| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 783.1 | we all have a phone, right? | SLPPRS::SCHAFER | Mark Schafer, Development Assistance | Thu Mar 17 1994 11:15 | 8 |
| Obviously, from your other notes, using Digital resources is NOT
encouraged. Maybe DCU could set up a telephone "voice-mail" line for
each candidate. Callers could leave their question, name, and phone #
for the candidate to return. Also, how about candidate statements in
their own voice, at the press of a button? TDD access for the hearing
impaired, of course.
Mark
|
| 783.2 | The Obvious Improvement | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | Candidate for DCU Director | Thu Mar 17 1994 11:44 | 6 |
|
For a start we can give people more than 300 words for their writeup.
I've seen materials for other organizations that give people a full
page (8.5x11). Why be cheap when the direction of the credit is the
issue? We seem to have plenty of marketing money for fancy envelops.
|
| 783.3 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Time to put the SHARE back in DCU! | Thu Mar 17 1994 12:49 | 54 |
|
How about a small set of timely and relevant questions that candidates
are invited to answer in their writeup? For this year they could have
been something like:
"What's your view on Relationship Banking?"
"What's the difference between a bank and a credit union?"
"How would you increase membership in DCU and use of its offerings?"
and the perennial favorites:
"What's the best feature of DCU?"
"What would you like to change most, nad how would you do it?"
These could be put together by the nominating committee, hopefully with
input requested from the membership at large. The package introduction
could list all the questions, and the candidates, given a full sheet for
their writeups, could decide which questions to address and how much of
their space to use for the the answers.
For example:
[Nominating committee report]
...
In addition to their own position statements, the candidates were
invited to consider the following questions:
o What's the difference between a bank and a credit union?
o ...
[Candidate statement]
*-------------------* Mortimer Snerd
| |
| | statement, qualification, blah-di-blah...
| photo | .........................................
| | .........................................
| | .........................................
*-------------------* .........................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.....................................................
Q: What's the difference between a bank and a credit union?
In my opinion, ..................................................
.................................................................
|
| 783.4 | Additions to .2 and .3 | STAR::PARKE | True Engineers Combat Obfuscation | Thu Mar 17 1994 13:21 | 22 |
| Well, .3 (by WLDBIL::KILGORE) and .2 have already come up with the
greated realestate and content issues. But I have (for the cost point
of view) a few other suggestions (well one is probably obvious).
1) Send out the information double sided (not sure how to order other
than alphabetically).
2) Require the fonting to be the same for all (character size and
type). This will allow direct visual comparison of content volume
per page.
3) Pick a statement "bus" at least two statement cycles before the
election for this packet to be mailed with the statements. (Sorry,
I guess no glossy "Network" that month).
Why ? So that people couls send back any further questions in
response to reading the expanded writeups, and there would be time
for the general field or specific candidates (or candidate groups)
to respond (possibly in a Q/A sheet sent with the ballots ?
4) ALLOW the publication of coalitions witt common goals (e.g. G**3)/
|
| 783.5 | More words, more space, fewer troubles... | AOSG::GILLETT | Running for the DCU Board | Fri Mar 18 1994 12:21 | 26 |
|
I agree, the central issue is DCU's willingness to allow candidates
to get the word out about their position. Allowing only 300 words
is ridiculous, and helps to insure that most people "vote the
resumes." If DCU would increase the allotted space/word count for
each candidate, then there is less need to campaign. One can argue
rather persuasively that the election is not necessarily won nor
lost in the cafeterias and notes conferences. It's won in the field
by the votes from people who do not or cannot read notes, or who
are non-employees or former employees who can't participate.
Next, DCU needs to agree that campaigning is, in fact, an acceptable
thing. There is great resistance to this by DCU management, in
my opinion. Recently, DCU sent Digital security after some of us
who were campaigning in a cafeteria. That would seem to summarize
DCU's opinion on the whole matter.
Finally, Digital needs to decide whether or not DCU is a "valuable
employee benefit" or whether it's just another financial services
organization. The candidates have been given very inconsistent
information about this. Two years ago, John Sims was calling DCU
a valuable benefit. This year, Ron Glover says that we're mistaken
in calling DCU an employee benefit.
Chris
|
| 783.6 | | TOOK::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Fri Mar 18 1994 20:10 | 7 |
| > Two years ago, John Sims was calling DCU
> a valuable benefit. This year, Ron Glover says that we're mistaken
> in calling DCU an employee benefit.
Well, I'd always thought John was way off base with that claim anyway . . .
-Jack
|