Conference 7.286::dcu

>     b.  Branch Update
>
>     Mary Madden, Vice President of Operations, updated the Board on
>     the following Branches:
>
>     c.  Marketing Update


	Something missing?


>     * It was moved by Ms. Dawkins and seconded by Mr. Kinzelman to
>     accept Mr. McEachin's Communication Proposal as amended. 

	Phil, I understand and applaud your position. However, I think 
	that having a pointer in NETWORK to BoD memos ought to be 
	reasonable, at least for a start. Unfortunately, I think many 
	people won't be interested, and will simply throw the memo away
	unread, with the result that the expense is wasted. Under this 
	scheme, people who *are* interested will be able to obtain the info.
	If it turns out that demand is great enough that Branch or HQ staff 
	are spending too much time distributing BoD memos, you can use that 
	as rational for distribution via NETWORK.

>     e.  Bylaw Modifications

	Not enough detail here - Can it be summarized what the changes
	entail?

>     These officials are authorized to attend two credit-union related
>     conferences within the region defined as the following states:


	Sigh. I read this as saying that folks can attend these things 
	regardless of DEFCU's need. As written, officials are now "entitled"
	to two "regional" and one "out of region" trip each year, so long as
	it can be claimed that they are "knowledge gathering". Why not have
	it based upon DEFCU need, with no limits? I can see a scenario that
	might be beneficial for, say the Treasurer, to attend several 
	seminars that would help this officer do his or her job more
	effectively, while most of the other officers might need to attend
	only one seminar or course during a year... Why not allow that 
	flexibility, and at the same time, do away with the "entitlement" 
	aspect?

						Tom_K

    Those were good notes.  Are the revisions that were approved to the bylaws 
    going to be posted?  Thanks!
    
    Steve

	Just one small comment (that I wanted to make on your previous 
	minutes, but forgot):

	Would you STOP calling Ms. DeMauro Ross as "Chairman"? I much prefer
	the gender-neutral title of "Chair" and "Vice-Chair" for everyone.

	-amitabh.

�I can see a scenario that
�	might be beneficial for, say the Treasurer, to attend several 
�	seminars that would help this officer do his or her job more
�	effectively, 
    
    I didn't see anything in the policy that would prevent that from
    happening.  Anything above and beyond the 3 trips/year simply have to
    go through an additional approval process.

>    1) The rate for DCU's Home Equity Product will be lowered
>       from 9.5% to 8.5% effective August 1, 1992.  The rate
>       reduction applies to the "old" Home Equity product that
>       has an administrative rate that is not tied to an index.

This old home equity product is NOT competitive with what's being
offered on the outside.  The current rate from BayBank and Fleet on home
equity loan is 7.5%.  A DCU member with the old product is paying 2%
more.  

Here are the alternatives that a member has:

1. Apply for new home equity from the DCU and pay the appraisal fee or

2. Apply for home equity loan from Fleet and pay NO fees at all and
   get a 5.99% interest for one year.

On a $10,000 balance, the diffence between option 1 and option 2 
is about $150 in interest plus the appraisal fee.

Of course, the homeowner may not be able to qualify for a new home
equity loan.  In this case, the higher rate may be justifiable for
increased risk that the DCU is taking.


Gim (who once had the "old" home equity product).

Re: .1
>>	Marketing update...
	I'll have to look into it, don't have it in front of me.

>>	Comm proposal
	The Network about to come out has something in there about that.
	There will be a Board Memo coming out shortly that will summarize
	last night's meeting.

>>	Bylaw change
	I audited the bylaws and found there were a few typo's and in
	one place a whole paragraph got left out, I suspect a casualty
	to an accidental "cut" command. The currently posted bylaws in
	this notes file are the result of that vote.	

>>	Conferences
	I understand the concern. You can't legislate everything. Making
	sure this policy is not abused is still going to be up to members
	continuing to show interest. That's why I'm in favor of reporting
	trips at the annual meeting.

	Also, there is great value of just going to the conference. For
	instance, I couldn't really point to one particular thing that
	I simply "had" to go to at the NAFCU conference, but I sure learned
	a lot. In addition, there's great value in exchange of ideas with
	other directors. That's hard to quantify.

The July 28th meeting (note 2.4), lists the following in executive session:

     I.       ROLL CALL AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
     II.      UPDATES AND DISCUSSIONS
     a.  Executive Session Issues
     b.  Mortgage Task Force
     c.  Resignations
     d.  Personnel Committee
     e.  Exit Interviews

I would like to know what sorts of topics are included in item a, the
anonymously-named "executive session issues".  The other topics look like
the sorts of things that should not be reported on to the membership, but
what other topics were discussed besides b-e?

	Thanks,
	Larry

>     * It was moved by Ms. Dawkins and seconded by Mr. Kinzelman to
>     accept Mr. McEachin's Communication Proposal as amended. 
>>
>>	Phil, I understand and applaud your position. However, I think 
>>	that having a pointer in NETWORK to BoD memos ought to be 
>>	reasonable, at least for a start. Unfortunately, I think many 
>>	people won't be interested, and will simply throw the memo away
>>	unread, with the result that the expense is wasted. Under this 
>>	scheme, people who *are* interested will be able to obtain the info.
>>	If it turns out that demand is great enough that Branch or HQ staff 
>>	are spending too much time distributing BoD memos, you can use that 
>>	as rational for distribution via NETWORK.
    
    Tom, we'll have to disagree on this one.  I had a real hard time
    supporting this proposal, as presented, since it did not meet one of
    the primary goals that it set forth, namely to communicate to the
    *entire* DCU membership.
    
    Currently, the only way to do that is in the quarterly mailing that now
    contains the NETWORK brochure.  I did not feel that adding a single 
    page of info from the Board every quarter was overkill or a waste of
    money.  I feel it very important to make sure DCU members SEE and have
    access to something like this without having to be bothered with using
    DCU resources to request it via the 800 number.  I feel the cost of
    including them in a regular mailing will be far less than the costs
    associated with calls to the toll-free number, 1st class postage,
    handling, etc.  There will be NO way to determine this as far as I
    know.  I feel very strongly that the Board MUST communicate with the
    entire membership and in the standard way they have in the past, thru
    quarterly mailings.
    
    But, I was outvoted so this is what it'll be for now.  Whatever, it
    will certainly be more than was done in the past.

    
    RE: .8
    
    Sorry Larry, since it was in Executive Seesion we can't discuss it!
    
    I think it shouldn't have been an "a." through and just a topic header
    related to b-e.

    I am happy to see the actions being taken and the discussions clearly
    recorded in summary form.  This is great!  My only comment would be
    that I would like to see the word "slightly" NOT used as a term used in
    the financial analysis/report.

�I feel the cost of
�    including them in a regular mailing will be far less than the costs
�    associated with calls to the toll-free number, 1st class postage,
�    handling, etc.  
    
    That may be true, but I'd be willing to bet that the number of requests
    for this information will be so small as to justify the decision made.

    
    RE: .12
    
    I am willing to pinch pennies in many areas, but communicating with the
    membership is not one of them.  I believe any additional cost of this
    communication could have been more than offset by going to less
    expensive paper in the Network brochure (if costs are a concern). 
    
    After what the credit union and the membership have been through in the
    last year and a half, communication from the Board to the *entire*
    membership on a regular basis are of prime importance.  If DCU can
    afford to send everybody marketing brochures, they can afford to send
    them information from the Board concerning *their* credit union too.
    
    In my opinion, "open and honest communication" that is implemented in 
    a way that is in any way restrictive is not fulfilling its purpose.
    

    Well, if the BoD has something that is important enough to mail out to
    the entire membership, perhaps you can get an exception to the Network
    publishing policy.  A "Hi, we're your BoD and we're doing just fine"
    may help you feel you're living up to your campaign promise of
    communicating with membership, but it's not worth the expense IMO.

RE: Note 606.14 by PATE::MACNEAL

>    Well, if the BoD has something that is important enough to mail out to
>    the entire membership, perhaps you can get an exception to the Network
>    publishing policy.  A "Hi, we're your BoD and we're doing just fine"
>    may help you feel you're living up to your campaign promise of
>    communicating with membership, but it's not worth the expense IMO.

Since the Network propaganda piece is just happy news, under your
definition they should not be mailing it!  I am glad
we agree on something. :-)

	- mark

I am forcibly reminded of a meeting I had with ex-Chair Mark Steinkraus
almost exactly a year ago.  He told me he refused to answer any questions 
through the media of email or notes files on the grounds that "my job is 
to communicate with *all* of the membership."  So, he insisted to me that 
articles in Network News should be used instead of mail and notes.

Of course, he had a point -- everyone who wants to can read Network News 
and not everyone can read notes.  But I told him I felt that it was also
important for the Board to answer questions in an interactive medium as 
well as making joint pronoucements through mass mailings.  


Today, we seem to be in somewhat the opposite situation.  A couple of 
Board members are doing an excellent job at keeping us informed via the
notes file and mail.  However, there seems to be relucatance -- from some 
Board members and also from Chuck Cockburn -- to using the Network News
to communicate the Board's views.  

I really don't understand the reluctance to speak to the membership as
a whole.  Some people have frequently criticized this notes file on the
grounds that only a certain vociferous subset of the DCU membership is
involved in it.  There is some justice to that criticism, but the same
criticism applies to communiques that have to be specifically requested
by members at DCU offices:  only the most active and vociferous members
are likely to see them.  

Anyway, under normal circumstances, I could see that there would seldom
be a need for the Board to put inserts into the Network News mailing.
But right now, I really hate to see any limitation on the openness of
the Board in communicating with the membership -- especially given the
many very important issues that the Board still has not reported on to
the membership as a whole.  I agree that null content happy news is not
worth mailing out -- but that would not be worth distributing to the
branches, either.

	Most sincerely,
	Larry Seiler

    RE: .14
    
>    Well, if the BoD has something that is important enough to mail out to
>    the entire membership, perhaps you can get an exception to the Network
>    publishing policy.
    
    Why should the Board need to get an exception for communicating to the
    entire membership?  IMO, this should be the default, not the exception.
    
    >A "Hi, we're your BoD and we're doing just fine"
>    may help you feel you're living up to your campaign promise of
>    communicating with membership, but it's not worth the expense IMO.
    
    I don't think I like the insinuation here that this is being done
    merely to fulfill a campaign promise.  The subject matter would never
    be as frivolous as you indicate above.  Real decisions are being made
    every month that affect the credit union and its membership.  If this
    were a bank, then we wouldn't need to communicate anything.  But this
    is a credit union and I believe a higher degree of communication to the
    owners is demanded.  Meaningful communication was non-existent a year ago.
    To re-establish membership trust, we need to err on the side of
    over-communication IMO.  Obviously, you think different.

    
    Stick with it, Phil -- you're 104% correct on this one...
    

	Yup, there is *plenty* of interesting, relevant information
	which the BoD could communicate to the membership. At one page
	each quarter, they wouldn't run out for a while, and one per
	quarter shouldn't break the bank (er, credit Union). I'd certainly
	rather be getting a one page communications from the Bod, than 
	a lot of the fluff marketing stuff I've gotten from DEFCU in recent
	years...

	Phil, maybe you could get it by Chuck by suggesting a black 
	pamphlet... Naw, it's been done...

			Tom_K

	PS - Phil, if you could, it might be worthwhile to replace your
	BoD minutes statement with your reply to my comment on this,
	I for one, found your statement here on this subject much more 
	convincing than the posted in the meeting minutes...

    FWIW, I'd like to see a regular column in Netword from the BoD that
    explains what is going on.  Who wouldn't want that?
    
    Steve 

Maybe you could ask John Simms to pay for a mailing to all DCU members each
quarter.

    re: .21
    
    I love it!