Conference 7.286::dcu

    I just got the same thing.  I had not written to anyone other than a
    reply in this file.
    
    I'd like to talk to her about this but of course I will await the
    "real" board meeting minutes before getting too worked up.
    
    Marv
    
    P.S.
     Its too bad that Digital management is not as ready to notice and
    respond to issues raised in NOTES conferences.
    

    Since Ms. Ross has write-locked 706, I've got to comment in a new note.
    
    Ms. Ross, I don't think you are REALLY trying to communicate with the
    DCU members.  The hours you are willing to make yourself available are
    very inconvenient for anyone outside of the GMA.  What about the
    members on the West Coast????  Should they get up in the middle of the
    night to call you????  How about putting out a little effort and making
    yourself available at the MEMBERS convenience??? Remember, YOU work FOR
    the MEMBERS, not the other way around.
    
    Bob

    Re .-1
    
    Actually Lisa didn't set it /NOWRITE. That was an artifact of me moving
    notes around. Sorry about that. People can reply to this note now.
    
    Dave

re .2

  I think you are a bit drastic her Lunch hours are not that bad!  I just don't
see any reason to re-state my views on the phone.  It's obvious that the current
board members have made their decision.

  I have also noticed that most people mis-interpreted this sentence:

>> On September 22, the posting of the unredacted April Board Minutes is
>>scheduled so that you, the member, have an opportunity to review the Board's 
>>discussion and vote on this important policy. 

  It does not mean you get a chance to vote it means you can review the Board's
vote.

    Since we will all likely have the same or similar concerns, when
    talking to Lisa, and since I don't see why Digital should pay for my
    call to her (long distance, even though it is a DTN, it is not free),
    would someone post their questions, and answers.  Assuming 10 minutes
    per call, with the same questions and answers given, this would seem to
    be a better use of time and resources.
    
    reg: .2, a formal meeting wouldn't help those on the west-coast
    either.

    
>How about putting out a little effort and making
>    yourself available at the MEMBERS convenience??? Remember, YOU work FOR
>    the MEMBERS, not the other way around.

    Lisa may work for the members but Digital pays her salary. Unless you
    are suggesting we pay directors I think we should expect Lisa to do
    her paying job during regular work hours. Her lunch hour is very
    reasonable for west coast members (about 8-9 isn't it?). The early
    hours are easy for cross pond members. I don't think we should expect
    board members to completely give up having a life.

    			Alfred

Bob,

It certainly was not my intent to make it inconvenient for you to ring me up 
by setting the hours I did......

let's try this instead -

Please change Sept 23 and Sept 24 to read:

Sept 23 	4:30 to 5:30 p.m.
Sept 24		5:45 to 7:00 p.m.


I will not be available in the mornings on those days.

If these times are still not convenient for you or anyone else then please 
send me a quick note and I am sure we can work something out.....

Cheers!

P.S. Mr. Moderator, can we edit the original noted?

    re: .6
    
    Alfred, my inconsistency alarm is ringing.  You say...
    
    >Lisa may work for the members but Digital pays her salary. Unless you
    >are suggesting we pay directors I think we should expect Lisa to do
    >her paying job during regular work hours. Her lunch hour is very
    >reasonable for west coast members (about 8-9 isn't it?). The early
    
    Aren't the West Coast members supposed to work for Digital during their
    regular working hours?
    
    Bob
    

    
>    Aren't the West Coast members supposed to work for Digital during their
>    regular working hours?
    
    I'm assuming that there is a difference between a west coast person
    taking 10 minutes for a call and someone else taking 2 hours to talk
    to a whole bunch of people. 
    
    		Alfred

    Let's get realistic here, too.  What manager in their right mind is
    going to object to use of DTN for 10 minutes to discuss a Digital
    benefit with appropriate representatives at appropriate hours?  It
    appears to me that Lisa is taking appropriate steps to make herself
    available.  Take advantage of it to voice your concerns.
    
    Steve

My point of calling an average call of 10 minutes, is that there is only so much
time allocated.  Since the questions are likely to be common, many of which are
already asked in this conference, it would be more efficient to post a response
to questions here.  Then, those that have follow-up, can call Lisa.

Also, assuming everyone with a questions calls Lisa, the phone will be busy for
the vast majority.  So, if telephone calls are the chosen media, then all BoD
members should offer time to answer member/owner questions (though I still think
notes is a beter medium).

The issue should be, does the membership want to pay fees.  If not, will the BoD
honor our wishes.

Mark

    
    The written word is a bit more tangible IMO.  Will Lisa be speaking on
    her own behalf or on behalf of the majority of Directors that voted for
    Fee-based Banking?
    

    > The written word is a bit more tangible IMO.  Will Lisa be speaking on
    > her own behalf ...
    
    That was my reaction when I received that mail from Lisa.  This feels
    just like the Cable company.  You can call them up and complain all you
    want, but if you don't send them something in writing, they are not
    obligated to even admit you complained.  So I send mail to the board
    and one of them responds that I should give her a call.  And, besides,
    like an earlier noter mentioned, this is just so the board can tell us
    why we should shut up and accept what they have decided to do.  Well,
    that was not my intent in writing to the board.  I wrote to them to
    tell my opinion. 

        I tend not to use the phone too much. It's not a comfortable
    environment for me. I'm much more comfortable face to face. When that
    is not possible/practical I use Email. I also tend not to worry so
    much about having things in writing so I guess the issue of having
    something more "tangible" doesn't come up for me.

    One other thing I believe in is that someone who wants to get a message
    across should use the method preferred by the intended receiver. Given
    that Lisa and other board members do not appear to feel all that 
    comfortable in Notes it seems that serious members will use other
    means of communication to get their points across. I note that a lot 
    of people have indicated they use mail. Seems like a good enough way.
    Paul and Phil are very good at dialogue via mail so this works well
    with them.

    However, we have one member who has indicated that she'd welcome
    dialogue via phone. She's comfortable with that. I've taken her up on
    it and we had dialogue. Are the rest of you taking her up on it or is
    it "reply by mail or notes or I don't want to talk with you?"

    			Alfred

Heads up....

I will not be able to make the Telephone Schedule I posted for 
Wednesday, Sept 29.  My apologies! Please try me at any of the 
other times posted.

Cheers!

RE: Note 706.0 by LEDS::ROSS

I tried calling today 3 times.  Once I got an answering machine saying
that Lisa was not around (12:00 exactly my time) and then about 12:15
and 12:45.  In the last two cases I got 5 rings or so and then an
answering machine...

I take it she was not available Tuesday either...

No message was left on my answering machine saying she called...

	-mark

Re:  last couple

And I thought it was just me.  I also called yesterday, about
12:15.  I left a message including my phone number expecting a
call back. Then I stayed in my office until well past 1:00
waiting. No call.

    
    Re .18:
    
    Me too -- the same experience.
    

    Wierd. I've called a couple of times in the last two weeks and always
    got her on the first try.
    
    			Alfred

    
    I did get in touch with Lisa today. There seems to be some
    office-shuffling going on in her neck of the woods, and as a result
    some voicemail messages might have been lost. Also, it took me four
    tries this morning to catch her while her phone wasn't busy. So,
    keep trying.
    
    I wish I could say our conversation was productive, but I don't feel
    that way. Lisa remained convinced that the board, in voting for new
    fees, was taking the best action for the long-term success of the
    credit union. I remained convinced that the board is directly violating
    the wishes expressed by the vast majority of the members, and has not
    made a convincing argument why their action is necessary. Lisa also
    expressed her opinion that her vote on fees was not inconsistent with
    her compaign for a director position.
    

    
    Re: -1
    
    I talked to Lisa a couple of days ago.  And I came away with a 
    similar impression.  
    
    She is convinced what the board decided to do is absolutely correct. 
    
    I don't agree.  And I finally had to say "I guess we will have to 
    agree to disagree".  
    
    I'll be moving my accounts elsewhere.  And I intend to encourage 
    others as well. 

A suggestion:

If you have tried to contact Lisa and have not been able to, please post
a note saying so.

If you have been able to contact Lisa, please post a note detailing her
thoughts and your conversations.

This will help the members who did not call understand what one BOD
member thinks.  I suggest that if you disagree with Lisda, that you call
her and let her know...

	- mark

>    
>    I'll be moving my accounts elsewhere.  And I intend to encourage 
>    others as well. 
>

I wish that peple would stop voting with their feet so quickly ...

There are ways of correcting this situation, and there are peple who are
looking into the ways to do it and to get the wheels in motion soon.

It is OUR Credit union, and we have the ability to effect change.  Sometimes
that change must of necessity come slowly ... sometimes it happens slowly,
and sometimes it takes a number of iterations.  What is plain is that some
board members did not communicate very well what they stood for when they 
were elected.  So, what else is new ... that's why there are ways of
changing things.

So to all who want to leave ... please stick around for a while longer.
Become a CU abuser if you must, but don't give up your membership and the
ability to make positive change.

Stuart

    
    Yes, please, don't walk away so soon.
    
    Look at it this way. A few years ago, we had no directors who were
    willing to represent the owners. After the last burst of owner
    outrage, we had two. One or two more bursts and we could wind up
    with a real credit union!
    

Agreed... don't walk all the way out.  Leave your $5.00 in savings (I'm fairly
certain that won't have a fee on it!) so that you can vote.

Ray

RE: .-1

>Agreed... don't walk all the way out.  Leave your $5.00 in savings (I'm fairly
>certain that won't have a fee on it!) so that you can vote.


Let 'em try and collect a fee from me on my $5!

-r

    
    
    Definitely don't leave before giving it our best shot.  I'll
    be darned if I'm going to be driven out by an obstinate bunch
    who refuse to listen.  I may finally decide to vote with my
    feet but not before I am absolutely convinced that it won't
    change.
    
    Steve
    

Here is a quick summary of my talk with Lisa.

Lisa did get back to me (actually called me at 6:21 AM, but I was not
around) and then around 12:45.

I had a spirited talk with her.  Her view is that members voted her in
and they should now trust her to do the job.  She feels the information
provided by her about her background caused people to vote for her.

I tried to get across that maybe the members are not wanting the change
to occur the way the majority of the BOD wants.

I asked about getting information in regards to ACTUAL costs per member
and not the fed averages.  She feels that it would not be good for me to
have it because it took the board a year to get enough information to
make the decision and how could I make it with just those numbers.  She
repeated this multiple times.

I explained that I am an owner.  I have an obligation to make sure that
the correct decisions are made, as an owner.  I have already spent 20+
hours trying to look into this and am not afraid to spend more.

This is the wrong attitude for Lisa to take.

I tried hard to get her to see that members should be vigilant in
watching DCU and make sure they do not falter, like previous BOD did. 
Her feelings is that will not happen.

Summary:  We had a nice talk.  Did not get anywhere, but I have at
least an idea of what she believes in.

I am disappointed that Lisa does not trust the members to be able to
understand the numbers.

I hate to say it, but I see a special meeting coming.

	- mark


P.S. She prefers to communicate by voice.  I asked her to then have some
meetings at the various DEC sites so that members could visit with her
and share their opinions.  I do not expect her to get involved with
notes or mail.

    I have had a conversation with Lisa.  My impression is that she and the
    Board members really feel they are doing the right thing.  We do
    disagree on points.  At the same time, I feel more a sense that this is
    not the same fight as two years ago.  I, personally, don't like
    fee-based banking with the DCU.  I do agree with general goals of
    cleaning up business and assuring DCU's financial position.  But, I
    disagree with some of the messages that, intentionally or not, are
    being sent from DCU.  In particular, I don't like singling out certain
    shareholders as "abusers" and dividing shareholders into classes.
    
    At the same time, I am anxiously searching for proactive solutions and
    intend to continue my communication with Lisa and others of the BoD.
    More, I would really, really like to see open communication between
    the BoD and shareholders, perhaps in a town meeting format at different
    sites.  More later ...
    
    Steve

    
>    More, I would really, really like to see open communication between
>    the BoD and shareholders, perhaps in a town meeting format at different
>    sites.  More later ...
    
    Steve, I called for this on Sept. 20th.  To date I have no response
    from any other Directors indicating that would consider meeting with
    members.  I will reaffirm my commitment to meet with DCU members to
    listen to their concerns, explain my positions and discuss what the
    future of DCU *could* be.
    

    
    RE: .21
    
    >Lisa also expressed her opinion that her vote on fees was not 
    >inconsistent with her compaign for a director position.
    
    Bill, did Lisa explain this?  Campaigning "to hold the line on fees"
    and then voting for a complete business model change to Fee-based Banking
    is consistent?  I'm very confused.  There must be more that we're
    missing.
    

    
    Re .32:
    
    I am also confused. I must admit that phone is my least comfortable
    communication medium; it is also perhaps the worst medium for a rigorous
    analytical discussion. I am still not satisfied that Lisa's voting
    record is consistent with her campaign statements.
    

    
    Ed, I can only explain my own position and statements.  Lisa can speak
    for herself on how her statements square up.
    
    All I know is that I was the only one offering approaches OTHER than
    Fee-based Banking and it got no support from any one other than Paul.
    That's why I'm totally confused on what line was held and when it 
    occurred.  I haven't missed a meeting and I know I would have remembered
    it.  Still confused...
    

I talked with Lisa at lunchtime today.  I think it's good that
she's taking the time to talk with interested members.

I'd characterize our discussion as spirited.  We have radically 
different world views on this.  Some of the things we talked
about (and my recollection of the discussion) are: 

How does she reconcile her campaign promises to her vote for
relationship banking fees?  She believes that she did not vote 
for fees, she voted for fairness and what's in the long term best
interests of the DCU.  She believes she's upheld her campaign 
statement.

Did you consider how it would look to the membership to introduce 
fees at the same time that the Board approved gain sharing 
bonuses (based on meeting the profit goal) for the employees?  No 
because she doesn't see them as related.  The basis of meeting 
the profit goal is for this year only.  It's the first step in 
the Total Quality Management program and some other measure will 
be used later.  This replaced existing Rewards & Recognition 
programs.

The DCU made $ 5 million last year and is showing signs of record 
profits again this year.  Relationship banking will increase that 
profit (either by driving out 'unprofitable' members or making 
them 'relationship' members).  What will the money be used for?  
How will it benefit the members?  Lisa said that this is part of 
the long-term strategic plan for the DCU which will give us
better rates, more products and services and that's how it will 
be returned to the members.  Trust her that that's included in
the plan even though it may not be present yet. 

A recurring theme of Lisa's comments was that relationship banking 
was about the DCU forcing people to make a choice about whether
they wanted to be with the DCU or not.  Those that did, would 
someday benefit.  The people who keep $ 5 in their accounts just 
to use the DCU to cash checks probably wouldn't.  I did ask Lisa 
how many of the 80,000 or so members fell into this category.  
She didn't know but said she'd check on it.

Maryellen

    
    Re: .36
    
    > She believes that she did not vote for fees, she voted for
    > fairness and what's in the long term best interests of the
    > DCU.
    
    What crap!!!  Not once has there been a formal resolution made 
    by the members which demanded fairness, but we sure as hell were
    clear about demanding no fees!  This is just a way not to have to
    admit that she reneged on her campaign promise.
    
    > It's the first step in the Total Quality Management program ...
    
    Ms. DeMauro has absolutely no clue what Total Quality Management
    means.  TQM is about ensuring your long term business success by
    ensuring that the quality of your goods and services matches the
    needs of your customers.  Its about managing from the standpoint
    of satisfying customers which produces profit as its byproduct.
    Not by focusing directly on the profit.  Seems like they ALL need
    a lesson in TQM.  
    
    > A recurring theme of Lisa's comments was that relationship
    > banking was about the DCU forcing people to make a choice
    > about whether they wanted to be with the DCU or not.  
    
    What a concept!  An organization claiming to have a TQM program
    satisfies its customers by dictating how it will do business
    with them, pissing them off, and DEVELOPS A POLICY of driving
    away the owner-members who don't bring all their business to
    it because it doesn't meet their needs.  
    
    What planet are these people from??
    
    Steve
    
    

Re: my reply .36

Another thing that Lisa mentioned (more than once), is her view
that members who leave the DCU over the fee issue and 
relationships will be lured back by the better service, rates,
more products, etc. that the DCU will supposedly have at some
point in the future.  I'm more willing to believe the opposite --
that once people are driven out, they'll be very unlikely to come
back.  And, it will be more expensive for the DCU to get them 
back than if they kept them to begin with.  We agreed to disagree 
on this.

Maryellen

    Interesting kindof arrogance.
    
    Fees don't begin to cover what they consider as losses, . If
    they can't improve rates and services now, without fees, I don't
    see how they can do it with fees.
    
    Stuart

    I did get a response to my letter to the BoD from Ms. Ross....because
    our schedules won't allow for telephone conversation, I sent the
    following response:
    
    *******************************************************************
    Dear Lisa:
    
    I do appreciate your effort to reach me, but I probably won't be 
    able to call you during the hours listed in the notes conference.
    This is not your fault; I work in pre-sales support at 1-800-DEC-
    SALE....so I'm chained to a phone myself and we have very rigid
    phone schedules.
    
    For what it's worth I have noted your entries in the DCU conference
    and I do commend you for making the efforts you are putting forth.
    It might not seem fair, but realistically I don't see you changing
    my mind.
    
    I don't doubt that you sincerely believe you are doing what is best;
    however I do feel you've sorely miscalculated the sentiment of the
    majority of DCU members.
    
    I don't feel I abuse the DCU.  I have one regular savings account 
    and one checking account.  I was about to re-open the RSVP savings
    that I cleaned out when I bought my house, then this latest news
    hit.  The money targeted for the RSVP will be going into a Money
    Market account at my local neighborhood bank (better deal).  Paying
    a service fee on my regular savings account.....I don't think so.....
    
    The only thing that will make me change my mind about closing out my
    accounts is having the fees rescinded; bottomline, anything else is
    unacceptable.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Karen Reese
    *******************************************************************
    
    Lisa is the only member of the BoD who voted for the relationship/fees
    who has contacted me.  I tend to agree with those who've stated that
    the DCU won't mind seeing folks go; I also agree with the person who
    indicated that the DCU won't get a lot of folks back.
    
    I won't give up my voting rights; but I will be among those who
    reduce my account balance to $5.00.  I wouldn't be affected by the
    checking fees because of direct deposit, but that is irrelevant.
    It might take us some time, but we can remove those members of the
    BoD who are not responsive to our wishes; I just can't help wondering
    if the DCU will survive that long.
    
    If it walks like a bank, talks like a bank......it had better be able
    to compete as a bank....the DCU doesn't cut it.  Did anyone ever get
    an answer to what would happen to the tax exempt status if the DCU
    takes on the attributes of a bank?
    

    
    Re: .38
    
        Maryellen,
    
    Again you are right and Lisa is dead wrong.
    
     > Another thing that Lisa mentioned (more than once), is her view
     > that members who leave the DCU over the fee issue and 
     > relationships will be lured back by the better service, rates,
     > more products, etc. that the DCU will supposedly have at some
     > point in the future.   I'm more willing to believe the opposite --
     > that once people are driven out, they'll be very unlikely to come
     > back.  And, it will be more expensive for the DCU to get them 
     > back than if they kept them to begin with.  We agreed to disagree 
     > on this.
    
    According to Deming, profits come from *REPEAT* business of satisfied
    customers who loyally return time and again because they feel respected,
    valued, and you meet their needs.  When you look at your costs on a
    per customer basis, the customer whom you have to either win back or
    get in the door with advertising or other efforts is a very expensive
    customer to do business with.  It takes quite a while for repeat
    business of new or won back customers to pay for the following
    losses:
    
    	o Cost of the efforts to win new customers or win back lost ones.
        o Loss related to lost customers that don't come back.
        o Loss related to potential customers that you lose who are
    		influenced by lost customers.
    
    Clearly the ideal state is that you never have to advertise or
    coax people in the door, because the quality of your product/service
    and the relationship you have with your customers ensures that they
    would rarely or never consider going elsewhere *and* you get new
    business not with advertising but because of the references of your
    current customers.  It CAN be done, but it requires that you listen
    to your customers and place their needs and interests before the
    bottom line.
    
    Steve

 > Another thing that Lisa mentioned (more than once), is her view
     > that members who leave the DCU over the fee issue and 
     > relationships will be lured back by the better service, rates,
     > more products, etc. that the DCU will supposedly have at some
     > point in the future.   I'm more willing to believe the opposite --
     > that once people are driven out, they'll be very unlikely to come
     > back.  And, it will be more expensive for the DCU to get them 
     > back than if they kept them to begin with.  We agreed to disagree 
     > on this.
    

I also think Lisa is wrong about this, and I've got lots of examples. I left
Shawmut because of a bad experience with an easy transaction -- they couldn't
do an electronic transfer of interest between my CD and my savings account
in less than 3 days and tried to convince me they weren't playing the float.
They couldn't pay me enough interest on my money to go back.  And I had a
bad experience with Boston 5 on my mortgage with them attempting 
unsuccessfully to pay my taxes on time and in the correct amount.  I moved 
that mortgage to the DCU.  And the way interest on a collateral loan at
Lowell Institution for Savings was calculated got all messed up at one point
due to a computer problem that persisted for something like 6 months -- I
now have that money at Middlesex Savings. I'm not afraid to switch banks for
poor service, and I have a long memory so I'm very reluctant to go back
once I've been mistreated and the bank has failed to rectify things to my
satisfaction.  Without fail, all the banks I have left have been because of
mistakes on their part that they would not admit nor correct easily. I have
stayed with BayBank for about 12 years now, and not without having mistakes
made in my account. But they are willing to listen to me, and they are 
willing to correct their mistakes. I can't expect never to see mistakes. But
I can and do expect the bank to admit when one has occurred and correct it
to my satisfaction. 

I don't see this happening at the DCU.

    
    Re: .42
    
    A perfect example of my point in reply 41.  Shawmut, Boston 2,
    and Lowell Institute for Savings have lost money by driving a
    customer away and losing other potential customers because the
    one driven away has communicated that displeasure to others.
    
    On the other hand if I was looking for another bank BayBank
    would now be on the list of those I would consider since I got
    a good reference.
    
    Steve
    

  DCU has forgotten an important thing about people and relationships.  People
may well return to a business some time after they have had a bad experience.
BUT people are an order of magnitude more likely to never return if that
experience relates to money.  When a person feels that an organization is
only interested in their $$$$ then they are very unlikely to change their
point of view.  Money is different than service or other things.

  Also...   I think that DCU is very myopic in their view of relationships.
If you are a relationship person then you are permitted to abuse the system
without fees.  With all the claims of what non-relationship members are costing
DCU I doubt that they really have calculated the costs accurately.  I expect
that they just added up the numbers of the people under the minimum for
a relationship and did not exclude those who get a "free" ride (Senior's,
family members etc) making the numbers look worse than they really are.

  Agreed that a smaller DCU should be downsized (maybe we can start at the
top for a change? ;-.]) 

    
.44> ...With all the claims of what non-relationship members are costing
.44> DCU I doubt that they really have calculated the costs accurately.
    
    Reliable sources tell me that DCU has no internal cost accounting that
    would provide cost/profit information on specific services; therefore,
    far from "calculating the costs accurately," they actually seem to be
    playing the Bullwinkle game:
    
    	"Hey, Rocky. Watch me pull a number out of a hat!"
    

----Begin of war story----
I used to bank with Bay Bank when I lived in MA.  Even though I had direct 
deposit, they kept charging me account fees.  Shame on them.
I never fought about it until it caught my attention about 4 years later.  
Shame on me.
When I called one of their VPs to complain, he just asked:'And we overcharged 
you by about $850?  It will be in your account tomorrow!"

And it was.  And I am always checking my statements now...
----End of war story----
Joerg

    RE:.44

>  Agreed that a smaller DCU should be downsized (maybe we can start at the
>top for a change? ;-.]) 


    	I think it's essential that we start at the top.

    Joe