| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 700.1 | We were warned years ago | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | | Sat Sep 18 1993 15:36 | 65 |
| ================================================================================
Note 281.54 9/10/91 BoD Informal Meeting 54 of 63
BEIRUT::SUNNAA 58 lines 17-SEP-1991 17:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<< BEIRUT::R7XBOK$DIA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;4 >>>
-< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 268.52 RESERVED: Discussion of the 8/21 meeting with BOD 52 of 52
MOOV01::LEEBER "Carl MOO-1(ACO/E37) 297-3957(232-25" 51 lines 17-SEP-1991 17:22
-< Official DCU Response >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an official response by Patti D'Addieco of the DCU. The response,
dated 17-SEP-1991, applies to this note topic and is included below.
See note 2.22 for more information.
Your comments on this response should be posted here or directed to
to DCU directly at Mary Madden's number (dtn) 223-6735 x207 or
Patti D'Addieco's number (dtn) 223-6735 x239.
Carl Leeber
******************************************************************************
On Tuesday, September 10th, DCU's Board of Directors met with
DCU members in the second of two informal meetings about the
progress of the credit union. Ten members, including four
members who attended the previous meeting, participated in an
open discussion and a question and answer period for over 3
hours.
Introduced at the meeting was DCU's new president, Chuck
Cockburn. Mr. Cockburn spoke about the future goals of the
credit union, which include quality member service and
strengthening the financial condition of DCU through
improved communications, budgeting and strategic planning.
As president/ceo, Mr. Cockburn announced that he will
re-evaluate DCU's current operating plan. Until analysis is
concluded, the checking account fees, previously announced
for 9/29/91, will not be implemented at this time. The
pricing of this product and others will be re-evaluated. It
is anticipated that some fees, including checking account
fees, will be implemented in the future.
After Mr. Cockburn concluded his address, an open discussion
and question and answer period occurred. Many valuable ideas
and suggestions were offered by the attendees. Some of the
topics discussed included: action taken with regard to
participation loans; DCU's financial reports; general
investment philosophies; and DCU's By-laws and financial
position. A number of situations were clarified and a
clearer insight of DCU's operations was provided.
Specific questions and answers from the meetings will be
communicated to all members in our October issue of NETWORK.
On behalf of the entire board and DCU management, we would
like to thank those members who attended these informal
meetings.
Sincerely yours,
Mark A. Steinkrauss
******************************************************************************
|
| 700.2 | Owners speak, things happen | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | | Sat Sep 18 1993 15:39 | 53 |
| ================================================================================
Note 282.3 Checking account fees are dead (for now) 3 of 68
GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "Someday, DCU will be a credit u" 47 lines 10-SEP-1991 22:49
-< First Battle is Ours! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Permission to forward and re-post this note is granted.
Please be aware of the fact that many of the statements and
evaluations contained in this reply are my personal statements and
evaluations.]
WE, DCU MEMBERS, HAVE ACHIEVED A VICTORY! There is NO other
description for it. While it is only a temporary reprieve from
checking fees, WE HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE. I am thrilled to see the new
DCU president agrees with our position, for now. I am very
disappointed the BoD did not realize their mistake(s) sooner. They
have caused many DCU members much time and trouble to shop around.
Some have found better and left DCU already. Some are in the process
of leaving. I will take a lot to get them back as customers, if it is
even possible. A real shame because they never wanted to leave in the
first place.
We all must continue to do exactly what we are doing, only MORE so.
There are more basic problems with DCU than the $2 checking fee. The
checking fees are a symptom of a much larger problem; BoD judgement,
credibility, accountability, priorities, direction and policies. These
are the REAL problems we must all work to resolve so we aren't back in
the same boat in a year. Remember, it took the new President of DCU to
convince the current BoD of the err of their ways. He could see our
side and the folly of the checking fees. He could convince the BoD to
reverse itself. They did not do it because of us and the number of
people leaving (not that many according to them). I don't expect the
BoD to come out and say we are right. They don't need to. This action
is acknowledgement enough.
One of my concerns with this 3-4 month delay and evaluation period is that
the new checking fees and 'choices' will reappear as a recommendation
of the new DCU President, instead of as a recommendation of the BoD.
He will still have to convince us why a credit union that made over $4
million in 1990 WITH FREE CHECKING, needs additional income from new
fees.
My second concern is a 3-4 month time period will give many time to
forget what has transpired at DCU over the last 5 years. Time for the
storm to blow over. If we let that happen, then we deserve all that
follows.
Remain WATCHFUL, remain ACTIVE, remain DCU OWNERS. But in the
meantime, congratulations to all that contributed to our first victory.
Phil
|
| 700.3 | Refuse to be ignored | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | | Sat Sep 18 1993 15:41 | 15 |
| ================================================================================
Note 282.31 Checking account fees are dead (for now) 31 of 68
GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "Someday, DCU will be a credit un" 9 lines 17-SEP-1991 13:34
-< About time they welcomed their best 'investments'! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, DCU learned the hard way not to bite the hand of the
ones who feed it. Us. Sometimes there is just no getting around using
a rolled up newspaper in certain extreme situations. In this case, a
lot of flat, completed withdrawal cards seemed to do the trick!
Would like to know how many DCU members they lost with this fiasco. If
these 'choices' reappear in a few months, the DCU may do serious,
permanent damage to itself IMO.
|
| 700.4 | Semantics ARE important! | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | | Sat Sep 18 1993 15:42 | 19 |
| ================================================================================
Note 364.74 Special Meeting Reports 74 of 77
GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "Someday, DCU will be a credit u" 25 lines 20-NOV-1991 16:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"will not be implemented at this time", "pending completion of Mr.
Cockburn's strategic plan" is the official line. If you have attended
any of Mr. Cockburn's site visits, you would know that he did see
checking account fees in our future. Also, Mary Madden's very blunt
message to everybody calling to register complaints indicated
otherwise. Time will tell to see if Mr. Cockburn believes he can
impose fees whether the membership wants them or not.
Clearly, the membership of DCU gave a resounding NO to checking fees.
.
.
.
|
| 700.5 | Scary last line... | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | | Sat Sep 18 1993 15:44 | 27 |
| ================================================================================
Note 593.44 BOD_MEMO: Response to Weimin Tchen 44 of 67
GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ 22 lines 6-AUG-1992 09:09
-< Only looking for accuracy >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: .41
�the checking account fees, previously announced
� for 9/29/91, will not be implemented at this time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To my knowledge, the old Board and/or DCU *never* issued official
communications using the word 'rescind'. So if you do state
what DCU was saying at the time, please use their words, not yours,
since they are different and have a different meaning, as you so kindly
pointed out.
I would also like to point out the reference to the development of a
strategic plan in the official reply. That statement, combined with
"...will not be implemented at this time." do not add up to rescind in
my book. It was the Special Meeting petition which used the word
rescind.
While this may all *seem* like semantics, it is very important to
understand IMO. History has a habit of repeating itself.
|
| 700.6 | DCU is still under orders IMO | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | | Sat Sep 18 1993 16:32 | 16 |
|
RE: .6
Pat, I believe the current fees ARE the old fees, under a
different marketing message of "fairness". The original "at this
time" message from our previous chairman of the Board back this up IMO.
I don't believe in a "permanent, never-under-any-circumstances, no fees"
position. But my criteria for changing DCU's approach to fee-based
banking seems to be far different than other Directors. I have looked
at all the numbers and it just isn't required or justified given our
current financial condition and profitability. I also think it will
result in a smaller membership base, which means a fewer loans
(where we make most of money). Never say never, but never say yes just
because others are doing it.
|
| 700.7 | ??????? | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | | Sat Sep 18 1993 16:34 | 3 |
|
HEY!!!! Where'd you go Pat??!!
|
| 700.8 | | QUINCE::MADDEN | Patrick Madden | Sat Sep 18 1993 18:23 | 21 |
| Hmm, sorry about that. I decided to bring my question up with you
offline, apparently while you were writing .5...
Approximately what I wrote:
At the special meeting two years ago, the membership voted to
rescind the fees that had just been announced. The fact that this
addressed a specific instance was not lost on DCU management, who
turned around and announced new fees.
One thing that we learned since then is that the membership should
have addressed the issue of the imposition of fees in general,
rather than just demanding a rescission of the fees that had just
been announced.
I agree that "permanent, never-under-any-circumstances, no fees"
doesn't really make sense, but neither does "We'll impose fees at our
pleasure and without regard to the owners' wishes." So far we have
failed to find a happy medium between these two.
--Pat
|