Conference 7.286::dcu

    In other words, DCU management can and maybe reading this conference?
    Is that right? I think that's good. It's useful to get an unfiltered
    view of what the people who are talking to a lot of members, and
    perhaps influencing perceptions, are saying. I wish more Digital
    senior managers read notes.

    As a general rule, people should not write things in notes that they
    do not want the subject of the note to read. Even if the subject of
    the note is not a Digital employee. Lot's of people who are not Digital
    employees have friends who are. Time and again people who are employees
    have shown notes to people who are not employees. This is *not* 
    necessarily a violation of company policy.


    			Alfred

    
    Re: .1
    
    I agree.  The more of them who read this conference the better 
    informed they'll be.  I just hope reading it also means that
    they are LISTENING.
    
    Steve
    

    Thanks for letting us know, Phil.  I stand by everything I've ever said
    in this conference and hope that DCU management is reading every word
    of it.  However, since they previously had access and chose not to
    participate nor acknowledge their presence, I have zero hope that
    anything will change as a result of this access.
    
    Bob

    
    Well, it seems that they be more interested in what *I* have to say
    than what the rest of you have to say.  Don't you know there's all kinds
    of "misinformation" and "confidential information" in here?  We've
    nearly come full circle in 2 short years...
    
    

    
>Don't you know there's all kinds
>    of "misinformation" and "confidential information" in here?  
    
    If there is misinformation, I hope they'll correct it. If there is
    confidential information here they can contact the moderator (currently
    me) and it can be handled. That's why conferences have moderators.
    
    		Alfred

    
    When this vote was taken I asked what "misinformation" and
    "confidential information" was in here.  The exact instances WERE NOT
    AVAILABLE AND GIVEN.  So what we had was a "telephone vote" on an issue
    in which nothing was offered except the motion.  I don't know who
    motioned, who seconded, ANY of the facts.  I called back and asked that
    this issue be the subject of a Board conference call.  At least then
    all of this would be on the table.  I was never contacted for such a
    conference call.  Yet the vote continued and as far as I know, the vote
    was 5-1 (Paul is out of town).  Is this the way we should be doing things?  
    
    To the best of my knowledge there is no "misinformation" in
    here.  Somebody asked for membership numbers and I posted membership
    numbers.  It seems that some have interpreted my postings of membership
    numbers and the changes since last year as "misinformation".  They are
    EXACT NUMBERS.  Some think that not posting detailed information on
    the decline in the membership (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT PRESENTED UNTIL
    OUR JANUARY MEETING) should have been done.  I'm sure I'd be hearing
    screams of "confidentially" now if I had done that.  When the person
    mentioned the possibility of posting that here, I told him I would if
    it was approved.
    
    There is CERTAINLY no confidential information in here.  What IS
    in here is discussion and opinions that many on the Board find
    uncomfortable and controversial.  Some think that this was all put
    behind us last September.  Some have trouble accepting the fact that
    I have views that differ from them, and a majority of the Board, and
    that the expression of those views presents a lack of "Board unity". 
    I also think that some have trouble accepting that I have chosen to
    unite with two candidates (non-incumbents) that are running for the
    Board.  I apologize for none of this.  I knew that what I was about to
    embark on was extremely non-traditional and would undoubtably cause
    some waves at DCU and on the Board.  Those waves can't be my primary
    concern.  My primary concern is offering the DCU membership a very
    clear and unambiguous choice in the upcoming election.  Obviously, that
    direction is contrary to the current direction and will thus cause much
    concern, especially with architects and supporters of the current
    direction.
    

    Will they (DCU management) each have a nodename::username or will they
    share a common account? How will we know them if they enter a note in
    here?

    
    RE: .7
    
    As far as I know, they have been granted READ-ONLY access by Digital.
    

    
>    As far as I know, they have been granted READ-ONLY access by Digital.

Why just READ-ONLY?  What security or bussiness reasons would anyone have for
that restriction?  Wouldn't WRITE access promote a little more understanding
between the troups?

Al

Setting aside the issue of access to this notes conference for
a moment, I see something of greater concern.  Exactly how is it
that the Board have a "telephone vote" to consider a matter where
the issue is not open to discussion, and where the originator
of the motion (and the presumed second?) are not clearly identified?

I understand that, from time to time, the Board may wish to hold
an urgent meeting via telephone conference call to consider a matter
of grave importance.  However, how is it that the Board can 
implement/modify policy outside the bounds of a properly called
meeting?

This kind of "backroom" stuff sounds vaguely reminiscent of 
the Bad Olde Days in which the Board just rubberstamped
business.

I had hoped this had all been cleared up with 4 "Real Choices"
people voted to the Board.  It would appear that what
we really got was only 2.

Chris

    MacNeal, where are you when we need you?  It would be very useful for
    someone whom management believes is on their side to renew the call
    for facts.  A claim of misinformation and confidential information
    in the notes file is an extremely serious charge, and should not be
    made without specific evidence.  So what are the facts?  Surely it
    behooves those who made the allegation to justify it?  MacNeal,
    will you join your voice to those requesting an explanation?
    
    		Larry

    
    I have found out that THIS TOPIC is one of the "confidential" issues! 
    So I was supposed to sit on my hands for two months while DCU
    management had access to this conference while the participants in this
    conference would have not been informed.  INCREDIBLE.  This whole thing
    STINKS!  (absence of wishy-washy statement intentional).
    

    re: .12
    
    It was supposed to be confidential that Digital network security rules were
    probably being broken?  You can bet that if I had let non-Digital
    employees (as defined by the network security policies) have access to
    our network, I'd be out the door w/out any TFSO package.
    
    Bob

>    I have found out that THIS TOPIC is one of the "confidential" issues! 

This is pathetic.  Well DCU if you are listening I'll just add my voice to
the numerous others saying the same thing: we want a credit union, not a bank.
I represent approximately $300.00 of net profit to the credit union.  Unlike
many others who have had enough, I'm waiting for the results of this year's
BOD elections.  If a CU can be re-established I may stay.  If not, my business
will be gladly accepted at a number of other institutions.

I didn't like Chuck Cockburn and his approach when he was hired and my
opinion of him now is even less.  A CU-oriented board and a new president
are sorely needed for DCU - at least for me to continue to contribute my
part of the record profits.

Ray

    
    Digital granted DCU management READ-ONLY access last year (around
    mid-year).  The request for this access and the granting of the access
    was NEVER DISCLOSED TO THE FULL BOARD.  Only after I directly asked how
    DCU was receiving certain information, was this access disclosed.  It
    was then that it was brought in front of the full Board and a vote
    taken to remove this access.  That vote has now been reversed.  But the
    Digital approval for access was in effect since last summer.
    
    I'd like to request of Chairperson Lisa Demauro-Ross to explain why
    this was never initially approved and disclosed to the full Board.
    

    Gee, Spy-vs-Spy!  I haven't seen that in years!  And now it turns up in
    the notesfile.  Incredible!
    
    Mark

    re: .15
    
    re: my .13
    
    O.K. I understand things now.  I withdraw my remark concerning security
    issues, and apologize for not understanding things.
    
    Now, my question is, why would DCU management NOT want the BoD and the
    noters to know they were reading?
    
    I have been trying to avoid calling for the wholesale reorganization of
    DCU management, but when things like this keep showing up, it gets
    harder and harder not to.
    
    Bob

    
    Re:
    
    
>ASE003::GRANSEWICZ "Candidate for DCU Director"      12 lines  14-FEB-1994 10:28
>                            -< REquest explanation >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    
>    Digital granted DCU management READ-ONLY access last year (around
>    mid-year).  The request for this access and the granting of the access
>    was NEVER DISCLOSED TO THE FULL BOARD.
    
    It is also noteworthy to point out that the moderator of this
    conference was also not informed that access was being granted to non
    Digital employees. I know, I was the moderator at the time. It's
    interesting that at some times Digital says that moderators are meant
    to have contreol of their conferences but at other times it doesn't
    even bother to ask (or inform) a moderator that a notesfile he
    moderates is being opened up to non Digital employees.
    
    Dave

Seems like the more things change, the more they stay the same....

DCU gets read access to a notes conference, and then doesn't advise
its Board of same.  Then, the Board gets wise to it, and rather
than simply acknowledging read-access to the conference, they seek
to cover it up?  Ok, I'll ask the obvious question:  Why seek to
cover it up?  What's so insidiously bad about getting to read
a notes conference that you can't tell your own board, much less
your membership, about it?

Does the current Board still hold to the convictions of its
predecessors and think that this conference is still a haven
for witchhunters seeking to seize control of Massachusetts largest
credit union?  

Why the big urge to keep access to this conference confidential?
Even better, if the board really does believe that misinformation
is being spread in this conference, why doesn't the Board respond
in the conference and address the issues?

Inquiring minds want to know, Lisa.   Please explain.

Chris

    RE:.14
    
  >I didn't like Chuck Cockburn and his approach when he was hired and my
  >opinion of him now is even less.  A CU-oriented board and a new president
  >are sorely needed for DCU 
    
    	My feelings exactly.
           
        Joe
    

    I have been asked if I could send regular updates of activity here
    to Paul Kinzelman, DCU Board member who is not a Digital employee.
    Given that the DCU management, who in theory report to the board,
    has official permission to read this conference this seems like a
    reasonable request. I don't know of a policy that prevents this
    from happening as long as no company confidential information is
    posted.

    As long as no compelling reason is given why this should not take
    place I intend to start this process tonight. I have told Paul that
    I would be happy to post such replies as he feels appropriate to send
    me for posting. I would also like to remind people that Paul's Email
    address is posted in note 5.1 along with the addresses for the whole
    DCU Board of Directors.

    			Alfred

    Re .-1
    
    I'm in favour of this. If Digital is happy with DCU management reading
    this file then I can't possibly see them having a problem with letting
    the whole board of directors read this file.
    
    Dave

    RE: .22 in RE: .21 I have a pretty official "no" to forwarding
    extracts to Paul. I'm not in a position to take a career limiting
    move by "back dooring" the process. 
    
    This is not the place to discuss it and I am following up off line to 
    see if this can be done. Comments offline (mail or phone) please.

    			Alfred

    re: .23
    
    That figures.  Let DCU have access but not a BoD member.
    
    Bob

    It seems to me that there are a couple of technicalities involved
    here ...
    
    The first is that it must be confirmed officially that under the
    umbrella of giving DCU access is the implicit right to give a non-
    Digital employee on the BoD the right to get this info.  The same
    argument could be put forward for any DCU member, that they should
    have some kind of access to this file.  This really should be
    clarified.
    
    The other concern must be the mechanism for access ... If Paul, for
    example, is to be given read access, then he should have access to
    ALL the notes available and then is it right that it should be from
    the hands of another Director ?  (ie potentially filtered!  Sorry Phil,
    I don't mean to suggest that *you* will, but at the same time, if this
    precedent is going to be set, then there must exist an official
    channel.  Implicit in this is Paul's ability to respond ...  A note
    passed on 3rd party has been posted already.  This is another problem
    that must be ironed out ... essentially this gives paul full
    read/write acess ... is that Digital acceptable ?
    
    Alfred is right, this puts his neck out as a moderator ... If I were in
    his shoes, I'd want clarification too!
    
    Stuart

    
    I think it is safe to say there are MANY issues to be clarified and
    ironed out here.  Alfred is doing a great job trying to get it all
    straightened out.  
    

    re .25:  "If Paul, for example, is to be given read access, then he 
    should have access to ALL the notes available [not] potentially filtered!"
    
    Not a problem.  An automated process can be set up that mails someone
    all the new entries to a notes file at any desired interval.  It can be
    set up by the moderator, given organizational permission to do so.
    
    Regarding write access... Paul doesn't have write access.  If someone
    else posts a message from Paul, responsibility lies with the poster.
    This is the case whenever someone chooses to post *anything* to a
    notes file.  In fact, as I well know, even if multiple DEC employees
    sign the note, it is the poster who takes the biggest lightening bolts.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

    
>    Not a problem.  An automated process can be set up that mails someone
>    all the new entries to a notes file at any desired interval.  It can be
>    set up by the moderator, given organizational permission to do so.
    
    Quite right. In fac the process is set up and tested in case I do
    get permission.
    
    		Alfred

    It occurred to me that this subject (DCU Management access to this
    conference) deserves an update. So here it is. :-)

    The Digital DCU liaison committee is taking the issue of DCU read
    access to this conference through the formal approval process. In
    other words, all the Ts are being crossed and Is are being dotted.
    In the mean time, DCU management *does* have read only access to
    this conference and they *are* reading it. 

    As conference moderator I have and will continue to enter notes and/or
    information on behalf of DCU management. It is my place to make sure
    that Notes here follow Digital policy and guidelines. Other then that
    I'm not about to exercise editorial control over what I enter on their
    behalf. If/when I disagree or want to indicate personal agreement I
    will make every effort to make my opinions and DCU management opinions
    clear and separate. If I mess up on that, anyone, feel free to let me
    know. Mail or a phone call work fastest and most efficiently BTW.

    While I'm at it, Notes practice and Digital policy do allow a
    moderator to enter notes anonymously on behalf of other Noters. One
    stipulation is that the moderator must know who the original author
    is. Even entered that way, the original author bears ultimate 
    responsibility for their notes.

    			Alfred - with moderator hat firmly in place