Conference 7.286::dcu

It was my understanding of the bylaws that DCU employees
are not allowed to campaign for candidates under any
circumstances in any location.  Isn't that correct?

Collis

Today, at approximately 12:10, I entered the DCU branch here at ALF 
(Alpharetta, GA).  The branch manager, Maureen Erb, was handing out campaign 
leaflets for Lisa Ross, Lois Haskins and Paul Milbury.  I picked up a copy 
myself and saw several other customers who had received leaflets.

						Gary Hicks

    
    (doing my best Mike Myers immitation:)
    
    HE-E-E-E-E-LLO-O-O!!
    

  >The branch manager, Maureen Erb, was handing out campaign 
  >leaflets for Lisa Ross, Lois Haskins and Paul Milbury.

Unbelievable.

I hope DCU management takes appropriate action for such a
blatant violation of clear election rules.

Collis

    
>It was my understanding of the bylaws that DCU employees
>are not allowed to campaign for candidates under any
>circumstances in any location.  Isn't that correct?

    No, not correct. DCU employees may not campaign for candidates
    while they are working. No buttons while behind the counter for
    example. No handing things out inside the branch either I don't
    believe. However, after hours and while on breaks they are free
    to exercise their first amendment rights. Just like Digital
    employees.

    			Alfred

They're back.....

I've received copies of the material being handed out at the
branch in Atlanta.  It's a real wonderful publication from 
"The Committee for a Qualified DCU Board."

Basically, it's a hatchet job on Phil, Dave, and myself while
playing up all the qualifications of the other 3 candidates
who are standing for election.   It's the same sort of stuff we
saw being passed around 2 years ago.   In fact, I seem to recall
a group of nameless, faceless, anonymous souls calling themselves
"The Committee for a Qualified Board" who was busily campaigning
away 2 years ago against the "Real Choices" people.   

I shouldn't comment further about the text of their flyer until 
decisions have been made regarding specific actions that may
be taken.  But what I can and will say is that the handing out
of literature to members of the credit union by a DCU employee while
the member is in the branch transacting business is *way* outside
the rules, in my book.  And didn't I remember some sort of thing
about calling security if campaigning was going on within 100 feet
of a DCU branch?  

As I write this (during one of my 2 daily 10 minute breaks that
Digital accords us, of course :-)), the regular monthly DCU Board
meeting is in progress.  I'll bet that, if nothing else, they're
having a good talk about this.

Chris

Re:  .5

Well, it's a little more restrictive than that but not what
I thought (perhaps the Bylaws have changed in this regard
during the last 2 years?)...

Article VI.

Section 9.  Subject to state and federal law and regulation, 
present credit union employees (including the president/CEO)
shall not be eligible to serve on the nominating committee, 
nor shall they take part, during normal credit union business
hours, in any credit union election or campaign activity at
any credit union location to which they have access solely by
reason of their credit union employment.

    Re: Hatchet job on Phil and "other two he has teamed up with".
    I received my two page info sheet at MRO4 at aprox 12:45 outside the 
    DCU door. Don't know if the guy was a DCU employee or not. He was
    handing them out to everyone that walked in the door. 
    I'll still cast my vote for Phil G and his "team"!

�Basically, it's a hatchet job on Phil, Dave, and myself while
�playing up all the qualifications of the other 3 candidates
�who are standing for election.   
    
    The DCU election info I received from Dave Garrod via electronic mail
    wasn't too flattering for the other candidates either.
    
    Isn't there something about DEC electronic resources and solicitation?

    
    Attached is the text of the leaflet mentioned in .2.
    
    All of the ideas, statements and arguments presented by Phil, Dave and
    Chris are available elsewhere in the conference.
    
    You be the judge...
    
    
    



                        DCU BOARD of DIRECTORS' ELECTION

                                PLEASE VOTE FOR

                    LISA DEMAURO ROSS, Incumbent Chairperson
                        LOIS HASKINS, Petition Candidate
                            Paul Millbury, Incumbent


     During the past two years, DCU has made solid advances in service,
     member confidence, and financial performance.  Please vote for Ross,
     Haskins, and Millbury to continue this progress.


                             Compare the Candidates

     QUALIFICATION/EXPERIENCE:  Lisa DeMauro Ross and Paul Millbury led
     DCU's turnaround during the past two years.  Lisa served as Board
     Chairperson.  She and Paul were on the Finances and Human Resources
     Committees.  Lois Haskins has twenty years of experience in controls,
     investments, and planning.  The opposing candidates, Gransewicz,
     Garrod and Gillett have no viable business experience in finances,
     investments, or internal controls.

     TRACK RECORD:  With Ross and Millbury on the Board, DCU achieved
     record growth in real estate and consumer loans to members, provided
     members with better than competitive rates, and doubled its capital
     ratio, the best measure of financial soundness.  Also, surveys of the
     membership show service improvements in all areas, and DCU was
     applauded by the outside auditors for enhanced internal controls (see
     attached DCU Special Report).  Lois Haskins has an excellent track
     record in business as a finance manager, plant controller and manager
     of corporate finance investment/divestment planning and analysis.

     Mr.  Gransewicz has not been an effective Board member because he has
     chosen to use personal attacks, criticism and intimidation to
     "persuade" other Board members.  Recently, Mr.  Gransewicz was the
     only Board member who refused to attend a Board Team Building Session.
     he has also chosen to alienate DCU employees with his constant
     criticism.

     Now Mr.  Gransewicz has teamed up with two other candidates who have
     never served on a credit union board and who have little applicable
     experience.  Together, they have made several proposals which, if
     implemented, could substantially jeopardize the credit union's
     financial soundness.  These proposals are hollow election promises
     which demonstrate both a lack of good judgment and a lack of
     understanding of the critical issues facing DCU.

     Can we take a chance with this inexperienced group whose primary goals
     seem to be to get elected, not to do what is in the best interest of
     DCU's members?

                                                                Page 2


     DECISION MAKING:  Sound decision making is a major responsibility of a
     director.  Decision quality relies largely on the use and availability
     of accurate information.  A major difference in the candidates is how
     they make decisions.  Ross, Haskins and Millbury plan to continue
     using data such as DCU's member surveys, industry trends and
     management analysis to determine the credit union's direction and set
     policy.  This approach has been instrumental in DCU's success.  The
     current strategic plan is reviewed annually using a substantial amount
     of industry trends and analysis as well as member research and
     surveys.  During the year, all decisions are evaluated based on their
     impact on our long-range plan.  For example, our strategy is to know
     who our major competitors are and to always have better rates.  This
     is implemented weekly by reviewing the competition and ensuring that
     DCU's rates are excellent.

     Mr.  Gransewicz and associates ignore industry trends, analysis, and
     member surveys because the results do not agree with their personal
     agendas.  They listen to a small group of members and represent their
     interest with no regard for the best interest of the entire
     membership.  This is very dangerous and leads to poor decision making.
     For example, Mr.  Garrod stated that DCU's rates are barely
     competitive.  The truth is that rates are set weekly to be
     competitive.  As a result, deposits in 1994 are increasing at an
     annual rate of eleven percent while loan growth set a record last
     year.  Mr.  Garrod also stated that DCU has failed to focus on
     competitive products and services.  The truth is that new competitive
     products resulted in 1,760 loans for $20.9 million in 1993.

     FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS:  More than one-half of the financial institutions
     that existed ten years ago are no longer around.  The most important
     responsibility of the Board is to safeguard your funds and build
     capital to ensure that DCU will continue to survive.  Our candidates,
     the majority of the Board, DCU's management, outside auditors, and
     federal regulators agree that DCU must continue to build substantial
     capital.  Capital serves as a needed cushion so that unexpected losses
     can be absorbed.  Also, a well-capitalized credit union can provide
     more competitive loan and savings rates and offer new services.  The
     opposing candidates believe that all these experts are wrong and that
     DCU should slow down capital growth.  They promise a bonus dividend
     now, but they don't understand the impact that this action will have
     on DCU's ability to offer excellent rates in the long run.  Do you
     want a board controlled by people who do not understand these simple,
     but extremely important, financial concepts?


     Watch for your mail ballot and vote for Ross, Haskins and Millbury.


     Prepared, distributed and paid for by the Committee for a Qualified
     DCU Board.
    

    
    
    Has anyone brought this to the attention of Ron Glover???   Me thinks
    it should work both ways...  As for the comparison made to Dave's mail
    sent around on the Digital network, get your head out of you know
    where....  I don't seem to recall Dave's mailing having any blatently
    NEGATIVE comments about Lisa or Paul, let alone Lois.   Whoever is 
    responsible for this data should be brought before the same "punishment"
    Phil, Dave, and Chris had to endure.  Of course no one will probably 
    admit to creating the pamphlet...
    
    
    WOW, *SERIOUS* DEJA VU
    
    
    John
    

    Sounds like Ross, Haskins, and Millbury are using "personal attacks,
    criticism, and intimidation...."
    
    Thanks for the "leaflet", I'll be sure to circulate it among CXO here,
    along with my "commentary".
    
    Good luck to the three G's.  I know this will definitely be a make or
    break election as far as my business goes.

    Re .11
    
    As you point out. My mail was strictly factual regarding mentioning
    other people. It also stated my position on issues (ie opinion).
    
    This 'hatchet job' is inaccurate I am considering having it looked at by a
    lawyer to see if it could be deemed libelous.
    
    It is good to know though that the opposition has had to drop down to
    the level of personal attack. Of course if I wanted to I could
    insist that the note be removed or deleted because it clearly violates
    Digital policy. But I absolutely will not ask to have it removed or
    deleted. Falls into the same category as the "witchhunters" memo of two
    years ago. That turned out to be one of our best election weapons.
    
    I will post a more complete rebuttal later.
    
    Dave
        

RE: Note 786.10 by WLDBIL::KILGORE

Talk about half truths and not telling the FULL story...  Too bad all
members do not know better about what the whole truth is...

One thing I notice that Lisa, Paul and Lois forget about is that DCU is
a *PEOPLE* business.  Accounting is good to a certain level for a BOD
member.  MORE IMPORTANTLY is the common sense approach of keeping the
customers first.  Business is more than numbers.

Our BOD members need to be good managers, not jelly bean counters who
are accountants.

Phil, Dave, and Chris all have the CUSTOMER FIRST attitude which is what
is takes to be competitive now days.

>     QUALIFICATION/EXPERIENCE:  Lisa DeMauro Ross and Paul Millbury led
>     DCU's turnaround during the past two years.  Lisa served as Board
>     Chairperson.  She and Paul were on the Finances and Human Resources
>     Committees.  Lois Haskins has twenty years of experience in controls,
>     investments, and planning.

I have 31 years of experience in finances.  I have invested and planned
for years, so what is new?

Geez, my campaign speech sounds better than Lois's!!!  As you can see
without actual data, the above means nothing more than hot air...

>     The opposing candidates, Gransewicz,
>     Garrod and Gillett have no viable business experience in finances,
>     investments, or internal controls.

Neither did Ken Olsen when he founded this company...  Neither did Bob
Palmer when he founded Mostek...  Should I keep going.



>     TRACK RECORD:  With Ross and Millbury on the Board, DCU achieved
>     record growth in real estate and consumer loans to members, provided
>     members with better than competitive rates, and doubled its capital
>     ratio, the best measure of financial soundness.  Also, surveys of the
>     membership show service improvements in all areas, and DCU was
>     applauded by the outside auditors for enhanced internal controls (see
>     attached DCU Special Report).

Two people did this ALL by themselves?  What happened to Phil?

Better than competitive rates?  Baybank has better standard car loans
than DCU.  LAFCU has better Credit card rates than DCU.  USAA has better
card rates than DCU. AFBA has better card rates than DCU.  There are
MANY others who are doing better.

DCU IS AVERAGE on its return on investment and loan rates.  We are far
from BEST IN CLASS - which is where it should be.
Note will not be entered in the conference
DCU was applauded by our previous accounting firm when Mangone stole
money...  You think I will trust some accounting firm???

>       Lois Haskins has an excellent track
>     record in business as a finance manager, plant controller and manager
>     of corporate finance investment/divestment planning and analysis.

Says who?

>     Mr.  Gransewicz has not been an effective Board member because he has
>     chosen to use personal attacks, criticism and intimidation to
>     "persuade" other Board members.

It should have read, 'Ms Ross has not been an effective board member
because...'.

It seems to bother a few people that Phil was willing to share with the
membership the childish games that the chairman of the board tries to
get away with...

>     Recently, Mr.  Gransewicz was the
>     only Board member who refused to attend a Board Team Building Session.

So...  He misses one meeting, and the rest of the members miss more
meetings and come late leave early...  Something is wrong with this TV
channel.

>     he has also chosen to alienate DCU employees with his constant
>     criticism.

So Chuck is complaining...  I guess that is what happens when a BOD
members *SERVES* their membership...

>     Now Mr.  Gransewicz has teamed up with two other candidates who have
>     never served on a credit union board and who have little applicable
>     experience.

I remember you being in the same position along with Paul a couple
years ago...

Since Lois has little experience we should not vote for her either... 
Geez, slim pickings...

>     Together, they have made several proposals which, if
>     implemented, could substantially jeopardize the credit union's
>     financial soundness.

Such as?  Oh yes, this is just the normal hollow election rhetoric when
someone has nothing better to say...

>     These proposals are hollow election promises
>     which demonstrate both a lack of good judgment and a lack of
>     understanding of the critical issues facing DCU.

If Phil's stand is hollow, then I wish more on the board were hollow. 
Phil has TRIED all along to do what he has said.  We cannot say that for
others on the board, can we?

>     Can we take a chance with this inexperienced group whose primary goals
>     seem to be to get elected, not to do what is in the best interest of
>     DCU's members?

I agree!  Do not vote for Lisa, Paul, or Lois.  

Vote for DCU members who care: Phil, Dave and Chris!!!

>     For example, our strategy is to know
>     who our major competitors are and to always have better rates.  This
>     is implemented weekly by reviewing the competition and ensuring that
>     DCU's rates are excellent.

I wish we would compare ourselves to Credit unions, rather than banks! 
Even when we compare against a bank, they have better car rates.  Scarey
when some board members have no idea...

>     Mr.  Gransewicz and associates ignore industry trends, analysis, and
>     member surveys because the results do not agree with their personal
>     agendas.

Seems like some BOD members are ignoring CREDIT UNIONS...  Even I, a
poor, slovenly laymen can do better than that...

>    They listen to a small group of members and represent their
>     interest with no regard for the best interest of the entire
>     membership.

So they have been doing what roughly 70,000 member want...  We used to
have more (80,000+), until we got RID of the ABUSERS of DCU...  

>     The truth is that rates are set weekly to be competitive.

When does this start?  Should I list just a FEW who are by far better?

>     As a result, deposits in 1994 are increasing at an
>     annual rate of eleven percent while loan growth set a record last
>     year.

HIP BOOTS TIME:

Hmm... As of January, there was a 5.2% (OVER $17 million) decrease in
savings as compared to a year ago.

THE FACT IS (as of January 31, 1994):

	WE HAVE HAD A 1% DECREASE IN DEPOSITS FROM PREVIOUS MONTH

	LOANS ARE DOWN BY 3% FROM 12 MONTHS AGO

	LOANS ARE DOWN BY 2.5% FROM PREVIOUS MONTH

Tell ALL of the facts, not just selected ones like you have HIDDEN in the
past...

>     Mr.  Garrod also stated that DCU has failed to focus on
>     competitive products and services.  The truth is that new competitive
>     products resulted in 1,760 loans for $20.9 million in 1993.

What good is that when TOTAL LOANS TO MEMBERS is *DOWN* by over
$6,133,811.00  (3.0%) in 1993...

If we would have loaned $27.0, we would have broke even as compared to
loans at the end of 1992

We have LOANED less money in the past year.  Dave Garrod is CORRECT --
we are not competitive...

>     Prepared, distributed and paid for by the Committee for a Qualified
>     DCU Board.

Didn't they serve on the board with Mangone?
    
Scarey...

	- mark

    
>     Prepared, distributed and paid for by the Committee for a Qualified
>     DCU Board.

    I do not know who this "committee" is but I would be careful about
    assuming that it is acting with the full knowledge and support of
    the candidates it supports. Two years ago the same sort of thing
    happened and at least one of the candidates it supported publicly
    denied involvement and requested that their name be removed from
    the flier. Unless someone has knowledge that directly implicates
    a person in this flier I request that they refrain from making
    accusations against candidates or other individuals.

    In other words, just because someone is making personal attacks in
    fliers doesn't mean that I have to let them be made in this conference.

    			Alfred

    
    
    
    If this "committee" does not speak for the 3 candidates, then I think
    we challenge them to come forward *RIGHT NOW* and say so, or forever
    hold your peace.... I know you're out there reading, so you should 
    say something...
    
    As for legal action, I think your first recourse (at least internally)
    is to go right to personnel and security, which I'm sure in the long
    run will lead to Ron Glover having to make a decision about this.
    
    Sad to say, but things like this is what will lead to the ultimate
    demise of the credit union.  I would have to think Digital doesn't
    need this going on every time there is an election, it takes too many
    peoples time and energy to deal with.   DCU if you're really listening
    take heed...
    
    
    John
    

    Those who criticize Chris, Dave, and Phil make much of their "limited
    financial experience" while touting their own extensive experience
    in the lofty relms of big business.
    
    By the same reasoning, we should allow only lawyers to be on juries.
    
    I think the main qualifications for being a member of a jury are 
    pragmatism and common sense.  The job of a jury is to wade through 
    the B.S. of laywers and ensure that our legal system is, in the final 
    analysis, based on the common sense of ordinary people.
    
    I see the job of the board of directors in much the same way.  The
    job of a director is to make sure the credit union remains grounded
    in pragmatic reality focused on the needs of its members.  The
    credit union management ought to be able to explain and justify 
    its policies in terms a non-economist can understand.  If it can't,
    if it insists "you can't possibly understand that, trust us, we
    know what we're doing, vote for more people just like us who can
    understand all these complicated issues," I begin to wonder.  A lot.
    
    The board of directors should NOT mirror the DCU management.  Companies
    and governments tend to get into trouble when the leaders surround
    themselves with "yes men," people just like themselves.  We need a
    board of directors with the agenda of looking out for the interests
    of the members, from the point of view of the members, not a board
    of directors that has the same view of the world as DCU management.
    If it does, what's the point?  What's the point of having the board
    and the management a mutual admiration society?  
    
    We need a board that asks, "Why are you doing this?  Justify that
    in terms I can understand."  We don't need a board and management
    that sit around and admire each other's vast financial background.

    
    RE: .15
    
    Alfred, I was at DCU HQ yesterday afternoon for our monthly Board
    meeting.  These flyers were at DCU HQ also.  I walked into Pat Coyle's
    office only to find one sitting on her desk, stapled to a copy of the
    "DCU Special Report".  When I pressed her on it, she finally stated I
    needed to speak to Mary Madden and Chuck Cockburn.
    
    Based on this I think it is COMPLETELY safe to say that the people
    whose name appears on this trash know about it and condone it.  If they
    don't then they have access to this conference and Digital mail systems
    to disavow any knowledge of this.  They also have the ability to STOP
    it.  Has anybody received any such mail?  Has anything stopped?  I
    understand your point but quite frankly based on what I witnessed
    yesterday afternoon, your theory doesn't match reality.
    

    
    >"DCU Special Report".  When I pressed her on it, she finally stated I
    >needed to speak to Mary Madden and Chuck Cockburn.
    
    What did they say? Aren't they usually at the Board meeting? Also did
    you ask your fellow Board members?
    
    			Alfred

    RE: .10 Was the misspelling of Paul Milbury's name in the original
    or is that a transcription error? Hate to think he'd let it go out
    with an extra "l" in his name. :-)
    
    			Alfred

In the DCU office in NY, there is a sign urging everyone to vote.  On either
side of this sign is a stack of those "Special Reports" about the great
improvements over the past year.  By implication, those candidates who are
identified as "incumbents" would benefit from this very subtle, though likely
very legal, "campaigning".

I'm in the process of reading the leaflet posted in .10 (thanks, Bill!)

My opinion:  DCU members are not sheep.  They're going to see this leaflet,
wonder about the "rest of the story", and start investigating.  The more
DCU members learn, the more intelligently they will vote.  While I'm 
disappointed that the Committee for a Qualified DCU Board posted negative
comments about 2 candidates, I suspect that the leaflet may lead to a 
better election.

    
    Any sensible person would want to know just who sits on this
    "committee" which authored this slander.  Anonymity would carry
    absolutely no weight with me.  Hopefully, the bulk of the DCU
    membership also feels this way.  Anyway, this is just unbelievable
    to think it's deja vu all over again.
    
    Lou
    

    re "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board"
    
    That name sounds familiar - didn't they back the old board in the last
    election?

Well, there was this "Committee for a Qualified Board" that was
running around last time doing a lot of the same stuff.  This time
it's the "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board."  I'll lay odds that
it's the same group as before, but I have no information to prove
that.

Interesting to note that the "Committee for a Qualified Board" that
existed 2 years ago campaigned against *all*  "Real Choices" candidates - 
including Lisa Demauro-Ross, and Tanya Dawkins.  I guess the "Committee"
can't make up it's mind who they like and dislike.

Chris

�Interesting to note that the "Committee for a Qualified Board" that
�existed 2 years ago campaigned against *all*  "Real Choices" candidates - 
�including Lisa Demauro-Ross, and Tanya Dawkins.  I guess the "Committee"
�can't make up it's mind who they like and dislike.
    
    Real Choices wasn't a "Party".  It was a group of candidates who had a
    hard time even agreeing on a joint statement.

re:  .27

All true, Keith.  It wasn't a party, and we did have a hard time
forming a joint statement.  Nevertheless, the "Committee" identified
us as a group, and campaigned against all of us as a group.

Chris

RE: Note 786.8 by ILBBAK::CURTIS

-< MRO4 Campaigning today >-

ZKO campaigning today (3/23/94)...

>    I received my two page info sheet at MRO4 at aprox 12:45 outside the 
>    DCU door. Don't know if the guy was a DCU employee or not. He was
>    handing them out to everyone that walked in the door. 
>    I'll still cast my vote for Phil G and his "team"!

ZKO had the Branch Manager Gloria and the teller Stacey handing out
material from 12:15 till 1:30.

Worse part is how they literally chased a couple people down to give
them material.  As an employee, I cannot even do what they did, as I
would get fired...  They even walked over to the tray return to hand out
literature.  They also called out peoples name and said, 'Come here, I
have something to give to you.'

I thought non-Digital employees were not allowed to do this, per Orange
book???

I thought DCU By-laws did not allow this???

DCU has been notified (Allan Prindle @ ~4:00).  I have asked to be
notifed what DCU plans to do about this.

	- mark

 SCOPE: U.S.

 Philosophy

 | It is Digital's belief that employees should be provided a working
 | environment where information is available, accessible and disseminated
 | through means which do not disrupt normal business.

 Policy

 | It is Digital's policy that all employees are not to solicit other
 | employees (in person, by use of mail, electronic mail, or any other
 | means) for any purpose during working time and in working areas.
 | Working time does not include break time or meal time. Employees are
 | not permitted to distribute literature of any kind and at any time in
 | working areas.

 | Persons who are not  employees of the company are prohibited from
 | distributing literature of any kind or soliciting employees for any
 | purpose at any time on company property.

 Practice

 | It is expected that any employee wishing to make information available
 | to others follow the local process with the person or organization
 | responsible for in-house communications. In the absence of a known
 | responsible person, employees should contact their local Personnel,
 | Security or Facilities representatives to obtain approval prior to
 | taking any action. Placing someone in an embarassing situation must be
 | avoided in order to comply with the intent of this policy.

    
    I believe Lisa was passing out literature yesterday in the hallways at
    SHR1.  I'm not really good with faces, but I think it was her.  It was
    during normal working hours.  I did not get any of the material that
    was being passed out.
    
    On balance, I went to The DCU office at SHR1 today and Monday.  There
    was no sign of campaigning/literature.

    
    Well, it is very clear that Digital policies and DCU Bylaws don't mean
    anything to these "people".  The scary part is that these same "people"
    require everybody's trust in order to perform their job at DCU or on
    the Board.  This trash is so ridiculous that nobody can be stupid
    enough to read it and take it seriously.  All it does is smear the
    image of the people whose name appears at the top, DCU, and DCU employees.
    
    To put it simply, "They just don't get it."  The worse part is, I'm not
    sure they ever did get it.  Would any rational person allow their name
    on such a document?  And they try to portray us as a danger?  
    Unbelieveable.  I have enough trust in the intelligence of the DCU
    membership to read this trash and know enough to read our statements in
    the election brochure.  I think they'll see exactly what is going on. 
    

    
    As was pointed out earlier, it would appear that the same committee
    that slammed Ms. Ross two years ago, along with Ms. Dawkins, Mr.
    Gransewizc, Mr. Kinzelman and all the other candidates who professed an
    interest in "Real Choices", has now seen fit to endorse Ms. Ross.
    
    One could conclude from this that the committee really doesn't know
    what it supports.
    
    Or, one could conclude that the committee is being consistent in its
    philosophy, and that Ms. Ross' track record over the past two years
    has so totally contradicted the promises that got her elected, that she
    has won their support.
    
    An interesting endorsement. I suppose we'll have to wait another year
    to see if Ms. Dawkins is similarly blessed.
    

    
>    I believe Lisa was passing out literature yesterday in the hallways at
>    SHR1.  I'm not really good with faces, but I think it was her.  It was
>    during normal working hours.  I did not get any of the material that
>    was being passed out.
    
    There is no problem with Digital employees, such as Lisa, handing
    things out. As long as it is on break time. There is a problem with
    non employees doing it. 
    
    			Alfred

    
>    There is no problem with Digital employees, such as Lisa, handing
>    things out. As long as it is on break time. There is a problem with
>    non employees doing it. 

    	Alfred, handing out stuff in the hallways is not OK.  This is
    	solicitation, period.  By policy, that can ONLY be done in the
    	cafe.  She can hand things out in the cafe on her break.
    

�    	Alfred, handing out stuff in the hallways is not OK.  
    
    I guess that determines how you define working areas.  Obviously some
    exceptions have been made with regards to the solicitation policy in
    regard to the DCU election.  Otherwise I wouldn't have yet another
    campaign mailing in my electronic mailbox this morning.

    Defining break areas or non work areas can wind up in a nit picking
    contest. Frankly, I'm more concerned with who then where.
    
    		Alfred

    Folks,
    
    As I said before, we must get rid off DCU management. Chuck Cockburn,
    Mary Madden, and this Qualified DCU board committee must be removed as
    soon as possible. Phil, Dave, and Chris, I already voted for you. I
    would like to request you guys if you get elected, to get
    rid off the junkies we have in DCU Management. I had enough of this
    politics.
    
    
    Bharat Shah

    
    Re: .37
    
    > I guess that determines how you define working areas.
    
    The policy is intended to ensure that you are not interrupted or
    coerced by fellow employees by prohibiting active solicitation
    like walking into your office or encountering you at the printer
    station and asking you to take some specific action like place 
    an order or vote a certain way.  It does not, however, prevent
    passive solicitation like posting a notice for GS cookies, Amway,
    Avon, etc. near the coffee station, setting up a literature table
    in the cafe or sending you a message in your mailbox.  You can
    avoid or ignore any of those if you wish, but you can't do that 
    when someone actively interupts you at your work.
    
    Steve

>          <<< Note 786.25 by SMAUG::WADDINGTON "Brother, can you paradigm?" >>>
>                            -< definately deja vu >-

>    re "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board"
    
>    That name sounds familiar - didn't they back the old board in the last
>    election?

     Yes, including they campaigned AGAINST Lisa Ross.

Well, at least we haven't electronic mail messages from Irene Jacobs & Co.
trying to strongarm upper and middle management to support the "dark side",
like we did when the special meeting was being planned a few years ago.
[Loud sound of knocking on wood is heard.]

-Jack

    RE: .42 Yeah, but I was sort of hoping for a senior VP to send out
    a message supporting the work done by the nominating committee. My
    personnel packet can always use an atta boy. :-)

    		Alfred

    As an additional data point, the branch manager of the NIO (Salem NH)
    branch was handing out the "Qualified Board" flier to people as they 
    walked in this morning. She was standing just outside the entrance to the
    DCU branch which is just inside the main entrance way.

    			Alfred

    
    Sorry, didn't want to start a big issue about Lisa.  She was not, while
    I was passing, grabbing strangers and forcing any literature on anyone.
    It was not, however in a 'public' area, like the cafeteria,  nor have
    I ever seen her in my area before.  The area WAS adjacent to possible
    business areas she could frequent.  I don't pay much attention to who's
    wandering the halls, unless they are visitors.
    
    In balance as well, I'm wondering how I got on Dave Garrod's email
    list.   I have received a couple of 'statements' from him, although I
    have not ever asked for them.  I don't mind, nor do I want to be
    dropped from the lists.  I welcome any 'reasonable' amount of
    information, whatever the source, to make rational decisions, from any
    side.
    
    I'm afraid that the campaign is becoming mostly rhetoric and
    accusations, with little substance.  Personally, I think the
    'opposition' has doen a better job of explaining their positiooon. I
    hope we end up with a well balanced board that will disagree and still
    work toward a better institution.  
    
       Jeff
    

    I have been informed that Digital has sent a letter to Chuck Cockburn,
    DCU President, informing him that DCU employees handing out literature
    on Digital property is a violation of Digital policy. Further that he
    is to make sure that DCU ceases and desists from this violation of
    policy.

    I personally let senior Digital people know about this policy
    violation. They have been quick to respond and I appreciate it. As
    far as I can tell the company is trying very hard to avoid even the
    appearance of bias in this election. They're holding both sides to
    strict interpretation of the rules. And that's, IMO, the right thing
    to do. Two years ago the DCU election had a negative impact on Digital
    and I would not like to see that happen again.

    			Alfred

>                   -< Digital responds to policy violations >-
>
>    Two years ago the DCU election had a negative impact on Digital
>    and I would not like to see that happen again.

	Given the increasing amount of time that parts of Digital management
	must be spending on DCU issues, both sides may lose. It wouldn't 
	surprise me to see the DCU/Digital affiliation shut off if some of
	the problems seen in the past 3 years can not be resolved in a more
	professional manner.

	I'm not endorsing any side here. I think both sides have more than
	covered themselves in slime on this one. If it keeps up, both sides
	may get what they want...to see the "other" side lose. Because
	there will be no more board to be on.

							Mark

re:  .46 (i think)

I was just in a meeting with Chuck Cockburn, Alan Prindle, and
Marry Madden concerning this election.  According to Chuck, DCU
has not been advised to stop tellers from handing out literature
in the cafeterias.

Chris