Conference 7.286::dcu

Paul Kinzelman is up for re-election this year.

Going over the past board meeting minutes, it is my opinion that Paul has done
a great job trying to make DCU a real credit union again.  He has shown the
ability to fairly balance the wants/wishes/rights of the members and the needs
of the the credit union.

He deserves extra credit for going over the DCU bylaws with a fine-tooth comb
to ensure its compliance with NCUA bylaws.

I strongly trust him to "do the right thing", something sorely missing from the
previous Board.

Bob

I spoke to the DCU lawyer. He said that ballots will only be invalidated
if there's an obvious problem with the ballot like:
	not signed
	voted for more than two candidates
	unable to verify the signature matches a valid account

The ballots will *not* be invalidated for things like lack of date or lack
of account number if the signature can be read and verified against a
signature card.

>The ballots will *not* be invalidated for things like lack of date or lack
>of account number if the signature can be read and verified against a
>signature card.

    Then I guess I better make sure the badge number is clear because one
    can either read my signature or verify it. :-) It's normally quite
    unreadable. :-)

    			Alfred

    I've never heard of this person.  I don't recall reading anything he
    may have posted in here.
    
    According to his Ballot statement, he appears to embrace customer
    loyalty thru quality service, products that meet customers needs, and
    attention to detail.  This is something that I feel DCU is currently
    lacking.
    
    However, with the memory of the Mangone-era Board still fresh in my
    mind, I find it hard to trust anyone on a ballot statement alone.  I
    sure wish that he and the other candidates would have noted in this
    conference so that we could get a better feel for how he would benefit
    the membership, if elected.
    
    Bob

    I've never heard of this person.  I don't recall reading anything he
    may have posted in here.
    
    According to his Ballot statement, he wants to improve communications
    between DCU and the membership, offer the membership competitive rates
    on savings and loans, make DCU a place where members return over and
    over again for their financial needs, and last but not least, maintain
    conservative financial management to ensure a sound credit union.
    
    I applaud him for wanting to improve communications between DCU and the
    membership.  I also feel that the current Board has made improvements,
    that can only be described as dramatic, in DCU/member communications. 
    There is always room for improvement.
    
    Offering competitive rates on savings and loans will go a long way
    towards achiving the goal of making DCU the members financial
    institution of choice.
    
    However, with the memory of the Mangone-era Board still fresh in my
    mind, I find it hard to trust anyone on a ballot statement alone.  I
    sure wish that he and the other candidates would have noted in this
    conference so that we could get a better feel for how he would benefit
    the membership, if elected.
    
    Bob

    As his Ballot statement indicates, Chris has played a major roll in
    helping reclaim DCU for the members.  In my other contacts with him,
    (all electronic), his attitude and actions have been consistent with
    his actions during the Petition Drive and his noting in this
    conference.
    
    I feel that he would be a welcome addition to the DCU Board and would
    help ensure that membership interests are well represented.
    
    Bob

    I would like each of the Board candidates to express their opinion on
    the subjects below.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob
    
    
    What is your opinion of the current DCU concept of "relationship"?
    
    Should this concept be retained?
    
    If so, what, if any, changes would you like to make to this concept?
    
    What basic services should be available to all members at no charge,
    regardless of their location or relationship with DCU?
    
    The services available to members located within a reasonable driving
    distance of a DCU branch are different than those remotely located
    members.  The service needs of these two groups of members seems to
    also be different.  In some cases, this results in the remote members,
    in effect, subsidizing the local members.
    
    Due to these differing service needs, should the services made
    available to members at no charge, be different for the local members
    vs. the remote members?
    
    Should the charges for non-free services be different for the local
    members vs. the remote members?

    I wonder if we are going to see any reminders about the policy on
    solicitation.

    
    I wonder how much Digital has budgeted for this year's election
    mailing?   ;-)
    

    I'm wondering if Bob did anything to solicit responses to his questions
    in .9?
    
    Mark

re: .12

I sent mail to the two people that I know nothing about, asking them to join
us in the conference.  So far, no response.

As for the others, they know how to access this conference.

Bob

re .10:

Last year I was one of those asking for guidelines on what does and does
not constitute solicitation.  E.g., does talking about your qualifications
for office constitute solicitation in the minds of those who interpret
Digital policy?  My questions on the subject were not answered.  There was 
a LiveWire entry on the *ways* in which solicitation can be carried out, 
but I already knew that.  

In the absence of specific guidelines on what constitutes solicitation, I
take the attitude that "solicitation includes an action verb".  In other
words, "vote for me" is solicitation, but talking about your qualifications
or positions isn't.  Not that my attitude counts, but that's what I think.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

�"vote for me" is solicitation, 
    
    What about "vote for him/her"?

    
    .15: If you find a note in this string that says "vote for
    him/her", I'll support you in asking the moderator to delete it.
    

on the other hand, is it acceptable to say "I will vote for...."   ???

--Scott

    
    Conferences seem to generally agree that it appropriate to say "I will
    vote for this person..." or "I will give money to this charity...", and
    inappropriate to say "Please vote for this person..." or "Please give
    money to this charity..."
    

Hello DCU Noters.  My thanks to Bob Ainsley and Ward Clark for sending
me mail inviting me to participate in this conference on our Credit
Union.

I will be happy to answer questions here about my opinions and
background.

As a start, here are my thoughts on Bob Ainsley's questions from Note
647.9:

1.    What is your opinion of the current DCU concept of "relationship"?
      Should this concept be retained?
      If so, what, if any, changes would you like to make to this concept?
    
I think that the DCU-member "relationship" needs improvement in at
least two directions.  

First, the "commercial" part of the relationship needs strengthening. 
I have a Gold Visa from another bank due to fee issues.  I have faced
the "re-financing to get competitive rates" issue and almost taken my
mortgages elsewhere.  I'd like to see that part of the relationship
improve.

Second, the "personal" part of the relationship needs focus.  I grew
up in a small town in northern New Hampshire.  The same banker gave me
my first checking account and handled my loan for my first car, etc. 
While I know that this level of personal knowledge is part of "the
golden past", I think that there is room for improvement in managing
the relationship with a member based on his/her whole relationship
with the DCU, rather than on a transaction-by-transaction basis.  One
potential source for ideas is how the *better* Health Maintenance
Organizations (HMOs) manage to have a "personal doctor" for you and
still get the benefits of size, profitability and efficiency.  

2.    What basic services should be available to all members at no charge,
      regardless of their location or relationship with DCU?

Looking at my mail, I think that the competitive benchmark is
no-charge credit cards with reasonable interest rates and a grace
period when there is no debt carried over.

As a member, I like no-charge checking.  I don't know what the costs
of check processing are, and don't have a good view of what the
competitive benchmark is (having done no extensive research in
competitive institutions.) so I am not willing to say I would *never*
support fees for checking if the DCU's financial situation required
it.  What I will say is that I don't support fees for checking given
what I know.  If my opinion were to change, I would expect to explain
the reasons clearly and have a dialog with the DCU membership *well*
before any implementation.

Since these are the primary things I use or might use the DCU for,
this is what comes to mind.  Do you have additional suggestions?

3.    The services available to members located within a reasonable driving
      distance of a DCU branch are different than those remotely located
      members.  The service needs of these two groups of members seems to
      also be different.  In some cases, this results in the remote members,
      in effect, subsidizing the local members.
    
I agree that service availability is different.  I would guess that
the difference in service needs of remote members is based on
self-selection (i.e. people who want more service in remote areas
don't belong to the DCU, or have another provider for the other
services.)

I don't have facts on per-transaction charges to be able to know who
"subsidizes" whom; however, it is plausible that there is both a
greater cost and perhaps a greater transaction level associated with a
person with easy access to a DCU teller or ATM.

4.      Due to these differing service needs, should the services made
        available to members at no charge, be different for the local members
        vs. the remote members?

I honestly don't know.  I am willing to listen and learn on the topic. 
If I imagine that I were a remote member, I think that I'd like to
have a small number of "free" ATM transactions each month via the
CIRRUS, PLUS, etc. ATM networks.  (After all, as a nearby member, I
probably only use an actual DCU office twice a year; the ATM is my
banker unless I have an unusual request: loans or traveler's checks,
for example.)  What other breaks on non-free services should the
remote members get in your opinion?

5.      Should the charges for non-free services be different for the local
        members vs. the remote members?

It is worth exploring, both from a business and a member relationship
standpoint.  From a relationship perspective it would certainly make
me feel better about my credit union if it had such a program -- if it
didn't cause significant "nearby member" dissatisfaction by creating a
"subsidy" in the reverse direction and didn't cost so much to
administer that it was a risk to the DCU.

If there are large numbers of potential remote members to attract, a
business argument for a "remote member service profile" might work as
well.  To turn the question around, is there a service package that
would get those of you noters who are remote members to do a lot more
business with the DCU.  What would it take to bring in significant
numbers of new members?


I hope that this has given you a better view of my opinions and
thinking processes.

Regards, Marc Chardon

    re: .19
    
    Thank you very much for joining this conference.  To be perfectly
    honest, I really expected complete silence in response to my mail
    message to the folks who running for election, but didn't appear to
    note in this conference.  Your reply has been a very nice surprise.
    
    Bob

Bob Ainsley asked each candidate to reply to some questions.  Before
I answer them, let me apologize for not replying sooner.  Also, this
posting turned out to be longer than I had hoped.  Thanks for taking
the time to read throught it.

Regards,
./chris gillett

Q1: What is your opinion of the current DCU concept of "relationship"?
Q2: Should this concept be retained?
Q3: If so, what, if any, changes would you like to make to this concept?

This question can be interpreted a number of different ways.  I'm
assuming in my answer that Bob is referring to the notion of 
relationship banking.  If that interpretation is incorrect, please
set me straight and an additional answer will be supplied.
        
DCU appears, in my opinion, to be moving forward with a concept known
as "relationship banking."  As I understand the program, it seems
flawed in a number of ways.

In relationship banking, customers are rewarded for maintaining a
banking relationship with their institution.  These rewards come in
the forms of free or reduced charges for various services predicated
on the customers level of indebtedness to the institution or the
level of savings the customers invests.  In such a system, customers
might get free checking for maintaining minimum balances, or they
might get fee-free charge cards for maintaining a given level of
indebtedness.  Of course, the particulars are managed on an
institution-by-institution basis.

I used the word "customer" instead of "shareholder" in the above
intentionally.  I see relationship banking as a profit-making 
methodology designed to put money into the institution, and
ultimately, into the pocket of shareholders.  In a commercial 
banking environment where the organization is large, and it's
shareholders are not it's customers, relationship banking may
make perfect sense.  However, I'm not sure such a concept applies
in a credit union environment.   It doesn't fit well in my
philosophy of what a credit union should be.  The members are the
owners, and the owners are the customers.  

A credit union is, by definition, a group of individuals, bound
together by common factors, who come together to save and 
borrow.  I believe that a credit union is a cooperative where 
the emphasis should be on cost effectiveness in terms of 
products provided, and efficiency in terms of services offered.
The notion of relationship banking in this context makes little
sense.

Something else that concerns me about relationship banking is that
it allows management to define in rather narrow and highly specific
terms exactly the type of "desirable customer" they seek.  I believe
that DCU should be accessible to everyone in the Field of Membership,
and not to a chosen few who happen to fit well on some profile.

Q4: What basic services should be available to all members at no charge
    regardless of their location or relationship with DCU?

A member is a member regardless of geographic locale, and without
regard for their level of savings or indebtedness with DCU.  I believe
that the core services a member should expect at no charge include:

	1.  No fee basic checking account services

	2.  No fee interest-bearing savings

	3.  No fee credit cards to credit-qualified members

It can be argued (and accurately so...) that offering these services
to members at no cost will reduce DCU's profits.  My response to such
arguments is that free basic checking and savings encourage members
to stay at DCU, and that an individual is most likely to look to their
"home bank/CU" (ie, where they keep their checking and savings) when
seeking other products and services.  While there is some amount of
cost associated with a credit card program, that will be at least 
offset, and hopefully exceeded, by interest charged on revolving
debt. 

DCU has no choice but to offer these essential services at no 
cost to its membership.   There is sufficient competition in the
credit card business offering no fee (or tiny fee) cards to warrant
a change in DCU's policy.  DCU's members aren't stupid - they can,
and do, shop around.

Despite all the recent turmoil regarding loan fraud, questionable
real estate participation loans, Digital's shrinking employee 
population, the recession, and the "cash dash" away from the 
money markets and into the stock market, DCU continues to be
profitable.  We have made money every year for quite some time,
despite the fact that the membership hasn't seen a dividend in
the past few years.  DCU doesn't *need* revenue from fees on
basic services.  

As a board member, I will simply NOT vote for the imposition of
fees on basic checking and savings, and I will continue to oppose
fees on credit cards.
    
I feel that the issues of relationship banking, and fees on
basic services, are all tied to DCU management's relentless 
dedication to the capital ratio.  If there is sufficient interest,
I'll post something I wrote up a couple months back about the
evils of being dedicated to one ratio.   These answers are too
long already without adding that whole dimension!  :-)

Q5:  The services available to members located within a reasonable driving
    distance of a DCU branch are different than those remotely located
    members.  The service needs of these two groups of members seems to
    also be different.  In some cases, this results in the remote members,
    in effect, subsidizing the local members.
    
    Due to these differing service needs, should the services made
    available to members at no charge, be different for the local members
    vs. the remote members?

Clearly, remote members help pay for branch offices, branch staff, and
the accompanying services they provide.  I think it's possible to do
something to help even things out.

I support  the notion of no-fee ATM transactions for some number of 
transactions per month for persons living in areas not serviced by DCU 
branch offices.  Free access to an ATM machine gives the member access
to the most basic services provided by a branch office (that is, the
ability to withdraw money, check balances, and transfer funds).

One concern that I'm not sure how to address is the issue of handling
deposits by remote members.  Most ATM machines I've encountered recently
cannot handle deposits at all, and the ones that do seem only to be able
to collect deposits for the sponsoring institution.  Without the 
installation of DCU ATM machines in some areas, deposit services will
most probably have to continue by mail.

DCU clearly needs to continue to study the demographics of its 
membership base and look for opportunities to install ATM machines in
areas where it makes sense.  

Q6: Should the charges for non-free services be different for the local
    members vs. the remote members?

Absolutely not!  A fee structure which causes remote members to 
pay more than GMA members is blantantly discriminatory and wrong.
As I wrote earlier, a member is a member without regard to
locale.

>   <<< Note 647.22 by AOSG::GILLETT "Candidate for DCU Board of Directors" >>>
>                       -< Answers to Bob's Questions... >-
>
>Q6: Should the charges for non-free services be different for the local
>    members vs. the remote members?
>
>Absolutely not!  A fee structure which causes remote members to 
>pay more than GMA members is blantantly discriminatory and wrong.
>As I wrote earlier, a member is a member without regard to
>locale.
>
    I agree that fees shouldn't be *more* for remote members.  Perhaps Bob
    was asking about them being *less* than for GMA members.  I think that
    is some justification for making some fees lower for remote members for
    certain things -- for example, ATM fees on non-DCU tellers.  
    
    Do I read your reply correctly in assuming that you would support some
    fees being smaller for remote members?

Marc Chardon writes:
>
>    I agree that fees shouldn't be *more* for remote members.  Perhaps Bob
>    was asking about them being *less* than for GMA members.  I think that
>    is some justification for making some fees lower for remote members for
>    certain things -- for example, ATM fees on non-DCU tellers.  
>    
>    Do I read your reply correctly in assuming that you would support some
>    fees being smaller for remote members?

In order to provide an acceptable level of service for members who
reside in areas in which there are no branch offices, I support the
notion of providing some number of foreign ATM transactions without 
charge.  The goal here is not to reduce fees for remote members, but
rather to provide a means for all members to have access to some
set of basic functions without charge.  Note that in my previous posting
I also discussed the need for DCU to evaluate remote areas where
there are DCU members to determine if the installation of a DCU
ATM machine is warranted and feasible.

If the best, most cost effective solution for providing basic services
to remote members is to waive fees for some number of foreign ATM
transactions, then we should do it.  Aside from this, however, whatever
fees there are on other products (and as you can see from my previous
note I do not believe there should be many...) should be applied
equally to the membershp without regard for who they or where they
live.  Anything else would be discriminatory, in my view.

./chris

I received a mail message from Frank in response to my message asking him to
join us here.

Basically, he said he doesn't use Notes but would be willing to discuss any
questions I may have, via mail.

Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it in my book.  With the exception of one
other person, all the candidates have discussed DCU issues in this conference.

Bob

    Bob,
    
    Sorry to hear that the fellow "doesn't use Notes", but did he address
    any of the questions?  If so, do you have his permission to share them?
    My personal feeling is that all of the candidates are qualified and
    their participation in this conference is optional, although desirable.
    
    Mark

re: .26

I didn't send him the questions.  Feel free to extract my note and send it
to him if you wish.

Bob

    
    Did you find out if he uses computers?
    
    If he doesn't use Notes or computers
    I hope he at least uses money.  These could
    be considered helpful in directing a CU.
    
    cbc

    The guy said he'll be willing to answer questions by mail.  I didn't
    think Notes use was a prerequisite for helping in the management of a
    credit union.  Less than half of the current BoD regularly contribute
    in here.  I don't see what the problem is.

    
    The issue is communication.  Notes is one method of communicating.  But
    as all noters would agree, at times it might be described as a full
    contact sport.  Not everybody is comfortable with this potential and
    some choose not to participate.  Your communications are public record
    for all to see and read and sometimes throw back at you.
    
    But they may be very communicative via mail or the phone.  Those that 
    wish to know more about non-noting candidates should try mail and see 
    what they are comfortable with.  Also, ask if their responses might be
    posted here to spare them from being inundated with identical
    requests.
    
    But IMO the bottom line is to know who your voting for and where they stand
    on DCU issues that are important to you.

re: .29

It's real simple.  A majority of the candidates have spoken openly in this
forum.  A few have refused.  I have to wonder why?  How do I know that a
candidate isn't telling each person what they want to hear, in mail?  You can't
do that in Notes.  I'm not implying that any of the candidates is doing such a
thing.  Are these non-noting candidates afraid to go into more detail than the
ballot write-up?  Why would they want to answer some of the same questions
over-and-over in mail when they could be answered once in Notes?  How is this
refusal to use Notes in line with their stated desire to improve communications
with the membership?  Have they forgotten the lessons of the ousted BoD?

Bob

    "tongue in cheek" or not, some of the replies here are acerbic.  It's
    no wonder that someone would decide not to open up in this debating
    forum!
    
    Mark

    DCU notes is no place for wimps.  Neither is the BoD.  Though I don't
    regard participation in notes as requisite, participation in notes is
    hard evidence of attributes that I look for in a Board member.
    
    Steve

Folks, this last bit of candidate-bashing is inappropriate without more data.
Several have jumped to the conclusion that he has something to hide.  It is
entirely possible that he has no access to notes (there definitely ARE people
in the company in this boat) or that his job is such that he's never had the
need or opportunity to learn notes and believes it is not in the company's
best interest to expend the time doing so.  Both are completely defensible
circumstances which are nearly as uncommon as some would like to believe.

His willingness to discuss via Email said to me, at first reading, that he
fell into one of these categories.  Any presumption of other motivation is
irresponsible without further investigation of the circumstances.

re: .34

I did NOT accuse anyone of having something to hide.  I simply said that one
could interpret it that way.  After the way the ousted BoD behaved, I expect
any BoD candidate to bend over backwards to communicate with as many members
in as many forums as possible.

If you disagree, that's fine.  However, there appear to be other well-qualified
candidates who are willing to go that extra mile to ensure good communication
with the membership.  Those are the candidates that will get my vote.

Bob

�I did NOT accuse anyone of having something to hide.  I simply said that one
�could interpret it that way.  
    
    And noone accused the DCU of making preferential loans to Mangone...
    
�However, there appear to be other well-qualified
�candidates who are willing to go that extra mile to ensure good communication
�with the membership.  
    
    Sounds like a quest for style over substance to me.

IMHO, refusal or inability to participate in notes does not
mean a particular person is unfit for any particular job.

For that matter, there *are* folks who work for the Company
who have no idea how to use computers.  There contribution
to the success of Digital is still valuable.

I think what got many of us "up in arms" over the last BoD
was there willingness to participate when it suited their
needs (witness the infamous "Board Responds..." memo just
prior to the special meeting), and their unwillingness to
participate when it suited their needs.  That's a far different
type of behavior than someone who simply does not know how
to use notes, or does not have the necessary enabling technology
on their desktop.

Just my opinion...
./chris

re: .36
    
>    And noone accused the DCU of making preferential loans to Mangone...

Since I did such an obviously horrible job of making my point, would you please
show me how I should have done it.

>    Sounds like a quest for style over substance to me.

If you consider communicating with as wide an audience as possible via Notes,
to be style rather than substance, why do you participate in this conference?

Bob

Now that the flames have died down... I encourage someone to mail the
questions to the candidate and ask if the responses can be posted here.

I see no need for every BoD member to be an active notes user.  I do
feel that it is essential for BoD members to be willing to commit their 
opinions to writing and have them distributed openly.  Writing a mail
message answer with permission to forward it satisfies that requirement.

Others may not see this as important, or might argue that some are more
comfortable with voice communication and we should not expect them to
use written forms of communication.  However, I have suffered in various
ways from the fact that phone conversations and one-on-one meetings lack
any record.  I feel that insisting on a public record of the opinions of
candidates (and the votes and actions of the sitting board members) is 
nothing more than basic prudence -- and that offering a public record
of opinions and actions is no more than what the voters deserve.

So: will someone mail off the questions and see what responce is received?
I regret that I cannot commit the time to do this myself.

	Enjoy,
	Larry