Conference 7.286::dcu

    FWIW, the Nominating Committee is all done. Five applications were
    received, the applicants were interviewed and all five were nominated.

    The nominees (alphabetical order) so far are:

    Lisa Demauro-Ross
    Chris Fillmore-Gillett
    Dave Garrod
    Phil Gransewicz
    Paul Milbury

    Petitions, in case anyone wants to be nominated by petition, should
    be available today. Contact Pat Coyle at the DCU HQ if you want/need one.
		DTN: 223-6735 x180
		DCU: 800-328-8797 x180
    
    Petitions are due in by 2/7/94.

    As a reminder, three positions are to be filled this year. 

    			Alfred

RE: Note 718.1 by CVG::THOMPSON

    Lisa Demauro-Ross
    Chris Fillmore-Gillett
    Dave Garrod
    Phil Gransewicz
    Paul Milbury

Well it does not seem hard to see which three in the middle I will vote for! :-)

	- mark

    
    Re: .2
    
    > Well it does not seem hard to see which three in the middle I will
    > vote for! :-)
    
    Precisely my thoughts as well!!!!
    
    Steve
    

    Do we know which one have pledged their first-born (or the ability to
    have a first-born :-) for "NO FEE"?
    
    - Vikas

    
    Re:
    
>HELIX::SONTAKKE                                       4 lines  19-JAN-1994 11:13
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Do we know which one have pledged their first-born (or the ability to
>    have a first-born :-) for "NO FEE"?
    
    Of the 5 candidates listed in a previous reply.
    
    The following three:
    
    Chris Fillmore-Gillett
    Dave Garrod
    Phil Gransewicz
    
    have pledged to get rid of checking account fees.
    
    The other two:
    
    Lisa Demauro-Ross
    Paul Milbury
    
    are current board members and voted to impose the checking fees in the
    first place. Phil Gransewicz is the only incumbent running that voted
    against checking fees. The only other current voard member to vote
    against checking fees was Paul Kinzelman.
    
    Dave

Let me be as clear about this as I possibly can:  I oppose fees on basic
services.  I do not believe in "holding the line on fees" - I believe
in getting rid of them once and for all.   I will work to get rid of
them, and I will not vote for them.

Chris

    
    Perhaps, so we're all "on the same page", we ought to make
    the distinction "basic services" very clear.  
    
    In limiting the statement about no fees to "basic services",
    that means to me that there may be things where fees are
    appropriate.  I can live that statement, but I'd like to 
    document what we all mean by "basic services".
    
    To start, basic services, to me are checking accounts, savings
    accounts, a Christmas or Vacation club, payroll deduction for
    loan payments, etc.
    
    A service which might not be "basic" might be mutual fund sales
    and accounts, portfolio management, etc.
    
    Steve
    

�    A service which might not be "basic" might be mutual fund sales
�    and accounts, portfolio management, etc.
    
    I don't think CUs are allowed to do stuff like this.

    
    Re: .8
    
    > I don't think CUs are allowed to do stuff like this.
    
    Perhaps not, but I was just using them as examples of things
    that I would not consider basic and for which I think fees
    would be appropriate.
    
    Steve
    

re:  .7, definition of "basic services"

Here are my specific ideas regarding "basic services:"

There must not be fees on basic checking accounts, savings 
accounts of all types including Christmas Club, U-Name-It accounts,
vacation accounts, etc.  There must not be fees placed on
RSVP accounts, or other long-term savings accounts - without
regard for account balance.  

More generally, I believe it is unreasonable to fee for services
that are necessary in order to conduct day-to-day business.
People need to make deposits and withdrawals from their 
accounts, and they need to write checks.   

Back in the Good-Olde-Days-Before-Relationship-Banking-When-All-
We-Had-To-Worry-About-Was-Participation-Loans-and-Real-Estate-Fraud,
:-) DCU's fee structure seemed OK to me.   However, a high priority
business item for the Board should be a complete review and
overhaul of the entire fee structure - beginning with an end to
"relationship banking."

Chris

    
    Re: .10
    
    OK, but since you specifically said no fees for basic services
    do you have any examples of things which you would not consider
    'basic' and for which you think a fee would be reasonable.
    
    I'm not trying to pin anyone down here to a position but more
    to get some alignment on what is meant by 'basic'.
    
    Perhaps another question for the candidates is are you categorically
    opposed to fees ever for anything or could you concieve of situations
    where you think it would be reasonable to impose a fee?  The point
    of this question is not to generate controversy but to help us all
    be clear so there'll be no "holding the line on fees" surprises.
    
    Steve
    

	Stop Payment - I think a fee is reasonable, though I liked it a lot
when it was $3.  Fortunately, I've only had to issue a stop payment on one
check.

	Overdraft Fee.


	I consider those outside "basic services."

						--Doug

re:  more definition on basic services

There are essentially two schools of thought that banks/S&Ls/CUs   
use in setting up fee structures.  The first is a structure by which
you pay simply for the right to have an account.  While there may
be special situations in which these maintenance fees are waived (high
balances, etc.), the overall intent of the program is to fee you
for having an account and being a member.  This is obviously a really
bad idea, and is exactly what DCU is trying to do now.  We do not want to
charge people money for being a customer.  

The second type of fee structure involves charges for specific services
above and beyond what is needed to do everyday financial transactions.
For example, nearly all financial institutions charge for check printing,
overdrafting, stop payments, etc.  Prior to the beginning of the 
relationship program, DCU had a fairly reasonable set of charges for 
specific items like this.

My bottom line is that account maintenance fees and fees levied simply
for the right of being a customer are absolutely wrong and must be
eliminated. 

Clearly a change in board composition would necessitate a review of
all fees levied for any and all products and services.    A goal should
be to have as few fees as possible for "non-basic services," and to 
keep whatever fees do exist as low as possible.  This is the domain of
tactical management, and should be done by DCU management, with 
appropriate oversight and goal-setting by the Board.  A key element here
is for the Board to articulate to management a service-based
philosophy in which fees are seen as a generally bad thing, rather than
as a revenue generator.

Chris

    
    RE: "basic" services and fees
    
    I agree with everything Chris has put forth.  I would also add that one
    can never say never.  Obviously, if the credit union were faced with 
    mounting losses, then fees would need to be looked at, but certainly 
    NOT before all other avenues were also explored, such as expense 
    reduction, etc.  I would also be the FIRST person out here explaining
    why they were needed and you can be sure there would be reasonable
    justification and facts given.
    
    A big problem with the current fees was that valid alternatives were 
    offered that addressed the stated problems but they were rejected out 
    of hand.  I would have expected that "holding the line" meant that 
    alternatives would be tried first.  I was sadly mistaken.
    
    Now the good news, dire financial conditions certainly do not
    exist at DCU at this time and never have.  DCU has always been very
    profitable, WITHOUT A FEE STRUCTURE.  What we have is a solution
    CAUSING a problem.  Unfortunately, the solution is damaging our
    most valuable asset, OUR MEMBERSHIP BASE.
    

�We do not want to
�charge people money for being a customer.  
    
    So, you don't think that service providers should charge for their
    services?

>    So, you don't think that service providers should charge for their
>    services?
    
    Correct.  I don't think that grocery stores should be charging you
    admission at the door in order to gain entrance to the store to
    purchase groceries.
    
    Glad we cleared this one up...
    

    So you also think that hospitals should not charge either.

    re: .17
    
    ?????????????????????????????????
    
    I won't shop at a store that charges me a 'membership' fee.  I won't
    deal with a financial institution that charges me a fee to have an
    account there.
    
    re: fees in general
    
    A few months ago, there was an article in some magazine (Money?) that
    mentioned that financial institutions were making tons of money on
    overdraft and other fees.  I think it said that an overdraft only cost
    the institution $2 to handle, vs. the $15-$20 they typically charged.
    
    Bob

re:  .17, hospitals...

Well, if I go to the hospital and have my tonsils removed, there's
a reasonably good chance that somebody else won't come along and
want to borrow them.  Nor would I want to go to the hospital
and borrow a cup of germs.  Nor can the hospital loan all those
amputated limbs out overnight to other hospitals whose
Allowances for Amputated Limbs are running a tad low.  


re:  .18, fees in general...


Regarding overdraft charges:  overdrafting is a bad thing.  
Technically, by kiting checks or writing rubber checks you
are breaking the law - at least in most states.  Charging
a whopping fee for doing this is acceptable in my view..it's
a true dis-incentive to discourage a behavior that is
clear inappropriate.

The Money Magazine articles I've seen about bank fees are
truly amazing.  Fees for balance inquiries, fees for using
your account, fees for not using your account, fees for
depositing money, fees for withdrawing money, fees to
carry an ATM card - without regard for whether or not it
is actually used.  It's just unbelievable.   

Even better, the statistical results of polling that Money
did show that instutitions who employ Stupid Bank Tricks
like this should pay heed - the results showed overwhelming
dissatisfaction by the bank's customers.  Sound familiar?

The best story I've heard so far though concerns a fellow
who owned a small business.   He took his banker to lunch
one day, as happens from time to time amongst business
owners and their bankers.  When he received his next
monthly statement, there was a charge of $240 for the
two hours the banker spent "in consultation with
the client."

Chris

    At last, something Chris said that I can disagree with!
    
    I do *not* think that overdrafts should have "whopping fees".
    I think a fee of, say $5, is big enough to get someone's
    attention that this is a BAD THING TO DO -- $15 is too much.
    
    What's worse is that they often come in sets.  One missing depost
    may cause multiple checks to bounce.  I wouldn't mind $15 so much if 
    it were a per-incident fee (or maximum) instead of a per-check fee.
    
    The Money article on fees described (so I'm told) an interesting
    twist on bounced checks.  It described banks that deliberately
    credit the biggest checks first, so that if the balance runs out,
    the maximum number of individual checks will bounce and the bank
    gets more profit.  That's the key -- to the bank/DCU it's a profit
    item, not a way to help the customer learn fiscal prudence nor a
    reasonable charge for services rendered.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry
    
    PS -- Of course, this issue is trivial compared to the relationship
    banking issue.  I entered this for the edification of those who like
    to claim that we "real choices" folks never disagree with each other.

    >          <<< Note 718.17 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>
>
>    So you also think that hospitals should not charge either.
    
    	So you think DCU should charge fees for deposits, withdrawals,
    	inquiries, mail in deposit envelops, loan application papers, check
    	cashing, DCU ATM transactions, marketing brochures, monthly
    	statements, ... ?
    
    	

    RE:.21

    >	So you think DCU should charge fees for deposits, withdrawals,
    >	inquiries, mail in deposit envelops, loan application papers, check
    >	cashing, DCU ATM transactions, marketing brochures, monthly
    >	statements, ... ?

    	I was taught that these things where part of the cost of doing
    business.  I'd have to say no fees for any of these.  Although I believe 
    that a machine similar to those air machines at service stations that 
    cost you a quarter to put air in your tires would go nice at DCU.  We 
    could hook one of these up at the DCU branches to the ink pens and 
    everybody would have to pay 25 cents to fill out their deposit slips. :^)

    Joe
                               

I would like to see if these candidates are willing to do a Job Plan with the
President of the DCU and make it available to all of the members (OWNERS) 
since he works for us indirectly and directly for the BOD ther should be no
conflicts.  

This will clearly (I hope) define what the BOD expects of the President and
how he will be measured on those expectations.  

My worst fears are that he is running the BOD rather than the other way around.
The previous President also ran the BOD in my opinion and they were too trusting
of him.  This in no way implies anything being done wrong in a legal sense by 
current management.
 I just think that his goals may well be different from ours and that in any
case he has not been able to articulate why fees are a good thing.  

    
    RE: .23
    
    Any President's "job plan" would be exactly what the Board decided it
    to be.  That is why it is critically important for members to vote for
    Directors with defined and stated priorities and directions.  By a
    majority vote of the Board, those prioritites and directions become the
    "job plan".  So a majority of the Board is also required to complete
    the "job plan".  Key points of measurement in my book are:
    
    	1) membership satisfaction - happy with current products and
    	   direction.
    
    	2) membership participation - increasing the number of members.
    
    	3) friendly credit union environment - friendly, easy to use
    	   services and a reasonable price.
    
    	4) expense management - keep costs down.
    
    
    	Please notice that NONE of these mentions the bottom line or
    	capital ratio.  They are metrics of MEASUREMENT, and should not be
    	primary strategy IMO.  Manage customers and business, not ratios.

�    	So you think DCU should charge fees for deposits, withdrawals,
�    	inquiries, mail in deposit envelops, loan application papers, check
�    	cashing, DCU ATM transactions, marketing brochures, monthly
�    	statements, ... ?
    
    Depends.  If there is enough money in an account, or sufficient
    business has come through in loans to offset these costs, no.
    
    Actually even in a fee free situation, the fees are there you just
    can't see them.  They are reflected in the lower than maximum interest
    rates you receive.

�Key points of measurement in my book are:
�    
�    	1) membership satisfaction - happy with current products and
�    	   direction.
�    
�    	2) membership participation - increasing the number of members.
�    
�    	3) friendly credit union environment - friendly, easy to use
�    	   services and a reasonable price.
�    
�    	4) expense management - keep costs down.
�    
�    
�    	Please notice that NONE of these mentions the bottom line or
�    	capital ratio.  They are metrics of MEASUREMENT, and should not be
�    	primary strategy IMO. 
    
    I hope this is a quick, off the cuff statement of a job plan.  I'd hate
    to be "measured" by this.  There is no "measurement" here.  These are
    completely subjective.  e.g. keep cost down -- If that was one of my
    measurables I could say I did an outstanding job because I saved the
    company $0.29 for not mailing a letter today.  I met the goal of
    keeping cost down.

>    Actually even in a fee free situation, the fees are there you just
>    can't see them.  They are reflected in the lower than maximum interest
>    rates you receive.
    
    "lower than maximum interest rates"???  So if everybody paid for all of
    these "services" in the form of fees, what would you expect these
    "maximum interest rates" to be?
    

>    I hope this is a quick, off the cuff statement of a job plan.  I'd hate
>    to be "measured" by this.  There is no "measurement" here.  These are
>    completely subjective.  
    
    Of course there is no "measurement" here because I didn't list the
    measurement methods and criteria!  Didn't think I needed to say that
    the measure of success for increasing membership was AN INCREASING
    MEMEBERSHIP COUNT.
    
    >e.g. keep cost down -- If that was one of my
>    measurables I could say I did an outstanding job because I saved the
>    company $0.29 for not mailing a letter today.  I met the goal of
>    keeping cost down.
    
    Excellent!  See, something tangible!!  You have now satisfied some of
    the cost reduction goals for that one task, now simply apply it to every 
    task you undertake.  I mean, do I really have to explain this to you? 
    You're pulling my leg, right?
    

RE: Keith...

In a perverted way, you are a silver lining to this conference.  DCU is doing
it's best to drive away the membership with this relationship banking nonsense
and you continue to defend it, even to the point of making comparisons to the
business practices of hospitals.  Maybe I'm just in an extraordinarily good
mood lately but I get a good chuckle out of your entries lately.

So now that I'll be accused of not embracing dissenting opinions, I'll go back
to the sidelines...

Ray

�    "lower than maximum interest rates"???  So if everybody paid for all of
�    these "services" in the form of fees, what would you expect these
�    "maximum interest rates" to be?
    
    If they are loaning out my money at 7 to 9%, I'd expect that the rate
    they could give back to me would be closer to that than the current 3%
    if there weren't some kind of expense involved in my asking them to
    hold on to my money for me and pay it out when I say so.

�    Of course there is no "measurement" here because I didn't list the
�    measurement methods and criteria!  
    
    Sorry I guess I was confused when you called it a measurement.  I
    didn't think that was the way you meant it, so that's why I asked. 
    Thank you for the clarification.  I'll be more careful next time.  I
    don't want the open communication to close again.

    
    Comparing DCU to a hospital is apples to oranges.  
    
    At a hospital the service *is* the product.  At a credit union
    dividends, interest, and better-than-competitive loan rates are the
    product.  Credit unions provide these products by accepting deposits
    from their members and lending that money to other members.   Good
    service(s) is one of the things that should be used to encourage
    members to deposit more of their money. 
    
    Charging members fees for "services" amounts to asking them to pay for
    the work you have to do to get their money so you can lend it out to
    make MORE money, too little of which is distributed back to the
    members in this case.  JUST THE THOUGHT OF THIS P***** PEOPLE OFF!
    
    
    Steve
    

�    At a hospital the service *is* the product.  At a credit union
�    dividends, interest, and better-than-competitive loan rates are the
�    product.  
    
    I think even Phil would agree that a CU provides more than that.  A CU
    holds your money for you (i.e. you don't have to put in under your
    mattress).  The CU pays your bills for you (all your check does is tell
    the CU to give money to the person named on your check).  It helps you
    keep track of your money by issuing statements.  It is a service
    provider.
    
    It also provides products in terms of interest bearing accounts and
    certificates, loans, etc.
    
    Just because something is a "cost of doing business", doesn't mean it
    isn't a real cost.

    
>    It is a service provider.

    It is a PRODUCT provider.  It's product is MONEY.  It attracts money 
    into deposits (thru good rates, terms, services, etc.) and then grants
    LOANS to produce profit (to cover expenses and return to the membership).
    Without MONEY there is no SERVICE.  Without a properly priced product,
    there are no customers.

>    It also provides products in terms of interest bearing accounts and
>    certificates, loans, etc.

    Gee, it almost seems you forgot the most important part of the picture.
    Without these, DCU has no reason to exist.
        
>    Just because something is a "cost of doing business", doesn't mean it
>    isn't a real cost.

    100% agreement!  It's in how the cost is treated that makes the
    difference.  I believe the costs must be spread among the entire
    membership as a cost of doing business and not allocated to 
    a certain group of members (fees).

    Also, the psychology of the fee approach cannot be ignored.  It is
    entirely negative and punative IMO.  Do you want to establish that type
    of "relationship" with potential customers?  Very bad business IMO...

�    Gee, it almost seems you forgot the most important part of the picture.
�    Without these, DCU has no reason to exist.
    
    Some would argue that with the very low interest rates being provided
    by most banks/CUs that without the services being provided by these
    institutions they have no reason to exist.  With interest rates less
    than 3%, you're not losing much money if you keep it in your mattress
    and handle all transactions with cash.
    
�    100% agreement!  It's in how the cost is treated that makes the
�    difference.  I believe the costs must be spread among the entire
�    membership as a cost of doing business and not allocated to 
�    a certain group of members (fees).
    
    Before the fee structure was put in place, weren't the members who were
    doing significantly more business with DCU (i.e. those now defined as
    relationship members) bearing the majority of these costs of doing
    business?

    
    Well, I must admit, I never thought of mattresses as our competition.
    8-)
    
    Let's look at two imaginery DCU members, rough calculations follow.
    Some would argue the relationship member is being subsidized.  My
    question is "Why can't DCU be happy to have both as customers?".
    
    
    ----- Member A (non-relationship member) -----
    
    DCU Visa card, average balance $2000 @ 11%		= $220 DCU income
    DCU Visa annual fee					= $ 20 DCU income
    Checking account, average balance $800
    $800 free for DCU to invest (4%=$32) or		= $ 44 avg. DCU income
    		  DCU to loan   (7%=$56)
    							  ----
    Rough income to DCU					  $284
    (Checking account, average balance $800 @ 3% = $ 24 forfeited interest)
    (checking fees not included)
    
    
    
    ----- Member B  (relationship member) -----
    
    Savings Account, $3500
    $3500 for DCU to invest (4%=$140) or	= $193 avg. DCU income
    	      DCU to loan   (7%=$245)
      minus cost to DCU ($3500 @3%)		=($105)
    						  ----
    Rough income to DCU				  $ 88
    	

    Re .36
    
    Phil,
    	How about including the "Holy Grail" ration in your computations.
    Does the "relationship" member contribute more to that than the
    profitable (woops) non relationshop member ?
    

    Phil, are those examples typical of the membership?
    
    While the fee structure does discourage the person in your first
    example from using the DCU (if you look at the relationship definition
    as a stick instead of a carrot), it was my impression that your example
    is of a person more involved than the ones DCU is targetting.  Your
    example is obviously not the "keep just enough money in the account to
    get lunch and cash checks" variety.
    
    In the second example, are most of the relationship members only the
    type who keep $3500 in DCU and conduct all the rest of their business
    elsewhere?
    
    Your example does bring up a good point.  Perhaps the relationship
    member definition at this point isn't good enough.

    
>    Phil, are those examples typical of the membership?
    
    I believe this is the crux of the problem.  Is there a "typical"
    member?  Why should we be trying to evaluate all members according to
    marketing profile?  We must recognize the unique opportunities available
    with EVERY member day, and tomorrow.  The membersahip is too diverse to
    accurately judge with a marketing profile.
    
    A customer is a customer is a customer.  Getting them in the front door
    is the challenge.  Having done that, if they don't see anything worth
    buying isn't their fault?  Or is it the sellers fault?
    

    Phil, just a little nit with your example ...
    
    The avg balance $800 chequing account cannot be loaned out as you suggest,
    and to be honest, therein is one of the driving forces behind the
    Capital Ratio increases.  A proportion of it can be loaned out to the
    membership, and a proportion loaned out overnight to the Federal Reserve.
    at a fraction of that 3% BUT never can all of it be loaned out.
    The larger the Capital Ratio, the higher the percentage total that can be 
    loaned out to both the membership and the Federal Reserve.
    
    And then of course, the more that can be loaned out, particularly to
    the membership means better savings rates.
    
    I'm not pretending for one minute that I'm supporting fees here,
    because, clearly, they are not needed, since DCU has made profits
    and improved the Capital Ratio (before the large member exodus in
    Sept), and that the fees are really intended to alter the membership
    and savings quality profile and hence artificially influence the
    capital ratio.
    
    Apparently, even with its current Capital Ratio, DCU still has plenty
    of funds it can loan out to the membership, let alone the overnight
    deposits with the Federal Reserve.   Clearly a better way to influence 
    the capital ratio, and the long term approach, is to increase and
    promote the lending, possibly by taking a few more risks, or with
    slightly more competetive rates, so that gross profits from lending
    are increased.  This will result in more business coming to DCU for
    more than just loans, which will compound the improvement to the
    capital ratio.  Some of that gross profit can be returned to the
    members by slightly better savings rates.  These better savings rates
    will result in more quality savings with DCU, which can be loaned out.
    As the capital ratio thus improves, the slightly more competetive rates
    for both saving and lending can become much more competetive.
    
    Obviously, this mechanism requires a lot of monotoring and feathering
    of rates and care in implementation, but it MUST be better for DCU
    in the long haul.
    
    Stuart
    
    

    Phil, you're wasting your talent running for a simple BoD position on a
    local credit union.  The Mass. Govenor's seat is up for re-election
    this fall.  The local press would eat up all this motherhood and apple
    pie stuff you come up with.

    
    RE: .40
    
    Stuart, once funds are deposited they either become funds DCU can loan,
    invest or reserve.  At this point, we have millions of dollars that we
    have to invest at a rough avg. rate of 4%.  The loan demand isn't there. 
    Anybody who deposits $800, essentially makes that money (or some other
    money, or some percentage of these monies) available for loan and/or
    investment.  Our reserves are adequate so it would not sit,
    unproductive.  There is no concept of "quality" money vs. "non-quality"
    money and I have never heard it referred to in these terms.  Any member
    can withdraw all his money at any time.  There is no guarantee that any
    of it will stay put.
    
    RE: .41
    
    Yeah, motherhood and apple pie.  I equate them with common sense.  Why
    would ANY business implement a model that penalizes (or worse chases
    away) customers that are profitable?  Their only sin is that they don't
    meet the exact profitability profile that somebody constructed.  I guess
    you can't come with a good justification for it either or you would not
    have resorted to a reply like that.  So I guess we're in agreement.
    

    Well, Phil, your philosophical arguments weren't enough to sway any
    other board members.  Maybe it's time to try to beat them at their own
    game and use facts and figures to show that your ideas and philosophies
    will get us to the same or better outcome.

    
    What makes you think that it is the Board that needs to be swayed? 
    Also, who has posted facts or figures that show where our current direction
    of fees will bring us?  I must have missed that posting.  Please post
    it so I can go back and re-read it.
    
    But as I've already said, (you might have missed it) maximizing
    profitability on a per member or household basis is NOT, repeat NOT, a
    top priority.  That is a valid strategy for a bank, not a credit union
    IMO.  I guess your expectations of a credit union are very different
    from mine, and others.  If DCU can't be any better than a bank then why
    does it exist?  Simply for convenience??  Bad news on that front.
    Convenience is enough anymore.
    

�    What makes you think that it is the Board that needs to be swayed? 
    
    The fact that you were outvoted when the fee issue came up.
    
�    Also, who has posted facts or figures that show where our current direction
�    of fees will bring us?  I must have missed that posting.  Please post
�    it so I can go back and re-read it.
    
    I would hope this was done during the all those planning meetings and
    board meetings where the fee structure was being discussed.
    
�    But as I've already said, (you might have missed it) maximizing
�    profitability on a per member or household basis is NOT, repeat NOT, a
�    top priority.  
    
    I haven't missed it.  That is clearly your position.  That does not
    appear to be the BoD's or DCU Management's position based on their
    stance on fees and relationships.
    
�That is a valid strategy for a bank, not a credit union
�    IMO.  
    
    How about we cut down on the opinions on concentrate on the facts.
    
�I guess your expectations of a credit union are very different
�    from mine, and others.  
    
    It's taken you this long to figure this out?  It seems to me there are
    a wide variety of expections of a credit union, even in this notesfile.
    
�If DCU can't be any better than a bank then why
�    does it exist?  
    
    Good question.  With the lines that delineate banks from credit unions
    getter blurrier by the day, why do people choose DCU over their local
    bank and vice versa?

�   Also, who has posted facts or figures that show where our current direction
�   of fees will bring us?  I must have missed that posting.  Please post
�   it so I can go back and re-read it.

    I would hope this was done during the all those planning meetings and
    board meetings where the fee structure was being discussed.

Guess again.  As I reported in a couple of earlier notes, I *explicitly*
asked Lisa Demauro Ross how it was determined that the non-relationship
members are a drag on the credit union.  She replied that they don't meet
the profile of how much a typical member ought to be using the credit union.
She had NOT ONE FIGURE that even suggested that they are costing the DCU more
than they contribute.  All she had was figures that show that "typical"
members make more money for the DCU than the non-relationship members.

Nor did Lisa have any data about how the fee structure could be expected
to affect the membership.  She had an OPINION that people wouldn't see it
as a fee system.  7.6K members lost the month it was announced is pretty
strong data against that opinion.  True, it's not known for sure why those
people left.  It might be that most of the DCU members who were laid off over
the preceeding 6 months choose to leave all together in September.

Now do you see why some of us are so upset over this travesty?  You are
being very selective in the notes you read if you haven't yet realized
that the facts you assume were discussed were never presented.  The
phrase "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" comes to mind...

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    Re: .46

    > She replied that they don't meet the profile of how much
    > a typical member ought to be using the credit union.

    I would have no trouble with this statement if it meant the DCU was
    willing to transform itself in the ways necessary for ALL members
    to choose to use the credit union according to the profile.  That
    would be a truly customer-focused effort because it would require
    the DCU to inquire into the question "What will it take for more of
    our members to choose to do more of their business with us?"

    Instead it meant that that is how much business the DCU decided members
    should be doing with it so as not to be singled out, insulted, and
    driven away because the DCU is greedy.

    This shameful attitude deserves being taken to the woodshed for it.


    Steve



    

�Now do you see why some of us are so upset over this travesty?  You are
�being very selective in the notes you read if you haven't yet realized
�that the facts you assume were discussed were never presented. 
    
    I understand why people are upset.  I also realize that very few facts
    have been presented by those on either side of this issue.  In my mind
    the argument that "they" didn't present any facts does not negate the
    need for the opposition to present facts.  People can sit down and
    argue philosophy until they are blue in the face.  Very rarely will
    anyone change their mind as a result.  However, it is difficult to
    argue against facts.

    
    Net Income, 1992		$4,897,002
    Capital Ratio, 12/92 	4.82%
    Total Equity, 12/92 	$14,921,089
    
    Net Income, 1993		(More than '92!)
    Capital Ratio, 12/93	6.54% (highest in our history)
    Total Equity, 12/93 	$20.193,503
    
    
    	Two banner years, record profits, equity growing at excellent rate.
    	Guess I missed the crisis in the above numbers that warranted a
    	fundamental change in the way DCU does business.  If there are
    	problems, then fix the problems, which is what I asked for when the
    	fees were proposed and discussed.
    

RE: Note 718.43 by 38346::MACNEAL

>    Maybe it's time to try to beat them at their own
>    game and use facts and figures to show that your ideas and philosophies
>    will get us to the same or better outcome.

When they start using *REAL* facts and figures, DCU will soon become
a CU again...

Until then, Phil, do not use the 'other' BOD members figures
because they do not add up.

    
    I guess I should explain the process here so that everybody understands
    it.  The Board never requested a plan to implement "relationship banking".
    The plan was brought to us, along with all facts, which of course support
    it.  It was then discussed, adjusted, and approved.  We were NOT presented
    with plans A, B & C, with all supporting facts and asked to choose a plan.
    

    
    Re: .51
    
    Right.  What more evidence do we need that Chuck has an agenda.
    
    Steve
    

�    The plan was brought to us, along with all facts, which of course support
�    it.  It was then discussed, adjusted, and approved.  We were NOT presented
�    with plans A, B & C, with all supporting facts and asked to choose a plan.
 
    So voting down the plan and asking for a different one wasn't a choice?
    
    There is no chance for repealing this plan?
    
    A BoD member can't come up with an alternate plan and a good case for
    supporting it and hope to have it approved by the BoD?   

    
    Re: .53
    
    > So voting down the plan and asking for a different one wasn't a choice?
    > 
    > There is no chance for repealing this plan?
    >
    > A BoD member can't come up with an alternate plan and a good case for
    > supporting it and hope to have it approved by the BoD?   
    
    You do like to stir the pot don't you.  Phil's point was simply that it
    was an issue being driven by DCU management and the fact that they
    presented no alternatives was the evidence that they had no listening
    capacity for any.  Can't you read between the lines?
    
    Steve
    

�    You do like to stir the pot don't you.  
    
    I apologize for trying to get more information and discuss these issues
    on a rational rather than emotional level.
    
�Phil's point was simply that it
�    was an issue being driven by DCU management and the fact that they
�    presented no alternatives was the evidence that they had no listening
�    capacity for any.  
    
    So what.  Perhaps I am naive in my understanding of the power of the
    BoD, but it seems to me that the plan could have at least been sent to
    committee for further evaluation.  I can only go by what Phil has
    reported with regard to the informatin presented.  If it was so sparse
    it is scary that the BoD rubber stamped it through.  The BoD as a whole
    needs to share some of the blame -- not only those who voted for the
    plan, but those who weren't able to convince others that it should at
    least be further evaluated.  I know this sounds harsh, but it appears
    that two camps are being set up on the BoD.  Just about everything Phil
    and Paul propose gets voted down.  Very few compromises appear to have
    been struck.  Perhaps too many bridges have been burned.  I know Phil
    has stated he won't change his style for anyone (or words to that
    effect).  I don't think a change in style indicates a change in ideals. 
    There's alot of truth in the cliche about flys and vinegar.
    
�Can't you read between the lines?
    
    I prefer not to.  Doing so often leads to wrong conclusions (e.g.
    illegal loans).  If I have to read between lines, I don't consider that
    to be open & honest communication.

    
.53>  So voting down the plan and asking for a different one wasn't a choice?
.53>    
.53>  There is no chance for repealing this plan?
.53>
.53>  A BoD member can't come up with an alternate plan and a good case for
.53>  supporting it and hope to have it approved by the BoD?   
    
    In the last election, I voted for four Directors who I thought would do
    just that -- Phil, Paul K, Tanya and Lisa.
    
    Phil and Paul are doing what I expected. Unfortunately, they're not
    being successful because Tanya and Lisa are failing miserably.
    

>    So what.  Perhaps I am naive in my understanding of the power of the
>    BoD, but it seems to me that the plan could have at least been sent to
>    committee for further evaluation.  I can only go by what Phil has
>    reported with regard to the informatin presented.  If it was so sparse
>    it is scary that the BoD rubber stamped it through.  The BoD as a whole
>    needs to share some of the blame -- not only those who voted for the
>    plan, but those who weren't able to convince others that it should at
>    least be further evaluated.  I know this sounds harsh, but it appears
>    that two camps are being set up on the BoD.  Just about everything Phil


And the facts are that there was indeed a lot of discussion ... this has been
confirmed by BOTH sides of the issue.  That the actual nature of the
discussions is not reported, is possibly a problem now that the gag is off
but on the other hand this is now months ago.

It is perfectly plain that there are two camps ... those that believe in the
recommendations of DCU management wholeheartedly, and those who approach it
with healthy criticism.  And that is how it was from day 1.  This makes one
speculate that although some of the people who stood in the Real Choices
camp did so for opportunistic reasons rather than because they truly
believed in the Real Choices platform, which was nothing like the committed
joint platform of Chris, Dave and Phil.  The Real Choices platform allowed for
that kind of individual freedom.

Stuart

    
    Re: .55
    
    Phil was simply making a point about the DCU management.  You
    chose to ignore that point and focus on the BoD.  It is perfectly
    acceptable to discuss what the BoD may have done but it seems 
    clear that rather than acknowledge his point about the DCU
    management first *and then* raise the issue about the BoDs
    involvement in that issue that you preferred to go right after
    the BoD.  You're a good one to talk about forming camps.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Hmmm...  Just how does one go about changing somebody elses values and
    philosophy?  Is it possible once they have been established and
    ingrained?
    
    Now, according to Mr. MacNeal, I am responsible for the voting records
    of other Directors.  If that is the case, then I'll have to resign. 
    That was not part of the job I signed up for.  If I can't vote their
    vote, I will not accept responsibility for it.  It is truly amazing how
    far you will contort logic and reason in order to slam me.  Scary.
    

�    Hmmm...  Just how does one go about changing somebody elses values and
�    philosophy?  Is it possible once they have been established and
�    ingrained?
    
    As I said earlier, this is very difficult if not impossible.  So what
    do we do, throw up our hands and say sorry I tried?  The opportunity to
    vote people out does not come up that often, so some things need to be
    worked within the system.  Both sides appear to want to help the DCU. 
    One side thinks the relationship system will do that.  Others think the
    relationship system will hurt it.  If cold hard facts can be presented
    by either side to show why a system will work to the benefit of DCU,
    noone will have to change philosophies/values/etc.  What will change is
    the approach to satisfy those philosophies.
    
�    Now, according to Mr. MacNeal, I am responsible for the voting records
�    of other Directors.  If that is the case, then I'll have to resign. 
    
    I do admit to being a strong proponent of the "if you're not part of
    the solution, you're part of the problem" theory, but I am not
    advocating any resignations here.  What happens if those against fees
    are not able to win a majority of the BoD spots this election?  Will we
    see more wailing and gnashing of teeth or will we see an effort to
    gather the facts to show that fees are not in the best interest of DCU
    and the use of those facts to sway other BoD members to vote against
    them?  Maybe that has been done and we haven't seen those facts
    presented here.  Most of what I've seen here other than the P&L that
    says the system ain't broke, why fix it, is philosophical discussions
    based on what credit unions used to be and hypothetical members who are
    too poor to take out loans or have their checks directly deposited to
    their accounts.

>    As I said earlier, this is very difficult if not impossible.  So what
>    do we do, throw up our hands and say sorry I tried?  The opportunity to

Sometimes ... yes ... Sometimes you have to leave that problem and get on
and change the things you can change, in the hope that maybe some other
intervention will occur that will help you in your case of re-presenting
your stand on the thing you couldn't change.

How does the saying go ...

	Grant me the strength to change those things I can change
	The ability to accept those things I can't
	And the intelligence to know the difference.

>    worked within the system.  Both sides appear to want to help the DCU. 

Do they ?  Or do they want to help themselves ?  I know many people who have
taken on volunteer jobs like this to help feather their own nest, and figure
that if they go with management recommendation, they can't get burnt.  I'm
not saying this applies here, but I'm not saying that it can't.  Others
take on volunteer jobs because they believe in what they are working for
and they are willing to buck the system.  In much the way PATE::MACNEAL is
in here, although exactly what he believes in is hard to determine! :-)

>    One side thinks the relationship system will do that.  Others think the
>    relationship system will hurt it.  If cold hard facts can be presented
>    by either side to show why a system will work to the benefit of DCU,
>    noone will have to change philosophies/values/etc.  What will change is
>    the approach to satisfy those philosophies.

The problem here is that if you look at cold hard facts, probably NEITHER
system will hurt DCU itself.  DCU can fourish either way.  What matters is
the service to the members and therefore the more traditional CU values
which appear to be being tossed aside with relationship banking.

>    I do admit to being a strong proponent of the "if you're not part of
>    the solution, you're part of the problem" theory, but I am not

In admitting this, it could be said that given most of your responses in
here Mr Macneal, that this could be applied to you, for very few responses
have offered anything towards a solution!

Philosophy does matter, but sometimes you just have to wait for other
means to solve the problems and get on with things because philosophical
differences just cannot be bridged satisfactorily.

Stuart

    re: .60
    
    >presented here.  Most of what I've seen here other than the P&L that
    >says the system ain't broke, why fix it, is philosophical discussions
    >based on what credit unions used to be and hypothetical members who are
    >too poor to take out loans or have their checks directly deposited to
    >their accounts.
    
    Not so hypothetical anymore...
    
           <<< HUMANE::DISK$DIGITAL:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 2861.34                Thoughts on the DCU fees                    34 of 36
MILPND::J_TOMAO "Life's a journey not a destination" 23 lines  27-JAN-1994 11:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well my loan is now down to $3,400.00 and my monthly direct deposit is
    $450.00 so guess what?  I have to pay this "Bank type fee".  Slowly but
    surely my tiny disposable income is being eaten away by fees,
    surcharges, taxes etc.....
    
    I've toughed it out through the last few years of problems and issues
    with the DCU - I vote everytime and I was one of the thousand or so
    people crammed into the Framinham Sheraton but enough is enough.
    
    I will be taking my loan and clean/good credit elsewhere.  The DCU
    wouldn't give me a mortgage - 2 other banks practically threw the monay
    at me - so now one of them will benefit from my direct deposit and good
    payment history for my loan, checking account, savings account and now
    I'll be able to open a new "Christmas Club" and not be penalized for
    making less than $30,000.00 a year.  Once again the cliche the rich get
    richer and the poor get poorer - those of us who need every last dollar
    each month are getting strangled.      
    
    So I saw to any DCU BoD - its been real, its been nice, but it hasn't
    been real nice.                 
    
    Joyce Tomao
    Future ex-DCU member
    
    

    
    To tell the truth, I'm experiencing Deja Vu all over again...
    
    First you say facts, we want facts.  I post facts, using realistic
    rates and charges, which show how a non-relationship member is
    is VERY GOOD customer for DCU to court and keep.  I show how they could
    be potentially more profitable than a relationship member.  Then the
    issue becomes, well are they a "typical" DCU member?  Please make up
    your mind, do the facts matter or don't they?  What difference does
    "typical" make?  At Digital they could be a "typical engineer", a
    "typical secretary", a "typical VP", or a "typical salesperson".
    Do you think you're going to develop a marketing profile to encompass the
    entire spectrum of Digital positions and be "fair"?  Ooops, wait a
    minute!  "Fairness", that isn't a fact is it?  It is a subjective
    determination isn't it?  Yet that is EXACTLY what has been used as
    justification for these fees.  The final determining factors have far
    less to do with "facts" than do values and philosophy.  That is
    precisely why as a FIRST step, we have issued a values statement.
    
    OK, so then I post actual profit, equity and capital ratios that show
    two record years for DCU.  Still not enough.  Now people may begin to
    understand what I have been going through on this issue.  If somebody
    is determined to implement fees, THERE ARE NO FACTS THAT MATTER.  A
    business should change the fundamental way in which is does business
    when business conditions warrant it, NOT when you're experiencing
    unprecedented success.  You should keep doing what you're doing, only
    more so.  Get more members on board and using the credit union.  Get
    the word out that things have changed, work hard to change long-standing
    negative images and experiences.  COURT the members with carrots, don't
    beat them with them.  Value customers, not profit.
    

�In admitting this, it could be said that given most of your responses in
�here Mr Macneal, that this could be applied to you, for very few responses
�have offered anything towards a solution!
    
    I knew this was going to be thrown back at me as soon as I wrote it.  I
    vote.  I participate in this conference.  I ask questions.  I have
    generated discussions (along with some shouting matches).  I have
    suggested alternatives.  I have no intention of running for the BoD, so
    maybe I should just shut up and delete this conference from my
    notebook.

�    First you say facts, we want facts.  I post facts, using realistic
�    rates and charges, which show how a non-relationship member is
�    is VERY GOOD customer for DCU to court and keep.  
    
    You posted hypothetical situations.  You made the numbers up (they were
    probably good estimates, but they weren't facts).
    
�Then the
�    issue becomes, well are they a "typical" DCU member?  
    
    If your hypothetical member doesn't represent a DCU member, of what use
    is the example.  If you could at least say this is a profile for even
    1% of the DCU membership that would be more meaningful that what you
    posted.
    
�    business should change the fundamental way in which is does business
�    when business conditions warrant it, NOT when you're experiencing
�    unprecedented success.  
    
    Some would argue that this type of thinking is exactly what put
    companies like IBM, DEC, Ford, GM, etc. in the mess they are in now.
    
�Value customers, not profit.
    
    I've seen alot of business go under doing just that.  You have to
    acheive a balance.

    
>    You posted hypothetical situations.  You made the numbers up (they were
>    probably good estimates, but they weren't facts).
    
    Mr. Macneal, the examples clearly illustrated the effects of the current
    "relationship banking" policy on two possible DCU members.  Are you
    saying that these situations are not possible?  That under the
    "relationship banking" formula that good customers have NOT been turned
    into non-relationship customers?
    
    Add to that the fact that many people have posted their personal
    situations that show they are good and profitable customers and not
    "relationship" yet you choose to ignore them.  Yet another case was
    recently cross-posted from the Digital conference.  I have received
    many others via mail which I of course can't post.
    
    Like I said, "facts" seem of little concern here.  The concern is
    "fairness".  And we all know how factual that determination is.
    
>    If your hypothetical member doesn't represent a DCU member, of what use
>    is the example.  If you could at least say this is a profile for even
>    1% of the DCU membership that would be more meaningful that what you
>    posted.
    
    Please answer what a "typical" DCU member is because until you do then
    I can't post anything that you will ever admit is a realistic scenario.
    
>    Some would argue that this type of thinking is exactly what put
>    companies like IBM, DEC, Ford, GM, etc. in the mess they are in now.
    
    Some??  Is this you or some hypothetical person?  Most people agree
    that they went off the road when they lost touch with the market, THE
    CUSTOMERS.  Do you see any similarity here?  I seem to recall a vote in
    Nov. of 1991 that was loud and clear.  But I guess, all these people
    weren't "typical", and it wasn't a majority, and <insert other reasons
    to ignore here>. 
    
>    I've seen alot of business go under doing just that.  You have to
>    acheive a balance.
    
    OK, let's hear who they are.
    

              <<< Note 718.60 by 38346::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>

>Will we
>    see more wailing and gnashing of teeth or will we see an effort to
>    gather the facts to show that fees are not in the best interest of DCU
>    and the use of those facts to sway other BoD members to vote against
>    them?  Maybe that has been done and we haven't seen those facts
>    presented here.

	I have always thought that in order to change the status quo the onus
	is on me to justify the change. It would seem that those who wish
	to institute these fees have the responsibility to show us, using
	facts and figures, that the fees are indeed required for the financial	
	well being of the CU. If they can not do that then the fees should
	not be implemented. To date no such figures have been forthcoming.

Jim

    
    Re: .65
     
    �Value customers, not profit.
    >
    > I've seen alot of business go under doing just that.  You have to
    > acheive a balance.

    I'd like to echo Phil's request for the list of "alot of business"
    that has gone under doing this.  I would contend that they valued
    profit first and customers second.  I challenge you to show me
    the name of even ONE company that went out of business because it
    put its customers first.  Frankly, I don't think you have a clue
    what "put customers first" really means.  If you did, I doubt you'd
    have made the statement above.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    Glad to see you're keeping an open mind in this discussion, Paul.
    
    Phil, has your approached worked to date (No).  Are you open to
    suggestions to other ways to acheive your goal (apparantly not).
    
    Is you hypothetical DCU member typical/representative/real?  I would
    hope you could answer that with the information you have more access to
    as as member of the BoD than I do.  I don't know, that's why I'm
    asking.
    
    I've asked where the better deals are.  I've heard a few responses, but
    they are for Credit Union that not everyone is eligible to be a member
    of or are not convenient.  I've seen people say they are leaving
    because of the fees.  I've seen what they bring to DCU.  I haven't seen
    what they cost DCU.  When I ask I get a bunch of rhetoric, character
    assinations, and misdirection.  I've seen some examples where people
    think they will be charged fees when in reality they won't.  I've even
    seen an example where a person said he won't do business with an
    institution that charges for checking, yet he admitted he is paying a
    monthly fee to the bank he is currently using.
    
    Phil, do you want to win or do you want to be a martyr?

�	I have always thought that in order to change the status quo the onus
�	is on me to justify the change. It would seem that those who wish
�	to institute these fees have the responsibility to show us, using
�	facts and figures, that the fees are indeed required for the financial	
�	well being of the CU. If they can not do that then the fees should
�	not be implemented. To date no such figures have been forthcoming.
    
    I agree with you, Jim.  Given that the fees are now a done deal, it
    appears that the responsiblity of getting the status quo changed is on
    those who do not want fees.

    re: .70
    
    You keep asking for facts.  The facts are that I've presented two cases
    (my own, and .62) where DCU was making a PROFIT on their relationship
    with a member, yet the new DCU policies have forced these people to
    take their business elsewhere.  What more do you need?  I challenge
    ANYONE to post ONE SINGLE case where DCU has gotten new business or a
    new member BECAUSE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEES.
    
    The facts are that the policy on fees has and continues to cost DCU
    profitable business.  If this is goodness, perhaps the fees should be
    raised higher and include more members so more members will take their
    business elsewhere.
    
    Bob

    What business appeared to value the customer over profit?  I remember
    when All You Can Eat restaurants were all the rage.  There was even a
    pretty big chain in New England -- Beefsteak Charlies.  They gave you a
    ton of food and drink for a very cheap price.  I don't think they ever
    had an unhappy customer.  They and many like them folded.  Why?  You
    can't stay in business if you can't turn a profit.

�    You keep asking for facts.  The facts are that I've presented two cases
�    (my own, and .62) where DCU was making a PROFIT on their relationship
�    with a member, yet the new DCU policies have forced these people to
�    take their business elsewhere.  What more do you need?  
    
    I need the other half of the equation.  Profit = Revenue - Cost. 
    You've provided the revenue side.
    
    What people here keep missing is that fees are here.  Management and a
    majority of the BoD think they have the data to support those fees.  If
    fees are to be removed a strong case built on real data is going to
    have to be presented to get the current status quo changed.  One way to
    change the status quo is to "vote the bums out".  Another way is gather
    enough real ammunition to prove your point.

>>  (MacNeal
>>    You posted hypothetical situations.  You made the numbers up (they were
>>    probably good estimates, but they weren't facts).
>    
>    (Gransewicz)
>    Mr. Macneal, the examples clearly illustrated the effects of the current
>    "relationship banking" policy on two possible DCU members.  Are you
>    saying that these situations are not possible?  That under the
>    "relationship banking" formula that good customers have NOT been turned
>    into non-relationship customers?
>
Phil,

I don't know how much clearer MacNeal can be:  They are hypothetical
examples!  Given your obvious bias in this discussion, I think it's 
reasonable to ask you to back up your opinions with some facts.  BTW,
I'm not attempting to hold you to a higher standard than other BoD members,
or other candidates for the BoD.

>>    Like I said, "facts" seem of little concern here.

They concern me.  If you can get your opponents on the BoD (or your
opponents for reelection) to agree with you on this point (that it's
a philosophical issue) then we can dispense with the discussion of
facts.  But not until then, IMO.

Brian

>    What people here keep missing is that fees are here.  Management and a
>    majority of the BoD think they have the data to support those fees.  If

Let's reposition this ...

Management think they have the data to support fees.
Certain members of the BoD support management, but do not appear to have
that data, just concepts presented by management.  And THAT is the whole
point, the members of the BoD pro fees have no real data to prove that fees
are good.  Data HAS been presented in here on the basis of the profits and
increasing capital ratio, that DCU can be profitable, in spite of major
theft from the CU in the form of fraud, WITHOUT having fees in place.

HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DOES *ANYONE* NEED ?

Stuart

�Data HAS been presented in here on the basis of the profits and
�increasing capital ratio, that DCU can be profitable, in spite of major
�theft from the CU in the form of fraud, WITHOUT having fees in place.
�
�HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DOES *ANYONE* NEED ?
    
    Since fees are still here, I guess alot more.
    
    Apparently management and a majority of the board believe that DCU can
    be even more profitable.  They may be wrong, but you're going to have
    to prove it to them.

�    Do you not believe that Phil has not tried to obtain just what is
�    considered a "profitable" member 
    
    Based on what has been written in here, no.
    
    
�    After all, how many times have I said that someone who writes tons
�    of cheques every month, but has a "relationship", can in fact be
�    far less profitable to DCU than someone who isn't in relationship
�    but keeps a moderate balance in a DCU account with very low activity.
�     Processing cheques costs money ... processing manual deposits costs
�    money.
    
    I know you've said it alot.  Again it is a hypothetical case.  How much
    money does it cost to process those checks?  How much does it cost to
    process deposits?
    
�    Remember that facts must come from the person who most dearly wants
�    fees for DCU.  He will be reluctant to provide facts!
    
    I didn't say it would be easy.  At least noone can hide behind the
    Information Protection Policy anymore.

    >Apparently management and a majority of the board believe that DCU can
    >be even more profitable.  They may be wrong, but you're going to have
    >to prove it to them.

    The real question based on this is does it HAVE to be more profitable ?
    Why does it HAVE to be more profitable ?
    
    The ONE AND ONLY REASON for DCU to make a "profit" is to increase the
    Capital Ratio, which has been done very successfully without fees.
    
    That certain board members subscribe to the "realtionship" model may
    have absolutely NOTHING to do with the model, and therefore, absolutely 
    NOTHING will make them change their mind.  That these directors have
    no willingness to listen to the members, no willingness to get and
    present facts as requested many times, just a desire to sell this in
    the guise of fairness, strengthen this supposition.
    
    Stuart

    re: .74
    
    >I need the other half of the equation.  Profit = Revenue - Cost. 
    >You've provided the revenue side.
    
    Nope.  In my case it is explicitly PROFIT.
    
    In the case of .62, no one has provided any fact that an
    outstanding loan balance of < $3,500 is not profitable.
    
    Bob
    

    There are a number of hot issues being discussed here. At this time
    I feel the need to put on my little moderator hat and ask for
    moderation. Please remember that company policy must be upheld. This
    means no personal attacks or derogatory comments about individuals.
    Some of the replies of late have been running dangerously close to
    those limits. Some might say over.

    I'd rather not have to start returning notes so, please, everyone
    discuss issues not individuals. Thank you.

    			Alfred

    
    Re: .73
    
    > What business appeared to value the customer over profit?  I remember
    > when All You Can Eat restaurants were all the rage.  There was even a
    > pretty big chain in New England -- Beefsteak Charlies.  They gave you a
    > ton of food and drink for a very cheap price.  I don't think they ever
    > had an unhappy customer.  They and many like them folded.  Why?  You
    > can't stay in business if you can't turn a profit.

    This is a bogus analysis if I've ever seen one.  There is absolutely
    nothing in this reply that shows conclusively that they folded because
    they couldn't be profitable.  There could have been many reasons why
    they folded.  Bad management and failure to really understand what the
    customer wants is much more often why a business fails than because it
    is inherently unprofitable.  It could be that they assumed that all
    the customer wanted was "a ton of food and drink for a cheap price".
    Seems they weren't right, doesn't it?  It could well be that managed
    properly they could have turned a very nice profit.
    
    So back to the drawing board.  Try again, with data this time if you
    don't mind.
    
    Steve

    Actually, the non-relationship customer profile that Phil provided was
    very (I thought he was using me for the example) close to my situation
    before I became a relationship member by accident. By that I mean that
    I was already in the process of refinancing with DCU when the fees were
    announced. So if you're asking if it's a real-life example, the answer
    is yes. Is it typical - I have no way of knowing. 

re: .77 (Stuart)

My .75 isn't about Phil's efforts or Tanya Dawkins' understanding.
It really isn't about member "profitability" either, nor about the
source of the "facts" that may support one or the other (or both!)
sides of this issue.

I'm looking to make up my own mind about who I will vote for
for BoD.  I think it's an important decision, even moreso now than
in the election after the special meeting.  I see a discussion in here
that I consider decidedly one-sided (and yes, that's as much the fault
of the non-participatory BoD members as anything else).  I see MacNeal
asking some good questions, and making some interesting points.  He
appears to me to be playing devil's advocate in discussions that could
use some opposing points of view.  I guess I'd like to see some of his
questions taken a bit more seriously, not only by Phil (and other candidates)
but by everyone who has an opinion on the issues.

Regards,
Brian

�    The ONE AND ONLY REASON for DCU to make a "profit" is to increase the
�    Capital Ratio, which has been done very successfully without fees.
    
    Based on the vote not to award a dividend or loan rebate this does
    appear to be what the majority of the BoD believes, but it is not the
    one and only reason to make a profit.
    
    

�    In the case of .62, no one has provided any fact that an
�    outstanding loan balance of < $3,500 is not profitable.
    
    So, if someone doesn't prove you wrong, you are by definition right?

re:  Discussion regarding need for more data on fees...

I happened to be at DCU headquarters a few weeks after the
relationship banking announcement was sent out to the membership
for a credit appeals committee meeting (I'm currently vice chair
of the committee).  After our formal business was concluded
and we had adjourned, a few of us got to talking about the 
fee structure.  I made the usual points that Phil, Dave, and
I have been making about their being no substantial need for
fees, and this just being a way to establish a class system
amongst the membership.  The response of the others was that
hundreds, perhaps thousands of credit union abusers were costing 
DCU millions of dollars every year with various.  Further, costs
of maintaining accounts was really expensive, and amounted to
hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.  

The point here is that no matter how hard I pushed for substantive
information with real numbers, none was to be had.  The DCU
people I was talking to are knowledgable folks who run divisions
within DCU (like consumer lending, for example).   None of the
information I was pressing for was confidential or involved
disclosing member information.  Perhaps it was because I was
a member and not an employee that they didn't want to share
the information they had.

For as much as some people would like to criticize the "no fees"
folks for lack of evidence, it seems that the "pro fees"
people have no better data - at least none they're willing to
share.

The bottom line here is that we're arguing about credit union
philosophy and management.  There is a large school of thought
that believes a pro-fee approach to banking/credit union
management is the proper philosophy.  That is DCU's basis
for implementing this  - management believes its right and
wanted it done.

The evidence I can present against fees is the so-called
(and poorly named) "existence proof."  Basically, if it
already exists it must be so.  My argument is that DCU has
been successful for many years.  During it's lifetime it
has seen unprecedented profits, and unprecedented fraud.
It has also seen stability of operation, and continued 
acceptance and use by its membership.  During DCU's lifetime
it has not been close to failure, and despite fraud
and abuse by former management the membership's savings
were never endangered.

It seems to me to be a matter of common sense:  we suffered
through an incredible fraud and didn't fail - in fact
we went on to record profits.  We have a huge allowance
for loans and pools of capital invested that we can't
loan out due to poor demand.  We have a membership that
basically *wants* to be told to stay in DCU, and a large
reserve of eligible people in the field of membership
who are not (yet!) members.  We are by any definition
successful.  And we've been this way without asking 
anybody to pay for the opportunity to be a customer.

This is oversimplified, but the maxim of "if it isn't
broken, don't fix it" certainly seems to hold true
in this case.

Chris

    re: .87
    
    You are the one refusing to believe anything unless 'facts' are
    provided.  Has DCU stopped making loans for < $3,500?  No.  Do they
    automatically call in all loans once they reach $3,500?  No.  Do they
    make balloon loans that require repayment when the balance reaches
    $3,500?  No.  So, I refuse to believe that a loan balance of $3,500 is
    unprofitable as you have not presented any 'fact' to show that it is.
    
    Bob

    
    I asked for breakeven analysis for DCU credit cards.  If a member charged
    over $2000 a year (I think it was $1800/yr but lets account for memory
    degradation 8-) then a member was profitable for DCU.  Now that is even
    if they carry NO balance (pay no interest).  If a member DOES carry a
    balance then the interest paid is added in the profit for DCU.  Yet DCU
    will not waive a $20 annual fee to save this person's business from
    going down the street to a no fee card, and there are MANY available. 
    Even worse, there are many no fee cards THAT GIVE REBATES.
    
    Instead, we have said, sorry you are not a "relationship" member,
    therefore we can't waive the fee.  Our credit card business is now
    being held hostage by the "relationship banking" structure.  Facts and
    profitability PLAY NO ROLE in determining who pays an annual fee.  The
    facts of this situation are so clear yet it hasn't been possible to
    change this approach.  Meanwhile, profitable members take their
    business down the street where they are welcomed and thanked for their
    business.  
    
    I've fought the "facts" vs. "facts" battle and get the "Sorry, that
    doesn't match our strategy." (philosophy) line as a defense.
    I've fought the "philosophy" vs. "philosophy" battle and get the
    "Sorry, where are your facts." line as a defense.  But of course,
    even when presented with facts, they are dismissed as not being "real"
    or "typical".
    
    The bottom line is that philosophy and values dictate approach. 
    Approach dictates what "facts" and options you consider and choose from.
    THAT is why DCU members MUST know who they are voting for from a
    philosophy and values standpoint.  It all starts there.  If Mr. Macneal
    were running for the Board, I think we all would now understand what
    his values are, and thus would not be surprised by a vote for fees. 
    KNOW who you are voting for.  ASK detailed questions.

As usual Chris, you make some very fine points. If I may follow up....

I accept the fact that the "pro fees" camp have not brought
forward any data to support their claims for needing fees.  Yet
my brain refuses to let go of the belief that data does exist somewhere 
that supports/refutes one side or the other, at least to some extent.

Do you believe that bringing that data to the table is required for
the new BoD to rescind fees?  Or is it sufficient to rescind
the fees on the same lack of data with which they were imposed?
Is the decision that you make as BoD member to rescind fees
going to be based purely on philosophical grounds?

Where am I heading with these questions?  The mentality I fear most is, if 
I may paraphrase, "read my lips, no fees".  That indicates to me an 
unwillingness to confront the fees issue on anything other than ideological 
grounds.  It makes me nervous.

Also, these questions aren't directed at Chris in particular.  You other
candidates (and sitting board members), what are your views?

Brian

  >Yet my brain refuses to let go of the belief that data does 
  >exist somewhere that supports/refutes one side or the other, 
  >at least to some extent.

Even if this is true, isn't it crystal clear by this point that
this "data" was NOT used to make the decision?

After all, if someone makes a decision based on the data and then
they present a plan or are asked "why?", what do they do?  They
PRESENT THE DATA and then they present their reasoning that led
them from the data to the plan.

No data has been presented - other than the imaginary millions
of dollars of profit that DEFCU is NOT seeing because everyone
isn't a relationship member.

By the way, the purpose of a profit is to reward the shareholders.  A 
vote was just taken to do exactly this.  It was voted down.  This
is perhaps a bit simplistic - but since DEFCU is at all-time highs
in terms of the ever-important ratios as well as profits, then I
personally don't consider it unreasonable to *return* to their
previous policy of rewarding the shareholders.  Alas, it is clear
that the philosophy of DEFCU has changed from the past.  Again, the
dicussion comes back to philosophy.

Collis

    
    RE: .91
    
>Where am I heading with these questions?  The mentality I fear most is, if 
>I may paraphrase, "read my lips, no fees".  That indicates to me an 
>unwillingness to confront the fees issue on anything other than ideological 
>grounds.  It makes me nervous.
    
    Brian, I have already stated numerous times that a no-fees-under-any-
    circumstances-up-to-and-including-the-downfall-of-DCU iS NOT MY
    POSITION.  It is the position that some would like you to believe I
    take.
    
    I will NOT however vote for fees, for the sake of maximizing the
    profitability on each member or the guise of "fairness".If there are
    problems with inactive accounts, then show me a plan to deal with them but
    don't subject everybody to a fee scheme.  But in my mind, the inactive
    accounts is merely a marketing smoke screen for the fees.  We were told
    two years ago that they would be implemented, and sure enough they
    were.
    

Re:  .91

A couple years back when there was a Special Meeting, the membership
called out loudly and clearly for an end to the "More Choices,
More Options" fee structure that was planned and announced.  The vote
was overwhelmingly in favor of a no-fees approach to running
the credit union.  During the Special Election, several of us ran
on the "Real Choices" platform which contained language about
"holding the line on fees."  This was watered-down language - what
Phil and I had said was there would not be fees on basic services.
The language was watered down to accomodate Lisa and Tanya.

I think the membership has spoken loudly and clearly on the
fees issue.  In their voting, in email I get from concerned
members, and in conversations I've had at sites all over
Digital I keep hearing the same message "Read *our* lips, no
fees."  As a representative of the membership in DCU's management,
I feel that I have no choice but to listen to what the 
membership has said.

From my own viewpoint and analysis, I've seen considerable
data to suggest that DCU will continue to operate and continue
to do just fine without the imposition of fees.  DCU's own
record of success speaks volumes.  Two years of solid record
income, and a long-term economic outlook that suggests 
continued soft interest rates with steady or increasing 
demand for new mortgages and refinances suggests that the
business climate for DCU is favorable.  Despite Digital's
own troubles and layoffs, DCU's members have largely been
able to continue to pay their loans and do business.  We have
large loan reserves, healthy investments, and a solid
membership.

So, looking at all the above factors, considering the view
of the members I've heard from, and re-examining my own
personal view of credit union philosophy, I would strongly
support, and vote for, an immediate ending to fees.  It would
take data which suggested that the credit union was going to
be in peril of failure before I would vote for a fee structure
on basic services.

Chris

    
    Re: .91
    
    > Do you believe that bringing that data to the table is required for
    > the new BoD to rescind fees?  Or is it sufficient to rescind
    > the fees on the same lack of data with which they were imposed?
    
    The data to rescind fees is as plain as the hand in front of your
    face.  Record profits!  The almighty ratio is better than ever!
    The onus should be on showing that fees are NEEDED.  There was no
    clear establishment of that need.  The only thing made perfectly
    clear is that the DCU management wanted them.  Period.  That is
    reason enough to rescind them and stop nickel and diming the customer.
    
    Steve
    

�    Even worse, there are many no fee cards THAT GIVE REBATES.
    
    But their interest rates are higher.  You will pay one way or another
    unless you always pay off the balance each month.  In general, low
    interest rate cards come with a yearly fee.  Fee fee cards have a
    higher interest rate.  Handling individual situations comes with a
    price tag to cover the additional cost of handling that account
    differently from all of the others.  Many institutions, not just DCU
    have chosen not to cater to the individual.  Even given that there is
    some flexibility.  Cards like Discover and Optima base the interest
    rate on the amount of money charged to the card over the course of the
    year.  I think DCU does this for their Visa card as well.
    
�But of course,
�    even when presented with facts, they are dismissed as not being "real"
�    or "typical".
    
    If they are the same as what you've put in here, then they are rightly
    dismissed.  They are not facts they are hypothetical situations which
    do not include the cost side of the profit equation.
    
�If Mr. Macneal
�    were running for the Board, I think we all would now understand what
�    his values are, and thus would not be surprised by a vote for fees. 
    
    For the record, that's a capital 'N'.  I have no doubt that if I were
    running for the Board that you would paint me in that manner.  To use
    your own words, instead of slamming me, address the issues.  What's
    next, a Willy Horton style campaign?

�Even if this is true, isn't it crystal clear by this point that
�this "data" was NOT used to make the decision?
    
    So what?  Must history repeat itself?  Must we resort to the "Well,
    they did it that way" defense?
    
�By the way, the purpose of a profit is to reward the shareholders.  A 
�vote was just taken to do exactly this.  It was voted down.  
    
    This is what bothers me more than the fees.  The BoD and management put
    claim to have put the the fees in place to improve the profit margin. 
    However they appear to have no plans to put that profit into the
    pockets of the owners.  I have no problem with saving for a rainy day
    and conservative asset and loan management.  Perhaps that is why they
    were voted down (although I think they are being a bit too
    conservative).  Hopefully we'll see the reasons when the minutes are
    posted or should Phil's posting of the voting results illicit a
    response from the other directors.

    
    From this discussion and those in other notes, I can only conclude
    that there are some persons who are not offended by organizations,
    companies, whatever that dictate to them as customers how business
    will be transacted, what they will get for their money, and that
    they should feel privileged to be a customer and pay their money
    and be happy with the result.
    
    Let's just say that I and quite a number of others who write
    in this file don't fall into that category.  That should remove
    the need to go back and forth over these issues because that is
    really what the difference is.  The ones not offended aren't
    wrong and neither are the ones who are offended.  It's a matter
    of how you view yourself and what you consider the proper regard
    for you as a customer.  I admit to being a demanding customer,
    but I reward a responsive vendor with my business AND I recommend
    him/her to friends without reservation.  It's a two-way street.  DCU
    is doing ALL in its power to show that the street runs only one way.
    It really all comes down to that.
    
    Steve
    

RE: Note 718.96 by 38346::MACNEAL

>    But their interest rates are higher.  You will pay one way or another
>    unless you always pay off the balance each month.  In general, low
>    interest rate cards come with a yearly fee.

You are being VERY presumptious...  Most of my CC are lower intereste rate
than DCU and do not have a yearly fee.

I have seen many CC'd that charge a yearly fee and cahrge 15-19% interest.

Show me the facts....  Just the facts...  Not a guess.

>    Fee fee cards have a
>    higher interest rate.  Handling individual situations comes with a

What's a Fee fee card?  A poodle without hair? :-)

	- mark

    
    Re: .92
    
    
    > By the way, the purpose of a profit is to reward the shareholders.
    
    Collis,  I prefer to view this just a little differently.  We,
    the shareholders, are the owners of this credit union.  To say
    the distribution of a dividend is a "reward" would be insulting
    to me if it were done and positioned that way by the DCU.  It
    would have the feeling of being given an ice-cream cone for 
    being a "good little boy".
    
    We bring our business here both because we have a need for 
    financial services and products AND because we band together to
    invest in ourselves.  A dividend, in my mind, is more appropriately
    thought of as the return on my investment.  It's no reward.  It
    is owed to me.
    
    Steve
    

    
>    If they are the same as what you've put in here, then they are rightly
>    dismissed.  They are not facts they are hypothetical situations which
>    do not include the cost side of the profit equation.
    
    The information I posted on credit cards was BREAKEVEN.  It DOES take
    into account the cost side of the equation.  Try again.
    
>    For the record, that's a capital 'N'.  I have no doubt that if I were
>    running for the Board that you would paint me in that manner.  To use
>    your own words, instead of slamming me, address the issues.  What's
>    next, a Willy Horton style campaign?
    
    Easy there Keith.  I was simply stating that based on some of your
    statements one would might not be surprised about a pro-fee vote. How
    this equates to a rapist is beyond me.  You OK?  But before voting for
    you I would certainly make sure you took a stand on the issue and didn't
    play word games.
    

    I too have problems with the idea of bonus dividends ...
    
    If profits are consistent over a year, then it implies that
    	a) borrowing rates were set too high, although older long term
           loans will do this to some extent.
    and / or
    	b) deposit rates were set too low.
    
    Strictly speaking consistent profits imply bad management in a
    credit union if you think about it!
    
    Occasional profit spikes due to, for example interest rate changes,
    sudden extra loan activity etc, are to be expected, but these should
    still be returned to the customer by adjusting interest rates, and
    rarely bonus dividends.
    
    Stuart
    		

    re: .96
    
        >>Even worse, there are many no fee cards THAT GIVE REBATES.
        
        >But their interest rates are higher.  You will pay one way or another
        >unless you always pay off the balance each month.  In general, low
        >interest rate cards come with a yearly fee.  Fee fee cards have a
        >higher interest rate.
    
    	Not in my experience.  When the new fee structure was introduced
    last Fall, I cut up my DCU Visa and got a Chase Visa Gold card that has
    no fee, *and* a lower interest rate than DCU Visa.  The only thing that
    was attractive about the DCU card was that I could avoid using stamps
    to send in my payments (phone transfer).  But that privilege certainly
    isn't worth an annual fee, in case I should fall out of 'relationship
    member status' at the wrong time.  My DCU checking is the next to go if
    this fee stuff isn't eliminated after the board election.
    
    	Steve

    Mr. MacNeal,
    
    DCU is the ONLY credit card issurer I have ever dealt with that refused
    to waive the annual fee when I've asked.  I even had one issuer waive
    the fee when my only use of the card for the past year was a one-time
    $100 purchase that I paid off before any interest was due.
    
    A coworker of mine overheard my conversation with DCU when I asked them
    if it made good business sense to forfeit $400+ PROFIT instead of
    waiving a $20 fee.  When I got off the phone, the coversation went
    something like this,
    
    He: They wouldn't waive the fee?
    
    Me: Nope.
    
    He: Now I know why no one here belongs to DCU.
    
    DCU lost my business and a potential member over a simple $20 fee.
    
    Bob

�You are being VERY presumptious...  Most of my CC are lower intereste rate
�than DCU and do not have a yearly fee.
    
    My Visa with Hamilton Standard FCU charges $10/year and is around a
    full point less in interest charges than DCU Visa.  The mailings from
    Discover and AT&T Universal Card advertise fee free credit cards. 
    Their rates are 1 or more points higher than a Visa DCU.
    
�I have seen many CC'd that charge a yearly fee and cahrge 15-19% interest.
    
    I have too.  Their preapproved applications promptly get thrown into
    the paper recycle bag.  A mailing from Optima showed a list of over
    half a dozen cards, some of which are free and some of which aren't,
    which all had interest rates higher than Optima's current 12% (their
    low rate which is offered to account which are in good standing and
    have charged at least $1000 over the past year -- they also have an
    annual fee of $15).
    
    The question is, have you seen fee free cards which offer a lower
    interest rate than DCU Visa?  I haven't and would very much like to
    learn of one.

    
    RE: .102
    
    Stuart, in an ideal world where we could accurately predict interest
    rate fluctuations I'd agree.  But we have to make sure we clear a
    certain amount to fund operations and yes, some build equity.  I think
    it best to play this on the conservative side and then return some to
    the membership.  Having just gone thru the budget cycle for DCU, this
    is not as much a science as one would hope.
    

�    The information I posted on credit cards was BREAKEVEN.  It DOES take
�    into account the cost side of the equation.  Try again.
    
    Yes, you did this for the credit card case.  How about for your
    hypothetical non-relationship/relationship member case?
    
    I ask again.  Given that fees are here:  What happens if the "bums
    aren't voted out"?  It is clearly evident to me it's going to take alot
    more than philosophical ideas to get fees out.  I am asking those
    directors who are not in favor of these fees to keep digging and keep
    bringing up cold hard facts to support the case that without fees we
    can still meet the capital ratio, continue to improve the DCU, and get
    back to the old days where interest rates in CUs were higher than those
    in competing banks.
    
    Phil, you mentioned asking for a plan to handle "dead beat" accounts. 
    You said you didn't get one.  Have you proposed a plan yourself?

Re: Steve (.98)

I guess I view the relationship (oops!) I have with DCU as
somewhat more than customer.  I'm also an owner.  As an owner,
I'd like to see DCU offer the best service that it can possibly
provide.  And I have been almost always satisfied by the service
I have received.  As a result, when I see someone post a note
in this conference complaining about some service mishap or another,
I'm not prepared to immediately assume it is part of a larger pattern
of member abuse by DCU staff, management or the BoD.  I can understand
how an often dissatisfied customer might reach a different conclusion.
My point being: don't assume that these members are any less
demanding than you - they just may be satisfied customers.  Stranger
things have happened.

Re: Steve (.100)

Amen!

Brian

    
    Re: .108
    
    > My point being: don't assume that these members are any less
    > demanding than you - they just may be satisfied customers.  Stranger
    > things have happened.
    
    I am not assuming anything.  My point about being a demanding customer
    was only to acknowledge that I know that about myself which means
    I know that people who do business with me and leave me satisfied
    have to expend some effort for that to which I respond with my
    continued business and referring others to them.  Understand that
    there are several places where I do business which have gotten quite
    a number of new clients because I spoke well about them.
    
    I fully understand that they may be just satisfied customers.  That
    is why I acknowledged that some people may not be offended by the
    DCUs actions and others may be and neither group is right or wrong.
    Go back you'll see that I wrote that.
    
    What I find difficult, however, is that some feel it necessary to
    invalidate those of us who are not satisfied seeming to take a 
    position that because we see it differently than they do that we
    have nothing to complain about.
    
    Steve
    

    The DCU Visa rate depends on the balance: <= $2,500 = 13.5%
    				 	       >  2,500	= 11.9%
    
    I currently have an SSFCU Visa at 11.75% and an SSFCU MC at 8.4%, both
    with no annual fee, the later being a transfer balance from another
    card.  Neither has a fee.
    
    I'm willing to pay a fee (in this case, $15/annum) to Wachovia for a
    Prime Rate card (yes, they charge 6%.)
    
    BobW

    
    RE: .107
    
    DCU does not do true cost accounting so they don't know actual costs. 
    They have used averages or industry norms for profitability
    calculations.  They believe that every product must be profitable ON ITS
    OWN, hence the $3500 savings figure.  This is impossible since DCU could
    NEVER survive as it is if all it offered was savings accounts.  The rate we
    pay is near 3%, the rate we could get investing it 4-6%.  We need about
    a 4% difference JUST TO COVER CURRENT EXPENSES.  DCU would need to
    close all branches and operate out of HQ, which would result is huge
    member loses.
    
    I argued until I was blue in the face that deposit accounts were a COST
    OF FUNDS.  We are in the LOAN business.  The cost of attracting
    and keeping deposits (checking,savings,etc.) is a necessary expense for
    RAW MATERIAL (money) for our primary business, which is LOANS.  And then
    to lump the VERY different credit card business into this scenario only
    muddys the comparisons further.
    
    Yes Keith, I did propose an alternative, namely contact all members
    that had inactive or small balance accounts and ask them if they really
    wanted them of needed them.  ATTEMPT to address the problem in some
    other way.  Then, of those remaining, CONVINCE the person that using
    DCU is their best option.  If we're so good, then this should be no
    problem.  Then evaluate the approach, and examine the results, time
    frame 18-24 months.  No go.
    
    Then what do we do ON THE VERY MONTH FEES ARE ANNOUNCED?  "Clean up"
    inactive accounts/members.  Like I said, a lot of this makes no sense
    to me but I'm sure it does to the originator and advocates of this
    approach.  I sure wish they would get in here and discuss it.  Back
    when this scheme was implemented I called for meetings with the members
    but was rejected by the other Directors (actually laughed at in one case).
    

    re .106
    
    Phil,  Yes ... It is difficult but in part that's why you pay
    DCU management big bucks, because they are supposed to KNOW how
    to do this!!!
    
    DCU equity is part and parcel of the Cpaital Ratio ... so if the
    capital ratio is respectable, and DCU's certainly is, then the need to
    build equity is reduced, therefore interest rates should be improved.
    
    In fact, when the target capital ratio is reached, then there is no
    need for nett profits ... therefore interest rates should be set
    accordingly ... after all the only requirement is that DCU break even.
    That should be the target, not increasing the capital ratio.
    
    Yes, part of interest rate setting is crystal ball gazing, but for
    the most part, we shouldn't have to be sent bonus dividends.
    
    The only way a bonus dividend would really be fair (let's face it,
    a dividend mainly occurs because borrowers were charged too much
    and investors paid too little), would be if the borrowers received
    a dividend too, based on their loans.  Otherwise it's a "rob from
    the poor" (the borrower) "and give to the rich" (the saver).  Both
    should be "rewarded".
    
    Stuart

              <<< Note 718.71 by 38346::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>

>    I agree with you, Jim.  Given that the fees are now a done deal, it
>    appears that the responsiblity of getting the status quo changed is on
>    those who do not want fees.

	I would first like to see the justification FOR the fees. There
	WERE numerous requests for this information BEFORE they were
	implemented.

Jim

Re: .112

I didn't have a loan back in the early 80's, but I understand that there were
also interest "rebates" or "reductions" at that time to people who had
loans.
Again, since I didn't have a loan, I'm not sure if this happened in the
same quarter as the bonus dividends did.

As an analogy, look at the dividends MetPay is handing out!  And they are not
even member-owned.  All I know is when my check arrived last spring, two other
household members fell over each other moving their insurance to MetPay, in
hopes of sharing in this dividend.

Elaine

              <<< Note 718.97 by 38346::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>

>    So what?  Must history repeat itself?  Must we resort to the "Well,
>    they did it that way" defense?
 
	It seems that not so long ago this credit union went through a
	tremendous amount of upheaval because the then BoD accepted,
	on faith, the advice and actions of the then President. That
	attitude cost us several millions of dollars. It seems that
	history may indeed repeat itself. I did not vote for the 
	current BoD to merely become a rubber stamp committee for
	a new President.


Jim

    
>I didn't have a loan back in the early 80's, but I understand that there were
>also interest "rebates" or "reductions" at that time to people who had
>loans. Again, since I didn't have a loan, I'm not sure if this happened in the
>same quarter as the bonus dividends did.

    Both credits to loans and extra dividends to accounts were done. I
    don't think that both were done in the same quarter but I'm not sure.

    			Alfred

    OK, I eat some words ...  The dividend isn't so bad, as long
    as the loan rebates came back as non-taxable!
    
    Stuart

Re: .107 by 38346::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" 

>    I ask again.  Given that fees are here:  What happens if the "bums
>    aren't voted out"?  It is clearly evident to me it's going to take alot
>    more than philosophical ideas to get fees out.  I am asking those
>    directors who are not in favor of these fees to keep digging and keep
>    bringing up cold hard facts to support the case that without fees we
>    can still meet the capital ratio, continue to improve the DCU, and get
>    back to the old days where interest rates in CUs were higher than those
>    in competing banks.
    
The 'cold hard facts' you're looking for I find in the most 
recent 2 years worth of DCU results.  Record profits, improving 
capital ratio with only (based on my comparisons) average interest 
rates.  And no fees.  As far as I can tell from talking to 
several BoD members, there were no 'cold hard facts' presented 
that fees were needed by the DCU.  But, 5 directors voted for 
them anyway.  And, when I asked for data to support some of the 
statements made, it wasn't available.  What makes you think 'cold
hard facts' will change their minds now?

And, if you think that the members will start seeing better 
interest rates now that we have fees, think again.  I
specifically asked several members of the BoD what commitments
were made by management regarding the benefits the members will 
receive as a result of implementing fees.  The answer:  no
commitments were made.

What do I think will happen if we don't "throw the bums out"?  I 
for one will cease doing business with the DCU.  I think others 
will too.

    
    RE: credit card interest rates vs. annual fees
    
    Right now DCU has what I would consider to be a "nuisance fee" on
    credit cards.  It only serves to annoy customers or drive away credit card
    business since many other cards charge no annual fee.  At a time when
    credit card interest rates are FAR above whatever can be obtained
    anywhere else, and while DCU has so much money that it would like to
    loan out (not enough demand), does it make sense to discourage ANY
    customer with this fee?  Instead of loaning out perhaps $2-3 million in
    VISA balances at 11.9% and 13.5%, we have to invest the money in low
    return investments (4-7%).
    
    The figures have already shown that even if members don't carry a
    balance, it only takes a very low charge amount to cover expenses via
    interchange income.
    
    So who gets hurt in all this?  Actually, DCU ends up shooting itself in
    the foot in a big way.  Its just as easy for members to get their
    credit card via one of the MANY offerings that we receive thru the
    mail.  But as I have already mentioned, hard facts play little role in
    this strategy because the fee is there to encourage you all to meet our
    marketing profile.  Is credit card interest paid to DCU any greener if
    it comes from a "relationship" member rather than from a
    "non-relationship" matter?  Based on current pricing, one would have to
    say so.
    

    People keep asking for "facts"; OK, the "facts" as I see them:


    FACT: Absolutely no hard information has been made available to the
    owners of this credity union regarding the necessity, or even the sound
    business sense, of instituting the present fees. I specifically asked
    Lisa for that information as was told at one point that the information
    was not available, and at another point that it "would not make much
    sense" to the avaerage member.

    FACT: It has been asserted by directors voring against the present fees
    that there is not cost accounting structure in the credit union that
    could be used to support the reasoning for the fees. I have
    specifically asked other directors to counter this assertion; they have
    not done so.

    FACT: The official announcement of the current fee structure coincides
    with a sharp drop in membership. No one can prove a causal
    relationship, but neither can anyone argue the timing.

    FACT: A little over two years ago, members came together and voted
    overwhelmingly to rescind fees on basic services similar to the current
    fee structure. Two directors who were voted into office on the crest of
    that wave to rescind fees later reversed their position, in spite of a
    lack of hard information on the necessity for the fees and with no
    indication that the members had changed their minds with regard to the
    fees.

    OPINION: Previous replies have said in effect, "The fees are here --
    prove that they are not necesary." That argument ignores the FACT that
    the fees previously did not exist, and that no proof was ever offered
    that they were necessary. Therefore, the directors and management of
    DCU should return to the previous and enormously successful status quo
    of no fees for basic services, and provide reasonable proof from that
    point for any philosophical or business changes that are proposed.

    ACTION: I'm voting in the upcoming election for:
    
        o  Phil Gransewicz
    
        o  Chris Fillmore-Gillett
    
        o  Dave Garrod
    
    because they are the most likely candidates to value the credit union
    philosophy on which DCU was founded and so successfully grew, over the
    banking philosophy that has only made it shrink; because they are the
    most likely to make sound decisions based on facts, rather than being
    led around on a nose ring.
    

�    Right now DCU has what I would consider to be a "nuisance fee" on
�    credit cards.  It only serves to annoy customers or drive away credit card
�    business since many other cards charge no annual fee.  
    
    Yet didn't a recent BoD meeting minutes talk about how successful the
    Visa card offering has been?
    
    DCU Visa cards may not be "best in class" from a consumer point of
    view, but they are competitive.  This is probably one of the arguments
    you are facing when trying to get the fee dropped.

    
>    Yet didn't a recent BoD meeting minutes talk about how successful the
>    Visa card offering has been?
    
    The recent Visa card offering was a target marketing event.  Not all
    DCU members received the offer.  I'm advocating a much wider effort
    (to ALL DCU members) in the credit card space.
    
    

    re: .121
    
    Yeah, maybe they got the level back up to where it was before they hit
    us with fees.  Just think where it could be if the new ones could have
    been in addition to rather than instead of the ones they lost with the
    fees.
    
    re: .122
    
    Phil, did the promotion include no fees for a year or something?
    
    Bob

    
    RE: .123
    
    I can't recall all the criteria and offers with the promotion.  I
    believe it was basically to get people to bring their credit card
    balances to DCU.  
    

Re: facts, lack of facts:

I want improved decision making from the next BoD.  The problem
that I feel is somewhat overlooked is that the board members who voted 
"yes" to fees seem to have done so without any regard for whether they were 
needed (facts), nor did they  articulate a vision for the credit union that 
would argue in favor of the imposition of the fees even if not necessary for 
financial soundness (or maximum profitability, or...).  To me, this is a far 
more serious problem then whether we have fees or not.  How can we judge these 
directors performance?  I can vote to re-elect a director who sometimes votes 
against my wishes if they can articulate why they did so.  Do these directors 
wish solely to be judged on the CUs financial performance?   That's not 
the only yardstick.

When I asked whether a decision to rescind fees would be a purely
philosophical one for our candidates, or one that would look at the
data, I was trying to get an understanding of how the candidates
would make decisions.  Perhaps it was the wrong example to use, given
the history of the fees issue at DCU.  

Still, since the imposition of fees was so grossly mishandled by
DCU, I'd like to hear folks opinions on handling rescinding fees.
Clearly you have a disconnect between the prospective board and 
Cockbun
on the fees issue.  How will you handle that?  Are there ways of improving
the management-board relationship such that this kind of nonsense (and I use
that word advisedly) doesn't happen again?  How will you integrate the
rescinding of fees into an overall direction for the credit union, one
that the board can articulate, Cockburn can implement, and all of you me
measured on by the membership?

Brian

    re .75
    
    Remember too, who is the bearer of those facts ...
    
    Do you not believe that Phil has not tried to obtain just what is
    considered a "profitable" member ?  My own interactions with some of
    the directors has revealed nothing that shows me a clear picture of what 
    constitutes a profitable member ... Are they simply going on faith
    that Chuck was right?
    
    After all, how many times have I said that someone who writes tons
    of cheques every month, but has a "relationship", can in fact be
    far less profitable to DCU than someone who isn't in relationship
    but keeps a moderate balance in a DCU account with very low activity.
    Processing cheques costs money ... processing manual deposits costs
    money.
    
    Remember that facts must come from the person who most dearly wants
    fees for DCU.  He will be reluctant to provide facts!
    
    Stuart
    

I don't like fees either, but I *can* understand the argument for applying
them to non-relationship members.  (I am not a board member, or running to
become one, I am just trying to provide a little balance to this one-sided
discussion of fees.)

First of all DCU really is non-profit, but it cannot lose money either (in the
long run) or else it is out of business.  I'm not an accountant (or a banker),
but I do understand that *services* cost money (providing monthly statements,
teller salaries, installing and maintaining ATM machines, whatever they do to
clear checks, etc.).  That money has to come from someplace (and I suspect
the fees are a small drop-in-the-bucket).  Most of the cost of services has to
be covered by the "spread" in interest rates between what DCU pays for
deposited funds and what DCU receives from loaning out those funds.  (In
addition, right now DCU is trying to improve its capital ratio, which is an
additional drain on funds).

Now we all complain about the fact that DCU rates are non-competitive, but
in order to get better rates DCU must settle for a smaller "spread" and hence
less income.  Since expenses and income need to balance, a way to allow
for a smaller "spread" is to reduce the expense side of the equation.

Now, it has been alleged that many DCU members contribute substantially to
the expense side of the equation (check cashing, monthly statements) while
not participating significantly on the side which provides DCU income
(either loans or deposits).  Everyone likes something-for-nothing, but
in this case the "relationship" members are subsidizing the "non-relationship"
members by suffering non-competitive interest rates.

The fees for non-relationship members are an attempt to discourage members
who are mainly only expense generators (who could care less that DCUs rates are
non-competitive), so that the rest of us can have better interest rates.

Re:   718.126 by PSDVAX::SMELSER

>The fees for non-relationship members are an attempt to discourage members
>who are mainly only expense generators (who could care less that DCUs rates are
>non-competitive), so that the rest of us can have better interest rates.

Please note that what you've asserted here about interest rates
was not part of the proposal to implement fees.  There was no
commitment from management that the interest rates for
relationship members would improve because of the fees.  This
question was asked of several BoD members.  

    
    Re .-2
    
    As somebody who is running for the board on an anti-fee platform I
    would like to address some of your points.
    
>First of all DCU really is non-profit, but it cannot lose money either (in the
>long run) or else it is out of business.
    
    I agree. But over the last couple of years operational profits at the
    DCU have been enormous and well above projections. Fees were not needed
    to bolster profits or cover a loss.
    
>      I'm not an accountant (or a banker),
>but I do understand that *services* cost money (providing monthly statements,
>teller salaries, installing and maintaining ATM machines, whatever they do to
>clear checks, etc.).  That money has to come from someplace (and I suspect
>the fees are a small drop-in-the-bucket).
    
    Yes the money does have to come from somewhere and as you pointed out
    fees are a drop in the bucket. It is the loans that DCU gives out that
    generate income.
    
>      Most of the cost of services has to
>be covered by the "spread" in interest rates between what DCU pays for
>deposited funds and what DCU receives from loaning out those funds.  (In
>addition, right now DCU is trying to improve its capital ratio, which is an
>additional drain on funds).
>
>Now we all complain about the fact that DCU rates are non-competitive, but
>in order to get better rates DCU must settle for a smaller "spread" and hence
>less income.  Since expenses and income need to balance, a way to allow
>for a smaller "spread" is to reduce the expense side of the equation.

    Here is where I disagree with you. The reason the spread is so poor is
    because DCU has far too much cash on hand. It has noone to lend it to
    so it gets invested in low interest places. I believe the DCU currently
    invests most of its spare cash in a NCUA pseudo credit union fund which
    is somewhat similar to FED Funds.
    
    The way to improve the spread is to concentrate on satisfying members
    and making members happy members so that they want to do business with
    DCU. The way to do this is not to levy fees which drive away precisely
    the members that are most likely to take out loans (and hence generate
    income) in the future. There are many alternatives for people. People
    can't be bothered to take the time to learn how to navigate themselves
    around a complicated fee structure. They just up and leave and hence
    will never be people who take out loans.
    
    
>Now, it has been alleged that many DCU members contribute substantially to
>the expense side of the equation (check cashing, monthly statements) while
>not participating significantly on the side which provides DCU income
>(either loans or deposits).  Everyone likes something-for-nothing, but
>in this case the "relationship" members are subsidizing the "non-relationship"
>members by suffering non-competitive interest rates.

    The expense side of the equation needs to be looked at as a "cost of
    doing business". It is impossible to squeeze all costs out of a
    business. If you do you destroy a business. The relationship members
    are not subsidizing the non-relationship members. In fact it is
    probably the other way around. Those with high savings balances don't
    take out loans. If you have $5,000 of cash sitting in the DCU you are
    not going to take out a loan, you'll use your cash instead.
    
>The fees for non-relationship members are an attempt to discourage members
>who are mainly only expense generators (who could care less that DCUs rates are
>non-competitive), so that the rest of us can have better interest rates.
    
    Unfortunately for DCU's long term health this drives away potential
    future loan business. Those big savers ("relatioship members") need to
    people with loans to pay their interest rates.
    
    Dave

�    I agree. But over the last couple of years operational profits at the
�    DCU have been enormous and well above projections. 
    
    According to the BoD meeting minutes this was due in large part to the
    mortgage refinancing boom.  Should we expect these operational profits
    to continue at this rate?
    
�People
�    can't be bothered to take the time to learn how to navigate themselves
�    around a complicated fee structure. They just up and leave and hence
�    will never be people who take out loans.
    
    Are people leaving because the fee structure is complicated, because
    there are fees, or for some other reason?
    
    What is complicated about the current relationship definition?  There
    does appear to be confusion around mortgages.  Direct Deposit = Free
    Checking.  Minumum (savings/loan) balance = relationship.
    
�The relationship members
�    are not subsidizing the non-relationship members. In fact it is
�    probably the other way around. 
    
    On what do you base this conclusion?  Phil's hypothetical relationship
    members don't count unless you can tell us how many of them there are.
    
�Those with high savings balances don't
�    take out loans. If you have $5,000 of cash sitting in the DCU you are
�    not going to take out a loan, you'll use your cash instead.
    
    Your opinion again, right?
    
    I know I'm going to get slammed for these statements again, but I am
    trying to point out that you are doing the same thing you are accusing
    the current BoD (or at least those who voted the fees in) of -- you are
    going on gut feelings and suppositions, not real data.
    
�Those big savers ("relatioship members") need to
�    people with loans to pay their interest rates.
    
    Big savers are only part of the relationship members.  Big borrowers
    are the other part.
    
    

    re: .126
    
>Now, it has been alleged that many DCU members contribute substantially to
>the expense side of the equation (check cashing, monthly statements) while
>not participating significantly on the side which provides DCU income
>(either loans or deposits).  Everyone likes something-for-nothing, but
>in this case the "relationship" members are subsidizing the "non-relationship"
>members by suffering non-competitive interest rates.
    
    Please explain how the relationship members subsidized me, a
    'non-relationship' member when I generated > $400 PROFIT (not income)
    for DCU before I took all my business somewhere else.  It seems to me
    that I am the kind of member DCU should be courting, not telling to get
    lost.
    
    Bob
    

    I agree with the analysis here.  DCU has too much money that they are
    unable to loan out at consumer rates.  Why can't they make these loans?
    Probably because, when you look at rates and service, DCU is not
    competetive.  So how do you rememdy this ?  Trim rates ... that will 
    ensure more money gets loaned out, which earns more money than the
    deposit accounts where the funds currently are.
    
    As to mortgages, the amount earned is proportional to how much the
    mortgage buyer is willing to buy the loan at.  The spread between
    these rates is slim, so I cannot believe the profits from selling
    mortgages can be that high, especially now that DCU is actually 
    servicing the sold mortgages.
    
    There are no particular reasons for interest rates to go up markedly
    right now, and as the economy improves, even at constant interest
    rates, the demand for mortgages will continue.
    
    In terms of fairness, it would be perfectly possible for me to direct
    deposit into DCU, then transfer out virtually the whole balance, and
    yet this person would have fee free chequing.
    
    The reason oft quoted by board members for implementing fees was
    fairness.  There are far more parameters to implementing a fairness
    campaign than the amount of your deposits and loans, or if you have
    direct deposit.  How many transactions do you make?  Do you make them
    at a branch, or an ATM?  How many deposits do you make and how big
    are they?  How many cheques do you write and how big are they ?
    How many ATM transactions do you make and how big are they ?
    What is your average daily balance ?  Do you have a $5 membership
    account only ?
    
    All these things contribute to the costs of operating your account.
    
    So just basing fees on a balance is ridiculous in terms of fairness.
    
    IF fees are required, then they should be based on a reasonably
    accurate measure of the cost to operate your accounts.  After all,
    I could operate a non-relationship account, write no cheques and
    be charged $2 per month.  My neighbour could operate a non-relationship
    account, write 30+ cheques per month and be charged the same $2.
    Where is the FAIRNESS ???  If you indicate that a higher balance
    account is worth more to DCU than another, well, that's true, but
    they are paying you interest because of that.  So this really should
    not enter significantly into the cost / fairness equation if the
    amounts we are being paid for our savings is fair.
    
    The fairness argument is just fuzzy thinking.
    
    Stuart
    
    
    
    

    re: .129
    
    >According to the BoD meeting minutes this was due in large part to the
    >mortgage refinancing boom.  Should we expect these operational profits
    >to continue at this rate?
    
    This is inmaterial.  Back in the mid-80's when DCU had NO fees and NO
    refinancing boom, DCU paid out bonus dividends.  At the same time it's
    ratio (I'm a little brain dead right now, and can't think of the proper
    name.  It's the one everyone's been talking about and whose target
    value seems to be raised everytime we get close to it) was less than it
    currently is, and the DCU was not in any financial peril.  If we are in
    better shape now then we were when we paid out bonus dividends, why do
    we need fees?
    
    >What is complicated about the current relationship definition?  There
    >does appear to be confusion around mortgages.  Direct Deposit = Free
    >Checking.  Minumum (savings/loan) balance = relationship.
    
    Why should a member have to check their savings, loans, and direct
    deposit balance on a monthly basis to see if they are still
    'relationship' members?  Why is a 'relationship' member one month a
    pond scum member the next month because they have faithfully paid on a
    loan and as a result generated a profit for DCU?
    
    Bob

�    Please explain how the relationship members subsidized me, a
�    'non-relationship' member when I generated > $400 PROFIT (not income)
    
    How did you come up with this PROFIT figure?  On what did you base your
    cost?

�    Probably because, when you look at rates and service, DCU is not
�    competetive.  
    
    Alot of folks are fond of saying this yet people are still taking out
    loans with the DCU and from what I read of advertised rates in the
    local paper they are competitive.  Yes, there are postings in here
    where people have found someone a bit better, but to say the DCU
    offerings are not competitive is misleading.
    
�    There are no particular reasons for interest rates to go up markedly
�    right now, 
    
    You haven't been watching recent economic reports then.  Greenspan is
    recommending increasing interest rates in order to curb expected
    inflation.
    
�There are far more parameters to implementing a fairness
�    campaign than the amount of your deposits and loans, or if you have
�    direct deposit.  
    
    True enough, but what is the cost to manage each account on an
    individual basis?
    
    

    re: .134
    
    >How did you come up with this PROFIT figure?  On what did you base your
    >cost?
    
    The facts are that I charged > $2000 on my DCU credit card and paid
    over $400 in credit card interest that year.  According to Phil, ~$2000
    in purchases generates enough transaction income to cover the cost of
    servicing the credit card account.
    
    Bob
    

>    Alot of folks are fond of saying this yet people are still taking out
>    loans with the DCU and from what I read of advertised rates in the
>    local paper they are competitive.  Yes, there are postings in here
>    where people have found someone a bit better, but to say the DCU
>    offerings are not competitive is misleading.

It depends on your definition of competetive ...  To me competetive doesn't
mean "just keeping up with the local banks" ... it means trying to take the
lead.  DCU just doesn't do that.

>    You haven't been watching recent economic reports then.  Greenspan is
>    recommending increasing interest rates in order to curb expected
>    inflation.

And at the same time there are a lot of market forces that are trying to keep
rates down in spite of Greenspan and some of his worldwide counterparts.  There
are really very few inflationary pressures.

>    True enough, but what is the cost to manage each account on an
>    individual basis?

And what has been the cost of all the lost accounts and customers fed up
with all the nonsense at DCU, now capped with fees ?

Stuart

�    The facts are that I charged > $2000 on my DCU credit card and paid
�    over $400 in credit card interest that year.  According to Phil, ~$2000
�    in purchases generates enough transaction income to cover the cost of
�    servicing the credit card account.
    
    Fair enough.  Given this information and the rather unpredictable
    nature of credit card usage, is this a good criteria for establishing a
    relationship?
    
    Credit Card issuers are using this type of activity to set interest
    rates for their cards -- DCU is one of them.

�And at the same time there are a lot of market forces that are trying to keep
�rates down in spite of Greenspan and some of his worldwide counterparts.  There
�are really very few inflationary pressures.
    
    And in the opinions of many in here there were very few economic
    pressures to drive DCU to implement fees for some members, yet they
    did.  Right or wrong, guys like Greenspan and Cockburn are influential
    enough to get push policies through.  You have to have overwhelming
    evidence to prove they are wrong.

    re: .139
    
    We don't have to prove ANYTHING.  Just get enough people to agree with
    us.  Even if the implementation of the fees were 100% fair (I'll ignore
    the impossibility of everyone agreeing on a definition of fair), they
    have no place in DCU unless the fees are needed to keep DCU financially
    solvent.
    
    Bob

    re: .138
    
    >Fair enough.  Given this information and the rather unpredictable
    >nature of credit card usage, is this a good criteria for establishing a
    >relationship?
    
    If the fees were needed to keep DCU financially solvent, the above is
    just as good as any of the other current fee triggers.
    
    Bob
    

    re .138, .141
    
    It may not be enough to trigger a relationship, but it sure is enough
    to waive the Visa card fee!!!
    
    Stuart

�    We don't have to prove ANYTHING.  Just get enough people to agree with
�    us.  
    
    And how do you expect people to agree with you if you can't prove
    anything?

    
    Mr. MacNeal,
    
    I've personally been trying to determine wht perspective you are coming
    from.  Are you playing devils advocate or are you really on the side of
    the current "fee" structure.  I'm starting to lean towards the latter.
    
    Anyway...
    
    RE: wanting FACTS
    
    This happens to be one of my pet-peeves, so forgive me if I sound like
    I'm getting on a soapbox.
    
    IMHO, one of Digital's problems has been that decision makers are not
    making the important decisions because they are waiting for all the
    facts.  By the time all the facts are available and have been
    presented, the decision is too late to make any difference to the
    bottom-line.  This can also be applied to DCU.
    
    FACT: DCU has been making record profits
    
    FACT: DCU's capital ration is higher than it ever has been
    
    FACT: From the amount of negative opinion within this notesfile (I
    realize that the participants of this notefile may not represent a
    typical cross-section of the membership - but it's the only FACT we
    have), the fees are driving away business.
    
    Even though the above is not *ALL* the facts necessary to know exactly
    what should be done with respect to fees, I feel that it is a very good
    indicator about what should happen (especially when it can be
    demonstrated that a non-relationship member is a profitable member). 
    Add to all this, that in the business world more profits are generated
    from the customers you already have.  I blatently points to the fact
    that fee are a BAD business decision.
    
    To add one more FACT to the list.  I'm a relationship member because I
    have an auto loan with DCU.  When this loan goes below $3500, I'll no
    longer be a relationship member.  To top this off, I do have my
    paycheck deposited (for over $500 a week - never mind a month), but
    split it's between 3 accounts (1 savings, 1 personal checking account
    and 1 joint checking account) which has me depositing less than $500 a
    month to avoid the checking account fees (my personal account is the
    membership account (Share 5)).  I have always tried to be a
    relationship member (long before this term was dreamed up).  I tried to
    get a mortgage as a 1st time home buyer, DCU refused (they said I did
    not have enough credit history with them).  Shawmut bent over backwards
    for my business (and got my mortgage).  When I refinanced, I again look
    towards DCU, but did not qualify (because I wanted to borrow less than
    $100,000.00).  Old Colony Mortgage had no problem refinancing my
    mortgage and got my business.  When I was looking to upgrade to a gold
    card (I had been offer many pre-approved cards through the mail), DCU
    refused (again saying I did not have enough credit history with them). 
    When I inquired about how long it would take for me to get sufficient
    history with DCU and what it would take after that to be upgraded to a
    gold card, DCU responded by saying about a year and I'd need to
    re-apply.  My insurance company (USAA), offered me pre-approved 10.9%
    gold card with a $15 a year fee (which was subsequently permanently
    waved for *ALL* card holders the following year).  USAA got my
    business.  Therefore, over the last 3 years I have tried to do business
    with DCU four times and DCU only got my business once (and not because
    I chose to not do business with DCU - they refesed to do business with
    me).  Therefore, when my auto loan goes below the "magic" $3500 and if
    DCU still has this fee crap, I will be looking for a new credit union
    or bank that will want to do business with me.  So much for trying to
    be a relationship member!!!!
    
    ~Jon.
    (a temporary relationship member)

    re: .142
    
    >It may not be enough to trigger a relationship, but it sure is enough
    >to waive the Visa card fee!!!
    
    It wasn't enough for DCU, so I took my business to another credit union
    that appreciates my business.
    
    Bob
    

    re: .143
    
    >And how do you expect people to agree with you if you can't prove
    >anything?
    
    How do you think we got fees in the first place?  Chuck didn't present
    any 'facts' showing that non-relationship members were costing DCU
    money.  It apparently was sold on the issue of 'fairness'.
    
    Bob
    

RE: Note 718.105 by 38346::MACNEAL

>-< the facts -- do you want me to send you my junk mail? >-

I hope you do not base all your decisions on junk mail...  :-)

Now I understand why you think DCU has such a good rate.  Anyone who
compares against junk mail is going to pay more than they have to.  It
is quite common for those hunting for business to try and lure good
credit risks into their fold knowing that their higher rates will make
them a ton of money.  Some common methods are low 'transfer rate' but
goes up after that or DCU's style to charge a dual rate scheme.

With a little effort I came across a list of sites who charge less than
DCU.

	- mark

RE: Note 718.135 by 38346::MACNEAL

>    Alot of folks are fond of saying this yet people are still taking out
>    loans with the DCU and from what I read of advertised rates in the
>    local paper they are competitive.  Yes, there are postings in here
>    where people have found someone a bit better, but to say the DCU
>    offerings are not competitive is misleading.

DCU charges 11.9 or 13.9% (correct me if I am wrong).

The APR (including the $20 fee) causes the interest rates to increase.

Based upon a $100 balance for 12 months and the $20 fee, the APR
becomes: 12.1% or 14.1%

Not as competitive as you think...

	-mark

Facts, facts, and more facts....

I still have yet to see DCU management trot out any real facts
regarding a need for fee structures.  I've heard a lot of noise
about credit union "abusers," about making people pull their
own weight, and about issues of "fairness" and carrots and sticks.

On the other side of the coin, looking in from the outside we
can see record earnings, huge reserves that aren't loaned out
due to lack of demand, and no sign of trouble anywhere on
the balance sheet.  A simple review of the minutes of the
Board meetings posted in this notes conference shows "positive
variances" - that's bankerspeak for profit - in many cases.
Go see for yourself.

If DCU wants us to believe that fees are necessary and good for
us, then they must make a credible case for them.  Otherwise,
common sense says that what isn't broken shouldn't be fixed.

The real issue here is the underlying philosophy by which a
credit union should be run.  The Board of Directors is responsible
for deciding what philosophy and strategy it wishes to follow,
and management is then obligated to make that happen.  Certainly
management will articulate views and ideas to the Board for their
consideration, but it is the Board who should chart the overall
course and direction.

I've seen little evidence from this Board to indicate that they,
as a group, have agreed or even talked about overall credit
union philosophy.  I can draw my conclusions only from a reading
of the BoD Meeting Minutes since I'm not privy to any board
discussions.  It looks like management came to the Board and
said "we need relationship banking" and the Board simply
approved it.  

The Board and Management need to work together in order for DCU
to continue to succeed.  However, what concerns me is that
the current board, by it's remarks in the minutes, and it's
vote on the record, appears to be doing little more than
rubberstamping someone else's agenda.  This should be a far
more important issue than the fees.

Chris

�    I've personally been trying to determine wht perspective you are coming
�    from.  Are you playing devils advocate or are you really on the side of
�    the current "fee" structure.  I'm starting to lean towards the latter.
 
    I really don't understand the relevance of this to this particular
    discussion.
    
�I tried to
�    get a mortgage as a 1st time home buyer, DCU refused (they said I did
�    not have enough credit history with them).  Shawmut bent over backwards
�    for my business (and got my mortgage).  When I refinanced, I again look
�    towards DCU, but did not qualify (because I wanted to borrow less than
�    $100,000.00).     
    
    Since DCU sells mortgages to Shawmut (at least mine was), I'm surprised
    they turned you down if Shawmut accepted you.  I've been looking into
    refinancing with DCU and I need to borrow less than $100K.  I was told
    I could not get a fee free refinance, but if I paid the closing costs
    there were programs available to me.

�    How do you think we got fees in the first place?  Chuck didn't present
�    any 'facts' showing that non-relationship members were costing DCU
�    money.  It apparently was sold on the issue of 'fairness'.
    
    You're right, the "getting people to agree with you without hard facts"
    approach worked for Chuck.  To date this approach has not worked to get
    those fees rescinded.

�I hope you do not base all your decisions on junk mail...  :-)
    
    I don't.  I listed other examples which did not come from my junk mail. 
    I stated that DCU appears to be competitive yet does not appear to be
    best in class.  Please try to keep up.

    Sometimes, I do wish DCU were on the e-net.
    
    % finger @dcu.org.com | grep XXXX
    or $ELF find XXXX
    
    would have been instructive.
    
    - Vikas

>�    I've personally been trying to determine wht perspective you are coming
>�    from.  Are you playing devils advocate or are you really on the side of
>�    the current "fee" structure.  I'm starting to lean towards the latter.
> 
>    I really don't understand the relevance of this to this particular
>    discussion.

I guess we need a 2x4. :-)

-Glenn-

�If DCU wants us to believe that fees are necessary and good for
�us, then they must make a credible case for them.  
    
    Last time I checked, fees were here.  Their case was apparently good
    enough.  As someone pointed out, if you want to change the status quo
    you've got some work on your hands.  What happens if you, Phil, & Dave
    (or at least 2 of the 3) don't get elected?

Hey Keith!

Please consider using brackets or something around what
you're quoting...makes it a lot easier to separate what
you're saying from the other data.

Chris

  
   >You're right, the "getting people to agree with you without hard facts"
   >approach worked for Chuck.  To date this approach has not worked to get
   >those fees rescinded.

And it won't work unless you have different people casting the
votes.

Fortunately, based on your reasoning, Keith, once the decision
is made to take away fees, you'll support that strongly unless and
until someone presents the "facts" to institute fees (i.e. the
current implementation gets approved regardless of facts and all 
possible benefit of the doubt goes to what is currently done).

I look forward to the time when you will be agreement with almost
all of the other people who have studied this in this forum.  :-)

Collis

re:  .155

Their case was good enough to sway the opinions of 5 people.
I'll bet I can find 500 who beg to differ.

Just because something is here doesn't make it right, or
well-conceived.

Chris

RE: Note 718.152 by 38346::MACNEAL

>�I hope you do not base all your decisions on junk mail...  :-)
    
>    I don't.  I listed other examples which did not come from my junk mail. 
>    I stated that DCU appears to be competitive yet does not appear to be
>    best in class.

You listed junk mail up front and promenant.  You listed one other
example other than junk mail.

>Please try to keep up.

It's hard to keep up with all the one liners... :-)

	- mark

    
.155> �If DCU wants us to believe that fees are necessary and good for
.155> �us, then they must make a credible case for them.  
.155>    
.155> Last time I checked, fees were here.  Their case was apparently good
.155> enough.  As someone pointed out, if you want to change the status quo
.155> you've got some work on your hands.  What happens if you, Phil, & Dave
.155> (or at least 2 of the 3) don't get elected?
    
    
  .158> Their case was good enough to sway the opinions of 5 people.
  .158> I'll bet I can find 500 who beg to differ.
  .158> 
  .158> Just because something is here doesn't make it right, or
  .158> well-conceived.
    
    I would even doubt that those 5 people were swayed by a good case. All
    the evidence so far indicates that they simply rubber-stamped Chuck's
    plan without requiring any fact-based justification at all.
    
    If Phil, Chris and Dave get elected, we will finally have a simple
    majority of directors who are willing to push back on Chuck and get at
    the requirements and justification behind his strategy changes, even if
    just to pass that information on to their disgruntled constituents.
    If they don't get elected, the the probability is high that we will
    still have a rubber-stamp board.

�Please consider using brackets or something around what
�you're quoting...makes it a lot easier to separate what
�you're saying from the other data.
    
    
    I take it that � at the beginning of each quoted line isn't sufficient?

�Fortunately, based on your reasoning, Keith, once the decision
�is made to take away fees, you'll support that strongly unless and
�until someone presents the "facts" to institute fees 
    
    Maybe if people would concentrate on what I actually type and stop
    trying to read between the lines, communication would be a heck of alot
    easier around here.

�You listed junk mail up front and promenant.  
    
    I mentioned it in the title.  The body of the reply contained much more
    on other sources.
    
�It's hard to keep up with all the one liners... :-)
    
    I guess so since I've done much more than enter one line over the past
    few weeks.

RE: Note 718.163 by 38346::MACNEAL

>�You listed junk mail up front and promenant.  
    
>    I mentioned it in the title.

Yep, Titles are usually up front and promenant...
    
	- mark

�Yep, Titles are usually up front and promenant...
    
    I'll keep that in mind.  Unless I'm doing a directory, titles are the
    last thing I read.  Sometimes noters leave them blank, sometimes they
    are an afterthought when the EXIT button is hit, sometimes they really
    are used as titles.
    
    I guess I still need to get it hammered into me that around here style
    is more important than content.

    But titles ARE content!!!  :-)
    
    Stuart

> Please consider using brackets or something around what
> you're quoting...makes it a lot easier to separate what
> you're saying from the other data.
>     
>     
>  I take it that  at the beginning of each quoted line isn't sufficient?

Well, on my system, the whatever-it-is between "that" and "at" above
appears to be a space, so for me it isn't sufficient.  It doesn't
show up in the same way on my PC at home when I'm dialed in 
remotely either.  

Guess my fine dual-headed high-tech workstation isn't sophisticated
enough to handle this level of communication.

Chris

>Guess my fine dual-headed high-tech workstation isn't sophisticated
>enough to handle this level of communication.
    
    Sorry, didn't realize my VT340 was that high tech.

     �Fortunately, based on your reasoning, Keith, once the decision
     �is made to take away fees, you'll support that strongly unless and
     �until someone presents the "facts" to institute fees 
    
  >Maybe if people would concentrate on what I actually type and stop
  >trying to read between the lines, communication would be a heck of alot
  >easier around here.

O.K., I'll push back.

Have you not continually stated that since fees are here that it
is up to the no fee crowd to prove that no fees are better?  [Yes.}

Have you not stated that the reason for the burden of proof on
the no fee crowd is that fees are now here?  [Yes.]

I do admit that I took a step of logic to conclude that you would
be consistent if fees were not implemented and put the burden of 
proof on the fee crowd to prove that fees were needed.  But it
appears from your comment above that this is not the case.

Then again, maybe the determining factor isn't what is currently
in place.  Perhaps you support whatever DEFCU senior management
happens to decide unless there is proof to the contrary.

In any case, I think the argument that one side has to come up
with more proof than the other (particularly that the tried and
true no fees/lots of profit side has to come up with MORE proof
than the new fee side) is all wrong.  There, I've stated it
explicitly.

Collis

    .111:
    
    What you describe (particularly the last paragraph) reminds me of an
    organization I worked for once.  They claimed to provide a service to
    people, but were perceived by some as "servicing" them (in the sense a
    livestock owner would use).
    
    The organization (or its workers) would do things analogous to what
    you've described, because they had the attitude that "it's our set-up,
    we're in charge here".  I think that this was in part due to the fact
    that they had something close to a monopoly on their customer base, and
    so, I believe, figured that this gave them some little latitude to be
    high-handed with the people they claimed to serve.
    
    DCU is far from being the only provider of services in their field
    and this alone means that they can't afford to alienate and lose many
    customers.  The fact that Digital has been laying off many people, and
    hiring a very small number of new employees, means that DCU has a
    shrinking pool of potential customers (unless they've changed the
    membership requirements) -- and this pool has been well positioned to
    "get the dirt" on DCU, so they're likely to require more effort to
    persuade to join than J. Random Nebbish on the street (witness Mr.
    Ainsley's collegue).
    
    Making policies that drive customers away could cause DCU to follow the
    pattern in the place I used to work:  we started calling it "the
    incredible shrinking group" when economic realities finally became too
    obvious to ignore (but we saw only cost-cutting, not efforts to make
    the offerings more attractive to prospective customers).
    
    Is it my imagination, or could we be seeing counter-productive business
    practices that echo those of a much larger nearby corporation?
    
    Dick

�In any case, I think the argument that one side has to come up
�with more proof than the other (particularly that the tried and
�true no fees/lots of profit side has to come up with MORE proof
�than the new fee side) is all wrong. 
    
    Why?  All other methods thus far have failed?  Are you afraid to try
    another approach?

�    Making policies that drive customers away could cause DCU to follow the
�    pattern in the place I used to work:  we started calling it "the
�    incredible shrinking group" when economic realities finally became too
�    obvious to ignore (but we saw only cost-cutting, not efforts to make
�    the offerings more attractive to prospective customers).
    
    If we accept the premise that the fees drove people away in September,
    how has that impacted DCU's bottom line to date?  Did we lose more than
    the Relationship Member criteria was designed to drive away?  Have we
    seen any shift of non-Relationship members to become Relationship
    members?

    
    
    >  how has that affected the bottom line to date?
    
      Who cares?  The long term impact is what both sides are 
    disagreeing about...
    
      Over the short term,  people can take their money away faster
    than they can pay down outstanding loans...
    
      Over the longer term,  They will be borrowing elsewhere.  
    (I certainly do...)
    
    
    					-al

Re:  .171

Keith,

It's clear your mind is made up (at least it is clear to
me).  It's also clear my mind is made up.

Although I wrote my note to address your points, I didn't
write it mostly for you (since I'm not about to convince you
of anything), but rather to point out what I believe are the
shortcomings of the views your espouse.

I believe I accomplished the purpose.

Collis

>Although I wrote my note to address your points, I didn't
>write it mostly for you (since I'm not about to convince you
>of anything), but rather to point out what I believe are the
>shortcomings of the views your espouse.
>
>I believe I accomplished the purpose.
    
    Can I have a recap here, because I'm confused.  Here's the way I see
    it.
    
    1) A Special Meeting was held and a vote was taken to rescind the fees.
    Result:  Fees were implemented in January 1994.
    
    2)  A whole new board of directors was elected running on a capaign
    plank that said hold the line on fees.
    Result:  Fees were implemented in Jan. 1994.
    
    3)  The President of DCU presented a definition of relationship members
    and proposed a fee structure.  Some information on fairness, potential
    cost savings, profiles of the current membership, etc. was presented to
    the BoD to support this proposal.  Two BoD members argued against the
    fees/relationship members citing potential customer base erosion, a
    basic CU philosophy, etc.
    Result:  Fees were implemented in Jan. 1994.
    
    If the balance of power in the current BoD is not changed by the
    upcoming election, do you see fees going away?  I don't.  I see more
    circular arguments.  Because there is no data (and apparently an
    unwillingness on the part of both sides to get it and present it) I
    can't see anyone minds being changed.  Someone else stated that the
    burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo.  I
    merely pointed out that right now the status quo is relationships/fees.

    As an owner, neither side has done a very good job of convincing me
    that relationships/fees are good or bad.  I have tried to gather
    information to help with this dilemna.  The only info I get from the
    pro-fee/relationship folks are the official communications (Network,
    meeting minutes, etc).  The only info I get from anti-fee/relationship
    folks are the profit/loss statement (which if I follow Al Lawler's
    philosophy of short term vs. long term is no good since the numbers
    presented represent only a snapshot), and a bunch of philosophy on what
    a credit union should be.  When I try to get more, there is silence
    from the pro-fee folks and outright hostility from the anti-fee folks.
    
    Thank you very much for the open and honest communication (actually
    most of the communication appears to be very honest, but I do heal
    quickly).

>    2)  A whole new board of directors was elected running on a capaign
>    plank that said hold the line on fees.
>    Result:  Fees were implemented in Jan. 1994.

Not quite right ...
	A whole new board was elected
	Some made no fees promises
	Some said "Hold the line"
	Some said "No fees"
    
>    If the balance of power in the current BoD is not changed by the
>    upcoming election, do you see fees going away?  I don't.  I see more
>    circular arguments.  Because there is no data (and apparently an
>    unwillingness on the part of both sides to get it and present it) I
>    can't see anyone minds being changed.  Someone else stated that the
>    burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo.  I
>    merely pointed out that right now the status quo is relationships/fees.

There is not an unwillingness on the part of the proponents of no fees to
get data that would support their position.  There appears to be an
unwillingness however on the part of those who have access to that data
to release it.  Moreover, the only data they will release has been subject
to preinterpretation (which would support the "fairness" stand) for
consumption by the supposedly uneducated.

As long as the data is sanitized by those who wish to impose fees, this
problem will not go away.

Stuart

    
RE: .175
        
>    1) A Special Meeting was held and a vote was taken to rescind the fees.
>    Result:  Fees were implemented in January 1994.
    
    Incorrect.  As a result of the Special Meeting vote, fees were not
    implemented as planned.  What differs is the interpretation of why and
    who did the rescinding.  To say that the current fees resulted from an
    event two years earlier is far beyond stretching it.
    
>    2)  A whole new board of directors was elected running on a capaign
>    plank that said hold the line on fees.
>    Result:  Fees were implemented in Jan. 1994.
    
    Incorrect or maybe just poorly worded.  But the entire Board did NOT
    run on the "hold the line on fees" statement.  Three of the current
    Directors did not have their name on this statement.  However, two that
    voted for fees DID have their name on the statement.  I was the ONLY
    candidate that ran two years ago that stated clear opposition to
    checking fees. 
    
>    3)  The President of DCU presented a definition of relationship members
>    and proposed a fee structure.  Some information on fairness, potential
>    cost savings, profiles of the current membership, etc. was presented to
>    the BoD to support this proposal.  Two BoD members argued against the
>    fees/relationship members citing potential customer base erosion, a
>    basic CU philosophy, etc.
>    Result:  Fees were implemented in Jan. 1994.
    
	OK, more accurate.  But please don't forget that in addition, an
    alternative approach WAS suggested and not implemented.  Mainly, fix
    what was broken, and try to convince all the dormant membership that
    DCU had indeed changed and wanted their business.  However, the beat-
    them-with-carrots-approach carried the day.
    
>    If the balance of power in the current BoD is not changed by the
>    upcoming election, do you see fees going away?  I don't.  I see more
    
    Here you are ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, 110% CORRECT.  (Will everybody
    please note this date and time in the history books! 8-)
    
>    circular arguments.  Because there is no data (and apparently an
>    unwillingness on the part of both sides to get it and present it) I
    
    Well, back to being incorrect.  Because you simply choose to ignore
    factual data presented or discount it as "not typical" does not mean is
    that facts have not been presented.  Or was your statement your opinion
    only?   When I asked for what you considered to be "typical" so that I
    could then provide facts you would accept, *I* was treated with silence.
    
>    can't see anyone minds being changed.  Someone else stated that the
>    burden of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo.  I
>    merely pointed out that right now the status quo is relationships/fees.
    
    Correct again!  But it is a statement of the obvious and it is
    precisely what this election is about.  The MEMBERSHIP will be deciding
    the fees issue.  Many will not so easily dismiss the facts that have
    been presented here.  We tried to get the membership involved in the fees
    decision by asking that the membership be surveyed with regards to
    fees.  That was shot down big time.  But you must remember, even if the
    survey results said that 100% of the membership DID NOT WANT FEES, the
    Board could choose to disregard it and implement them anyways.  Any
    survey is NON-BINDING.  The ONLY "survey" that counts AND IS BINDING is
    the annual election.  If the membership cares enough about it, they can
    fix this in the upcoming election.  Apathy will surely mean that fees
    are here to stay.
    

�    Incorrect.  As a result of the Special Meeting vote, fees were not
�    implemented as planned.  What differs is the interpretation of why and
�    who did the rescinding.  
    
    I've said the exact same thing and been hammered for it many times.  I
    figured I'd take the popular view of history.
    
�To say that the current fees resulted from an
�    event two years earlier is far beyond stretching it.
    
    I didn't say that.  I said that the special meeting did not prevent
    fees from being implemented.  Bottom line:  Fees in Jan. 1994.
    
�Mainly, fix
�    what was broken, 
    
    I didn't think anything was broken.  Afterall, record profits and all
    that.
    
�    Well, back to being incorrect.  Because you simply choose to ignore
�    factual data presented or discount it as "not typical" does not mean is
�    that facts have not been presented.  
    
    I imagine that even if I changed my wording from "No data" to "little
    data" you'd still be off down this rathole.  The credit card info was a
    good start, why not follow through to substantiate the rest of your
    arguments?
    
�When I asked for what you considered to be "typical" so that I
�    could then provide facts you would accept, *I* was treated with silence.
    
    Sorry, I thought it was obvious enough not to require an answer.  I
    believe that later on I did attempt to clarify it a bit.  Maybe typical
    wasn't a good word (I think I grabbed it from one of your replies). 
    How's this:  What percentage of the membership do your hypothetical
    cases represent?  That should at least be a basis to start some
    discussion with.
    
�Apathy will surely mean that fees
�    are here to stay.
    
    I guess one of my questions is finally answered.  If the election does
    not go the anti-fee way, the anti-fee movement will die and there will
    be little to know mention of this issue in this notesfile.
    
    It's too bad this election is concentrating on fees vs. no fees rather
    than on what is the correct business model on which to run the DCU. 
    Phil did say recently (and apparently it was merely a reiteration -- or
    was it: from 718.178: "I was the ONLY candidate that ran two years ago
    that stated clear opposition to checking fees." ) that he is not
    opposed to fees at all costs, but that message does appear to be
    drowned out in all of the rhetoric.

    re: .179
    
    >It's too bad this election is concentrating on fees vs. no fees rather
    >than on what is the correct business model on which to run the DCU. 
    
    The correct business model on which to run DCU is the credit union
    model.  Unfortunately, most members incorrectly think that DCU is
    running on the credit union model.  So, we must focus on fees and try
    to get the membership to understand that by supporting the candidates
    that are against the current fees, the membership will also get a
    credit union run on the credit union model.
    
    >Phil did say recently (and apparently it was merely a reiteration -- or
    >was it: from 718.178: "I was the ONLY candidate that ran two years ago
    >that stated clear opposition to checking fees." ) that he is not
    >opposed to fees at all costs, but that message does appear to be
    >drowned out in all of the rhetoric.
    
    That's right.  No one who has the best interests of DCU at heart would
    oppose fees if DCU was failling financially and fees would help save
    it.  We won't cut off our nose to spite our face.  And this gets to the
    crux of the dispute.  Those of us who oppose the current fees see a
    credit union making record profits with the capital ratio (remembered
    it this time:-)) at an all-time high, and wonder why fees are needed. 
    Neither the pro-fee BoD members nor DCU can provide any facts as to why
    these fees are needed.
    
    Bob
    

�    The correct business model on which to run DCU is the credit union
�    model.  
    
    From what I've seen, DCU is following *A* current Credit Union Model by
    implementing fees, minimum balances, etc .  DCU is not the first and
    will probably not be the last (one of them is in your own state, Bob,
    The University Credit Union in Austin).  Also, as has been pointed out,
    DCU is a bit unique in that it runs a number of full service branches
    throughout the country.  Not many other credit unions do that.  I don't
    believe we can use a generic credit union model (whatever that is) to
    run the DCU.
    
�Those of us who oppose the current fees see a
�    credit union making record profits with the capital ratio (remembered
�    it this time:-)) at an all-time high, and wonder why fees are needed. 
    
    The old if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I tried that argument when
    disputing the Bylaw changes proposed by Paul and Phil.  The system
    worked.  The Special Meeting was held and things got done.  It might
    even be argued that the System worked without the special meeting --
    the DCU is still solvent, the old president was caught and removed,
    etc.  We now have Bylaw changes which attempt to micromanage the
    process, (yet we still have a Bylaw which allows the BoD, not the
    membership, to make Bylaw changes).  Those who made the Bylaw changes
    apparently felt that although the system wasn't broke, it needed
    improvement.  Apparently Chuck Cockburn and the majority of the BoD
    feel the same way about the capital ratio and the profit margin (which
    might be artificially high due to the low mortgage rates).

>    The old if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I tried that argument when
>    disputing the Bylaw changes proposed by Paul and Phil.  The system
>    worked.  The Special Meeting was held and things got done.  It might
 
	If I recall properly, after the Special Meeting the Board changed
	the rules to make holding an other Special Meeting harder. Paul and
	Phil were trying to fix *that*.

			Alfred

>	If I recall properly, after the Special Meeting the Board changed
>	the rules to make holding an other Special Meeting harder. Paul and
>	Phil were trying to fix *that*.
    
    That was only one of the things that was "fixed".  (Don't worry, I
    won't reopen the rathole over whether or not it is appropriate for 200
    people to potentially decide the fate of 80,000).

    
    
>    I didn't say that.  I said that the special meeting did not prevent
>    fees from being implemented.  Bottom line:  Fees in Jan. 1994.
    
	Well, after re-reading your note (.175) it does say "RESULT". 
    	I guess the above is what you mean't to say, which is accurate.
    
�Mainly, fix what was broken, 
>>    I didn't think anything was broken.  Afterall, record profits and all
>>    that.
    
    Precisely.  We were shown that what was "broken" was that there were a
    lot of inactive and low balance accounts.  Now since DCU required
    and/or encouraged many of these accounts at one point or another, I
    didn't think that these members would mind being approached as responsible
    adults and asked if they would like to close them if they really didn't
    need them.  The remaining accounts would be potential sales
    opportunities.  But what we got was a "solution" in the form of
    "relationship banking" which subjects the entire membership to fees,
    unless they meet a DCU profitability profile.
    
    But the weird part is that we now seem to have BOTH!  It seems a
    "cleanup" back in Sept. purged quite a few accounts and members.  But
    the fees remain.  Strange how that happened.  So if we had done what I
    had requested over 14 months ago, I guess there would have been far
    less reason to implement fees and DCU could have saved all the costs of
    those accounts during that time span.  Oh well, guess others knew best.
    
>    I imagine that even if I changed my wording from "No data" to "little
>    data" you'd still be off down this rathole.  The credit card info was a
>    good start, why not follow through to substantiate the rest of your
>    arguments?
    
	Keith, please let us all know exactly what you consider "facts". 
    I've truly tried but just can't seem to figure it out.  So for expediency,
    please answer this.  
    
>    Sorry, I thought it was obvious enough not to require an answer.  I
>    believe that later on I did attempt to clarify it a bit.  Maybe typical
>    wasn't a good word (I think I grabbed it from one of your replies). 
    
    If it was obvious I would not have asked.  And yes, I also accept full
    responsibility for your notes, as well as all other Directors votes. 
    Anybody else I need to shoulder responsibility for?  This job just
    keeps getting better and better.  8-)
    
>    How's this:  What percentage of the membership do your hypothetical
>    cases represent?  That should at least be a basis to start some
>    discussion with.
    
    How about this, "How many people, that are non-relationship members,
    are profitable to DCU?".  Now before I waste my time, please let me
    know how you want me to calculate "profitable".  And should the
    analysis go back and include all the people that have left DCU or
    shifted funds since the fees were announced?  This might
    take a loooong time for several people to pull together, so in the
    meantime maybe you could answer the following question, "Could the current
    relationship criteria result in any situations where a member is
    profitable to DCU, yet not a relationship member?"
    
>    I guess one of my questions is finally answered.  If the election does
>    not go the anti-fee way, the anti-fee movement will die and there will
>    be little to know mention of this issue in this notesfile.
    
    Well, it sure does sound like many members are tired of this issue. 
    And since there are many other places courting their business (while
    offering no fee checking), it would not be unusual for these people to
    do as others have already done, leave, along with their future
    business.  And sorry, NOBODY can calculate that fact for you.  It
    certainly is common business practice to try and eliminate or minimize
    the departure of customers.  And with an ever shrinking number of potential
    customers, DCU should be very concerned about this.
    
>    It's too bad this election is concentrating on fees vs. no fees rather
>    than on what is the correct business model on which to run the DCU. 
    
    Have you read the joint statement?  Also, what is the criteria under
    which "correct" will be selected?  Will it be maximum DCU
    profitability?  Or will it be maximum membership participation in the
    credit union?
    
>    Phil did say recently (and apparently it was merely a reiteration -- or
>    was it: from 718.178: "I was the ONLY candidate that ran two years ago
>    that stated clear opposition to checking fees." ) that he is not
>    opposed to fees at all costs, but that message does appear to be
>    drowned out in all of the rhetoric.
    
    And your point is...?
    
>    The old if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I tried that argument when
>    disputing the Bylaw changes proposed by Paul and Phil.  The system
>    worked.  The Special Meeting was held and things got done.
    
    Correct, the OLD Bylaws, prior to midnight changes, worked.  The
    persistence of the membership MADE the system work.  
    
    >It might
>    even be argued that the System worked without the special meeting --
>    the DCU is still solvent, the old president was caught and removed,
>    etc.  We now have Bylaw changes which attempt to micromanage the
    
    You and the old Board could argue this but the rest of the membership
    could argue if the "system" was working then it should not have happened
    in the first place.  Our former president was not caught and removed by
    the Old Board or the "system".  The NCUA closed in on him when BCCU
    failed.  
    
>    process, (yet we still have a Bylaw which allows the BoD, not the
>    membership, to make Bylaw changes).  Those who made the Bylaw changes
>    apparently felt that although the system wasn't broke, it needed
>    improvement. 
    
    Of course we all realize that the micromanagement statement is your
    opinion and non-factual.  But the only reason that the membership cannot
    APPROVE Bylaw changes is that the NCUA would not allow it.
    
    >Apparently Chuck Cockburn and the majority of the BoD
>    feel the same way about the capital ratio and the profit margin (which
>    might be artificially high due to the low mortgage rates).
    
    Improvement of the capital ratio?  Yes.  We have already stated its
    improvement is important.  Please read the joint statement.
    Improvement of the profit margin?  Yes.  Reduce costs or sell more
    loans to the membership.  Fee basic services to improve the
    profit margin?  Absolutely not.
    

Note: 718.184
Author: ASE003::GRANSEWICZ "Candidate for DCU Director"
    
>    Precisely.  We were shown that what was "broken" was that there were a
>    lot of inactive and low balance accounts.  Now since DCU required
>    and/or encouraged many of these accounts at one point or another, I
>    didn't think that these members would mind being approached as responsible
>    adults and asked if they would like to close them if they really didn't
>    need them.  

Not only were they encouraged, DCU tellers were REWARDED for getting DCU 
customers to open U-Name-It/vacation accounts, via an incentive program. So
DCU makes the mess and expects the loyal customers to clean it up. Nice
relationship. No thanks.

Chris
    

�	Well, after re-reading your note (.175) it does say "RESULT". 
�    	I guess the above is what you mean't to say, which is accurate.
    
    Result, bottom line = synonyms
    
�But what we got was a "solution" in the form of
�    "relationship banking" which subjects the entire membership to fees,
�    unless they meet a DCU profitability profile.
    
    So, given that you are not against fees, per se, it is the relationship
    criteria that you have a problem with.
    
�    But the weird part is that we now seem to have BOTH!  It seems a
�    "cleanup" back in Sept. purged quite a few accounts and members.  But
�    the fees remain.  
    
    What cleanup?  I thought the September membership drop was due to the
    announcement of the new relationship structure.  Was something else
    done in addition to the announcement?  Yes, the fee structure is there. 
    What would have been the membership response if DCU said "Just
    kidding"?  Now that this "purge" has occured, what is the percentage of
    members that still don't have a relationship with DCU?
    
�	Keith, please let us all know exactly what you consider "facts". 
�    I've truly tried but just can't seem to figure it out.  So for expediency,
�    please answer this.  
    
    Sorry, if you haven't figured out the difference between a hypothetical
    case and a true fact, I'll have to give up on this one.
    
�    How about this, "How many people, that are non-relationship members,
�    are profitable to DCU?".  
    
    Now we're getting somewhere.  When can we expect an answer?  Perhaps
    this data can be used to change the relationship criteria to something
    more palatable.
    
�"Could the current
�    relationship criteria result in any situations where a member is
�    profitable to DCU, yet not a relationship member?"
    
    Sure it could, but is it worthwhile to pursue something which may be
    very small?  Ever work with paretos?
    
�Now before I waste my time, please let me
�    know how you want me to calculate "profitable".  
    
    We actually have someone on the BoD of a major credit union that does
    not know the meaning of the word profitable?
    
�    Have you read the joint statement?  
    
    Yes, but that doesn't mean that fees aren't the main issue.  They may
    not be in your mind, but it certainly is a major issue in here.
    
�Our former president was not caught and removed by
�    the Old Board or the "system".  The NCUA closed in on him when BCCU
�    failed.  
    
    The NCUA is part of the system.  Do you believe that the bylaw
    revisions would have prevented the fraud?
    
�    Of course we all realize that the micromanagement statement is your
�    opinion and non-factual.  
    
    Yes.  It was also the opinion of Credit Union newsletter columnist. 
    Things like permitting recording devices in meetings and term limits
    looks like micromanagement to me.
    
�But the only reason that the membership cannot
�    APPROVE Bylaw changes is that the NCUA would not allow it.
    
    Surely a system could be put in place to sense the membership before
    putting in a bylaw change -- something that would provide a little more
    membership input than putting the proposed changes into a notesfile a
    couple of days before the changes were submitted to the NCUA.
    
�Fee basic services to improve the
�    profit margin?  Absolutely not.
    
    It appears that your compatriots on the current board agree with you
    since they have admitted that the fees collected are but a drop in the
    bucket.  What this boils down to is the difference in opinion of the
    definitions of carrot and stick.

>�But what we got was a "solution" in the form of
>�    "relationship banking" which subjects the entire membership to fees,
>�    unless they meet a DCU profitability profile.
>    
>    So, given that you are not against fees, per se, it is the relationship
>    criteria that you have a problem with.

Boy, I have seen Phil's statements often enough to know that he IS AGAINST
fees for most DCU services, never mind the relationship criteria.  That is
insult on top of injury!

>    What cleanup?  I thought the September membership drop was due to the
>    announcement of the new relationship structure.  Was something else

The "cleanup" served to reduce the number of inactive accounts, not eliminate
members.

>�    How about this, "How many people, that are non-relationship members,
>�    are profitable to DCU?".  
>    
>    Now we're getting somewhere.  When can we expect an answer?  Perhaps
>    this data can be used to change the relationship criteria to something
>    more palatable.
>    
>�"Could the current
>�    relationship criteria result in any situations where a member is
>�    profitable to DCU, yet not a relationship member?"
>    
>    Sure it could, but is it worthwhile to pursue something which may be
>    very small?  Ever work with paretos?
>    
>�Now before I waste my time, please let me
>�    know how you want me to calculate "profitable".  
>    
>    We actually have someone on the BoD of a major credit union that does
>    not know the meaning of the word profitable?

Now we really are getting somewhere because this is a MAJOR BONE OF CONTENTION.
DCU management have not defined what profitability is.  They are following
some arbitrary industry norms which may or may not take DCU special 
considerations like telephone network access, like free space, like Digital
supplied computing facilities into account.  We just don't know and the person
responsible for chosing those norms ain't saying!  DCU does NOT apparently
have any accounting that gives "per transaction" and "per account" costings.
It is therefore impossible for DCU to define profitability, so how can
we get data other than bottom line data to show the situation.

>�But the only reason that the membership cannot
>�    APPROVE Bylaw changes is that the NCUA would not allow it.
>    
>    Surely a system could be put in place to sense the membership before
>    putting in a bylaw change -- something that would provide a little more
>    membership input than putting the proposed changes into a notesfile a
>    couple of days before the changes were submitted to the NCUA.

Probably could IF the directors were truly committed to listening to the
membership.  Certain directors are OBVIOUSLY NOT listening to the membership,
or fees would NOT be a fact of life.

Stuart

    re: .187
    
�But the only reason that the membership cannot
�    APPROVE Bylaw changes is that the NCUA would not allow it.
    
>    Surely a system could be put in place to sense the membership before
>    putting in a bylaw change -- something that would provide a little more
>    membership input than putting the proposed changes into a notesfile a
>    couple of days before the changes were submitted to the NCUA.
    
    You don't get it.  The previous BoD did NOT want the membership to know
    what they were doing to the bylaws.  Some of the current BoD members
    wanted to make sure that nothing like that could happen again. 
    Unfortunately, the NCUA wouldn't approve the changes needed to do this.
    The NCUA has repeatedly stated that it won't approve ANYTHING that
    limits the power of any credit unions BoD, even if it means that the
    BoD is able to operate in an unethical manner.  The only way the NCUA
    will allow the membership to affect the operation of the BoD is via
    voting in the annual election.
    
    Sure the BoD could create a policy to ask the membership for our
    opinions on Bylaw changes, but there would be no way to enforce the
    policy.  They would be free to do as they pleased and no one could do
    anything about it.
    
    Bob
    
    Bob

RE: Note 718.183 by 38346::MACNEAL

>    That was only one of the things that was "fixed".  (Don't worry, I
>    won't reopen the rathole over whether or not it is appropriate for 200
>    people to potentially decide the fate of 80,000).

So if 200 members get a petition together where all members are invited
to come, that is not appropriate?  Did I miss something?

	HELLO, ANYBODY HOME?

Today we have Chuck and 5 board members making decisions that are by far
more forbearing than what the 1000+ members made a decisions on.

	- mark

   > Last time I checked, fees were here.  Their case was apparently good
   > enough.  As someone pointed out, if you want to change the status quo
   > you've got some work on your hands.  What happens if you, Phil, & Dave
   > (or at least 2 of the 3) don't get elected?
    
    
       Well ,for one, at least one more "relationship" member will be
    leaving if the instituition of fees isn't rescinded.I am sure that I will 
    not be alone.The DCU is no longer even convenient for me with the
    closing of WMO. 
    
                                              Rich
    
       

�Boy, I have seen Phil's statements often enough to know that he IS AGAINST
�fees for most DCU services, 
    
    Is he?  Phil has stated that he is not categorically against fees.
    
�The "cleanup" served to reduce the number of inactive accounts, not eliminate
�members.
    
    I guess my question wasn't clear.  What was the mechanism of the
    cleanup?  Was it something above and beyond the announcement of
    relationships and fees?
    
>It is therefore impossible for DCU to define profitability, so how can
>we get data other than bottom line data to show the situation.
    
    By asking more and better questions.  By not accepting their excuses
    for not providing that data.

�    You don't get it.  The previous BoD did NOT want the membership to know
�    what they were doing to the bylaws.  
    
    On the contrary, I do get it and it has nothing to do with the previous
    BoD.  My concerns are with the current one.
    
�    Sure the BoD could create a policy to ask the membership for our
�    opinions on Bylaw changes, but there would be no way to enforce the
�    policy.  They would be free to do as they pleased and no one could do
�    anything about it.
    
    Then why bother with the Membership Bill of Rights were heard so much
    about not too long ago?  What about the power of the people via the
    ballot box we're hearing so much about now?

>Phil has stated that he is not categorically against fees.

And why should he be *categorically* against the concept of having a fee for
something? Never say never, and all that.

-Glenn-

�So if 200 members get a petition together where all members are invited
�to come, that is not appropriate?  Did I miss something?
    
    Obviously.
    
�Today we have Chuck and 5 board members making decisions that are by far
�more forbearing than what the 1000+ members made a decisions on.
    
    That is what Chuck is hired to do and what the Board of Directors are
    elected to do.  It is called representative government.
    

    re: .193
    
    >Then why bother with the Membership Bill of Rights were heard so much
    >about not too long ago?  What about the power of the people via the
    >ballot box we're hearing so much about now?
    
    Please pay attention.  The Membership Bill Of Rights was shot down by
    NCUA because it limited the power of the BoD.  This means that
    everything that happened during the reign of the previous BoD (and
    worse) could happen again and as long as the particular BoD could keep
    it hidden from the membership, there would be nothing we could do about
    it.
    
    There is the power of the people via the ballot box.  However, to work
    properly, the people must be informed voters.  As long as the incumbent
    BoD members can control the information going to the voters, they can
    prevent an informed membership from voting them out.  Now, that said, I
    do think that the changes to the candidate statements rules are a great
    improvement, but we still have a long way to go.
    
    Bob
    

re: -1
>>Today we have Chuck and 5 board members making decisions that are by far
>>more forbearing than what the 1000+ members made a decisions on.
>    
>    That is what Chuck is hired to do and what the Board of Directors are
>    elected to do.  It is called representative government.


Which is *precisely* why this election is so important.  This is a 
real referendum on the whole issue of Relationship Banking, and fees
for basic services in particular.   There should be no doubt what
the membership wants after the dust settles on this one.

Chris

RE: Note 718.195 by 38346::MACNEAL

>�So if 200 members get a petition together where all members are invited
>�to come, that is not appropriate?  Did I miss something?
    
>    Obviously.

I am sure you will tell all of us what I have missed.  Preferably with
more than 2 sentances so that we can understand it...
    
>�Today we have Chuck and 5 board members making decisions that are by far
>�more forbearing than what the 1000+ members made a decisions on.
    
>    That is what Chuck is hired to do and what the Board of Directors are
>    elected to do.  It is called representative government.

Chuck was hired to lead DCU.  Chuck has yet to listen.  I am still
wiaitng for his meetings that he promised he would have the first and
last time he visited ZKO...

This means listening to its owners, taking their input, and supplying
information to prove their suppositions (they have failed miserably at
this).

Government?  No this is a non-profit organization.  If the elected
members and hired personal fail, the owners then take over (special
meeting) and remove them...

The key is -- DO WHAT THE OWNERS WANT...

	- mark

    
    Folks, don't waste your time with Mr. MacNeal.  We should
    be figuring out how to insure that Chris, Dave, and Phil get
    elected.
    
    Steve
    

    Steve's right.  Don't ask questions just vote the party line.  Don't
    look beyond this election either.

    
    RE: .200
    
    I think many people have concluded that there are no answers that you
    will accept.  
    
    People will either vote for more of the same, or for a different
    approach.  The party line is that people are sick and tired of being
    hassled in order to give their money to a business.
    
    Almost all the discussion in here has been geared toward the long term. 
    If you haven't gotten that by now then I guess you never will.
    

    
    Re: .201
    
    Thanks, Phil.  Your reply was essentially what mine would have
    been and lots more temperate.
    
    Steve
    

RE: Note 718.200 by 38346::MACNEAL

>Don't ask questions just vote the party line.  Don't look beyond
>this election either.

You just described 5 members of the DCU BOD...

Chucks party line.

	- mark

    So, mark, you're saying that since "they're" doing it, it's OK for "us"
    to do it?

RE: Note 718.204 by 38346::MACNEAL

So Keith, are you saying that since the old BOD messed up, you feel it is OK
for the majority of the new board to mess up also?

	- mark

�So Keith, are you saying that since the old BOD messed up, you feel it is OK
�for the majority of the new board to mess up also?
    
    No.

Speaking on the 1994 Election Process, it's starting to feel
like Deja Vu all over again....

I received email from Ron Glover on Wednesday.   He has requested
a meeting of all 6 candidates due to "requests for guidance" 
regarding usage of the notesfile and electronic resources in 
connection with the upcoming DCU elections.   Further, he wants 
to avoid issues that may violate company policy, especially 
regarding disparaging remarks made about others.  

We're all supposed to meet with Mr. Glover and one other Digital
personnel attorney on Monday afternoon.  I don't know what it all
means yet, but it's starting to feel like we're heading through
the looking glass again.

Chris

    I wonder why I, as acting moderator, was not invited. It seems to
    me that there are others who may make use of this conference besides
    candidates and that a moderator should know what the rules are so
    that they can be enforced.

    			Alfred

    
    Since there are only 3 people (only 1 guess allowed) attending the meeting
    that actively participate in here, I hope the meeting won't focus
    exclusively on our willingness to communicate our thoughts, ideas and
    opinions.
    
    I too would like to have Alfred present at the meeting.
    

    Re .-1
    
    No comment at present. Some delicate issues are being worked over the
    next couple of days.
    
    Dave

        As moderator of this conference I was able to attend this meeting
    as well. As Dave said, some issues are still being worked and more
    information about it will be forthcoming.

    			Alfred

        Ron Glover has issued a memo with guidelines for electioneering
    using the network in general, Notes in specific, and this conference
    and election in very specific. It is posted in reply 1.10. Discussion
    can take place here I guess.

    			Alfred

    Hmmm. Can't use electronic stuff for campaigning? Then how come the
    folks running weren't kicked out of the cafeteria the other day by DEC
    security. Like the electronic equipment, doesn't the cafeteria belong
    to DEC?
    
    Silly policies. This is the last note you'll see me post in here during
    so-called business hours. (Yes, I'm on break right now.) This is a real
    good way to stifle communication.
    
    -Glenn-

Expectations sound pretty reasonable to me (except the
part about using notes during work hours; software engineering
schedules don't conform well with these type of guidelines).

The only question is, what note (or notes) violated these 
expectations (at least in someone's opinion) necessitating
a meeting with Ron Glover?

Collis

    RE: .216 The meeting was sold as a means to prevent things reaching
    a point where Ron Glover or someone like him had to take action. Things
    got a little "hot" two years ago and a repeat is not a desirable
    condition. An ounce of prevention if you will.

    Your humble moderator has not had any complaints that were not easily
    resolved between complainer and note writer. One dearly hopes that
    continues. Though I stand ready to deal with notes that violate policy
    or which receive complaints.

    			Alfred

Ok, so this is one of my "10 minutes breaks" that Digital
allots me throughout the day, so I guess it's OK to use notes.
However, I risk disciplinary action in responding to this note,
but I'll take my chances.

In the meeting we had, I explicitly asked Glover if the intention
was to keep candidates for the election out of the notes conference
for the duration of the election.  He said yes.  Note that we 
weren't talking about campaigning or not, just noting in general
once somebody was blessed as a candidate.

One could argue that the "election" goes on for some 7 months
of the year - beginning with the call for nominees and ending
with the annual meeting.  

When I combine this type of muzzling with the visit I had last
week with Mill security, one begins to wonder about things.

Chris

    
.218> In the meeting we had, I explicitly asked Glover if the intention
.218> was to keep candidates for the election out of the notes conference
.218> for the duration of the election.  He said yes.  Note that we 
.218> weren't talking about campaigning or not, just noting in general
.218> once somebody was blessed as a candidate.
    
    Chris, If Ron meant that candidates were to stay out of this conference,
    he should not have said:
    
       "...For the purpose of this election candidates may express 
       their views/state their opinion about DCU business matters 
       consistent with standards for disclosure established by the DCU 
       board (i.e. DCU policies, DCU board minutes, decisions, board memos 
       or other information published by DCU) within the DCU notes 
       conference..."
    
    I have no idea of the tone or content of the meeting, but I read the
    memo as a reminder of standard policy:
    
    o  You can say "I, candidate for DCU BOD, believe in such-and-such."
       You can't say "I, candidate for DCU BOD, velieve in such-and-such;
       vote for me!" We've lived scrupulously according to those rules for
       the last two elections.
    
    o  No one can call you a witch hunter -- this is progress!
    

    If anybody thinks the policy clarification that Ron Glover actually put
    out is bad you should have seen the one that was circulated for review
    on Monday. It had the following phrase in it:
    
    "For the purpose of this election any activity that increases DCU
    member's knowledge about a candidate or his/her position, (or which
    can reasonably be understood to have the purpose or intent of improving
    the liklihood of that candidates' election) will be considered
    solicitation."
    
    I am very glad to say that whole sentence is not in the final version
    Ron Glover issued. That sentence would have effectively banned DCU
    board candidates from participating in any discussion whatsoever.
    
    I must say I am somewhat heartened by the fact that Ron Glover took our
    input into account. I have read the final statement issued by Ron
    Glover and I personally feel that I can live within it. Even though I
    think it is somewhat restrictive I don't consider it draconian or
    totally unreasonable. Now the original, that was completely different.
    
    Another thing I found heartening is that several times Ron Glover
    emphasized his support for employee interest notesfiles clearly stating
    that they were a mechanism to share information and ideas. I think
    it was the obvious contradiction between this the phrase I excerped
    above from the draft policy that finally caused that phrase to be
    vapourized.
    
    Dave

    
    Let's be clear here.  Ron Glover is the ONLY person that can INTERPRET
    this policy.  Everybody can state what they THINK it says or THINK it
    means.  But HE is the final judge and jury on the matter.  There is NO
    system or process in place to defend oneself once you have been
    determined to be guilty of violating policy.  Funny how that policy
    just never got around to being defined.
    

�    Hmmm. Can't use electronic stuff for campaigning? Then how come the
�    folks running weren't kicked out of the cafeteria the other day by DEC
�    security. 
    
    It's not electronic, it didn't require additional company resources,
    and it was done on personal time?

>    But HE is the final judge and jury on the matter.  There is NO
>    system or process in place to defend oneself once you have been
>    determined to be guilty of violating policy.  

    Oh, really?  Is the Open Door Policy in Digital gone?  I hadn't heard. ;-)

>>    But HE is the final judge and jury on the matter.  There is NO
>>    system or process in place to defend oneself once you have been
>>    determined to be guilty of violating policy.  
>
>    Oh, really?  Is the Open Door Policy in Digital gone?  I hadn't heard. ;-)

	FWIW This is Phil's view of things not mine. I do not beleive that
	it is Ron Glover's view either. At our meeting Ron repeatedly referred
	to the open door policy and the right of employees to go to who they
	felt was the right person to deal with problems. I know of people who
	have been charged with violating policy. Some have won and some have
	lost. But a process to deal with such charges does exist. 

	Now the Corporate Personnel Policies manager does report to Ron Glover
	(Ron used to hold that post) so that does give Ron a bit of power but
	we all have some ability and responsibility to interpret policy.

	And there is a process to defend oneself if charged with violating
	policy. It's just that it's not written down or cast in stone. It
	depends on the situation and the open door policy is an important
	part of it. Now some people are not satisfied with a process that's
	not written down and clearly defined but that's the way a lot of things
	are at Digital. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad. But that
	doesn't mean that processes don't exist.

			Alfred

re:  .224

Yes, Glover mentioned the open door policy several times.  However,
when we asked him for the policy regarding policy enforecement, we were
told there wasn't one.  Further, when we pressed for details about
resolving alleged policy violations (ie rights to face accusers, process
for determining "guilt" or "innocence", etc.) Ron freely stated that
this stuff wasn't codified in any way, and that he was the administrator
of such things.  He further talked about handling each separate case
in an individual fashion.

My interpretation of what was said left me believing that he could
basically do what he wanted, take whatever action he felt appropriate,
and that once he was done, that was it...no appeal, no recourse, have
a nice day.

That was my impression.

Chris

>My interpretation of what was said left me believing that he could
>basically do what he wanted, take whatever action he felt appropriate,
>and that once he was done, that was it...no appeal, no recourse, have
>a nice day.

	My impression was that Ron Glover is very high in the list but that
	even he has a boss. Yeah, probably his boss would back him up but
	there is an appeal. There is an end to every appeal process. That's
	reality but I don't think that Ron Glover is that end.

			Alfred

    
    And, Ron seems to be an eminently reasonable fellow.
    

    Don't forget what Ron Glover's role is in this, he represents THE
    COMPANY!  If there's a complaint, he has to do what's best for Digital.
    I am pleased that he called this meeting to spell things out from the
    Company's viewpoint.
    
    Mark

    
    Re: policy, enforcement, et al.
    
    First, for sure, Ron Glover has a boss but it is VERY unlikely
    that on matters concerning whether the notes policy with regard
    to the DCU election was violated that Ron's boss would overrule
    a decision Ron had made.  So for all practical purposes, I would
    align with Phil's view of this.  Ron is the end of the line.
    
    Second, I don't know Ron from Adam, but how he comes across in
    the memo is completely reasonable.  Leaving the DCU aside, the
    policy as stated makes total sense from Digital's perspective.
    None of it surprises me at all.  
    
    Finally, I really don't see a problem here at all.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    
    >For the purpose of this election candidates may express 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    I am concerned with this clause.  I'm not sure if THIS election is
    being special cased or if this item has an expiration date.
    

    Pray tell:
    
    When is the election ?  How do I get a ballot ?  How are ballots
    exectued ?  Who controls/monitors the process ?  When/How are the
    results made public ?
    
    L.

    
    RE: .231
>    When is the election ?  How do I get a ballot ?  How are ballots
>    exectued ?  Who controls/monitors the process ?  When/How are the
>    results made public ?

    Most of the chronology is in note .0 of this topic. For your
    convenience I have included some of it here.

3/17/94		Ballots mailed
4/22/94		Ballots returned and verified
4/28/95		Annual meeting - results of election announced

    Ballots are mailed to all eligible members (members who are of age
    16 or 18 I forget). This should happen this week. You should get yours
    early next week. If not, give it a couple of days and then call DCU.

    The ballots are returned (by mail) to an independent agency (whose
    name I don't have off the top of my head) who certify and count the
    ballots. Make sure you vote for NO MORE THEN 3 CANDIDATES or you'll
    invalidate your ballot. One votes by putting an X next to names
    of people on the ballot that you will be sent. The ballot will come
    with an addressed business return envelope.

    The results will be announced at the annual meeting which will be held 
    April 28th and the Maynard Rod & Gun Club.

    			Alfred

    
>    >For the purpose of this election candidates may express 
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    
>    I am concerned with this clause.  I'm not sure if THIS election is
>    being special cased or if this item has an expiration date.

    Can we assume you are following up with Ron Glover or John Murphy
    on this question. I assumed that that phrase was intended to refer
    to a generic DCU election. As opposed to some other election (mayor,
    congress, etc).

    			Alfred

    
    And don't forget to SIGN THOSE BALLOTS!  Otherwise, it doesn't count.
    

    
>    >For the purpose of this election candidates may express 
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    
>    I am concerned with this clause.  I'm not sure if THIS election is
>    being special cased or if this item has an expiration date.

    OK, your humble moderator talked to John Murphy, who works with Ron
    Glover, about this phrase. My current understanding is that this whole
    memo is largely a stop gap measure to handle what is hoped to be a 
    temporary situation. Ideally, from Digital's point of view, the DCU
    through their board would set up some guidelines about what is and
    is not proper for electioneering. The hope is that some additional
    work, for which there isn't time between now and ballots being mailed
    and which would probably be better done outside the heat of an ongoing
    election, will be done for the future.

    Now obviously DCU can not set policy for Digital employees and networks
    but they do have some ability to set policy and guidelines for
    candidates for DCU elections. Ron Glover, John Murphy and I all seem
    to agree that as part of this, DCU should make some effort to make
    it easier for candidates to get their messages out without using
    Digital resources. If nothing else that would level the field a bit
    for candidates who are not employees of Digital. It would also make
    more information to voters who are not employees.

    So my understanding is that the guidelines in the memo (posted in 1.10)
    are intended for this election but will stand until DCU sets some
    guidelines itself. It's probably up to the DCU board to take any next
    step.

    			Alfred

    Those who compliment Ron Glover on the "reasonableness" of his memo
    should keep a couple of things in mind:
    
    1)  Read .220 for what he thinks/thought was a reasonable definition of
    solicitation.
    
    2)  Note that his revised memo DOES NOT retract that definition -- it
    does not offer any definition of what constitutes solicitation.  This
    means that it is up to Ron to define it on a case-by-case basis.
    
    3)  Note that this issue isn't new -- two years ago many of us tried
    very hard to get Ron to say what solicitation is and he wouldn't.
    
    4)  Ron is trained as a lawyer so it isn't surprizing that his written
    words are (in my experience) always very carefully composed.  To judge
    his responses accurately, look for the questions that he avoids answering.
    Better yet, talk to folks who have had face-to-face meetings with him.
 
    
    I speak from several experiences of asking Ron Glover questions.  In
    all cases, the only result that I got was a nicely phrased reply that
    dismissed my least important question and ignored the rest.  Perhaps 
    this is defined as doing his job well.  Truth to tell, that was more
    than I got asking questions of people at higher levels.  
    
    		Sincerely,
    		Larry Seiler