Conference 7.286::dcu

  Not a problem if we call a special meeting to recall the directiors. ;->]

  

    
    Geez, Phil --- Don't DO that!
    
    When I started reading .0, I thought *you* were resigning.
    
    (Would somebody get the crash cart and give me a jump start?)
    

You too, eh?  

Had me worried there ...

Gee... scary moment ...  

    Now the question remains ...
    
    Did Gail Mann resign ?
    
    Did anyone else hear those words ?
    
    Is there anything in DCU bylaws which state that a board member must
    submit a resignation in writing ?
    
    Moreover, if she has threatened resignation and has now said that
    she "Officially resigns" then in my books, she has resigned ...
    
    Wnen's the byelection ???
    
    Stuart

When someone resigns, does person who replaces them do so until the next
election or until the term of resigned ends?  I hope the former...

    
    RE: .7
    
    The remainder of the term.
    

    Gee ... these Board meetings must be a LOT more fun than the minutes
    indicate ...  ;^)
    
    Steve

    A resignation, whether verbal or written, must be acted upon by the
    Board in order to be "Officially" accepted by that Board.  A motion
    should have been made, seconded and then voted upon by the Board to
    accept the resignation for it to be in effect.
    
    Maybe it was grandstanding, but have not been at the meeting to hear
    what happened, it is difficult to judge.  What seems alittle easier to
    judge as "grandstanding" is placing your memo to the Board in a public
    notes file about this issue ... 

    
    RE: .10
    
    The DCU membership has every right to know if a Director on a Board
    uses repeated threats of resignation to influence others, for effect or
    what ever purpose.  They also have a right to know if that Director
    states they don't have time for DCU business.  There are many other
    aspects of this incident which have not and will not be posted.  But
    your welcome to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.  Knowing the
    full circumstances of the situation, I feel very comfortable with my
    statement in this forum to the membership at large.  How many
    ex-Directors didn't have the time a few years back?  ANd what did it
    cost us?
    
    
    
    $12 million.
    

If someone says "I resign" in a Board Meeting, then that is sufficient
grounds that someone should have moved to accept the resignation on
the spot.  In fact, it doesn't even necessarily require using the
exact words.  A true story for your consideration:

Many years ago, a gentlemen at the healm of an organization appeared at
the monthly Board of Directors meeting, hat in hand.  He told the Board
that he was working an endless number of hours on their behalf, that he
was unable to live comfortably on what they paid him, and that he felt 
that if the Board could not see fit to substantially increase his salary,
provide him with additional secretarial support, and help him obtain a
larger more spacious home, that he would have no choice but to look 
elsewhere for employement.  The Board thanked him for his input, and
immediately went into executive session.  When they emerged from the 
session, they called the gentlemen back into the room, and said simply
"We have considered your request, and have decided to accept your
resignation effective immediately."  The guy was out of a job and out
of town within days.  My father wound up taking the job this guy had
walked away from.

So, as you can see, it doesn't necessarily require a lot of official
actions to resign, or to be perceived as having resigned.  If any
director said, in effect, "that's it...I quit" then that's the way
it is.

I look forward to seeing who is appointed to fill the vacancy.

./chris

    
    There will be no appointment of a replacement since the Chairman of the
    Board Lisa Ross has stated she requires written notification.  Since
    none was given, she considers it invalid.  The person in question has
    also stated she hasn't resigned.  The purpose of my statement was to
    notify people that I would ensure that a process was in place to
    adequately and "officially" handle any and all such resignations in the
    future.  I don't expect to be hearing any more of these types of
    resignations though.
    

    And I still think there is more grandstanding in your entering that
    note here than anything detailed therein.  You seem to see yourself as
    the sole savior for the DCU - and you have done some good work on
    behalf of the membership - but working within a Board structure is not
    benefited by taking discussions of that Board out of context and making
    them public as to make a Board member appear to be a certain way you
    would like them portrayed.
    
    Get off of your high horse and learn to work with all The Board so that
    we can all benefit.  And if the Board is going to work under "Robert's
    Rule of Order" (which is a very common process in corporate and
    governmental entities), take the time to learn it.  It works ...

    
    How about this Chuck?  I'll get off my high horse when you know what
    you're talking about.  Deal?  I don't play by the rules when others
    don't play by the rules.  I'd be a fool to.  Three resignations or
    threats of resignation is the limit in my book.  The chairman of the
    board refused to deal with the situation so I did.  Like I said, you
    don't know 10% of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of that
    message so please don't lecture me on Boards and working together until
    you have been seen what I have seen and experienced what I have
    experienced.
    

Given the attendance record of the director in question, it sure looks like
she doesn't have time for DCU ... If she tosses out "I resigns" and doesn't
carry through with it, then I think it is something the members should know
about.  The showing may have been done in a style that looks like a certain
amount of grandstanding too ... but this is, in my opinion, justifiable in
this case.

Stuart

RE: Note 691.14 by BSS::C_BOUTCHER

> know I'm going to regret this ... >-

>    And I still think there is more grandstanding in your entering that
>    note here than anything detailed therein.

At first I wondered why Phil would post such a message.  Then I thought
about it.  There must be something more than what you and I saw on the
surface.

The more I hear the more pleased I am glad to hear this information.  We
have a group of people who make rules as they go and try to hide it from
the members.  Phil has tried to open it up so the OWNERS have some idea
what the BOD is doing.

In doing so, we start to see certain people are not doing their job. 
They have problems planning their time wisely.  If you or I were on the
board of alderman of our local town, we would not last very long with
the records a few of our BOD have.

You know why?  People know about it and act when things like this
happen.  It is DONE in public so they HAVE to follow the straight and
narrow.  As we go along we find that some of the BOD are hiding or
delaying the sharing of information - to reduce the amount of complaints
they will receive from the owners.

THAT IS WRONG.

>    You seem to see yourself as
>    the sole savior for the DCU - and you have done some good work on
>    behalf of the membership - but working within a Board structure is not
>    benefited by taking discussions of that Board out of context and making
>    them public as to make a Board member appear to be a certain way you
>    would like them portrayed.

PHIL has taken the nod from a lot of members.  He has MY backing and
MANY of the people I know.  Savior?  No.  Concerned BOD?  Yes.  He is
doing what *I* want.

I BACK HIM 100%

Gail has a track record of showing up late and leaving early.  If she
continually complains about lack of time, then it is fair for this to be
brought up.

In fact it is up to the Chairman to take control of this and I see that
this has not been done.  Sounds like the old boys club.
    
>    Get off of your high horse and learn to work with all The Board so that
>    we can all benefit.  And if the Board is going to work under "Robert's
>    Rule of Order" (which is a very common process in corporate and
>    governmental entities), take the time to learn it.  It works ...

Anyone who knows anything about RR, knows they can be used to *NOT
WORK*...  I have used them in my favor before - merely a game, but the
end result was not fair playing...  I see this happening and appreaciate
Phil's efforts.

	- mark

If Phil is grandstanding then so be it.  I personally think that the
threat of resignation and snide comments about "not having time for this"
is much more of violation than what Phil is attempting to do.

Damn, why is it such a threat for members to have clear and open
communication available to them about what the board is doing?  The board
meetings should be open to the membership in my opinion.  If they were, I
really doubt that either Gail or Phil would find a need to "grandstand".

I find it a welcome and refreshing thing to see board members that are
willing to stand up for what is right and make themselves accountable to
the membership for those very actions.

I sent a letter to the board members, as I am sure many others have.  I
had a simple question for them.  I have 100% certainty that I will not
get a response from 5 of the board members.  And even if I don't get a
response from the other 2 it won't matter too much - they've proven
themselves to me thus far and I have every confidence in their representation
of the membership.

What is the chance of "public" board meetings, anyway?

Ray

    This is NOT clear communication ... it is a sound bite from a small
    part of a meeting from one perspective.  But then, far be it for me to
    challenge a legend in this notesfile.  Let's rally round the flag ...
    
    As always, Phil, you're right.  Like all of us that disagree with you,
    we don't know what we are talking about unless you tell us what we need
    to think.

    
    Chuck, as I've said your entitled to your opinion.  All I'm saying is
    you have making insulting statements based on a very slight knowledge
    of the entire situation.  You don't trust my judgement or integrity,
    others do.  I guess that burns you up, doesn't it?  Procedures and 
    protocol don't supercede principle with me.  Do they with you?  
    
    I would LOVE to have open Board meetings for DCU members to see their
    Directors in action so that my statements would not be the only record
    of their actions.  
    
    And please make up your mind!  Am I a legend, a savior, or the Lone
    Ranger (on a high horse of course)??!!  Got any more names you wish to
    toss out?   
    

>    This is NOT clear communication ... it is a sound bite from a small
>   part of a meeting from one perspective.  

Disagree totally regarding clear communication.  It is explicitly clear.
What I think you mean is incomplete.  Agreed that Phil is only one
perspective but it sure is nice to at least have that!  Would you support
"open" board meetings so that members could see for themselves what their
representatives are doing and saying?

>                                            But then, far be it for me to
>    challenge a legend in this notesfile.  Let's rally round the flag ...
>
>    As always, Phil, you're right.  Like all of us that disagree with you,
>    we don't know what we are talking about unless you tell us what we need
>    to think.

Of course Phil is right, and how could you even dream of challenging the
living legend?  Gee, maybe we can just trade snide comments - take the
easy approach and attack persons and dismiss the prinicples involved.  The
issue, at least to me, is not Phil and his style - it is representation
and accountability of all board members.  Like Phil's style or not, like
his philosophy or not, at least you know what he believes in.  I voted for
those who I believed would best represent myself and other member's interests
and who would communicate more openly with the membership.  All the members
I know are quite able to think for themselves and do just that.  It is
quite clear to me that the majority of the board has chosen to reject the
desires of the membership regarding additional fees.  Even worse, it
appears they have no interest in standing accountable for this.  What other
reason would there be for having the "recommendation" in the April minutes
redacted?  It is obvious to me that the majority of the board and Chuck
have little regard for the concept of "consent" in "relationships" - and
yes it then becomes "rape".  I have yet to hear anything that justifies
the board's decision to disregard the clear message from the CU owners of
"no new fees".

The members don't want fees, there is no need for fees.  How much simpler
can it be?  I'd live to have Paul Harvey reveal "the rest of the story".

amazed,
Ray

    
    
      One of the common objections to the last BOD was their 
    refusal to state individual positions,  and refusal to speak
    as other than a 'unified board'.    Folks were more than happy
    to see  the "board that hung together,  hang together"...
    
      I, for one,  am more than happy to see phil speak up as 
    an individual...  The will of the majority of the board will
    still govern,  but the 'dissenting opinion'  is often quite
    enlightening...  
    
      If this is 'grandstanding',  then so be it,  but I'd like to
    see more of it,  from all the board members as they feel the
    need...
    
    
    						-al

I have mixed feelings about Phil sharing this information.
It amounts to an attack on another board member in this
public forum.  (I know that it is not phrased as an attack
and that she brought it on herself by her own actions, but
sharing another person's foolishness publicly does amount
to an attack.)

However, I have great concern about what is actually
happening in the board meetings; not only what decisions
are being made but also how they are being made.

I accept (for now) that Phil thinks it is appropriate to
put in here.  I'm sorry that it is coming to this, but it
may well be that it *needs* to come to this.

Collis

Can someone please explain the nature of the DCU Board for me?

I am the chairman of my town's Planning Board. As such, we are bound
by the Open Meeting laws and Roberts Rules of Order. One area 
that is very clear is in what situations we are allowed to go
into executive session. Simply stated, we can only do it when

	1) We need to discuss CURRENT litigation. I.e. someone has
	   already taken us to court. We can't go into session to
	   discuss pending litigation, even if we know it is coming.

	2) If salaries or personnel issues need to be discussed. And
	   in this case, the person being discussed has a right to
	   be there.

Minutes are still kept and must be released after a certain amount
of time has passed.

Is the DCU Board run on the concept of Open Meetings? If not, what
is the purpose of Executive Session. If so, do they still keep minutes
while in session?

						Mark

It is about time a member of the BoD shared information with us.
If Chuck considers this type of information, and the way it was
presented, as grandstanding, etc..., then I am glad he did not 
get elected to the BoD (because of what little *I* can see from
this nasty notes file ;-).

Good work Phil, and keep it up.

    Style has alot to do with it.  Style has alot to do with why the old
    board was voted out.  Style has alot to do with getting things done in
    board meetings.  Even someone with the best intentions in the world is
    not going to get very far if all he/she does is antagonize fellow
    decision makers.  I too might question if it is worth my time to
    participate when things such as if the meeting location is appropriate
    is carried over a few board meetings.
    
    Like Chuck says, it's OK to question in here, as long as the right
    people are being questioned and the right questions are being asked.

    Phil, another vote for ya.  
    
    John R.

    
    The word grandstanding is quoted in .0 because that is what I was
    accused of doing by placing my statement on the Supervisory Comm.
    appointment in the minutes.  When the minutes of the April meeting are
    un-redacted you will see more "grandstanding", so be forewarned.
    There are some that do not appreciate these statements because they
    feel the Board doesn't appear united and/or functional.  On a major vote,
    it is my opinion that EVERY Director should write such a statement.  I
    have taken the time todo so and have been duly chastised for it but
    that's OK because I know that since we're all Digital people, that
    they truly do "value differences"... ;-)
    
    My style is to speak my mind along with my reasons and logic.  I do
    not BS people with vague and meaningless words and phrases.  I don't
    expect everybody to agree but I certainly don't expect (and will not
    tolerate) threats and emotional tirades in response.  In my view, these
    tactics then become a way of distracting everybody from the real issues
    at hand.  Logic and judgement are replaced with "ohoh Pat might resign
    so we better not do XYZ".
    

    I'm with Collis, I think it's sad that the board is not working
    together in unity and that board members are contemplating resignation. 
    On the other hand, the issues that they are dealing with are important
    to all, and each board member has to expect to make a personal
    sacrifice when they carry out their duties.  I would like to support a
    board that is willing to do the job.
    
    Mark
    
    PS. There are times when I think about quitting something (not my job at
    Digital), but I don't tell anyone.  Ok, I tell my wife, but she doesn't
    have access to NOTES. :-)

    To be honest, I am glad that the board is NOT acting together in
    unity.  Remember that the OLD board acted together in UNITY and
    look at all teh things they did to hide and disguise what was
    going on.  A board acting together can do a lot more damage than
    a divided board.
    
    On the other hand, a board acting openly, above board, and clearly
    involving the membership is likely to work in unity anyway.
    
    The goal should be to work for the members not for unity!
    
    Stuart

    
    I have seen that light!  I must change my style...
    
    I resolve to go along to get along.
    I resolve to not rock the boat.
    I resolve to cover my ears to statements that I disagree with.
    I resolve to close my eyes to actions that I disagree with.
    I resolve to sit and bob my head to any and all proposals brought before
              the Board.
    I resolve to compromise my beliefs and principles so as to appear unified.
    I agree to have a lobotomy so that all of the above can be accomplished
    	      and the world will be much better place.  Free rose colored
    	      glasses with every lobotomy I hear...
    

    Do I sense an emotional tirade in .32?
    
    Is there any gray in your world, Phil?

    
    Quite to the contrary, no emotion whatsoever...  A free byproduct of
    the lobotomy... ;-)
    
    Gray???  Let me check...  Nope, the sky is rose-colored Keith.  All is
    well.  Anybody see which way the herd went???
    

    
    Phil could you address Marks question in .24 . Thanks
    
    Joe

RE: Note 691.35 by STRATA::JOERILEY
    
>    Phil could you address Marks question in .24 . Thanks

Suggestion.  Send MAIL to all of the BOD and ask them this.  Watch closely and
see who responds.  Of the ones that respond, look at what they say and if there
is any meat in what they say.

	-mark

    Phil, what you point out in one of your numerous replys is that I do
    not have the entire story of what happened at the meeting.  That, sir,
    is exactly my point.  Neither does anyone else here except for bits of
    information you have decided to share.
    
    You don't like what is happening with the Board, so instead of working
    within the guidelines established for the Board, you use this notesfile
    as a tool to attack a fellow Board member.
    
    Working with people in a Board environment does NOT mean unity or
    always agreeing with someone.  It means working issues and not
    attacking personalities which you frequently do.  The best work I have
    witnessed that you do is when you are solely focused on issue.  But you
    like playing the outsider role - someone that has more principle than
    anyone else.  You feed off of this notefile and you manipulate it by
    what information you choose to share or not share.  That is why so many
    people that used to participate in this conference no longer do.
    
    you can not judge a person's contribution to the Board of the DCU by
    whether they say in frustration that they have had enough and want to
    quite, or that they come late to a meeting or have missed two meetings
    over the past twelve months.  More information is required than that,
    and not coming through a single filter - whether that is you or anyone
    else on the Board.
    
    In this file, you continue to see people attack that disagree with the
    "mainstream" thinking - what ever the issue is.  I'd like to know what
    the heck my not getting elected to the DCU Board has to do with this
    discussion??
    
    My definition of a GOOD Board memeber is someone that deals with
    issues, not personalities.  Someone that takes the time to learn the
    rules under which a Board operates and uses them wisely in support of
    the membership.  Someone that takes the time necessary to understand
    the complex issues being addressed, not whether or not someone is 5
    minutes late to a meeting or finds it necessary to leave before the
    official close of business.  How many people complain when they have
    managers that evaluate individual contributors in that manner.
    
    It is very short sighted thinking and I choose not to be in lock step
    with what appears to be a majority opinion for this note.
    
    My personal opinion,

    re:36  That should be "whole", not "hole".  This, too, is an opinion.

    
    RE: .35 about .24
    
    For the most part I would agree with what was written in .24.  I don't 
    believe we are "bound by Open Meeting laws", but I'm no lawyer. 
    Personally I don't believe anything should be redacted or in Executive
    session other than what is absolutely required (legal issues, personnel
    issues, or individual compensation issues, and I believe there are some
    NCUA meetings in Executive session).  The best person to ask this of is
    the person running the meetings, Chairman Lisa Ross (LEDS::ROSS).
    

    
    RE: .37
    
    I find it absolutely incredible that with all that is going on at this
    credit union, that the first time you pop in here in two years to write
    a note, you start attacking me Chuck.  Why am I having flashes of deja 
    vu Chuck?  Two years ago you were in here selling the same baloney.
    Please don't be offended and start insulting people when you don't get
    many buyers.
    
>    Phil, what you point out in one of your numerous replys is that I do
>    not have the entire story of what happened at the meeting.  That, sir,
>    is exactly my point.  Neither does anyone else here except for bits of
>    information you have decided to share.
    
    But that certainly hasn't stopped you from insulting me, now has it?  If I
    entered the rest of the facts of the situation (my own manipulative
    version right Chuck?) you'd have even more names to pull out of your
    bag.
    
>    You don't like what is happening with the Board, so instead of working
>    within the guidelines established for the Board, you use this notesfile
>    as a tool to attack a fellow Board member.
    
    How do YOU know I haven't worked or tried to work within the guidelines
    established for the Board?  Attack a fellow Board member??  Please point 
    out this attack Chuck.  
    
>    Working with people in a Board environment does NOT mean unity or
>    always agreeing with someone.  It means working issues and not
>    attacking personalities which you frequently do.  The best work I have
>    witnessed that you do is when you are solely focused on issue.  But you
>    like playing the outsider role - someone that has more principle than
>    anyone else.  You feed off of this notefile and you manipulate it by
>    what information you choose to share or not share.  
    
    Pardon my French, but you don't know squat about me or my work. 
    I've never met you or been in a meeting with you.  You got some nerve
    writing this crap.  Must be nice to be able to pop in every two years
    and know it all.  Unbelievable...
    
    >That is why so many
>    people that used to participate in this conference no longer do.
    
    WHAT???  Back it up with facts Chuck.  Who are these "many people"?
    
>    you can not judge a person's contribution to the Board of the DCU by
>    whether they say in frustration that they have had enough and want to
>    quite, or that they come late to a meeting or have missed two meetings
>    over the past twelve months.  More information is required than that,
>    and not coming through a single filter - whether that is you or anyone
>    else on the Board.
    
    Maybe you can't make a judgement but there are clear indicators about
    COMMITMENT and that is what people have discussed.  If you need any more
    information for your determination, I urge you to send mail to all the
    Directors.
    
>    In this file, you continue to see people attack that disagree with the
>    "mainstream" thinking - what ever the issue is.  I'd like to know what
>    the heck my not getting elected to the DCU Board has to do with this
>    discussion??
    
    Groan... You say this after writing the crap above?  This is a waste of
    keystrokes...
    
>    My definition of a GOOD Board memeber is someone that deals with
>    issues, not personalities.  Someone that takes the time to learn the
>    rules under which a Board operates and uses them wisely in support of
>    the membership.  Someone that takes the time necessary to understand
>    the complex issues being addressed, not whether or not someone is 5
>    minutes late to a meeting or finds it necessary to leave before the
>    official close of business.  How many people complain when they have
>    managers that evaluate individual contributors in that manner.
    
	Thanks for the definition.  Now might I suggest you take some time
    and get some information to base your decision on.  Or do you already
    know it all?  And a comparison of a Board member with an individual
    contributor is ridiculous IMO.  A Board member can slide by, not
    do anything, reports to nobody.
    
    >It is very short sighted thinking and I choose not to be in lock step
>    with what appears to be a majority opinion for this note.
>    My personal opinion,

    	And you're entitled to your opinion, as are others.
    

Re. 40

Three cheers.

Keep up the good/no great work.

I appreciate all the things that you do/stand for.

Thanks Dave

Have a great day!

RE: Note 691.37 by BSS::C_BOUTCHER

	>That is why so many people that used to participate in this conference
	>no longer do.

What?  Please provide facts to back this up.  Are you talking about a
couple people or 'so many'?

Proof please...

	- mark    

    Folks, things are definitely out of hand.
    
    1)  It really is OK to disagree with Phil in this file.  As proof,
    notice that many people have said they think Chuck is wrong, but
    (so far as I noticed) no one said that he shouldn't have posted
    his opinion -- in fact, Phil repeatedly says precisely the opposite.
    
    2)  Yes, Phil really is "grandstanding" with .0.  So what?  I would
    rather have BoD members grandstand in public than to have it just 
    happen in secret.  But Phil is also giving us "open communication" --
    something he promised to do.  And I'm sure that .0 tells as much of
    the story as Phil feels he can fairly and ethically reveal.
    
    3)  No, .0 is **NOT** a personal attack!  It is direct criticism
    of a Board member's ACTIONS.  Call it an attack if you like, but it
    certainly isn't a personal attack.  I personally believe that it is
    appropriate for BoD members to disagree about each others' actions.
    
    4)  As for Phil's style, well, sorry folks, but that's his style.
    Like the rest of us, Phil is a package deal -- you don't get the
    benefits of his driving determination to open up the processes of
    the DCU BoD without his personal style going along with it.  If
    you think he shouldn't try to bring information to us DCU members,
    then criticize him for it.  If you think he should bring us more
    information, criticize him for that instead.  But it's pointless
    to criticize his style independent of what he is choosing to do.
    
    5)  Having said that, I think some of us who agree with Phil
    are allowing ourselves to be goaded into injudicious replies.
    In fact, I wonder if that isn't the whole purpose of some of
    the replies that get posted in this file.  (I'm not talking about 
    your replies, Chuck).  Let's take it easy folks.  Or, in the
    words of an old song, if we can't take it easy, let's take it
    as easy as we can.
    
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

    	I am one of the "many" people who left the notesfile after
    	the dust settled and the new BOD was selected.  I can't say
    	that I left because of anything Phil (or anyone else) did or
    	said.  It was just that I got caught up in the immediate emotion
    	of the events, and once they were completed, I moved on to other
    	things.  I didn't have the energy to stick with the vigilance.
    	But I see a certain handful in here who did, and I placed my
    	trust in others to keep watch.  I just returned to this conference
    	this week to see what's going on with these new fees et.al.
    
    	Yes, many have left the conference.  Try looking at the numerous 
    	participants from the election era, and see the relatively limited 
    	number today.  Again, though, I can't say it's because of anything
    	anyone said or did.  I suspect that many were like me and just
    	moved on to other pursuits.
    
    ------------------
    
    	re the basenote.
    
    	As I read the entry I was concerned about its propriety.  It seems
    	out of line that a board member should air dirty laundry in this
    	manner.  I agree that the subject matter of the base note needs
    	to be dealt with.  I think it would have been more appropriate
    	for it to have been handled as follows:
    
    	Phil writes letter.
    	Phil presents it to the BOD and not in the notesfile.
    	BOD ignores it and same behavior continues.
    	Phil writes in the notesfile that "a member" (without naming
    		names) behaves in this way, and tells the BOD about
    		that entry, and states that he will make details
    		public if behavior continues.
    	Behavior continues.
    	Phil gives the whole story as he presented it in the basenote.
    
    	This, to me, shows a greater sense of decorum.  Now, in reading
    	all the replies Phil tells us that we don't know the whole
    	story.  It may very well be that Phil already followed a path
    	similar to what I suggested.  If so, perhaps we would have all
    	been saved alot of grief if Phil had made that known.
    
    	From my limited perspective I currently see the basenote as 
    	being out of line, though not so far out of line that it requires 
    	disciplinary action or worthy of any great tempest.  WHat's done 
    	is done.  What will the BOD do about the behavior outlined in the 
    	basenote?
    
    ----------------------
    
    	re Phil=savior
    
    	In some respects he is.  Again, from my limited perspective,
    	I see Phil's actions in the past as the primary reason for the
    	success of the special meeting and of Real Choices.  I see
    	his continued openness and availablilty as a value.  I see
    	his positions on the various issues faced by the DCU as being
    	representative of the majority of DCU members, and I see that
    	he has the fortitude to stick with his positions better than
    	many other board members.
    
    	Phil, that doesn't mean that you can work outside of the process.
    	You can't let this go to your head.  You are more valuable to
    	the members if you are seen as a reformer working from within
    	the system than a maverick, or a salmon always swimming upstream.

    Joe,
    
    Well stated.  Yours is a talent I have never mastered.  For me, I think
    I will return to "read-only" status.  Much better for the blood
    pressure.
    
    Chuck

RE:        <<< Note 691.44 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm ready for Christmas!" >>>

>    	Yes, many have left the conference.  Try looking at the numerous 
>    	participants from the election era, and see the relatively limited 
>    	number today.  Again, though, I can't say it's because of anything
>    	anyone said or did.  I suspect that many were like me and just
>    	moved on to other pursuits.

	Don't forget the wonderful opportunities TFSO has created.......

>	Don't forget the wonderful opportunities TFSO has created.......
    
    	Sounds to me like you're suggesting that TFSO targetted 
    	DCU notesfile participants!  (I know you really didn't 
    	mean that...)
    
    	TFSO nipped one in five from the company.  It seems to me
    	that about one in five of the original participants are
    	still here.  Certainly TFSO has had some effect on the
    	numbers still participating in this conference, but it
    	really only accounts for a fraction of the absences.

    	Another effect of TFSO -- many people that TFSO didn't affect
    	directly have stopped noting in all employee-inerest notesfiles 
    	to reduce extracurricular visibility.