Conference 7.286::dcu

	Hey, late minutes are still a lot more than we were getting under the
	previous Board....

				Tom_K

	... from Lisa's comments about disclosing votes:

>                                                                   The
>     emotions, the discussions and the exact points that influence the
>     individual Board of Director in voting one way or another cannot
>     be captured, in my opinion, via the minutes, without being privy
>     to 100% of the discussion.  I believe it is unfair for anyone to
>                                 ************************************
>     be judged on how he or she has voted.
>     *************************************

	Wow!  And this is one of the "Real Choice" candidates...  I find
	this opinion absurd and ridiculous, and even insulting.  If I had
	the time to be so intimately involved with every detail of the board,
	I would have run myself.  To hold an elected office and believe it
	unfair to be judged on your voting record means to me that the elected
	official either has something to hide or does not trust the electorate
	to have sound judgement.

	If I understand correctly the process adopted in reporting votes in
	the minutes allows for everyone to indicate anything they feel is
	necessary to "explain" their vote.  Especially in light of this, I
	can have no respect for a board member who chooses to not disclose
	their vote on any issue affecting the membership at large.  Of course
	matters involving "executive session" types of issues are different.

	Cheers to those board members who have done the right thing in voting
	for accountability and integrity.

	Regards,
	Ray Kopacko

    ...Isn't this the same 'problem' we had with the previous board? They
    acted as 1 body, which made individual directors unaccountable to the
    membership. How does Lisa suggest we decide who to vote for next
    election? Should we have the entire board up for re-election each year?
    As I've said before, I WILL NOT vote for a director who does not want
    their vote to be recorded.
                                Denny

I agree totally. I can't believe the side-stepping around this issue in the
minutes.

Can you imagine how long one of our government's elected officials would last
if they didn't make know how they voted? Patently absurd! We aren't privy to
what is going on in the mind of an elected official, let alone the myriad number
of discussions etc. that causes the person to form their opinion.

One of the primary means we have in determining if someone should be re-elected
or not is how they voted on issues while they were in their position. To hide
this information makes absolutely no sense.

These are individuals casting votes here. There's not just one vote that the
board makes as a whole. If you can't deal with the effects that making your
vote known might create, then you have no business voting in the first place!

I hope at the next meeting the board members have success in having names and
how they voted included in the minutes.

-Glenn-

    I have a REAL problem with the attitude displayed by Ms. Ross and Ms.
    Mann.  The statement by Ms. Ross just made things worse.  Both of them
    are going to have a very difficult time regaining my trust.
    
    I'll leave the logical shredding of their arguments as an exercise for
    other noters :-)
    
    Bob

I have lost faith in Lisa and her attitude.  She was elected to SERVE the
members on what the MEMBERS want.

She needs to understand that individual's are voted on by the membership, not
the whole board.  If we follow her logic, then the next election should have
groups of 7 running.  We elect 1 of groups of 7 to be our new board, since they
will act as a whole.

She misses the whole reason of why we have individual's and why our fore fathers
had voting and each person to be accountable to those who voted them in.  It
really is too bad, but she is helping me make up my mind on not to vote for in
the future.

She is correct in that it is sometimes hard for us to understand why someone
voted the way they did.  Is that good enough reason to say, 'who cares'?  Its
the board that voted?  Realize, it is NOT the board that votes, it is the board
members that vote.  I have looked at the notes at times and wondered why Tom
and Paul voted the way they did.  In the case of Paul and Phil (and I think
Tom) it has been explained by their spending a few moments and NOTING about
it.  I think the 4 others could do the same, if they wish.

I applaud Paul for his standing up for MEMBERS.  I wish a few others would get
the hint.  The board members works for the MEMBERS, not Chuck, or the Chairman. 

Unity I great when everyone agrees.  When there is not unity, it helps make the
hard decision been made correctly without rose colored glasses on.

	- mark

    YIPS, A UNIFIED BOARD!?  Sounds like we may need to enploy the witch
    hunters again!  I totally don't understand Lisa's reasoning.
    
    As to togetherness, I'd rather see 4-3, 5-2 votes all the time vs 7-0s.
    To me, it at least means that all sides of an argument are being
    presented.
    
    UNIFIED sounds tooooooooo much like the last board.
    ed
    
    
    btw, I'm not impressed by the security committees secret minutes.
    hey, they're supposed to work for us?  If its secret, we darn well
    need to know about it!

    I'm not upset about the "unity" stuff.  I'm all for unity if I like
    their decisions. :-)   I also do not interpret "MOTION CARRIED
    UNANIMOUSLY" as unity.
    
    Mark

    
    The minutes are in error.  They were amended at the July meeting but
    I guess this one didn't get done.
    
    Under VII. (Updates and Discussions), the vote of 2 for, 5 opposed
    lists me as voting against the motion.  I voted FOR the motion and Tom
    voted against it.
    
    Just wanted to set the record straight. 
    

    Yikes.  Lisa, say it ain't so.
    
    Steve

    
    RE: .7
    
    Ed, I believe you are referring to the Supervisory Committee meeting
    minutes.  The reason that they are not disclosed in detail is because
    they deal primarily with security and internal control issues.  If you
    publicize such information, you render them less effective.  As
    Directors, we have access to the minutes of the meeting.  A member of
    the Supervisory Comm. summarizes their meeting at each Board meeting 
    and that summary could be included in the minutes of the board meeting.
    

I think Phil & Paul have already demonstrated why it's not unreasonable
to list in the minutes how BoD members vote.

That is, the general tenor of the discussions in this conference, when 
a board vote has been taken and the board is split seems to be:  

<random board member writes:>
"Look, I didn't support this motion, but it passed.  The view of the majority
seems to be thus-and-such and the logic of their view is so-and-so.  I couldn't
get what *I* wanted out of the situation, but the new rule/policy seems to have
the following good things going for it..."

I don't see how a divided vote on something translates into a board that isn't
working together.  I believe Ms. Ross has missed the boat. The boat left when
the last board (you remember them, the UNIFIED board) was sent packing. 

C'mon Lisa, try us.  Give us a chance to look over your (collective) shoulder. 
I think the BoD will be very happy with membership reaction to the minutes,
votes, viewpoints.  Make no mistake, there WILL BE a reaction.  That's a 
natural by-product of communication.

It's not like this is a homogeneous population and we only have one view of 
the universe.  We don't expect the board members to have a single view of the 
universe, either.  If that's what we wanted, we'd have changed the bylaws
to only have one member on the BoD.  Different views are GOOD - and the 
membership knows it.

Karl B.

Maybe I'm strange, but I don't see that acknowledged diversity of opinion
needs to damage unity of action.  To be specific, it seems to me perfectly
reasonable for a Board member to say "I voted thus and so on issue A, but
the Board as a group decided differently, and I'm going to actively work
to support the decision of the Board".  I think that's how it should be.  
The Board ACTS and LEADS as a group, but has OPINIONS as individuals.

There are some reasonable fears raised about the possible mis-use by
the membership of information about how individual Board members vote.
Lacking information and discussion available to Board members, we might
misinterpret the reasons for some votes, especially given the sometimes
very emotional nature of relations between the DCU and the membership.

HOWEVER, I think such an attitude undervalues the membership!  There are
only a small number of voters on any issue who will think only about *how*
Board members vote, and not *why* they voted that way.  I think most are
ready to carefully listen to *why*, even if they think the vote was wrong.

There is a very good proposal late in the notes to let any Board member
include in the minutes an explanation of any vote.  Lisa DeMauro Ross uses 
this to good effect: her explanation convinces me that she opposes listing 
the way Board members vote for reasons other than avoiding responsibility.

However, I still believe she is wrong.  Here is a point by explanation
of why I disagree:


     Lisa DeMauro Ross's Dissenting Opinion

     It is understood that with a seven member Board, there will
     always be seven opinions on the table.  These opinions are

With the prior Board, that was definately *not* understood by the members.
I suppose it was true, but it wasn't how they presented themselves.

     distilled into a Board decision after much discussion.  The
     emotions, the discussions and the exact points that influence the
     individual Board of Director in voting one way or another cannot
     be captured, in my opinion, via the minutes, without being privy
     to 100% of the discussion.  I believe it is unfair for anyone to
     be judged on how he or she has voted.

I believe it can only be unfair if no opportunity is granted to explain
the vote.  Board members have many ways to explain their votes, including 
dissenting opinions like this one.  Members have a RIGHT to have opinions 
on the issues, too.  EVERYONE should be judged on their actions!


     In addition, it is critically important for the new Board to
     operate as a team working in the best interest for all members.
     Once the discussion has been had and the vote taken, individual
     votes are no longer relevant.  By making the individual votes

The opinions and attitudes of Board members, as expressed in discussions
and votes, are certainly relevant to decisions about who to vote for.
It is true that they are no longer relevant to the decision voted on.

     public, we continue to treat ourselves as individuals and we
     dilute the Board's decision making powers.  It further allows
     discussions to continue after the vote is taken.

I see why the Board should refuse to reopen a decided issue unless new
data arrives, but I don't see why it is wrong for the membership to
discuss how the Board is making decisions and who has what opinions.

     It communicates to the membership strife and conflict.  This is
     counter productive.  We need to communicate to the membership as
     a unified Board.  We need to put behind us the chaos of the past
     one and a half years and rejuvenate the confidence of the
     membership in the ability of the Board to manage the credit
     union.

To gain the confidence of the members, you must communicate to us that
the Board is deliberating carefully and rationally, and that there aren't
secret things going on in back rooms.  I'm not saying that there ever were
secret deals, but it sure looked like there might be, and THAT is what
damaged the effectiveness of the old Board.  I agree strife should be
avoided, but I feel that that doesn't require hiding disagreements.


     In summary, my objection to listing the names is not because I
     don't want the members to know how I voted, but rather:
         1) Minutes cannot capture 100% of discussions at the table
            during the vote.
         2) Once a vote is taken, discussions are closed and the
            majority and not the individual vote passes or fails votes
            taken.
         3) We cannot be successful as a Board if we continue to
            operate as individuals.

These are all good points.  I personally don't see that publishing the
votes of individual Board members need conflict with any of them.

     I believe there will be votes of importance to the membership
     (Term Limitations, Account Fees, etc.) that will require an
     explanation, both dissenting and majority views.  I believe a
     white paper to address these issues would be a more appropriate
     means of communicating to the membership than using the minutes
     as the tool for communications.

White papers with majority and dissenting views are a good idea, but I
feel you've missed one key point: such papers will only come out when the
MAJORITY of the Board chooses for them to come out!!!  The minutes, on the
other hand, come out every single month, and cover every single issue
(except those that are redacted).  I DO NOT WANT THE BOARD TO DECIDE
WHICH ISSUES I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KNOW ABOUT!  I want openness and
accountability.  I promise to try hard not to abuse that openness.


I'd like to conclude by thanking Lisa DeMauro Ross for taking the time
to write up the above dissenting view.  I hope everyone understands that
my response is intended to raise issues, and is not in any way intended
as an attack on her.  I sometimes state my views strongly only to make
clear the intensity of my own feelings on this issue.  Also, although I
disagree strongly with the conclusion Lisa DeMauro Ross has reached, I
think it is a great improvement over the prior Board that she took the
time to so carefully explain her position.  I hope all contentious issues
are explained as carefully to the membership.

	Enjoy,
	Larry Seiler

Re: .9 (Sigh)
More apologies are in order. I have updated the vote so if you've extraced
a copy, please re-extract the new one. I should have checked that the
changes actually got made, but one slipped past.

On rereading, an item in Lisa DeMauro Ross' dissent struck me forcibly,
and I think it points to a key reason why she and I have different views: 

	"We need to communicate to the membership as a unified Board.
	We need to put behind us the chaos of the past one and a half
	years and rejuvenate the confidence of the membership in the
	ability of the Board to manage the credit union.

It is indeed important to put behind us the chaos of the past 1.5 years.
I feel, however, that communicating solely as a unified Board was one of
the CAUSES of the chaos.  It led to mistrust of the *whole* Board, and
(sometimes unjustified) suspicion about their motives and actions.  It 
also led to a "them vs. us" attitude on the part of the membership -- and, 
I think, on the part of the Board as well.  

It's good to engage in unified communication with *outsiders*.  Digital,
for example, always tries to have a single message for its customers, and
always tries to appear to be completely unified.  But the DCU members are
not outsiders -- I feel we need candor, not unity, when we observe the
opinions and actions of our elected representatives.  As strange as it
sounds, a willingness to expose diversity of opinion and to make policy
debates public gives me *more* confidence in the Board's reliability.

One final (really!) point.  Lisa DeMauro Ross holds (or held) a view 
different from the way the Board as a whole voted.  I support that:
I think it is very POSITIVE that she has been willing to clearly express
her dissenting view -- this is a MAJOR improvement over the prior Board.
So I don't think it's completely fair to equate her view with the prior
Board -- especially since she also firmly believes that all Board members
should unite behind the Board's decisions, including this decision to
record how individual members have voted.  I hope the furor raised over
this issue doesn't dissuade other Board members from clearly expressing
their views.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    	I assume that since Ms. Ross wants to appear as a unified
    board (after voting takes place), that she will now fully embrace
    and support the publication of votes taken (since the board has
    approved that policy).  Don't you love it!
    
    	Get real.  Dissent before, during, and after a vote is a
    perfectly healthy state.  There's no stigma attached to an honest
    disagreement.  But I, like many others, want it to be open, and
    reported.  If board members want to comment upon their votes either
    in or out of the minutes, that's even better.
    
    	I would suggest that you be more concerned about careful
    voting and less concerned about how things appear to the membership.
    A peculiar vote may affect your chances of getting re-elected, but
    an attitude of secrecy will kill them altogether.
    
    Dave Eklund
    

I will not vote for Lisa or Gail if they choose to run again unless there are 
some changes in their position on secrecy.  This is what got us in trouble in 
the first place.  Even without the recored votes by person, we have come a 
long long way, but we should be vigilant towards any return to the old ways of
doing business.

My expectation is that there will be some differences of opinion and that 
the individuals stand up for their position.  There is no one or two items
that a position that I did not concur with would impact my vote (other than
secrecy).  You can even vote to charge for some types of checking or savings
accounts if it is proper for good financial reasons.  Just don't try to tell
me you are doing me a favor and giving me new choices as was done by the
previous management.  I am very glad to see that Paul will be reviewing the 
stuff before it goies out as the same management that gave us the BS before is
still there !

We just got rid of a bunch of people who acted just as is proposed here and I 
would guess that some of them would still be here if we had known their 
overall positions.

I would hope that what Lisa was trying to get to was that once a vote is taken 
the majority position is supported by ALL of the BOD.  That is what I would 
expect from them and would not want someone on the BOD who did not do that.

    I agree with Larry.  I remember the statements from the previous BoD
    concerning the need to portray a secretive, unified Board.  The
    justification was the same, based on keeping the shareholders
    confident.  Exactly the opposite effect is consistently rendered as it
    was apparent that the secrecy was adopted in order to take heat off the
    Board members.  The message from shareholders was pretty clear.  If you 
    can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
    
    Steve

	Thanks for including the Executive session agenda. Truth be told,
	some of the items seem interesting, but I'll respect that they
	are things that should be kept privy to the Board.

	On recording Board votes:

	I like to think that I'll judge by results. If the Board votes
	for a policy that I like or dislike, I'll see who voted for 
	or against that policy, and form an opinion accordingly. The
	whys don't matter so much, so the fact that Board minutes don't
	reflect the entire discussion is moot. And I don't think that I'll 
	agree with *all* of the votes of *any* member, and wouldn't expect to.

	I call peoples attention to the following statement, to which Board
	members Dawkins, Gransewicz, Kinzelman, and Ross attached their names:

		o Restore membership confidence through more extensive, 
		  honest, and open communication about what is happening 
		  at *our* credit union. 

	Is the publicization of Board members votes more or less indicative
	of honest and open communications that will restore membership 
	confidence?


>     * It was moved by Ms. Mann that Board minutes reflect the results
>     of votes taken and not to list how individual Board members
>     voted. 

	I will not take this to mean that Ms Mann wanted this done, rather 
	that she wanted a vote taken.

>     Ms. Dawkins, Board Treasurer, gave an overview of DCU's Financial
>     Reports.  She noted the following during the month of May, 1992.
>
>     - Negative loan growth.

	Negative growth? Why can't people speak plainly?

>     At 5:35 p.m., the Board took a short dinner break and reconviened
>     at 5:45 p.m.

	People brown bagging it? A good sign :-)

>     Mr. Kinzelman requested he review all marketing advertising
>     information, including the Review Committee's changes and input,
>     prior to committing material to print.
>      
>     It was decided by the Board that DCU's Management, not Mr.
>     Kinzelman, has the final authority as to what information is
>     included and excluded in DCU's marketing newsletter "Network".
>

	I agree with this. DEFCU management ought to have the final authority.
	But I also think it is a great idea for Paul to review things and make
	suggestions. But as an advisor, not as an approval authority.

>     He [Cockburn] is recommending that the Board give input and
>     provide information for the newsletter, but as President/CEO, he
>     should have the final say as to what is published.
	(and subsequent related vote)

	Again, I agree. The Board should make suggestions if appropriate,
	but let the President/CEO make the final decisions. If he makes enough
	bad decisions, hire someone else.

>     It was suggested by several Board members that Board members
>     should act as a unified Board and take responsibilities as a
>     whole when decisions are made, not individually.  

	The Board should act in a unified way, once decisions are made.
	But the membership ought to know who constituted the majority
	opinion on the issues. Also, not that even those in the minority
	have responsibility: if a bad decision was made that they were
	"right" on, why were they unable to convince the majority of
	the badness of the decision?

>     At 6:40 p.m., Gail Mann left the meeting.

	I trust this was unrelated to the preceding vote.
      
>     * It was moved by Mr. McEachin and seconded by Ms. Dawkins to
>     amend the previous vote taken on approving the May 29, 1992,
>     minutes by excluding the individual Board Member names which list
>     how they voted on various issues.  (It was noted that Board of
>     Directors were not aware at the May 29, 1992, Board meeting that
>     their names were being recorded as to how each member voted.)

	I agree. Fairness dictates that the rules not be changed post-facto.

>     Ms. Ross noted that from this meeting forward, she and other
>     Board of Directors will be able to take their own notes as to why
>     they voted one way or another.

	Why is this different? Couldn't Board members take their own
	notes previously? What has changed?

>     It was noted by Ms. Ross that she would like all individual Board
>     members to act as a unified Board when decisions are made on
>     voting issues. 

	Yes, everyone should get behind a decision once made. But that doesn't
	mean that members voting records on the decisions should not be made
	available to the membership.

>	I believe it is unfair for anyone to be judged on how he or she has 
	voted.

	I disagree. But to move the discussion forward, what then, *should*
	people judge individual Board members on?

>     Mr. Cockburn recommended having a policy and budget which, for
>     example, would allow volunteers to attend two trips/conferences
>     per year; one of which is out of town and one local, along with a
>     budget that will not be exceeded. 

	How about have people attend trips/conferences according to what
	people *need* to go to a particular trip/conference? Base it on
	business need. Let the CEO handle this, and judge him on his
	performance. 



					Tom_K

We've been discussing the issue of publicizing the voting records of
the various board members here, and have been especially concerned with
Ms. DeMauro-Ross's viewpoint that ballot results should be kept secret.
With so many others having been so eloquent on this particular topic,
I'll not beleaguer the point too much longer, except to say that when I
agreed to support Lisa in her bid for BoD, and when I voted for her,
and when I worked to help form a definition for what "REAL CHOICES" meant,
secret ballots and undisclosed voting records was definitely not on 
my mind.   Even your local friendly CongressCritter likes to make a big
deal out of how she/he voted on the various issues.  I see no difference
here whatsoever.  I will only vote for board members who can be evaluated
in terms of their record.  If a member does not have a voting record that
I can read and review, I will not vote for that member.  

There is another comment in the minutes that is also very ominous.  From
section VI entitled "PRESIDENT'S REPORT" there is the following:

     "Mr. Cockburn reviewed with the Board the process used to complete
     the analysis and indicated that DCU is currently losing money on
     its Checking and Regular Savings products.  Management is in the
     process of evaluating pricing alternatives to correct this
     situation."

The minutes also state:

     "Mr. Cockburn indicated that Operating Expenses were generally not
     the problem.  The lack of profitability is due to low balance
     accounts where the member has no savings or loan relationship."

In my opinion, this is simply beauracrat-speak for "Fees on Basic Checking
and Savings Accounts."  Have we all learned nothing from past experiences?
The membership sent a message loud and clear last November to DCU that said
fees on basic services were totally and completely unacceptable.

DCU continues to make money and to be profitable.  And yet I continue to
see DCU management posture that so-called "loss leaders" like free basic
checking are unacceptable and that our fee structure needs to be changed.

I hope that DCU and it's Board of Directors do not once again attempt to
insult the intelligence of its owners and shareholders with yet another
"More Choices, More Options" approach to marketing a decrease in service
and an increase in fees.  Instead, I hope they realize that the membership
is unlikely to sit still for fees on basic checking/savings, and finally
move on to other more important issues.

./chris

    
    RE: .19
    
>     Ms. Dawkins, Board Treasurer, gave an overview of DCU's Financial
>     Reports.  She noted the following during the month of May, 1992.
>
>     - Negative loan growth.
>>
>>	Negative growth? Why can't people speak plainly?

    OK Tom.   Loan_Growth = (Loan_Growth * .98)    Sorry, I couldn't resist
    some humor since there hasn't been enough around lately.
    
>     At 5:35 p.m., the Board took a short dinner break and reconviened
>     at 5:45 p.m.
>>
>>	People brown bagging it? A good sign :-)
    
    Not quite.  They bring in some salads, a little dessert and soda.  Not
    exactly B.K. but not dinner at the Ritz either.

>>	The Board should act in a unified way, once decisions are made.
>>	But the membership ought to know who constituted the majority
>>	opinion on the issues. Also, not that even those in the minority
>>	have responsibility: if a bad decision was made that they were
>>	"right" on, why were they unable to convince the majority of
>>	the badness of the decision?

    Tom, you're a tough grader.  Not even full credit for being "right"?  
    Points taken off for being in the minority???  Are you trying to carry "no
    excuses management" to a new height?  8-)
    
>     At 6:40 p.m., Gail Mann left the meeting.
>>
>>	I trust this was unrelated to the preceding vote.
    
    You are correct.
      
>>	Why is this different? Couldn't Board members take their own
>>	notes previously? What has changed?
    
    Nothing has changed as far as I know.

>>	How about have people attend trips/conferences according to what
>>	people *need* to go to a particular trip/conference? Base it on
>>	business need. Let the CEO handle this, and judge him on his
>>	performance. 

    Tom, this issue pertains to Director trips/conferences, not DCU
    employee trips/conferences.  I don't believe it appropriate for the CEO
    to determine what a Director should or should not attend.  But the
    original issue had more to do with disclosure of such trips/conferences, 
    rather than number or need.
    

>     "Mr. Cockburn reviewed with the Board the process used to complete
>     the analysis and indicated that DCU is currently losing money on
>     its Checking and Regular Savings products.  Management is in the
>     process of evaluating pricing alternatives to correct this
>     situation."
>
>The minutes also state:
>
>     "Mr. Cockburn indicated that Operating Expenses were generally not
>     the problem.  The lack of profitability is due to low balance
>     accounts where the member has no savings or loan relationship."

	I'm with Chris on this one. This smacks of double speak. Are low
	balance checking and regular savings account that do have a loan
	relationship not a problem? Or are they costing money that we (DCU)
	are making up on the loan? I suspect that is the case. If so then
	operating expenses are the "problem". Though in that case it would
	seem like a good idea to look at increasing the number of those low
	balance account holders who also have a loan or savings relationship.
	Or find ways to cut costs on those accounts.

			Alfred 

>    Not quite.  They bring in some salads, a little dessert and soda.  Not
>    exactly B.K. but not dinner at the Ritz either.

	Sounds like a good way to do it.

>    Tom, you're a tough grader.  Not even full credit for being "right"?  
>    Points taken off for being in the minority???  Are you trying to carry "no
>    excuses management" to a new height?  8-)
    
	If your smart enough to merit a 100%, you are smart enough to make
	the brilliant arguments that will persuade even the most dense
	of your colleagues of the rightness of your position, so they
	vote with you, and avoid the bad decision. You only get a 90% for 
	being right, but letting the rest of the Board make a bad decision.
	(Boy, is he strict... :-) )
      
>    Tom, this issue pertains to Director trips/conferences, not DCU
>    employee trips/conferences. 

	Ah, same principle applies though - send Directors based on what the
	Board needs, not on a quota.

				Tom_K

    
>	If your smart enough to merit a 100%, you are smart enough to make
>	the brilliant arguments that will persuade even the most dense
>	of your colleagues of the rightness of your position, so they
>	vote with you, and avoid the bad decision. You only get a 90% for 
>	being right, but letting the rest of the Board make a bad decision.
>	(Boy, is he strict... :-) )
    
    To which my reply can only be...
    
    
	You can only lead a horse to water...
          
>	Ah, same principle applies though - send Directors based on what the
>	Board needs, not on a quota.
    
    There is no quota.  With approvals, more trips or conferences can be
    taken.  But as I said, the original proposal dealt with reporting such
    trips to the membership.  It evolved into something quite different,
    but the reporting aspect was added back into it.
    

RE: Note 598.20 by AOSG::GILLETT 

>There is another comment in the minutes that is also very ominous.  From
>section VI entitled "PRESIDENT'S REPORT" there is the following:
>
>     "Mr. Cockburn reviewed with the Board the process used to complete
>     the analysis and indicated that DCU is currently losing money on
>     its Checking and Regular Savings products.  Management is in the
>     process of evaluating pricing alternatives to correct this
>     situation."
>
>The minutes also state:
>
>     "Mr. Cockburn indicated that Operating Expenses were generally not
>     the problem.  The lack of profitability is due to low balance
>     accounts where the member has no savings or loan relationship."
>
>In my opinion, this is simply beauracrat-speak for "Fees on Basic Checking
>and Savings Accounts."  Have we all learned nothing from past experiences?
>The membership sent a message loud and clear last November to DCU that said
>fees on basic services were totally and completely unacceptable.

I see another Chuck "I'll raise fees no matter what" coming upon us.  I also
read the above and wondered.  It seems like Chuck did not get the message
from the special meeting.

I hope the board members who were there understand how the members feel
and "DIRECT" Chuck to not do this.  The members do not want this.

	- mark

    I agree... I see another round of fee increases coming to cover
    the loss of money on accounts with no savings or loans.  I'm guilty
    of being one of those.  But if the DCU had competitive products
    and rates, like a 7 1/8% 10 year loan for example, I wouldn't have
    refinanced elsewhere.
    
    High rates => less loans => more "nonperforming" accounts.
    Lower rates => more loans => less "nonperforming" accounts.
    
    If the DCU reinstitutes fees, I'll jump ship, which may help in the
    short term, but it also won't do much to entice any new members.
    If that's the case, I see the DCU catering overpriced products to
    an evershrinking market, much like the Digital itself, and encountering
    the same fate.  -kb  

    
    	Question to the board -- has Chuck said what level of savings in a
    savings-only account (no DCU loans or credit cards) constitutes the
    break-even point for DCU to manage that account?  No, I'm not suggesting
    fees for accounts under this amount, I'm just curious what the break-even
    point is.
    
    							-craig

    
    RE: .27
    
    To date, there have no specific proposals presented.
    

    
    	Re: .28
    
    	No, I wasn't asking for what the proposals might be -- it was clear
    from the minutes that it was still (yikes!) being looked into.  I'm
    just curious if Chuck has said something like "A savings only account
    breaks even at $843.22 average balance" or something like that.  I can
    guestimate at what the statement printing and postage costs would be
    for a savings-only account.  I just don't have the faintest idea of
    what the rest of a bank's (excuse me for generalizing ;-) overhead looks
    like per basic account.
    
    							-craig

    
    RE: .29
    
    I'm not sure whether I should comment any further on this topic.  But
    since the minutes mentioned "Profitability Analysis regarding
    individual loan and savings products", I guess it is safe to say "Yes,
    but not limited to savings/checking only".  As I have said, there have
    been no proposals brought to the table yet so I don't want to get
    people needlessly excited or speculative.
    

    re:19
    
    Great comments TK!  I would agree with all you said, I only wish I said
    it first.
    
    Re:30
    
    I guess it would be nice, though, for the membership to understand what
    the "possible options are" and allowed to comment BEFORE a vote is
    taken and policies changed.  Why should these options be secretive? 
    Just because no formal proposal was discussed, why can't we be made of
    the options that most certainly have been discussed at a Board level,
    especially since they seem to have already been discussed in a public
    forum of the general meeting?  I guess I don't understand fully and for
    that, I am sorry.

    I hope that whatever changes are made to fees/policies/whatever, that
    they are based on sound business practices and not pure emotion.

    
    	re: .30
    
    >I'm not sure whether I should comment any further on this topic.
    
    	Fair enough.  After putting it in, I was wondering if my question
    was crossing any sensitive information lines and I accept "can't
    comment" as a valid answer.  I wasn't asking about fee options, but I
    can understand that answering the question about break-even points
    might lead people to think that anything lower is about to have fees.
    
    							-craig

Re: .33
Thanks for understanding. I can tell you that a fee structure has not yet
been a topic of discussion at any board meeting I've attended and I've
attended them all (at least since I've been elected :-). If and when they
do come up, I will vote in favor of publicizing the raw data for you to
see.

Re: .19 and others concerning my approving the Network newsletter...

I tend to agree with you. However, I did give some input into the last
issue but was not shown the final copy. All I saw was a list of topics and
a quick summary which looked OK. However, I was very disappointed
with the final newsletter content.
As a result, I posted note 584(?) concerning feedback on Network.
I discovered many folks had the same opinion I had about it. Thus,
I requested to be the final authority because I felt the existing process
had not worked for the last issue. The BoD did not approve it, but Chuck
did guarantee that I'd see the final copy and we could negotiate changes.
Hopefully we can come to agreement about subsequent issues easily, tho
the next deadline is in Sept and with vacations and whatnot, things will
be tight.

    
    RE: .31
        
>    I guess it would be nice, though, for the membership to understand what
>    the "possible options are" and allowed to comment BEFORE a vote is
>    taken and policies changed.  Why should these options be secretive? 
    
    As I have said, there have been no proposals offered to date.  There is
    nothing secretive transpiring.
    
>    Just because no formal proposal was discussed, why can't we be made of
>    the options that most certainly have been discussed at a Board level,
>    especially since they seem to have already been discussed in a public
>    forum of the general meeting?  I guess I don't understand fully and for
>    that, I am sorry.
    
    The options are fees or no fees.  We already know that from last year. 
    But that is all there is at this point.  As for discussion on
    alternatives, should that be done here or in Network so that ALL DCU
    members can share in the discussion?  More feedback would transpire
    here, but we have heard and been told that this notes files is not
    representative of the DCU membership.  Personally, I believe this to be
    true.  I believe readers/writers to be MORE informed than the average
    DCU member.  Obviously, each DCU member will have their own take on whatever
    proposal is described.  
    
    RE: .32
>    I hope that whatever changes are made to fees/policies/whatever, that
>    they are based on sound business practices and not pure emotion.
    
    "pure emotion"???  I hope you don't think philosophy, goals and 
    priorities is "pure emotion".  Personally, I haven't seen anything done
    on "pure emotion" since April.  And of course, your definition of "sound
    business practices" will be different from the next person's.  Who's to
    say which one is "right"?  
    
    On the face of it, giving people something for free is not sound business
    practice.  You are losing money because it cost you $X to purchase the 
    item.  However, if you look closer, you'll find that those people that 
    you just spent $X attracting leave $X+$Y dollars at your business.  And
    you have succeeded in the most difficult part of selling, getting the
    customer's attention focused on YOUR business vs. Ralph's Credit Union.
    Now it's up to you to capitalize on this and increase those Y dollars.
    But if your products are low quality, you're ultimately doomed. 
    Customers aren't dumb.

Re: .36...

PS: just in case you think Phil is making up "Ralph's Credit Union" he 
is not. Ralph's Credit Union was one of the credit unions represented
at the NAFCU conference we went to. I forget where they are based, but
I did notice that none of the representatives attending were named
"Ralph". :-)

�And of course, your definition of "sound
�    business practices" will be different from the next person's.  Who's to
�    say which one is "right"?  
    
    The one who turns out the lights and puts the locks on the doors is the
    one who will ultimately decide what is right.
    
�    "pure emotion"???  I hope you don't think philosophy, goals and 
�    priorities is "pure emotion".  
    
    That depends.  There are alot of businesses which have gone under which
    had very good philosophies, goals and priorities.
    
�    On the face of it, giving people something for free is not sound business
�    practice.  You are losing money because it cost you $X to purchase the 
�    item.  However, if you look closer, you'll find that those people that 
�    you just spent $X attracting leave $X+$Y dollars at your business.  And
�    you have succeeded in the most difficult part of selling, getting the
�    customer's attention focused on YOUR business vs. Ralph's Credit Union.
�    Now it's up to you to capitalize on this and increase those Y dollars.
�    But if your products are low quality, you're ultimately doomed. 
�    Customers aren't dumb.
    
    Sounds like the beginning of a good business decision.  Pretty free of
    emotionalism as well.

>	Who's to say which one is "right"?  

	As always, the customer.

				Tom_K

I've heard of a supermarket chain called "Ralph's".  Still, it leads me to
wonder if you could create a credit union whose limited field of membership
was those people whose first name is Ralph!

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- Do people opposed to "checking account fees" also oppose "inactive
account fees"?  The later would be a fee on an account that has less than 
some *nominal* average balance (e.g. $100) and less than a certain amount 
of activity.  While I personally remain stronly opposed to the sort of
checking account fees that were proposed last year, there are some kinds
of fees that I would have no problem with.  And while I suspect that the
best thing for the DCU as a business is to encourage membership by avoiding
broadly based checking fees, I can also see merit to discouraging some
kinds of accounts.  I trust the Board will consider all this and ask for
the right data when the issue finally comes up.

	The idea CU member, from management's point of view, has both a large
	savings balance, preferably in a CD, and a large outstanding loan.
	This is not the average member though. Some do have a large savings
	balance. Some a good sized outstanding loan. If I understand things
	correctly either of these kinds of members are ok. It's the low
	volume, low balance, no loan members that cost money. I would not
	be all that opposed to some sort of activity fee for people who have
	low balances and no loan. Though you might want to give some 
	concideration to members who have paid off loans in the past. You
	probably want those people to borrow again.

	BTW, what about people who have their pay put into a DCU account and
	then pull it out right away? Is that expensive or does the 24-48 hour
	float cover the cost of the account?

			Alfred

�PS -- Do people opposed to "checking account fees" also oppose "inactive
�account fees"?  The later would be a fee on an account that has less than 
�some *nominal* average balance (e.g. $100) and less than a certain amount 
�of activity.  
    
    It makes sense from the standpoint that everyone should pull their own
    weight.  If the CU can't cover your expenses (through other
    account/loan activity), than you should chip in.  Kind of like what DEC
    has been telling us to do with healthcare and such.  
    
    You might want to change this to a maximum amount of activity before a
    fee kicks in, though.  I would think that low activity would be low
    cost.  I could see how your suggestion could penalize children's
    accounts for example.

    RE: .40
    
>PS -- Do people opposed to "checking account fees" also oppose "inactive
>account fees"?
    
    Not unless the account is the direct result of a CU policy.  We
    shouldn't be requiring people to open accounts and then zapping them
    for no activity.
    
>I can also see merit to discouraging some
>kinds of accounts.  
    
    Larry, I would change 'accounts' to behavior.  Types of accounts are
    people dependent and imply to me you are determining what customers you
    want and what ones you don't want.  My belief is that a CU should be
    open to business from ALL of the people in its field of membership.
    
    
    RE: .41
    
    Alfred, for the most part you are correct.  But is it necessary to
    shoot for the "ideal" CU member?  Maybe the correct approach is to
    shoot for the "ideal blend" of CU members?  Mix a little bit of 'Mrs.
    Too-Much-Money" with a little bit of "Mr. Broke" and you have an
    "ideal" opportunity for business!  Micro-managing this on a customer by
    customer basis will eliminate this potential opportunity IMO.  Synergy
    is the key.
    

    RE: .43 I agree go for the blend. Heck, if I had the money for a
    big savings account I wouldn't have had to borrow the money to
    add on to my house. :-) Going for this blend is one reason that I've
    always believed the future of the DEFCU was increasing the number of
    loans. People who need money are easier to find then people who have
    lots to put in a long term account.
    
    		Alfred

    
    	Since I might fall into the "low savings / low activity / no loan"
    category (depending upon where the "low / OK" savings level line was
    drawn), what I'd rather see is the option of letting me tell DCU to
    only send me a quarterly statement.  I know I don't need a monthly
    statement, but I have no mechanism to allow DCU to lower its overhead
    accordingly.  Basically, give me the tools to help lower DCU's overhead
    before thinking of fees.  (However, if Fleet keeps lowering its
    checking account interest rates enough, the point might soon be moot...
    ;-)
    
    							-craig

      I've been reading this notes file since all the stuff started with
    the old
    BD., and have never felt something as outrages as what I just read.
     This doesn't mean I liked what was going on before I just felt that
    other people were saying the same thing as I was. But when I read this
    I was mad as he__!!
      And let me say that if this happen I will be gone from the
    DCU the next day.
     
    >>Note 598.41          BoD minute discussion for June 30, 1992           
    41 of
    >>CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist"                   16 lines 
    31-AUG-1992 14
    
    >>The idea CU member, from management's point of view, has botha large
    >>savings balance, preferably in a CD, and a large outstanding loan.
    >>This is not the average member though. Some do have a large savings
    >>balance. Some a good sized outstanding loan. If I understand things
    >>correctly either of these kinds of members are ok.
    >>It's the low
    >>volume, low balance, no loan members that cost money. I would not
    >>be all that opposed to some sort of activity fee for people who have
    >>low balances and no loan.
    
     I have been a member since day one. I have tryed on many times
    to get LOANS fron the DCU and have been turned down every time.
     So I can't waste my time when I can go to a any bank and get a
    loan.
    
    
    >>Though you might want to give some
    >>concideration to members who have paid off loans in the past. You
    >>probably want those people to borrow again.
    
    >>BTW, what about people who have their pay put into a DCU account and
    >>then pull it out right away? Is that expensive or does the 24-48 hour
    >>float cover the cost of the account?
    
    >>
    >>                    Alfred
    
       I hope your not a BD member, because you DON't have my best interest
    at stake. IF you are you will NOT get my vote next Time. I will check
    when I get home tonight.
                                     
    

>     I have been a member since day one. I have tryed on many times
>    to get LOANS fron the DCU and have been turned down every time.
>     So I can't waste my time when I can go to a any bank and get a
>    loan.

    This is exactly the problem I see that needs to be fixed. And I've
    said it before. The DEFCU needs to make it easier to borrow money.

>       I hope your not a BD member, because you DON't have my best interest
>    at stake. IF you are you will NOT get my vote next Time. I will check
>    when I get home tonight.

    I'm not a Board member. I'm not sure what of your best interests I
    don't have at heart though. I want the DEFCU to lend more money not
    add more fees. I also want the DEFCU to provide the best rates on both
    savings and loans that it can. Which of those things are against your
    best interest?

    		Alfred

    You said "If I understand things correctly either of these kinds of
    members are ok. It's the low volume, low balance, no loan members
    that cost money. I would not be all that opposed to some sort of
    activity fee for people who have low balances and no loan."
    
      Notice "no loans", maybe I'm missing the point. Would you do
    business with a bank that told you this? I don't think so.
     As for a "no loan member" thats the DCU's loss, maybe some
    day I'll try again.
       It is your statment about "no loan members" that has my goat. 

    Yes that explains a bit more clearly. However, if you re-read what 
    you copied of my note you'll note that I was not accepting fees on
    accounts just because they don't have a loan. Only accounts that are
    costing the DEFCU (ie. me and other members) money. My understanding 
    is that we're talking about accounts that not only don't have loans
    but *ALSO* don't maintain any appreciable balance. In other words the
    accounts are largely idle. So maybe you are missing my point. If you
    have an account at DEFCU and do much banking (direct deposit, or
    otherwise deposit regularly, have a regular savings account, or what
    ever) you are probably not one of the people I'm taking about.

>      Notice "no loans", maybe I'm missing the point. Would you do
>    business with a bank that told you this? I don't think so.

    Would I do business with a bank that charged me extra if I didn't have
    a loan? No, but that is nothing like what I'm suggesting. Similarly I
    wouldn't do business at a bank that I didn't use regularly either. I've
    closed accounts in banks because my volume or deposits were low enough
    to kick in user fees. To me it was a clear indication that I was
    banking somewhere else so why bother having an extra account.

>     As for a "no loan member" thats the DCU's loss, maybe some
>    day I'll try again.

    For the third time in 2 days, I agree with you. I hope you do try again
    and that DEFCU gets your business.

    			Alfred	

    re: .49
    
    I would object to that unless you can figure out a way for me to remain
    a member of DCU without being required to have an account.
    
    I am currently working to stop doing business with DCU until they
    become more competitive with their products.
    
    Bob

�    I would object to that unless you can figure out a way for me to remain
�    a member of DCU without being required to have an account.
    
    Then what's the point of being a member?
    
    Like I said before, I don't think a low activity account would result
    in much overhead.  I would think it would be the low balance, high
    activity accounts that would.  Think back on when the RSVP accounts
    were orginally set up.  They limited the number of free withdrawls each
    month.  Additional withdrawls were allowed, but with a fee.  The
    minimum balance was only $100.  I would think that the low balance
    accounts which are used solely to have check cashing priviliges and a
    clearing house for business expenses right in the building where you
    work would cost the DCU more than someone who maintains a small savings
    account and rarely makes a transaction other than a weekly deposit.

    re: .51
    
    >Then what's the point of being a member?
    
    Because as a Digital employee I'm in the field of membership and hope
    that one day, DCU will be competitive enough to allow me to do business
    with them.
    
    Unless DCU changes their stance on an annual fee for their credit
    cards, in December I will cancel the card and at that time my only
    relationship with DCU will be my $5 savings account required to remain
    a member.
    
    Bob

    Alfred,
    
      Now I do understand what you ment. 
    
   >> Would I do business with a bank that charged me extra if I didn't have
   >> a loan? No, but that is nothing like what I'm suggesting. Similarly
   >>I wouldn't do business at a bank that I didn't use regularly either.
   >> I've closed accounts in banks because my volume or deposits were low
   >> enough to kick in user fees. To me it was a clear indication that I was
   >> banking somewhere else so why bother having an extra account.
    
      This is also why I do all my banking at the DCU.
    
    >>For the third time in 2 days, I agree with you. I hope you do
    >>try again and that DEFCU gets your business.
    
      I have for the refinancing of a car loan. Which I'm paying 14 3/4
    for. And I got it. But when I went to the DCU to ask a question,
    the teller told me that the DCU is't really doing it, some one else
    is just going through the DCU. Any one know if this is true?
    
    Oh one more thing.
     I feel that my comment at the end of my fist reply, should not have 
    been said till I learned, or understood better what you were trying
    to say.
    
       So please execpt my apology.
    
    
    		Joe
    

    re: -.1
    
    Yes, I agree. Also, we should implement a minimum we'll pay interest
    on. Say, a $100 balance or even calculate a moving target. In this way,
    we won't have to mail statements even on a quarterly basis unless the
    account is above the minimum. 
    
    I mean, it must cost us at least $.35 to mail each statement every
    month plus all the stuff we put in the envelope. This money could be
    better spent in lending activities to encourage more use of the DCU
    through better loan rates, etc...

The following topics were covered in executive session in the June 30 meeting:

     a.  Personnel Issue
     b.  Digital Equipment Corporation Letters
     c.  Request for Report of 1986 Investigation
     d.  Supervisory Committee Report
     e.  Other DEC Investigation Report
     f.  Indemnification
     g.  Legal Action

I want to see reports on topics b-g.  While some details need to be kept
confidential, I feel that the Board owes the members answers to a number
of questions, including:

	Who saw the 1986 report in 1986?  Who has it now?
	What is the status of the investigation DEC started last fall?
	Can the current board collect on the prior board's bond?
	What is the status of legal actions to recover money?

This is an area where I would be happy for the Board to adopt Lisa Demauro
Ross' proposed "white paper" approach, in which the Board as a whole issues
a statement on the topic.  I realize that in some cases the answer may be 
"we don't yet know" or "due to pending lawsuits we cannot give details yet".

	Enjoy,
	Larry

Unfortunately, the answers you wish to know are related to items
handled in executive session.  It is
DCU policy for executive session items to be redacted from the minutes.  
A vote by the board is sometimes taken when one or more board members
believes a particular topic is not necessarily confidential and should be 
shared with the broader membership. If you wish to appeal the redaction
of something in executive session, probably the best person to contact
is the chair because the chair designs the board meeting agenda.

Actually, Paul, I've already sent Lisa DeMauro Ross a message about that.
No reply yet.  Is anyone else strongly interested in seeing answers to 
those questions?  BTW, one of the Real Choices campaign brochures says:

  o Restore membership confidence through more extensive, honest, and open
    communication about what is happening at *our* credit union...

  o Review the lending and investment practices that led to the current 
    state of the DCU, and report findings to the membership.

There have been some clear improvements, but let's not stop there.
I strongly hope that when it comes to a vote, there are at least four 
Board members who vote to report to members on *everything* from that
executive session that can legally be revealed to the whole membership.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- Here is my message requesting that this be placed on the agenda:


From:	RGB::SEILER        23-SEP-1992 17:25:01.86
To:	LEDS::ROSS
CC:	SEILER
Subj:	Request for report on executive sessions

Lisa,

The June 30 BoD meeting references some very interesting topics in the
executive session agenda:

     a.  Personnel Issue
     b.  Digital Equipment Corporation Letters
     c.  Request for Report of 1986 Investigation
     d.  Supervisory Committee Report
     e.  Other DEC Investigation Report
     f.  Indemnification
     g.  Legal Action

I would like to see a report to the members on topics b-g.  While some
details need to be kept confidential, I feel that the membership should
receive answers to a number of questions, including:

	Who saw the 1986 report in 1986?  Who has it now?
	What is the status of the investigation DEC started last fall?
	Can the current board collect on the prior board's bond?
	What is the status of legal actions to recover money?

Could you please include in the agenda for the next BoD meeting an item
for the Board to work out a report on the executive session items in order
to answer the questions above?  I presume this would be a joint report
from the Board, rather than individual comments, which is fine with me.
I realize that in some cases the answer may be "we're trying to find out"
or "due to pending lawsuits we cannot give details yet".  Still, I think
it would be very helpful to have what information the Board can give.

	Thanks,
	Larry