Conference 7.286::dcu

    So, I guess it is better to wait 6 months to hold a meeting (and incur
    the additional cost) then to discuss it at a meeting just 2 short
    days later....  Does that make financial sense.  I guess we will need
    the new fees to pay for the up-coming special meeting(s).
    
    Phil, why were you asked direct questions about your accepting the
    fees, when you had not yet (according to the minutes) expressed any
    opinion at all..  It seemed odd to me, the way the minutes read.
    
    No new information, but the implications of the discussions, and the
    tone, were interesting.
    
    I suggest we create a petition calling for revokation of the new fees,
    and abtain as many signatures as possible.  If our BOD does not revoke
    the fees, I then suggest getting a petition for a special meeting, to
    address the fees, and other pending issues.
    
    Mark

Can the $2.5 "cost" that is being attributed to "non-relationship" accounts
be explained please?

And if keeping this confidential was really supposed to provide time for
making a clear presentation to the membership, you (DCU board and mgmt)
failed miserably.  Your "marketing announcement" doesn't make anything clear
to me.  On second thought, it does make clear that I have a very different
view of how a "cooperative" can foster it's "relationships".  This rationale
of "carrying your fair share" is a petty and ridiculous strawman argument.
If inactive accounts are putting us under (which they most certainly are not)
then provide incentive to participate more - not a disincentive to not
participate at all.

One last thing:  Chuck noted "that checking accounts should be no different
from any other DCU product where pricing is concerned".  Except the member
owners want it that way - doesn't that get any consideration?

Ray

    
    FYI, an "illegal motion" was not recorded in the minutes.  When asked
    for the motion to keep the decision under wraps, I volunteered one
    similar to the following,
    
    "I move that all Directors be gagged and prevented from disclosing..."
    
    Anyways it contained the word gag.  Gotta learn to be more PC I guess.
    It sure did feel like a gag though.
    
    Phil (euphemism-impaired)

    
    Well, there was one small piece of new information: in Phil's statement
    to the board, he hints at the revenue that the new fees would generate,
    $317K-$376K.
    
    Phil, is there some official business plan from which these numbers
    were taken? If so, will it be made available to the owners?
    

    In the minutes, the term abusers was mentioned several times. Could
    someone explain in more detail what this abuse is?

    Another quick observation.  From the minutes it says there was a
    comment from Karen Kupferberg regarding the fees.  Is this a member of
    the Board?  or a supervisory committee member? 

    re: Note 707.5 by CSSE::HENRYNote 707.5 by CSSE::HENRY
    
    An 'abuser' is anyone who does not have a 'relationship' with the DCU.
    
    I have a real problem with the board categorizing non-'relationship'
    members as 'abusers'.
    
    I also think the board made an erroneously huge assumption that 1/3 of
    the members would not accept subsidizing the other 2/3.
    
    Ken....

  Does the DCU really consider $300-$500 minimum balance on checking to be
 competitive?

    
    
  >  I also think the board made an erroneously huge assumption that 1/3 of
  >  the members would not accept subsidizing the other 2/3.
    
    As someone who falls into the 1/3, I'll state that I am fully in favor
    of subsidizing the other 2/3 now, since I know that some day I might
    again be in the 2/3.
    
    After the brew-ha in '91, I moved into the 1/3 because I thought
    (silly me) that things were improving.  Oh well, time to become part
    of someone else's 1/3.
    
    Joe
    
    

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..  

As a "relationship member", I could care less that I'm helping to carry
some segment of DCU members.  All I care about is:

	- DCU pays a good rate on my savings accounts
	- DCU allows me to have lots of sub-accounts so I can budget easily
	- I don't get nickeled and dimed to death by constantly rising
	  minimum balances and misc. fees

I am very disturbed that the BOD discusses a segment of its members as
"abusers".  These members are simply using DCU services -- not breaking
any DCU policies.  If DCU doesn't make a profit on these members, that may
well be a problem, but to classify customers as "abusers" is ludicrous.

However, instead of opining in here, it's time to write my letter to the BOD...

Cheers,

- Deb

    re: the 1/3 of the members who carry the 2/3 of the members statement
    in the BoD meeting.
    
    I'm glad someone has finally woken up and realized just how horrible it
    is for those of us who don't have access to a DCU branch or ATM to have
    to carry those members who abuse DCU by having the nerve to use a
    teller or a DCU-owned ATM.  Just think of all the 'lost' income caused
    by having to equip and staff branch locations and ATMs.
    
    Bob

    If non-relationship members are costing us $2.5 million, I fail to see
    how $300K in fee revenue is going to help that.

RE: Note 707.13 by PATE::MACNEAL

>    If non-relationship members are costing us $2.5 million, I fail to see
>    how $300K in fee revenue is going to help that.

It is NOT meant to.  They hope to have these people quit...

	- mark

      As a "relationship member", I'd like to know what will happen if
    DCU management succeeds in dismembering the accounts of the "non-
    relationship" members.  What will the remaining members gain, if
    anything ?  Will we get dividends, a REAL improvement of rates, or will
    the profit go into the "gainsharing plan" of DCU employees ?  I have
    no problem with them taking care of their employees, but shouldn't
    they be taking care of us members first ?
    
                                                                 -Jeff
    

    Re:  .16 
    
    Jeff, you've raised a good question.  One I've asked since this whole
    fees issue was raised.  So far, only one person has attempted to answer
    it and that was a board member.  He told me what he THOUGHT should
    happen.  However, when asked directly what the DCU management has
    committed to as the impact on DCU "relationship" members, the answer
    was:  nothing.
    
    I wish I could feel more suprised by that answer.
    

I have to admit that the DCU is in a delicate and difficult situation.

As a relationship member, none of the fees will affect me directly; 
however, if there is a sufficient membership drop as a result, then
the response of the DCU *could be* to eliminate tellers and/or entire
branches. or reduce services in other ways, which *would* impact me.

Sorry, but I don't have any ideas right now how to keep DCU attractive
for me and at the same time make it accessible to the other 2/3 of
the membership.

What I'm most afraid of is that DCU will fail at both (i.e. lose
membership AND become unattractive to relationship members).

On the other hand, I don't like the implication that somehow I'm "carrying"
others; nor do I like the implication that those others are "abusing"
the system.  There's got to be another way out of this.

    I am the "relationship" member.
    
>On the other hand, I don't like the implication that somehow I'm "carrying"
>others; nor do I like the implication that those others are "abusing"
>the system.  There's got to be another way out of this.
    
    This is an age old scheme of divide and conqure.  The DCU president is
    trying to put a wedge between us.  We should be smart enough to see
    that.  Unfortunately, these kind of schemes often work.  You have
    already bought the "implication".
    
    May be you should take a harder look at who is doing the implication
    and why.  May be we are being "abused" and "manipulated" by one of our
    employee, the president of DCU.
    
    - Vikas

There are no people "carrying" other people, and there are very few
people who should be considered "abusers" of the credit union.

When I think of "abusing" the credit union, I think of people who
consistently and intentionally do things to directly/indirectly
damage the credit union.   I'm talking about serious stuff here:
habitual check bouncing, etc.  

The very notion that "everyone must pull their own weight" is inconsistent
with the objective of the credit union as a financial cooperative.  We
all have accounts with DCU because we need each other.  At it's barest
essence, some folks have a need to save, and some folks have a need to
borrow.  We all need to be able to write checks, receive deposits, and
the like, and DCU makes a lot of money in this business because it's 
able to accurately predict needs for cash and can loan out residual
amounts.  

As a member, I do not care that somebody else's low-volume, low-balance
business costs more than somebody else's high-balance business.  I find
Chuck's comments that DCU "loses" 2.5 million dollars a year due to
low-balance accounts and other credit union abuse offensive.  What Chuck
sees as a "loss" I see as a "cost of doing business."   While one could
argue that, at least theoretically, DCU "loses" money on every dollar
that it spends, it's hard to envision DCU as truly losing money when they
netted out $5 million last year.  And it's really hard to feel sorry for
DCU when they're so confident about their business that they put in a 
new plan for profit-sharing with their employees.

The Board Memo talks about carrots and sticks.  It talks about how people
are supposed to evaluate their "commitment" to DCU as though it some sort
of religious organization.  The memo points out that people have accounts
at DCU and yet they bank elsewhere.  Why is this that people feel a need
to bank elsewhere?  I'll guarentee that it's not due to some fiendish
conspiracy to untrack DCU and make them lose money - it's because DCU
DOESN'T WANT THE BUSINESS.  With over $100 million that it can't loan
out, and with net profits running at record levels, DCU is well-prepared
to offer highly competitive loans, bonus dividends, and other carrots that
in my estimation would really bring in business.  DCU has plenty of money
to spend virtually anyway it wants, and instead of investing it wisely in
a plan to bring in new members and grow the membership base, they squander
it on a plan to fee the membership.

DCU is succeeding in creating a class system.  This system seeks by
definition to force a certain type of member to either leave the credit
union, or pay some fee for the privs that others enjoy at no cost.
I am hard pressed to see this as anything other than discrimination based
on wealth and income.  

And don't forget, Digital employees, that while DCU is reaching into 
your pocket with one hand, they're being subsidized by Digital Equipment
Corporation.  And as you're all aware, Digital is far from being out
of the financial soup yet.  DCU enjoys all sorts of benefits as a result
of it's affiliation with Digital.

This whole fee structure is driven by one great motivating force:  GREED.

The minutes have been unredacted, and the discussion is out there for
everyone to see.  You know now exactly how the voting went and who stands
for what.  I would invite you to review the voting record of the members
of the board and compare the record with their promises made during 
the election.  

DCU owners have the ultimate power:  the power of the ballot box.  Please
don't forget how to use it during the next election.

./chris

    This may not have been in the April minutes, but it was in one of the
    minutes posted within the past day or so:
    
    It was mentioned that one of the reasons profit was above forecast
    because dividend payments were well below budget.  Why not stick to
    budget and give out those dividends as bonuses?

Re: 707.20,

>The very notion that "everyone must pull their own weight" is inconsistent
>with the objective of the credit union as a financial cooperative.  

I'm a bit confused by this.  If we are a cooperative, then we benefit
from your membership, and you benefit from ours.  I don't know that I 
could precisely define "benefit", but let me take a shot:  We benefit
from your membership when what you contribute to DCU (for example,
interest you pay or interest DCU earned on your money in excess
what they pay to you) exceeds the cost of us doing business with you.

If in fact, DCU "loses money" (Cockburn's poor euphemism for having
a net negative contribution to the membership) on your membership,
how does that benefit any other member, and if it doesn't, on what basis 
are we still a cooperative?

I'm very comfortable with the idea that some members contribute
much more to DCU than others.  I'm less comfortable with the idea
that some members' contribution may be negative.  FWIW, I've seen no
hard evidence that that's actually what's happening here. I'm willing to 
accept the idea that some piece of this "loss" truly is a cost of 
doing business, but I'm concerned that it would/could/might be $2.5 million.
I'm not that cooperative! ;^)

Brian

Prior to the special meeting, I removed all of my funds except for the
obligatory $5 and opened an account at a local bank.  I have maintained that
status since the meeting to see what happened as Chuck's promised "review"
transpired.  Now that I've seen what has happened, I intend to remain a $5
member at least until such time as Chuck Cockburn ceases to be an employee of
DCU.  

I realize from other notes that he serves at the pleasure of the board and not
of the general membership.  That's fine.  It's time for the general membership
to make it distinctly unpleasant for the board to continue his employment.

All of the rest of this is, for me at least, just noise.  As long as Chuck works
here, he's going to try and run DCU like a bank.  Solve that problem and I
suspect the rest of this will be much easier to solve.

    My take on the 2.5 million is that this is the amount of
    money DCU would make if EVERYONE in DCU had a 'relationship'...not
    that it actually is losing this money due to non-relationship
    members.

    I dont know if the BOD (Ross, Mann, etc) really want to just
    dump the non-relationship members or if they expect the fees
    to make people change behaviour to the extent they become
    relationship members.

    The only behaviour I expect people will change is that they keep
    any money in the DCU at all.

    I think claiming that 1/3 of the members are 'subsidizing' the
    other 2/3 is a complete red-herring.  Perhaps 2/3 of the members
    are not contributing 'their share' of the DCU profit.  Taking
    this stick and driving them out will mean they will contribute
    even less.
    bob

    
    RE: the use of the term "cooperative"
    
    Maybe I'm full of what makes the grass green but...
    
    IMHO, a cooperative is an organization of individuals/what-ever which
    is designed to make every individual in the cooperative stronger than
    if they were simply individuals.  In some cases, this means that some
    individuals of the cooperative are "subsidized" by the rest of the
    cooperative.  This "subsidy" is so that this individual can become
    stronger and thus stregnthen the cooperative.  If every individual was
    required to "pull their own weight", then why have the cooperative. 
    Additionally, the cooperative is suppose to be a "service" to each
    individual by managing the available resources of the cooperative to
    the benefit of *ALL* individuals.
    
    As far as I'm concerned, DCU is *NOT* managing the resources of the
    "cooperative" very well.  True DCU is making "profit", but that
    "available resource" is not benefitting *ANY* individual.  DCU is also
    not putting any effort into making the "subsidized" individuals
    stronger so that they in turn can make DCU stronger.  Therefore, DCU is
    currently not acting as a cooperative (as they say they are).  Until
    they do, DCU will not get *ANY* of my future business.
    
    ~Jon.

Re: .26

>>   As far as I'm concerned, DCU is *NOT* managing the resources of the
>>  "cooperative" very well.  True DCU is making "profit", but that
>>  "available resource" is not benefitting *ANY* individual.

According to the latest Board minutes, the bigger the profit, the bigger the
gainsharing checks for the employees.

    Has it ocurred to any of you that this is not necessarily the last
    weeding out?  When the DCU is through getting rid of the non-productive
    non-relationship 2/3 of the DCU membership, what is the next step?
    
    Do we raise the mimimum balance in checking accounts again because
    people who only keep $500 dollars in their accounts could be keeping
    more?  Where does it end?
    
    I, for one, will take my business elsewhere rather than put up with
    this fascist elitism.
    
    Bye.

re:  .23

The author questions the definition of "cooperative."

I'll stand by the definition of a cooperative that I've used all along:
We pool our financial resources to help each other borrow and save.

What DCU has done in determining that fees are necessary is to compute
a break-even point on every service DCU offers.  It costs n many dollars
per year to service one members checking account, therefore we must
price our services such that we get at least n, but more desirably n+x
from providing this service.  This is computed across the spectrum with
the goal being to have every service profitable.

The problem I have with this is that you need to look at the whole
picture, *and* you need to look at what potentials there are for change.
If I'm a retail merchandiser, I probably have little expectation that
I will make profit on every single item I sell.  I'll make more on some,
less on others, and none on some.  In fact, I may even willingly sell
some for no profit as a loss-leader on the hope that the customer will
see what else I have to offer and buy other stuff for which I make a lot
of profit.

As a near-term solution to maintaining some level of profitability,
a fee structure will certainly work - that's nearly a micro-economic
given.  However, those that survive in business look beyond next week,
or next year.  They look down the road several years and strategize,
and constantly structure their businesses for long-term success.

As I've said many times, there are plenty of other things that DCU
can do to either increase profitability or help insure profitability
in the future.  Rates can be structured to bring in more business from
the existing customer base.  New customers who are presently in the
field of membership but don't participate can be sought out by aggressive
marketing and promoting.  There are plenty of ways to make the money
DCU has work harder...DCU has only to take advantage of it.

DCU should look at who the real competition is.  It's not BayBanks,
Shawmut, and Bank of Boston - it's places like Worker's Credit Union.

./chris

    
RE: .1
        
>    Phil, why were you asked direct questions about your accepting the
>    fees, when you had not yet (according to the minutes) expressed any
>    opinion at all..  It seemed odd to me, the way the minutes read.
    
    Yes, its interesting some times what gets captured in the minutes and
    what does not.  Maybe since I added my statement, everything else I
    said (and believe me I said plenty) that was recorded may have been
    deemed superfluous.  
    
    I was asked direct questions because I was the only one actively
    arguing against this plan.  It was quite confrontational, at times,
    especially when I wouldn't give conditions under which I would
    implement fees.
    
    
    RE: .2
    
>One last thing:  Chuck noted "that checking accounts should be no different
>from any other DCU product where pricing is concerned".  Except the member
>owners want it that way - doesn't that get any consideration?

    This seemed clear to me, but I was at the special meeting and went to
    cafeterias during the election to speak to members.  I'm not sure if any
    of the other Directors, besides Paul, was at the Special Meeting. 
    Might be a good question to ask...
    
    
    
    RE: .4
    
>    Phil, is there some official business plan from which these numbers
>    were taken? If so, will it be made available to the owners?
    
	I believe they were based on an estimate of how many people would 
    not qualify for Preferred-Member status and would chose to remain at
    DCU and pay fees.
    
    Detail?  You should be able to calculate it.  Say $360,000 per year, 
    that's $30,000 a month, divide that by $4 and you get 7500 members.  But
    of course people will be falling in and out of Preferred Member plan so 
    the same 7500 members may not be affected.  Now if we have 40,000 members
    that aren't on the Preferred customer plan at the start, that leaves
    32,500 members that have either decided to get with the plan or go make
    our competitors very happy.
    
    
    
>    In the minutes, the term abusers was mentioned several times. Could
>    someone explain in more detail what this abuse is?
    
    Abuse is having your pocket-picked by somebody making 7 figures... ;-)
    
    
    
    RE: .6
    
>    Another quick observation.  From the minutes it says there was a
>    comment from Karen Kupferberg regarding the fees.  Is this a member of
>    the Board?  or a supervisory committee member? 
    
    Karen Kupferberg is on the Supervisory Comm.  Why she decided to offer
    her opinions, I don't know.  I wish I could have invited a few members
    of my choosing to also provide opinions.
    
    
    
    RE: .8
    
>  Does the DCU really consider $300-$500 minimum balance on checking to be
> competitive?
    
    According to our competitors (Shawmut, Baybanks, Fleet, etc.) it is.
    
    
    
    RE: .12
    
>    I'm glad someone has finally woken up and realized just how horrible it
>    is for those of us who don't have access to a DCU branch or ATM to have
>    to carry those members who abuse DCU by having the nerve to use a
>    teller or a DCU-owned ATM.  Just think of all the 'lost' income caused
>    by having to equip and staff branch locations and ATMs.
    
    Excellent point Bob.  "Waste and abuse" is in the eye of the beholder.
    
    
    
    RE: .13 & .14
    
>    If non-relationship members are costing us $2.5 million, I fail to see
>    how $300K in fee revenue is going to help that.
>>
>>It is NOT meant to.  They hope to have these people quit...
    
    	Either bring your business to DCU (add to income) or leave (reduce
    waste), or pay fees (add to income).  Gee, looks like DCU comes out
    ahead no matter what you do...  Fancy that!
    
    
    
    RE: .22
    
>    It was mentioned that one of the reasons profit was above forecast
>    because dividend payments were well below budget.  Why not stick to
>    budget and give out those dividends as bonuses?
    
    Indeed!  And based upon this, do you think the members will benefit
    from any reduction of "waste and abuse"?  The answer is NO.  The
    reason, we're "competitive" without it.  And paying out more money when
    you don't have to is surely waste.
    
    
    
    RE: .28
    
>    Has it ocurred to any of you that this is not necessarily the last
>    weeding out?  When the DCU is through getting rid of the non-productive
>    non-relationship 2/3 of the DCU membership, what is the next step?
>    Do we raise the mimimum balance in checking accounts again because
>    people who only keep $500 dollars in their accounts could be keeping
>    more?  Where does it end?
    
    IMO, you are correct.  Everything is relative.  Pretty soon the Bronze
    Preferred Members could be viewed as not pulling their weight when they
    are compared to the Gold Preferred Members.  And in addition, how many 
    fee based systems are ever removed or their fees LOWERED down the road?  
    THIS IS A FUNDMENTAL CHANGE IN THE WAY YOUR CREDIT UNION DOES
    BUSINESS.  It will influence many other issues down the road.
        
    

    
    >    According to our competitors (Shawmut, Baybanks, Fleet, etc.) it is.
    
    These banks have credit unions for their employees? :-)
    
    		Alfred

    2 questions about our lose leaders...
    
    If 7,600 accounts are subject to fees, and they will pay $4.00 per
    month ($48.00 per year), that will bring in between $350,000-$400,000.
    Since we are 'losing' $2.5 million, I assume the goal of the fees is to
    drive 'good' behavior for these accounts.  Lets assume that the number
    of accounts subject to fees drops to 3,800 (in half).  Assuming that our
    'lose' drops to $1.25 million, then why should these 3,800 accounts be
    subsdized by the rest of membership.  Why not raise the fees.  Obviously 
    $4.00/month was not enough to drive good behavior.
    
    
    Assuming the 7,600 accounts lost us 2.5 million, then I assume we have
    15,200 accounts which accounted for the $5 million in profits, for a
    total of 22,800 accounts (7.5 million (22,800 accounts -) is possible 
    profits - 2.5 million (7,600 accounts) in loses, shows $5 million 
    (15,200) in profit).  Why do we only have 22,800 accounts n the DCU?
    
    
    Mark

    Phil, since you're back, I have another question.  It looks like the
    DCU is expecting approximately $300K in increased revenue as a result
    of all the members that will now pay fees.  What is the anticipated
    effect of the loss of "relationship members" income for those that will
    leave?  I know some "relationship members" who will pull all their
    business from the DCU if fees are implemented.  Was this loss netted
    against the fee income increase?  Or, doesn't anyone think we'll do
    that?  
    
    Maryellen

�    Yes, its interesting some times what gets captured in the minutes and
�    what does not.  Maybe since I added my statement, everything else I
�    said (and believe me I said plenty) that was recorded may have been
�    deemed superfluous.  
    
    I thought the Secretary recorded the minutes of meetings.

>    Assuming the 7,600 accounts lost us 2.5 million, 

    How is it possible that basically 'inactive' accounts cost
    the DCU over $300 per year...

    Either these numbers have got to be bogus, or someone in DCU
    should be fired for this type of overhead.
    bob

    
    RE: .32
    
    The numbers don't add up because there aren't just 7600
    accounts/members that aren't relationship.  According to the
    relationship criteria we received at the Nov. Planning Conference, 66%
    weren't relationship.  That percentage may be lowered as the criteria
    has changed, but 40,000 (~50%) would probably not be too far off.
    
    RE: .33
    
>    of all the members that will now pay fees.  What is the anticipated
>    effect of the loss of "relationship members" income for those that will
>    leave?  I know some "relationship members" who will pull all their
>    business from the DCU if fees are implemented.  Was this loss netted
>    against the fee income increase?  Or, doesn't anyone think we'll do
>    that?  
    
    I saw no projections of lost revenue due to Preferred Members leaving.
    I'm sure some loss was expected though.
    
    RE: .34
    
>    I thought the Secretary recorded the minutes of meetings.
    
    Maybe on the Boards you serve they do, but not at DCU.  I couldn't
    possibly take 10-15 pages of minutes and also contribute to the topics. 
    A DCU secretary takes the minutes and has been doing a great job if you
    ask me.  Now if I were allowed to tape record the meetings, then write
    them up, I might be able to do it.
    

    
    Re: .23
    
    > I'm a bit confused by this.  If we are a cooperative, then we benefit
    > from your membership, and you benefit from ours.  
    
    The benefit is that our combined resources enable us to provide
    services to our members that benefit all.  The credit union is
    making money.  If we try to take profit and loss measurement to
    the level of individual member's accounts then we are headed for
    doom.  Are we collectively doing well or not?  That is the point.
    If people are concerned that they aren't getting the absolute
    maximum dollar out of their investments then they should be managing
    their own money in mutual funds or the stock market.
    
    Steve
    

    Re .29 (chris)
    
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  
    
    I'm beginning to believe that the definition of "cooperative" is the
    core issue with respect to DCU and fees.  DCU's actions indicate (at
    least) that they are operating under a different definition than many
    of us would like them to.  We can fight fees (and win), but unless we
    can forge consensus on what the fundamental paradigm of membership and
    services is, they will undoubtedly come back, and we'll have the battle
    for a third (or fourth...) time.
    
    Brian
    
    

    
    IMO, if the original premise on which credit unions were formed was "every
    member must pull his own weight", then credit unions would NEVER have
    been formed.  They were formed to help small savers and borrowers who
    could NOT pull their own weight.  They couldn't get a break from the
    banks.  "Relationship banking" should be left to banks.  IMO it has no
    place in a credit union.
    
    What really naws at me is just why are/have so many DCU members gone
    someplace else for their loans or savings?  There should be NO REASON
    that DCU can't offer the BEST rates.  The advantages of being a credit
    union are huge.  And to be a credit union with a membership base such
    as Digital's?  Other credit unions would kill to have this type of
    membership base and company support.  I cannot accept that such low
    membership participation in DCU is a *membership* problem.  I believe
    it is due to a long (and unfortunately continuing) history of DCU
    telling its membership what it needs and should want, instead of DCU
    listening to what the membership wants and needs, then providing it.
    

>    IMO, if the original premise on which credit unions were formed was "every
>    member must pull his own weight", then credit unions would NEVER have
>    been formed.  They were formed to help small savers and borrowers who
>    could NOT pull their own weight.  They couldn't get a break from the
>    banks.  "Relationship banking" should be left to banks.  IMO it has no
>    place in a credit union.
    
    You may well be right regarding the original premise, but that doesn't
    change the fact that DCU is not currently operating that way. The thing
    that worries me is that rather than holding the board members
    responsible for setting the direction that the owners of the credit
    union want, we are attempting to treat the symptom (fees) rather than
    the disease.  That's worthwhile, but it ain't the whole banana.
    
    Brian
    
    

    
    RE: .41
    
    All I can say is that I think we are in complete and total agreement.
    

    Re: .40
    
    > membership base and company support.  I cannot accept that such low
    > membership participation in DCU is a *membership* problem.  I believe
    > it is due to a long (and unfortunately continuing) history of DCU
    > telling its membership what it needs and should want, instead of DCU
    > listening to what the membership wants and needs, then providing it.
    
    This, to me, is the very crux of the whole affair.  After seeing
    Phil's note that explains how we have come to this juncture, I can
    only conclude that we are in this mess due to bare-faced gall,
    contempt, and arrogance on the part of DCU management *AND* the
    willingness of the BoD to tolerate it..  Hell, if DCU management has
    the gall to ignore a direct request of the BoD to lower the minimum
    from $500 to $300 why should we be surprised at their attitude toward
    us.
    
    I may say to hell with the DCU totally *BUT* not before causing them
    the maximum aggravation that I can.  I am mad as hell.
    
    Steve
    
    

    Steve:
    
    Your note said it better than I probably could have.....you hit on
    the one word that sticks in my mind about this entire mess
    
                       ARROGANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Thanks to my "Dear Valued Member" letter I was prompted to make
    contact with a local bank; I'm not doing it immediately, but unless
    the fees are rescinded I'll be enjoying a relationship with a local
    (and more convenient) bank!
    
    Karen
    

    Phil,
    
      I agree with every word of your included comments in the April
    minutes.  The BoD decision is short-sighted, and destructive to 
    the whole idea of a credit union and encouraging membership participation.
    Unfortunately your vision is not shared or appreciated by the president 
    nor, it seems, by the majority of the board.
    
      I appreciate the efforts that you and Paul have been making on 
    behalf of the membership, but I believe the movement to turn DCU 
    the credit union into a bank has swung so far as to be irreversible.
    The worse news for the DCU is that it probably has much less chance of
    succeeding as a bank than it would as a "true" credit union.
    
      I'm not sure whether I'm considered a "relationship member", but 
    the DCU has expressed no desire for my business due to its
    uncompetitive loans, and has demonstrated that the institution does not
    value its membership.  Hence, with much regret, it looks like it's time
    to close out my accounts for good and close out any possibilities of 
    future business with DCU.
    
      I am currently in the process of re-financing my house.  DCU did not
    get my business because it is not competitive.  I'm getting a "no
    points" 7/23 loan at 6.25%.  If DCU were truly a credit union and
    offered competive rates I would be honored to do business with them,
    because credit unions are an honorable institution and deserve
    participation.  DCU continues to demonstrate by its policies that it 
    is not a credit union and does not deserve my participation as if it
    were one.
    
      Unfortunately, I fear you are fighting a losing battle despite 
    your best efforts to help make the DCU a credit union in the
    true sense of the word.
    
      Many thanks for your efforts on our behalf.
    
    Regards,
    
    - Dave Wiegleb