| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 787.1 | Response from Phil, Dave, and Chris | AOSG::GILLETT | Running for the DCU Board | Wed Mar 23 1994 23:20 | 428 |
|
Recently, the so-called "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" has
begun handing out literature to DCU members around the country.
Individuals associated with this group have been working in or around
DCU branches handing information to members as they come to DCU to
transact business. In one case, a DCU branch manager was seen engaged
in this activity even though the DCU Bylaws clearly prohibit such
behavior. Article VI, Section 9 of the Bylaws restricts credit union
employee participation in elections.
The information presented is nothing less than a personal attack on
three candidates standing for election: David Garrod, Phil Gransewicz,
and Chris Fillmore-Gillett. We would like to take this opportunity to
rebut the comments made by this anonymous "Committee" who choose to
use personal attacks and scare tactics in an attempt to influence the
voting members of DCU.
The "Qualified Board" memo criticizes incumbent board member Phil
Gransewicz (DCU Board Secretary, member of the DCU Executive Committee
as well as the Finance and Investment Committee) by saying:
"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."
Disregarding the libelous and slanderous nature of such a messsage,
the accusations made by the "Qualified Board" memo are half-truths, if
not outright false. Mr. Gransewicz did, in fact, not attend a Board
Team Building Session. This was due primarily to Mr. Gransewicz's
responsibilities to his employer. Mr. Gransewicz has not missed a
single DCU Board meeting in two years, unlike many of the other
sitting Board members - including the two other incumbents standing
for election.
Mr. Gransewicz might have alienated some DCU employees when he opposed
DCU management's recommendation for DCU employee profit-sharing. While
Mr. Gransewicz normally favors such approaches, he opposed this plan
for several reasons. DCU management was able to allocate a percentage
of DCU's bottom line net income to DCU employee profit sharing without
full board approval. This was due in large part to Ms. Ross's and Mr.
Milbury's circumvention of Board approval via their position on the
Human Resources Committee. Will these people continue to grant DCU
management unfettered access to YOUR money? Calls for similar profit
sharing for DCU members have been opposed by DCU management as well as
by Ms. Ross and Mr. Milbury.
The accusations that Mr. Gransewicz uses personal attacks, and
intimidation to gain influence are completely false, and as such do not
deserve any response.
The "Qualified Board" memo says:
"Now Mr. Gransewicz has teamed up with two other candidates who have
never served on a credit union board..."
This is a correct statement. Mr. Garrod and Mr. Fillmore-Gillett have
never sat on a credit union board of directors. However it is worth
noting that until the Special Election two years ago, all current
Board members: Ross, Milbury, Mann, McEachin, Dawkins, Kinzelman, and
(of course) Gransewicz had "never served on a credit union board."
Ms. Haskins, a candidate by petition, has also never served on a
credit union board.
The "Qualified Board" memo says:
"Together, they [Gransewicz, Garrod, and Gillett] have made several
proposals which, if implemented, could substantially jeopardize the
credit union's financial soundness."
This statement is nothing less than an attempt to scare the membership
into making uninformed decisions. What are these proposals? The answer
is that we have made no proposals that are not already working well
at other credit unions. We have made our positions for the future direction
of DCU clear:
- All members are equal
- Our strength is our membership
- Moderate, steady capital growth
- Sharing of excess profits with the ownership
In fact, the proposals we have made were by-and-large DCU's business
model until January, 1994 when "Relationship Banking" was instituted.
The belief that capital growth should be moderate and steady, and that
members should share in the success of the credit union are longstanding
policies at credit unions both small and large across the country. We
offer nothing more than a business model for DCU which has worked within
DCU for many years, and at other credit unions for decades.
The "Qualified Board" memo says:
"These proposals are hollow election promises which demonstrate
both a lack of good judgement and a lack of understanding of
the critical issues facing DCU."
These statements are misleading and false. While it is clearly our
desire to be elected to the board, as it is the desire of Ms. Ross, Ms.
Haskins, and Mr. Milbury, it is further our desire to address the
critical issues facing DCU. We see these issues as:
(a) A declining membership base
(b) Members not choosing to do business with DCU
DCU's membership declined by 10,631 members in calendar year 1993.
We intend to address these issues by taking the steps necessary to make
DCU the members first and only choice for service. This means that
customer service MUST come first, and that DCU MUST be better than
competitive with regard to interest rates on both loans and savings
accounts. It means that all members must be equally served.
The "Qualified Board" memo asks:
"Can we take a chance with this inexperienced group whose primary
goal seems to be to get elected, not to do what is in the best
interest of DCU's members?"
We feel that we have the best interests of the membership in mind with
our view for the future of DCU. We intend to eliminate the systems in
place at DCU which discriminate against members based on personal
wealth. We seek to encourage new business by eliminating unnecessary and
punitive fee structures which only drive more DCU members away, along
with their business.
The "Qualified Board" memo says:
"A major difference in the candidates is how they make decisions.
Ross, Haskins, and Milbury 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."
Member surveys, when properly conducted, can yield insight into what
the membership wants, and how they feel about different issues.
However, in the last DCU membership survey, specific questions related
to the new fees proposed by DCU board member Paul Kinzelman were
deleted by DCU management. The real issues, like the acceptability of
a fee structure by the ownership, were not included. Simply stated,
DCU management didn't care what the membership thought of the new
fees.
Management analysis of conditions and trends is also highly valuable
information that should be considered in decision making. However, it
is not up to the Board to simply rubber stamp DCU management's
recommendations. This happened a few years ago and resulted in
massive fraud at the credit union. Will candidates Ross, Milbury, and
Haskins rely simply on the opinions of credit union management, or
will they also consider the membership and its needs in their
deliberations?
The "Qualified Board" memo says:
"...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."
DCU, and the "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board", would seem to accept
that if DCU's rates on savings and loans are equal to that of large
banks, then that is good enough to be considered competitive and
excellent. We reject this assertion. DCU does not pay rent on the
branch facilities provided it by Digital. DCU doesn't pay taxes, and
many other costs that its counterparts in for-profit banking must bear.
DCU should be passing on these "non-costs" to the membership in the form
of better-than-equal rates on savings and loans.
The "Qualified Board" memo says:
"Mr. Gransewicz and associates ignore industry trends, analysis,
and member surveys because the results do not agree with their
personal agendas."
This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated personal attack that seems
out of place in an election where the issues are clear. Our agenda is
to treat all members equally and fairly. All members should share in
the success of DCU. We want to establish a business framework in which
member loyalty is encouraged and members return to DCU because DCU is
the best choice to meet their financial needs. Contrast this approach
with "Relationship Banking" which penalizes members with fees if they
do not meet DCU's profitability profile.
The memo goes on to say:
"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."
As currently implemented, 63% of the membership is not "in relationship"
with DCU, yet DCU pursues a policy of establishing relationship banking.
Two thirds of the total credit union membership is certainly not "a
small group of members" as the memo wants you to believe.
Consider the following chart, accurate to date. It shows that a majority
of DCU members, are not "in relationship." We question how DCU's
relationship banking strategy could possibly be successful given the
relatively few households that are in relationship compared to those
that are not in relationship.
Total Relationship* Non-Relationship
Households Households
67,716 24,660 43,056
100.0% 36.4% 63.6%
* Households that maintain $3500 in total savings balances or
Households that maintain $3500 in total loan balances or
Households with a sold mortgage loan
It is important to remember that a $500 minimum balance or direct
deposit will waive checking account fees of $4/month. However, having
free checking does NOT make you a relationship member. Note also that
no dividends are paid when the daily balance is less than $1,000.
The memo says:
"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."
This information is based on only 2 months of data. This can hardly
be seen as conclusive. Here are facts which show a very different,
but accurate, picture:
Year Savings Growth Rate % Planned
---- --------------------- -------
1993 -5.93 4.50
1992 -1.22 2.90
1991 -0.53 NMF
These numbers show the real picture: Savings at DCU have been steadily
declining for 3 years even though they were supposed to be increasing.
This clearly shows that DCU policy in this area is lacking and is in
need of much work in order to succeed.
The "Qualified Board" memo says:
"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."
Many financial institutions that failed in the past 10 years did so
because they failed to stay within their element, and did not focus on
what they did best. They invested in high-risk projects, and strayed away
from established and understood philosophies; failure was a result.
DCU nearly failed once as a result of straying from its pure credit
union roots. DCU made loans and invested in non-members to an extent
that it was literally one participation loan away from failure.
What works for DCU is investing in our membership, and encouraging
members to do business with DCU. DCU has a default rate on loans far
below industry average, and consistently below budgeted amounts.
By instituting complex fee-based "relationships" with its membership,
by not encouraging new members to join, and by not encouraging existing
members to bring more business to DCU, DCU is moving away from the
credit union roots that have made it so successfull.
We agree with the "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" that building
capital is an important function that the Board must support. However,
it is clearly not the only thing on which DCU must focus. As Board
member Paul Kinzelman wrote, "[d]ecisions are made purely on the basis of
financial numbers without regard for the membership. Consider being in
a taxi driven by somebody focused exclusively on the speedometer and not
looking out the window."
Our message is clear regarding building capital. Capital should be
increased in a moderate and steady fashion. The member/owners should
share in DCU's success via bonus dividends, in precisely the same
manner as DCU employees benefit via profit sharing (gainsharing).
The "Qualified Board" memo says:
"Also, a well-capitalized credit union can provide more competitive
loan and savings rates and offer new services."
We have never claimed that DCU should not grow capital. In fact, we
have called for moderate, steady, capital growth. On the other hand,
DCU has huge amounts of loanable cash that is not loaned out because DCU
members frequently don't consider DCU for their loan needs. Introducing
truly competitive interest rates on loan instruments will help to put
this cash to better use.
DCU has surplus cash - your money - invested in short term investments or
with Eascorp (the credit union for credit unions). Member loans are a
far more lucrative investment for DCU. Investing in the membership
helps to grow income for DCU, and benefits the membership accordingly.
The memo says:
"Capital serves as a needed cushion so that unexpected losses
can be absorbed."
A primary goal of both the Board of Directors and Supervisory Committee
of any credit union is to insure that unexpected losses do not occur.
This is done by implementing proper policies, checks and balances. This
process is ongoing at DCU, and we obviously support such policies. DCU
has a strong capital base now, and it is growing. In fact, the capital
ratio has shown steady improvement for 2 years now - without the
imposition of fees on services, and discriminatory policies like
relationship banking.
The "Qualified Board" memo says:
"They [Garrod, Gransewicz, and Fillmore-Gillett] promise a bonus
dividend to members now, but they don't understand the impact
this action will have on DCU's ability to offer excellent rates
in the long run."
It is true that we propose to pay bonus dividends. This is not a
campaign trick, nor is such a proposal made out of ignorance. Bonus
dividends are paid out of net income above budgeted projections. This
is the same philosophy that is used in the existing profit sharing
(gainsharing) plan that DCU management has implemented for its employees.
In the long run, a strategy of competitive rates on products, an end
to fees on basic services, a plan to grow the membership base, and a
plan to share DCU's success with its owners will help to encourage more
business. More business means increased income and improved profits.
Finally, the memo asks:
"Do you want a board controlled by people who do not understand
these simple, but extremely important, financial concepts?"
Philip Gransewicz has two years experience on the DCU Board of
Directors. He is presently the Board Secretary, and sits on the
Executive Committee as well as the Finance and Investment Committee.
Mr. Gransewicz has a Bachelor of Science in Accounting from
Bentley College. He has previous experience in private business, and at
Digital works with customers on a daily basis.
Christopher Fillmore-Gillett is presently serving a second term as Vice
Chairperson of the DCU Credit Appeals Committee. This committee hears
appeals from members regarding credit denials. Mr. Fillmore-Gillett
holds a Computer Science degree from Central Michigan University. Prior
to working for Digital, Mr. Fillmore-Gillett worked for an accounting
firm as a management consultant, worked later as a private consultant,
and founded a successful business.
David Garrod holds an MBA from Northeastern University, and a Bachelor
of Science Degree from the University of Southampton UK. At Digital
he manages a software development group. He has also managed a cost
center with an annual budget of $6 million.
Two years ago, the "Commitee for a Qualified Board" campaigned against
many of the candidates standing in the Special Election - including
the current Board chairperson Lisa Demauro-Ross, whom they now appear
to embrace. This is an anonymous group of individuals, whose motives
and agenda seem unclear, who continously criticize those people who
work for positive change at DCU. We feel that our business model for
DCU is clear, rational, and will put DCU on a solid footing as we move
into the next century. We would ask that you, the reader, set aside
the gross mischaracterizations and potentially libelous statements
made by the faceless "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" and instead
focus on the real issues facing DCU now:
We have attached our joint statement which as you can see concentrates solely
on the issues. In contrast the "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" memo
concentrates on character assassination rather than on discussing the real
issues and choices facing the DCU membership.
Respectfully yours,
Christopher C. Fillmore-Gillett
David J. Garrod
Philip J. Gransewicz (incumbent)
We share a similar philosophy and vision for DCU. This philosophy
and vision will be the basis of all decisions made as Directors.
We feel it is very important for all DCU members to consider this
when deciding who they should vote for in the upcoming election
for DCU's Board of Directors.
"All members are equal"
There can be no policies, pricing or otherwise, which divide the
membership into classes. DCU cannot penalize one member to reward
another member. The current "relationship banking" fees does
precisely this. We are OPPOSED to this way of doing business and
if elected, will call for repeal of the recently implemented checking
account fees. It is neither in the credit unions long term best
interest, nor in the interest of the membership. The membership
spoke loud and clear two years ago and we are ready to act on that
mandate.
"Our strength is our membership"
DCU's membership has proven itself, in both good times and bad times.
In good times, our default rates are FAR below our peers. In the
difficult times that many of us are facing, DCU's membership has
proven itself again with below forecast defaults. The membership
base must be PROTECTED and GROWN in order to ensure DCU's long term
stability. There can be no policies which result in DCU members
taking their business elsewhere. DCU's top priority MUST be
membership satisfaction and participation, NOT increased profits.
"Moderate, steady capital growth"
While it is very important to provide a strong capital base for the
credit union, it should not be done at an overly aggressive pace.
DCU's past losses due to "investments" in non-members have required
DCU to replace millions of dollars in lost equity. Record profits
over the last two years have helped rebuild the equity base. It is
now time to better balance the needs of membership with the need to
build equity.
"Dividends to membership"
DCU's membership MUST share in DCU's success. We believe it is now
time to invest in the membership. A portion of DCU's profits each
year should be allocated to a bonus dividend or loan interest rebate.
Even though it may be small at the beginning, it is important that
DCU maintain its credit union roots and commitment to the membership.
We believe that DCU has reached a defining point in its existence.
It can continue down the road towards becoming a commercial bank or
the membership can insist that DCU remain a credit union. It is our
desire to insure DCU remains a CREDIT UNION for Digital employees.
Each DCU member must decide what direction DCU will take. Please
vote in the upcoming election. Your vote DOES matter.
|
| 787.2 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Thu Mar 24 1994 09:17 | 109 |
| �Recently, the so-called "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" has
�begun handing out literature to DCU members around the country.
Around the country?
�Article VI, Section 9 of the Bylaws restricts credit union
�employee participation in elections.
It restricts, it does not prohibit.
�Mr. Gransewicz did, in fact, not attend a Board
�Team Building Session. This was due primarily to Mr. Gransewicz's
�responsibilities to his employer.
Phil has also admitted in here that he saw no point to this meeting.
If he was able to make time to attend every single other board meeting,
why did he choose to not make time for this one? Actually, he already
answered that question.
�DCU management was able to allocate a percentage
�of DCU's bottom line net income to DCU employee profit sharing without
�full board approval. This was due in large part to Ms. Ross's and Mr.
�Milbury's circumvention of Board approval via their position on the
�Human Resources Committee.
Circumvention of board approval? Didn't I see the results of a board
vote on this issue in the meeting minutes published in this conference?
�The accusations that Mr. Gransewicz uses personal attacks, and
�intimidation to gain influence are completely false, and as such do not
�deserve any response.
As one who has been on the receiving end of this in this conference I
can understand why there is no response.
�DCU's membership declined by 10,631 members in calendar year 1993.
You've left out the rest of the story here.
�However, it
�is not up to the Board to simply rubber stamp DCU management's
�recommendations. This happened a few years ago and resulted in
�massive fraud at the credit union.
Now who's using scare tactics?
�DCU, and the "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board", would seem to accept
�that if DCU's rates on savings and loans are equal to that of large
�banks, then that is good enough to be considered competitive and
�excellent.
As some instances in here have shown, DCU's savings and loans rates are
also equal to those of many credit unions. We wouldn't want any more
half truths to be spread here, would we?
�We want to establish a business framework in which
�member loyalty is encouraged
Relationship banking is trying to reach the same goal. It appears the
visions are similar, the methods are not.
�As currently implemented, 63% of the membership is not "in relationship"
�with DCU, yet DCU pursues a policy of establishing relationship banking.
�Two thirds of the total credit union membership is certainly not "a
�small group of members" as the memo wants you to believe.
First of all, these numbers are dated. Do you have current ones? Do
you also have any info that shows that these two thirds are speaking to
you, noting in this conference, or otherwise showing their displeasure
with the system?
�Consider the following chart, accurate to date.
What date?
�It is important to remember that a $500 minimum balance or direct
�deposit will waive checking account fees of $4/month. However, having
�free checking does NOT make you a relationship member.
Direct deposit of a certain amount into checking will waive checking
fees (why they don't allow direct deposit of a certain amount into any
account, I don't know). What additional benefits do relationship
members get and are those benefits what you have defined as "basic
services"?
�These numbers show the real picture: Savings at DCU have been steadily
�declining for 3 years even though they were supposed to be increasing.
Even you must admit, things have changed.
�DCU nearly failed once as a result of straying from its pure credit
�union roots. DCU made loans and invested in non-members to an extent
�that it was literally one participation loan away from failure.
Another scare tactic?
�and by not encouraging existing
�members to bring more business to DCU,
You mean other than a steady stream of promotional literature on car
and mortgage loans?
�Our message is clear regarding building capital. Capital should be
�increased in a moderate and steady fashion.
Actually, I think this message has been buried under your other
messages.
|
| 787.3 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Thu Mar 24 1994 09:28 | 18 |
|
Re: .2
> Phil has also admitted in here that he saw no point to this meeting.
> If he was able to make time to attend every single other board meeting,
> why did he choose to not make time for this one? Actually, he already
> answered that question.
What Phil very clearly stated is that there seemed to be no reason
for the meeting other than to try to get him to come around to the
way of thinking of the BoD majority. It's the classic "you're not a
team player" scam. Phil clearly stated that he believed the problem
had to do with fundamentally conflicting philosophies and not with
lack of teamwork. He was not dumping on the rest of the BoD. He was
simply saying that a working on teamwork perse is not going to fix it.
Steve
|
| 787.4 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Time to put the SHARE back in DCU! | Thu Mar 24 1994 09:30 | 22 |
|
.2> �Our message is clear regarding building capital. Capital should be
.2> �increased in a moderate and steady fashion.
.2>
.2> Actually, I think this message has been buried under your other
.2> messages.
From the joint statement of Phil, Dave and Chris, posted at least twice
in this conference, once in a separate note.
"Moderate, steady capital growth"
While it is very important to provide a strong capital base for the
credit union, it should not be done at an overly aggressive pace.
DCU's past losses due to "investments" in non-members have required
DCU to replace millions of dollars in lost equity. Record profits
over the last two years have helped rebuild the equity base. It is
now time to better balance the needs of membership with the need to
build equity.
|
| 787.5 | And the beat goes on... | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | DCU Election: 3 G's -> NO FEES | Thu Mar 24 1994 09:32 | 5 |
|
Well, I guess we can all stop waiting for Keith's demands for facts from
the "Committee" to substantiate their claims. Some things will never
change. Hopefully one of them will not be the leadership of DCU.
|
| 787.6 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Time to put the SHARE back in DCU! | Thu Mar 24 1994 09:40 | 17 |
|
.2> �Recently, the so-called "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" has
.2> �begun handing out literature to DCU members around the country.
.2>
.2> Around the country?
I a hesitant to reply to such a bit of irrevelance, but I feel that it
demonstrates an important point about may of the "arguments" against
Phil, Chris and Dave that have been written in this conference and in the
infamous leaflet.
The leaflet has been spotted in Nashua NH, Marlboro MA, Shrewsbury MA
and Colorado Springs CO. I would wager that to many national news
services, that would constitute "around the country".
One can choose to focus on the inane, or on the real issues.
|
| 787.7 | | AOSG::GILLETT | Running for the DCU Board | Thu Mar 24 1994 09:44 | 89 |
|
>> �Recently, the so-called "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" has
>> �begun handing out literature to DCU members around the country.
>
> Around the country?
Well, it's been documented in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
Georgia. Guess that's sort of "around the country."
>>�Article VI, Section 9 of the Bylaws restricts credit union
!!!!!!!!!
>>�employee participation in elections.
>
> It restricts, it does not prohibit.
!!!!!!!!!
Glad to see we're all in agreement on this point.
>> �The accusations that Mr. Gransewicz uses personal attacks, and
>> �intimidation to gain influence are completely false, and as such do not
>> �deserve any response.
>
> As one who has been on the receiving end of this in this conference I
> can understand why there is no response.
>> �However, it
>> �is not up to the Board to simply rubber stamp DCU management's
>> �recommendations. This happened a few years ago and resulted in
>> �massive fraud at the credit union.
>
> Now who's using scare tactics?
Just the facts, Keith. The previous board didn't question our previous
president's activity - at least not from anything that was said in the
minutes. In reviewing all the court documents regarding the Barnstable
failure, and Mangone's role in it (you, of course, *have* read all this
stuff, right?) it was pretty obvious that the Board was simply approving
his management recommendations with little or no question. That's what
happened.
>> �As currently implemented, 63% of the membership is not "in relationship"
>> �with DCU, yet DCU pursues a policy of establishing relationship banking.
>> �Two thirds of the total credit union membership is certainly not "a
>> �small group of members" as the memo wants you to believe.
>
> First of all, these numbers are dated. Do you have current ones? Do
> you also have any info that shows that these two thirds are speaking to
> you, noting in this conference, or otherwise showing their displeasure
> with the system?
>
>> �Consider the following chart, accurate to date.
>
> What date?
And the date on the posting is? These numbers are accurate now.
If you have some data which would refute those numbers, please post
it here so we can all see it.
>> �These numbers show the real picture: Savings at DCU have been steadily
>> �declining for 3 years even though they were supposed to be increasing.
>
> Even you must admit, things have changed.
Yup, things have changed. Two years ago we didn't have fees on basic
services.
>> �DCU nearly failed once as a result of straying from its pure credit
>> �union roots. DCU made loans and invested in non-members to an extent
>> �that it was literally one participation loan away from failure.
>
> Another scare tactic?
Nope, another fact. Had another participation loan collapsed, and had
DCU not gotten Mangone's bond, the credit union most probably would have
failed.
>> �Our message is clear regarding building capital. Capital should be
>> �increased in a moderate and steady fashion.
>
> Actually, I think this message has been buried under your other
> messages.
You obviously didn't read the "Moderate, Steady Capital Growth" stuff
then. It's right out there, as an integral part of what we plan to
do. Always has been, always will be.
Chris
|
| 787.8 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Time to put the SHARE back in DCU! | Thu Mar 24 1994 09:51 | 10 |
|
.2> �Article VI, Section 9 of the Bylaws restricts credit union
.2> �employee participation in elections.
.2>
.2> It restricts, it does not prohibit.
Absolutely true. However, it would appear that the reported activities
violate the *restrictions* specified either by DCU policy (see note
786.7, or note 3.3) or DEC policy (see note 786.30, or VTX ORANGEBOOK).
|
| 787.9 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Time to put the SHARE back in DCU! | Thu Mar 24 1994 10:02 | 16 |
| .2> �However, it
.2> �is not up to the Board to simply rubber stamp DCU management's
.2> �recommendations. This happened a few years ago and resulted in
.2> �massive fraud at the credit union.
.2>
.2> Now who's using scare tactics?
Is it considered "scare tactics" to simple restate the facts? Mangone
waltzed in, the sitting board granted him amazing leeway, no one
thought to question him or maybe visit a plot of land on the Cape, and
he waltzed out with $18 million. Maybe we're in a different financial
league, but to me that certainly constitutes "massive fraud".
Those who forget (or choose to disregard) their history are doomed to
repeat it.
|
| 787.10 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Thu Mar 24 1994 10:02 | 6 |
| � From the joint statement of Phil, Dave and Chris, posted at least twice
� in this conference, once in a separate note.
Yes, but I still stand by my statement. There has been much more
noting volume on the fee issues, relationship banking, etc. than there
has on this one.
|
| 787.11 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Thu Mar 24 1994 10:10 | 10 |
| �And the date on the posting is? These numbers are accurate now.
�If you have some data which would refute those numbers, please post
�it here so we can all see it.
So you are saying that those numbers are current as of the date of the
posting? That's what I wanted clarification on. That might be the
most up to date information you have, but it might still be dated
information. The last time I saw numbers on relationship households
was last year. I haven't had a chance to compare these numbers with
those published last year and was wondering if these numbers were new.
|
| 787.13 | DCU vs. WCU | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Thu Mar 24 1994 10:38 | 27 |
| >�DCU, and the "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board", would seem to accept
>�that if DCU's rates on savings and loans are equal to that of large
>�banks, then that is good enough to be considered competitive and
>�excellent.
> As some instances in here have shown, DCU's savings and loans rates are
> also equal to those of many credit unions. We wouldn't want any more
> half truths to be spread here, would we?
Interestingly enough, I just got back from the HLO branch where I found
a flyer entitled "Who Says DCU's Rates 'Are Not Competitive'?".
This flyer lists rates for 1 local credit union (Worker's), and 10
local banks. The data is as of 3/9/94.
How does DCU stack up against Workers CU?
Loans Auto Mortgage Credit Card Unsecured
DCU 6.90 7.750 11.90 13.50
WCU 6.99 7.875 12.90 15.00
Savings Money Market Checking 1-Yr CD Savings
DCU 2.86 2.17 3.64 2.76
WCU 2.50 2.00 3.30 2.50
I'd be interested to see if there are minimum balances required on
WCU's savings products like there are for DCU's. Anyone know?
|
| 787.14 | WCU | CADSYS::RITCHIE | Gotta love log homes | Thu Mar 24 1994 11:35 | 24 |
| I don't have time to call WCU right now, but if someone does call, please try to
answer the following:
What are the minimum balances for deposits to earn interest? Right now DCU is
$1000 minimum for all but Savings.
How often in interest credited to the account? DCU is quarterly. WCU may be
different.
Does WCU require pre-authorized transfer for the auto loan rate?
Are the points and closing costs the same on the mortgage?
What is the annual fee and grace period for the WCU credit card?
Does WCU own, lease or rent the real estate for their offices?
Does WCU charge for use of their ATMs?
Does WCU charge for use of foreign ATMs?
Do WCU branches have early morning, evening or Saturday hours?
Elaine
|
| 787.16 | a tad misleading | HDLITE::CHALTAS | No Walruses | Thu Mar 24 1994 11:36 | 7 |
| I got this too -- but the fine print on DCU's credit card rate states that
that "competitive" 11.90% rate *only* applies to balances over $2500,
and the standard rate is in fact 13.5%
It appears that they carefully chose their list of competitors -- a
standard technique for this sort of chart (goodness knows computer
vendors do the same thing!)
|
| 787.17 | | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | DCU Election: 3 G's -> NO FEES | Thu Mar 24 1994 12:33 | 2 |
|
Anybody know what happened to .12 & .15? Moderator changes maybe?
|
| 787.18 | Additional information about flyer mentioned in .13 | STARCH::WHALEN | Rich Whalen | Thu Mar 24 1994 12:44 | 13 |
| re .13
I saw that flyer in the coffee area (SHR3-2, West Wing) a couple of days ago. I
also recall that it encouraged the reader to vote for Lisa Ross. (I was not
able to find it there just now, so I could not verify this.)
Rich
P.S. For those of you keeping track of where campaign flyers are appearing, the
letter from the "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" is posted in the coffee
areas in SHR3-2 West Wing. I have seen flyers for the 3G's on the tables in the
cafeteria in SHR3. I have not encountered any agressive distribution of any
flyers.
|
| 787.19 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Thu Mar 24 1994 12:45 | 7 |
| �What are the minimum balances for deposits to earn interest? Right now DCU is
�$1000 minimum for all but Savings.
I don't believe this is correct. I think the only accounts which DCU
requires a minimum of $1000 balance is checking and money market. Some
of the club accounts require $100. I don't think this includes the
Holiday Club (but it has other restrictions).
|
| 787.20 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Thu Mar 24 1994 12:50 | 14 |
| �I saw that flyer in the coffee area (SHR3-2, West Wing) a couple of days ago. I
�also recall that it encouraged the reader to vote for Lisa Ross. (I was not
�able to find it there just now, so I could not verify this.)
The one I picked up from the HLO branch had nothing at all about the
election on it.
The mortgage rates quoted in the brochure are for 30 year fixed with 1
point.
Some of the competitors are highlighted as being major competitors
based on the Feb. DCU Customer survey. WCU is considered by those
sampled to be a major competitor of DCU in the categories of Auto
loans, money market accounts, 1-year CDs, and savings.
|
| 787.21 | | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | DCU Election: 3 G's -> NO FEES | Thu Mar 24 1994 12:56 | 80 |
|
[Permission to forward or post this mail message in its entirety
is granted. However, the original mail header must be retained.]
DCU Members,
Words cannot express how excited I am at being the target of yet
another DCU generated trash flyer. It tells me two things;
we're on the right track and these "people" think we have a chance
of succeeding and have resorted to desperate measures. When you
get desperate, you make fatal mistakes, and this flyer is a great
example of that.
First, let me explain that this exact same thing happened two years
ago. At that time, excerpts from my writeup were taken (before they
were released to the membership), packaged in a similar fashion and
sent to the Cape Cod Times. All of the same slurs, scare tactics and
invalid information. As I examine this version, I see many of the
same words being used. We must all ponder who or what is the common
thread in these events.
But what really excites me is that Dave, Chris and I could not
have written anything as good as this to clearly illustrate why it
is *imperative* that DCU members make a very real change at DCU,
starting at the top. This trash paints a very accurate portrait
of the people whose name appears on it; Lisa Demauro Ross, Lois
Haskins and Paul Milbury. It clearly illustrates what we have been
saying all along; DCU's attitude and approach is severely flawed.
Attitude and approach start at the TOP.
The attitudes and approach shown in this flyer are the same attitudes
and approach that has been inflicted upon all DCU members. Two of
these people are the same people that voted two-thirds of the DCU
membership into second class membership. They ushered in the term
"credit union abusers". They define a "carrot" as money which they
do not take from you. Ms. Ross stated two years ago she would
"hold the line on fees" and then voted for them the first opportunity
she got. What was that about "hollow promises" Lisa?
Ms. Haskins states she is a "team player" in her write-up. More
important than being a "team player" is playing for a team you
believe in. I did not run for the DCU Board two years ago to be
on a "team" that classifies a large portion of the membership as
"abusers" and deadbeats that aren't carrying their weight. It was
stated that I missed a "team building session" and that is correct.
At the time, work pressures were great and I was leaving town in a few
days. I also had trouble resolving in my mind whether this board
was a "team" that I wanted to be a part of since many people only
see "The Board".
My conclusion was that I was on the wrong "team". While I shared
a few values and beliefs, there were very fundamental differences
in the way problems were perceived and solutions determined. A
clear example was the "relationship banking" presentation we were
given. We were shown numbers and told there were many "abusers"
and that they must be dealt with. A majority of the Board agreed.
I looked at those same numbers and saw many customers that DCU has
failed to win over, for whatever reason.
The "team" I am now a part of consists of Paul Kinzelman,
Dave Garrod, Chris Fillmore-Gillett and myself. This "team" believes
in true credit union philosophy of people helping people. We
believe DCU members deserve better than a credit union which models
itself after a bank. We believe that DCU must be the all members
first and best choice of financial institutions. We believe that
all members are equal. This is a "team" I am proud to be a part of
and ask all DCU members to join it.
Each DCU member has the power to make DCU a true credit union.
All it takes is a pencil and a few moments of your time. From
what we have all seen of the "Qualified" trash literature, there
isn't a moment to waste.
Best Regards,
Philip J. Gransewicz
DCU Director
Secretary of the Board
Finance and Investment Committee member
|
| 787.22 | Let me clarify, then | CADSYS::RITCHIE | Gotta love log homes | Thu Mar 24 1994 13:01 | 12 |
| �What are the minimum balances for deposits to earn interest? Right now DCU is
�$1000 minimum for all but Savings.
> I don't believe this is correct. I think the only accounts which DCU
> requires a minimum of $1000 balance is checking and money market. Some
> of the club accounts require $100. I don't think this includes the
> Holiday Club (but it has other restrictions).
I was referring to the accounts listed. To get the interest rates listed for
Money Market, Checking and a one-year CD, you must have a minimum of $1000.
Elaine
|
| 787.23 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Thu Mar 24 1994 13:05 | 2 |
| Agreed, Elaine. I asked the same question at the bottom of my reply
posting the comparison.
|
| 787.24 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Mud season has arrived | Thu Mar 24 1994 13:25 | 7 |
|
> Anybody know what happened to .12 & .15? Moderator changes maybe?
As far as I know they were author deleted. There has been no moderator
activity on this topic.
Alfred (acting) DCU Conference moderator
|
| 787.25 | I deleted .15 | HDLITE::CHALTAS | No Walruses | Thu Mar 24 1994 15:07 | 3 |
| .15 was deleted by the author (me) after being replaced with .16.
.15 had some typos that made its meaning unclear, and I wished to avoid
opening a new rathole...
|
| 787.26 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Thu Mar 24 1994 16:02 | 6 |
| re .21:
People don't agree with me, I must be wrong. People don't agree with
Phil, he must be right.
I'll have to add that to my notes on DCU Notesfile etiquette.
|
| 787.27 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Time to put the SHARE back in DCU! | Fri Mar 25 1994 09:12 | 24 |
|
The "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" says:
"Recently, Mr. Gransewicz was the only Board member who refused
to attend a Board Team Building Session."
Allow me to repost the board meeting attendance record from note 697,
which speaks volumes in response to this carefully chosen "fact".
(The original order was alphabetical; I chose to rearrange by
attendance, from best to worst; absence was assessed -4, late arrival
or early departure -1.)
Total Total Late Early
Director Attended Absences Arrivals Departures Grade
--------------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------
P. Gransewicz 18 0 0 0 BENCHMARK
T. Dawkins 18 0 1 1 -2
P. Kinzelman 16 2 0 0 -8
L. DeMauro-Ross 16 2 1 0 -9
G. Mann 18 0 3 8 -11
T. McEachin 15 3 1 1 -14
P. Milbury 16 2 3 8 -19
|
| 787.28 | Sometimes the truth hurts. | STAR::BUDA | I am the NRA | Fri Mar 25 1994 11:05 | 24 |
| RE: Note 787.27 by WLDBIL::KILGORE
> Total Total Late Early
> Director Attended Absences Arrivals Departures Grade
> --------------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------
> P. Gransewicz 18 0 0 0 BENCHMARK
> T. Dawkins 18 0 1 1 -2
> P. Kinzelman 16 2 0 0 -8
> L. DeMauro-Ross 16 2 1 0 -9
> G. Mann 18 0 3 8 -11
> T. McEachin 15 3 1 1 -14
> P. Milbury 16 2 3 8 -19
This is a REAL eye opener. Phil was on track when he pushed for people
to be on time and for people to attend.
The hollow rhetoric that I see from Lisa about Phil not attending one
non-board meeting makes me wonder about the agenda...
Phil has not been a Digital 'type' of team player and has been honest --
sometimes the truth hurts.
- mark
|
| 787.30 | | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | DCU Election: 3 G's -> NO FEES | Sun Mar 27 1994 03:42 | 47 |
|
Re: .29
> FWIW,
It's worth a lot Alfred.
>I sent Email to Mr Milbury, Ms Haskins, and Ms DeMauro Ross
> with a number of questions about this leaflet. I received a reply
> only from Ms DeMauro Ross.
Exactly what were the questions?
> Lisa tells me that she did not have a hand in the writing or
> production of it. She did receive some after the fact and has
> handed them out.
The first sentence is irrelevant given the second sentence. Her
distribution of these "leaflets" is agreement and consent. I would
like to ask that any Digital employee that received this "leaflet" from
Lisa Ross, on Digital property, to please contact me.
>She did know about (until I told her) that
> DCU employees were handing them out in violation of policy and she
> did not approve of it. Not in advance and not afterwards.
When did you inform her of this? What action did the Chairperson of
the Board of DCU take when given this information? DCU employees were
still handing it out on Friday. She professes to have lead the credit
union for two years yet can't get this stopped?
>I did not find out who did write and/or produce the flier.
Does it really matter? Lisa Ross, Paul Milbury and Lois Haskin's name
is ON IT. If they didn't agree with it and wanted it stopped, all they
would have to do is request DCU employees to stop distributing it, but
it appears they have not done so. At this point, in my mind THEY OWN
IT. Not objecting to and taking action to stop it after one week, is
CONSENT. Two years ago, another candidate "endorsed" by this mysterious
and unknown "Committee" acted promptly and effectively to have his name
disassociated with the group of "qualified" candidates. His (Deepak
Goyal) actions indicated he was a person of integrity and honor.
>We had a productive conversation. As all conversations I've had with
> her have been - even when we fail to convince the other of our views.
Please explain.
|
| 787.29 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Mud season has arrived | Mon Mar 28 1994 07:57 | 15 |
| FWIW, I sent Email to Mr Milbury, Ms Haskins, and Ms DeMauro Ross
with a number of questions about this leaflet. I received a reply
only from Ms DeMauro Ross.
Lisa tells me that she did not have a hand in the writing or
production of it. She did receive some after the fact and has
handed them out. She did not know (until I told her) that
DCU employees were handing them out in violation of policy and she
did not approve of it. Not in advance and not afterwards. I did not
find out who did write and/or produce the flier. We had a
productive conversation. As all conversations I've had with
her have been - even when we fail to convince the other of
our views.
Alfred
|
| 787.31 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Mud season has arrived | Mon Mar 28 1994 08:37 | 68 |
| RE: .30
>> I sent Email to Mr Milbury, Ms Haskins, and Ms DeMauro Ross
>> with a number of questions about this leaflet. I received a reply
>> only from Ms DeMauro Ross.
>
> Exactly what were the questions?
The questions were:
-Did you know about this flier in advance?
-Did you help write it, edit it, or otherwise review it prior to it's
release?
-Are you aware of and/or approve of its being distributed by DCU employees
on DCU grounds during DCU business hours?
-Do you know who make up the Committee for a Qualified DCU Board?
-Can/would you tell me who they are?
-Can/would you tell me why their names are not on the flier?
-What are you going to do to make sure that DCU employees are not
electioneering in violation of DCU policy and by laws?
>> Lisa tells me that she did not have a hand in the writing or
>> production of it. She did receive some after the fact and has
>> handed them out.
>
> The first sentence is irrelevant given the second sentence. Her
> distribution of these "leaflets" is agreement and consent. I would
The first sentence is not irrelevant to me. Frankly it is more important to
me then the second. As for agreement and consent. I believe that a non
biased view of that flier and a lot of your notes would not find them all
that different. Though your flier is not as caustic as theirs your notes
here often are. Fairness and accuracy are of course open to debate and I
am not by any means saying I agree with the qualified board flier. But I
assume that there are some on the board and elsewhere who think you've said
things here that are untrue or unfair. Do you disagree with that assumption?
If not, you should also not be surprised at the flier.
> still handing it out on Friday. She professes to have lead the credit
> union for two years yet can't get this stopped?
So you think she has Chuck Cockburn under complete control? Really? That
would be a ringing endorsement of her coming from you since you've implied
that Chuck is the real power of the DCU in the past.
> >I did not find out who did write and/or produce the flier.
>
> Does it really matter?
Matters to me. I'm very interested in whose time, money and effort is
behind all this. And why they're doing it.
>> We had a productive conversation. As all conversations I've had with
>> her have been - even when we fail to convince the other of our views.
>
> Please explain.
Lisa and I have talked on a number of occasions over the last two years.
We frequently disagree and spend some time and effort trying to convince
the other of our point of view. We often fail. However, each time we talk
we communicate ideas and information. I believe we each learn from the other.
We manage to disagree without becoming disagreeable thus leaving the door
open to future discussions and the possibility that we may persuade the
other to our point of view on future issues. I define this as a productive
conversation.
Alfred
|
| 787.32 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Mon Mar 28 1994 10:39 | 1 |
| Well said, Alfred. Too bad it's too late to get you on the ballot.
|
| 787.33 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Mud season has arrived | Mon Mar 28 1994 10:47 | 8 |
|
>Well said, Alfred. Too bad it's too late to get you on the ballot.
Maybe next year. Or the year after. But don't tell my wife. She's
pretty happy that I lost 2 years ago. :-)
Alfred
|
| 787.34 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Mud season has arrived | Mon Mar 28 1994 11:20 | 23 |
|
I just had a conversation with Chuck Cockburn, DCU CEO, regarding
the following line in my 787.29.
> handed them out. She did not know (until I told her) that
> DCU employees were handing them out in violation of policy and she
Chuck maintains that the activities by DCU employees were not in
violation of the by-laws. Interpretation of those by-laws is much
more his and the Boards responsibility then mine. I will not argue
the point. He also maintains that it is not a violation of Digital
policy. For that I defer to people whose job it is to interpret
Digital policy. I have read the text of a memo sent to DCU through
the Digital DCU relations committee from Ron Glover. It *is* Ron's
job to interpret policy. As an attorney, the former Personnel Policies
manager, and the person to whom the current Personnel Policies manager
reports he is a reliable source for interpretation. His memo states
that DCU employees handing out literature is a violation.
Whether or not it should be is a discussion I leave to other people.
I'm in the middle quite enough thank you very much.
Alfred
|
| 787.35 | | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | DCU Election: 3 G's -> NO FEES | Mon Mar 28 1994 11:52 | 56 |
|
RE: .31
>-Do you know who make up the Committee for a Qualified DCU Board?
>-Can/would you tell me who they are?
>-Can/would you tell me why their names are not on the flier?
>-What are you going to do to make sure that DCU employees are not
> electioneering in violation of DCU policy and by laws?
Any answers to these from Lisa? Or the others whose name appears on
this trash?
>The first sentence is not irrelevant to me. Frankly it is more important to
>me then the second. As for agreement and consent.
Preparing them is irrelevant. Her name is on them. If she is now
handing them out them she has given consent. If she had not, then she
would have taken action to get her name removed or the materials
stopped. Deepak Goyal had no problem doing this two years ago.
>I believe that a non
>biased view of that flier and a lot of your notes would not find them all
>that different. Though your flier is not as caustic as theirs your notes
>here often are.
Alfred, we're talking about flyers being handed out to DCU members in a
branch, by DCU employees. This has nothing to do with notes. And
please refer me to any notes I have written in here that contain
similar language as that used in this trash. The fact is there are
none otherwise I'm sure you, and most certainly other "interested"
readers out there would have brought it to the proper authorities.
>Fairness and accuracy are of course open to debate and I
>am not by any means saying I agree with the qualified board flier. But I
>assume that there are some on the board and elsewhere who think you've said
>things here that are untrue or unfair. Do you disagree with that assumption?
>If not, you should also not be surprised at the flier.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion and they are perfectly free to
discuss the issues and state facts and their interpretation of those facts.
I wish they would! But this trash is character assassination. It
violates every single part of the Simms memo.
>So you think she has Chuck Cockburn under complete control? Really? That
>would be a ringing endorsement of her coming from you since you've implied
>that Chuck is the real power of the DCU in the past.
Exactly my point. We now see who has been in control and is fighting
to maintain it. So much for "leadership".
>Matters to me. I'm very interested in whose time, money and effort is
>behind all this. And why they're doing it.
Have we seen this anyplace outside of DCU branches yet? That might be
a clue.
|
| 787.36 | | CVG::THOMPSON | Mud season has arrived | Mon Mar 28 1994 13:02 | 39 |
|
> Any answers to these from Lisa? Or the others whose name appears on
> this trash?
Nothing that I am clear enough on to put here. I assume some answers
not given but will not print assumptions. People have indicated that
they've talked to Chuck, who would be the appropriate person, to make
sure that rules are being followed. No one wants to violate the rights
of either Digital or DCU employees however.
>Preparing them is irrelevant.
I disagree. I'm concerned about the motivations and intents of these
people. More so then of the people I can identify and talk to.
> please refer me to any notes I have written in here that contain
> similar language as that used in this trash. The fact is there are
> none otherwise I'm sure you, and most certainly other "interested"
> readers out there would have brought it to the proper authorities.
You've written 109 notes here since 1 March. I didn't have to read
too many of them to find some "attack" style notes. Obviously I didn't
find any that violate policy. Then again the flier we're talking about
didn't get deleted either. It's in the conference twice in full and
in part in a number of replies. Believe me when I tell you that there
are people every bit as ticked off at some of your notes as you are
about the flier. I'm sure that some of them don't see what the fuss
is about the flier any more then you see a problem with your notes.
>But this trash is character assassination.
Your opinion. How would you characterize accusations of doing things
that are "NOT within his authority", or "nickeling and diming the
membership", or telling someone "that is the most ridiculous
statement you've made to date"? Need I go on? Phil, you're tough
on people. You've got to expect that they'll be tough in return.
Remember what they say about heat and kitchens.
Alfred
|
| 787.37 | | ASE003::GRANSEWICZ | DCU Election: 3 G's -> NO FEES | Mon Mar 28 1994 13:30 | 31 |
|
>Preparing them is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> I disagree. I'm concerned about the motivations and intents of these
>>> people. More so then of the people I can identify and talk to.
Well, when we asked Chuck Cockburn who was on this "Committee" he
either wouldn't tell us or didn't know. Maybe you could ask him?
Funny how all this stuff gets sent out to DCU branches and nobody knows
who is doing it. You can bet your life that if MY NAME were on things
being distributed, I'd certainly know who was doing it. I guess that
is what is known as accountability. The current situation is the exact
opposite, namely plausible deniability.
> Your opinion. How would you characterize accusations of doing things
> that are "NOT within his authority", or "nickeling and diming the
> membership", or telling someone "that is the most ridiculous
> statement you've made to date"? Need I go on? Phil, you're tough
> on people. You've got to expect that they'll be tough in return.
> Remember what they say about heat and kitchens.
Oh my goodness, such harsh and slanderous statements! Alfred, please
please stop, this kitchen is far too hot... 8-) 8-)
You are actually equating those phrases with the wording in this flyer?
Guess that's part of the problem I face. If words such as "nickeling
and diming the membership" offend somebody, then I think we have an
overly sensitive person reading an opinion they don't agree with.
Disagreeing is fine, but the phrase is certainly not personally derogatory
as much of their trash flyer is.
|
| 787.38 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Mon Mar 28 1994 17:18 | 18 |
|
Re: .36
> Your opinion. How would you characterize accusations of doing things
> that are "NOT within his authority", or "nickeling and diming the
> membership", or telling someone "that is the most ridiculous
> statement you've made to date"? Need I go on? Phil, you're tough
> on people. You've got to expect that they'll be tough in return.
> Remember what they say about heat and kitchens.
These "accusations" are all much more mild than the now infamous
accusation of being an "abuser" that was leveled at fully 60% or
more of the membership who don't qualify for relationship status.
If they don't like it, then that's tough luck IMO.
Steve
|
| 787.39 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Mon Mar 28 1994 17:24 | 9 |
| � These "accusations" are all much more mild than the now infamous
� accusation of being an "abuser" that was leveled at fully 60% or
� more of the membership who don't qualify for relationship status.
I could be wrong but I thought "abuser" as used in the DCU mailing was
targetted at those who kept only enough money in their accounts for
check cashing priviliges and that many in here chose to extrapolate
that term to include just about anybody who wasn't happy with
relationship banking.
|
| 787.40 | | NASZKO::MACDONALD | | Mon Mar 28 1994 17:39 | 17 |
|
Re: .39
>I could be wrong but I thought "abuser" as used in the DCU mailing was
>targetted at those who kept only enough money in their accounts for
>check cashing priviliges and that many in here chose to extrapolate
>that term to include just about anybody who wasn't happy with
>relationship banking.
There was never any operational definition given of an "abuser", but
since a primary thrust of the whole relationship program was to get
rid of the abusers, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that
anyone who didn't qualify as a relationship member was one of the
targeted abusers.
Steve
|
| 787.41 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Time to put the SHARE back in DCU! | Mon Mar 28 1994 18:22 | 25 |
|
The following exerpt from note 2.19, BoD Minutes of April 27, 1993,
clearly establishes a link between the fee structure that implements
"Relationship Banking" and "abuse" of DCU services:
"Ms. Dawkins questioned how management arrived at the minimum balance
requirement figure of $3,500. Mr. Cockburn explained that this
limit was reached after analyzing profitable versus non-profitable
totals to find a fair cutoff amount.
"During discussion, Ms. Mann noted that DCU must discourage the
non-profitable, unreasonable use of its checking accounts. DCU
cannot allow the abuse of the system due to the overall negative
effect it creates. Mr. Cockburn noted that there is currently not
enough incentive for non-relationship members to expand their
relationship with DCU when they are already receiving a free
checking account."
Therefore, by Ms. Mann's choice of words and Mr. Cockburn's choice of
fees and balances, it is fair to state that non-relationship members
have been referred to as "abusing the system", and therefore "abusers".
[IMNSHO, this passage also clearly places "Relationship Banking" in the
realm of "stick", not "carrot".]
|
| 787.42 | we are responsible for the words we spread | WRKSYS::SEILER | Larry Seiler | Wed Mar 30 1994 18:01 | 22 |
| Alfred, I think perhaps you and Phil are talking at cross purposes on
the issue of responsibility for those "Qualified DCU Board" fliers.
1) You are concerned about who wrote them. Well so am I. However,
it's a moot (not "mute") question, since we have no way to find out.
2) You give Lisa credit for not having written them. But in my view
(and I gather Phil's too) the fact that she is distributing them means
that she substantially agrees with them. Just like the fact that I am
distributing the "3-G" fliers means that I agree with them. In that
sense, Lisa is *responsible* for what they say. She is *agreeing*
with what they say and is directly lending her name to that Committee
by working to distribute their words. So I think she should be held
responsible for those words, regardless of who wrote them.
As a separate question, are the words on the "Qualified DCU Board"
flier character assasination? Are they falsehoods and half truths?
Let each who reads them make up their own mind, and judge Lisa and her
fellow candidates accordingly. And the same for the 3-G fliers.
Enjoy,
Larry
|
| 787.43 | | MUDHWK::LAWLER | MUDHWK(TM) | Thu Mar 31 1994 09:36 | 8 |
|
If the flyer is in fact libelous, everybody passing them out is a
potential defendent...
-al
|
| 787.44 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Time to put the SHARE back in DCU! | Tue Apr 05 1994 14:25 | 27 |
|
This is an update to .27, based on the minutes of the 22-Feb-1994 BoD
meeting:
- Ms. Mann was absent
- Mr. Milbury was present for the executive session, but left
before the general session
---------------------------------------------
BoD attendance record, from minutes posted in note 2.*, as of
the 22-Feb-1994 meeting:
Total Late Early
Director Absences Arrivals Departures Grade
--------------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------
P. Gransewicz 0 0 0 BENCHMARK
T. Dawkins 0 1 1 -2
P. Kinzelman 2 0 0 -8
L. DeMauro-Ross 2 1 0 -9
T. McEachin 3 1 1 -14
G. Mann 1 3 8 -15
P. Milbury 2 3 9 -20
|
| 787.45 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Remember the DCU 3Gs | Thu May 26 1994 08:46 | 22 |
|
This is an update to .44, based on the minutes of the 22-Mar-1994 BoD
meeting:
- Mr. McEachin was absent
---------------------------------------------
BoD meeting attendance record, 28-Apr-1992 to 22-Mar-1994:
Total Late Early
Director Absences Arrivals Departures Grade
--------------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------
P. Gransewicz 0 0 0 BENCHMARK
T. Dawkins 0 1 1 -2
P. Kinzelman 2 0 0 -8
L. DeMauro-Ross 2 1 0 -9
G. Mann 1 3 8 -15
T. McEachin 4 1 1 -18
P. Milbury 2 3 9 -20
|