Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    Re: .0
    
	> However, at the same time I know that the other DCU BOD members just
	> sit silently, waiting for you to make a mistake that they can take
	> advantage of. They don't have to say a word, to commit themselves, 
	> or explain a single thing. They just observe and wait.

	> I am glad that you do discuss, debate and inform.  I just hope that 
	> others can appreciate just what an advantage this gives to the
	> "relationship" folks and not forget that the "relationship" folks
	> have not discussed, have not debated and have not informed anyone.
    
    Dave,
    
    FWIW, I don't see this as an advantage for them at all.  With Chris,
    Dave, and Phil what you see is what you'll get.  They make clear
    statements as to what they'll support.  Given that the "other side" has
    already helped to bring us the fees that we don't want, who knows what
    else their silence might mean.
    
    Steve
    

    Candidates play to their constituency. There are supporters, opponents
    and those who haven't made up their minds. Most of the people who write
    here are Phil/Dave/Chris supporters. I doubt there is much that the
    other incumbents could say here that would win the people who write
    here over. I have no clue as to where the read only people stand but
    suspect they are also mostly Phil/Dave/Chris supporters. So what's
    the up side of those candidates being active here? Maybe they'll win
    a couple of people over but more likely they'll get beaten up so
    badly they'll look worse. It doesn't take much to figure that being
    quiet here is in their best interest.

    But you know I'll bet they're talking to other people. By phone, in
    person, before/after meetings, where ever. And there are things here
    that they can point their supporters to to "prove" that Phil/Dave/Chris 
    are radicals and a risky vote. If I was running again I'd be very
    careful about what I put in print.

    I believe, but can not prove, that a large majority of voters make
    their decision based only on the write up that comes with their
    ballot. Those people are impressed with the resume not the position
    on the issues. Sad but, I believe, true.

    			Alfred

    
    Re: .2
    
    > Most of the people who write here are Phil/Dave/Chris supporters. 
    
    This may be making too fine a distinction, but I don't think of myself
    as a Phil/Dave/Chris supporter.  I prefer to think that I, along with
    Phil/Dave/Chris and the many others who have expressed similar opinions
    in this file, are supporters of the DCU returning to what it should
    be: a credit union.
    
    When I hear it expressed as a "so and so" supporter, it reminds me more
    of the many who showed up at the special meeting to support Steinkrauss
    et al.  Their position was more about who than about what.
    
    Steve
    

    
    RE: .2
    
    ALfred, I don't consider myself "playing" to any limited constituency.
    I consider the ENTIRE DCU membership to be my constituency.  This is
    precisely why "relationship banking" and the class system it imposes on
    the membership is SO DEAD WRONG.  I have already had to listen to
    people's statements couched in terms of "they are a relationship
    member" or "they aren't a relationship member".  To me this indicates
    that one deserves more or less consideration by DCU based upon their
    "relationship".  Quite frankly, it turns my stomach.
    
    It is also quite evident that some people refuse to comment in here
    because they would have to defend their past statements and
    present actions.  The discussions in here are ABOUT ISSUES, ACTIONS AND
    DECISIONS, not people.  Any candidate that runs for ANY office that
    refuses to engage others in interactive discussion should be viewed
    with caution IMO.  People will only know what that person puts out in
    sanitized literature, ie, the candidates writeups.  This is why myself,
    Dave and Chris are making every effort to meet DCU members in cafes. 
    If a candidate won't talk to you DURING an election when they NEED your
    support, will they care enough to speak with you AFTER the election?
    
>    But you know I'll bet they're talking to other people. By phone, in
>    person, before/after meetings, where ever. 
    
    Of course not Alfred, the above is campaigning in the work place.  That is
    only allowed in cafes at lunchtime.
    
    >And there are things here
>    that they can point their supporters to to "prove" that Phil/Dave/Chris 
    > are radicals and a risky vote. 
    
    Let's see, we advocate a moderate steady growth of capital while
    investing some of our record profits back with the membership to
    cultivate membership loyalty and future business.  This is what we are
    suppoosed to be, a credit union!  At LAFCU, the designers and approvers
    of DCU's current direction would certainly be viewed as "radicals and
    a risky vote".  
    
    "Relationship banking" and the current direction imposes fees where none
    are needed in order to control an abusive membership, while penalizing
    small savers and borrowers (who can of course just leave if they want),
    and all so that we can blindly pursue an ever increasing and sacred
    "capital ratio" as members continue to look elsewhere for their banking
    needs.  I'm willing to be judged against this anyday!
    
    >If I was running again I'd be very
    >careful about what I put in print.
    
    This is very surprising and a bit disturbing coming from you Alfred. 
    Care to elaborate?
    
    >I believe, but can not prove, that a large majority of voters make
    >their decision based only on the write up that comes with their
    >ballot. Those people are impressed with the resume not the position
    >on the issues. Sad but, I believe, true.
    
    I'm sure people DO vote this way.  There are obviously many people who
    cannot speak or get any information from candidates other than the 300
    word writeup we have been allowed.  An exception to this is the piece
    of DCU literature disguised as a "DCU Special Report" which features
    the current Board prominently and shows how darn good we're doing, 10
    days before the membership is asked to vote on 3 of those Directors.
    
    But the "resume voter" and the issuance of the above materials by DCU
    during an election ss SOP because the membership has allowed DCU and
    the status quo to make and enforce the rules of the election on people.
    DCU members are electing people that will be making decisions that will
    have a very REAL and DIRECT impact of YOUR MONEY!  People must wake up
    and realize that having banking experience or serving as the Big Kahuna
    of some organization is PURE NOISE.  What does this say about how this
    person will make decisions AFFECTING YOUR FINANCES?  Zero. 
    
    But if people continue to allow themselves to fall into the same
    well-layed traps, they really have only themselves to blame when they
    look at DCU and Baybank and can't tell them apart.
    
    Don't be fooled again!  Know the issues, know the candidates and VOTE!
    

    Re. 4
    
    Keep up the good work. Thanks for keeping us informed out in the field.
    
    You can count on my vote.
    
    We have to turn DCU around. It is not being run competitively. I as a 
    member of DCU want to benefit.
    
    Thanks Again Dave
    

RE: .4

>    Alfred, I don't consider myself "playing" to any limited constituency.
>    I consider the ENTIRE DCU membership to be my constituency.  This is

Be that as it may, when I referred to constituency I was referring to the
subset of the members who generally agree with what you are doing and trying
to do. What do you offer people who *want* relationship banking? Are you
going to help them get *more* relationship banking? I don't think so. You
are going to do what you think is best for all members. But guess what?
So is your competition. They just disagree on what's best and perhaps who 
should be members.
    
>    If a candidate won't talk to you DURING an election when they NEED your
>    support, will they care enough to speak with you AFTER the election?

I seldom hear of Democratic candidates speaking at Republican meetings 
during an election. Does that mean they're not talking? Of course not.
    
>>    But you know I'll bet they're talking to other people. By phone, in
>>    person, before/after meetings, where ever. 
>    
>    Of course not Alfred, the above is campaigning in the work place.  That is
>    only allowed in cafes at lunchtime.

Get serious Phil. There is social interaction before and after just about
any meeting. If you think people aren't saying "What's new?" and getting
"Well, I'm running for the board of the DCU" in reply I've got this bridge
back in Brooklyn I'd like to talk to you about. I don't believe that would
be considered campaigning. Heck, if I ran into you at a meeting I'd ask
just to give you an opening.

>    needs.  I'm willing to be judged against this anyday!

Sometimes it's not what one says so much as how one says it.
    
>    >If I was running again I'd be very
>    >careful about what I put in print.
>    
>    This is very surprising and a bit disturbing coming from you Alfred. 
>    Care to elaborate?

Surprising? Why? Would you be less disturbed if I said I would be careless
about what I put in print?

I've run for office in the real world (won some - lost some)
and I know how much people like to twist things. I've seen things I've said
without thought or in the heat of the moment twisted, sometimes beyond
recognition. During an election I would be careful that what I promised, I
could deliver. I would make sure that I had done my homework and supplied
enough information so as not to be accused of leaving out critical details.
I would carefully word things to minimize distortion and misrepresentation.
I would be careful that my tone was calm, thoughtful, and rational. I would
avoid looking like a wild eyed radical who shoots from the hip without
careful consideration.    

I think that people want careful people taking care of their money. I would
have thought that being careful about what one says so as not to distort
issues, promise recklessly, or appear intemperate would be positive things.

			Alfred

    MMmmmm, good lunch today...  Well, risking termination here but here
    goes....
    
    RE: .6
    
>to do. What do you offer people who *want* relationship banking? Are you
>going to help them get *more* relationship banking? I don't think so. You
>are going to do what you think is best for all members. But guess what?
>So is your competition. 
    
    Well, so far I have not heard a single person scream for MORE
    relationship banking.  Heck, I never heard a single member express
    that they even wanted it to begin with.  For anybody who wishes to
    have more relationship banking out there, my question would be,
    "Why settle for less than you COULD have with a credit union following
    credit principles?" 
    
    >They just disagree on what's best and perhaps who should be members.
    
    The first part is correct and I fear the second part is also.  If the
    second part is correct, then this is the ultimate indication of an
    attitude and approach problem by OUR credit union.  
    
>I seldom hear of Democratic candidates speaking at Republican meetings 
>during an election. Does that mean they're not talking? Of course not.
    
    How does an open forum such as relate to a party meeting?  Sorry, I
    don't buy into this comparison.
    
>Get serious Phil. There is social interaction before and after just about
>any meeting. If you think people aren't saying "What's new?" and getting
>"Well, I'm running for the board of the DCU" in reply I've got this bridge
>back in Brooklyn I'd like to talk to you about. I don't believe that would
>be considered campaigning. Heck, if I ran into you at a meeting I'd ask
>just to give you an opening.

    	WHOA Alfred!  You missed my poor attempt at sarcasm!  Do I sound
    	that niave?
    
>Sometimes it's not what one says so much as how one says it.
    
    Well, I've never been very good at mincing words and giving evasive
    answers.  This may be "disturbing" for some who would rather not be
    told things straight out, but I believe others find it a welcome
    change from the usual non-answers and silence.
    
>Surprising? Why? Would you be less disturbed if I said I would be careless
>about what I put in print?

    But this not what you said.  Of course nobody should be "careless" about
    what one puts in print.  But not putting something in print simply so
    you can't be held accountable or judged on your performance is real
    shakey ground to be standing on IMO.
    
>I've run for office in the real world (won some - lost some)
>and I know how much people like to twist things. I've seen things I've said
>without thought or in the heat of the moment twisted, sometimes beyond
>recognition. During an election I would be careful that what I promised, I
>could deliver. I would make sure that I had done my homework and supplied
>enough information so as not to be accused of leaving out critical details.
>I would carefully word things to minimize distortion and misrepresentation.
>I would be careful that my tone was calm, thoughtful, and rational. I would
>avoid looking like a wild eyed radical who shoots from the hip without
>careful consideration.    
    
    Alfred, everything you state above is simply SOP for ANY election. 
    People simply have to decide for themselves who and what they can
    believe based upon everything they see and hear.  No matter how much
    care is taken, the opposition will always take issue with whatever is
    said, and the way it is presented.  Watch any Sunday morning talk shows
    recently??

>I think that people want careful people taking care of their money. I would
>have thought that being careful about what one says so as not to distort
>issues, promise recklessly, or appear intemperate would be positive things.
    
    Absolutely!  And taking care of everybody's money is very serious
    business.  But your second sentence seems to imply that advocating a
    return to a credit union approach that invests in the membership, as
    well as DCU, is reckless in some way.  That certainly hasn't been the
    case at LAFCU.  I'm sure they would view our current direction as
    rather radical and reckless.  It simply depends upon your philosophy
    and what you value most.
    
    

    
>    How does an open forum such as relate to a party meeting?  Sorry, I
>    don't buy into this comparison.

    That's ok. I didn't expect you to buy into the idea of this conference
    as a partisan forum. I think other people might disagree with you. And
    that is their right. I believe the intent of this forum is to be open.
    I will do what I can as a moderator to keep it open. However, it is to
    some a threatening environment that appears quite partisan at times.


>    	WHOA Alfred!  You missed my poor attempt at sarcasm!  Do I sound
>    	that niave?

    I was pretty sure that was sarcasm. I know I hoped it was. You're quite
    the idealist, which is one of the things I like about you, but all too
    often idealism and naivete go hand in hand. :-)

>But not putting something in print simply so
>    you can't be held accountable or judged on your performance is real
>    shakey ground to be standing on IMO.

    And that's not what I said. I said I'd be careful about what I put in
    print. Not that I'd avoid being held accountable. I just want to make
    sure that what I think I'm saying is what others think I'm saying.

>But your second sentence seems to imply that advocating a
>    return to a credit union approach that invests in the membership, as
>    well as DCU, is reckless in some way.  

    Nope. I don't see how you would get that implication. I was talking
    about things I'd be careful about not commenting on things others have
    said. I tend to think, as I believe you do, that the DCU membership
    is one of its strong points. And that DCU should invest in their
    members as their members invest in DCU.

    			Alfred

    Excellent points, Alfred!!!!
    
    Thanks for the chuckles, Phil.

    
>    Thanks for the chuckles, Phil.
    
    	My pleasure Keith!  Always glad to provide a fellow "Board member";-)
    	with a moment of happiness... 8-)