Conference 7.286::dcu

>    We do not have any by-law changes   how long has it been?

	I've talked to a couple of BoD members. All indicate that the hold up
	is with NCUA not DCU. It's hard to push the Feds.


			Alfred

In the past, Paul Kinzelman drove the process of getting the minutes
posted publicly.  Now that he's no longer a Digital employee, he
can't do that anymore.  Could someone else on the board *please*
take up the slack and start posting meeting minutes again?  We'd
really appreciate it!  

	Thanks,
	Larry

    According to the write up in "NETWORK" Phil is the secretary for the
    new fiscal year. Hopefully he'll get the minutes in here. Though I
    think he's got a new job that's keeping him a little busy.

    			Alfred

    
    Yes, I will be posting the minutes of Board meetings just as soon as
    they are made available to me.  I have already worked out the process
    and am awaiting the first ones to post.  Please remember that they must
    be approved before being posted and that means at least 5-6 weeks lag time.
    
    I will also be looking into expanding DCU communications via VTX.  I
    had made contact with them but the person I dealt with was just
    recently TFSOed.  I fear they may not be up to additional workload.
    

    
    RE: .5
    
    Ed, to tell the truth, I didn't reply to any of your other "points"
    because they have either already been answered (some repeatedly) or
    your "point" was non-existent to me.
    
    .5>The last board minutes we were priviliaged to see were the December
    .5>ones.  That kinda fails the 5-6 weeks lag time?
    
    I am only responsible for the ones since April.  I'm sure Paul was extremely
    busy since the beginning of the year with some other projects he had
    (DEC) as well as his new job search and relocation.  Believe it or not,
    Directors also have other duties and responsibilities that sometimes do
    take priority over things such as posting minutes.  You could have
    always gotten them from a branch or by calling DCU and requesting a
    copy.  The notes file is NOT the only point of distribution.    
    
>    Its also nice to take one point out of the base note and respond.
>    Care to comment on the other issues?
    
    Like I said, I've commented before Ed but I guess you just don't like
    some of the answers because you just keep asking the same questions and
    hope the answers are different.
        
>    O We do not have any by-law changes   how long has it been?
    
    For the umptenth time, the bylaws were PASSED by the Board in late
    January, 1993.  They have been in the hands of the NCUA since then. 
    What don't you understand about this?  The federal bureaucracy moves at
    its own pace.  Do you think you can make them move faster?
        
>    O We STILL have an information protection policy, one that requires a
>    'business reason' for requests.
    
    I don't think so Ed.  If any of your requests for information have been
    denied then please state specifics here.  I will personally look into
    any denial of information to members (non-confidential of course).
    
>    O WHAT ARE THEIR [BOD]  GOALS FOR THE YEAR?   
    
    If you want a statement from the Board as a whole then I suggest you
    send mail to Lisa Demauro-Ross (LEDS::ROSS).  I cannot speak for the
    entire Board.
    
.1>I don't have a branch at my facility
.1>but when visiting LKG, I noticed it posted.  I *thought* that that
.1>was going to be eliminated.
    
    I have no idea what you're talking about here.  Are you saying
    there is a listing somewhere that says there is a branch somewhere but
    it has been closed down?  Please rephrase what you're asking.
    
.1>    Where is the BOD?  Can they answer these points?  AND WHAT ARE THEIR
.1>    GOALS FOR THE YEAR?
    
    I am here (NOTES).  A few others might also be.  Some are not.  We can
    always be reached by e-mail.  I respond to *ALL* e-mail from DCU
    members.  I have yet to receive any from you.
    
    We have many goals for the year, and years ahead.  Care to narrow your
    question down a bit?
    
.1>    Is it time to go to sleeep again and ignor the bod?  Am I foolish that
.1>    I should expect them to answer?   time in job=complacency?
    
    Ed, I don't expect you to go back to sleep and ignore the Board or DCU. 
    But at the same time, I get the  distinct impression that there is
    nothing I (or we) could do or say that would possibly satisfy you.
    
.1>    I think its really time to put my money into a piggy bank.  It may draw
.1>    more interest!
    
    Yes, interest rates are down, EVERYWHERE.  Obviously DCU can't pay you
    7% on your savings when we can only charge that much for a car loan in
    some cases.  Could you state some specifics of where DCU is
    significantly lower than another institution?
    
    Phil

    Ed,

    	I think it's time you ran for BoD. Obviously no one else can or
    will do the job as you think it should be done. You can run for Phil's
    seat. Or one of the others up at the next election. If the nominating
    committee will not nominate you I'll help get petitions signed. But
    I'll still vote for Phil if he runs.

    			Alfred

    >    as to love it or run for it popularity contest Alfred suggests, I
>    *thought* this was a public forum we could ask questions in.

    Hey, no one said "don't ask questions." I just suggested that running
    for election and winning was an alternative to moaning all the time.
    Phil did it. So did I though I lost big time. But maybe you'll have
    better luck.

    			Alfred

    
    RE: .8
        
>    Excusse me if this was discussed elsewhere:  When I went by the LKG
>    branch, the information protection policy was posted.  I don't remember
>    word for word, but it went similiar to this:  you can get minutes,
>    auditors notes, monthly condition from the branch......
>    for other information, put it in writing complete with 'business
>    reason', 25cents per page.....
    
>    I thought it was a goal to get rid of this?  All I can see done is
>    provide some information.  I don't know what else is needed today.
>    I know some information is confidential.  What I'd like to see is
>    for them to state what information [types/catogories] can't be
>    provided.
    
    I would NEVER have known this was the subject given your original note. 
    
    I might also suggest if you want some information from DCU that you
    simply ask for it.  If it is not supplied then please let me know and I
    will be glad to look into the reasons.  It is completely unrealistic to
    expect a list of everything excluded and/or included.  Each request
    must be evaluated individually.  At the same time the credit union
    shouldn't have to provide complete copies of NCUA books that you can
    order from the government (and will have to pay for).
    
>    GOALS?  I would hope the BOD as a whole has some goals, and is not
>    aimlessly wandering month to month.  Perhaps that was asking too much.
    
    Sorry, Ed.  We have goals and are not wandering aimlessly through the
    desert.  We have a strategic plan in place that I will gladly post if
    you don't have it.  Of course individual Directors might have goals and
    beliefs that other Directors don't share so they may not be part of the
    approved plan.  Please keep that in mind.  Only what is approved by a
    majority of the Board becomes "the plan".  That's why it is very
    important that you send mail or correspond with each Director.  Only
    then will you get a feel for where everybody is coming from.
    
>    If there was a question thats been answered before, again excuss me.
>    a simple pointer would have been enough.
    
    I believe only a few weeks ago you asked about the bylaws and you were
    given an answer.  Nothing has changed since then.  When WE hear
    something, you'll hear something.  I told you I have not forgotten
    about them.  But there is only so much we can do at this point.  I
    don't like it anymore than you do!
    
    >as to love it or run for it popularity contest alfred suggests, I
>    *thought* this was a public forum we could ask questions in.
>    If its not, excuss me again, I'll keep my mouth shut.  
    
    Ed, nobody is saying to shut up, but please ask a question in a way
    that we know what you are talking about.  The repeated questioning about
    the bylaws 2-3 weeks after you last asked sort of stuck in the ol'craw.
    Sorry if my reply sounded grumpy but I guess I'm in a grumpy mood
    today.  It's my birthday and I don't like getting older!
    
    >Nothings changed. the old board suggested that.
>    ed
    
    Oivay!  If you don't think anything has changed then what
    I said is true.  There is nothing anybody can do or say that would
    please you.  Plenty has changed.  Some things have not but look at what
    hasn't and try to ascertain the reasons for it.  Potshot statements
    like the one above won't hold water with very many people IMO.
    
    But I do wish all other DCU members remain as involved and vigilante as
    you are Ed.  I'd much rather explain things on a daily basis and get
    feedback than fall out of touch and have to explain a catastrophe once 
    a decade.  I might not always agree with what you say Ed but I will
    defend your right to say it and do appreciate your active interest in DCU. 
    
    
    Phil
    
    P.S. Send me some mail sometime!

>    asking questions is moaning?

	It's not the "what" so much as the "how" you go about things.

			Alfred

RE: .10

Phil --

Thanks for trying to be complete and forthright and polite and all of those
other good qualities.  There's way too much bitching and moaning still going
on in this conference and it's nice to see an attempt to respond to it.

That said, however, I have to come to the defense of the basenote's author:

In .10 you say:
+>    I thought it was a goal to get rid of this?  All I can see done is
+>    provide some information.  I don't know what else is needed today.
+>    I know some information is confidential.  What I'd like to see is
+>    for them to state what information [types/catogories] can't be
+>    provided.
+    
+    I would NEVER have known this was the subject given your original note. 

I'm not a clairvoyant or otherwise adept at reading between the lines but it
was quite clear to me what he was asking in his initial question.  In fact,
I was quite surprised to discover that it was unclear to anyone.  

To all:
As has been pointed out in the conference more times than I care to count,
English is an imprecise language.  It is VERY difficult to write clearly and
unambiguously at all times.  I do not sincerely believe that any of us feel
the need for a "bunker mentality" but such an attitude seems to flare over
and over again here.  Perhaps if we each took a bit more time to reread our
postings prior to pressing <CTRL/Z> (reading aloud works wonders, even if it
annoys your coworkers) and invested a touch more time in trying to understand
an imperfectly written note, we'd succeed in communicating more and flaming
less.  At least where I work, there's more than enough to be stressed out about
without adding to the stress level in a non-work conference such as this one.

Gee, while I was writing the postscript to .13, I thought I was perhaps 
preaching a bit too much.  Given the replies that came in while I was writing
it, maybe I wasn't.  C'mon folks, let's pay attention to others' feelings and
a little less attention to our own parochial viewpoints.

    Ask a question of the old BoD and it was a witch hunt.  Ask a question
    of the new BoD and it's bitching a moaning.

    
    RE: .13
    
    When I said I didn't understand what he was asking I was referring to
    an earlier reply.  After Ed restated what he was asking about, now when
    I go back and re-read the original it makes sense.  I agree with you
    that people should re-read and edit their replies before posting to
    make sure it conveys exactly what they are trying say or ask.  I
    certainly do this.
    
    Now let's drop this "moaning and bitching" rathole.  It's ridiculous. 
    Let's remain focused on the questions and issues (whatever they are).
    Guess it's been so quiet in here lately people are getting antsy or
    worried.  Don't worry, I'm sure something to talk about will happen soon.  
    
    
    RE: Macneal
    
    (as he gets up and dusts off the clothing)
    
    Thank's for that "drive-by noting"!  Haven't heard (a shot) from you in
    a while and I was worried.  The aim must be getting a tad rusty. 
    ;-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)  Just gotta keep a sense of humor these days.
    

    
>    gee, for once I have to agree with MacNeal.  depends on who asks.
    
    Ed, "who" has nothing to do with it.  "how" does.  I believe Alfred
    pointed that out.  Also, repeatedly asking the same questions because
    you don't like or believe the answers does tend to get old quite
    quickly.  Again, have you tried communicating with Board members via
    e-mail?  Have you taken the time to draft a letter to raise your
    concerns?  I have yet to receive anything.  Like I said, none go
    unanswered (that are sent to me).  If you're ever around TAY or MKO we
    could do lunch sometime.
    
>    I still think its hard to believe a board does not set goals for the
>    year.
    
    Ed, I've already told you we do set goals, long term goals.  It's
    called a strategic plan.  There are *many* other smaller short term
    goals and issues along the way also.  
	    
>    I worry when I see a information protection policy IN PLACE YET.
>    I thought we battled that before.  Sure, I haven't tryed to get
>    something and been denied.  I'm not out to test DCU.  Or send them
>    fishing for something not needed.  But it would be comforting to 
>    know that if I wanted something and that something wasn't confidential
>    to another person or dec, then I could get it.  When I said that
>    nothing's changed, thats what I meant.  Phil may be there today to
>    help if someone were denied, but how about 5 years from now?  Do we
>    have to go throught the fight again, or can't we have something
>    LONG LASTING for the members?
    
    The facts of the matter are that a Board could change WHATEVER it
    wanted to, when it wanted to change it (with NCUA approval).  We
    witnessed that a few years back with the midnight changing of the
    special meeting bylaw.  And right now we are awaiting approval to
    restrict Board changes to membership rights without the consent of the
    membership.  You must understand that this is a new concept to the NCUA
    and its belief that the Board runs the show, period.  Change is
    difficult, especially when you're talking about a governmental agency
    and its ways.
    
    As for the Information Policy, I think you just can't point to it and
    say it's bad just because you THINK its bad.  If you have specific
    suggestions for improving it based upon experience then please share
    your suggestions with us.
    
>    I'm sorry, I don't buy beuracry [sp] to blame for the delay in by law
>    changes nor more than I believe computer error for billing delays when
>    that is given as an excuss.  Who in DCU is in charge of working with
>    the NCAA on approving it?  anyone watching?
    
    I give up Ed.  Yes, you're right.  We are lying to you and all the
    membership about the bylaws changes and the process they must undergo.
    We just pretended to pass all the changes in January.  riiiippp (sound
    of my last few hairs biting the dust)
    
    The DCU General Counsel has been communicating with the NCUA about the
    proposed changes.  Both Paul and myself have been on top of the status
    with calls to DCU's lawyer.  We have been told that something should be
    issued soon, but we still don't know exactly when.  But none of this
    matters because you don't believe it is happening.
    
>    the membership was being considered.  I could never trust a supervisory
>    committee trained by the one in charge to be fully taught to watch over
>    the one in charge.  I'm sure the former prez would have loved to teach
>    a supervisory committee if we'd give him a second chance. 
    
    Is this a new issue?  Or do you mean Board and not Supervisory Comm? 
    Do you think the Supervisory Comm. is not competent and/or doing their 
    job?  I receive Supervisory Comm material regularly and I assure you
    they are doing well and keeping DCU's internal auditor VERY busy.  As a
    Director it is one of my responsibilities to ensure that we have a
    functioning Supervisory Comm.
    

�Again, have you tried communicating with Board members via
�    e-mail?  
    
    What happened to more communication and more use of the notesfile by
    Real Choices board candidates/members?
    
    

    
>    What happened to more communication and more use of the notesfile by
>    Real Choices board candidates/members?
    
    Are you saying there isn't more than the previous Board?  If you do
    then you're probably the only one.  Also, why do you think it is only 
    the "Real Choices board candidates/members" responsibility to 
    communicate?  You know, there really isn't a 1 line limit to note
    replies Keith.  Why not mix in some opinions and suggestions with your
    one-line driveby-notes?
    
    
RE: .20
    
    >I don't use email for topics that may be of general interest.  I guess
    >I was wrong, I'm the only interested party.  
    
    That's a valid point Ed, but if some Board members don't note then how
    are you going to know where THEY stand on issues, etc.?  I'll gladly
    post my positions here but not everybody on the Board wishes to do the
    same.
    
    >Phil, perhaps you should reread your 300.1 entry regarding IPP.
    
    Ed, perhaps you should realize I am one of seven Directors and do not
    have the ability to make unilateral decisions concerning DCU policy and
    direction.  Trust me when I say that I do not agree with some past 
    decisions made by a majority of the Board, but that's the system.  If
    people don't like the decisions being made then they need to remove the 
    Directors making those decisions either by special meeting or general 
    election.
    
 >   It sounds like the bod has elected new officers?  Phil replaced Paul?
 >   at the risk of annoying anyone, or repeating myself, dare I ask if
 >   any other changes to the bod were made?
    
    No other changes were made.  Since Paul is on the west coast now, he
    didn't think he could be effective as Secretary.  Also, many times
    signatures are required of the Secretary.  I believe the election
    results were posted and the new officers listed in Network but don't
    quote me on that.
    
>    there are ways to stimulate conversation/provide information.  I
>    understand fustration if information was already provided, however
>    rather than caustic replies, pointers would work wonders.
>    perhaps Phil, you might taste some of the fustration the old bod felt?
    
    Sorry Ed, I just DON'T have the time or desire to go back thru this
    conference to provide you with pointers.  If you want info, you're just
    going to have to check for it yourself (before posting hopefully).  And
    I'm not feeling the same frustration as the old Board because I am NOT
    the old Board.  But for you to use the word caustic on my replies is a
    bit of irony after some of your recent replies.  I just don't think
    some of your statements are warranted based upon facts.  I'm sure you
    think they are and I'm trying answer whatever questions you have as
    best I can.
    
>    I almost hate to ask the next question:
>    
>    If there is some assets that Mangone has that can be taken, does the 
>    company that paid the performance bond on him get first crack at it?
>    for example, with these HMOs some of us are pushed into, if one suffers
>    from a car accident, your waive your right to sue the responsible party
>    for coverage for hmo paid services.  Under our old insurnace [JH],
>    we could have sued for med costs and kept the money.
>    and [I know, asked before] has anyone really done a study that we're
>    not throwing away money trying to pursue him?  lawyer cost>recoverable?
>    I'd hate to see our money wasted on principles, and if the bond company
>    can take its money first, I really doubt there's a whole bunch of money
>    left over.
>    ok, just a minute, let me put on my sunglasses to the replies don't
>    burn my eyes.
    
    Yes there is a pecking order for collection of money (if any is found
    or given back), but I have never heard that the bonding company is high
    in the order.  The government (NCUA) is in there somewhere based upon
    their losses at Barnstable.  Also recoveries can sometimes be
    percentage based when parties share the legal costs of recovery.
    
    Yes, cost and benefit analysis is done before action is taken.  But
    there are still many unknowns and variables in the mix that make any
    decision a tough one.  You try your best based on what facts you know
    at the time.  It's never a certainty that you have made the "right"
    decision.  Sometimes, the situation changes and you might want to cut
    your losses so this MUST be an on-going process.
    

�    Are you saying there isn't more than the previous Board?  
    
    No, just that there doesn't seem to be as much as promised and that
    comments like Call the Hotline or send E-mail do not seem to be in the
    spirit of the campaign promises.
    
�Also, why do you think it is only 
�    the "Real Choices board candidates/members" responsibility to 
�    communicate?  
    
    I don't, but they were the ones who made the promise.
    
�You know, there really isn't a 1 line limit to note
�    replies Keith.  Why not mix in some opinions and suggestions with your
�    one-line driveby-notes?
    
     I know and have done so in the past but quickly discovered it wasn't
    worth it.

    Over the last several months I'd talked to and exchanged mail with
    all of the "real choices" candidates who won (and a couple who lost
    :-)). I have been given helpful answers everytime. That doesn't mean
    that the BoD people have done everything for me. A number of times I
    was given pointers to people at DCU. Those people have, for the most
    part, been very helpful. When I did seem to run into a wall a Board
    member, Paul Kinzelman, spoke to someone and my "wall" vanished. I
    fully believe that any of the other Board members would have done the
    same.

    I don't know what other people expected but I'm getting what I
    expected. And then some. If I wasn't I'd be complaining. But I expected
    the Real Choices to fix DCU so that calling the hotline would work. And
    it does for me. I expected that they'd be busy and that notes might not
    get answered but that anything important to send Email or call about
    would get a reply. And that's what's happened for me.

    I've been on boards and committees myself. And had to deal with
    government regulators. Frankly, I'm inpressed with how much has already
    been done. Things take time in the real world outside of Notes.
    
    			Alfred

    RE: .22
    
�    Are you saying there isn't more than the previous Board?  
>>    
>>    No, just that there doesn't seem to be as much as promised and that
>>    comments like Call the Hotline or send E-mail do not seem to be in the
>>    spirit of the campaign promises.
    
    OK, so Directors are now supposed to provide information that the
    Hotline is capable of providing?  Sorry, NMJ (not-my-job).  The
    suggestion of e-mail was made to communicate with Directors who don't
    note.  Some Directors don't want to participate (as you don't seem to
    want to) in notes.  Mail is probably a better method of communicating
    with them.  We, as, a Board have communicated to the membership more
    than ever.  Info in Network, Board Memos, posting of minutes, minutes
    at the branches, special mailings, etc.  Not enough for you Keith?  Do
    you expect weekly phone calls from us?  8-)    
    
�Also, why do you think it is only 
�    the "Real Choices board candidates/members" responsibility to 
�    communicate?  
>>    
>>    I don't, but they were the ones who made the promise.
    
    And it's a promise that has been kept as far as I can tell.  When there
    is new and important information to communicate to the membership then
    it is communicated.  But I guess it's best to not promise to
    communicate, and then not communicate, instead of promising to
    communicate, and maybe fall a bit short?  Very bad reasoning IMO Keith.
        
�You know, there really isn't a 1 line limit to note
�    replies Keith.  Why not mix in some opinions and suggestions with your
�    one-line driveby-notes?
>>    
>>     I know and have done so in the past but quickly discovered it wasn't
>>    worth it.

    And your one-line driveby potshots are worth it to you?  I challenge
    you to contribute something meaningful to the discussions in here.  If
    you can't take the heat, then you should definitely stay out of the
    kitchen.  But at the same time, I don't think it very productive or
    fair to just lob your little one-liners and then run.  Too bad, I'm
    sure you'd have something to contribute.  But notes (and DCU notes in
    particular) is not for the faint(sp?) of heart.
    
    But I never expected to be able to please everybody, least of all
    ardent supporters of the old Board.  Maybe we should just go back to
    the good old days of dead silence and arrogance?  IMO, we may not be
    communciating perfectly, but we're trying and doing more than anybody
    has ever done before.  Do you disagree with that statement?
    

�The
�    suggestion of e-mail was made to communicate with Directors who don't
�    note.  Some Directors don't want to participate (as you don't seem to
�    want to) in notes.  
    
    Funny, but this explanation wasn't good enough for you in the past. 
    Besides, one of the original questions was why the Meeting Minutes were
    no longer being posted.  Instead of a courteous answer along the lines
    of we are adjusting to Paul Kinzelman moving to the West coast we get
    very abrupt, stop bothering me, go to a branch type responses.
    
�    And it's a promise that has been kept as far as I can tell.  When there
�    is new and important information to communicate to the membership then
�    it is communicated.  
    
    Like requests for input on Bylaw changes after they've been decided on
    and a few short days before they've been submitted to the NCUA?  Like
    requests to fill a spot on a committee only being posted in the
    notesfile?  Like a board memo to the members saying only members can
    use the the DCU?
    
�I challenge
�    you to contribute something meaningful to the discussions in here.  
    
    Like I said, not worth it.  I don't think I could live up to your
    definition of "meaningful" regardless of quantity.
    
�If
�    you can't take the heat, then you should definitely stay out of the
�    kitchen.  
    
    Excuse me?  I've been in here taking the heat for quite some time now.
    
�    But I never expected to be able to please everybody, least of all
�    ardent supporters of the old Board.  
    
    Exuse me again, but "ardent supporter of the old Board?".  I think not. 
    
    
�Maybe we should just go back to
�    the good old days of dead silence and arrogance?  
    
    Not at all, but I don't like the trend of the good new days of
    "communication" and arrogance.
    
�But I guess it's best to not promise to
�    communicate, and then not communicate, instead of promising to
�    communicate, and maybe fall a bit short?  Very bad reasoning IMO Keith.
    
    And it's best not to point out wehre promises are falling short because
    this is the New board and they are doing the best they can while
    working full time so we should continue to cut them some slack.
    
    

    
	RE: .25
    
    >    Funny, but this explanation wasn't good enough for you in the past. 

	My pointing out that e-mail can be used to communicate with 
	Directors is in no way an endorsement that that is how all
	communication should be done.  Both Paul and I do/have participated 
	in this conference because we know how and are comfortable with
	notes.  Personally, I wish all Directors would participate on a regular
	basis but nobody can force people to do it.  Maybe you should send mail 
	to non-noting Directors to indicate that they should participate?

>    Besides, one of the original questions was why the Meeting Minutes were
>    no longer being posted.  Instead of a courteous answer along the lines
>    of we are adjusting to Paul Kinzelman moving to the West coast we get
>    very abrupt, stop bothering me, go to a branch type responses.

	Adjusting to Paul's move to the west coast has nothing to do with it.
	I just today received the minutes in postable form (with only slight 
	edit).  They will be posted tonight for your enjoyment.

	As for your portrayal of my replies, I will only respond with what 
	I actually wrote and let readers decide if your portrayal is accurate.
	Pointing out other avenues of access to the minutes is now a brush off?
	We make them available in multiple places so people don't have to rely
	on *1* way of getting them.  My mistake for pointing out a single
	phone call could have had minutes sent out to a members home address.
	Just another one of our lapses of communication, right?

.4>    Yes, I will be posting the minutes of Board meetings just as soon as
.4>    they are made available to me.  I have already worked out the process
.4>    and am awaiting the first ones to post.  Please remember that they must
.4>    be approved before being posted and that means at least 5-6 weeks lag time.

.6>    I am only responsible for the ones since April.  I'm sure Paul was extremely
.6>    busy since the beginning of the year with some other projects he had
.6>    (DEC) as well as his new job search and relocation.  Believe it or not,
.6>    Directors also have other duties and responsibilities that sometimes do
.6>    take priority over things such as posting minutes.  You could have
.6>    always gotten them from a branch or by calling DCU and requesting a
.6>    copy.  The notes file is NOT the only point of distribution.    
    

>    Like requests for input on Bylaw changes after they've been decided on
>    and a few short days before they've been submitted to the NCUA?  Like
>    requests to fill a spot on a committee only being posted in the
>    notesfile?  Like a board memo to the members saying only members can
>    use the the DCU?

	Yes, not much time was allowed there.  Then again the process is 
	already taking much longer than some think is required.  Should we add
	another 3 month period of feedback for the membership?  Again, you
	pot-shot but offer no suggestion.

	I was not at all pleased with the process used to fill the Supervisory
	Comm. position either.  It is on the agenda of this month's Board
	meeting and I have very specific recommendations.  Where are yours
	so that I may add them for consideration?  I was not personally 
	responsible for the process and posted the notice here on my own
	initiative.  I would have liked to see the entire membership notified
	but again, that is not my call.  As a Board member I do not unilaterally
	have access to DCU publications or notification mechanisms.

	As for only members using DCU, you'll have to fight that one out with
	the NCUA.  They told us to stop doing it.  And they're right IMO.  
	Otherwise we're no different than a bank.
    
>    Like I said, not worth it.  I don't think I could live up to your
>    definition of "meaningful" regardless of quantity.

	Well, *anything* would be better than these "drive-by replies"
	(copyright pending).  Notes is supposed to be a discussion, not
	a pot-shot contest.  People post their opinions, discuss them, defend 
	them, explain them.  Ideas come out.  Understanding might even occur.
	Sometimes miracles occur and people do change they mind!  But your 
	replies offer none of those possibilities.  But if you are easily 
	offended then I can understand your hesitation.  However, do you think 
	it fair to pot-shot others?

>    Excuse me?  I've been in here taking the heat for quite some time now.

	I think the heat you've taken is due more to your style.  Your
	opinions have been almost non-existent.  
    
>    Exuse me again, but "ardent supporter of the old Board?".  I think not. 

	Whatever you say. 
    
>    Not at all, but I don't like the trend of the good new days of
>    "communication" and arrogance.

	And just what is the "trend of the good new days?"?  As for arrogance,
	I should be completely ignoring you and Ed by past Board standards
	yet I feel it important to respond.  I guess you don't appreciate 
	me calling you on your style but it really has gotten old.  I'd welcome
	your input, suggestions and opinions.  Your never-ending one-line 
	potshots we can all live without.  Sorry, I call them as I see them.
    
>    And it's best not to point out wehre promises are falling short because
>    this is the New board and they are doing the best they can while
>    working full time so we should continue to cut them some slack.

	Anybody can post where they think we as a Board are falling short.
	There is always room for improvement.  But no matter how much we
	do there will always be somebody who we cannot please. That's life.
	But when you post shortcomings, back it up with specifics and 
	suggestions for improvement.  This conference has unfortunately gained
	a reputation of a bitching grounds because there is too much flaming
	and not enough real discussion and suggestions.  A primary reason
	I ran for the Board was because I felt I could contribute ideas on
	how things could be changed for the better.  It's just not enough 
	to bitch and moan.  It accomplishes *nothing*.  If you care enough, 
	then you get involved and try to help change things.  And YOU can help
	too by contributing ideas, suggestions and opinions.
    

�Personally, I wish all Directors would participate on a regular
�	basis but nobody can force people to do it.  Maybe you should send mail 
�	to non-noting Directors to indicate that they should participate?
    
    This was one of your priorities, not mine.
    
�	As for your portrayal of my replies, I will only respond with what 
�	I actually wrote and let readers decide if your portrayal is accurate.
    
    Sure, post the second reply.  The first one was most certainly a brush
    off.
    
�	Pointing out other avenues of access to the minutes is now a brush off?
    
    You ran into the problem of making something unavailable through a
    source that used to be available.  You should expect some flak for
    that.
    
�	Yes, not much time was allowed there.  Then again the process is 
�	already taking much longer than some think is required.  Should we add
�	another 3 month period of feedback for the membership?  Again, you
�	pot-shot but offer no suggestion.
    
    At the time I offered suggestions, but they were ignored.  Paul felt
    that due to personal reasons he had to get it to the NCUA quickly.
    
�	I was not at all pleased with the process used to fill the Supervisory
�	Comm. position either.  It is on the agenda of this month's Board
�	meeting and I have very specific recommendations.  Where are yours
�	so that I may add them for consideration?  I was not personally 
�	responsible for the process and posted the notice here on my own
�	initiative.  I would have liked to see the entire membership notified
�	but again, that is not my call.  As a Board member I do not unilaterally
�	have access to DCU publications or notification mechanisms.
    
    I offered suggestions at the time and was once again attacked.
    
�	As for only members using DCU, you'll have to fight that one out with
�	the NCUA.  They told us to stop doing it.  And they're right IMO.  
�	Otherwise we're no different than a bank.
    
    You missed my point.  As I said when the issue first came up and board
    members were patting themselves on the back about yet another example
    of "more communication", I didn't see much point in telling the folks
    who were already members that non-members could not use the DCU.  This
    would have been much more appropriate in a DEC publication.
    
�	Well, *anything* would be better than these "drive-by replies"
�	(copyright pending).  Notes is supposed to be a discussion, not
�	a pot-shot contest.  
    
    I seem to get more of a response from these.  My suggestions are
    dismissed as coming from an Old Board supporter.  Instead of attacking
    my style, why not address the issues?  Then again, I guess that's what
    helped you get on the board.
    
�However, do you think 
�	it fair to pot-shot others?
    
    I don't, I when I pointed that out I was accused of being an Old Board
    supporter.  So, I adapted to the style of the conference.
    
�	I think the heat you've taken is due more to your style.  Your
�	opinions have been almost non-existent.  
    
    You just haven't been paying attention.
    
�	And just what is the "trend of the good new days?"?  
    
    I thought that was pretty clear.  I'm sorry if you need more than a few
    short words to comprehend.  The trend I'm seeing is fluff being passed
    off as communication, a continuing honeymoon for the new board,
    arrogance on the part of the new board and their supporters against
    anyone who would dare ask a question.
    
�As for arrogance,
�	I should be completely ignoring you and Ed by past Board standards
�	yet I feel it important to respond.  
    
    I think this statement pretty much proves my concern over arrogance.
    
    

    for my money, neither of you are distiguishing yourselves in this
    little "tit-for-tat" debate.
    
    Mark

    re .28
    
    I certainly agree that these personal pot shot attacks do not belong
    in here.  At one time, such shots were accepted in many notes files,
    this one included.  Times have changed.
    
    With any body that meets once a month running an ongoing business,
    communication and apparent action must by definition seem sketchy.
    Add to that the fact that the BoD is not in place to make operational
    decisons.  It hired a management team lead by Chuck Cockburn to do
    that ... And such things as setting fees and so on is essentially
    an operational decision.  
    
    One thing I have not seen so far in minutes is a lot of details of
    setting of DCU policy.  There have been lots of formalitites of bylaws
    and so on, but little on policy control.  I think for example, that 
    a policy should come from the board giving direction to management 
    that as a general rule, fees for basic services, including chequing 
    accounts, VISA and so on are to be avoided.  The board should appear
    to have greated documented input to DCU management on what is, for
    example, relationship banking.  We see little input from the board
    to DCU in the minutes.  Whether the board is providing that kind of
    guidance outside the board room is another matter ... but it is not
    documented if it is happening.
    
    I'm sure a lot is happening outside the board room ... but when
    business is conducted that way, members don't see it, and see DCU
    management operating independent of the board and hence outside
    member control.  After all the board is the voice of the member owners
    to the management.  If it isn't documented, it may not be happening.
    
    
    Stuart

	RE: .27

>           -< wow, 82 lines, I guess I reach meaningful now >-

	Yes!  I knew you could do it if you tried. Crack the champagne...

>    This was one of your priorities, not mine.

	Yes, it was, and I'm here participating.  I cannot bludgeon 
	other Directors into participating.  What do you expect from 
	me or the rest of Directors?

>    Sure, post the second reply.  The first one was most certainly a brush
>    off.

	I posted BOTH reply segments that dealt with the issue you 
	pointed out.  Now YOU should go back and post the reply you're 
	referring to.  Are you sure you haven't mistaken somebody else's 
	reply for mine?

>    You ran into the problem of making something unavailable through a
>    source that used to be available.  You should expect some flak for
>    that.

	I already explained it, apologized for the delay and they have 
	all since been posted.  Like i said, they were available thru other
	very easy avenues, and have NOT been denied to members.  Why do some
	people feel the burden is always on somebody else to get them things?
	Picking up a phone, dialing 223-6735 and asking for a copy is quite
	an ordeal, I must admit.

>    At the time I offered suggestions, but they were ignored.  Paul felt
>    that due to personal reasons he had to get it to the NCUA quickly.

	Well, I can't speak for Paul but please don't take it personally if
	your suggestions are not followed to the letter.  They'll help the next 
	time we go thru it.  Got a brief recap of those suggestions or a
	pointer?

>    I offered suggestions at the time and was once again attacked.

	Yes, I remember this one.  You posted the usual one-line zinger with
	no explanation.  By the time you posted a meaningful reply listing
	VTX, it was beyond the deadline Lisa established.  This was clearly 
	a case where your noting style didn't communicate whatever you were
	trying to say.  That's why I'm asking you now to change that style.

>    You missed my point.  As I said when the issue first came up and board
>    members were patting themselves on the back about yet another example
>    of "more communication", I didn't see much point in telling the folks
>    who were already members that non-members could not use the DCU.  This
>    would have been much more appropriate in a DEC publication.

	Oh yes, we actually allow 5-10 minutes a meeting for the ritual 
	back-patting.  Thanks for the laughter opportunity.  We do not 
	have access to DEC publications.  Notices in the branches should
	have been sufficient IMO.  I can't recall the actual notice that was
	issued but is some big issue?

>    I seem to get more of a response from these.  My suggestions are
>    dismissed as coming from an Old Board supporter.  Instead of attacking
>    my style, why not address the issues?  Then again, I guess that's what
>    helped you get on the board.

	IMO pot-shots with no reasoning, feedback or suggestions deserve no
	consideration.  Your opinion is welcome but your endless one-liners
	has grown old.  They usually come across as a cheap swipe.
	I do address issues but your style obliterates the content of your 
	notes.  And what got me elected to the Board was telling it like it
	is, just as I am doing with you.

>    I don't, I when I pointed that out I was accused of being an Old Board
>    supporter.  So, I adapted to the style of the conference.

	Oh, I understand.  It's *our* fault that you only post pot-shots.
	Sounds like you'r easily upset if somebody disagrees with you.
	This is a dangerous conference to be in if that is the case.  Don't
	take things so personally.

>    You just haven't been paying attention.

	Hmmm...  How much attention is required for a one-liner?  Replies
	of substance probably do get more of my attention.

>    I thought that was pretty clear.  I'm sorry if you need more than a few
>    short words to comprehend.  The trend I'm seeing is fluff being passed
>   off as communication, a continuing honeymoon for the new board,
>    arrogance on the part of the new board and their supporters against
>    anyone who would dare ask a question.

	Now, now, don't get testy.  "Fluff" such as Board minutes, litagation
	status, bylaw changes, to name a few?  Sorry but that's as un-fluffy
	as it gets.  I guess you're going to be disappointed in the future too.

	Why does that "continued honeymoon" statement come across as 
	disappointment that there isn't more discontent with the new Board?

	Please back up your charge of arrogance with statements and examples.
	We have NEVER issued any memo stating we wouldn't let just anybody
	run the credit union!

	Anybody can ask questions and others are just as free to respond to 
	them or question their statements.  I think this is called 
	communication and freedom of speech.  Again, thin-skinned, easily 
	offended people are going to have a tough time.  

�As for arrogance,
�	I should be completely ignoring you and Ed by past Board standards
�	yet I feel it important to respond.  
>>>    
>>>    I think this statement pretty much proves my concern over arrogance.

	Try re-reading it then.  Your obviously not reading several key words.
	Why do I get the distinct feeling this is all a waste of keystrokes?
	I'll just end this entire string with a promise to address issues if
	you'll end the one-line potshots and contribute something meaningful
	to the discussions here.  If not then let's just agree that we
    	see things differently.
    

    
	RE: .29

>    One thing I have not seen so far in minutes is a lot of details of
>    setting of DCU policy.  There have been lots of formalitites of bylaws
>    and so on, but little on policy control.  I think for example, that 
>    a policy should come from the board giving direction to management 
>    that as a general rule, fees for basic services, including chequing 
>    accounts, VISA and so on are to be avoided.  The board should appear
>    to have greated documented input to DCU management on what is, for
>    example, relationship banking.  We see little input from the board
>    to DCU in the minutes.  Whether the board is providing that kind of
>    guidance outside the board room is another matter ... but it is not
>    documented if it is happening.

	The minutes do not contain the large amount of detailed material
	we receive before each meeting.  There are different styles and
	degrees of involvement on the Board.  It is very important that DCU
	members know who they are voting for.  If you want hands-on,
	active Directors then make sure you ask them if that is their style.
	An alternate approach is to simply let management set the agenda and
	the Board simply approves, approves with changes or disapproves.
	
	I fall more into the hands-on camp.  I have brought things to the
	Board for consideration and review, such as charge card fees 
	after receiving what I considered to be a valid member complaint.
	Management researched the issue and gave a recommendation to not 
	waive fees in the case.  It cost the credit union a good customer	
	that was contributing more to credit union income than many 
	"relationship" members were.  DCU lost, the member lost and another
	credit card company gained a good customer.  I disagreed with the
	decision but there were not enough of me there to change the 
	situation.

	Management has provided us with the definition of relationship 
	banking for our review.  We did not formulate it from scratch.
	No need to since it exists at other banks in the area.
    
>	After all the board is the voice of the member owners
>    to the management.  

	Truer words were never spoken!  There have been cases in the past when 
	this voice was ignored.  The results were not good.  
    

I'm not quite sure where to put this, because it isn't limited to any particular
months minutes.

I've seen parts of the minutes labelled "Discussion of XYZ" with absolutely
nothing else mentioned.  I'd really like to see some of that discussion and
find it hard to believe that the entire discussion had to be redacted.

Thanks,

Bob

    
    
    
    Bob, I believe a number of the places where I've seen the "discussion
    of XYZ" happens under the heading of "executive session"...  of which
    we cannot get information on... Just getting the fact that some topic
    was discussed there probably borders in the gray area, since the whole
    idea is to discuss particularly "sticky" matters.  I would say if there
    were other places where you wanted more data, then extract them from
    the actual minutes and ask in the minutes topic..
    
    
    Also, how about a hear hear for Phil...   He went the extra mile (and
    then some) and posted basically 5 months of minutes... All on his
    own time (especially at 00:40 and beyond)...   Instead of complaining
    so much recognize the fact that getting any information is more than
    you got before "the meeting"....  This last strain of "I said, you
    said" and the corresponding copying of previous replies is getting
    tedious.  I know it's obvious to me that Phil you just aren't going
    to please this one individual no matter what you say.. .Which is
    probably why the previous board (and perhaps some other board members)
    don't get involved in Notes...
    
    
    Just my 2�,
    
    	John
    

    There is no doubt that it is tough for a board of directors to
    effectively show their activities in controlling the organizations
    they are empowered to look after.  The minutes of board meetings
    simply cannot do justice to this, because so much is done outside
    the board meeting, and brought to the meeting.
    
    Moreover, the organizations boards usually control have minds and
    momentums of their own.  It is often said that you can change the
    government as much as you want and it will make little difference
    because the senior public service employees actually do most of the
    real running of the country.  To a lesser extent organizations like
    DCU do that too.
    
    It can also difficult for a single board member to openly discuss
    matters before the board.  Each member can make their own statements,
    but must at the same time avoid stepping on other board members,
    because they still have to work together to look after our money.
    At the same time, they have to avoid appearing to fall into the trap
    of acting as "all for 1 and 1 for all".
    
    Phil chooses to take part in this medium and has to walk a fine line.
    I applaud him for it.  Others choose not to.  Regrettably, we have
    very little to determine the actions of individual board members
    other than the minutes.
    
    Stuart
    
    
    

With regard to all this drive-by-noting...

I really wish that you would knock it off and get back to discussing
the issues.  The amount of mud slinging and personality assasinations
going on in here makes the presidential election look like a tea party.
I'm surprised the moderator hasn't said anything about it.

What I've gleaned from the reading the substantive portions of the
replies herein is that Ed, MacNeal, and others are dissatisfied with 
the level of communication provided by the BoD, and with the course of
action taken by the Board.  

The "Real Choices" candidates all ran on a common platform that was
well documented and thoroughly discussed here and elsewhere.   RC 
candidates took 4 of the 7 board seats, and continue to hold them
following the last election.

I would strongly encourage people to read the minutes, look at the
issues in the minutes, and see how people voted.  Should you see 
board members that you voted for voting issues differently from what
you believe the RC mandate was/is, then you should send them mail
and ask them about their decisions.  Should a particular board member
consistently vote in ways that you feel run counter to what they
committed to do and what they promised, then you should consider that
when that person runs for re-election.

Readers should also realize that RC directors hold the slimmest of
majorities, and that not all decisions can be made by a simple
majority (some require 2/3 consent).  Further, readers should realize
that not all RC directors vote "the party line" in all issues.  You 
should decide on your own whether or not that is a Good Thing.

Finally, as regards the by-law changes.  It goes without saying, 
but anything that requires interaction with the federal government takes
a long time and requires adherence to procedures that to most of us
non-governmental-types seem just plain silly.  The Board took decisive
action in trying to change the by-laws, and now they await the NCUA's
ruling.  That the board has started this process is admirable.  Should
the NCUA sit on this issue for a long time, or should they rule contrary
to the wishes of the board should not be held against individual members
of the board.

Yes, I agree with Ed and others in that things still are not perfect
and there is plenty left to do.  But I don't think things are so bad
as to require a shooting war in a Notes Conference.

./chris
(who ran as a "Real Choices" candidate ... see Ed, we're still out here!)

    Just curious, but how many of those who want to poke holes in the way
    the BoD runs things actually volunteered for the Supervisory Committee
    slot?  Just griping about it in notes doesn't get it.  The RC
    supporters did and do more than just post in notes.  As the old saying
    goes, "where's the beef?"
    
    Steve (who did interview with the BoD for the position)

    Regarding the posting of the Supervisory Committee opening:  You're
    right, that was a downright nasty oneliner I posted asking if this
    opening was posted anywhere else.  I'll try to be more careful next
    time.
    
    I will also try to adhere to the double standards of this conference. 
    As long as I agree with a majority of the noters in here it is OK to
    take "pot shots".  Otherwise I need to meet a minimum reply length or
    run for every office in the DCU that becomes available.

    Phil, early on you had a huge problem with the IPP, apparently now you
    don't.  Why the change?

    
    R: .37 & .38
    
    I love it!  You guys are such kidders.  I'm glad to see you still
    maintain a sense of humor.  It sure helps me in here.
    
    Ed, allow me to formally apologize for Paul for his extreme neglect in
    not posting the minutes on a timely basis.  Consider us both flogged.
    We have seen the light and shall not stumble again!  Geez, I hope this
    is enough.
    
    RE: .39
    
    It is the Information Policy now, not the Information PROTECTION
    Policy.  It is also NOT "Phil's Information Policy".  Could you both 
    please post the portions of it that you object to so that I may explain.
    Also, have you requested any information and feel it has been used to 
    deny you information unjustly?
    
    The bottom line is that any policy is at the whim of whoever is on the
    Board.  Its implement, its enforcement, it revocation, or its tightening
    up.  There is nothing any of us can do about that EXCEPT make sure there
    are Directors on the Board who do not believe in restricting the flow
    of information to the membership.
    

    Phil, why do you insist on reading more into something than is there
    and take things personally?  Please just answer the question.  You seem
    happy to take 1 person's complaint about a credit card fee all the way
    to a board meeting yet prefer to argue with others about other issues. 
    Didn't you once say something to the effect that if even one person
    complains there is a problem, or should that be if one person complains
    and I agree with it there is a problem.
    
    From what Ed said an Information (Protection) Policy is still in place. 
    You were vehemently against one at all costs.  Now you support one as
    long as it is handled properly.

    re: .37
    
    Nah.  You don't have to agree or run for office to be credible.  
    Just do more than just gripe if you really want change.
    
    Steve

    
    Re:
    
>The amount of mud slinging and personality assasinations
>going on in here makes the presidential election look like a tea party.
>I'm surprised the moderator hasn't said anything about it.
    
    The moderator hasn't said anything because I'm fundamentally opposed to
    censorship. Moderators of other notes files take relish in being a
    censor. I don't. I'll only hide/delete or try and stop a conversation
    if it is the only way to prevent me from called on the carpet by
    bureaucrat. And even then I'll fight not to have to censor. Sunshine is
    the best way to see issues discussed and resolved.
    
    As for the "tit for tat" in this note my personal opinion is that it
    doesn't reflect very highly on either of the protagonists. My own
    personal opinion is that Phil isn't being very open with information
    (maybe because he is not allowed to, I can't tell) but on the other
    hand Mr. McNeil (sorry I've forgotten your first name, I always think
    of it as PATE::) in my view is deliberately trying to needle Phil.
    
    I wish more BOD members would participate but I guess that is not to
    be. Besides Phil who now can't contribute I've only seen substantive
    contributions from Phil and Tanya. And unfortunately Phil spends more
    time sparring than actually giving substantive information.
    
    I also wish that I didn't get the feeling after reading BOD minutes
    that they've deliberately had substantive information removed leaving
    just the procedural fluff. The sort of questions I'd like to see
    answered are:
    
    	- Why is the DCU increasing its capital ratio at such a high rate
    	  rather than issuing dividends?
    
    	- Why require annual fees on credit cards when most of the
          competition has no annual fees?
    
    	- Why is the amount of interchange income that a credit card member
    	  generates not considered in determining whether a member is a
    	  relationship member or not?
    
    	- Why do members who don't do much cost the credit union so much?
    	  I can't see postage costing $2.2M per year and if it does just
          don't mail out statements if there is no activity.
    
    Dave 

    That's it.  I surrender.  I've had enough.  Don't write in here and
    somebody starts screaming "Where is the BoD?!"  Post honest opinions
    and positions only to take BS from a pot-shot artist.  Get fed up with
    it and try to stop it and it's sparring.  Ed starts rereading old notes 
    and resurrecting the Great Small Band Conspiracy and posting ridiculous
    comments that he can't back up (he's in a whipped up frenzy you see and
    was lead down a path he nearly paved).  And now accused of withholding
    information and issuing 'fluff' in minutes.

    I have worn my fingers to the first knuckle trying to participate in
    here but it's just a hopeless situation.  All the crap I have to wade
    through is ridiculous and not worth it.  Because no matter how much is
    done, said or provided, it's just never enough.  I'd like to tell SOME
    of you where to go but I think it best that you stay here because you
    deserve each other.  Keep up the good work guys!  And keep asking why
    others don't respond in here.  Well, I can honestly say I tried.  See
    you at the next posting of the minutes.

re:  IPP

Phil's comments that the IPP isn't his personal policy is worth
thinking about.  The note that Ed excerpted quoting Phil as being
opposed to the IPP is also significant.

What else is significant is that Phil isn't the only ones making
the decisions over there.   I'm sure if he were judge, jury, and
executioner of all policy at DCU, things would be much different
and perhaps much better.  

If you disagree with the current information policy, then you
should ask for an explanation from those who put it in place, 
and that's the entire board including not only Phil, but also
Lisa Ross, Tanya Dawkins, Paul, and the other members of the
board who did not run as "RC candidates."

Please remember that you're dealing with a board that does not
have one common view and is, in fact, strongly divided about 
certain topics.  Also remember that you are dealing with a
management structure that may not buy 100% into the Real
Choices notions about how things should be.  The Board can 
pontificate, and hand down marching orders, for a number of
things, but if management is not motivated to change, the
implementation of these things could take some time.


re:  My comments about moderator involvement and Dave's followup...

Yup, Dave, you're right about censorship.   That was a poorly
conceived remark on my part.


re:  .35 and Ed's response

I'm confused by your remarks, Ed.  What I was trying to point out
was that folks should look at what's going on at DCU, look at how
each and every director votes, and then use your power as a shareholder
to vote for candidates and incumbents who you feel will better represent
your views during subsequent elections.

./chris

Pardon me while I divert this rathole to substantive matters for a second:

What is interchange income?  Is this the amount the financial institution keeps
from V/MC charges that is known to merchants as the "discount rate"?