments from an innocent bystander!
    
                          

>o Restore membership confidence through more extensive, honest, and open
>  communication about what is happening at *our* credit union.  No more
>  glossy brochures offering "more choices" that are actually fee increases.


	With recent postings, it looks like we are on the way.

				Thanks,

					Tom_K

    re: -.1 
    
    Amen.  The quality of BoD responses so far seem remarkable to me.  Like
    night and day ...
    
    Steve

    
    I applaud the BoD.
    
    cbc

Another vote of thanks.

    ditto

WAY TO GO!!!

A great start!

	- mark

    
    This communication is SIGNIFICANT improvement.  I think the complaining
    is out of line.  If it were a year from now with still unanswered
    questions that would be different.
    
    Steve
    

You folks are what a BOD should be! Keep up the good work!

Jim

    Thanks to ALL the BoD.
    
    Bob

       The actions of the new board have made the last 11 months
    worthwhile!
                                   Denny

    I think a lot of progress has been made on this front. What with the
    Board memos the more content rich Network etc. It's my impression that
    Paul Kinzelman has been at the forefront of this improved
    communication.
    
    Dave