Conference 7.286::dcu

  I don't want to close my checking account.  I plan to leave the HUGE sum of
$.01 in it ;-.]

I have been thinking about what kind of a statement we, as members and owners,
could make, short of a special meeting, to attract the attention of the stubborn
and close-minded directors.  Something that people could do together,
non-violently.

My original idea was to have a "tea party" at HQ in PKO.  But I think the idea
of doing simultaneous protests at the different branches is a better idea.  It
will include more of the members, and it will give a direct message to more of
the DCU employees.

An informational picket may work.

A row of line closers would be like a run on the bank, and could be dangerous. 
We don't want to get any RICO statutes thrown at us.

We could leave bags of torn up checks and deposit slips at the doors of the
branches.

Any other ideas?

ELaine

    
    
    I like the idea of coordinating the closing of accounts.  Personally
    I have decided that if I bring my business elsewhere that I will
    leave the telltale $5 in DCU for obvious reasons.
    
    Don't worry about RICO.  It is about conspiracy to have an ongoing
    *criminal* enterprise.  There is nothing illegal about closing an
    account at the DCU.
    
    Steve
    

    I like the closing on January 3 idea.  Except I think it should be
    way before then, at least in mock form as a form of picketing.
    That wouldn't be in danger of the RICCO law.  We would have to
    pursue the staff, management and BOD to their homes and say nasty
    things to them to do that. (Weeel....NO! DON'T EVEN THING ABOUT IT)
    
    

Picketing has some interesting points to it.

 1) We do not want to hurt DCU
 2) We do not want to be like many union pickets and not allow
    customers to enter.
 3) We want to do things in a friendly and workable manner.
 4) No vandlism or other effort sthat would cause undo effort to clean
    up after words.

Just 40-60 people standing around with signs for a couple days would be
an amazing wake up call.  TV stations eat this stuff up.  Just think of
the repsonse when Channel 4/5/7 show it on the evening news and all the
Digits see it!  You will see a major ground swell of support, without
using notes or mail!

	- mark

    	Do not underestimate the TV angle.  When the last special
    meeting was held, there were a variety of reporters - this was
    news.  And I KNOW that the banking industry sat up and took
    notice of this rather remarkable "event".  If the news media
    decides that there is a followup story worth pursuing, I'm
    certain that the BOD and President would get lots of interesting
    phone  calls for their "reaction"...
    
    Dave Eklund
    

    To those of you who are considering leaving $5 in your savings account
    to protest against the DCU BOD, please do not do this. In your attempt
    to send a message you are only hurting your fellow members who choose
    to continue using the DCU. The fact is, those accounts with only a small
    amount of funds in them DO COST the DCU money. You are in effect
    penalizing me and others members with your actions. If you really feel
    as strong as you say about this issue, then close your accounts
    completely, and send the DCU BOD THAT message. I'm sure in Chucks
    report to the BOD, he must mention the number of accounts that were
    closed each quarter.
    Thanks for your consideration
    Joel 
    A fellow DCU member who plans to stay on   

re: .7

I disagree.  That's exactly what the pro-fee group want us to do.  Pack up and
leave.  The amount of money the $5 accounts are costing the credit union is
peanuts.  Even though the pro-fee group won't admit it, it has zero effect
on either the savings rate or loan rate.  It's down in the noise level.

Bob

re:  .7

Pulling money out of DCU has only beneficial effects 
on the credit union...at least that's the way it's
being pitched to me.  The most important thing is
the capital ratio, and a shrinking member base
helps that out...so you leave and DCU wins - or
so they think.

I really think that people who pull their money should
leave their $5.00 in to retain their voting rights.
Just leaving gives DCU the satisfaction of winning.

Re:  Picketing

In another time this might have worked well, but it sure
doesn't seem practical to me.  Think about it on a couple
of different levels:

1.  Last time, we were dealing with an ex-president who
    was involved in a criminal investigation.  The Board
    was entrenched, refused to talk.  The Cape Cod Times,
    Boston Herald, and Boston Business Journal all picked
    up on the story from that angle.  It was considered
    completely irrelevent that we were also fighting a 
    fee structure - except as a story line saying something
    to the effect "members only found out after DCU 
    instituted fees to cover the losses."  The TV stations
    and media folks aren't going to care much about
    a credit union imposing fees on it's membership...
    picketing or not.


2.  On a more practical matter, there's no public sidewalk
    in front of DCU.  If you picket on DCU property, they
    just might have you arrested for trespass.  On the
    other hand, if you picket in the street, the cops will
    cite you for obstructing traffic.

3.  As somebody else pointed out earlier, nothing we do
    short of calling a special meeting and voting in the
    next election will make the Board hear and respond
    to our concerns.  Time is too short until the next
    election to call a special meeting, in my opinion.
    On the other hand, the election process is beginning.
    The key challenge is to keep the issues in front of
    the membership, make them aware of *who* voted for
    fees (especially those who voted for fees and are
    coming up for re-election), and encourage folks
    to vote.


./chris

    How would a mock account closing stand.  Go to the credit union
    and block the place up with people asking how to close their account.
    That way the DCU would get an idea of how many people would close
    their account when fees are brought in.  
    
    BTW, I like the idea of leaving a very small amount in savings and retain 
    voting rights.
    
    In the meantime, I am looking for another credit union to move my money
    to.

    .8 By maintaining an account of $5, the DCU will be required to send all
    the people who are protesting a monthly statement. Assuming a cost of
    say $.35 for postage and handling, that comes to $4.20/yr times the
    number of accounts. Let's say you are 5000 strong. 5000 x $4.20 =
    $21,000. I've read notes from people in this file ranting and raving
    over the $.25 or $.50 the DCU charges for things like bank checks, so
    I've learned there is no such thing as "peanuts" when it comes to DCU
    cost. 
    
    Warning: Opposing opinion coming, please go on histronic alert-
    
    
    We have now had two totally different BOD's come to the same conclusion
    that some form of fee based structure is needed. The first BOD we
    didn't trust, so we voted them out and put in another BoD. Now this
    BOD, some of whom even ran on a "no fee" platform, has come to the same
    conclusion about fees as the first BOD. I voted for some of these folks
    because after reviewing their credentials, I felt they would make sound
    business decisions, BASED ON DATA, on my behalf, as a DCU member. Am I
    a member of the "pro-fee group" NO, am I a member of the sound business
    group, YES. I feel the current BOD is qualified to make these
    judgements on my behalf. I also believe that those candidates who ran
    on a "No Fees, no matter what the data say's" platform, were doing
    themselves and the membership a disservice. Now they find themselves in
    bind for not fullfilling thier campaign pledges. The fact that they saw
    fit to vote for fees, knowing they would be verbally lashed in
    this forum, tells me they put the health of the DCU above there own
    personal goals. And believe me, I can be a cynic with the best of you
    ;-)
    
    So again, please consider the rest of us before you burden the DCU with
    protest accounts. The amount it cost is not so important as the message
    you are sending to your fellow members. There are many other avenues to
    make opinions felt.
    Thanks for your consideration
    Joel
    
      

RE: .11

>    .8 By maintaining an account of $5, the DCU will be required to send all
>    the people who are protesting a monthly statement. Assuming a cost of

Wrong.  Get your facts straight first.  The statement is only quarterly for
the folks who, like me, have chosen to retain a vote but take my business
elsewhere.

re: .11  
>  conclusion about fees as the first BOD. I voted for some of these folks
>    because after reviewing their credentials, I felt they would make sound
>    business decisions, BASED ON DATA, on my behalf, as a DCU member. Am I
>    a member of the "pro-fee group" NO, am I a member of the sound business
>    group, YES. I feel the current BOD is qualified to make these
>    judgements on my behalf. I also believe that those candidates who ran
>    on a "No Fees, no matter what the data say's" platform, were doing
>    themselves and the membership a disservice. Now they find themselves in
>    bind for not fullfilling thier campaign pledges. The fact that they saw
>    fit to vote for fees, knowing they would be verbally lashed in
>    this forum, tells me they put the health of the DCU above there own
>    personal goals. And believe me, I can be a cynic with the best of you
 
Here's something for you to do.  Ask any BoD member for the hard data that
shows how much ACTUAL money DCU is losing on these supposed 'abusers' accounts.
Hint:  No one at DCU knows.

I don't remember a single candidate that said, "No fees no matter what."  I
did hear some that said, "No fees unless DCU is in danger of going under."
Please remember,  DCU made a record profit last year, WITHOUT any fees!
And the Holy Grail, the capital ratio, is HIGHER than it has ever been, even
the year that DCU returned 'dividends' to its members.  No one can point
to any financial data that says DCU NEEDS fees!

I too, voted for some BoD members that voted in favor of fees.  These people
pledged to "hold the line on fees".  Well, I don't see that happening.  When
I read that campaign statement, I thought it was a reasonable way of saying
"No fees unless DCU needs them."  No one has convinced me DCU needs them.

Fool me once, shame on me.  Fool me twice, shame on you.

Bob

    boy, you folks take the cake!  I closed my "sharedraft" account the
    first time around.  I did not need it, it was gonna cost me money to
    keep it(there was no way to avoid a fee), so I closed it.
    
    This time around, the credit union tries the "carrot" approach:  "We're
    instituting fees, but here's how you can avoid them..." I really doubt
    that the management cares much about revenue from fees.
    
    I love my share accounts.
    I love my convenient branch office.
    I REALLY LOVE MY VISA!
    That's enough for me.
    
    Mark

    
    Re: back a couple
    
    I would agree with the fee proposal *if* I believed that the directors
    had come to the decision with clear data.  I don't think they did,
    however, because all the data we know about says we're doing just fine
    with no fees *and* when you include the resolution against fees
    passed at the Special meeting as part of the data (which it certainly
    is) there is no, NO, justifiable reason for implementing them.
    
    Having said that, my personal opinion is that the DCU President wants
    the fees, has done the political maneuvering necessary to get most of
    the BoD on his side, and fees in January are the result.  We'll see.
    
    Steve

    
    RE: .11
    
    Joel, thanks for posting your opinion but I feel I need to address
    several statements you made.
    
>    We have now had two totally different BOD's come to the same conclusion
>    that some form of fee based structure is needed. 
    
    The key word above is "needed".  IMO, they are not "needed" while DCU
    makes record profits (two years in a row).  Under these
    circumstances, it is clear the fees are not required to maintain the
    financial soundness of DCU.  They were "needed" to deal with "abusers"
    of DCU.  I reject this approach and continue to maintain that this
    approach is not in DCU's longterm best interests, or in the best
    interest of the membership.  With an already shrinking membership base,
    DCU should be courting its non-participating members (as I suggested
    last year at our annual planning conference) and NOT instituting
    measures which are designed to cull out the membership.
    
>    I also believe that those candidates who ran
>    on a "No Fees, no matter what the data say's" platform, were doing
>    themselves and the membership a disservice. Now they find themselves in
>    bind for not fullfilling thier campaign pledges. 
    
    No candidate ever stated this platform.  *I* would not state this
    platform.  Obviously, there could be unforeseen disasters which could
    warrant such a decision.  And if it was warranted, then a clear statement 
    to the membership with supporting information would be sufficient for
    members to understand the situation.  I'm sure the membership would support
    such a decision if it became necessary.
    
    However, the only disaster I have witnessed is the targeting of a
    large portion of our membership with second class membership (or they
    could also just leave).
    
>    So again, please consider the rest of us before you burden the DCU with
>    protest accounts. The amount it cost is not so important as the message
>    you are sending to your fellow members. There are many other avenues to
>    make opinions felt.
    
    If DCU members leave, they have NO avenue to make their feelings
    known.  I view this in a VERY different way.  Members who chose to
    maintain their membership, inspite of all that has occurred, are very
    committed to DCU and want to do business with their credit union.  They
    WANT to be part of a great CREDIT UNION and don't want a credit union
    that considers them "abusers".  There is vast untapped potential in
    these people.  It just takes the right kind of credit union to
    recognize that fact and take advantage of it to everybody's mutual
    benefit.  Unfortunately, many of our competitors are now taking
    advantage of this potential.
    
    Just my opinion from where I sit...
    

    Thanks for the responses. 
      My label of (No fees, no matter what) was the
    message I was hearing at the time of the revolt. During those emotional
    days, fees were one of the main issues, and alot was said. Although
    those may not have been the exact words, it was my interpretation.
     
      I keep hearing comments such as yours Phil-
    "However, the only disaster I have witnessed is the
    targeting of a large portion of our membership with second class
    membership (or they could also just leave)" Perhaps you could elighten
    me as to how many of these accounts actually exits? How many is a "large
    portion"? And although this is perhaps an unanswerable question, how
    many of this "large portion" are actually people who cannot meet any of
    the criteria to qualify as a relationship member. I submit that any
    individual who cannot meet any of the "relationship requirements"
    should be allowed to apply for a waiver on an individual basis, no
    questions asked. All other accounts must meet the requirements, which
    in my honest opinion, are not particularly onerous. Will there be
    cheaters with this plan? Sure there will. There are always cheaters. But
    it's more important to provide an avenue, for those who the require it,
    to avoid fees. My sense, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, is that
    the most vocal opponents to the fees are not those who "cannot meet"
    the requirements but those who choose not to use the DCU for their
    full banking needs. Does the DCU have the cheapest credit card in the
    land? No, I'm sure there is some bank in Iowa that cost less. Does it
    offer the best interest rate on savings account? No, my old credit
    union offers .625% more and so on. But I believe, that if you choose to
    use the DCU as your primary financial insitution, i.e. credit cards, auto
    loans, christmas club accounts, main checking account etc. then the DCU
    is, overall, a fair value, that is getting better. And I add to this the
    convience, and the good service experienced with the folks at the
    DCU branch here in HLO. 
      I personally would like to see the BOD work more toward re-instating
    dividends. This would more than offset any fees being charged and do
    more toward bringing "full service members back" than anything else. 
    What are your feelings on this issue Phil, will it happen? Or am I just
    dreaming.
    Thanks
    Joel 
       

  >Obviously, there could be unforeseen disasters which could
  >warrant such a decision.  And if it was warranted, then a clear statement 
  >to the membership with supporting information would be sufficient for
  >members to understand the situation.  I'm sure the membership would support
  >such a decision if it became necessary.


Hear, hear!  I fully expect that most of us now complaining (and adamantly
opposed to fees today) would support fees if the circumstances were right.
So the issue is not simply fees or no fees.  The issue is whether the
circumstances are right to support fees.

Joel, you believe that the BoD will make sound business decisions
based on the facts.  Doesn't the fact that the BoD is bitterly
divided on this decision mean that there is the possibility that
the wrong course of action has been chosen?  Should we sit idly
by and simply let the BoD determine what happens to DEFCU because
we "trust" them?

I'll grant you that two independent BoD have come to the same
conclusion - fees.  However, this is not quite the whole story.
The one guiding force behind the BoD - the President of DEFCU,
is the same yesterday, today (and forever?).  *This* is why we
have fee proposals.  The discussion has made it clear that the
*President* proposed them this time around and that after the last
special meeting still desired to implement them.  The data discussed
(2.5 million?????) is pure hyperbole without any basis of facts
presented to either us or the BoD [remember, we have very good access
to what goes on at Board meetings as we have an elected Board member
regularly reporting the relevant facts].

The issue is not a "business" decision.  DCU will do fine "business-wise"
regardless of whether or not it implements fees.  The issue is a *strategy*
decision.  What is the purpose of the DCU?  How can we best accomplish
that goal?  And I can guarantee you that no number of degrees and/or
credentials is going to make someone substantially more qualified than
you or I in coming to a conclusion.  We can all listen to the various
strategic arguments and make up our own minds.  And the primary function
of the BoD is to provide *strategic* leadership - not get into the
details if they can help it.

I refuse to let the BoD govern without a check on their power.  I and
other members of DEFCU are that check.  Democracy (and representative
structures) functions best when the people are involved.

Collis

Re:  .17

Joel,

You're discussing a business model.  O.K., let's discuss business
models.

Who should make the commitment to who?  You evidently recommend
that the customers should make a commitment to do business at DEFCU
regardless of the fact that they are financially better off doing
business elsewhere.  Why should a customer (or potential customer)
do this?  To help fellow DEC employees?  But we already know that
if DEFCU will lend you money, that just about anyone will lend you
money (since DEFCU historically has had very strict lending
requirements).  And, in fact, if other DEC employees will get a
better deal elsewhere than DEFCU, why should we be encouraging them
to get a worse deal at DEFCU?

Perhaps the business (DEFCU) should make a commitment to the
customer?  Now we're talking.  Isn't this what successful businesses
do day in and day out?  Indeed it is.  How is DEFCU making a
commitment to you and I?  There's talk from the BoD about some
"advantages" at "the end" of the process.  What about now?  No
advantages; plenty of disadvantages.  How will there by advantages
at the end?  We haven't be told.  Reminds me of the Clinton tax
package just passed (sorry, I couldn't help myself :-) ).

A commitment to the customer means going the extra step to serve
us, not to drive us away with fees that *will* drive some of my
money away.  DCU is offering me nothing more than it has in the
past - and it is providing me an incentive to leave.  Is this how
a business model should work???  (And I'm not the only one.)

Collis

    
    Re: .17
    
    Joel,
    
    > Perhaps you could elighten me as to how many of these accounts
    > actually exits?  How many is a "large portion"? 
    
    According to the DCUs own figures nearly two thirds of members don't
    currently qualify as relationship members.
    
    > this is perhaps an unanswerable question, how many of this "large
    > portion" are actually people who cannot meet any of the criteria
    > to qualify as a relationship member.  I submit that any individual
    > who cannot meet any of the "relationship requirements" should be
    > allowed to apply for a waiver on an individual basis, no questions
    > asked. All other accounts must meet the requirements, which in my
    > honest opinion, are not particularly onerous. 
    
    This doesn't address the point of many of us dissatisfied members.
    Again, the DCU is not a bank.  It should exist to serve the needs
    of its members.  Profit comes from that not as a goal of its own.
    The DCU should not be instituting policies which are intended to 
    force its members to do a minimum amount of business to avoid being
    second class members.  That is the issue.  If some many people are
    not doing enough business with the DCU then why?  What Phil is saying
    is that the DCU should be creating PULL for its business and not
    PUSH.
    
    > My sense, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, is that the
    > most vocal opponents to the fees are not those who "cannot meet"
    > the requirements but those who choose not to use the DCU for their
    > full banking needs. 
    
    Perhaps you are right, but the smart strategy is to ask WHY this
    is the case and not make the customer the bad guy for not buying
    enough stuff.  I would use the DCU exclusively if it met my needs.
    Actually, I nearly do now.
    
    
    > I personally would like to see the BOD work more toward re-instating
    > dividends. 
    
    Well, you're gonna join the dissatisfied crowd, because as I understand
    it, Chuck Cockburn doesn't believe in doing this and has no intention
    of recommeding it.  His reason: no one else is doing it.  If so
    wouldn't dividends be quite a competitive differentiator for the DCU?  
    
    Steve
    
    

re: .17

You talk about waivers, etc. and at the same time ask us not to 'waste' your
money.  Why?  Do we need another process to administer, etc?  What about the
cost of this process?  Could it end up costing more to run this proccess than
the REAL cost the current situation?  Wouldn't this be a 'waste' of your money?

I don't see where anything is broken.  Thus, there is nothing to fix.

Bob

    Phil or somebody,
    
    Since the 2.5 millon dollar figure which "defends" the need for fees
    MIGHT be smoke, it would be interesting to see answers for the
    following questions:
    
    	1) How much PROFIT per month (week/day?) is piling up to
    	   improve the HOLY ratio?
    
    	2) How much PROFIT can DEFCU hold before it must declare itself
    	   a for profit bank ?
    
    	3) If we are profiting, how can anyone cost TOO much?
    
    and a comment:
    
    	I am a relationship member because I meet the direct deposit
    	requirements (though, horrers, I pay my bills with it and
    	drop below the HOLY lines of reasonableness and ABUSE my
    	accounts during a large part of the month)
    
    	I also have a sold mortgage (can anyone clue us in as to how long a
    	sold mortgage maintains your relationship?, the first year, the
    	lif of the mortgage ???  Or can that change also).
    
    I have two rules for the use of banks:
    
    	I save money when I WANT to save money and am ABLE to.  I put my
    	money where it will work hardest (currently on the street).
    
    	I borrow moner when I NEED to not to serve someones idea that I
    	should borrow money because it is good for THEM.
    
    Nuf said for the moment,
    
    	Bill
    

    
    Re: .22
    
    Bill, take another look.  The direct deposit criteria does not
    by itself make you a relationship member.  It only means that
    you avoid some fees.  I at first thought the same thing as you.
    
    Steve
    
    

    I realize that it is a lesser relationship (you STILL pay for your
    VISA, etc) if you have the direct deposit met.  My point is that I do
    the deposit, but since pay my bills from that account, a fair amount
    is gone before it's been there enough.  And much of the rest hits the
    street.
    
    That maintains a "free ehough checking" relationship therefore, which
    is why I included it as one of my relationships.
    
    
    If DCU would offer even competitive interest rates, I'd pull my money
    market funds to DCU, it's at least an advantage when considering New
    Hampster taxes.  I would not pull the longer term investments for the
    sake of a relationship though.
    
    I still wonder at the initial push to get people to use multiple
    accounts (including multi checking accts, club accounts and "U NAME IT"
    accts) and now those who do that are abusing the system.
    
    There are too many reversals in their marketing and directions.  It
    reminds me of dear old DEC (woops, digital).
    
    Dang it, they are making money, so what's the problem?
    
    

    I am one of those who use DCU for a great deal of my financial
    transactions: 
    
    - I direct deposit over $14,000 a year
    - I have a DCU VISA, but I don't have a very high balance. I use it and
       pay it and have a small revolving balance.
    _ I have a CRT loan
    - I have had several loans, all of which are paid
    - I will be closing on my refinance with DCU tomorrow - however, the
       mortgage is not being sold.
    
    Even with all the above, I'm not considered a relationship member. I'm
    just wondering who in their right mind WOULDN'T consider that a
    relationship?

Re .25

Actually, you are a relationship member since your mortgage will be over
the $3500 in loans outstanding requirement.  The wording on the letter made
me think twice, too, as I have a mortgage with the DCU that wasn't sold,
but then it qualifies as a loan and has no trouble making their minimum
loan requirement.  You're in a similar situation.

    Is there an easy way to tell if your mortgage is sold or not, since
    they are doing the servicing.  My pondering may be moot, if it turns
    out mine was not sold, I just assummed it was.  (They say the MIGHT
    sell it on the closing papers).
    
    Bill
    

re .27 -

Bill - who's the check made out to? There's one clue ...

I closed with DCU in June - the checks now go to Shawmut ...

Norm

    .19 Collis, I do not disagree with you that the best way to attract new
    customers to any institution is to offer better products. Become more
    customer focused. But to use your business model approach, the DCU must
    also address cost. According to the data presented, a full 25% of all
    checking accounts contain balances less the $1.00. How many of these
    are active? If these accounts are inactive, why should we bear the
    cost. Implementing a monthly charge on these inactive accounts would be
    pretty good incentive for members to clean up their unused accounts.
    Like purging your Email account ;-) The more the DCU can reduce cost,
    the better services and interest rates they will be able to offer. And
    I feel nudging these inactive accounts off the books with fees is an
    appropriate method. Again stating, as before, as long as their is a way
    for those who cannot afford the fees, to be able to do so.
    
    .20 Steve. Rather than relying on my less than accurate memory banks, I
    re-read the minutes and the amount quoted is "1/2 of the DCU household
    accounts are non-relationship accounts"
     
    >    This doesn't address the point of many of us dissatisfied members.
    >    Again, the DCU is not a bank.  It should exist to serve the needs
    >    of its members.  Profit comes from that not as a goal of its own.
    >    The DCU should not be instituting policies which are intended to
    >    force its members to do a minimum amount of business to avoid being
    >    second class members.  That is the issue.  
      
    The issue also is cost, and maintaining a sound financial
    structure. Both issues are interelated, you cannot seperate them.
    I agree, credit unions are not profit vehicles. But don't you also
    agree that a more cost effective institution will be able to offer more
    to it's customers if it's cost are lower?
    
    >    not doing enough business with the DCU then why?  What Phil is
    >    saying
    >    is that the DCU should be creating PULL for its business and not
    >    PUSH.
    
    Again, I do not argue this point. Just that there are two sides to the
    issue.
    
    >Well, you're gonna join the dissatisfied crowd, because as I
    >understand
    >it, Chuck Cockburn doesn't believe in doing this and has no
    >intention
    >of recommeding it.  His reason: no one else is doing it.  If so
    >wouldn't dividends be quite a competitive differentiator for the
    >DCU?
    
    I have not heard this comment. If it's true, then I would ask the board
    to consider proposing it. Indeed, it would would be a very competitive
    differentiator. To use Phils term. it would PULL in the members.
    
    .21 Yes Bob, waivers. It would address the one concern we all have of
    protecting our fellow members who are not the "abusers", Chuck's term,
    not mine. The cost? Not sure until it was implemented and determined
    how many folks requested it. My gut feel, is that the vast majority of
    these accounts are simply accounts no longer in use. It would certainly
    reveal itself. A contradiction on my part? perhaps. I like shades of gray. 
    I not trying to be flip with your question. Beyond the concern for our 
    fellow members, which I'm sure we all have, $2.5 mil is alot of money.
    Whether you believe the number or not. If the DCU could eliminate just
    25% of this cost, that would be $625,000.00. Perhaps we could extract a
    commitment from Mr Cockburn, that all realized funds from this effort, 
    in addition to the fees realized, be applied toward offering better 
    services and products or perhaps his support for dividends. My concern
    here is that the funds be used to expand the membership and not just
    the bottomline to make his resume look better. Just a slight digression
    Thanks 
    Joel
        

RE: Note 713.29 by PATE::MCGRATH

>    .20 Steve. Rather than relying on my less than accurate memory banks, I
>    re-read the minutes and the amount quoted is "1/2 of the DCU household
>    accounts are non-relationship accounts"

Based on figures from DCU it comes out to roughly 66%.  I posted these numbers
a little while back.

Other credit unions do the following:

If there is not any activity in an account for 2 years, then they start
charging a $2 fee per month.  I do not have a problem with this
approach.  I do have a problem where from month to month it might
change...

I also do not have a problem with FREE checking as this fairly standard
in many credit unions.  To be competitive, we MUST do this.  We loose
members and possible loans if we do not.

I have yet to see any POSITIVE ways to make members WANT to stay.  I see
the stick without the carrot being used.

	- mark

If 1/2 to 2/3s of all DCU checking (share draft) accounts are inactive, that is
probably a sign of someone who left DCU for one reason or another, and is
waiting to be enticed back!  If they wanted to leave, they would have closed the
account.  The fact that it's still open means they consider it may be favorable
to come back to DCU at some point in the future.  It could be people who are out
of state,  leaving the account open in case DCU comes to them, or they move to a
place where DCU is convenient.  <Add your own reasons here>

It's not people who are abusing the system.

Hey, DCU!  Entice us back!

Elaine

Re: Note: 713.29

>    .19 Collis, I do not disagree with you that the best way to attract new
>    customers to any institution is to offer better products. Become more
>    customer focused. But to use your business model approach, the DCU must
>    also address cost. According to the data presented, a full 25% of all
>    checking accounts contain balances less the $1.00. How many of these
>    are active? If these accounts are inactive, why should we bear the
>    cost. Implementing a monthly charge on these inactive accounts would be
>    pretty good incentive for members to clean up their unused accounts.

Fine. So impose a checking account fee of $2.00/month for accounts with an ADB
of $10 or less. Within 5 months, the inactive accounts are closed, and DCU has
$10x(# of inactive accounts) to put towards the DCU Employee Bonus Program.

IF the real issue is inactive accounts, that will take care of it. The DCU
proposed solution is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Total overkill,
creates a caste system, and alienates the majority of the customers who stuck
with DCU through the tough times.

Unfortunately, the real issue is not inactive accounts that cause DCU losses.
They would like you to believe that, though. It looks like the majority of DCU
members have gone for the bait hook, line and sinker.

WCCU, here I come.

Chris

 

Re:  .29

Thanks for your response.  1/4 of 2,500,00 is total smoke as
well.  I expect the actual result to DCU of instituting fees
is going to be a big fat *negative* with no substiantial
positive results.  I bet that if even 1 out of every 10
account that is currently "inactive" was drawn into becoming
active, that this would profit would far outweight the "loss"
that the inactives cause.  The inactive accounts are possible
active members in the future.  Let's try to regain them.

I also have no problem with a small fee after several years
of inactivity.  But this has no relationship to what is currently
being forced down our throats.

Collis

I would submit that the present terms of the Relationship,
while interesting,  shouldn't really be what frames the
debate.   A big concern that perhaps we're all overlooking
is the fundmental shift in the powers vested with different
levels of management, and with the basic philosophy which
management views their world.

By consenting to the "Relationship Banking" model, your board
has granted to management broad-based powers to redefine
that relationship, and the attendant fee structure whenever
management sees fit.  Looking at what was actually voted
on, and looking at the disclosures published by DCU, I do 
not believe it's necessary for management to go to the 
board to, for example, change the definition of relationship
to $25,000 per household, or to change the fees on basic
checking to $20/month.  I'm not suggesting that anybody at
DCU is about to do such a thing, but rather pointing out
that the powers to fee have been passed to management as
a general thing, not as specific consent "this time only."

Secondly, DCU management is constantly drawing parallels
between itself and the local commercial banks.  I see
and hear references all the time to Baybank, Shawmut, etc.
I believe that DCU's real competition lies with the 
local credit unions, and with some of the local savings
banks.  These institutions have charters which more closely
resemble DCU's, and face issues and challenges similar to
DCU.  And yet DCU insists on ignoring these organizations.
Could it be that DCU believes it is "too big" to worry
about these little guys?  Why does DCU constantly classify
it's competition as commercial banks when DCU isn't even
in the commercial banking field anymore (at least not since
the Participation Loan days)?

What I see happening is a fundamental move away from the 
business model which, in the final analysis, has made DCU
very profitable.   That's a much more ominous problem than
how exactly the relationship is structured, or whether or
not the fee is too high.

Agree?  Disagree?

./chris

...and the crowd goes wild (roar). Encore! Encore!

As usual, right on the money, Chris.

CdH

�By consenting to the "Relationship Banking" model, your board
�has granted to management broad-based powers to redefine
�that relationship, and the attendant fee structure whenever
�management sees fit.  Looking at what was actually voted
�on, and looking at the disclosures published by DCU, I do 
�not believe it's necessary for management to go to the 
�board to, for example, change the definition of relationship
�to $25,000 per household, or to change the fees on basic
�checking to $20/month.  
    
    Phil, is this true?
    
�I believe that DCU's real competition lies with the 
�local credit unions, and with some of the local savings
�banks.  
    
    
    Maybe, but how many of DCU's members can be members of the local credit
    unions (I realize a few have very broad membership criteria)?

    
    
     >> Phil, is this true?
    
      Absolutely. As it stands now, members/owners have NO INPUT
     on fees. 
    
      If Chuck decides that, for example, in mid 1994 that the
    fee structure is inadequate to achieve the desired results, 
    then there is nothing to prevent them (fees) from being increased.
     
      Theoretically, the BOD is in place to prevent it, but we 
    currently have no reason to believe they would.
    
    
       Steve Gaulke