Conference 7.286::dcu

I note that some board members who ran on a platform
of "open communication" continue to do all in their
power to restrict communication with membership under
the guise of inaccuracate and incomplete information
being unfairly used.

The great desire for secrecy and controlled information
access continues.  This is bad, bad, bad.  A free press
is critical to health of our country and free and
quick access to board decisions is not only reasonable,
but is helpful in providing feedback as well as getting 
answers and justifications for decision made.

Full and complete information easily available should be
the default action, not the current policies of:

  - no discussion of board meeting activities until
    board minutes are approved
  - limited comments in board meeting minutes
  - "business" justifications for information request
  - hide major policy decisions for months

Open information is by far the best way to go, despite
the fact that sometimes it will be misunderstood,
misinterpreted and misused.  That's life in a free
society.

Collis

       
>  Mr. Kinzelman made a motion to eliminate Gainsharing for DCU employees.  He
>  explained that if DCU cannot afford to compensate the members with a Bonus
>  Dividend, then they can't afford to do so for the employees.  Mr.
>  Gransewicz noted that he agreed and also felt it was wrong for Mr. Cockburn
>  to have the ability to offer Gainsharing to employees without a formal
>  Board vote.
   
>  recognition.  Mr. Cockburn added that his approved contract states that he
>  has full authority to set compensation for the employees.  Taking that
>  authority away may be a breach of contract and may result in legal action
>  on the part of Mr. Cockburn.

    I'm going to jump into the lion's den here and agree with the majority
    of the board on this one. Either allow management to set compensation
    or replace management. Anything else is micro management and outside
    what the Board has any business doing. Yeah, I'd like to see members
    receive some reward for the DCU doing well. But holding the employees
    hostage as it were is not fair. The numbers are different. And frankly
    if the DCU is doing well it is largely because of the staff. As long
    as the Board feels that the DCU is doing the best they can for the
    members with loan and interest payment rates they *are* rewarding the
    membership. We may honestly disagree on the truth of that assertion
    but we can't say that the Board members who do agree with it are 
    being inconsistent.

    BTW, I did find Mr Cockburn 's suggestion of legal action to be a
    serious overreaction. Does the Board really have so little confidence
    in him that he needs to threaten legal action to get a majority vote?
    I doubt it. Or was his comment more light and off hand then it appears
    in the minutes? If I had to threaten my boss with legal action to live
    up to my contract I'd be looking for other work because one of us would
    be out of line.
   
    			Alfred

    
    
      Legal action,  huh?  Sounds like posturing to me.
    
      I do agree,  however,  that he should be either be granted
    pretty wide latitude to do what he thinks is right.  If he and
    the board can't agree on what's right,  than he should be replaced.
    
    (And actually,  he commented at one of the "get to know the prez"
    sessions here at TAY-2  that he left the rockwell CU because he
    didn't like the Board watching over his shoulder...   My guess
    is that he's getting similarly uncomfortable...)
    
    
    

    
    
      I'm  unclear about what type 'exposure'  is worrying people
    with regard to the 'majority of branches being on DEC property'?
    
    If somebody could clarify just what the percieved risk (and potential
    response) is,  I'd be curious to know...

    Re .-1
    
    I agree that Mr. Cockburn should have absolute authority to set
    compensation for the employees. Where I take issue is in the CEO being
    allowed to distribute the retained earnings of the members
    through gainsharing to the employees without that having to be approved
    ahead of time by the board.
    
    As for gainsharing itself I am personally in favour of it. If the
    performance of the credit union is above plan I think the employees
    should definitely benefit from that above plan performance, just as the
    members should. But I feel that the way this should be done is that the
    board should allocate a portion of excess profits for distribution by
    the CEO to employees in any way that he sees fit.
    
    I disagree strongly with the the current method where some committee
    came to the conclusion that the CEO should be able to distribute
    profits to the enmployees without full board approval. The EQUITY in
    the credit union belongs to the owners (ie the members) and therefore
    its disposition between employees and owners should be controlled by
    the board who are the owners representatives. As a board nember I would
    be fully in favour of allocating some of that equity to the CEO for
    distribution amongst the employees as an unexpected bonus. But
    IMMEDIATELY it becomes expected it becomes part of compenstation and as
    such compenstation should not be funded from equity, but rather should
    be built into the budget up front.
    
    Dave

    
    RE: .1
    
    Collis, please contact the Dept. of Truth and Correct Information for
    whatever you need.  They will be glad to tell you everything they want
    you to know.
    
    
    RE: .2
    
    Alfred, setting individual compensation for DCU employees is within the
    President's jurisdiction.  Instituting a "company-wide" BONUS plan based
    on our bottom line net income is not regular compensation and as such
    should be subject to Board approval IMO.  The Board DOES approve
    compensation in the budget approval process.  What has occurred is a
    circumvention of this approval process IMO.  
    
    It is also the President's responsibility to spend money in other
    areas.  This does not give him the right or authority to fund those
    expenditures with a similar scheme.
    
    And please drop the comments about DCU employees being held hostage. 
    That is not the issue here.  DCU employees have gotten bonuses in the
    past and would continue to get them if DCU's performance was excellent.
    Those types of statements only serve to emotionalize the discussion.

I agree that Employee Compensation IS a management matter.  However,
Gainsharing unless added to the overall compensation budget, is not
a strictly under that umbrella.

Thus, if Management wants to implement gainsharing, it should do it
this way ...

	Compensation Budget
		N million for salaries etc
		M Thousand for Gainsharing

Now, if profits do not justify Gainsharing, then that N thousand is reduced
to 0, and thus the Compensation Budget is not fully spent.  This puts the
distribution of the Gainsharing in the hands of the management where it
belongs, but overall approval of the compensation budget back in the hands
of the board, where it belongs.

But increasing the Compensation budget in an unbudgeted way to implement
Gainsharing seems wrong.


That Cockburn would suggest legal action is clear indication that he and
he alone wants to be in charge of our Credit Union.

Stuart

�    I disagree strongly with the the current method where some committee
�    came to the conclusion that the CEO should be able to distribute
�    profits to the enmployees without full board approval. 
    
    I may be wrong here, but I don't believe the Digital board of directors
    has to approve employee bonuses.  Why should DCU be any different?
    
�As a board nember I would
�    be fully in favour of allocating some of that equity to the CEO for
�    distribution amongst the employees as an unexpected bonus. But
�    IMMEDIATELY it becomes expected it becomes part of compenstation and as
�    such compenstation should not be funded from equity, but rather should
�    be built into the budget up front.
    
    Is that not the way it is done now?

    
    RE: .8
    
    Yes, the Board approves the budget.  If Mr. Cockburn and a majority of
    the Board now want to call this plan "compensation" then it must be
    subject to the approved compensation budget.  Should that budget be
    over-spent then what?  Do you think anything will be done or said?
    

    
    RE: .9
    
    This is NOT individual employee compensation.  This is a company-wide
    bonus plan based on yearly net income.  It is NOT normal or expected
    compensation.
    

    
>    And please drop the comments about DCU employees being held hostage. 

    My hostage comment was set off by this from the minutes:

>  Mr. Kinzelman made a motion to eliminate Gainsharing for DCU employees.  He
>  explained that if DCU cannot afford to compensate the members with a Bonus
>  Dividend, then they can't afford to do so for the employees.  Mr.

    It sure looks to me like Paul was saying "don't give the employees
    Gainsharing until the members get a bonus." This looks like hostage
    taking to me. So if you want me to drop the hostage comment you'll
    have to first explain how the minutes and I have what Paul said, and
    you apparently agreed with, wrong.

    			Alfred

    
    RE: .12
    
    I have stated before that I favor such plans.  *BUT*, the entire way
    this plan was pushed around the Board was dead wrong IMO.  It also is
    contrary to the strategic plan of DCU which was to increase capital. 
    
    All I am saying (and I believe Paul too), is if there is capital
    available for employee profit-sharing, then there should be capital
    available for the membership.  To say it is DCU employees that
    generate the success of DCU is wrong.  Yes, they contribute in a
    meaningful way.  But the membership cannot continue to be ignored as it
    has been.   Like I said earlier, everybody needs to share in the
    success.  Why are you holding the DCU membership hostage?
    
    I have stated in open Board session that if DCU employees are not
    adequately compensated then their regular wages should be adjusted.  I
    have also fought for bonuses for DCU employees in the past.  But you
    cannot read about that in the redacted minutes.  Like I said, if the
    truth be known, the DCU employees' jaws would hit the ground.
    

    
    If someone can answer one question in black-and-white terms (subject,
    or course, to the current "mininformation protection policy"), then I
    believe all the issues surroinding gainsharing will become crystal
    clear, and the answers will be intuitively obvious.
    
    The question is: Which of the two scenarios described below is correct;
    if neither is correct, what assumptions are invalid?
    
    I can imagine only two scenarios under which gainsharing operates. Both
    scenarios assume that on some regular basis, Mr. Cockburn presents an
    operating budget for the board's approval, and that some part of that
    budget is clearly marked "compensation", with value $n. My scenarios
    further assume that such a budget was approved at point A in time, and
    that the gainsharing plan was instituted at point B in time later than
    point A.
    
      Scenario 1: Mr. Cockburn decides that, from the approved compensation
      pot ($n), a portion ($j) will be used for traditional compensation, and
      the rest ($m) will be used to finance the gainsharing plan, where
      $n = $j + $m.    
    
      Scenario 2: Mr. Cockburn decides that the entire approved compensation
      pot ($n) will be used for traditional compensation, and an additional
      fund ($q) will be designated to finance the gainsharing plan. If
      $q > 0, it follows that $n + $q > $n.
    
    If scenario 1 matches reality, then it would seem that Mr. Cockburn is
    totally within his power to asminister the compensation pot in whatever
    manner he desires, and the board should have no issue with it.
    
    If we are actually looking at scenario 2, the board is right to inquire
    as to why Mr. Cockburn saw fit to increase the compensation pot, and to
    understand the budget juggling that created the gainsharing fund ($q);
    after all, what's a budget for if it changes out from underneath you.
    Furthermore, if those budget changes included a depletion of capital,
    at a time when Mr Cockburn himself has stated that it would be
    irresponsible for the board to deplete capital by approving bonus
    dividents to owners. then the board would be correct in closely questing
    the responsibility displayed by Mr. Cockburn in this matter.
    
    

               <<< Note 807.9 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>

>    I may be wrong here, but I don't believe the Digital board of directors
>    has to approve employee bonuses.  Why should DCU be any different?
 
	The Digital BoD would have to approve a company wide profit
	sharing plan. To date they have never done so.

Jim

I meant to put in a comment about Employee Gainsharing,
but forgot by the end of my first note.  I see that a
few other notes have since been entered.  :-)

Anyway, I think it is a mistake to attempt to retract the
Gainsharing program that is currently underway.  I agree
that the Board (and management) is being inconsistent with
wanting Gainsharing and not approving a dividend; I also
think it is inconsistent to want a dividend and then not
approve Gainsharing (even though we don't get a dividend).

As a secondary issue, I see no reason to attempt to remove
Gainsharing when it is such a hot political issue and can
cause so much hurt feelings.

Finally, it's not clear to me whether Chuck should have total
control over this type of compensation or not. I do think 
that there are reasonable arguments for both sides.

Collis

After reading the rest of the replies in this note, I agree
with Phil's position that additional compensation for Employees
outside of the budget passed has to be approved by the Board
of Directors.  Isn't that obvious???

Collis

I fail to understand the "threat of legal recourse" issue in its entirety.

Chuck voices the threat because of a concern that the board may be circumventing
his authority, however the issue is before the board for a decision, no? If
it's Chuck's business (Bill Kilgore's scenario 1), then why is it a matter
before the board? If it's Board business (Bill's scenario 2), then why is
Chuck assuming he's in a position to threaten?

-Jack

Employees bonuses based on profit could and should be a part of an overall
distribution of unexpected profits, which should include the members.

Employee bonuses based on out of the ordinary individual performance is
something else again.

It may sound like it is holding the employees hostage, but consider the
opposite as it is now ... the owner/members are being held hostage.

Stuart

    On a different subject ...
    
    I found interesting the data on account closings:
    	55% of accoutns closed had less than $100
    	75% of accounts closed had less than $500
    
    But this data may be misleading.  If I were to want to close
    my accounts, I would first move the savings.  Then gradually
    I would discontinue use of my checking account, and eventually
    close it, probably when it had a balance of less than $500.
    What might be more interesting to know is how much in deposits
    these accounts had some time prior to their closing (maybe 6 months).
    
    Janice
    

    
    
    >But this data may be misleading.  If I were to want to close
    >my accounts, I would first move the savings.  Then gradually
    >I would discontinue use of my checking account, and eventually
    >close it, probably when it had a balance of less than $500.
    >What might be more interesting to know is how much in deposits
    >these accounts had some time prior to their closing (maybe 6 months).
    
    
    That's a good point. My wife did pretty much did just that when we
    closed her accounts last year. She had an IRA, that was not quite large
    enough balance to qualify us as a relationship household. We rolled
    that over to a Mutual Fund, and then about a month later closed her
    checking and savings accounts. So she was probably counted as a
    "<$100" person, when in reality DCU lost ~$3000 in deposits!
    
    In fairness to the DCU, we were going to roll the IRA over anyway. It
    was just parked at DCU until we decided where its final destination
    was.
    
    Jim
    
    

�Chuck voices the threat because of a concern that the board may be circumventing
�his authority, however the issue is before the board for a decision, no? If
�it's Chuck's business (Bill Kilgore's scenario 1), then why is it a matter
�before the board? 
    
    I think that was Chuck's point.

    A point of information is that this Gainsharing program is not
    an additional program. Rather it replaces an earlier one. See
    the July 23, 1993 minutes in 2.18. It's not clear to me that it
    means spending money not previously authorized to the CEO for
    compensation.

    			Alfred

    
    Re .23, .24:
    
    Scenario 1 is only one of 2. There is no clear indication of the source
    of the money used to finance gainsharing, and the effect on the rest of
    the budget.
    
    It's hard for me to imagine how a rational discussion on this issue can
    continue until someone provides the information requested in .15.
    

    
    RE: .24
    
    There was NO similar gainsharing program in place.  It was CLAIMED by
    Mr. Cockburn that this program replaced other "reward" programs.  As
    described, these other "reward" programs were no where near the scope of
    a company-wide gainsharing program based on net income.
    
    The previous year the Board voted bonuses for all DCU employees at the
    end of the year.  This is the closest thing to gainsharing at DCU.  I
    suspect that the extensive discussion around those bonuses and their
    distribution did not want to be repeated and thus was born
    "gainsharing" without full Board approval.  Confidentiality prohibits
    any detail discussion of the bonuses.  They were given, and documented
    in the minutes, under previous Boards and that is as it should be.
    

    Yes, what is the answer to the question posed in .15?
    
    (Re: .9: I'm quite sure Digital's bonuses work according to Scenario 1; 
    the BoD approves X dollars for compensation and management then may, if
    it chooses, set aside some of that money for distribution as bonuses or
    whatever else.  Digital's Management certainly can't reach into 
    corporate profits (not that we have any) at the end of the fiscal year
    and skim x% off the top for profit sharing, or whatever.  

    I agree with previous notes about authority to manage compensation.
    However, as a DCU member, I object to being charged Fees when there are
    profits enough to give gainshares.  I am not sure that it is even
    honest for Mr. Cockburn to give my money away without my representative
    (the BOD) having a chance to vote yea or nea, regardless of Cockburn's 
    right to do so.

    With all the talk on why people closed accounts, didn't Chuck mention
    the survey that the DCU is taking to get this information?
    
    Is he taking it or is it the Board?  The return address was some
    independent firm, I believe.
    
    -- Russ

    Gainsharing was approved by the DCU Human Resource Committee in early
    1993 as a key element of a Total Quality Management (TQM) Program being
    implemented by DCU Management.  Certain other DCU employee financial
    reward and recognition programs were discontinued and replaced by
    gainsharing.  It is not a profit sharing plan although it was tied to
    profit in 1993.  In 1994, gainsharing is less linked to profit and more
    linked to quality and service measures.  Eventually, it will be based
    almost exclusively on factors other than profits.
    
    Gainsharing was substantially budgeted in 1993 because it was paid for,
    in large part, by the elimination of other less effective incentive
    programs.  It has been specifically budgeted as one element of total
    compensation for 1994.  It is not a "profit distribution" mechanism.
    
    The bottom line is that gainsharing is part of a TQM program which is
    intended to tie pay-outs to quality and service; it is one part of a
    total compensation package carefully designed by human resource
    professionals to be competitive; it is budgeted; the majority of the
    Board agrees that the program is appropriate.
    
    Finally, Mr. Kinzleman did make a motion to eliminate gainsharing in
    1994 after the program with its new emphasis on quality measures had
    already been announced to DCU employees.  Mr. Gransewicz agreed with
    this prposal.  The majority of the Board did not.
               

    Thanks for .30.  Then you're saying that is is basically Scenario #1?
    It's part of an already allocated and approved compensation pot that 
    may or may not get distributed at the discretion of management,
    depending on how things go during the year?
    

    
    Re: .30
    
    Again, thank you for your contribution, Paul.
    
    This certainly explains one way of looking at it.  As you put it,
    it seems sensible enough.  The opposition, however, of Mr. Kinzleman
    and Mr. Gransewicz, not to gainsharing per se but to how it was
    implemented tells a different story.  
    
    On another note, I am amused by your reference to the DCU Total
    Quality Management Program.  I'm well versed in TQM.  IMO, if
    DCU is doing TQM, I'm Santa Claus.  
    
    Steve
    

        The following note is entered on behalf of Chuck Cockburn. 

    ====================================================================
    RE: .32

    Dear Santa Claus (aka Steve MacDonald)

    DCU has been heavily involved in TQM for 2 years. There have been
    significant improvements in the Credit Union as evident in our member 
    surveys and loan growth. There are very few Credit Unions in the country 
    that have progressed as far as we have in this area. Feel free to 
    continue posting misinformation to your peers or if you would like the 
    truth before you speak I would be glad to show you our efforts in this area.

    	Chuck Cockburn
    	President/CEO Digital Employees Federal Credit Union

.32> There have been
.32>    significant improvements in the Credit Union as evident in our member 
.32>    surveys and loan growth.
    
    Same old same old. Blah blah blah.
    
    'Course, nothing people here say counts I guess. The only valid input
    is those member surveys...
    
    -Glenn-

Re:  .30

Thanks, Paul, for sharing that.  I certainly agree with
your vote to keep gainsharing based on that information.
However, it sounds to me like there's not total agreement
on the facts.  :-)

Collis

    
    Re: .33
    
    
    >Dear Santa Claus (aka Steve MacDonald)
    >
    >DCU has been heavily involved in TQM for 2 years. There have been
    >significant improvements in the Credit Union as evident in our member 
    >surveys and loan growth. There are very few Credit Unions in the country 
    >that have progressed as far as we have in this area. Feel free to 
    >continue posting misinformation to your peers or if you would like the 
    >truth before you speak I would be glad to show you our efforts in this
    >area.
    >
    >	Chuck Cockburn
    >	President/CEO Digital Employees Federal Credit Union

    Mr. Cockburn:
    
    First, there is no "misinformation".  I simply stated my opinion and made
    it clear that it was my opinion.  I take direct offense at having my
    opinion labelled as misinformation.  So being accused of spreading
    untruths and misinformation, I don't think there's anything for us
    to talk about.  
    
    You may well have been pursuing what *you* call TQM, but as a member
    who has been watching the DCU closely since before the Mangone affair,
    I personally have noticed little positive change that is visible to ME. 
    Being quite familiar with TQM and what it means, and seeing the
    *significant* member dissatisfaction that is evident both in this notes
    file and in conversation with other members, and seeing the many closed
    accounts, and the liberal use of the term "abusers" applied to members
    of the credit union for no other reason than not bringing DCU enough
    profit, and personally having been told by one of your telephone
    representatives that if customers didn't read closely enough the
    several poorly-designed DCU communiques about fees last Fall that it
    was "THEIR problem", I can't conclude that your TQM efforts are having
    the desired effect.  I can conclude, however, that you may be measuring
    the wrong things or inquiring into areas where there is little or no
    controversy.  Try a survey specifically about membership opinions of the
    relationship program.  You might get very different results.
    
    Steve
    

    What's in .30 pretty much seems to match what I thought from my
    recent re-reading of old minutes. I appreciate Paul taking the
    time to elaborate and give his view of things. It really helps
    balance out the discussion.

    			Alfred

�    Being quite familiar with TQM and what it means, and seeing the
�    *significant* member dissatisfaction that is evident both in this notes
�    file and in conversation with other members, 
    
    Being well versed in TQM, I'm sure you realize that a significant
    portion of an insignificant sample size is not signficant.

    
    Re: .38
    
    > Being well versed in TQM, I'm sure you realize that a significant
    > portion of an insignificant sample size is not signficant.
    
    I guess you don't understand it either.  The ultimate intent of any
    TQM program worth pursuing should be 100% customer satisfaction.
    Statistics is at best a helpful means to that end.
    
    Steve
    

Well, if sending coupons for $100 off closing costs for no closing cost
mortgages is an example of Quality, I'm a monkey's uncle ...

If sending Loan Payment coupon books to people who don't have loans is
Quality, then I'm  two monkeys' uncle.

If sending confusing letters regarding incorrectly setup childrens'
accounts is Quality, then I'm three monkeys' uncle.

If denying customers access to tellers is Quality, then I'm four monkeys'
uncle.

If charging fees to make people change their banking habits is quality,
then I'm five monkeys' uncle.

The list goes on and on ....

And then to top it all, to describe peoples' personal experiences as
propogating misinformation is hiding from the facts.

Yes, there are some things that DCU is doing well, but your survey is
only going to answer the questions you've asked, so you are predetermining
the outcome.

One of the fundamental items in TQM is Zero Defects ... and from the
experiences I've heard from colleagues who've noted in here, and outside
here, defects abound, at many levels of CU operation.  Another aspect
of TQM is the PONC (Price of Non-Conformance) ....  and to many people I
have talked to, DCU's PONC is lost accounts.

If you look at DCU solely through numbers and membership surveys, then
before long DCU will be history.

Stuart

�Well, if sending coupons for $100 off closing costs for no closing cost
�mortgages is an example of Quality, I'm a monkey's uncle ...
    
    No closing cost mortgages are only one offering of many.  That $100 was
    meant to be applied to those offerings, not the no closing costs one
    (at least that's they way I read it).
    
�If sending Loan Payment coupon books to people who don't have loans is
�Quality, then I'm  two monkeys' uncle.
    
    Has this really happened?  I suspect that in reality they were sent to
    people who had Advantage Credit lines who don't currently have an
    outstanding balance or who forgot they had them (since they were given
    out under some older incentive program that has since gone away).
    
�If denying customers access to tellers is Quality, then I'm four monkeys'
�uncle.
    
    To my knowledge this has been discussed but has not been implemented. 
    Also, teller access was not being denied, but being rerouted to a more
    efficient vehicle.
    
�And then to top it all, to describe peoples' personal experiences as
�propogating misinformation is hiding from the facts.
    
    To me that did not come across as a personal experience.  Steve's
    subsequent reply to my comment reinforces that.  He has proclaimed
    himself an expert.  Something coming from the mouth of an expert is
    usually taken as more than just an opinion.  One of the shortfalls of
    written communication I guess.
    
�One of the fundamental items in TQM is Zero Defects 
    
    And another fundamental item is that Zero Defects is a Holy Grail.  You
    can approach it, but it will take time and you'll never actually reach
    it.

    Just off the top of my head, I think it would be great if people
    here who really understand and use TQM, and I'm not one of them,
    would contact either Board members or DCU management and volunteer
    to help, in a consultant role, with DCU quality efforts. The worst
    they can say is "thanks but no thanks."

    			Alfred

	I am somewhat concerned that this year's Gainsharing package
	is based on a fairly straightforward metric.

	But that the intent of the program is to move to awards based on a much
	less objective metric. 

	Profit can be measure quite accurately. Performance to a TQM plan,
	as anyone who has worked for DEC for any length of time, is much 
	harder to measure and ultimately becomes merely another subjective
	bonus plan.

	Chuck, since you are reading this string I have a couple of
	questions.

	If the DCU's budget was established by you and your management
	team AND performance to date has been well above this plan,
	why are you so adamant about not returning the excess profit
	to the members (even after some of it is shared with DCU 
	employees)?

	I make the assumption that the budget included what you believed 
	was an adequate increase in the Capitol Ratio. Is this assumption
	incorrect?

	I also make the assumption that the budget reflected a long term
	strategy to ensure the financial stability of the DCU. Was this
	assumption incorrect?

Jim Percival	

    
    
    
    	Dear Mr Cockburn,
    
    		As a DCU member, I am interested in the credit union's TQM
    program. I wonder if you would care to share with the membership some
    information on DCU's TQM experiences. Such has
    
    	o How many TQM teams have been active over the past two years?
    
    	o What were some of the problems addressed by the TQM teams?
    
    	o Who was identified as the  "Next Process Customers" for these
    	  problems?
    
    	o What were the metrics used to track progress against these
    	  problems?
    
    	o Have any TQM teams had DCU Members as the Next Process customers?
    
    	o If so, what techniques were used to collect data from the
    	  membership?
    
    
    Thanks in advance for this information.
    
    
    	Jim Halpin
    

    
    Re: .41
    
    > To me that did not come across as a personal experience.  Steve's
    > subsequent reply to my comment reinforces that.  He has proclaimed
    > himself an expert.  Something coming from the mouth of an expert is
    > usually taken as more than just an opinion.  One of the shortfalls of
    > written communication I guess.
    
    Keith,
    
    The fact is that I said I am "well-versed" in TQM.  I understand
    it well and I work with it.  You chose to characterize what I said
    as "proclaiming" myself an expert making that your story about what I
    said and not what I did say.  Perhaps you should be the one accused
    of "misinformation".  :^)
    
    > You can approach it, but it will take time and you'll never
    > actually reach it.
    
    That is correct, but the companies that don't try can at best
    expect to run with the pack.  That companies that do will be
    the leaders.
    
    Steve
    

    re .41
    
    The coupon offering example is meant to show that the overall
    advertising package that included the coupons was somewhat confusing.
    Why would anyone take a mortgage with closing costs if there are
    no closing cost mortgages available ?  What good was this offering
    IF you wanted a no closing cost mortgage ?
    
    If DCU's quality program was truly working that Mortgage offer would
    have said "Here's some $100 off closing cost coupons for these types
    of mortgages ... (ARMs and conventioal mortgages) DCU also offers some
    mortgages without closing costs to which these coupons do not apply."
    
    Basically, it was a poorly put together package ... it left more
    questions unanswered than it answered.  It was not the result of
    a Quality Program.  Quality programs are there to ELIMINATE confusion
    not create it.
    
    As to the coupon books ... maybe you are right ... but was there a
    need for coupon books in the first place, causing tons more paperwork.
    But they were sent out without sufficient explanation of how the book
    applied to the person it was sent to.  Again ...Quality programs are
    there to ELIMINATE confusion not create it.
    
    Customer service IS the GOAL of a quality program ... it is the whole
    POINT of a quality program ... While it is only being considered,
    limiting teller access is supposedly a result of the Quality program ... 
    and the bottom line is that if even some customers are being denied
    access to a teller, or will be charged extra to see a human face to
    withdraw $49.99 as opposed to $50.01 then this is NOT what customer
    service is all about.  This is NOT Quality.
    
    Quality would be a teller noting that a customer routinely withdraws
    say less than $50, and invites the customer to a) use the atm, b)
    give the customer an atm demonstration, c) gets the customer an atm
    card.  (Some banks I've dealt with can issue an ATM card on the spot!)
    
    If you take the opinions expressed by experts as anything but opinion
    then that is your problem ... not mine.
    
    DCU has a LONG way to go before it can boast about TQM!
    
    Stuart

�    The coupon offering example is meant to show that the overall
�    advertising package that included the coupons was somewhat confusing.
    
    I didn't find it at all confusing.
    
�    Why would anyone take a mortgage with closing costs if there are
�    no closing cost mortgages available ?  
    
    Because a no closing cost mortgage might not be available for the loan
    amount needed?  Because an ARM or a shorter term might be more
    desireable?  
    
�What good was this offering
�    IF you wanted a no closing cost mortgage ?
    
    It highlighted that no closing cost mortgages were available.
    
�    But they were sent out without sufficient explanation of how the book
�    applied to the person it was sent to.  
    
    There was an explanation regarding the Advantage Credit line.  I found
    it sufficient.
    
�    Quality would be a teller noting that a customer routinely withdraws
�    say less than $50, and invites the customer to a) use the atm, b)
�    give the customer an atm demonstration, c) gets the customer an atm
�    card.  (Some banks I've dealt with can issue an ATM card on the spot!)
 
    I didn't see anything that indicated that this would not be the case. 
    Actually, I haven't seen anything yet on how this was to be implemented
    if it does come to pass.  In fact, Phil threw out the question and
    asked for responses.  Some (I was one of them) made some comments on
    implementation.  These were rejected by Phil as not being his concern
    since he is a Board member not a Staff member.
    
�    If you take the opinions expressed by experts as anything but opinion
�    then that is your problem ... not mine.
    
    That's funny.  Several times I've been told that other people reading
    things into my notes is my problem, not theirs.

    Look, the very fact that we are having this discussion indicates that
    the leaflet WAS CONFUSING.  That some can read it and interpret it one
    way and others another is the proof in the pudding.
    
>�    Why would anyone take a mortgage with closing costs if there are
>�    no closing cost mortgages available ?  
>    
>    Because a no closing cost mortgage might not be available for the loan
>    amount needed?  Because an ARM or a shorter term might be more
>    desireable?  
    
    BUT THE LEAFLET DID NOT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE .... IE TABULATE THE
    KINDS OF LOANS AVAILABLE AND IF THIS OR OTHER INCENTIVES MIGHT APPLY
    TO THEM!
    
    >�What good was this offering
>�    IF you wanted a no closing cost mortgage ?
>    
>    It highlighted that no closing cost mortgages were available.
    
    In a confusing manner.
    
>�    But they were sent out without sufficient explanation of how the book
>�    applied to the person it was sent to.  
>    
>    There was an explanation regarding the Advantage Credit line.  I found
>    it sufficient.
    
    Well CONGRATULATIONS .... JUST BECAUSE YOU GOT SUFFICIENT INFO DOESN'T
    MEAN EVERYBODY DID!
    
    Why am I bothering to respond to this ????????
    
    Congratulations Keith ... you've suckered me into one of your
    ratholes again.  The opinions and facts speak for themselves.
    
    Stuart

    
.32>   ... I'm well versed in TQM.  IMO, if DCU is doing TQM, I'm Santa Claus.  
.32>    
.32>    Steve
    
.33>    Feel free to continue posting misinformation to your peers...
.33>
.33>   	Chuck Cockburn
     
    Thank you for you input, Chuck. How true it is that any communication
    is better than no communication at all.
    
    Many of us have been perplexed by the term "misinformation" as it
    appears in various BoD minutes and other messages from the DCU BoD and
    management, particularly as applied to Mr. Gransewicz. But you have
    cleared up this question.
    
    	mis-in-for-ma-tion  n. [1994, C. Cockburn]  any opinion that
           does not agree with mine
    

    I have started a new note (note 810.*) to counter Mr. Milbury's
    assertion in .30 that Gainsharing is part of compensation.
    
    Dave

DCU may indeed have a TQM program.  If there is such a program, it is
unfortunately like a lot of things at DCU, broken.

Bob

    
    Re: .52
    
    > DCU may indeed have a TQM program.  If there is such a program, it is
    > unfortunately like a lot of things at DCU, broken.
    
    Precisely.
    
    Steve
    

    
>    It alarms me that the President of our credit union would answer
>    a post in this file in such a sarcastic manner.  The Santa Claus

    It alarms me that you would say this. You're not serious are you?
    Let's face it, people make that sort of response in this and other
    conferences all the time. If you're going to complain about Chuck
    doing it then I hope you'll complain about everyone else who does
    it as well.

    			Alfred

    Stuart, it looked like you also missed the part where it said if you
    want more info call 1-800-...

�If you're going to complain about Chuck
�    doing it then I hope you'll complain about everyone else who does
�    it as well.
    
    Fat chance, Alfred.

    RE: .57
    
>�If you're going to complain about Chuck
>�    doing it then I hope you'll complain about everyone else who does
>�    it as well.
>    
>    Fat chance, Alfred.
    
    Whaddya mean? We've been complaining about your sarcasm for months now!
    
    -Glenn-
    

I don't think the tone of Chuck's reply should be the
issue.  I think Chuck sincerely believes that Steve is
posting "misinformation" while Steve sincerely believes
that DCU's TQM program, after 2 years of work, is not doing
the job based on what he sees and hears.

I very much appreciate the fact that Chuck has entered into
the discussion - and particularly appreciate it that you has
offered to show Steve (and presumably others) what DCU has
done in this area.  If I had more time, I'd be very interested
to pursue this.  I hope that some do.

Collis

>    Stuart, it looked like you also missed the part where it said if you
>    want more info call 1-800-...

Look, the bottom line is that this **** mortgage offering letter COULD HAVE
BEEN A WHOLE LOT BETTER DESIGNED AND WRITTEN.  Why write a poor letter and
rely on 1-800 to fix it (yea I know at the CSC's sometimes you feel that
it's really 1-800-DOM-YJOB).

That is NOT WHAT QUALITY IS ALL ABOUT ... and that is what I am complaining
about.  There is no point picking this sentence or that sentence and saying
that's OK ... You could have a whole letter of OK sentences, but the whole
letter is utter nonsense.

Stuart

    According to the BoD meeting minutes a similar letter sparked alot of
    new mortgage business for DCU.  
    
    IMO, focusing on issues such as this is the kind of thing that leads to
    the lack of respect given by management to postings in this file.

    You're the one that is picking me apart ...
    
    I simply offered a number of instances where Quality was distinctly
    lacking!
    
    Stuart

RE: Note 807.41 by PATE::MACNEAL

>    To me that did not come across as a personal experience.  Steve's
>    subsequent reply to my comment reinforces that.  He has proclaimed
>    himself an expert.  Something coming from the mouth of an expert is
>    usually taken as more than just an opinion.  One of the shortfalls of
>    written communication I guess.

I took the liberty of ELF'ing Steve and found the following:

              Name:  STEVE MACDONALD
          Org Unit:  ENGINEERING SERVICES, SETC
          Position:  Software Process Consultant

Having seen Steve train in the use of TQM, and knowing he has done this
for years, I would say yes, Steve is an EXPERT in this area.  

Or at least Digital thinks he is and pays him for that knowledge...  His job is
to train people in the use of TQM.  TQM is Steve's job at Digital.

Chuck knows little, about TQM, as compared to Steve.  I know little, about
TQM, as compared to Steve.  

When Steve says DCU is lacking in TQM, based upon what he sees, then I
would worry -- DCU.

Message to Chuck:  You picked a TQM 'argument' with the wrong person. 
I'll bet $500.00 that you do not have ANYONE at DCU that is as versed in
TQM, as Steve.

	- mark

    
    
    I made the original comment about Paul Milbury's reference to 
    the TQM program from the context of being a DCU customer.  I
    still do not claim expert status and do not want to continue
    this discussion from any standpoint other than being a DCU
    customer.
    
    If the DCU believes it is hard at work with a TQM program,
    then I am only saying that I have serious reservations about its
    effectiveness.  Keith's assertions about small samplings,
    notwithstanding, it is generally accepted in business that when you
    have even a small group of dissatisfied customers who take the time
    to complain that you can bet it is only the tip of the iceberg.
    Personally, I don't feel that the complaints of this "small" group
    have been taken seriously.  Perhaps so, but *I* can't see any evidence
    of it.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    
    

And now for something completely different. The minutes jump from
agenda item VI. (FINANCIALS) to VIII.(b) (COMMITTEE REPORTS, CONT'D)
with no indication of redaction. Is there a legititmate gap there or
was a "cut" operation overagressive?

-Jeff

    
    Could this be the infamous...
    
    
    	VII.  minutes  gap ??