Conference 7.286::dcu

    Consider a Statement of Operating Principles and Philosophies put forth
    by the membership.  This would be a succinct statement of members'
    goals in participating in the DCU, and it would be binding on the
    Directors and DCU officers, just as the bylaws are.  Its most
    important characteristic, though, is that only an action by DCU members
    can change it.
    
    Such a statement would allow us to codify a number of popular goals
    expressed in this notes conference, such as:
    
    	- an organization dedicated to service and measured by its
    	  ability to provide it at minimal expense to its members;
    
    	- Equal treatment of all members
    
    	[etc.]
    
    
    Arguments in favor of this:  It would ensure that DCU management works
    to meet the members' goals.  It provides an objective set of criteria
    for judging the performance of the DCU directors.  Because it defines
    goals, but not how to achieve them, management can implement any
    solutions it wants in order to attain each goal.  It allows the members
    to define the credit union they want.
    
    Is this legal?  Workable? 
    
    --Pat

    Strictly speaking, we have a think tank ... they are called the Board
    of Directors. 
    
    The overall management of DCU is entrusted into the hands of
    essentially two organizations ...  The board of directors and
    the President and his managerial staff.
    
    The Board of Directors is supposed to be accountable to the
    membership and is supposed to represent the mambership in the CU
    management.  They are supposed to take input from the membership and
    management and from their direct the president with regard to policy.
    
    Clearly here, the problem is that there are a number of directors
    who are not listening to the membership ... they are listening to
    the president and his plans, whatever they might be, for the CU.
    
    Now, there has been one board overthrow because the board did not
    listen and did not communicate with the membership.  Obviously
    what is needed here is some way to ensure that the directors are
    made accountable to the membership, without having to wait up
    to three years until an election.
    
    Let's not create another infrastructure to go wrong.  Let's find
    ways to make the existing structures work.
    
    Stuart
    
    

Stuart writes about not creating another infrastructure that doesn't work.

I agree wholeheartedly.  In fact, I would say that their is nothing wrong
with the present infrastructure - the problem is with those who populate
it.  

The Board of Directors needs to do 2 things:  (1) Manage the strategic
direction of the credit union; (2) Take into account the wishes of the
members to the extent that it is able.

What's falling apart here is the Board's desire and ability to manage
the strategic direction of DCU.  In submitting not only to management's
desires to implement fees but also the management's plans to establish
relationship banking, the Board has turned over a lot of the strategic
management to DCU management.  

Next, it is clear that the Board, at least in part, is not listening to
it's membership.  The membership has stated in the strongest of terms
that fees are unacceptable. In fact we even voted it in.  While the Board
is not in a position to do everything the voters would like (yeah, that's
it, 20% interest on savings...that's the ticket :-), there is absolutely
no reason not to accept the membership's desire no to have fees.

The Board is supposed to chart a course for the credit union to follow,
foresee the future as best it can, and spell out to management what
goals it wants to meet.  It is up to management to implement those plans
in an efficient way.  Instead, I believe we have a situation in which
management tells the Board how things should be, and the Board simply
endorses the management recommendations.  Consider, for a moment, 
what percentage of Board meetings are conducted without top management
present.  The answer:  very little.  Of all the hours of Board 
deliberation, how much of it occurred without President Cockburn present?

The infrastructure isn't broken.  The issue is separation of responsibility,
and the Board's unwillingness to believe that what the members want is
the right thing.

./chris

    Well said Chris ...
    
    It really boils down to letting the Directors know, before and
    after elected that they must be responsible to, responsive to
    and accountable to the membership.
    
    As it stands now, there seem to be some directors who feel they
    are serving the membership ... but they certainly seem out of touch
    with it.  Clearly we need, as members, some way to rectify this
    situation.  The special meeting and election seems to be the only
    way, if the director remains oblivious to the membership.  This is
    an expensive and painful way to censure our representatives.
    
    Stuart

    Re: .3
    
    > It really boils down to letting the Directors know, before and after
    > elected that they must be responsible to, responsive to and accountable
    > to the membership.
    
    But the directors *already know* that they're accountable to the
    membership.  I suspect (but cannot assert) that this is one of the
    reasons they withheld the minutes of their discussions about the
    relationship banking stuff--to avoid the accountability for their
    decisions until relationships were a done deal.  The relief(?) that
    Phil expresses in note 694.3 suggests that there was even a
    self-imposed gag order on the board.
    
    >             The special meeting and election seems to be the only way,
    > if the director remains oblivious to the membership.  This is an
    > expensive and painful way to censure our representatives.
    
    My feelings exactly, which is why I proposed some sort of members'
    statement containing the core values(?) and which is binding on DCU
    management.  When the membership has made its wishes clear, and a
    director acts against these wishes without sound financial
    substantiation,  then that director is out of line and subject to
    censure or, perhaps, suspension.
    
    This is all about member empowerment.  When we elect directors whom we
    later discover are not representing us, we currently have no recourse
    except 1) wait for their terms to expire, which could be too late, or
    2) hold a special meeting--expensive and painful, as you point out, and
    certainly not practical to do each time the board diverges from the
    members' goals.  But, if we take no action, we render ourselves
    powerless over the situation.
    
    Why is a written statement of what the membership requires of its
    credit union not reasonable?  Is it also unreasonable to hold DCU
    management responsible for implementing the credit union that *we*
    collectively want to have?  How would we do this without a document
    that states what we want, and given that the directors won't listen to
    us?  (See the copious feedback on "relationship banking" that we
    provided in topic 623 of this conference, then compare with their
    actions).  
    
    How many times will something like this have to happen before we
    actually do take proactive measures to make sure we are heard?
    
    --Pat

    re: .5, Pat
    
    We appear to be at the mercy of the BoD.  The by-laws do not provide
    a way for owners to force the BoD members to do as we wish.  The BoD
    and indirectly, NCUA, control the by-laws.
    
    So, if we can not achive our goals through reasoning with the BoD
    members, the only alternative the by-laws provide is the the Special
    Meeting.  It is, as someone mentioned a long time ago, somewhat like
    doing brain surgery with an axe, but when your choice of tools is
    limited, you do what you have to do.
    
    Until we can read the un-redacted minutes of the April BoD meeting, I
    am opposed to taking any further action.  However, should the minutes
    fail to be available when promised, or remain redacted, I will fully
    surpport further action on the part of the DCU owners.
    
    Bob

    Yeah, I understand that a special meeting is currently our only option
    if the board does not align their actions with our directions. 
    (Really, I do understand!)  What I don't want is for us to be stuck in
    an infinite loop of 
     
      unresponsive board --> misguided decision --> special meeting --> ...
    
    We're already 2/3 the way into iteration number 2.  If the only way out
    of looping infinitely is to wait long enough to happen to elect a board
    that does represent the members, then we're in trouble...
    
    I'm somewhat surprised to hear that the membership has no say
    whatsoever as to the contents of the bylaws, not even during a special
    meeting.  That makes it kind of pointless to discuss anything other
    than waiting for the directors to reverse their decision, and failing
    that, to hold another special meeting.  Disappointing.
    
    --Pat

    It certainly is disappointing ...
    
    But, back to your concept of a membership statement of rights or
    whatever you'd like to call it ...
    
    A) the only way to reasonably get something like this together to 
    be truly representative is an elected committee.  Time and time again, 
    we are reminded by some directors and the old board, and management, 
    that those who note in here are not representative of the membership at 
    large.  DCU is made up of many thousands of members ... and they must 
    ALL be fairly represented in producing something like this.  
    
    Many of them cannot be contacted because we have no idea who they are ... 
    they no longer work for Digital ... they are employees of DCU and so on.
    You certainly cannot get the mailing list from DCU, and you cannot get
    DCU to distribute something like this.
    
    So, how can one elect a committee or even prepare a statement
    when we have no way of collecting majority member support ... because
    that is what it will take to even get this LOOKED at by DCU.
    
    B) Assuming for one minute that you can get a sufficient concensus to
    compose and ratify a statement, what are you going to do with it ?
    To become a part of DCU bylaws, it must get past the board ... and
    then past NCUA.
    
    To be honest, you stand a better chance of getting a legal injunction
    based on the results of the special meeting than organizing a thing
    like this.
    
    Basically, what we have to do is ensure that we actively determine
    that the next round of director elections produces directors who are
    open and communicative about member rights and hopefully we will
    then proceed to elect a new board who will provide us with the
    necessary member rights to help ensure that the elected directors
    are truly representing the membership.
    
    Strictly, this should not be necessary ... That is what the BoD
    was for in the first place ...
    
    Stuart

    
    Interesting discussion...  Now for a dose of reality.  THE NCUA WON'T
    ALLOW ANYTHING TO INTERFERE WITH THE BOARD'S ABILITY TO RUN THE CREDIT
    UNION.  Many of the proposed new Bylaws, especially those dealing with
    membership rights, have come back rejected as Bylaws.  Without Bylaw
    status, they are not worth the paper they'd be written on because they
    could be changed at the whim of whoever wishes to jerk the handle to
    send them down the hopper.
    

    I think that people have a tendency to define "listen to" as "agree
    with, follow the instructions of." After all most of us had parents
    who said "listen to me" when they wanted us to do something. However
    "listen to" does have a broader meaning. I don't think it's fair to
    say that the board doesn't listen to the members. I tend to think that
    the previous board didn't even listen but I do believe that the current
    board does listen. I've had conversations with 4 of the 7 board members
    over the last year and a half over a number of issues. We haven't
    always agreed 100% but I do feel that my opinion was always listened
    to, understood, and responded to.

    That is a big change. So let's be honest here and not say "listen to"
    when we mean "obey." But let us also be prepared to listen to the
    replies we get. We're told that a lot of information will be
    forthcoming on Wednesday. Maybe it would pay to relax, calm down, and
    see what comes out? At least in terms of the latest fee structure.

    Spending some time and effort on ideas to help the DCU bring in new
    business would be a positive step. I believe the whole board would be
    willing to listen to such ideas.

    			Alfred

�    Yeah, I understand that a special meeting is currently our only option
�    if the board does not align their actions with our directions. 
    
    Isn't there also an option for a group of members to call a meeting
    with the BoD?

    
    RE: .11
    
    Alfred, I believe all those facts are now in note 4.8.  Wednesday is
    when the minutes become unredacted.  

    But there HAS been progress... under the old board, we couldn't even
    find out what "relationship banking" meant!  The only way we found out
    that it was part of the philosophy was some obscure statements that
    Phil found in old BoD meeting minutes.  Now at least the Board is
    willing to tell us what 'relationship banking" means.  :-)
    
    Actually, the concept of "relationship banking" can be saved.  All
    that is necessary is to change from the current limits to ones that
    95% or more of all DCU members can meet all the time if they wish.
    E.g., you have a relationship if you have $500 minimum deposit, or had 
    any loan outstanding within the last 5 years.  Or something like that.
    
    The idea is to encourage people who really *don't* want to do business
    with the DCU to go elsewhere, while welcoming everyone who *does* want
    to do business with the DCU.  The idea is also to recognize that our
    financial situations vary over time, and people who were profitable
    members and will be again might not be at this particular moment.
    In short, the idea is to think of the *long term* health of the DCU,
    not to just look at this year's profit figures.
    
    Actually, for all I know Chuck and the Board already hold this
    philosophy.  I mean, it could be that they really *don't* want as
    members anyone who doesn't have a $3500 loan or $3500 deposit all
    the time, and perhaps they want all people who don't qualify to
    leave.  Well, that's certainly how a lot of people are taking the
    "relationship banking" scheme.  So lets hope, if that isn't what
    they mean, that they change their minds quickly.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

    
    RE: .14
    
    Larry, hoping for a "relationship model" that 95% of the membership
    falls into, isn't going to happen.  Too much "waste" if we loosen things
    up that much.  The drive to maximize per household profit requires that 
    many members will pay fees or leave.  Unfortunately, DCU members will
    either now be profitable, pay fees or leave.  I fear that many will
    fall out of relationship, into fees, and out the door.  And my
    experience says that once somebody is out the door, it's very difficult
    (if at all possible) to get them back.  DCU will have to be better
    than "competitive" to get these people back otherwise there is no
    incentive.  I don't see the mandate for that either at this point in
    time.  If Fee-based Banking remains at DCU, I don't see a good outlook
    for the majority of people the credit union was established to serve.
    

  Re .15

  WELL SAID!!!

Re: .17

>     If one were to look at the rates posted in VTX, you'll notice that
>     jumbo savings accounts get about DOUBLE the interest as normal savings.
>     we already created classes.  How many of you have $90K+ to put into
>     savings for 5 years?  how many of these accounts are open.  is our
>     competativness really aimed at this super saver at the expense of a
>     normal cooperative member?

I don't think .17 was comparing apples to apples. The rate for
Jumbo's are just .21% higher the $100 savings.  

In today's competitive environment, there's no choice but to pay
higher rates for larger deposits.

Gim



                      DCU's Investment Rates (06-July to 09-July)

                                            Term (months)
                                      Annual Yield (%) / Rate (%)
    Certificates
  (Minumum Balance)     3-5     6-12    13-23   24-35   36-47   48-59   60
  -----------------     ----    ----    -----   -----   -----   -----   ----

    Jumbo               ---     3.30    3.71    4.34    4.68    4.92    5.32
    ($90,000)                   3.25    3.64    4.25    4.57    4.80    5.19

    Mini-Jumbo          ---     3.25    3.66    4.29    4.62    4.86    5.27
    ($50,000)                   3.20    3.59    4.20    4.52    4.75    5.14

    Regular             3.05    3.20    3.60    4.23    4.57    4.81    5.22
    ($100)              3.00    3.15    3.54    4.15    4.47    4.70    5.09

Generally, you pay higher interest rates on higher balances because
you can often earn higher rates on external investments.  So this is
market driven.  The more money you put on deposit the more likely
you'll keep it there longer ... it's an incentive thing.

Stuart

    re .15:
    
    Note that I didn't suggest a relationship model that 95% DO fall into,
    I suggested a relationship model that 95% COULD easily fall into if they
    choose to do so.  I personally don't have a beef with setting fees to
    encourage folks who have never had more than $10 in the DCU to take
    their business elsewhere.  I *do* have a beef with fees that force
    out folks who have been good DCU members over the years, just because
    they don't happen to meet some finicky criteria over the short term.
    
    Also, note that I didn't suggest that this was something I thought
    that the current Board would do without being forced into it.  
    
    Finally, a related point. I saw in some Board minutes about a "credit
    scoring" system that would have rejected about half of the people
    whose defaulted on loans during a test period.  There was *NO* 
    mention of how many people it would have rejected who did *NOT*
    default.  Without that data, one cannot say whether the credit
    scoring system is any good, but the management and Board of the DCU
    seemed to think that simply rejecting more loan applications was a
    good idea.  Surely this couldn't be related to the $100M that can't
    be loaned...
    
    Anyway, Phil or Paul, could you possibly ask Chuck when next the
    Board meets to report on the extent to which credit scoring rejected
    folks who didn't default during the test period?  And if they don't
    have that data, could you ask them for me whether the job of the
    DCU is finding loan applications to accept or finding loan applications
    to reject?  I'd ask them myself, but I figure you are more likely to 
    an answer than I am.
    
    	Thanks,
    	Larry

�    Note that I didn't suggest a relationship model that 95% DO fall into,
�    I suggested a relationship model that 95% COULD easily fall into if they
�    choose to do so.  
    
    Question:  Does the $500/month direct deposit fit this criteria?

    
    My interpretation of the info provided by DCU is that a minimum monthly
    direct deposit to your checking account of $500 only waives the
    checking fee; it does *not* create a full-fledged "relationship".
    

    re: .22
    
    BINGO!  Like others, I was confused about the new categories.  My
    understanding is that there are folks with "relationships" and there
    are "abusers."  Of the "abusers" there are those with direct deposit
    that won't pay checking fees and those without direct deposit that will
    pay checking fees.  My guess is that eventually there will be only
    those with "relationships" who don't pay fees and those without
    "relationships" that do pay fees.  Seems to me the next logical step.
    
    Steve

What does DCU want for an average member (salary, etc.)?
What percentage of Digital employees meet this profile?

I would hope that DCU would take the US Digital population,
look at what income/finacial status the typical Digital
empployee has, and gear whatever services that DCU has to
that such it appeals to 80+% of that population and that
at least 90% of it's population would encounter no fees
typically.

or allow different plans:

	A fee escrow account (which gets a higher interest
	than savings).  You can keep a max of $52 in it
	and then allow it to drop or automaticly be replenished
	from savings or checking as desired.  This rewards
	those who use DCU services often or not at all.

	Waive $13 in fees every quarter (you don't keep any excess).
	If you keep nothing in your checking account (assuming you
	have one), then it's a wash.  If you keep more than the
	minimum then you get 13 foreign ATM transactions per quarter
	or whatever.  This encourages you keep more without penalizing
	you.  If you don't use it all up, DCU profits and then can
	spread it around via dividends.

The more I think of the latter approach the more I like it.  It's fair
and rewards those who do more business with DCU.

   
the fees will stop as soon as every member is an above average member. 

    re: .25 
    
    I hope you just 'forgot' the smily face, or, was that the point  ;)
    
    

    Re .26, .26
    
    I don't think he ment Smily, I think he ment that the only way to stop
    fees, in the current organization, would be to have ONLY "relationship"
    members.
    
    Gee, I remember when a "relationship" took at least two or three dates.
    	}8-)}
    
    Bill
    

re .25, .26, .27
yes i meant a smiley.  if i can fool Bill, it was not clear.

rank the members. cut off the bottom 10%.
repeat until insolvency.

it was impossible math to go with the bad analysis that claims to justify
the fees.

    Re .28
    
    Gee, it sounds like "Corporate Restucturing" }8-)}
    

    re .21:  Of *course* $500/month direct deposit fits the model of "most
    members can meet the relationship if they choose to".  Imagine someone
    who splits his/her paycheck between the DCU and a bank, at $500 each
    per month.  That's $12K per year.  It's pretty obvious that most
    DCU members (indeed, most Digital employees) meet that limit.  Was
    it a serious question?  

    Remember, though, that the $500 per month direct deposit does not make
    one a relationship member, it merely waives fees on the checking
    account.  

re: .30

Here's my situation.  Because there is no DCU branch in Texas, many stores
would refuse my check because it is an "out of state" check.  So, if I have
$500/month direct deposited into DCU, what do I do with it?  I can't afford
to 'save' it in my checking account at DCU.  I suppose I could write a check
once a month to transfer it to my local checking account, but why should I
go to all that trouble and cause DCU to incur the cost of maintaining an
additional account to avoid paying fees??

This is one case where I would cost DCU more, by becoming a 'relationship'
member, than just to stay 'pond scum', as someone put it.

Bob

re: .31

It doesn't?  Hmmmm.  Things are more screwed up than I thought.

Bob

    re .32:
    
    The majority of my checks are written to pay bills -- utilities, credit
    cards, mail orders, etc.  Those folks all take out-of-state checks.
    
    I also have an account at a local bank, to let my wife conveniently
    get cash when she is out shopping (no DCU ATM's near the shops, and
    we refuse to pay to use remote ATMs).  When she does write checks, 
    that's the checkbook that she uses, so even if I lived outside
    New England, the stores would all get local checks.  
    
    Would this sort of arrangement work in your case?
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

re .32

Bob,

I don't mean this to sound negative towards you personally, but why,
given so many negatives to your using DCU from Texas, WHY do you bother
with DCU at all ????

Stuart

Re: .32

Bob,

  I've been in Texas for almost 3 years now.  I've yet to have anyone refuse
my check because it is "out of state".  Now maybe the local Laundry just doesn't
look that closely or maybe it's the local personal address that is printed on
the check.  Also, I haven't tried buying anything really expensive using
a check (usually I use a non-DCU credit card for that) lately, but that's my
experience.

I'm thinking of closing my DCU accounts but it's not because of problems with
checking.

Al

�    re .21:  Of *course* $500/month direct deposit fits the model of "most
�    members can meet the relationship if they choose to".  Imagine someone
�    who splits his/her paycheck between the DCU and a bank, at $500 each
�    per month.  That's $12K per year.  It's pretty obvious that most
�    DCU members (indeed, most Digital employees) meet that limit.  Was
�    it a serious question?  
    
    Well, you did ask what criteria could get most DEC employees
    relationship status.  It does appear from your answer to my question
    that DCU is providing an easy means to get a relationship.

�    I also have an account at a local bank, to let my wife conveniently
�    get cash when she is out shopping (no DCU ATM's near the shops, and
�    we refuse to pay to use remote ATMs).  When she does write checks, 
�    that's the checkbook that she uses, so even if I lived outside
�    New England, the stores would all get local checks.  
    
    That's the arrangement I used while living in Texas.  It also allowed
    for quick deposits.

re: .34

Larry,  It would probably work, but I have no desire to maintain 2 checking
accounts, even with Quicken.  Then there's the ATM fees.  I try not to use
ATMs, but no matter how I try, something comes up and I hit the ATM a few times
a month for emergency cash.

re: .35

No offense taken.  If I didn't care about DCU and my fellow DECies, I would
have deleted this conference from my notebook a long time ago.  I want to
change DCU so I can use it.  In my case, it's a fact of life that most months
I will have a non-zero credit card balance, and until my wife retires, I will
always have a car payment.  As such, I'd much rather give my fellow DECies
the interest on my loans, rather than some faceless bank or other credit union.
However, DCU management doesn't seem to want it that way.  And it doesn't seem
that much is being returned to my fellow DECies in the way of dividends,
higher savings rates, or lower loan rates.  I will not pay extra for the
privilege of giving DCU money that doesn't get returned to the membership in
any meaningful form.

re: .36

Things may have changed since I last tried any of that.  I moved here before
the Texas banking laws changed to allow branch banking, etc.  When I moved
here, I was a member of another credit union and wanted to continue using
them, but discovered that at most places my checks were unwelcome.  Maybe it
was the way I looked :-)

Bob

    re .37:  As another notes string (and the "relationship letter") point out,
    $500 direct deposit per month does NOT make one a relationship member.
    (Though it does eliminate one fee, which I approve of).  I wasn't aware
    that anyone was confused about that point until I read the other notes.
    
    As I said in the note that I gather you were responding to,  I
    think that any valid concept of relationship ought to not just
    focus on the short term, e.g. "does this person have a $3500 balance
    or $3500 loan TODAY"?  I'm not opposed to punitive fees on "abusive"
    members -- I just disagree with Chuck on what consitutes abuse.  I
    want as members everyone who can pull at all -- I don't think those
    who is less profitable for the DCU than some goal should be thought
    of as "abusers" who "aren't pulling their weight".
    
    If you disagree with me, that's fine, but please address the points 
    that I made and make your own proposal.  Do you think that the only
    kind of member that the DCU should really want is the kind that
    meets Chuck and the BoD's proposed relationship criteria?  Or if you
    disagree with the current criteria, what do you suggest instead?
    
    re .39:  I don't want 2 checking accounts, either -- I want at least
    3 (and I actually have 4)!  I use them as a simple way to keep various
    budget categories separate (e.g. general expenses, home improvements
    and charitable contributions), and also to allow my wife and I to
    carry separate checkbooks.  I realize that not everyone would like 
    this kind of arrangement.  But for me, it it is no harder than having
    one checkbook -- the number of checks I write and enter is the same, I
    just have a choice of which list to enter them in.  
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

I disagree with you, Larry.  I am very suspect of all this
"abuse" I hear talked about and believe that DCU would be
much better off IGNORING the "abuse" and COURTING the
"abusers".  Even with all the abuse that we now supposedly
have, DCU is making record profits - with less than
competitive rates in a number of instances.  If we ever
achieved the "best in class" that some are pushing us
towards, I fully expect MORE money to come flowing in -
with a significant portion of that money from "abusers"
(if we don't push them out of the credit union first).

Attacking those who have taken the time to become DCU
members when profits are at records highs and there's 100 million
available to loan out strikes me as short-sighted and stupid.
If the credit union had a serious financial crunch, then
perhaps (and only perhaps) DCU might need to scratch for
every cent and take the risk of alienating some members in
order to keep expenses down.  Even then it's not clear that
attempting to loan out more money would be more profitable
in the short run (and CERTAINLY more profitable in the long
run).

Collis

    re .41:
    
    Well, I agree with everything you said!  So I guess I didn't make my
    point very well.  I'm not *in favor* of added fees.  I was simply
    trying to say that I don't object (for example) to a fee on accounts
    that have been inactive for a year.  But that's a far cry from what 
    Chuck and certain Directors apparently mean by "abuse" -- they seem 
    to mean an "abuser" is anyone who doesn't fit the profit profile.
    The $2.5M lost number is particularly significant -- it appears to
    be the amount the DCU would have earned had the non-relationship
    members been replaced by members who fit the profit profile.  Can a
    Director state just where the $2.5M number really does come from?
    
    I suppose it is time to ask the question:  just what is Chuck's goal?
    Does he get what he is looking for by being president of a CU that
    has increasing membership, and whose members are very happy with it?
    Or does he get what he is looking for by being president of a CU that
    has great looking profit numbers?  Could this explain the discrepency
    between what the members seem to want and what Chuck is pursuing?
    
    		Larry

        
    Caution!  Unusually blunt language ahead...  You might not want to hear
    this.
    
    
    
    Danger!  Nasty generalizations ahead.  Proceed at your own risk...
    
    
    
    OK, you asked for it...  Can't say I didn't warn you...
    
    
    
    Now for my opinion of why we are, where we are...
    
    We are back in the same position because DCU members have been
    conditioned to play by the rules set by those that have stated that
    they won't allow just anybody run the largest credit union in New
    England.
    
|   DCU members have been conditioned to vote for directors based upon 
|   their resume because we have been taught that people with advanced
|   degrees, high titles and previous banking or finance experience are
|   the ONLY PEOPLE who are QUALIFIED to be on the board.  Until we
|   change this behavioral pattern, this credit union is doomed to never
|   being what the majority of its members want it to be.  


    I ask that everybody go back and review candidate statements.  What do
    ANY of them for the current Board members say about what they want DCU
    to be?  Where they want it to go?  What do they think DCU members want?
    BS statements about "fiscal soundness" (like somebody would say they
    wanted to drive the CU down the tubes?), "responsive services" (who the
    hell wants UNresponsive services?), "safety for your deposits" (you mean
    you aren't going to leave the safe doors open anymore?), "competitive
    rates (we ALREADY have them! we want better!), "cost effective backroom
    operations" (HUH??? This a credit union, not a veterinarian!).  After
    all we went thru, MY STATEMENT WAS THE ONLY ONE OUT OF *20* TO STATE
    OPPOSITION TO CHECKING FEES.  Why?
    
    If candidates aren't going to clearly, AND IN DETAIL, articulate what
    they want DCU to be, then we will continue to be unpleasantly surprised
    by people who get elected to the board.  It is the responsibility of
    each and every member to know who you're voting for.  It's better to
    not vote than to vote for somebody that you know nothing about.  But
    people think, what the heck, he's got banking experience, and he's pretty
    high up there in DEC and OH LOOK!, he's from finance, he's GOT to be
    good.  Bingo, game over.  You end up with a board full of high-paid
    finance people with experiences with banks and the membership is left
    to wonder why DCU smells like The First National Bank of Digital.
    Add to that mix, directors who think it is their ONLY job to
    approve/disapprove DCU management recommendations and again, the
    membership ends up with the wrong end of the stick.
    
    This behavior is even present during Supervisory Comm. appointments. 
    The Board was informed that anybody serving on the Supervisory Comm.
    would need to know how to read financial statements.  Gee, there's only
    one person from finance and two engineers applying for the position.  I
    wonder who we should appoint then?  I don't need to tell you who was
    appointed.  Of course, the two engineers couldn't possibly be QUALIFIED
    or able to read a column of numbers!
    
    I could go on but I'd better end this now.  If your eyes and ears could
    have seen and heard what mine hav over the last 16 months...  Hmmmmmmmm...
    

    
    Re: some number of notes back.
    
    It was Phil, I think, who asserted that lost members are near
    impossible to get back.
    
    A case in point: a coworker of mine who has left the DCU flatly
    stated that the competition is so intense for his business that
    he doubts there "is any possibility" that the DCU could now offer
    him anything that would get his business back.  Be clear on this.
    He was not being negative or spiteful.  He was only saying that 
    his current financial services choices meet his needs well enough
    so that the hassle of changing to "anywhere" would require a deal
    that it was unlikely any institution could offer.  In effect he
    said that the DCU once had him as a customer and the intertia required
    to leave the DCU would never have come about if they had met his
    needs to begin with.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve