Conference 7.286::dcu

    IMO, it's too late for a Special Meeting, so I'm going to concentrate
    on voting out every BoD member who voted for 'relationship banking'
    and/or fees.
    
    Bob

    Yes there are plenty of DCU members left. From what I can see a lot of
    unhappy DCU members as well.
    
    Regarding a Special Meeting. I'm not convinced that would have achieved
    anything really constructive. For good or bad all current members of
    the BOD have each been voted in within the last 2 years. The only thing
    a special meeting is allowed to do is boot them out. Thanks to the work
    of Paul Kinzelman and Phil Gransewicz how each and every board member
    votes on issuers is now clearly visible. That's if we ignore for a
    moment the tendency to put too much into Executive Session and the
    very dubious practice of hiding the April minutes for 6 months.
    
    Come the Spring there will be a normal election. The issues will be
    very clear. There will be some people standing who are clearly against
    fees and this "relationship banking" direction this credit union
    appears to be taking. At that time the whole membership will have a
    chance to clearly state how they'd like their credit union to be run
    and what they'd like to see it move towards. I believe this will be a
    watershed election.
    
    I urge everyone who is thinking of closing their account not to. Keep
    your $5 savings account and make your voice count at the next election.
    I am convinced there will be a clear choice of candidates. Note that
    maintaining a $5 savings account does not subject you to any fees. You
    will have to close your checking account though unless you are a
    relationship member of have direct deposit of a sufficient quantity.
    
    I personally worked hard for the partial victory in 1992, I intend to
    work even harder to finish the job in 1994 so that we can all have a
    credit union that is more like a REAL credit union like WCU rather than
    like a wanna be bank that can never compete on variety of service with
    the likes of Shawmut and Baybank.
    
    Hang in there folks. Don't leave. That's exactly what the "bankers"
    want you to do.
    
    Dave

    RE: -1

   >                                                      Thanks to the work
   > of Paul Kinzelman and Phil Gransewicz how each and every board member
   > votes on issuers is now clearly visible. 

    	Might I remind you that although both these gentlemen voted against
    fees one of them (Paul Kinzelman) did vote to hide the fees until it was
    to late to do anything about it.  That doesn't sound like open 
    communication to me, which I believe was another campaign promise.

    Joe

    Joe

�Note that
�    maintaining a $5 savings account does not subject you to any fees. You
�    will have to close your checking account though unless you are a
�    relationship member of have direct deposit of a sufficient quantity.
    
    Is there a minimum direct deposit required to waive checking fees?

I believe it is $500 per month (might be $300 but I think Chuck ignored the 
board on this).

    ...and that $500 MUST go into the checking account to avoid the
    checking account fees. If it goes into savings or a sub-account - it
    doesn't count - it makes you an abuser (by their definition).

    RE:.4

    	It may be solid reasoning to you (why Paul voted to hide the
    minutes) but it sounds like somebody trying to play both sides of the 
    fence to me and that just don't cut it for me.  As far as being stuck
    with what we got, I sure hope that your attitude isn't to widespread.
    I'm keeping WCU's address handy as I may need it in January.

    Joe   

    
    From a conversation I had with Paul after the infamous minutes were
    exposed to daylight:
    
       o  Paul did vote against the new fees.
    
       o  He also worked to have the fee question subjected to a full
          referendum of the members, but was defeated.
    
       o  To make the best of a terrible situation, Paul supported a
          *strictly temporary* withholding of information from the minutes,
          to give Chuck time to put together a reasonable fee structure with
          justifications that would convince the membership of its necessity.
    
    IMO, Chuck squandered the intervening time, beccause he has not
    made avaialble any such justification. A figure of $2.5 million loat
    to "abusive accounts" has been floated around, but I know for a fact
    that the board has been asked to support that figure and has not, and I
    doubt that anyone can, because I have it on good authority that the
    internal cost accounting necessary to do so does not exist within the
    credit union.
    
    IMO, Paul gambled a fair amount of reputation currency on his
    vote, and he lost. Thought I disagree with his vote, I believe his
    intention was honorable, and I find it very easy to respect him for
    taking the risk.
    

    I contacted Lisa Demauro Ross last month, and she got back to me
    and explained a number of things, including what the $2.5M number
    means.  Briefly, it is the additional amount that the DCU would be
    earning *if* all of the non-relationship members matched a usage
    profile that Lisa called the breakeven profile.  I'm unclear 
    exactly what this is, though she tried to explain it to me.
    
    I argued that the amount the non-relationship members *cost* the DCU
    is the amount we'd save if they all quit en masse.  Lisa insisted
    that they *cost* the DCU the amount the DCU would earn if they all
    converted to meeting the breakeven profile.  This is a fundamental
    disagreement about what *cost* means, and unresolvable.  However,
    this is the explanation of where the $2.5M *cost* number comes from.
    
    Lisa described the whole relationship scheme as a "carrot" designed
    to get people to use their accounts more efficiently, not a "stick"
    designed to get unproductive people to leave -- that few people will
    ever be charged fees because you really have to try hard to be charged.
    I argued that it does in fact appear to be a stick, and she said it 
    could have been presented more effectively.  So whose fault was that?
    The Board gave Chuck Cockburn the program he asked for, the Board
    gave Chuck the delayed announcement he wanted, and the Board let Chuck 
    present it the way he wanted.  And it still looked like an increased
    fee proposal rather than the benign carrot that Lisa envisions.
    
    Personally, I'm not convinced that there are very many members who
    really *cost* the DCU anything -- that is, whose departure would 
    actually result in an increased profit figure.  I base this on my
    assumption that computer records are very inexpensive, so that the
    major costs each member incures are the mailings and per-transaction
    expenses.  I asked Lisa why she so emphasized the problem of members
    who keep multiple accounts -- what data is there that this costs the
    DCU very much?  Her answer referred to profiles of groups, not to
    actual costs of providing the extra accounts.  I didn't get it.
    
    Well, since this has turned into a summary of my talk with Lisa, I'll
    mention two other points.  First, I asked Lisa about whether the DCU
    is competitive on credit cards, citing offers I'd gotten in the mail.
    She asked if I really expect the DCU to compete with these big
    companies that offer credit cards by mail.  No, I don't.  What I failed
    to convey is that I don't because I see the DCU as a *credit union*.
    If I think of it as a bank, I *do* expect it to compete with all the
    other banks offering credit cards by mail.
    
    Finally, I asked Lisa about her campaign promise to focus on "long
    range solutions, not short term fixes... and try to hold the line
    on fee increases."  She feels that she has fulfilled this promise.
    She said that the relationship program is not a fee program -- it
    is not designed to make a quick buck on fees, but rather to try to
    change the way that people do business with the DCU and benefit 
    people who want to stay with the DCU.  Again, I didn't get it. 
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry
    
    PS -- This is my best effort to present Lisa's views in as close to
    her words as possible.  I'll post corrections if Lisa doesn't feel
    that I've accurately explained her views.

Indeed.

A cost is not an item expensed; it is profit not realized.

An incentive is not an extra award for doing business; it is
avoiding spending money on fees.

Putting in a fee structure is not charging fees; it is
a redefinition of relationship expectations.

------------------------

Apparently most of the current board buys this nonsense.

Equally apparently, most of those active in this notesfile
do not.

But will the emporer believe us if we tell him that he has
no clothes?

Collis

    
    I sense in .11 the same vagueness, word games and thought-free
    repetition that so frustrated me when I tried to discuss these issues
    with our Bod chair.
    
    I'd love to hear the official BoD interpretation of the term "break
    even". In fusion research, it means you get out as much energy as you
    put in. In Boy Scout fund raising, it means you pull in exactly enough
    revenue on an event to cover your expenses. At DCU, it seems to mean
    the theoretical limit of profits that this not-for-profit corporation
    can squeeze out of its members.
    

    RE:.12

        >But will the emporer believe us if we tell him that he has
        >no clothes?

    	I doubt that his highness the great and all powerful emperor Chuck
    the 1st will ever believe anybody but himself.  We envision a credit
    union he envisions a bank.  The two where never meant to be the same no
    matter how hard he tries to make it so.  Just my opinion.

    Joe

    
    Re: .11
    
    > She said that the relationship program is not a fee program -- it
    > is not designed to make a quick buck on fees, but rather to try to
    > change the way that people do business with the DCU and benefit 
    > people who want to stay with the DCU.  Again, I didn't get it. 
    
    If it isn't a fee program then why are there *fees*?  Why is the
    tail trying to wag the dog here by trying to force the customers to
    behave the way the business wants them to?  Since, I would certainly
    like to stay with the DCU, why am I having such a hard time figuring
    out how and where I will get a benefit from this?
    
    I don't get it either, Larry.  It does not add up, and we're the
    fools for expecting it to, I guess.  They are from another planet.
    
    As another reply said, elections are just around the corner.  Goodby,
    Lisa.
    
    Steve
    

    Don't be sanguine about the election changing anything.  It *might* if
    a lot of people work *harder* than we did in the Real Choices election!
    
    Consider this fact.  In that election, the Real Choices candidate with
    the most obvious financial background was Tanya Dawkins.  Arguably she
    had the best financial background of *all* the candidates.  She also
    got the most votes -- over half of those casting ballots voted for her!
    
    A similar argument can be made for Lisa Demauro Ross.  Her statement
    showed a strong financial background.  She also got a lot of votes.
    
    I conclude that for most people, the #1 criteria for choosing a DCU
    director is their financial background.  This shouldn't be surprizing.
    After all, one has to really dig into the situation to discover the
    amazing degree to which the attitudes and philosophies of the finance
    types diverge from what appears to be common sense to people like me.
    And even most people who notice that are likely to conclude "well, if
    my view is different from the experts, I must be wrong".  Sometimes,
    they are right to think that.  Sometimes, they aren't.
    
    One advantage of this year's election is that the candidate statements
    are longer.  150 words is not enough to both talk about your financial
    qualifications *and* talk about your philosophy for the credit union.
    This is the only information most voters will see about the issues that
    concern so many of us DCU readers.  If you want to win, make that
    statement count!  
    
    		Luck,
    		Larry

    I should mention that I give Lisa a lot of credit for her effort to
    reach out to folks like me who don't like the relationship program,
    and to really try to discuss the issues.  This by itself is a major
    improvement over the Board that was replaced nearly two years ago.
    
    I still think she's wrong in a lot of ways -- most notably in insisting
    that a *cost* is a profit that you didn't get, rather than an amount 
    that you had to spend (my interpretation of her position).  But I think 
    that she sincerely believes that she's doing the best thing for the DCU.
    
    Hopefully we can have a clean and issue-based campaign, that results 
    in our all finding out what the DCU membership thinks about the new
    relationship banking plan.  Lisa's efforts to reach out on this issue
    lead me to hope that the incumbents seeking re-election will speak to
    the issues, rather than ducking the issues as has happened in the past.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

>               <<< Note 717.13 by WLDBIL::KILGORE "WLDBIL(tm)" >>>
>    I'd love to hear the official BoD interpretation of the term "break
>    even". In fusion research, it means you get out as much energy as you
>    put in. In Boy Scout fund raising, it means you pull in exactly enough
>    revenue on an event to cover your expenses. At DCU, it seems to mean
>    the theoretical limit of profits that this not-for-profit corporation
>    can squeeze out of its members.
    
    Bill, I share your frustration.  My business experience and education
    have ill-prepared me for understanding the way "costs" are calculated
    at DCU.  Must be some sort of new business math that we're out of step
    with.
    
    I view the difference between what is made on one member and what is 
    made on another was LOST OPPORTUNITY INCOME, or INCOME IN WAITING.  I
    view that fact that there are such a high number of DCU members that
    don't use DCU as a failure of the CREDIT UNION, not its members.  Given
    the many advantages DCU enjoys and the membership base, nobody should 
    be able to touch us IMO.  
    

    Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea, come next election, to ignore the
    candidates "background", and instead search out people who have
    actually worked with or for the candidates.
    
    Let's just say, based on the above, I'm not surprised at the way the
    BOD functions.