Conference 7.286::dcu

Certainly not a sign of a healthy disagreement and different ideas.

Mark

    
    RE: .1
    
    Mark, what are you referring to?
    

    
    I asked that the following be added to these minutes to accurately
    reflect the course of events.  These changes were not allowed.
    
	Mr. Gransewicz inquired as to the nature of this "misinformation"
	and "confidential information".  No information was provided.
	Mr. Gransewicz requested a conference call of the full Board at
	which time this "misinformation" and "confidential information" would
	be presented and discussed.  Subsequently, no full conference call
	by the Board was called by Chairperson Lisa Demauro-Ross as requested.
    
    
    
    I have further communications with the Board on this "telephone vote"
    but it cannot be posted due to its brutally frank opinions.  It sure
    was nice of Lisa to not send me the "misinformation" and "confidential
    information" or provide it when this "telephone vote" was held.  I got
    it by accident.  
    
    It was also attempted to water down this motion (after the fact) with
    "possibly" and "potentially" and I requested that the minutes
    accurately reflect the "opinion" of Ms. Ross and had these changes
    removed.  The current "Management Memo" (aka Board Memo) also continues
    to reword this to out of context and incomplete.  One might get the
    impression of back pedaling and a fear of having to back this stuff up
    in more formal environment.
    

The minutes refer to Phil's posting misinformation and confidential
information.  I don't get it.  What data in here that Phil has supplied
could possibly be construed as confidential?   

Also, note the reason why DCU Management wanted access...to review
notes postings given Mr. Gransewicz's alleged posting of misinformation
and confidential information.   I question whether this is a good motive
for wanting access to an employee notes conference.  Based on the minutes
posted, it would seem their only intent would be to review Phil's writing
for some purpose.  

It was my understanding that the reason DCU Management wanted access
to an employee notes conference was to respond to concerns raised by
noters.   It would seem that this understanding is incorrect.

Chris

    Phil,
    
    I was referring to another person's note (in another topic) that we
    could build a stronger board by having healthy disagreements and
    constructive criticism.  I'm afraid that these meeting minutes show
    that the board is severely divided and cannot work together.  Too bad.
    
    In my view, both sides are at fault on this one.  In her
    recommendation, Lisa accuses you of misinformation.  For your part, you
    voted to bar the credit union management from accessing this
    conference.  I don't care what you or Lisa's rationalizations for these
    actions is/are, the end result is disappointing.  I thought that the
    board of directors would work together, even if not in total unity.
    
    Mark

    
    RE: .5
    
    Mark, there are areas where the current Board agree on things. 
    However there are some very fundamental differences between some on the
    Board and with DCU management on attitude and approach.  Whenever Paul
    or myself have tried to affect that attitude and approach, more often
    that not our input has been disregarded since we are a minority on the
    Board and frequently take views contrary (or at least different) to DCU
    management recommendations.
    
    You state I voted to bar DCU management from accessing this conference. 
    That is correct however I do favor their access IF THEY HAVE FULL WRITE
    ACCESS.  Read only access offers them no opportunity to respond and
    puts them in a position of being able to do nothing but take grief and
    Idon't think its a good position to put ANYBODY in.  But weighing even
    more on my mind is the backdoor way their access was granted and NOT
    disclosed to the full Board, NOR to the conference participants OR its
    moderator.  The reasons given were to monitor member react to the new
    fees and the last one was to monitor ME.  I question THEIR BUSINESS
    REASONS for this access based on their past actions.  
    
    Also, the DIRECTORS are the Members link to DCU.  In a way, allowing 
    DCU management to now field questions about direction and issues takes
    the Director out of the loop.  So where will that Director get guidance
    on the issues?  From DCU Management?  Where is their obligation to
    listen and communicate with the membership.  I don't feel this model 
    is a very good one.
    

    oh come on, YOU are not MY link to DCU.  Why be so exclusive?  Sure, I
    read this conference, but I walk over to that thing called a "branch"
    when I want something.
    
    Mark

    
    Egads Mark, obviously I don't mean I'm your personal teller!  I mean the
    Directors are the MEMBERSHIPS way of influencing what DCU is.  That is
    their job and they should be given guidance by members.  Otherwise, its
    up to DCU management to make the call.  In that case, the membership's
    voice may or may not be heard.
    

    Sorry about the misunderstanding.  I'm just not a fan of up-down
    relationships.  You sounded like the chain was
    
    				DCU
    				 |
    			      director
    				 |
    				me
    
    I much prefer a partnership, everybody equal:
    
    				me
    			       /  \
    			     DCU--director
    
    Mark

>    I much prefer a partnership, everybody equal:
>    
>                                me
>                               /  \
>                             DCU--director

For the practical purposes of the banking/loan functions, your interface to
DCU is direct --- you to DCU.

For the purposes of current policy, again, the interface is direct to DCU or
a (the) director(s).

For influencing new policy, or to find out what kind of policies the board
may currently have in mind then your interface is to a director.  After all
the Board sets policy, DCU management doesn't (or at least shouldn't!).

Stuart

�Read only access offers them no opportunity to respond and
�    puts them in a position of being able to do nothing but take grief and
�    Idon't think its a good position to put ANYBODY in.  
    
    Would you rather they be protected from this "grief"?  If they don't
    see the negative comments does that mean they don't exist?  They have
    vehicles other than this conference in which to respond. 
    
�    Also, the DIRECTORS are the Members link to DCU.  In a way, allowing 
�    DCU management to now field questions about direction and issues takes
�    the Director out of the loop.  
    
    As you yourself have pointed out, many questions and issues that have
    come up in here were better addressed to DCU management and not the
    directors.

    RE: .11
    
>    Would you rather they be protected from this "grief"?  If they don't
>    see the negative comments does that mean they don't exist?  They have
>    vehicles other than this conference in which to respond. 
    
    They also have other vehicles with which to gather membership feedback. 
    And it has nothing to do with protecting anybody.  It is simply a
    non-productive setup for them since this conference is an interactive
    forum.  
    
>    As you yourself have pointed out, many questions and issues that have
>    come up in here were better addressed to DCU management and not the
>    directors.
    
    Correct.  That is why DCU created and staffs the DCU Info Center.  That
    is a much more efficient means of problem resolution.
    

RE: Note 766.11 by PATE::MACNEAL

>They have vehicles other than this conference in which to respond. 

Then why don't they persue them in a consistant fashion?
    
>    As you yourself have pointed out, many questions and issues that have
>    come up in here were better addressed to DCU management and not the
>    directors.

Is this a standard way for a board to act?

	- mark

    I think we've strayed from the point of this particular meeting.
    The facts seem to be that Lisa DeMauro Ross called a phone meeting
    in which she accused Phil Gransewicz of releasing false and confidential
    information, but REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY JUSTIFICATION OF THAT CHARGE!
    
    If that isn't accurate, I'd like to hear more about it.  Lisa, I'd
    be happy to exchange mail messages on this subject if you are willing,
    or indeed on any DCU topic.  As per Digital P&P, I would not forward
    any private mail you send me without permission.
    
    Now, while this event does seem to show a Board that isn't working
    well together, one has to ask who is at fault here.  One should also
    ask on what basis the directors who voted in favor made their
    decisions.  Did they do it without data, or was information provided
    to them (but perhaps not to Phil) offline?  Can those with experience
    on other Boards comment whether it is normal accepted practice to
    vote a resolution charging a member with a severe breach of propriety
    (at the least) without providing data to back that resolution?
    
    		Larry

    
    Re: .14
    
    > Can those with experience on other Boards comment whether it is
    > normal accepted practice to vote a resolution charging a member
    > with a severe breach of propriety (at the least) without providing
    > data to back that resolution?
    
    In my experience, this kind of happens when someone(s) on the Board
    have an agenda they want to pursue and don't want any facts getting
    in their way.
    
    Steve
    

    "one has to ask who is at fault here".
    
    Larry, this is the kind of question that courts are often called upon
    to answer.  Indeed, I wondered if a lawsuit was pending on this, or if 
    some baiting was going on.  I hope not, but ...
    
    Mark