Conference 7.286::dcu

    Is it my imagination or were the minutes of this meeting somewhat
    content-free?
    
    Bob

    
    
    Yeah,  I think a good number of us would like to hear more about that
    meeting with John Sims..
    
    
    Also the information about roles of the various people that make up the
    Credit Union as discussed by Regan (I think it was him) would be quite
    interesting...
    
    
    
    John
    

    
    After reading the November minutes I resolved to post a reply here
    noting that too much was left out of the minutes. I see I've already
    been beaten to it. So I'll give specific examples. I don't think the
    following is good enough:
    
    
>Mr. Prindle reviewed DCU's Loan to Value Analysis on Real Estate Loans and
>answered questions from the Board.

    What questions?
    
    
>d. Meeting with John Sims
>Mr. Cockburn informed the Board of a quarterly meeting he had with John
>Sims, of Digital Equipment Corporation, on November 2, 1992. The meeting
>agenda for this meeting was reviewed.

What was on the agenda?
    
>e. Participation Loan Update
>Betty Moran, DCU's Director of Finance, distributed a status report on the
>Participation Loan Properties. She updated the Board on the current status
>of each property and answered various questions from the Board.

    What is the current status and what were the board questions?
    
    
>b. Investment Policy
>Ms. Moran reviewed with the Board, Managements recommendation to modify
>DCU's Investment Policy. Ms. Moran reviewed each change and answered
>questions.

    Totally content free
    
    
>IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION
>
>a. Sharing and Joint Privilege Agreement

    What is this? I know you can't tell us what was said but at least
    explain the heading.
    
>c. Ongoing Analysis
    
Ongoing analysis of what.
    
>a. Network highlights
>The next issue of DCU's quarterly newsletter "Network" will highlight both
>Mr. Kinzelman and Mr. McEachin.

    How convenient. I just read these writeups. Mr. McEachin's could word
    for word be what he could use for an election brochure. Mr. Kinzelman's
    wasn't such a blatant "vote for me" but was close. Will all the
    contestants for the upcoming election get equal space in "Network"?
    Whoever made the decision to feature these two candidates at this time
    I feel made a mistake.
    
>XI. NEW BUSINESS
>a. Board Memo
>The Board reviewed a Board Memo which will be distributed to the membership
>early in December 1992. The Board requested minor changes be made to this
>memo.

    And the content was...?
    
    
>c. Two Board Memos
>In response to a members letter, Mr. Kinzelman requested that two Board
>Memos be distributed to the membership primarily because they deal with
>issues the entire membership may be interested in.
>
>Board Memo One deals with DCU's prior practice of cashing Digital (DEC)
>checks for non-DCU members. The Board by consensus approved Board Memo One
>which will be re-worded with final approval by Ms. Ross, Mr. Melchione, Mr.
>Kinzelman, and Mr. Cockburn, prior to publishing.
>
>It was noted that Board Memo Two will be discussed further at next months
>Board of Directors Meeting.

    And its subject is?
    
    I feel the earlier minutes had a bit more meat. These minutes are
    severely lacking in meat and don't include all of the substantive
    discussion. I feel the minutes should.
    
    Dave

I agree the minutes need more content. I already asked the current ones
have more detail added to them. I've forwarded your request (without your
name attached back to DCU to ask them to fill in the details.

Re: the Network focus... As I said in 636.4, I agree with you. It's a
battle that I fought and I lost that one. I tried to write mine more as
a report. I made committments when I ran last year, and I wanted to report
on what I'd done since then.

Definitely agree on the content-free nature of these 
minutes.  Why not just say, "We met, we talked, we decided."

Given that this is most unusual with this particular board,
let me ask:  "What's the deal Paul?"

It was most disappointing to see those great "campaign
statements" from the incumbents standing for re-election
in the latest network.  Some things never change.

./chris

    I question why a Board Memo dealing with a change in policy for NON
    members needed to be distributed to members.

>    I question why a Board Memo dealing with a change in policy for NON
>    members needed to be distributed to members.

    Seemed logical to me. It serves a dual purpose. One is that it reminds
    members of one of the benefits of DCU membership. Second, it is likely
    that non members who run into this situation will bring it up to
    members. It is always good to prepare members for questions from non
    members.

    		Alfred

Paul,

I would like to know more about this 'battle'.

Who fought you, and why did they insist that your 'interview' be published when
you fought so hard againt it?

Was it put up for a vote of the Board? What are the results of the vote?

Or was this done during Executive Session?

Thank you,

Chris

Re: .8
Perhaps I overstated the event. It was more of a minor skermish. When I
heard about the scheduling of the focus, I complained for the exact reason
you are stating. The response from several people was that it's quite a
ways before the ballots would come out and the chairpersons should be the
initial focus. On the other hand, I could see the rational for the
chairpersons being in the first
focus so I grumbled a good bit but gave in on that one. There were many other
things I was doing last fall and I chose to focus on them rather than
on the scheduling of the focus. I could have not submitted a focus too,
but I wanted to report to the members on my committments.

As to the minutes...
In retrospect, I probably should have spent more time making the minutes
have more content. For that, I apologize and I'll endeavor to do better
in the future. Remember, however, there's a delay of more than a month
between when the minutes are taken and when you see them.

I assure you that I've spent countless hours already
on DCU stuff and what I've already been doing has become somewhat of a
second career in terms of time spent.

I've spent a tremendous amount of time on the bylaw bill of rights, ever
since last summer.
And the litigation status board memo represents over a month of
intense effort on my part trying to make the wording satisfy
everybody without losing content.

I wanted to make sure that
the litigation status memo was done right and the bill of rights was
completed by the end of my first term in case I should get TFSO'ed or
otherwise not be at DEC anymore. The bill of rights should ensure DCU
stays responsive to members long after I'm gone.

�I wanted to make sure that
�the litigation status memo was done right and the bill of rights was
�completed by the end of my first term in case I should get TFSO'ed or
�otherwise not be at DEC anymore. 
    
    Why would this be a problem since you would/could still be a DCU member
    even though you aren't an employee.

Yes I could, but I'd be mostly concerned in learning a new job so that I
could continue to put food on my table and pay the heat bill. Sorry,
DCU takes a second seat to that. There are plenty of qualified members
able to be on the board, and many as committed as I am to openness.
Chris Gillett, for instance, would be an excellent choice because he was
as major an asset as I was last year in the campaign to return the control
of DCU to the membership.

From the minutes:
    
>III. FINANCIAL REPORTS
>Ms. Dawkins reviewed with the Board DCU's Financial Reports for the month
>of October 1992. She noted the following:

...

>- Negative cash balance due to outstanding treasurers checks. This is
>misleading due to $28 million DCU has invested at EasCorp.

	What is EasCorp and in what way has DCU invested $28 million
	there?  




>VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS

...

>c. Telephone Remittance Agreement
>Ms. Moran reviewed the Telephone Remittance Agreement update with the
>Board
>
>* It was moved by Mr. McEachin and seconded by Mr. Milbury to approve the
>update to DCU's Telephone Remittance Agreement with EasCorp as submitted.
>MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

	Telephone Remittance => somebody is getting paid over the phone.
Is DCU receiving a remittance from EasCorp, or is EasCorp receiving a 
remittance from DCU?


Just curious.  Thanks for the good work.
    

  Scott

RE: 638.13

    
>III. FINANCIAL REPORTS
>Ms. Dawkins reviewed with the Board DCU's Financial Reports for the month
>of October 1992. She noted the following:
...
>- Negative cash balance due to outstanding treasurers checks. This is
>misleading due to $28 million DCU has invested at EasCorp.

>	What is EasCorp and in what way has DCU invested $28 million
>	there?  


	EasCorp is a federally chartered and federally insured Corporate
	Credit Union which serves credit unions in Massachusetts by
 	providing liquidity, investment, and correspondent banking
	services.  We (DCU) use them primarily for investment services.
	Eascorp has a current "A" rating by Thomas Bank Watch, Inc
	and is routinely examined by the NCUA's special team of
	corporate examiners.	

	The $28M was invested in Money Market Funds.


>VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS

...

>c. Telephone Remittance Agreement
>Ms. Moran reviewed the Telephone Remittance Agreement update with the
>Board
>
>* It was moved by Mr. McEachin and seconded by Mr. Milbury to approve the
>update to DCU's Telephone Remittance Agreement with EasCorp as submitted.
>MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

>	Telephone Remittance => somebody is getting paid over the phone.
>Is DCU receiving a remittance from EasCorp, or is EasCorp receiving a 
>remittance from DCU?

	The Telephone Remittance Agreement allows EasCorp to make
	"Depository Transfers", with our authorization, to pass through
	a Debit to our remote branches' depository banks and in turn
	credit our account at EasCorp.
    

RE: 638.8


>Paul,

>I would like to know more about this 'battle'.

>Who fought you, and why did they insist that your 'interview' be published when
>you fought so hard againt it?

>Was it put up for a vote of the Board? What are the results of the vote?

>Or was this done during Executive Session?


	There was no 'battle' at any of the Board meetings.  Paul
	says he fought this off-line and I was not aware that there
	were any grievances.  Chalk it up to bad judgement on our
	part.  Back in November, we agreed to feature both Paul K. 
	and Tom M. because this was their only chance to speak to
	the entire membership before their terms were up and we 
 	wanted every board member to have that chance.

	Regards,


	Tanya 
	
    

    
    The issues concerning the people featured and the timing of the
    write-up (so near their re-election bid) were indeed raised.  I was
    also concerned with the way it would be perceived.  But as Paul
    indicated, others didn't feel it was such a big issue.  Please do
    not hold this against Paul since he has no control over what goes in
    the Network brochure and when.  This issue was settled last
    fall and the majority of the Board felt it was the responsibility of
    DCU management to have the final say in what goes in the Network
    brochure and when.
    
    As this illustrates, we haven't reached perfection quite yet. 
    

    
    RE: . 10
    
    Ed,  NCUA reports cannot be disclosed.  Sorry.  We don't make this
    rule, we just have to abide by it.  Please understand that these
    reports may or may not contain items which somebody may exploit for
    financial gain, at the expense of DCU.  There are some items though
    that could be shared without a problem.  But right now, it's not our
    (DCU or the Board) call, it's the NCUA.