Conference 7.286::dcu

I'm surprised by how low the cost is to run a DCU ATM -- and by how
expensive the network is.  It looks as if it could be cost effective
for the DCU to install ATMs in some of the larger DEC field locations,
where it is not cost effective to actually open a branch.  Of course,
there is a lot of other stuff to fix first, but maybe field access to
basic financial transactions can eventually be broadened.

	Thanks for the data,
	Larry Seiler

�I'm surprised by how low the cost is to run a DCU ATM -- and by how
�expensive the network is.  
    
    If you've used some of the dial-in computer databases to search for
    information (articles, patents, etc.) you wouldn't be surprised.

    Can these bits of information be made available?
    
    - the total annual cost for all DCU ATMs
    - the total annual number of transactions using DCU ATMs
    - the total annual variable costs for network ATMs
    - the total annual number of transactions using network ATMs
    
    With these numbers (plus the annual fixed costs for network ATMs you
    listed in .0) we can compute the average cost per transaction for DCU
    ATMs and for network ATMs, so we'll have some real numbers to compare.
    
    Thanks,
    
    	Dave

I'm also interested in the cost per transaction for teller (human) aided
transactions.

It'd be silly to get up in arms about how much ATM transactions cost if it
turned out that teller transactions costed more.

    Now that Digital is in the ATM (as in "teller machine") business, I
    wonder if DCU would like to put a few on "working display" at some
    locations that don't now have them.  If, of course, they're
    cost-effective.

All that info is interesting, in fact, I've asked Chuck for the cost of
a human transaction, for instance. However, I believe that Chuck has his
hands full with other issues now, so I have not pushed very hard on this.

DCU bent over backwards getting the info that I published - they
spent quite a few man-hours going back thru microfiche records of stuff and
so I'd like to wait a bit before asking for any more info.

I would suggest that the cost of doing buisness at a human teller
is not that much more off of a foreign ATM, once you include
the overhead (space, modems, phone lines etc.).  If the costs
are roughly the same, I would then suggest that the $1.00 fee
be lowered to $.50 or $.75 to allow our distant member
cheaper access.

	- mark

    with the member survey results that arrived in the mail the other day,
    was the fact that 58.5% of respondents, have access to a DCU Office at
    their facility. But this conversely means that 41.5% do not, and have
    to resort to network ATMs. 
    
    Peter Q>
    

    Re .8:
    
>   with the member survey results that arrived in the mail the other day,
>   was the fact that 58.5% of respondents, have access to a DCU Office at
>   their facility. But this conversely means that 41.5% do not, and have
>   to resort to network ATMs.
    
    Many of the 58.5% have families who do NOT have access to DCU offices
    or ATMs near their homes or places of work.  Nearly all of us go home
    at night and/or stay away from work during vacations.  What all this
    says is that while it's convenient to have a DCU office or ATM at work,
    that's not sufficient to meet the needs of most of DCU's members.

    Re .0:	ANALYSIS OF DIRECT COSTS FOR DCU ATM MACHINES
    
    Thank you for obtaining this information (both for DCU-owned ATMs and
    for network transactions) and for seeking information on the cost of
    human teller transactions.
    
    There's a third option that HASN'T been explored very deeply.  What
    would be the cost of buying into the X-Press 24 (BayBank) network? 
    There are a number of smaller commercial banks in the area (and even
    one of my former credit unions) that issue X-Press 24 cards that can be
    used for both deposits and withdrawls throughout New England.
    
    As the DCU member survey showed, only a bare majority of respondents
    have DCU branches/ATMs available at/near their workplaces.  The "other
    half" might as well be in another country.  In my own case, the nearest
    DCU ATM or branch is about 20 miles from my home.  On the other hand,
    there are three BayBank offices (plus four other commercial banks and a
    total of 7 X-Press 24 and 2 other ATMs) within easy walking distance. 
    Why should my family (economists say that women and teenagers control
    most of the money in this country) go that far out of their way to use
    the DCU?
    
    I've made this suggestion more than once.  DCU would GREATLY improve
    its service to the "other half" (both current Digital employees at
    locations without branches/ATMs and former employees/dependents in
    major areas) by entering into relationships with the banks that run the
    dominant ATM networks in each area such that DCU can provide full
    service ATMs (both deposits and withdrawls) throughout each area.

    I might not know what I'm talking about, in light of the previous note
    but it seems to me that I already do that by patronizing the machines
    that say TX.  At these locations I can deposit and withdraw with no
    problem.  I've also been doing it for at least 6 years now.  
    
    So, my question is what are you talking about that's different from
    that?
    
    Thanks in advance for the pleasant reponse
                                                                    

DCU already has agreements with banks for "foreign" ATM usage, but it
costs money per use. I think Bill's suggestion is that his usage of a
foreign ATM should be free. That is certainly one
way to handle it, but then DCU is absorbing the full cost of a member
using a foreign ATM and that's an additional expense. The question is
whether the other banks would negotiate more of a "flat rate" charge.
But why should they make it reasonable? They'd prefer having you as
a customer rather than doing DCU a favor for DCU members. I'll ask,
but I'm not very hopeful. 

    Re .12:                                  
    
>   DCU already has agreements with banks for "foreign" ATM usage, but it
>   costs money per use.  I think Bill's suggestion is that his usage of a
>   foreign ATM should be free.  That is certainly one way to handle it, but
>   then DCU is absorbing the full cost of a member using a foreign ATM and
>   that's an additional expense.
    
    I *think* (but I don't know for certain) that the arrangement between
    BayBank and the other financial institutions that have X-Press 24
    machines is DIFFERENT than the "foreign" ATM arrangement of which you
    speak.  Under such an arrangement, X-Press 24 machines would NOT be
    "foreign" so DCU's effective ATM network would increase by two orders
    of magnitude.
    
    You touched upon a DIFFERENT issue (free "foreign" transactions) in
    your response.  Since I'm not convinced that "good service" implies DCU
    branches in every possible location, I'm VERY interested to know what
    the loaded cost per transaction for human tellers is.  I suspect that
    it's comparable to the cost of a network transaction, in which case I'd
    want to replace the least efficient branches with ATMs and provide an
    alternative way (e.g. travelling representatives like those used by
    Metpay) of dealing with loan paperwork, etc.
    
>   The question is whether the other banks would negotiate more of a "flat
>   rate" charge.  But why should they make it reasonable?  They'd prefer
>   having you as a customer rather than doing DCU a favor for DCU members.
>   I'll ask, but I'm not very hopeful. 
    
    BayBank would also like to be able to claim several dozen additional
    X-Press 24 locations in places where it can't currently go (at Digital
    facilities).  The object is to negotiate a "win-win" arrangement that
    provides advantages to both institutions.

    LET'S BE FAIR ABOUT THIS...

    Let's charge $1.00 for every TELLER transaction too. That way, 100% of
    the membership is paying $1.00 for every transaction they make.

    --- Paul

    
    
    
    re: .14...
    
    It's not the same.. You are paying $1.00 for *FOREIGN* ATM usage..
    
    To be fair, you'd then have to pay some other bank/CU $1.00 to do
    a DCU transaction for you...   For a lot of places, if you don't have
    an account, they won't do business with you...  Not even for a buck.
    
    I don't like paying the $1 either (when stuck away from the CU ATM
    machine), but for the ease of getting $$$ just about anywhere, I'll
    live with it.
    
    If DCU was bigger, then maybe they could absorb the cost of the ATM.
    I would think the only way you absorb the cost of the ATM is to charge
    all the members.. And we all know where the old BOD went with that
    idea.
    
    
    John
    

    Ya know, I expected a response like that in .15

    Those of you with DCU ATM & TELLER access just don't get it. And I
    would venture to say that the majority of the respondents in this file
    have such access.

    Too bad Gim Hom didn't get elected. At least he had the decency to
    mention remote sites in his position statement.

    --- Paul

    Paul, I get it.  I've been there, and I still don't agree with you.
    
    Why do people expect an institution with only 88K members, based in
    Maynard, MA to provide offices all over the country?  How many other
    credit unions can you think of that do?  I've done business with 3
    other CU's and have encountered the same "problems".  I'd have the same
    problem if I wanted to do business with Bay Bank and lived in Texas
    again.
    
    This isn't unique among credit unions either.  I've done business with
    banks where ATM usage was free as long as you used the machines at
    their branches.  Any other ATM usage was at my expense.

>    Why do people expect an institution with only 88K members, based in
>    Maynard, MA to provide offices all over the country? 

    HEY, I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!  That would be totally unreasonable.
    Are you trying to make me look bad? What are you afraid of? 

    On the other hand, why should 50% of the membership get free 
    transactions, while the other 50% pay $1 per transaction and 
    subsidize tellers they can't use?

    Hmmm.....?????

    The reason you guys are fighting me on this is because you are
    afraid of the consequences of fairness.

    --- Paul

    Re .16:                     
    
>   Ya know, I expected a response like that in .15
>
>   Those of you with DCU ATM & TELLER access just don't get it. And I
>   would venture to say that the majority of the respondents in this file
>   have such access.
    
    Everything that I said in the reply that spurred this current flurry
    applies equally well to both Digital/DCU family members in Greater
    Boston and to DCU members of all types elsewhere.  We've beaten the
    term "paradigm shift" to death in recent years, but that's exactly what
    is needed in order to provide better service to the "other half".
    
    Paul Kinzelman was kind enough to call me yesterday.  The whole issue
    is still WIDE open and he working with DCU management to get a better
    handle on it.  We discussed the possibility of DCU absorbing PART of
    the network transaction cost ($1 seems to be a mental barrier, perhaps
    50� would be more palatable without encouraging people to inundate the
    DCU with foreign transaction charges), but there's no closure yet.
    
    There are MANY aspects to the issue that we can discuss here, including
    an old suggestion to provide the first N (5?) transactions each month
    at a low cost (or free) and any additional transactions at a higher
    cost that covers DCU's expenses in handling them.
    
    Long ago, I made a rather drastic suggestion that would trade about
    half of the DCU branches for ATMs.  My back-of-the-envelope estimate
    was that 2/3 of the staff at the closed branches could be eliminated,
    saving around $1 million/year in salaries & benefits.  The remaining
    staff would be used to improve mail/telephone support at Parker Street
    (which is already happening anyway), tend the ATMs, and provide on-site
    non-teller services (� la MetPay) as "circuit riders".
    
    It would take time to do all this, so the savings wouldn't be immediate
    (the cost of new ATMs would probably wipe out any first-year savings). 
    In the long run though, DCU could provide significantly better service
    to the "other half" of its membership without serious degradation to
    its level of service for the 58% (of respondents to the recent survey)
    that currently have branches/ATMs at their work sites.
    
    DCU's level of service to the "other half" is FAR from competitive. 
    There are two ATMs and a DCU branch at/near my workplace, but they
    don't count for much while my family has effectively no access. 
    ($1/transaction is the same as "no access" as long as BayBank charges
    us NOTHING for unlimited use of its hundreds of ATMs.)  We would LIKE
    to consolidate all our banking in one institution, and I'm predisposed
    to use DCU exclusively if it meets our needs, but it doesn't.  DCU
    simply does NOT provide adequate service to qualify.
    
    The question is whether DCU will continue to settle for "half a loaf"
    instead of becoming a competitive and viable alternative for its WHOLE
    membership.  I'm hopeful that the whole issue of quality of service
    will be viewed through "new eyes" now that so many other positive
    changes are being made.

From reading this, I get the distinct impression that people don't
understand that human tellers or DCU owned ATMs cost money that's just as
real as what we pay to foreign ATM network vendors.

It costs DCU money when you use a foreign ATM, so they pass the cost on to
you.

It costs DCU money to have ATMs.  If no one used them, they wouldn't have
them.  Therefore, there's a per-transaction cost for the ATM that DCU does
not pass on to you in the form of per-transaction fees.

It costs DCU money to have branch offices populated with warm bodies.  If
they weren't used, they would be closed and the expense would go away. 
Given that there's a cost to these, and given that there's a finite number
of transactions performed at these offices, there's a per-transaction cost
for using a live teller that DCU does not pass on to you in the form of
per-transaction fees.

People who don't have access to or don't use a live office are subsidizing
those who do. 

People who don't have access to or don't use a DCU ATM are subsidizing
those who do.

Yet, people are worried about subsidizing those who use foreign ATMs, even
when foreign ATMs are the only reasonable access to DCU that some people
have.

I personally have access to both a DCU office and DCU ATM, but I think it's
far from fair that my transactions are subsidized by the DCU membership at
large, while someone stuck with a foreign ATM has to pay his own way.

For that matter, I'm STILL not convinced that live tellers are cheaper than
$1.00 per transaction, so I'm STILL not sure why it's ok for DCU to charge
me for the cheap one, but not the expensive one.

Re:  575.20

  >From reading this, I get the distinct impression that people don't
  >understand that human tellers or DCU owned ATMs cost money that's just as
  >real as what we pay to foreign ATM network vendors.

I disagree.  I think everyone in the discussion understands this.

  >I personally have access to both a DCU office and DCU ATM, but I think 
  >it's from fair that my transactions are subsidized by the DCU membership 
  >at large, while someone stuck with a foreign ATM has to pay his own way.

I, on the other hand, do not consider this unfair.

  >For that matter, I'm STILL not convinced that live tellers are cheaper than
  >$1.00 per transaction, so I'm STILL not sure why it's ok for DCU to charge
  >me for the cheap one, but not the expensive one.

Because everyone else (i.e. the competition) does it?

The reasons why the system is setup the way it is in the industry
(not just DCU) is historical.  If you choose to make major changes,
you're getting to get major gripes from a lot of customers.  The best
you can hope for is to tweak things in the direction you want to go.
For example, making several transactions a month from foreign ATMs
free seems like a worthy goal to me.  Making them all free does not
because of the added expense involved.

Collis

    Well then, how about a hidden charge?  Suppose we had free, foreign
    ATM transactions for everybody that maintains a "reasonable" minimum
    balance in their accounts?

    But someone still has to pay.  What about the person in the foreign
    bank that has to take and process the envelope?  Who's paying that
    person?  
    
    Does DCU charge when you make a deposit from a foreign bank?  I don't
    remember that happening, I think they only charge per withdrawel.  I
    think it's fair because I can't expect the DCU, or any other business
    for that matter,  to give me EVERYTHING for no cost and I hear a lot 
    of that kind of expectation in this file.  
    
    My husband's bank charges $12.00 a year for an ATM card and $.40 per
    withdrawel transaction from a foreign bank. That's fair too and seems
    to cover costs at all ends.
    
    
    
    

"Just because everyone else does it" always strikes me as a last ditch excuse.

Look, there are lots of approaches here:

We could decide not to charge people for foreign ATM transactions if they live
someplace where there aren't any DCU offices or DCU ATMs.  Then, we'd be
subsidizing them just as they are (currently) subsidizing our DCU ATMs and
live tellers.

If a teller transaction costs more than $1.00 per transaction, there are savings
from DCU to encourage people to use foreign ATMs.  Admittedly, this means
putting DCU employees out of work.

For instance, suppose it costs DCU $2.00/transaction at a DCU office where there
are two tellers.  If the elimination of foreign ATM fees cut the teller traffic
at that office in half, DCU could get rid of a teller, and save $1.00 per
transaction on all those that moved to the foreign ATM.  By not passing the
foreign ATM charge on to the customer, DCU would save money.

I don't know if that would happen.  What I do know is that as long as a DCU
member has a choice between a "FREE" transaction and one that costs him $1.00,
he's probably going to prefer the "FREE" one, even if he knew that "FREE" one
ended up costing DCU (meaning him) more than the $1.00 transaction.

This is all speculation on my part, of course, but I'd be sorely upset to
discover that DCU is missing out on an approach that would save them money
and make my banking more convenient, just because they want to do something
"Just because everyone else does".  The only way we know for sure is to 
seriously investigate what the expenses and potential expenses are.

This all reminds me of when they raised the toll at the Merrimack toll booth.
Revenues from the booths went down.  Why?  Because so many people opted for
using the "Free" Rt 3 instead.

Re: .23

>>  Does DCU charge when you make a deposit from a foreign bank?

Yes, any transaction you do on ATM's on the network costs money. In fact, to
reemphasize something I posted in the report, if you try to do something
to your account via a foreign ATM and you type your password wrong or you
don't have enough money in your account to allow the transaction to be
done, DCU still gets charged a fee for that unsuccessful transaction but
does not pass it on to the user.

>    remember that happening, I think they only charge per withdrawel.  I
>    think it's fair because I can't expect the DCU, or any other business
>    for that matter,  to give me EVERYTHING for no cost and I hear a lot 
>    of that kind of expectation in this file.  

    THE EXPECTATION IS NOT GETTING EVERYTHING FOR FREE! Why does the
    opposition try to twist everything?? See, ya just don't get it.

    The burden of subsidizing 1) foreign ATM use, 2) DCU ATMs and 
    3) DCU Tellers should be SHARED. Remote users contribute to all three, 
    but are only benefited by #1, while GMA members contribute to 
    #2 & #3, and are benefited by both of them. GMA members get what they
    pay for, remote users do not.

    NOW DO YOU SEE THE INEQUITY?

    --- Paul

Comment on charging for deposits made on foreign ATMs.

While you will probably be charged for it, you can't make a deposit with a
foreign ATM , unless I have read the instructions provided by the DCU 
incorrectly.

> While you will probably be charged for it, you can't make a deposit with a
> foreign ATM , unless I have read the instructions provided by the DCU 
> incorrectly.

    You read it right. Thanks for reminding me...

    AND HERE'S ANOTHER THING WHILE WE'RE AT IT:

    Not only do remote members subsidize functions they could never
    possibly use, we also can't make deposits! (Unless you call 
    "mailing" deposits feasible, which I do not.)

    I guess it's too much to ask GMA members to subsidize our inferior "No
    deposit" foreign ATM use, isn't it? Ya, might cost them something,
    heaven forbid. Just let those remotes keep paying while we reap the
    benefits.

    --- Paul

�    NOW DO YOU SEE THE INEQUITY?
    
    No, because you are making alot of assumptions.  Until we know how much
    a teller transaction actually costs, and a better breakdown of the
    measurement (number of members isn't a complete picture, $ might be
    better), for all we know, the GMA is already subsidizing the remote
    members.

Re:  .24

You've missed the important part of the point.  Because
everyone else does it means that if DCU does not offer
that service, there will be major complaints (I expect).
People will say, "why should I put my money in DCU when
I can't even go to a teller without paying a fee when
every other bank and credit union I can put my money
in doesn't charge a fee for using a teller."  Please address
this issue.  Only after you've dealt with the repercussions
here can we then move on to the more philosophical arguments
of how to distribute costs more equitably (assuming that
they are not "equitable" now).

Collis_being_pragmatic

    I am an ex-GMA employee, who used to have easy access to DCU branches.
    I now work in the San Francisco office, where the nearest branch or ATM
    is in Colorado Springs.
    
    Since the DCU is a *Digital Employees* Credit Union, I should expect
    equitable treatment as a member, whether I live in the GMA or in 
    California.  (This is a major difference from the previously posed
    counter-example of a BayBanks customer in Texas. Apples and Oranges.)
    
    The best suggestion I've heard so far to address this is the N-number
    of "free" (i.e. subsidized) transactions at a foreign ATM.  (Five
    transactions sounds reasonable.)  This does not address issues of 
    deposits or access to DCU personnel in my geography/time-zone for 
    loans, etc., but is a start.
    
    The issue of branch/DCU-ATM access would be helped tremendously by
    adding just one branch in the SF Bay Area - perhaps in the South Bay.  
    This would best serve the Bay Area because of the concentration of DEC
    offices there (Santa Clara, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Cupertino,
    Sunnyvale, etc.)  It would be a lengthy trip for those of us in the
    Livermore, San Francisco, and Concord offices, but a damn sight better
    than the current situation.
    
    I'm very glad of the composition of the new board and their concern for
    the DCU members.  I realize it will probably be a while until many
    issues finally get resolved.  I look forward to continued good news
    from the board.
    
    - Dave

>    No, because you are making alot of assumptions.  Until we know how much
>    a teller transaction actually costs, and a better breakdown of the
>    measurement (number of members isn't a complete picture, $ might be
>    better), for all we know, the GMA is already subsidizing the remote
>    members.

    Hey Macneal, this issue really scares you doesn't it? What are you so
    afraid of? 

    And just what are the multitude of assumptions that I am making? That
    GMA members aren't already subsidizing foreign ATM costs? You like to
    twist things, don't you? 

    If there are foreign ATM fees that DCU is not passing on to the remote 
    user, those fees are covered by the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP. All of us would 
    be subsidizing it, Remotes included, not just GMA users. 

    That still does not address the inequity of remote users subsidizing
    DCU ATMs and tellers. Or the fact that GMA users get FREE transactions
    verses Remotes $1/transaction costs.

    Maybe this will help:

    

    GMA members pay for:		Remote members pay for:

    Tellers				Tellers
    DCU ATMs				DCU ATMs
    Foreign ATM fees not passed on	Foreign ATM fees not passed on
    					Foreign ATM transactions ($1)


    When a transaction is performed,
    GMA members are not charged for:	Remote members are not charged for:

    Tellers				Foreign ATM fees not passed on
    DCU ATMs

    

    Now if you want to suggest that the cost of tellers and DCU ATMs might 
    be less than foreign ATM fees that are not passed on, you have that right.
    After all, like you said, we don't have the numbers. But I don't think
    it takes a rocket scientist to figure this one out. But forgive me, for
    I make yet another assumption.

    --- Paul

    I support n withdrawals a month from a foreign ATM for members who are
    not close to a branch or DCU ATM.  The catch here is how you determine
    who those members are.  Sure, you will never be able to buy postage
    stamps, traveler's checks, etc.  But it is more equal.
    
    I suspect the catch I mentioned is going to make it harder to
    implement, unless you grant n xfer per month to everyone.  Or, you
    make those foreinger apply for a free ATM card [admin overhead to
    process].
    
    If I were in the position to decide, I'd first look at how much
    %business was represented by those not serviced by a branch/atm, and
    see if it were large enough to worry about, taking into account future
    growth by allowing a new service.
    
    I do know how it feels as I belong to DCU  and a real credit union who
    is remote to me.  I do my real cash things [wekkly allowance in cash,
    deposites, with DCU and real money things with the real credit union
    [better interst rates, they make loans].
    
    The last thing to ramble about is that the world isn't equal and this
    is one of those little things we may have to live with.
    ed
    

Re: .whatever,

Ok, so we don't charge for teller fees.  The point (still) is that if tellers
cost a lot (I don't know, but if they do), there are potential SAVINGS to be
had by DCU by NOT passing the ATM fees on to the user, simply because it would
encourage the membership to use the cheaper (to DCU) access.

    
    
    I don't know if it really matters (ie, I'm not trying to piss you
    off, but...)  THink of this in the way of, "If DCU implements change
    how can we make it more attractive for the non-GMA people to support
    the DCU more (if not already having all accounts there...)?"
    
    Of those non-GMA people, many have accounts at other banks/CU's in
    their local area (non-loan)?  And if you were to say have cheaper
    ATM fees, would you move more money to DCU or stay the same?
    
    
    I wouldn't expect everything to be moved over, but after all this is
    a business and if they have to write off any percentage of transactions
    one place, then the money needs to be made up in others...  
    
    And another thing, let's say I'm travelling outside of GMA and use my
    DCU ATM card, do I incur the $1 fee or not?   It's just another
    variable to give to the computer, right?   WHile we're at it, maybe
    someone could find out how easy it is to change the software... DEC
    does software, but does DCU?  Or do they buy it?
    
    
    I really do think it should be more fair for non -GMA employees to 
    do business with their CU, but where can the line be drawn? 
    
    
    
    John
    

Without getting into the fray too much, let me just say that to establish
a branch, especially one miles away from the GMA is *very* expensive, not
only for the building, etc., but also because of the need for occasional
trips by home office personnel to the branch. That is one of the causes of
our high overhead. Some credit unions have only a few or a single office.
It's tough to know where to draw the line between more service vs too
much overhead to be carried by all the members.

A foreign ATM will handle some stuff, but as somebody pointed out you can't
do deposits and no ATM will handle loan applications and other financial
questions, not to mention problems with balancing statements, etc.

As to California, I wonder how many people would be willing to be 50 miles
or whatever from their branch. As you saw, CA has a lot of members but they
aren't centrally located. I don't think I'd be willing to drive 20 miles to
my bank. I guess an interesting question would be why employees in CA are
members of DCU. Perhaps they have a loan or something? Does anybody there use
DCU as their primary bank?

This question has been ignored before but I will try it again.

Why do we have so many DCU offices in close proximity to each other.  There are 
two in Marlboro in the same complex and less than five min. walk between them. 
Why not combine the two and save some $.  

For those of you outside of the Marlboro area there are four buildings in one 
campus.  MRO1 & 2 are effectively one building since they are connected by a 
short enclosed walkway and have a DCU Branch,  MRO3 is about three min walk 
from these buildings and has a ATM.   MRO4 is about 5 min walk from 1&2 and 
has a second Branch office.   There is reported to be a second ATM on this 
campus that is drive up accessable.

Maynard has two offices, the HQ branch and the Mill Branch.  There is an ATM in 
the HQ, somewhere in the Mill, there was one in PK3, and I think one is in 
MSO.

There are multiple facilities in Littleton as well but I am not that familiar 
with them.   

Has anyone that would not be impacted by a downsizing taken a look at replacing 
any of these offices with an ATM ?   The once in every couple of years that I 
need to talk face to face with a DCU person, it is usually a loan person and I 
drive a few miles or meet with a circuit rider as appropriate.

The personnel costs would go to offset costs of foreign and domestic (?) ATMs.

	Paul,

	 Do you really think that there are a bunch of folks in Maynard
	that are plotting to make non GMA-folks fund the DEFCU?

	 The point that non-GMA folks don't have access to many of the
	services that folks near a branch have access to is acknowledged.

	 Will you at least acknowledge as well, that the solution is 
	not obvious? 

				Tom_K (Who doesn't have a branch on site, but
					at least has one nearby)

I would suggest the following:

ALL members of DCU be allowed n 'free' ATM usages per month.  This makes it
simple to administer.

I will contend that the GMA people will be the biggest users of this service,
but I think it will help the non-GMA people feel better served.

A nice number for n would be 5.

	- mark

>	 Do you really think that there are a bunch of folks in Maynard
>	that are plotting to make non GMA-folks fund the DEFCU?

    I NEVER SAID THAT! Sheesh, the opposition just keeps on twisting
    things. I do not think its a plot. But what is the reality? Remotes ARE
    funding GMA user's transactions without reciprocating.

    
    
>	 The point that non-GMA folks don't have access to many of the
>	services that folks near a branch have access to is acknowledged.

    Acknowledging is one thing, rectifying is another.

    And don't forget that Remotes are PAYING for those services they don't
    have access to. 

    
    
>	 Will you at least acknowledge as well, that the solution is 
>	not obvious? 

    Yes, I agree. 

    
    
    What I can't understand is why some of you twist the things I say
    in order to make me look bad. I bring an obvious inequity to your
    attention, and look what you do. You paint me as some sort of
    unreasonable paranoid, who sees plots, assumes too much, and makes 
    outlandish suggestions. 
    
    What is your agenda?

    --- Paul

>>	 Do you really think that there are a bunch of folks in Maynard
>>	that are plotting to make non GMA-folks fund the DEFCU?
>
>    I NEVER SAID THAT! Sheesh, the opposition just keeps on twisting
>    things. 

	Paul, I'm not in opposition to you. I never claimed that you said
	what was in my question, that's why I phrased it as a question. 
	I'm seeking information, that's all. It so happens that I'm in 
	agreement with just about everything you've said on this subject.
	I'm not your opposition, and I didn't twist anything. If I'm guilty
	of doing a poor job then call me on that, but there is no malice 
	involved.

>    What is your agenda?

	Trying to come up with an equitable solution to the problem you've
	brought up.

				Tom_K

RE: .40

>>	 Do you really think that there are a bunch of folks in Maynard
>>	that are plotting to make non GMA-folks fund the DEFCU?
>
>    I NEVER SAID THAT! Sheesh, the opposition just keeps on twisting
>    things. I do not think its a plot. But what is the reality? Remotes ARE
>    funding GMA user's transactions without reciprocating.

The "opposition?"  I think this is just a discussion of what we can do
to fix a problem which all acknoledge has no obvious solution.  There
is no "opposition" as far as I can tell;  rather, there is a struggle
to find something that feels equitable to all of the concerned members.

>    What I can't understand is why some of you twist the things I say
>    in order to make me look bad. I bring an obvious inequity to your
>    attention, and look what you do. You paint me as some sort of
>    unreasonable paranoid, who sees plots, assumes too much, and makes 
>    outlandish suggestions. 
>    
>    What is your agenda?

"Twisting things?"  I think that perhaps you need to examine how your
notes/words come across.  No, you didn't "say" there's some plot in
Maynard. But I can see how someone could interpret your message that
way.  I understand your vehemence.  Can you understand HOW YOUR WORDS 
ARE PERCEIVED may be different from your intent when writing them?

There doesn't have to be an agenda for someone to misunderstand your
meaning.  Now let's get back to coming up with a sensible solution
to the problem.

Thanks,

Karl B.

    
    My 2�:
    
    I left the DCU way back during the BOD fray.  As I stated then, there
    were lots of reasons to leave, but the uncoverings by people in this
    notesfile were the straws that broke the camel's back.
    
    Some of those people are now on the Board.  I'm thrilled and excited
    about the work that's been done by the new Board and I offer my
    sincere congratulations.
    
    However, going back is tough.  There is a tendancy for me to say "Why
    should I go back if it is just as it was before I left?"  In order to go 
    back, I need some of the issues that were nagging me *before* the
    Mangone/BOD events addressed.
    
    One of those things is ATM charges.  I *live* in the GMA.  I don't
    work in a building with a DCU branch/ATM, nor do I live near one
    ("near" being defined by me, of course).  And I admit, I *live* on
    ATM's.  I'm happy if I never have to go see a teller.  That's just
    me, obviously, but it seems like there are others for whom having
    free ATMs are important for whatever reasons.
    
    The question becomes not "What do I expect from DCU?" nor "What do
    I want other members to pay for?" but "What is right for me?"  Right
    now, the DCU is not attractive to me, and this is a major reason.
    DCU may decide that there aren't enough of the "me's" to justify the expense
    of luring us, or they may.  That's for the DCU and the new Board to
    figure out.  That's capitalism.
    
    So on one hand I understand Paul's frustration.  But on the other hand
    I agree with Macneal and I don't think he has any "agenda" other
    than keeping DCU attractive to him.  Some people will be happy with
    certain issues and some won't.  DCU seems like its on its way toward
    being attractive to as many people as possible and remain viable.  I'd
    hate to see it any other way.
    
    Anyway, I have free ATMs now and I'm happy.  There are advantages I
    don't currently get that DCU offers, but I make my tradeoffs.  Looking
    forward to being "lured" back someday, though :^)
    
    - Sean

    
    [I am speaking as a DCU member below.]
    
    I think everybody recognizes there are inequities involved here.  I
    think there is disagreement on the solution, and whether there should
    even be a solution.  It depends on one's goals, direction and
    priorities.
    
    If your priority is making as much money as possible, then you charge
    as much as the market will bear or what others are charging.  There are
    very identifiable costs associated with these transactions and you have
    a person that you can pin them on.  And since this method (ATM) arrived
    on the scene after the branches, they are considered ancillary versus
    primary service IMO.
    
    However, if your priority is to service all members within your field of
    membership at a high level, then you might want to look at other
    alternatives, such as creating membership categories based upon ready
    access to branches or DCU personnel.  I'm sure there are many creative
    solutions that the membership could come up with.  I have passed one by
    a few people out in the remote areas.
    
    But then there is another consideration which must be made at DCU.  How
    will these changes affect the bottom line?  Unfortunately, the credit
    union finds itself in a position of having to regain equity that was
    lost in the fraud.  We are doing that and will continue to do that.  But 
    now is not the right time for any new services which might hinder that
    objective.  Please don't misinterpret that last sentence.  I believe
    there is a level that we should not fall below (equity buildup) until
    we recover from the fraud.  I do NOT mean that I support unlimited
    growth of income in any way possible.  I believe we have to balance the
    needs of the membership against the current situation.  This also does
    NOT mean that these inequities cannot be addressed a little bit down
    the road.  I firmly believe that they should be addressed and do intend
    to work towards addressing them.  I just hope people can try to
    understand the very difficult tradeoff situation the credit union
    currently finds itself in.
    
    I guess the saying that comes to mind is "If the solution is obvious,
    you're missing something."
    
    But let's please not turn this into an us vs. them issue.  The
    membership is the membership.  I believe there is recognition that a
    large number of members have a need for a basic service.  Let's hear
    some concrete proposals now on what you think the solutions are!  There
    is a solution to this issue but it won't be found as long as us vs.
    them is part of the discussion.
    
    Current proposal for access to funds for geographically disadvantaged
    members is n number of free foreign ATM transactions.  A suggestion of
    5 has also been suggested.  More detail on who would qualify for these
    free transactions is needed.
    
    Any others?

    
>    This also does
>    NOT mean that these inequities cannot be addressed a little bit down
>    the road.  I firmly believe that they should be addressed and do intend
>    to work towards addressing them.  

    Thanks Phil. Mission accomplished.

    --- Paul signing off

>    Thanks Phil. Mission accomplished.
>
>    --- Paul signing off

Oh no you don't, Paul!   :^)

Now you get to help us design the solution.
		    ^^

We can all contribute to the CU and this is a great example of how
easy it is.  Answer Phil's question - what would feel like a good
solution to you?  

My answer:  I think you can balance a new, improved level of service
for remote members by reducing some costs around the GMA.  I'm in ZKO,
and I think that, given the branch that's open during working hours,
we don't need an ATM here, too.  There's an ATM in TTB (about 500 yards
away) which is more convenient for non-DECies.  Leave the TTB ATM in
place and blow away the ATM in ZKO.

OK, so I'm micro-managing.  OK, so people will find fault with my suggestion.
The point is, I don't think the level of service will drop much if some
cost savings are put in place to offset the burden of paying for remote
members.  (Why in the world are there two branches in MRO, eg?)

There are plenty of buildings in remote sites which get shortchanged
just because they are remote.  The TTB DCU membership population, for 
example, would never justify an ATM if it were in a non-GMA city.
Certainly, Northern Calif easily justifies an ATM more than TTB.

Your mileage will vary.  Of course.

Karl B.

    
    Yes, I agree!  Mission not accomplished until solution(s) are proposed.
    
    On the ZKO ATM, it may be the case that the ATM serves to eliminate the
    need for another teller at the branch?  ZKO IS a very large site.
    But you are correct in that it warrants consideration as a cost
    reduction measure.
    
    As for the TTB ATM, that's MY ATM!  ;-)  Seriously though, it does have
    the advantage of being accessible 24 hours a day without escort.  Also
    remember, DCU does not necessarily pay for ATMs.
    
    As far as MRO is concerned, I believe Marlboro is the single largest
    concentration of DCU members at work and home.  It sounds like
    Marlboro is receiving a lot of attention, but having been in MRO1 for 3
    years, there is a lot of volume there also.
    
    Now back to the non-obvious solutions phase of the discussion...

    Re .44:
    
>   Current proposal for access to funds for geographically disadvantaged
>   members is n number of free foreign ATM transactions.  A suggestion of
>   5 has also been suggested.  More detail on who would qualify for these
>   free transactions is needed.
    
    Thank you for bringing us back to something tangible.  I would rather
    NOT try to make a distinction between members with a free ATM allowance
    and those without.  Speaking only for myself (though I suspect my case
    could be representative of many GMA members), the fact that I have
    access to DCU facilities (though only at work) is secondary to the fact
    that my wife and teenaged sons (in Newton & Cambridge, MA) do NOT.
    
    I pulled out my AAA map of the Greater Boston area and did some
    calculations.  It covers a 55-mile swath from Lawrence to Plymouth,
    including all or part of some 122 cities and towns.  It represents a
    total of 3.5 million people, which is half the combined population of
    Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
    
    DCU has only 3 branches (2 in Andover and 1 in Bedford) in that whole
    area.  As far as I can tell, there are ATMs at two of those branches
    but nowhere else.  Digital has 16 facilities, most of which are north
    and west of Boston.  I don't have information about the distribution of
    Digital employees' home addresses, but the odds are strong that at
    least half of Digital's GMA employees live in the cities and towns
    included on the AAA map.
    
    I think we all agree that the cost of maintaining DCU branches can only
    be justified at larger Digital facilities (or clusters thereof).  ATMs
    have become an indispensible part of my family's lifestyle, replacing
    the check-cashing that was routine 15 years ago.  Unless DCU provides
    this service to my WHOLE family, it can't expect to become our primary
    financial resource.
    
    BayBank gives us unlimited free transactions at its ATMs throughout New
    England.  If DCU wants to be in the running for our business, it will
    have to give us a reasonable number of free transactions (5 per month
    per card would do, if you don't charge extra for printing balances on
    the ATM receipt) and it will have to allow DEPOSITS at X-Press 24 ATMs
    (my former credit union did, so don't say it's impossible).
    
    It's also possible to sort out ATM transactions by TYPE.  Deposits cost
    more to process because of the physical handling of the envelope.  It
    MIGHT be in the DCU's best interest to encourage members to consolidate
    their deposits (or to mail them) by limiting each card to one free
    deposit per month, for example.  Balance inquiries and transfers can
    also be done by Easy Touch, so it might be reasonable to charge for
    them.  That leaves simple cash withdrawls as the primary transaction
    type covered by the 5 per month formula, which should serve the needs
    of MOST of our (current and potential) members.
                            

    I keep hearing that I can't do deposits at a foreign ATM.  I CAN DO
    DEPOSITS and I don't get charged for them!!
    
    I go to a bank that offers TX, it will say TX on the door where the ATM
    is.  It just takes a day longer then going to a DCU machine.
    
    I've been doing it for years.  As a matter of fact I lived in N.Conway,
    NH and constantly did my banking with DCU through one of these banks on
    this line.  I never went to a GMA machine for over a year unless I was
    visiting in the GMA.
    
     
    

.49> I keep hearing that I can't do deposits at a foreign ATM.  I CAN DO
.49> DEPOSITS and I don't get charged for them!!

Correct me if I am wrong, but if your bank has at least a branch in the same
state as the ATM, deposits are legal.  It is when you try to do a deposit in
an ATM out of state from any branch that is not allowed/illegal.

�    What I can't understand is why some of you twist the things I say
�    in order to make me look bad. I bring an obvious inequity to your
�    attention, and look what you do. 
    
    First off, don't take things so personally.  Secondly, it's not that
    obvious.

�Certainly, Northern Calif easily justifies an ATM more than TTB.
    
    Does it?  There are no nearby DCU branches to service the ATM.  In
    order to service it DCU would either have to hire people to service it
    or contract it out.  Again, things that appear to be obvious aren't
    neccessarily so.

>
>�Certainly, Northern Calif easily justifies an ATM more than TTB.
>    
>    Does it?  There are no nearby DCU branches to service the ATM.  In
>    order to service it DCU would either have to hire people to service it
>    or contract it out.  

The justification is in the amount of use it will get.  That is largely
based on the population of members in the area and the availability of
alternative free services to members.  Given the wide availability of ATM's
and branches in southern NH, and the complete dearth of them in Calif,
I think my statement is valid.

That DCU must contract out the service or whatever is moot to the 
justification for providing a better level of free service to members.

K.

NOTE:  Yes, I realize that none of the services are truly "free."  However,
it's a nice shorthand to describe services which are provided without 
usage-based fees.  

        Re: .44

>    Current proposal for access to funds for geographically disadvantaged
>    members is ...
>    
>    Any others?

        Determine the real cost of A) a foreign ATM transaction, B) a
        DCU ATM transaction, and C) a teller transaction.  If A is
        roughly $1.00 higher than the maximum of B and C then leave the
        current foreign ATM fee in place.  Otherwise change the fee to
        reflect the real cost.  If B and C are significantly different,
        consider a charge for the expensive transactions (for transactions
        offered by both tellers and ATMs).

        The costs for ATMs and tellers can be calculated in a variety
        of ways by making different assumptions about what belongs in
        overhead and what should be charged to each transaction, and the
        numbers will vary between different branches and ATMs depending
        on use and location.  The costs should be calculated in a
        variety of ways before making a decision on charges.

        If teller transactions are found to be significantly more
        expensive than ATM transactions, be sure that the policy
        includes a fee waiver if the nearest ATM isn't operational.

        					B.J.

    
    	Re: .general
    
    	Its much more than just determining the costs for everything and
    charging accordingly.  DCU is operating in two different dimensions in
    looking at this ATM/teller fee issue:
    
    	1) The dimension of "GMA versus the field" in trying to distribute
    the costs in a reasonable fashion, and,
    
    	2) The dimension of "DCU versus another bank" in the local banking
    competitive market.  (And since DCU members are all over the country,
    there are a lot of different local banking markets.)
    
    	DCU has the option of optimizing either one of these, or striking
    a balance between them, but can't optimize both.  Having teller
    transaction fees, for example, might optimize the "GMA versus the
    field" dimension and yet result in losing members to other local banks
    who don't charge for such basic things.
    
    							-craig