Conference 7.286::dcu

ARRGGGGHHHH!  I had a lengthy reply ready at home last night and it got dumped
into the bit bucket:-(

I'll try and summarize a bit from memory...


Why does it take a minimum of 6 weeks to publish Board Minutes?  Minutes from
month X are usually approved during the meeting in month X+1.  It seems to me
that the minutes should be in machine readable form before meeting X+1 and that
any corrections should be rather easy to make.  14 days for corrections is way
too long.  I don't see why they couldn't be available for posting in the DCU
conference 2 days after they are approved.

I SALUTE the Board and DCU for the change that makes the AUDITED financial
annual report available BEFORE the annual meeting.  This goes a long way towards
preventing a repeat of the situation where negative information was kept from
the membership, which eventually resulted in the criminal conviction of the
DCU President.

I think it's good that certain sections of the Bylaws can't be changed by
midnight Board Meetings such as was done after the last Special Meeting.
I have to reserve judgement until I have time to read those sections affected
and see if anything is missing.

Bob

    
    Bob, there have been delays recently in the posting of the minutes for
    several reasons.  One is that I have been out of town for stretches of
    one week a couple of times.  Also, the writeup of the minutes is not
    done within 2 days of approval.  They try to do them with a week but
    that can't always take priority.  The person who had been doing them
    got married and things got a bit backed up.  But she is back and
    things should be a bit quicker now.  So enough excuses...  Nov. minutes
    are on the way to me now.
    

Phil,

I guess what I don't understand is why the policy says it's O.K. to take 14 days
to get approved minutes available.  When the meeting takes place, someone takes
minutes.  These minutes have to be made available to the Board for approval at
the next monthly meeting.  I assume this appears in your Board package that
you receive prior to the next meeting.  It would make sense that the minutes
are already in a word processor somewhere, at this point in time.  From reading
the past Board minutes, there seem to be very few changes made when they come
up for approval.  At the worst, someone would have to go back and make the
changes, and give someone (usually you, Phil) a floppy with the corrected
minutes for posting in the conference.  Ideally, they could be transmitted
electronically to you, but I don't know whether a DCU employee produces the
minutes, and thus currently doesn't have a connection to the net, or if it is
a Digital person.  It just doesn't seem that time-consuming.  Am I missing
something here?

Bob

    Well, I see that a form of term limit was finally pushed through. 
    Looks like a compromise between those who want to let the system work
    and those afraid the system won't work.

6.0> 6.   Member Access to Non Confidential Credit Union Records
6.0>
6.0>     All records of the Credit Union, except for those which are 
6.0>     confidential, will be available to members for inspection or copying 
6.0>     during normal Credit Union business hours.  HOWEVER, DOCUMENTS OR 
6.0>     INFORMATION SOUGHT FOR A VEXATIOUS PURPOSE SHALL NOT BE MADE 
6.0>     AVAILABLE.
    
    Now there's a loophole you could drive a Peterbilt through...
    
    Who's charged with determining the vexation index of a particular
    request?
    

    
    RE: .4
    
    Bob, usually the person doing them (DCU employee) tries to get them
    done within a week.  But she also has many other things in the air at
    the same time and sometimes she can't get to them.  But like I said,
    there have been (and will probably continue to be) other things getting
    in the way of super quick postings.  But I'll try my best to get them
    out ASAP.  I believe November's are ready but my runner is working at
    home today, as am I, due to adverse weather conditions.
    
    RE: .5
    
>    Looks like a compromise between those who want to let the system work
>    and those afraid the system won't work.
    
    Usually those who want to let the system work are those in power (ie.
    with the advantage) and those that are afraid that the system won't
    work are those out of power (ie. those that see the "system" as self
    serving).  No point, just one of MY observations... 
    

    
    RE: .6
    
>    Now there's a loophole you could drive a Peterbilt through...
    
    I have to agree.  But there were arguments made for keeping it in and a
    majority agreed with them.  
    
>    Who's charged with determining the vexation index of a particular
>    request?
    
    Exactly the crux of the problem.  Either the vexated party, an
    employee of same or other interested parties would make the
    determination.  I guess it would then be up to the person (vexinator
    ;-) to make their case to the membership via special meeting petition
    or other legal means.  There is a fine line to be walked here of
    course.  
    

Regarding the first resolution, to allow members to communicate
with other members via statement stuffers:

I always considered the idea of allowing member(s) equal access
to all other members via a written statement like this to be
a "defense mechanism" put in place in case of another situation
like we had a couple years ago.   As it's written right now,
I see all manner of "safeguards" set up to insure that the
member cannot really say anything controversial or outside 
the scope of what the board wants.

The way it is written, had we tried to use this a couple years
ago to advocate the "board recall perspective" prior to the
special meeting, I'm sure it would have been denied on all
sorts of different grounds.

I understand the part about paying to do this.  And I'm
even somewhat sympathetic to the idea of obtaining 500
signatures supporting a particular viewpoint.   What I'm
unsure about is having a committee meet with the board,
and all that.  

If a member has a position, 500 other members support 
it, and she has the money to pay for it, then why not
just put it out under a banner saying "Not Official
Credit Union Opinion"? and be done with it?

Chris

    
    RE: .10
    
    This is one of the items that the NCUA would not approve as a new Bylaw.
    This was as good as we could get under the circumstances.  But we have
    not given up trying to get them approved.  Personally I don't see why
    the NCUA is concerned with it.  It does not threaten the safety and
    soundness of DCU.
    
    Blazing new trails (against old bureaucracies) is never easy, or
    enjoyable.  But my experience tells me we must continue to push for
    them because only persistence will make it happen.