Conference 7.286::dcu

>	Third, I think someone displayed bad judgment by selecting 
>	Tom McEachin and Paul Kinzelman for the "DCU Focus" feature.
>	Both are standing for re-election, and it is too close to the 
>	election. This action, in my opinion, gives the two incumbents 
>	an unfair advantage over potential challengers. The space they 
>	received and the messages each conveyed were, to me, too close 
>	to what I'd expect to see in an election statement. 
>
>	If I were a challenger, I'd demand equal space in an issue to be 
>	published prior to the ballots being mailed out.

I too received my memo & Network yesterday as well.  I thought the selection
of incumbants standing for re-eletion for profiling just prior to
release of ballot data was real cute.

I'm running for the Board in this election, and I couldn't help but think
that Messrs. McEachin and Kinzelman had just received a lot of extra
exposure and publicity that they normally wouldn't get.   While "unfair"
is a pretty strong word,  I would definitely agree with the "bad judgment"
characterization.

Of couse, with recent changes made by the Board, candidates now *do* have 
a cost-effective method of reaching the entire membership.  

./chris

RE: Note 636.1 by AOSG::GILLETT

Appreaciate the letters and information provided!  Things are better with
the communication.  Less guessing and wondering what is going on by
the membership!

>I'm running for the Board in this election, and I couldn't help but think
>that Messrs. McEachin and Kinzelman had just received a lot of extra
>exposure and publicity that they normally wouldn't get.   While "unfair"
>is a pretty strong word,  I would definitely agree with the "bad judgment"
>characterization.

I agree that it was bad judgement.  From my previous readings, I would not
be suprised if Tom and Paul had no idea this was occuring.  I would guess
this to be another Mary Madden, "I'll do it my way" type of situation.

We mayhave changed the BOD, but we still have the same crew on the ship and
it shows.

	- mark

    I had the same feeling as I read the articles.  poor timeing. stinks.
    
    and i am VERY suprised that chuck and marry are still around.
    however in the article i did get to see what paul thought of chuck and
    that will bear in my mind when i vote.
    
    for those who still remember, chuck was NOT our friend during the
    fight.  The vision of DCU becoming member friendly continues to be
    clouded by the memories of chuck during the meet the president tours
    where he maintained nothing was wrong, the board is pure, ad nauseum.
    ed
    

Re: .0 My personal answers...

First, Thanks! I'm glad they went to all members too since most don't get to
use the notes file and probably don't know to ask for the board memos.

Second, I had the same question. It turns out that there was extra tax stuff
that went out with the statements this month so if they added the network 
and the board memos, that would go over an ounce boundary and cost another
ounce of first class postage. They sent the network and board memos on the
same day via third class mail to New England members because that was cheaper.
The network and board memos were sent first class to other members so they
would get the news faster.
The entire mailing ended up being cheaper the way they did it.

Thirdly, I have to agree with you. When I heard that Tom and I were going to
be featured this month, I was concerned about the issue of fairness.
The answer I got when I complained was that it's still a good ways
before the election ballots come out and that was judged to be OK. The
ballots won't be out for another month or two.

The schedule was set up for the chairpersons of
the board and the supervisory committee to be featured last issue because
they sort of represent their respective bodies and so should be featured
first. I agree, though, that with all that happened last year I would have
favored a different approach. But hopefully after this, there won't be another
problem like that. The 2-year BoDs will be featured in the next issue
long before their term runs out.

Re: .3 and Chuck
Without getting into too much detail, I'm also very aware of Chuck's part
in the brouhaha last fall. However, since I've been on the board, I have
been by-and-large impressed with what he's done. Incidently, Chuck has
been supportive of the bylaw changes to ensure the rights of members. I'm glad
he's there. We don't necessary agree on everything, but I do think he's
the best person to run DCU now. And because of that, I'm prepared to regard
last fall as a horrible nightmare forced by the previous board and that this
is reality now. I also believe that Mary is doing a good job in her position.
DCU isn't fully turned around yet, but I believe that progress is being made.

    FWIW, last fall in my encounters with Chuck the impression I had was
    that he is a good team player and can be a formidable adversary.  At the 
    time, he was reflecting the intents of the old BoD.  That's what he was 
    being paid to do and he did it well.  Now, he reflects the intents of the 
    current (and IMO much improved) BoD.  So, I'm not surprised if things seem
    different with Chuck now.  All the more reason for the members to be 
    *careful* about who we pick for the DCU BoD.  IMO, Chuck can be expected 
    to reflect the BoD he works with.
    
    Steve

re.4

> The entire mailing ended up being cheaper the way they did it.

	This brings up a nit. My home received 4 identical copies of this
mailing; one for each DCU member at my address, including my 10-month old
daughter. While it makes obvious sense to send statements in separate
envelopes, informational mailings such as this one could simply be mailed
to each address rather than to each member. This would not only save in
mailing and handling costs, but also save me from just tossing the duplicates
in the trash....

    Gee Ed, I'm glad you are not a board member.  Maybe you would
    appreciate Chuck and Mary differently if you were!
    
    Mark

I understand that Fidelity investments is neither a bank or CU but they have 
solved the problem of being able to mail a consolidated family statement to 
their customers.   The same issues around privacy, IRS issues etc would apply 
to them as well as the DCU. 
They understand that this is not for everybody and make the family reporting 
optional as it should be.   As the risk of being slightly sarcastic, it seems 
that many of the current board used the term "real choices" in their campaign.

I would guess that the reason that a family statement as a "REAL CHOICE" is not 
is due to the lack of interest or attention on the part of the management staff.

Paul K. is doing an excellent job of keeping us informed and that is a good 
thing because I would not beleive anything that Mary Madden has to say.  She 
has a looong way to go to get any credibility restored. 

I would believe that neither of the candidates was aware of the mailing and 
the timing of the mailing but I wonder who was if they still have the feeling
and they work for the board and that the DCU members are something that has to 
be tolerated. 

    
    This has been brought up numerous times before.  We must recognize that
    what you are asking for is an entire system to be put in place to
    accomplish this savings.  Right now there are many things being worked
    on and this is one that should be added to the list.  But it's priority
    may not be high considering all the other items on the list.  Hopefully
    we can get to it soon because it would help save DCU (us) money. 
    Please be patient.  Thanks.