Conference 7.286::dcu

>Mr. Cockburn informed the Board that the Credit Union received 
>authority from the Liaisons to read only the DCU VAXNOTES file.  A 
>discussion followed regarding the fact that there is no indicator on 
>this file to inform DEC employees that non-DEC personnel can read the 
>file.  It was then suggested that DCU not read the VAXNOTES file until 
>the Board has reached a decision regarding this situation.
>
>*  It was moved by Mr. Gransewicz and seconded by Mr> Milbury that DCU 
>not read the VAXNOTES file.  (Five in favor:  Ms. Mann, Mr. Milbury, 
>Mr. Gransewicz, Mr. Kinzelman and Ms. Ross; two opposed:  Mr. McEachin 
>and Ms. Dawkins)  MOTION CARRIED.


	It has been known for some time that Board members could read this
	conference. And of course there is nothing, not even in Digital policy,
	that would prevent them from showing extracts to DCU management.
	I guess I don't quite understand the problem? is there a concern
	about Digital employees spilling the beans about internal Digital
	business? Or is it something else?

	The moderator can very easily change the conference message to
	indicate that DCU is reading. 

			Alfred

    To be honest I don't mind whether DCU employees read the notesfile or
    not. But it sure would have been nice if the Digital Liason had at
    least had the politeness to inform me as the DCU notesfile moderator.
    
    I was under the impression that Digital policy made the moderator
    somehow responsible for the notesfile. Surely opening up a notesfile to
    an outside business entity is an event worthy of requiring that the
    moderator be informed. I guess not.
    
    Dave

>> Ms. Ross recently attended a conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  
>> While there, she had lunch with the DCU branch staff.  Ms. Dawkins was 
>> recently in Colorado on business, and had breakfast with the DCU 
>> branch staff in Colorado Springs. 

This sounds like a good thing.  Could we have a statement as to the purpose of
these meetings?  Otherwise, we might think the board members and employees were
just enjoying a free meal at DCU members' expense.

I realize that the DCU employees are a captive audience, but gee, in a perfect
world, if we were members of a credit union, wouldn't it be nice if the board
members would have a meal with the local members when visiting remote sites? 
I'd even take up a collection from the local employees, so the whole DCU
membership wouldn't have to pay!

Elaine

>d.  Savings Flows
>
>...
>
>Mr. Cockburn provided research that shows DCU has 35% of its members 
>categorized as up-scale, compared to the normal population of 10%.  
>The research shows that up-scale members are twice as likely to move 
>funds from financial institutions into alternative investments such as 
>mutual funds, stocks and bonds.  Based on this research, management 
>concluded that DCU's negative savings growth is due to the high 
>percentage of up-scale members.

I believe management's conclusion is incomplete. So far they know that
DCU has a higher-than-average percentage of up-scale members and that
up-scale members are more likely to move funds out of financial
institutions. The unanswered question is "Why? Why are all of DCU's
(presumably up-scale) members moving funds out of DCU savings?" There
can be a lot of reasons, only one of which has to do with the new fees.
Isn't management curious to find out? Or aren't they worried about it?

-Jeff

1. The minutes are inconsistent. Sometimes they explicitly state that
Ms. Ross is calling meeting into either Executive or General session,
sometimes not. Why the difference? If it turns out that those
unannounced transitions really reflect how the meeting progressed
(i.e., you just sorta wandered into a topic which later you decide is
"executive session" material), then I'd like to suggest that the board
be more careful and try to avoid this. This is not so much for the sake
of the members who read the minutes, but for the board itself.

2. The minutes reflect Ms. Ross leaving the meeting, but not returning:

>b.  By-law Resolution #1
>
>...
>
>Ms. Ross left the meeting at this time.
>
>EXECUTIVE SESSION
>
>XXX
>
>GENERAL SESSION
>
>VII.  RECOMMENDATIONS  (cont'd)
>
>d.  Charge Offs
>
>At 4:20 p.m., Ms. Ross called the meeting into EXECUTIVE SESSION.

Could it be that she returned during the first executive session?
Surely her return is not privileged information worthy of redaction?

    re: .4
    
    They presented it this way because that's what Chuck wanted it to say.
    Anyone acquainted with statistics knows that you can make statistics
    prove any point that you want them to. Chuck wanted to show that the
    reason that accounts were leaving/dwindling is that the membership
    is leaving because they're upscale and for no other reason.

�Otherwise, we might think the board members and employees were
�just enjoying a free meal at DCU members' expense.
    
    Who says DCU members paid for Ms. Ross' and the DCU Employees' meals
    during these meetings?

�The unanswered question is "Why? Why are all of DCU's
�(presumably up-scale) members moving funds out of DCU savings?" There
�can be a lot of reasons, only one of which has to do with the new fees.
    
    It should be easy enough to find out.  I picked up a card to close my
    U-Name-It account since I don't like the new restrictions on club
    accounts.  There is a space on the card to fill in the reason for
    closing the account.

    Speaking of 'up-scale members'....
    
    Did these so called 'up-scale members' magically become up-scale over
    night.  I would have assumed many of 'them' would have been up-scale
    last month, and the month before, and before that.  So, why did our
    up-scale members decide to withdraw savings (weren't the fees suppose
    to drive out the 'LOW-scale members'...?)?
    
    Of course, I realize I will never get an answer to this question...
    
    Mark

    	Yep, overnight wonders!  That's the ticket.  We just didn't
    know we were upscale until the pronouncement here.  Now that we
    know, we've just got to start behaving that way.
    
    	I don't doubt that the membership has a disproportionate 
    number of "upscale" members, but when things change more than
    one expects, it's NOT due to a static condition - there's a
    real reason for sudden change...
    
    Dave Eklund
    

re: .7

I didn't say DCU paid for the meals.  I'm just saying that if we don't know,
we may speculate.

    
>I didn't say DCU paid for the meals.  I'm just saying that if we don't know,
>we may speculate.
    
    One can always speculate. Heck, we've got Noters here who will
    speculate a lie if a denial is made. :-)
    
    			Alfred

    on the notesfile thing, how about a separate notesfile that DCU
    employees could use for 'customer service' things like Q&A, problem
    solving...?  
    
    Mark

>    on the notesfile thing, how about a separate notesfile that DCU
>    employees could use for 'customer service' things like Q&A, problem
>    solving...?  
    
 

    They aren't Diggie-employees!  These notesfiles are for the exclusive
    use of Digital or it's contractors, aren't they???

    
    FWIW:  The deal to get the 9.9 on a GOLD DCU card ended on DEC 15, 1993 
    	according to a DCU rep I talked to today...
    
    John