Conference 7.286::dcu

Phil Gransewicz just called - he's been fired for his involvement with
DCU. Pass it on...


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA25497; Thu, 28 Apr 94 12:03:47 -040
% Received: from suntan.tandem.com by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/21Mar94) id AA18011; Thu, 28 Apr 94 08:58:42 -070
% Received: from lynx.cougar.tandem.com by suntan.Tandem.com (4.1/suntan5.940222) for [email protected] id AA18056; Thu, 28 Apr 94 08:57:22 PD
% Received: from kinz.cougar.tandem.com by lynx.cougar.tandem.com (4.1/6main.931028) id AA23597; Thu, 28 Apr 94 09:01:21 PD
% Received: by kinz.cougar.tandem.com (920330.SGI/6leaf.930331) id AA09775; Thu, 28 Apr 94 08:54:27 -070
% Date: Thu, 28 Apr 94 08:54:27 -0700
% From: [email protected] (Paul Kinzelman)
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: bwichd::silliker
% Subject: getting the word out
    

    	Notes>  DELETE ENTRY DCU

    How can a member of the BoD be fired for being "involved" in the DCU?
    What is going on?
    
    Mike
    

    I presume he is still on the board.

    
    Gulp!  You mean fired from Digital????
    

    	Did Phil get TFSO, or flat out fired?

I spoke with Phil here at TAY this AM around 10 or so. He was not expecting
any "package" to accompany his termination notice. 

-Jack

    WEll...there goes my business with DCU.

    Oh, BTW, let me know when they set up a legal fund for Phil!

    
    Believe me, I am no fan of the DCU. But explain why you are mad at the
    DCU because Digital fired an employee.
    
    ed

It ain't over yet, folks.

There's still the issue of whether or not the election can legally be reheld.
Assuming no one has bribed the auditors to destroy the ballots.

And, even if the election does get reheld, 3G's are still on the ballot.

Come to think of it, a BoD with a majority of it's membership not involved
in DIGITAL petty politics has a nice ring to it.

-Jack

    
.13> Come to think of it, a BoD with a majority of it's membership not involved
.13> in DIGITAL petty politics has a nice ring to it.
    
    If Phil were elected, then he and Paul K would be non-DEC employees.
    
    Where does "a BoD with a majority of it's membership not involved
    in DIGITAL petty politics" come from?
    

I read the previous replies but in light of them still dont understand what Phil
did to be terminated. Could someone pls explain it simply? 

    .14:
    
    There seems to be an assumption implicit on the part of .13 (I think)
    that Mr. Garrod and Mr. Fillmore-Gillett risk the same fate as Mr.
    Gransewicz, although there's no evidence of it here and now.
    
    Dick

    Maybe I'm naive, but I would think that unless Phil's management
    decided that he was neglecting his Digital job duties; any involvement
    with the DCU and the election shouldn't be a factor.
    
    My idealistic side wishes Phil would force DEC management to "show
    cause" why he should be terminated.  Realistically, I wouldn't blame
    Phil if he just walked away from this company and this mess and never
    looked back.
    
    I'll keep my account active (for now) and support the 3Gs if they
    run again; if the old guard maintains control, I'm outta here!!
    
    This reminds me of Jimmie Breslin's book "The Gang That Couldn't
    Shoot Straight".
    
    Karen
    

re: .-1, Karen

Actually, Larry Seilor's analysis in a previous reply is pretty close to
what's happened here, based on my conversation with Phil this morning.
-Jack

    	re .20
    
    	Yeah, and now .6 is hidden.

    RE: .21 You're right it is. I'm going to hide a couple more in a minute.
    People - please be very careful who you accuse of what. The last thing
    the company needs is more law suits. And the last thing anyone here
    needs is personnel or legal down their backs.

    No one has contacted me from the company. I received mail from Paul K
    but that's all. I haven't talked to anyone either. So far as I know
    there is no official "crack down" going on. But it's my responsibility
    to look out for Digital policy in this conference and that's what I'm
    going to do.

    			Alfred

    I already moved my checking out of DCU and paid off some loans.  Now
    I'm moving everything out.

    Anyone notice how the other two Gs have not weighed in, and one of them
    "owns" the machine ::DCU lives on?

    Well, let's see...I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that
    libel and slander require the information be false; if the
    information being desseminated is true, it is not libel or slander
    even if it's harmful to another, 
    
    I also think there is, legally, a requirement that the person 
    doing the desseminating *know* the information is false, although
    I may be wrong about that one.
    
    So...exactly what falsehoods is Phil being accused of spreading,
    and while we're at it, does anybody believe he did it knowing the
    information was false?
    

    Re .23,
    	No, I'd say hang on.
    
    I expect the Three G's will still be running.
    
    

    Things to avoid:

    Accusations of illegal and/or immoral activity.
    Suggestions that others have been accused of or guilty of illegal
    	and/or immoral activity.
    Threats of legal action.
    Threats of "retribution" of any sort.

    These are not things that I believe policy allows. I would also be
    careful of stating the actual reason that anyone fired was fired
    for. That's personnel confidential information and such speculation
    could be harmful. Either to the reputation of the person fired or
    to the company in the event of legal action.

    Personally I'd like to see the dust settle and some more information
    become available before there is more discussion. That's a wish not
    an instruction BTW.

    			Alfred

    	Well rumor in other conferences is that the other two G's are
    	also gone.  At least they can't be reached by e-mail.

    
    The circle is closed, Dave Garrod has also been fired (from Digital).
    
    ~Jon.

    I want, and need to do something.......Is there someone I can call? 
    Someone I can write to?
    
    I feel helpless
    Joyce
    

    	What really makes us feel helpless is not knowing much about
    	what's really going on.

    
    Reminds me of an old line from a fifties TV sit-com, "Life of Riley."
    "What a revoltin' development this is."
    
    Mike
    

    I have deleted .6, I was it's author, it had been "set hidden" because
    of possible troublesome language in it, although a direct quote from a
    member of the DCU BoD who is no longer an employee of Digital, the
    corporation.
    
    I am saddened beyond words that I had to do this to protect myself, the
    mod, and others...  in this country that is held up as the beacon of
    freedom to the rest of this world...  and I had this crazy assumption
    that our Constitution and Bill of Rights were as valid within the walls
    of this company as without...  turns out not to be the case.
    
    I am further saddened that I do not feel safe enough to share what
    information I do have in what is supposed to be a safe and public
    forum.
    
    Can you all spell I-N-T-I-M-I-D-A-T-I-O-N?

    re: .29, .30
    
    The office (cubicle) of the third "G", Chris Gillett, appears to be
    rather vacant as well.  And his name is gone from the wall.  Just
    reporting what I see.
    
    	Steve

    re: Note 824.31 by ASABET::J_TOMAO
    
    > I want, and need to do something.......Is there someone I can call?
    > Someone I can write to?
    > I feel helpless
    
    Why?  The first thing to do is relax.  The second thing to do is
    realize that you control your money, not the DCU.  The third thing
    to do (if you should be so lucky) is if you have over $100,000 in 
    savings parked at the DCU you shouldNO CARRIER.
    

    RE:  .12
    
    Don't be naive!

re .28:

>    Things to avoid:

>    Accusations of illegal and/or immoral activity.
>    Suggestions that others have been accused of or guilty of illegal
>    	and/or immoral activity.
>    Threats of legal action.
>    Threats of "retribution" of any sort.

     Would discussing the possibility that someone is involved in a
legal action (without implying illegality or immorality - such a thing
is certainly possible in a civil suite) be beyond the pale?

     I ask here only because typing VTX POLICY just now gave me:

       You have reached this page in the Corporate Videotex Library
       because a connection cannot be made to the infobase you are
       trying to access.

    I withdrew my $4.7K from DCU this afternoon, and terminated my
    membership.
    

    
    re .40:
    
    Yes.
    
    I've put this off long enough. the next time dividends get credited,
    I'm pulling out everything but a $5 share.
    

    	Absolutely!

    I've been away for the past week and eagerly logged in to see if the
    election results were posted.... and what I get to read about an
    election being cancelled and now of the termination of (maybe) all
    three of the candidates I supported?
    
    WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON???
    
    janetb.
    confused and very dissappointed

    
    The whole thing is so stupid!  It hurts Digital, as well as the
    people fired.  These people were also responsible for some real
    work at Digital, and now there are several projects that will 
    undoubtedly suffer as a result.  
    
    Was it *really* worth firing them?
    
    	Ginny

I wonder if it's proper to ponder how certain people in DIGITAL management ever
manage to sleep peacefully at night?

-Jack

    
    
    I am confused.  Why were they let go from Digital?  And what does this
    have to do with the DCU and its ability to manage its business?
    I have no particular allegience to the DCU, but I am just curious.
    
    Susan

    As I was leaving a DIGITAL facility today I got to chatting with one of
    the security folks about the DCU events of the day.  S/he told me that
    a memo had been sent around about the three folks who had been fired,
    that they weren't to be allowed to enter any DIGITAL facilities.  "Oh,"
    I said, do you mean Archibald Gillet, Elliot Gransewicz, and William
    Garrod?"  "Yep," s/he said, "those are their names."
    

    By terminating people for their involvement with DCU, Digital sends a
    signal to each of its employees that being involved with DCU can be
    hazardous to their career.  I intend to end my association with DCU
    in the very near future.

    Lacking facts, appearances become pretty much reality.  I dont like
    the reality I'm looking at.  I hope it gets better.

    It appears to me that the recent elections were cancelled to prevent
    the installation of three employees who were about to be fired.  Or
    should I just ignore the coincidence of these two events.  Neither
    make sense alone but together they kind of match.
    bob

              <<< Note 824.45 by IMTDEV::BRUNO "Father Gregory" >>>
    
    Yes, I was thinking the same thing.  Wall Street and the media in
    general should have a field day with this.  Digital's credibility
    has certainly been lacking of late, without adding DCUGATE to the
    fray!
    
    I'd like to know exactly what Digital hopes to acheive by firing 
    these people.

   For those of us who haven't heard by word-of-mouth yet, what gives?
   If we can't find out the exact reason for termination because of the
   personnel confidential nature, can someone at least reinforce the
   chapter and verse of the PPP that we all ought to be reviewing, to
   avoid similar mishaps?

    	I wonder why the other three DEC employees that are involved in this
    election where not fired also after all they are/where just as involved 
    as the 3G's.  Has anybody checked to see if the other candidates are still
    employed or not?

    Joe 

    re .52:
    
    You are missing the point.  You will get NOWHERE if you try quoting
    policy back at a senior manager who charges you with violating policy.
    This may work at lower levels, but not when you are dealing with the
    high level folks, because they have the authority to decide what any
    given policy means, as well as the authority to decide if you've
    violated policy.  I speak from unpleasant experience.  Basically,
    your recourse if charged with violating policy is to appeal to a
    higher level.  If you run out of levels who care about your case, well...
    
    Note that I'm not editorializing here -- I'm talking about reality.
    I think this is the case at most companies -- the constitutional
    principal of separation of powers to help ensure justice doesn't
    exist that I know of in Corporate America.  That's not to say that
    Corporate America cannot treat employees fairly -- it simply means
    that it depends on the quality of people enforcing company policy.
    
    		Larry Seiler

    
    As much as I disagree with it, the 3 G's were told not to do certain 
    actions and then did them anyways... someone wanted to send a CLEAR 
    message, and IMO they did...  I know I value my job more than I value
    $4/mo. in fees or the principles of running a credit union... I'd move
    my little stash before I'd go and forfeit my job..   I don't expect mgmt 
    to say anything about this since they may expect lawsuits to follow and 
    until all the smoke clears it wouldn't be wise for them to say anything.
    
    I have to agree with .53 though, what about the other candidates... As
    far as I've read Paul and Lois seemed to have distanced themselves from
    the fray, and Lisa I've read that she "campaigned in the hallways"
    although I don't know if anyone "complained" about it or not.  Then
    there's the infamous albeit secret "committee for a qualified board".
    It stands to reason that for the same reason the 3 G's got canned, 
    this body would get the ax too.  Of course they are an underground
    group and no one really knows if they work for Digital or not! 
    
    I think the SC would be wise to have at least a *6 month* cooling off
    period.  The current board needs to still meet and determine how they
    will (or will not) work together during this period.  Obviously there
    are some serious rifts that have developed and I'd venture to guess
    that either not much gets done or a whole lot gets done in the way
    of redefining "campaigning".
    
    Oh well back to work
    
    
    John
    

    
    Re: .55
    
    > As much as I disagree with it, the 3 G's were told not to do certain 
    > actions and then did them anyways
    
    Would you care to explain this if you have the facts?
    
    Steve
    

Re:  .55

    > As much as I disagree with it, the 3 G's were told not to do certain 
    > actions and then did them anyways
 
I, too, would be fascinated to learn just what these
activities were.

I spoke with Phil this morning. He mentioned that "The 3 G's" are still
very much "in the running" for the seats on the DEFCU BoD.

Keep your balance >= $5!

-Jack

>    It appears to me that the recent elections were cancelled to prevent
>    the installation of three employees who were about to be fired.  ...

What kind of relationship exisits between Dgitial and the DCU that
Digital would 'telegraph' its intent to fire employees to the DCU?

Lee

    
>>    > As much as I disagree with it, the 3 G's were told not to do certain 
>>    > actions and then did them anyways
 
    
    This may not jibe with your views at the moment, but I'm certain that
    someone like Ron Glover (if indeed it was he who did the firing action)
    felt that the continued use of the notesfile for whatever purposes went
    against what he had requested... The three G's IMO complied with the
    spirit of what was asked, but if like others have said if someone in
    SNR Mgmt didn't see it that way, then this is what happens.  I figured
    that one line would get the response it did from those that
    responded...  Like I also said I don't agree with what happened but
    it happened and I can't believe any of us will ever find out the
    exact reason why from the person doing the firing.
    
    The three G's were told not to use Digital resources for campaigning
    or their views on the election...  I honestly don't have the time to
    back and find exact notes, but each one in a note said that what
    follows in this note may go against what we've been told not to say
    in notes (or using Digital resources)...  If you have the time you
    can go find the notes...  You want facts, send mail to the decision
    maker then you'll get facts... Otherwise everything is pure speculation.
    All I go on is gut instinct and other comments from this file...
    I'm not about to jump inside the head of any of those involved and try
    and state why something happened...
    
    Again, it doesn't matter what *WE* think it matters what those making
    the decision think... We can speculate all we want but that's not going
    to fix the problems of the DCU and it could get any one of us into the
    same amount of trouble... If that's what you want then fine, I sure has
    shinola am not looking for trouble... It's time to band together and 
    help the three G's fix the DCU... We're definately not going to fix the
    problem of them getting fired nor is that what this notesfile is all
    about.  We're definately not going to be getting any more information
    about the DCU and DCU policies... the only director that truly
    attempted communicating with us, no longer has access to Digital or the
    Digital network.... Think about the ramifications of that.  We will now
    only get (if anything at all) information that is designed by the DCU
    management...

>    According to my sources, they were "separated" from the Digital because
>    their "Rebuttal to "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" literatur" was
>    deemed to be non-Digital solicitation using Digital
>    facilities/resources.

But, if you are a Digital VP you can send letters to Digital employees
using 'Digital facilities/resources' reminding them of a DCU vote without
worry of firing, right?

Lee

    
    Re: .62
    
    > This may not jibe with your views at the moment, but I'm certain that
    > someone like Ron Glover (if indeed it was he who did the firing action)
    > felt that the continued use of the notesfile for whatever purposes went
    > against what he had requested... 
    > ...
    > I honestly don't have the time to back and find exact notes
    > ... You want facts, send mail to the decision maker then you'll
    > get facts... Otherwise everything is pure speculation.

    Take it easy.  I wasn't challenging you.  I just wondered on what 
    basis you made the statement that you did.  I got my answer.  Thank
    you.
    
    > The three G's were told not to use Digital resources for campaigning
    > or their views on the election...
    
    If this is a fact, that's all that I was asking for.
    
    
    Steve
    

re: .62

>								We will now
>    only get (if anything at all) information that is designed by the DCU
>    management...

This is one of the truly grisly things about where we are in this whole mess
at the moment. No more timely board minutes. No more insights. Just laundered
pablum, folks.

-Jack

>    According to my sources, they were "separated" from the Digital because
>    their "Rebuttal to "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" literatur" was
>    deemed to be non-Digital solicitation using Digital
>    facilities/resources.
    
    
    Hmmm...
    
    If this is true, what about 802.0  ?  Is that a use of Digital
    resources ?
    
    Or is it that a mass mailing was done to an "interest list" ?
    
    What about the reported phone calls & reported messages from other
    candidates ?
    
    Can I be fired for writing this note ?
    
    L.

    > Do phone calls count as using Digital Resources?  I received a phone
    > call from Lisa - campaigning.  It was a.m. - assume from work??
    >
    
    It would be easy enough to prove, as there are records of all phone
    calls.
    
    >
    >                  <<< Note 824.66 by GENRAL::SUBSYS >>>
    >
    
    Notice the recent trend towards anonymous noting ?
    
    L.

    
    RE: .58
    
          If this is the case, then I expext Lisa Ross is also
      at risk since she called me at work, before 5:00, and
      presumably from her office phone, to explain her point
      of view after reading one of my notes in this conference.
    
          Let's see...
    
      $VTX ELF
    
    
    Common Name:   LISA ROSS
    Search Surname:  ROSS,  DEMAURO-ROSS,  DEMAURO  Search Given Name: 
    LISA,
    LISA-MARIE  DTN:  237-6595,  291-7055  Intrnl Mail Addr:  SHR1-4/D18
    Location:  SHR  Node:  LEDS  Username:  ROSS  Org Unit:  STORAGE
    ENGINEERING,
    DISK & SUBSYSTEMS PBU  Position:  BUYOUTS FINANCE MGR
    
    
    
    Interesting....
    
    
                                                        Steve

    
    
     C'mon folks, you won't get fired for being "in-step" with
    DCU policy.
    
    

If one is gratuitously contacted by another employee unwantedly, it might
be prudent to inform them that you desire no further contact of that nature.
Persistence on their part would probably constitute harassment. Harassment
would probably be grounds for termination by my reading of PP&P.

-Jack

    It amazes me that the United Way can not only use Digital's resources
    to solicit employees for money, but that it's done in a way that the
    employee can do nothing about it.  I asked my personel office to remove
    me from all United Way solicitation mail messages, but they replied
    that was impossible.  Actually, it was just a matter of creating
    a SOLICIT.DIS file and copying the names (except mine) from the
    normal site distribution, but they were unwilling to accomodate my
    request.  But if a DCU candidate sneezes near a DEC terminal, they're
    fired.  kb  

re: .-1

It's a real kick, ain't it?

-Jack

    
    
    
            I just re-read Paul Kinzelman's "Goodbye Digital" note (#662) in
    this conference.  (It was written exactly one year ago tomorrow.)  So much
    of what Paul wrote, both about Digital and the DCU, is still so very true.
    Especially in light of what has happened recently..........
    
    
    

�But, if you are a Digital VP you can send letters to Digital employees
�using 'Digital facilities/resources' reminding them of a DCU vote without
�worry of firing, right?
    
    There is a difference (albeit a fine one) between "Vote for me and my
    friends" and "Vote".

>    I'm wondering.
>    
>    Was it just the 3 G's that were told not to use Digital resources, or
>    did it apply to all canditates?

See Note 1.10 in this conference.

That note contains a memo from Ron Glover which specifically addresses the
use of Digital Computers, Systems, and Networks in the DCU campaign.

Digital's Solicitation policy (6.19) permits solicitation by Digital employees
during breaks (e.g. lunch breaks in the cafeteria).

/john

re .77

BTW, since 1.10 says that it is broadly applicable to all employees, I would
expect to see everyone who has recently sent out electronic mail soliciting
sponsorships in the Walk for Hunger (or other pledge walks), _or_any_other_
_solicitation_of_any_kind_ to also be subject to action "up to and including
termination" under policy 6.21.

/john

re: .75, Skip

>    Digital's actions in regard to the DCU election *could* be viewed as
>    trying to control of influence the DCU.
    
Gosh - now there's a thought that never entered my mind. . . . 

-Jack

If the 3 G's were actually fired for using Digital resources ie DCU Notes 
Conference (we will probably never hear Digital's explanation) then IMHO 
they are being fired over semantics.  Say the following scenario happened 
instead:

One of the 3 G's handed out, off Digital property, a position statement or 
a rebuttal, written on their home PC using paper they purchased, to a 
Digital employee (not necessarly a DCU member).  That employee believing this 
to be of interest to the readership of the DCU conference then posts that 
information.  We now have exactly the same result as what the 3 G's were 
supposedly fired for.   

I just can't believe that the node::username on the Notes entry should be 
grounds for dismissal.  I can't believe someone could be as petty as this 
*appears* to be.  Being fired over semantics.  The information was going to 
placed into the conference one way or another.

Jilly

re .80

Mail, not notes.

/john

    
    RE: the node from SMAUG::NEWS
    
    I goofed.  It should have been from this account (I was not trying to
    hide).
    
    Anyway, here is more information about the firings...(this was told to
    me by my management)...
    
    Digital did not want to have the problems with the DCU election that
    occurred 2 years ago.  *ALL* canidates were told that they could not
    use Digital resources for any campaigning (they could set up a table in
    the cafeteria).  The candidates requested permission to use the NOTES
    file, but explicitly told *NOT* to use E-mail.  A few weeks after being
    told the 3 Gs sent out the "Rebuttal to "Committe for a Qualified DCU
    Board" literature" using E-mail.  And this is where the violation
    occurred.  It is the opinion of various people who I have talked with,
    that if this rebuttal was placed in the notesfile, there would have
    been no problem (at least not the one the 3 Gs ended up having).
    
    ~Jon.

>    Digital did not want to have the problems with the DCU election that
>    occurred 2 years ago.  *ALL* canidates were told that they could not

Why is the DEFCU election any business of Digital's? And how does reprimanding a
person by firing them from Digital effect their candidacy for the DEFC Bod?

Of course, these are rhetorical questions. They won't be answered by any
officials.

-Glenn-

    
    Re: .83
    
    > And how does reprimanding a person by firing them from Digital
    > effect their candidacy for the DEFC Bod?
    
    It doesn't because it has no affect on their membership in the DCU.
    
    Steve
    

Ok so change .80 to this and IMHO it is still semantics.  This information 
was going to be distributed within Digital using Digital's resources no 
matter what anyone had to say.

One of the 3 G's handed out, off Digital property, a position statement or 
a rebuttal, written on their home PC using paper they purchased, to a 
Digital employee (not even a DCU member and having no interest in the 
elections).  That employee believing this to be of interest to Digital 
employees then posts that information to @SOCIAL or even to just one other 
person.  We now have exactly the same result as what the 3 G's were 
supposedly fired for.   

Jilly

�One of the 3 G's handed out, off Digital property, a position statement or 
�a rebuttal, written on their home PC using paper they purchased, to a 
�Digital employee (not even a DCU member and having no interest in the 
�elections).  That employee believing this to be of interest to Digital 
�employees then posts that information to @SOCIAL or even to just one other 
�person.  We now have exactly the same result as what the 3 G's were 
�supposedly fired for.   
    
    Given this circumstance, it is quite possible that the person posting
    the information would be terminated under the policy on solicitation.

re .85

Is .85 a "what if" or something which actually happened?

If it actually happened, then the company, if it wants to be consistent
(which it certainly does if it wants to be able to defend itself against
wrongful termination suits for any violation of its policies) would have
to take similar action.

Of course, the company could decide that a non-candidate taking such an
action only merits a slap on the wrist, and could claim that the candidates
had been more explicitly, directly, and recently warned that use of electronic
mail would be considered a policy violation (see 1.10 in this conference).

Should the candidates have expected termination as a penalty for the policy
violation, based on they usual corporate response to the various solicitations
being sent around all the time?

I don't know.  Apparently they didn't, and obviously Worldwide Personnel
felt that the violation by the candidates was so serious that a written
warning was not sufficient disciplinary action.

/john

>�One of the 3 G's handed out, off Digital property, a position statement or 
>�a rebuttal, written on their home PC using paper they purchased, to a 
>�Digital employee (not even a DCU member and having no interest in the 
>�elections).  That employee believing this to be of interest to Digital 
>�employees then posts that information to @SOCIAL or even to just one other 
>�person.  We now have exactly the same result as what the 3 G's were 
>�supposedly fired for.   
>    
>    Given this circumstance, it is quite possible that the person posting
>    the information would be terminated under the policy on solicitation.

Bull.

-Glenn-

RE: .72

>    It amazes me that the United Way can not only use Digital's resources
>    to solicit employees for money, but that it's done in a way that the
>    employee can do nothing about it.

The policy against soliciting employees prohibits solicitations that are 
not sanctioned by Digital management (i.e., you can't do it without getting 
DEC management's permission first).  United Way *is* sanctioned by Digital 
management.

--PSW

    All else (for the moment) aside:
    
    Wasn't the punishment extreme, considering the "crime" ?
    
    L.

    Seems like an outdated policy to me with the internet and vast
    information resources available to people now-a-days.  Policy is
    probably older than punch cards and as ineffective. Maybe this will
    cause people to re-evaluate this policy. Doesn't seem very realistic.
    How can you possibly "fairly" enforce such a policy. 
    
    I liked the comment that the constitution doesn't protect you within
    the walls of corporations. Very true and very sad. Still we as a nation
    let money rule our behavior.  Maybe "we the people" should really look
    at applying our great constitution  to all aspects of life.  Aren't our
    corporations a part of our nation. Strange that we should make an
    exception.  Greed will getcha everytime.
    
    I'm not a DCU member, but even this makes me mad.  Its just basic
    injustice. Even the most suave legal talk couldn't convince me
    otherwise.  
    
    I really hope the DCU members take action on this one.
    
    Regards,
    Geoff
                                         
    

>    Seems like an outdated policy to me with the internet and vast
>    information resources available to people now-a-days.  Policy is
>    probably older than punch cards and as ineffective. Maybe this will
>    cause people to re-evaluate this policy.

Actually, it's a fairly new policy, originally promulgated specifically in
response to the growing networks, long after there was company-wide mail,
Notes, and Internet connection.

/john

    I spoke to Dave Garrod, who's a friend of mine.  He confirmed that
    he was fired yesterday.  The stated cause was violation of Digital 
    policy 6.54, improper use of the Digital network, in particular
    the prohibition against solicitations by email.  The alleged act of 
    solicitation was to send, to interested parties, an electronic mail 
    message rebutting points made against the three of them (Garrod,
    Gransewicz, Fillmore-Gillett) in their bid to be elected to the 
    DCU board.  

re .93

That message is contained in this conference as note 787.1.

/john

    I'm wondering.
    
    Was it just the 3 G's that were told not to use Digital resources, or
    did it apply to all canditates?  A few weeks back at the DCU in the
    mill one of the DCU employees (NOT a DEC employee) was campaigning
    for some of the board members during her lunch hour.  This took place
    OUTSIDE of the DCU in the Mill cafeteria.  What was DEC's response
    to that?
    
    Digital's actions in regard to the DCU election *could* be viewed as
    trying to control of influence the DCU.
    
    There are strict laws in this country regarding this sort of thing.
    
    /Skip

re .86 & .87
IMO .85 doesn't even come close to solicitation.  It is just presenting 
information that may be of interest to Digital employees.  It goes on 
thousands of times in thousands of different ways toady but it goes on.
That is what I view the actions of the 3 G's to be.  It would be the same as 
someone here in the CSC sending out a candidate statement (for any office) to 
@SPEC if they believed that information to be of importance to the Digital 
community.  There may be better ways to do this and the person should be 
schooled on these ways but it doesnot constitute a terminating offense, 
IMHO.  Given the very vague guidelines in the policy, I can easily see people 
now being afraid to send mail to their work groups for anything other than 
strict buisness reasons.   If management is going to terminate people per 
this policy then they will HAVE to monitor ALL electronic mail for 
violations of the policy in order to protect against wrongful termination 
lawsuits.  This company has much more serious problems than trying to 
enforce such a policy.

Jilly

This stuff is extremely upsetting to me.
I have never been a DCU member, as the nearest branch is
over 1000 miles away, but this is maybe enough to make
me actually open an account.

A $5.00 account.
So that I could vote in the (re)election.
For 3G.

Re: United Way and "its OK if it's sanctioned by Management":

I guess there's the rub.  There has been a lot of specifics put out
by the 3G candidates about irregularities and violations of CU election
rules, etc.  From the opposing side, I've only heard vague innuendo about
"Well, both sides were out of bounds" or "3Gs were violating rules too"
Of course, I did read about the "abuse of Digital computer equipment".

The very unfortunate thing about this is that Digital management will probably
never state explicitly why these 3 persons were terminated when so many others
have flouted the same rules with impunity.  This leaves the impression that
the policy statement about being sanctioned by management applies to DCU
board members too; If you are sanctioned, then what you do will be OK...

Either that impression is wrong, and it needs to be cleared up by concise
communication from those with the authority to do so, or the impression is
correct, and it is worse news about the state of our corporation than any stock
slide that we've seen.

Kevin Farlee

re .95

>IMO .85 doesn't even come close to solicitation.  It is just presenting 
>information that may be of interest to Digital employees.

But .85 is a hypothetical situation which didn't happen, right?

The corporation determined, rightly or wrongly, that what did happen
was a solicitation, was a violation of policy 6.54, and was an offense
for which the 3Gs should be terminated.

If the situation in .85 had occurred, the corporation might or might not
have decided to take action.

The corporation has authorized certain people, e.g. Ron Glover, to be
the interpreters of policy and of events and to determine whether you
should be fired or not, even if your own management thinks the offense
only requires a warning.

/john

    
    This type of action, in light of 8-20K layoffs reportedly being 
    needed, will help limit the workforce from saying anything negitive 
    about Digital managment.
    
    Jon

I wonder what would happen if one of the 3Gs were to send
E-mail from OUTSIDE Digital (i.e. Internet accounts like AOL, etc.)
to the same mailing list that they sent the infamous "rebuttal" memo to...

Couldn't exactly fire 'em again...
Kinda bad precedent to prosecute outsiders for sending mail into Digital...
DCU Bylaws don't forbid this (that I know of)...
Can't come down on us for receiving unsolicited mail...

Hmmmmm

re .99

Could they afford to?  Is there a per-recipient price for mail sent from AOL?

Is campaigning permitted on the Internet?

/john

    I can't answer your second question, but Internet service providers
    like Software Tool & Die (world.std.com) levy no per-message-sent
    charges.
    
    [email protected]
    
    (autoforwards to [email protected])
    

    
>    Was it just the 3 G's that were told not to use Digital resources, or
>    did it apply to all canditates?  

    It applied to all candidates. Five of the six were at a meeting and
    told the same things. The sixth, I understand, was told separately. All
    six received the same summary memo, which is posted as 1.10 (I think)
    in this conference.

>A few weeks back at the DCU in the
>    mill one of the DCU employees (NOT a DEC employee) was campaigning
>    for some of the board members during her lunch hour.  This took place
>    OUTSIDE of the DCU in the Mill cafeteria.  What was DEC's response
>    to that?

    Digital's response was in the form of an official complaint, in
    writing, through the Digital DCU liaison committee. It informed them
    that these activities were against Digital policy and should stop.
    There is a report on this in an earlier note in this conference.

    			Alfred

    re .102:  And didn't it take a week for the letter to be delivered?
    Oh, well, it's not like it was urgent or anything. 

>Is campaigning permitted on the Internet?
    
    I know of no restricitions on the contents a mail message can contain
    on the Internet. The contents of a mail message on the Internet are no
    ones business but the sender's and recipient's, and I think there'd be
    real problems in someone trying to monitor the content of mail messages
    sent through the Internet.
    
    -Glenn-
    

    I wonder, hypothetically, if anyone who may have forwarded the infamous
    mail is also subject to firing.

    L.

re Note 824.104 by USCD::DOTEN:

>     I know of no restricitions on the contents a mail message can contain
>     on the Internet. The contents of a mail message on the Internet are no
>     ones business but the sender's and recipient's, and I think there'd be
>     real problems in someone trying to monitor the content of mail messages
>     sent through the Internet.
  
        I'm quite sure that Digital would be within its rights to
        intercept such mail at our gateways to the Internet.

        Bob

    re .105:  Are others who forwarded that message subject to termination?
    Unlikely, I think.  According to an HR contact, even with the three Gs
    it was only possible to convince senior management to fire them on the
    grounds that they had been specifically warned not to do what they did,
    but did it anyway.  
    
    But what did they do?  According to my HR contact, they were fired for
    misuse of company resources (policy 6.54), specifically using that email
    message to solicit.  Never forget that (inside Digital), solicitation
    is whatever senior management says it is.  One can (like Dave) work
    hard to stay within a reasonable interpretation of the written policy.
    One can write a message (as they did) that contains no request for
    action except the statement "please vote".  But it's entirely up to
    senior management to decide whether it's within policy or not.
    
    So although I think it highly unlikely that there will be many more
    firings over DCU campaign "solicitation", keep in mind that they can
    do it if they choose to, and there is NO recourse within the company
    for a decision reached by the vice presidents -- Palmer has other
    problems that he has to pay attention to.  
    
    And who knows?  If someone raises his/her head high enough above the
    general mass of people complaining about this issue, it could happen
    again.  
    
    Does this mean that I think that the three Gs "screwed up", to quote
    someone I know, in sending that message?  No, I don't.  I think they
    did something that offered an opportunity to fire them (maybe that's
    what my friend meant).  But given a choice between doing one's best
    to act according to policy, or not acting for fear of being accused
    of violating policy, I think the former is much more admirable.
    That's the only choice they had.
    
    	Larry Seiler

re Note 824.108 by WRKSYS::SEILER:

>     there is NO recourse within the company
>     for a decision reached by the vice presidents -- Palmer has other
>     problems that he has to pay attention to.  
  
        But so do the vice presidents!

>     According to an HR contact, even with the three Gs
>     it was only possible to convince senior management to fire them on the
>     grounds that they had been specifically warned not to do what they did,
>     but did it anyway.  
  
        I'm hoping against hope that BP wasn't a part of this decision
        and that he takes this as an opportunity to take a
        morale-boosting action: reinstate the three Gs and fire those
        who fired the three Gs.

        It would not only boost the morale of many employees but also
        would send the message, inside and outside of the company,
        that the days of political games among senior management are
        over and that the business of Digital is profit.

        Of course, I'm not holding my breath.

        Bob

    .109:

    As you suggest, don't hold your breath.

    I'd think terminations quite unlikely, unless the aggrieved parties had
    a strong enough case (with lawyers of matching strength) that it looks
    like the alternatives to the company are worse than firing the
    individuals involved.

    However, I think that there's a certain possibility that some months
    down the line, after things cool off, there may be some resignations
    "to pursue other opportunities".  A former colleague, commenting on a
    recent (unrelated) departure, observed that where ICs get fired, people
    at stratospheric levels "are shown the wastebasket, and have to jump in
    it themselves".

I can sympathize with your sentiment, but suggest a more congruent path:

There's been too much rash action already.  We don't need more sudden
terminations.  There's no excuse for this kind of heavy handed retribution.
It just breeds ill will.

Re-instate the three Gs.  This alone should be a sufficient slap in the
face of those responsible.  At most, write a formal letter of reprimand to
be placed in their personel files (both the 3Gs and those who fired them).

From the story that has emerged here, it appears the faceless
'Committee for a qualified board' used shameful smear tactics.

The three Gs have tried hard to behave ethically and uphold the
spirit of the rules.  Allowing their rebuttal to be sent by mail
was poor judgement and may have violated the letter of law.
This hardly justifies sudden termination weeks after the
fact when no warning or objection was made at the time.

Suddenly terminating talented employees with the courage to speak
the truth in a spasm of retribution is absolutely the wrong path
for Digital.  I hope any one reading this in a position to respond
will consider the ill will these terminations have caused.
Terminating the 3Gs was a mistake.  The decent thing to do
is correct it.

- Peter

    Peter's .111 touches on a point that has troubled me as well.  Though I
    am no longer a member of DCU, I still care a great deal for DIGITAL.
    
    I'd very much like to read a capsulized chronology of events here, with
    particular attention given to the nomination or announcement process,
    the "points" and "counterpoints" made (including the media used for
    making them), the date(s) of warning(s) in whatever media, the (is
    "alleged" the right word for this phase of the process?) infraction(s),
    the campaigning, the voting, the cancellation of the election, and the
    terminations.  
    

>        I'm quite sure that Digital would be within its rights to
>        intercept such mail at our gateways to the Internet.
    
    Sure. Digital physically has access to the equipment. But I think the
    company would run into real problems if it tried to monitor and read
    mail messages sent over this gateway.
    
    -Glenn-
    

    Can someone clarify the facts for me?

    It is my recollection that the 3Gs allowed people to register on a
    mailing list fi they desired additional information on the election,
    and I assumed that this was the list to which the message in question
    was went.  If that is the case, it is very difficult to make a case for
    solicitation, since the recipients had already requested the
    information.

    Am I right, or was the distribution list for the mailing broader than
    that?

	Paul

    
    >Am I right, or was the distribution list for the mailing broader than
    >that?

    It is my understanding that the mailing list used was broader than
    that. Also remember that the mailing list sign up was prior to the 
    guidelines in 1.10 were issued. You can request an action that is 
    contrary to policy but that doesn't mean that people can do it.

    Note the following from 1.10:

>       conference.  Comments about the DCU by Board candidates must be 
>       restricted to the DCU notes conference.  

    Mail is not the same as posting to the DCU notes conference. I believe
    that that is why the copy of the message posted here was not brought
    to my attention as a problem while the Email version was considered
    a problem.

    			Alfred

Digital employees can be fired if certain senior managers determine that 
they have violated a sufficiently serious Digital policy.  There's not 
necessarily a lot of recourse (short of civil litigation) in such a case.
Note that same group of people are responsible for both interpreting the 
policy and deciding whether it has been violated.
    
	Larry Seiler

    I received a copy to the mail without asking to be put on a
    distribution list.  My understanding at the time is that the
    distribution list was generated from anyone who (recently ?) posted a
    note in SMAUG::DCU.

    L.

    
    Re: .108
    
    > re .105:  Are others who forwarded that message subject to termination?
    > Unlikely, I think.  According to an HR contact, even with the three Gs
    > it was only possible to convince senior management to fire them on the
      ****************************************************************
    > grounds that they had been specifically warned not to do what they did,
    > but did it anyway.  
    
    This is interesting.  I wonder who it was who did the convincing and
    why?
    
    Steve
    
    

re: .116

>    distribution list was generated from anyone who (recently ?) posted a
>    note in SMAUG::DCU.

So What? That's the same process Lisa DeMauro-Ross used to send unwanted
mail to me and many others. I'm sure I have a copy of that still. I wonder
if Ron Glover is interested in that?

-Jack

>re: .116
>
>>    distribution list was generated from anyone who (recently ?) posted a
>>    note in SMAUG::DCU.
>
>So What? That's the same process Lisa DeMauro-Ross used to send unwanted
>mail to me and many others. I'm sure I have a copy of that still. I wonder
>if Ron Glover is interested in that?

Why don't you file an offical complaint with Ron and find out?

--Steve

re: .119, Steve

Just did, as a matter of fact.

-Jack

I have a copy of unrequested mail from Lisa too. She solicits me to call her on
Digital's phone so that we can discuss my questions and concerns (although I
didn't know I had any questions and concerns about her). Seems to me that she
should have used the conference for any questions, concerns, or explanations
that she had.

Let us know the results of your contact with Ron.

-Glenn-

It will be interesting to see how Digital and DCU 
continue to handle this in light of the fact that it
is now in the public domain. See the business section
of today's Boston Globe.

To h*ll with it.  I opened an account with a local bank that treats me better
as a Digital employee than DCU ever did.

-Patrick

RE: Note 824.118 by TOOK::DELBALSO

>>    distribution list was generated from anyone who (recently ?) posted a
>>    note in SMAUG::DCU.

>So What? That's the same process Lisa DeMauro-Ross used to send unwanted
>mail to me and many others. I'm sure I have a copy of that still. I wonder
>if Ron Glover is interested in that?

Good point.  I also received an unsolicited mail to call Lisa about DCU
matters. I replied back that I preferred not to waste my time, as she
was not interested in working the problem, bu playing PR games...

I wonder what will happento her?

	- mark

    Just a shorty:
    
    Hey troops:
    
    I did some thinking over the weekend, tried to cool off and see if I
    could salvage a rational thought or two, and lo and behold, I think I
    did...  everyone, take a deep breath, count to ten...  now, there,
    doesn't that feel better, and think about the following:
    
    It's important to give Caesar his due.  The DCU is NOT responsible for
    the firing of the 3 Gs, Digital IS!  If you are concerned about this,
    one action you could take is to write, call, whatever, besiege
    Win Hindle's office... after all, he IS VP of Ethics, and protest the
    firing, and the chilling message that that firing sends to the Digital
    employee population at large about the state of freedom of speech in
    Digital, and the VERY selective "application and enforcement" of
    Digital's P&P, and the seemingly selective manner in which it was
    applied to selected candidates for the DEFCU Bod elections...             
                                                  
    I, for one, the next time I get some United Way (non)solicitation on
    E-mail, am gonna scream loud enough for St. Peter to hear me...  BTW,
    can anyone define "solicitation" for me?  It would seem to me that that
    is the whole point of campaigning...  is to convince the available
    voting population to vote for YOU!  or am I missing something... 
    mutter...
                     
    The invalidation of the election, fees, "relationship banking", the
    total unresponsiveness of most of the Bod, THOSE ARE DCU issues, and
    they should be pursued vigourously.  The BoD is elected to serve US,
    the membership, OUR needs, NOT their personal agendas, so, again,
    write, call, communicate, whatever, they are Digital employees, look
    them up on ELF, and let 'em know how you feel.  If you don't like the
    way they look after our interests, vote the rascals out!  (Of course,
    that is what were trying to do, and the election got null-ed and
    voided...)
    
    Whatever, if you're upset about the firing of the 3 Gs, although it
    feels good, taking your money out of the DCU could be less effective
    that you would hope.
    
    There, that is my quote of being rational on the subject, comments
    anyone?

FWIW, I'm pretty sure I got the Garrod mail but not the Ross mail.

I also received mail from Ms. Ross.  I deleted it soon afterwards.  I've
been assuming throughout all this that it was sent before the warning was
posted in note 1.whatever.

Brian

re: .126

>    write, call, communicate, whatever, they are Digital employees, look
>    them up on ELF, and let 'em know how you feel.

I do not write, nor, like Mr. Glover, interpret DIGITAL's PP&P, however
I wouldn't advise anyone to use DIGITAL resources for other than DIGITAL
business, such as contacting folks about DCU stuff through Email or DTN,
as we've seen what happens to folks who do that.

-Jack

>> Good point.  I also received an unsolicited mail to call Lisa about DCU
>> matters. I replied back that I preferred not to waste my time, as she
>> was not interested in working the problem, bu playing PR games...
>>
>> I wonder what will happento her?
>>
>> 	- mark
    
        It's my understanding that she will be leaving the U.S. this
     month to take a position at Nijmegan.

    re: .114
    >It is my recollection that the 3Gs allowed people to register on a
    >mailing list fi they desired additional information on the
    >election, and I assumed that this was the list to which the message in
    >question was went.
    
    This is extracted from the beginning of the infamous mail message:
    
    [Permission to forward or post this mail message in its entirety is
    granted. However, the original mail header must be retained. This
    message is being sent to a distribution list constructed from people
    who have actively expressed an interest in the DCU, such as by signing
    petitions to put people on the ballot in the DCU election of two years
    ago. If you wish to have your name removed from this DCU interest list
    please reply indicating so and I will remove your name from the list.
    If you are not a DCU member please ignore this message.]
    

    Re:  .129...  good point, Jack...  but, how do you suggest we get our
    view across to the BoD?  Not really allowed to access employees at
    home, off hours, either, could be construed as "harassment" of some
    sort?  This is how we always have communicated with our BoD
    members/candidates, how are Digital employees, and the Digital CU IS
    "company approved", i.e., a private CU run for the benefit of Digital
    employees and their families, and the BoD consisting of elected Digital
    employees...
    
    Not trying to be "difficult", your point is very well taken...  but... 
    ya have any suggestions, or is this the whole point, to so scare
    Digital employees that they stop speaking out on ANYTHING?  What
    happened, did we import the KGB, what with their being out of work in
    the former USSR?
    
    I am truly scared at the implications of this...

�    Am I right, or was the distribution list for the mailing broader than
�    that?
    
    I was on the distribution list at no bequest of my own.  I imagine
    the distribution list was made, in part, of contributors to this
    notesfiel.

re:.132

>					but, how do you suggest we get our
>    view across to the BoD?  Not really allowed to access employees at
>    home, off hours, either, could be construed as "harassment" of some
>    sort?

Well, if it's done off DIGITAL premises, not during their DIGITAL working
hours, and without using DIGITAL resources, I'd think that would be appropriate
so as not to compromise one's use or abuse of company resources. All that
being true, and assuming the contact was strictly about DCU (and not DIGITAL)
business, I'd think the only harrassment charges to be made would have to
be of a civil rather than a corporate nature. And then, only if the contact
was truly of a harrassing nature would it stick. But, I am not a lawyer,
or a human relations manager.

If anyone were to contact a BoD member off hours at home on DCU business and
were treated less than politely, I'd think that would be good information for
other member-voters to be aware of.

-Jack

Boston Globe article, Monday, May 2, 1994

Title:

Digital credit union in turmoil

Subtitle:

Officials invalidate election for board

Byline:

Aaron Zitner
Globe Staff

Officials of the Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union, one of the largest
credit unions in New England, invalidated the latest election for its board of
directors even as members were still casting ballots, adding more turmoil to an
organization plagued by discord in recent years.

The latest tumult, concerning allegation of improper campaigning, has nothing
to do with the financial health of the credit union or the past damage done by
its former president, Richard D. Mangone, who was convicted with three other
people for a real estate loan scam that caused millions of dollars in losses. 
Two years ago, fallout from the Mangone scandal helped push the entire
seven-member board of directors out of office.

But the recent disputes are nonetheless heated.  On Thursday, three candidates
who were running as a team reportedly were fired by Digital Equipment Corp.,
which is a separate organization than the credit union.  The three candidates
allegedly broke Digital rules by distributing election-related material on
Digital's internal electronic mail system.

The three candidates were all engineers with combined service to Digital of 30
years.  A Digital spokeswoman would not comment except to say they were
employees until last Thursday.

The three engineers - board incumbent Philip Gransewicz and challengers David
Garrod and Christopher Fillmore-Gillet were among six candidates running for
three slots on the board of directors.

Balloting through the mail by the credit union's 72,000 members began March 17
and was due to end April 22.  But in the final week of balloting, the four
board members not up for re-election voted unanimously to invalidate the
election and to set up a new one involving the same candidates.  Under credit
union rules, former employees can be members.

Next page title:

Digital credit union election invalidated

Subtitle:

"I guess they decided to restart it and cool things off.  It seems like the
thing to do." - Lisa Demauro-Ross Credit union board chairwoman

Text:

In a letter mailed on the final day of balloting, the four board members said
the election had been "irreparably tainted and cannot be interpreted as a
finding in favor of one group of candidates over another group of candidates."

Lisa Demauro-Ross, the current board chairwoman and a candidate for re-election,
said she believed the four board members were within their authority to cancel
the election.  "I guess they decided to restart it and cool things off," she
said.  "It seems like the right thing to do."

But Garrod said board members had no authority to stop an election.  He said he
has hired a lawyer to try to reverse the decision.

"The membership has spoken and I think they should be heard," he said.  Ballots
have been impounded by the mailing house hired by the credit union's auditor.

In an interview, neither Charles Cockburn, chief executive of the credit union,
nor general counsel Joseph Melchione would cite the authority under which the
election was invalidated.  Nor would they say much about the campaign
complaints.

"This matter may wind up in litigation, and it is our policy not to comment on
litigation, other than to say there is ample authority to support this,"
Melchione said.  Cockburn said a new election would be scheduled, "in a few
months."

Several candidates and other sources said some complaints involved assertions
about candidates made in campaign literature.  In addition, Garrod said he had
lodged a complaint about credit union employees handing out literature at
branches that supported his opponents.

The credit union, which has 21 branches and $358 million in assets, says in its
bylaws that its employees may not "take part, during normal credit union
business hours, in any credit union election or campaign activity."

Cockburn, the chief executive, said employees could not be stopped from
campaigning during their breaks or during lunch, but Garrod disagreed. "They
have the right of free speech during their breaks and can do what they want,
but are not to campaign during their work hours," Cockburn said.

It was a piece of literature handed out at the credit unions that caused Garrod
to send a seven-page letter over Digital's e-mail system.

Garrod would only speak for himself, but others familiar with the election said
Gransewicz and Fillmore-Gillett also signed the letter.  Neither
Fillmore-Gillett nor Gransewicz would comment on their departure from Digital.

Garrod, a software engineering manager for a computer networking product set,
said the letter went only to a list of Digital employees who had shown interest
in the credit union campaign.  Garrod said Digital officials had told
candidates before the election what could or could not be sent over the
electronic mail system, but he maintained that his letter did not violate any
policy.

Garrod said he was fired last Thursday for sending the letter.  On his
termination form, a Digital official noted that Garrod's job performance
"exceeds job requirements."

Garrod said, "normal corrective action"  would have been a warning, followed by
firing only if the behavior was not corrected.  Further, Garrod said,
solicitations for charities and other non-Digital events commonly are sent over
the system.

"I worked for Digital for 15 years," he said.  "My manager noted on my
termination form that my termination represents a significant loss to the
organization...I am hopeful that Digital will do the right thing and reinstate
me, realizing that instant termination for sourcing one mail message is not a
reasonable action."

re: Glob article

> Cockburn said a new election would be scheduled, "in a few months."

Nice timing, Chuck. That oughta be good enough to get many people to forget
about everything that happened, right? I suppose it would take a "special
meeting" to pull it in any sooner. Probably can't trust the BoD, our elected
officials, to exert any influence here.

Does anybody know why this is Chuck's issue to determine? Do the bylaws
grant him the say of the scheduling of this?

-Jack

    
            When does his contract come up for renewal?
    
    
                                                    Steve

    	Nobody is going to forget.

    All I know is my money is outta there (except $5 of course).
    
    It seems pretty obvious to me that there was a vendetta out there (I'm
    not going to quote facts, I'm just stating in my opinion it seems
    OBVIOUS).  There have been comments about Ross campaigning in the
    hallways, and telephoning others to vote for her (yes, we got them out
    here in CXO too!), and what has happened about that?
    
    I'll re-evaluate letting Chuckie handle my money after the next
    election, and the 3G's are rightly seated on the board.
    
    BTW, this ISN'T going to scare me off of helping to get the 3G's elected.
    Those of you out East...don't forget to get the election material out
    to Colorado!
                   

    
>    BTW, this ISN'T going to scare me off of helping to get the 3G's elected.
>    Those of you out East...don't forget to get the election material out
>    to Colorado!

   But DON'T use EMAIL.                   

    I have to admit, now that I have spewed forth my quota of being
    rational, that it is darn tempting, for a long list of reasons, to
    withdraw all but $5.00 of my money, and all but $5.00 of my son's money
    from the DCU, put it in my local credit union, which would treat my
    business with mucho more respect, seat the 3 Gs on the BoD...  and then
    trust the DEFCU with my pitifully few and hard earned dollars...  I
    have issues with the DCU and its BoD (with exception of two members
    thereof) that are separate from my outrage at Digital's firing of the 3
    Gs...  which smacks openly of intimidation, period, end of discussion.
    
    Not sure what else my options are, seeing as we're not going to get a
    fresh election in the near future so as to vote with a ballot...
    
    Who died and left Chuck Cockburn king for the day? 

    RE:  .140
    
    You bet, let's keep it all on the up and up of course!!!!
    
    They can send their election material to my home!!!!
    
    

>>>    Who died and left Chuck Cockburn king for the day? 

  The BOD...

  So guys...  I have been accused of proposing Thermo Nuclear war before in
this conference...

  How about a special meeting???  It only takes 2000 members to force a special
meeting (or 200 and we can name the 3g's to represent us in discussions).

I understand there's already some discussion of a special meeting to tabulate
and release the results of the ballot currently under impound. Sounds like
a reasonable starting point to me.

-Jack

    Re:  a special election...  dandy idea!  Now, what is the company
    approved vehicle for getting the word out?  Or should that be:  DCU
    mgmt. and company approved vehicle?
    
    For gosh sake, this smacks of going underground and planning the
    storming of the Bastille all over again!
    
    Vive la libert�!

    
    	I would suggest that releasing the results of the invalidated
    election would not be a good idea. It might influence the 'new'
    election. 
    
    ed

    I think the point we have to consider here is: are the election results
    really invalid?  I have carefully reviewed the bylaws of the DCU and I
    cannot find one thing in the election process, nor one thing in Roberts
    Rules of Order that can be used to invalidate a vote by the membership
    by the methods that have been used thus far.
    
    I think that the results of the election that has already been held are
    valid and the only way to invalidate them is by invoking the
    Supervisory Committee's ability to call a special meeting to discuss
    viewed improprieties in the process.  
    
    The BOD and the Supervisory Committee have no say in whether these
    results are valid or not.

    
    Given that the action to invalidat the election has already taken
    place, the results of the present election should not be tabulated or
    made public until the issue is resolved because as of now the election
    is not valid.
    
    ed

  I have not read all the replies, but will comment anyway.
  A new element has been added to the picture. Digital employees who run for
election have a choice: they can either use Digital resources for communication,
in which case they will have to be extremely cautious, or find some other way
to communicate. I can only think of two means of communication that don't in-
volve some use of Digital resources. One is to send mail to people's homes,
which requires getting people's home addresses (a time-consuming task) and
thousands of dollars in postage. The other is to spread the word in person at
lunch time, which would enable one to reach only a minuscule fraction of the
voters. The result is that non-employees running for election will be at less
of a disadvantage, and may even have an advantage, because they won't be sub-
ject to the restrictions on Digital employees. This in spite of the fact that
it's quite difficult for non-employees running for DCU office to contact 
Digital employees in person. I am quite uncomfortable about a setup in which
non-Digital employees have an advantage in running for the DCU board, because
in general I would rather have Digital employees on the board. Although Paul
Kinzelman seems to have done a good job in spite of being a non-DECcie and
physically isolated from the headquarters area, it is far more difficult for
outsiders to keep up with what is happening in Digital. For one thing, they
can't access notesfiles, nor can someone extract notes from these files and
send them to a non-employee, with some exceptions. The 3G's as non-employees
(and I think it is highly unlikely they will be reinstated) are not quite the
same people as they would be if they had remained Digital employees. 

    RE: .149 It is the DCU's responsibility to aid communication between
    candidates and the membership. It is not Digitals.

    			Alfred

re Note 824.150 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     RE: .149 It is the DCU's responsibility to aid communication between
>     candidates and the membership. It is not Digitals.
  
        Yes, but I'm sure it is also DCU's responsibility to provide
        branch offices and ATMs in locations reasonably convenient to
        its membership.

        I don't even know the answer to this:  does DCU pay rent (at
        market rates) on the space it uses in Digital facilities?

        Bob

    >    I don't even know the answer to this:  does DCU pay rent (at
    >    market rates) on the space it uses in Digital facilities?
    
    I don't believe that DCU pays market rates for their facilities
    in DEC buildings. It's one of the ways that Digital supports DCU.
    
    			Alfred

    It would appear that all candidates are free to use external email
    through the Digital easynet gateways to *solicit* votes; at least I
    don't see how the company regulations posted so far could apply in this
    case, as long as the mail originated from outside Digital.

    On the other hand, I still have a hard time understanding how the
    existing regulations apply in the case where they have been used...

	Paul

1998+Ron+me

>================================================================================
>Note 824.143      Phil Gransewicz fired for involvement in DCU?       143 of 150
>SSDEVO::RMCLEAN                                       9 lines   2-MAY-1994 13:24
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                             -< This means war??? >-
>
>>>>    Who died and left Chuck Cockburn king for the day? 
>
>  The BOD...
>
>  So guys...  I have been accused of proposing Thermo Nuclear war before in
>this conference...
>
>  How about a special meeting???  It only takes 2000 members to force a special
>meeting (or 200 and we can name the 3g's to represent us in discussions).
>

    I've had a request to change the title to reflect that the topic
    is discussing all three candidates. I've done so for the sake
    of accuracy and also to make it easier to find using DIR/TITLE
    in case anyone wanted to look up by peoples names.

    			Alfred

    FYI ... Chris can be reached by internet email ... or AoL mail
    
    	[email protected]
    
    Stuart

    Phil Gransewicz asked me to let people know that the three of them are
    still DCU members are are still in the election -- in fact, even more so.
    Phil told me that he doesn't have an email address yet but will soon,
    and that you are welcome to call him at home -- 508-829-4128.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

Call it coincidence, but did anyone else notice about the same time the
3G's were fired, Bill Streckers HR manager left Digital???

 1) The 3G's were all under Bill Strecker.
 2) For a firing of this type, Bill Streckers H&R person would have been
    involved.
 3) H&R Manager leaves right after the 3G's are fired.

Is there a connection?

Thoughts?

	- mark

    RE: .158 I noticed that as well. But I think it a coincidence
    because there is no reason that I know of to think otherwise.
    Unless there is evidence that it's not a coincidence, idle 
    speculation is interesting but not a positive step. IMHO.

    			Alfred

    Re:  .158
    
    ???  WHO "left" after the firing of the 3 Gs?
    
    Curiouser and curiouser...

    Is the infamous 'rebuttal' memo in this notesfile? If so, what note is
    it? 

    re: .158+
    
    You are referring to Ralph Christensen.  He is an acquaintance of mine
    and I know him to have the highest integrity.  (We've been going to the
    same church for the past few years.)  I wondered the same thing and was 
    quite concerned, knowing of his outstanding character.  I don't feel it 
    appropriate to go into detail, but I have been assured through several 
    personal sources that his resignation really is a coincidence.  He has 
    apparently found a very nice opportunity outside of Digital.
    
    Steve  

>    Is the infamous 'rebuttal' memo in this notesfile? If so, what note is
>    it? 
    
    Note 787.1
    
    			Alfred

    
    See also note 827.17, which seeme to give the most focused information
    to date on the reason for the terminations.
    

    Is this solicitation? Hmmm. 
    
    If I accidently deleted work related mail instead of this... never
    mind.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    
From:	SOLVIT::MKOTS1::SUBSCRIBER "DO NOT ANSWER THIS MAIL  03-May-1994 1334"  3-MAY-1994 16:40:51.61
To:	@ALL
CC:	
Subj:	First Mortgage Originators at DCU

	  ***Please do NOT reply to this message.  Thank you***

Effective immediately, Digital Credit Union First Mortgage Originators will     
be at the Merrimack branch every Wednesday, from 8:30 AM to 11:30 AM.  Please   
stop in to make an appointment or call DTN 264-8784.                            

    

    Well, I find the most interesting part of all this is that someone very
    senior had to be talked into terminating the 3G's. I wonder who that
    someone is/are?

    re .165
    
    If this isn't solicitation, I don't know what is.

    RE:  .165  by HURON::MYERS 
    
>From:	SOLVIT::MKOTS1::SUBSCRIBER "DO NOT ANSWER THIS MAIL  03-May-1994 1334"  3-MAY-1994 16:40:51.61
>To:	@ALL
    
    Several months ago I asked that the SUBSCRIBER mail be used to send out
    a simple mail message with information about our Digital Commuter
    Vanpool that goes from West Acton to MKO.  They refused to allow it
    because it was not considered an appropriate use of Digital's
    resources.  I'm talking using and internal mail .DIStribution list to
    inform people about a service provided by Digital Equipment
    Corporation, which is only available to Digital employees.
    
    How can they refuse to post our announcement yet they send out junk
    mail for something that is not a Digital benefit and is not limited to
    Digital employees?
    

    And here in Chicago they use @SUBSCRIBERS to send out info about
    parties at local bars.
    
    Bob
    

I'm on a distro list that gets spray mail about jazz music events in the
GMA area.

I don't object in any way, shape, or form, but it's normally mail that
says where I can go at what price to see whom.

-Jack

    So, have you raised the issue with management?  How do you expect them
    to act if you don't complain?

>How do you expect them
>    to act if you don't complain?
    
    I'd expect them to react quite unexpectedly. Witness the 3G firings.
    
    -Glenn-
    

People can contact Phil Granzweiz on the internet along with Chris.

Phil Gransewicz	DECWRL::"[email protected]"
Chris Gillet	DECWRL::"[email protected]"


	- mark

    There are in fact several gateways along with DECWRL:: depending on
    the part of the country you are in ...  US2RMC:: and US3RMC:: seem
    to be the most used by people in the east.  DECWRL is (or at least
    was last reported) out west!
    

    Please note change in usage of node DECWRL:
    
    "Users should not route Internet mail through DECWRL.
    DECWRL is not a production level mail server. DECWRL
    is available as an access point to the gatekeeper archives
    from DECnet hosts but it is not a mail server. Anyone using
    DECWRL as a mail machine is taking a chance that it will
    be unavailable at any time with no warning."
    
    Instead, please use your local RMC node:
    (from UPSAR::GATEWAY, note 1988)
                                                                    4/19/94
        DECnet areas and RMCs
        ---------------------
    
        US1RMC             US2RMC             US3RMC             US4RMC
        ======             ======             ======             ======
         4 LKG Campus       2 MKO Campus       8 Western States   5 PKO Campus
         9 LKG Campus       3 MKO Campus      13 Lat's            7 MRO Campus
        12 LKG Campus      15 Salem N.H.      16 Western States  11 MRO Campus
        14 Shownet (LKG)   17 Salem N.H.      20 APA (AKO)       21 MRO Campus
        18 SHR             19 MKO Campus      22 APA (Singapore) 24 PKO Campus
        29 LKG Campus      23 South Central   28 Western States  25 PKO Campus
        32 Eastern States  26 South Central   30 Western States  27 SHR
        35 CNS/East        31 MKO Campus      33 South Central   38 MRO Campus
        45 Opennet (LKG)   39 Salem N.H.      34 South Central   56 PKO Campus
        55 LKG Campus                         36 South Central
                                              54 Unassigned
                                              57 APA (Canada)
                                              59 APA (Australia)
                                              60 Unassigned
    
        DECPA              CRL                JRDMAX             VBORMC
        =====              ===                ======             ======
        10 Palo Alto        6 HLO             58 APA (Japan)      1 EUR
                           37 HLO                                40 EUR
                                                                 41 EUR
                                                                 42 EUR
                                                                 43 EUR
                                                                 44 EUR
                                                                 46 EUR
                                                                 47 EUR
                                                                 48 EUR
                                                                 49 EUR
                                                                 50 EUR
                                                                 51 EUR
                                                                 52 EUR
                                                                 53 EUR
    

Chris Gillett says "I've also heard a rumor suggesting that we were all 
warned about our behavior before we were terminated.  Speaking for myself, 
I can say with some certainty that the only warning I ever had was the 
actual termination itself." 

So there is a disagreement between Digital and Chris that he was 'warned'.

Jilly

            <<< HUMANE::DISK$NOTES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 3043.61                       more on DCU                          61 of 61
TOOK::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dog face)"             12 lines   5-MAY-1994 13:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: Claims about security having been alerted to disallow 3G's entrance to
    DIGITAL facilities

I would have to expect that this is the same restriction placed on any
non-employee - that they sign in as a visitor and have an employee escort
while within the facility. I believe this largely because Phil stopped
by to visit me at lunch time today and was allowed to sign in and take
a visitors badge and then enter the sacred portals with me, just like
any other human being. Security here at TAY2 had no admonitions to
restrict his entrance in any other way.

-Jack

    
    re: .165
    
    	Regarding the apparent MKO solicitation for DCU mortgages, we
    here in Marlboro received a similar message back in April from the
    MR4DEC::ANNOUNCEMENT account likewise soliciting for appointments
    to see DCU mortgage originators.
    
    	This past Monday I sent a mail message to Ron Glover and included
    the original "This Message is from DCU" e-mail solicitation and asked
    for clarification about how or why Digital resources are allowed to be
    used for non-Digital business solicitations. 
    
    	I also asked Ron for his permission to publish (here in the DCU
    Notesfile) any responses he returns to me.
    
    	So far he has not responded.
    
    

It's been several weeks since the election results were thrown out.  Has anyone 
seen any evidence that new elections are actually being planned?

Al

    
    	They'll probably just wait until the rest of the board members are
    up for re-election and hold the whole election then.
    
    	Don't look for anything in the near future.
    
    ed

How can they skip an election cycle like that?

-Glenn-

    
>    	They'll probably just wait until the rest of the board members are
>    up for re-election and hold the whole election then.
    

That's somewhat what I expected.

al

>How can they skip an election cycle like that?

Maybe the same way the board canceled the last election?

> -< Is that legal? >-

Have we been given evidence that the actions of the board in cancelling the
previous election was legal?



al

    I've talked to a couple of Board members and a couple of other
    DCU officials. All would like to see the election started pretty
    soon. My guess (and it's just that) is that we'll see something
    official by the end of the month.
    
    			Alfred

I saw Phil and Dave this past Saturday. The previous week (the Friday of the
week they "left"), all candidates met with the DCU mouthpiece and were told
that new election guidlines were being drawn up, and that they "would have
input" to the matter. Once that matter had been attended to, a new shareholder
meeting would be scheduled as the "endpoint" of the next election cycle. The
bylaws require 75 days notice to be given prior to a meeting. You can do the
math to see what this amounts to in terms of when the next board seating
will take place.

Please don't strictly rely on those of us in regular contact with the 3G's
for information. At least Phil and Chris have had their home numbers posted in
here and would be more than happy to hear personally from any of you.

-Jack

>that new election guidlines were being drawn up, and that they "would have
>input" to the matter. Once that matter had been attended to, a new shareholder
>meeting would be scheduled as the "endpoint" of the next election cycle. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "endpoint".  Do you mean the beginning of a
new election cycle?

>The
>bylaws require 75 days notice to be given prior to a meeting. You can do the
>math to see what this amounts to in terms of when the next board seating
>will take place.

Would the election process have to be submitted to the NCUA before a shareholder
meeting was called?

What happens at the shareholders meeting.  Is it just to be told what the new
processes are or is there a vote on the new process?


Al

re:                      <<< Note 824.187 by RLTIME::COOK >>>

>I'm not sure what you mean by "endpoint".  Do you mean the beginning of a
>new election cycle?

No - "endpoint" as in "end of a new election cycle", as in, when the votes
are in and counted and the results are reported, just as last months
shareholders' meeting would have been, had it been held.

>Would the election process have to be submitted to the NCUA before a shareholder
>meeting was called?

I don't know the answer to this.

>What happens at the shareholders meeting.  Is it just to be told what the new
>processes are or is there a vote on the new process?

At the shareholders' meeting, the results of the election are announced and the
new board is seated (new board=Old members retaining seats+newly elected
members). We'll hear about the "new process" when the polls open.

Members having an opportunity to vote on the process? Surely you jest.

-Jack

    
.187> Would the election process have to be submitted to the NCUA before a
.187> shareholder meeting was called?

    A letter posing this question (posted elsewhere) has been delivered to the
    NCUA. I got the delivery receipt on Monday, will post any response as
    soon as I get it.
    

    
    	I'm still very pissed that there has been no official statement as
    to under what authority the election was invalidated. There should be
    no new election until this is done. How do we know what the rules are
    for the new election?
    
    
    ed

    re .190:
    
    I specifically asked for such a statement, and I found out that one is
    being worked on.  Let's hope we like it when we see it.
    
    		Larry

    re. 191
    
    	This will end up being more 'spin'. If a law,regulation or
    equivatent is the basis, all they have to do is cut and paste the data
    into a note. If they had a basis for invalidating the election, they
    had it before they did it. Why do we have to wait... (the answer is
    obvious, by the way- they're lying to us.
    
    ed

    
>    I specifically asked for such a statement, and I found out that one is
>    being worked on.  Let's hope we like it when we see it.
    

Are you saying it it has taken almost a month to write a statement giving the 
legal authority that was used to overthrow the election?  It must be pretty 
difficult to write if it takes that long.

al

    But................................................................
    WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR ALREADY CAREFULLY MARKED BALLOTS WE ALL SENT IN? 
    Are those also null and void???
    
    I hope that the current DCU BoD doesn't really think that anyone of us
    will fall for some line of carefully crafted smoke and mirrors as
    regards their wrongful invalidating of the last election.  To
    invalidate an election whilst the actual voting is taking place is
    irregular in MOST institutions that I know of in the civilized world...
    
    I just can't wait to get my next glossy little message from the DCU,
    thanking me for my patience and understanding, drawing my attention to
    the all the good it has done for me, and exhorting me earnestly to get
    out there and vote for the candidate of my choice!

    Oh, and while I'm at it, there is some CU convention out on the west
    coast this coming weekend, that I am sure members of our august BoD of
    the DEFCU will be at...  wonder what they'll all talk about?  Hm?

    
    
    .192 I don't think it matters much.
    
    If you play out the possible senarios, I think the G's are in a win-win
    position. (Not the digital employment part though)
    
    So here's the senerio.
    
    If they lost the last election and lose again. No harm done
    If they won and win again. No harm done
    If they won and lost the second time. Only now is there possible harm. 
                                                            --------
    	If the first election was canceled within the guidelines of the 
    	DCU bylaws. Nothing can be done.
    
    	If the bylaws were ignored. Then they have recourse.
    
    I think, sitting pat and waiting for the second election can only help
    the G's.
    
    And I doubt that they can lose now. The G's must be gaining sympathy.
    	Fighting a battle they may have already won is useless.
    
    
    My own position is I voted against them before. I will vote for them
    now. See how that sympathy stuff works. :)
    

I don't think it's inappropriate to mention this, and I'm sure Alfred will
let me know if it's the case, but at least two of the three G's that I
spoke with last weekend have a pretty strong feeling that "the powers
that be" (no more specificity than that) are attempting to see that they
either don't appear on the next ballot, or that if they appear, they cannot
be elected.

I have no further details. I'm only repeating a statement of opinion that
was expressed to me by Phil and Dave.

-Jack

re: .196

Vote for the 3G's because you want DCU run the way they believe it should be
done, NOT out of sympathy.

Bob

    
    
    .198. It's my vote.
    

    For no particular reason at all I'm thinking of Adam Clayton Powell,
    whom some of you no doubt remember from the Lyndon Johnson days as a 
    particularly outspoken black senator from Harlem.  He got elected; 
    for whatever reason, the US Senate refused to seat him and demanded 
    that his senate district hold another election.  There was another
    election...and he won by an even wider margin.

>I don't think it's inappropriate to mention this, and I'm sure Alfred will
>let me know if it's the case, but at least two of the three G's that I
>spoke with last weekend have a pretty strong feeling that "the powers
>that be" (no more specificity than that) are attempting to see that they
>either don't appear on the next ballot, or that if they appear, they cannot
>be elected.


All it would take is a single line in the "new" election rules.

A candidate must be an employee of the sponsoring company, Digital Equipment
Corporation.

Something to that effect would pretty much do it.  I guess that can't happen
though.

Al

    
   re. 196
    
  >  	If the first election was canceled within the guidelines of the 
  >  	DCU bylaws. Nothing can be done.
    
    Everyone that has read the bylaws can't find the authority to cancel
    the election. That's the point being contested.
    
    ed

    
>    Everyone that has read the bylaws can't find the authority to cancel
>    the election. That's the point being contested.

Is it actually being contested with NCUA or is it just being contested in
the court of this conference?

    
    
    .202 Of course. But that is the whole point. It's a win-win senerio.
    

    re 203
    
    	Who knows. First we have to understand why and under what authority
    it was done. They have to tell us first.
    
    ed

>>    For no particular reason at all I'm thinking of Adam Clayton Powell,
>>    whom some of you no doubt remember from the Lyndon Johnson days as a 
>>    particularly outspoken black senator from Harlem.  He got elected; 
>>    for whatever reason, the US Senate refused to seat him and demanded 
>>    that his senate district hold another election.  There was another
>>    election...and he won by an even wider margin.

Minor nit.  Powell was a congressman, not a senator, if memory serves.

Re .197:
>I don't think it's inappropriate to mention this, and I'm sure Alfred will
>let me know if it's the case, but at least two of the three G's that I
>spoke with last weekend have a pretty strong feeling that "the powers
>that be" (no more specificity than that) are attempting to see that they
>either don't appear on the next ballot, or that if they appear, they cannot
>be elected.

Well, I guess the answer in that case would be simple: we organize a special
meeting petition drive and get rid of them that way. 

	paul

  That's my argument...  We might get answers that way too.  But then again
I am tooooooo far away to get enough signatures.

>I don't think it's inappropriate to mention this, and I'm sure Alfred will
>let me know if it's the case, but at least two of the three G's that I
>spoke with last weekend have a pretty strong feeling that "the powers
>that be" (no more specificity than that) are attempting to see that they
>either don't appear on the next ballot, or that if they appear, they cannot
>be elected.

I have no doubt that some "powers that be" would like to see this happen.
I guess I am naive, but I am having difficulty coming up with any sort of
rationale which could be used to achieve this end.

Perhaps someone could cook up a reason for omitting Phil based on claiming
he did something improper as a director, but it would be harder in the case
of the other two, since as non-directors they were not in a position to
violate anything.  The violations they have been alleged to have committed
are against Digital policy, not DCU policy, and so have no bearing on them
as candidates.

	Paul

    I am aware of no actions being taken or in process to remove any of the
    candidates from the coming election.  On the contrary, as I understand
    it all candidates will be participating in helping to define the rules
    for the coming election.
    
    Steve

    
    Thanks, Steve. Give the current situation, the information you supply
    is greatly appreciated.
    
    (I don't suppose you have access to the BoD minutes... :-)
    

I think Adam Clayton Powell had been convicted of something.

re: .210

Steve,

Are you involved in the process to define the new election rules?

Thanks,

Bob

               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< SOAPBOX.  Just SOAPBOX. >-
================================================================================
Note 13.2809                      1-900-SOAPBOX                     2809 of 2809
WECARE::GRIFFIN                                       5 lines  13-MAY-1994 11:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AC Powell was denied his seat in Congress in 1967, coz of charges he
    misused govt. funds. Reelected in 1968, he was seated, fined $25K,
    and stripped of his seniority.
    
    Source is World Almanac 1994

 Re: .212 < I think Adam Clayton Powell had been convicted of something.
    
    	Abject popularity in his district.
    
    

    re: .213
    
    Yes, although my role largely seems to involve review and 
    recommendation as opposed to direct debate and drafting of 
    the rules.
    
    Steve

re: .216

Thank you, Steve.

FYI - I have been asked to mention here that Dave Garrod
can now be contacted at  

	[email protected]

    .201:
    
    Given the background of it all, I wonder how such a change would
    compare to things like "relationship banking" in chasing members out of
    the credit union?
    
    Dick

Well, it's been well over a month now.  No reasons for overthrowing the election
have been forthcoming.  No indications that the board and officers of DCU
intend to let us vote again or if they will let any future vote stand.

It was a good battle, but I think this one is over.



Al

    I am disappointed by how long it has taken, but something more substantial 
    is on the way.  Also, the promised development of new election rules is 
    well underway.  Everything else is pretty much dependent on that.  To
    my knowledge, there will be a new election with the same candidates as
    before.
    
    Steve

Steve,

  Will the new election 'rules' have a provision for when an election can and
cannot be overthrown?  Will the board and officers of DCU be held accountable 
for following their new 'rules'?  Unless the board and officers are prevented 
from overthrowing the election process on a whim, new 'rules' are no differenct 
from old 'rules'.  



Al

RE: ...something more substantial is on the way...

Steve,

	Is there any estimate of when?  Having something like this open
	ended is very frustrating.  A communication from the powers-that-be
	that the process to have new guidelines adopted will be completed by
	MMM-DD-1994 would be helpful.

Thanks,
Ray

Something tells me that the new "rules" will deal mostly with what candidates
and their supporters may or may not do in their campaigning activities, and
will have little if anything to do with the "abilities" of the board to
invalidate an election.

-Jack

And I'll bet that you'll not hear one more word from the BoD or anyone else in
the DEFCU as to why the election was canned in mid stream. Let alone an
explanation of how they can have this dictatorial power.

-Glenn-

    Yesterday I received a very nice DCU survey form inquiring as to the
    reasons why I closed my account.
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    

    Folks, I will be getting something substantial and formal today that I
    plan to post here this evening.  This will be a formal and more
    detailed explanation of the actions taken by the SC and BoD.  This
    document has been worked on for a while now.  I anticipate it will help
    answer many concerns.  It will be made more generally available to the
    membership besides being posted here.
    
    Also, it appears that I will be a bit more active in working on the
    rules for the election than I anticipated.  I have been getting 
    correspondence from some of you about the elections and rules and 
    will continue to consider these.  However, if any of you have specific 
    issues that you would like the committee to consider regarding the 
    elections, feel free to get me your feedback.  I make no guarantees 
    and make no statements about rule specifics.  But, I will mention that 
    from what I've seen so far, most issues that folks have raised about 
    elections appear to me to be addressed in draft of the rules I've 
    already seen.
    
    More this evening, hopefully ...
    
    Steve

Thanks Steve,


  I'll send a memo directly to you, but the one question that must be answered
for me to stay with DCU is under what circumstance the board and officers 
feel they have the right to invalidate elections and what actions will be taken
if future boards/officers do not follow these new rules and invalidate future
elections.

  This board/officers now have a history of acting far outside of the rules and
regulations of the Digital Employees Credit Union charter. It will be very
interesting to me how they will now define rules that inspire confidence that
this is the last instance of this type of action.

Al

We haven't heard from Steve in a while.  Is the supervisory commitee still
around?

    Yup.  :)
    
    Steve

    Below is email from Dave Garrod.  Digital is trying to prevent him from
    getting unemployment benefits, on the basis he was discharged for
    violating "a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy".

    As I have stated before, I don't believe that, and I will be writing to
    the Massachusetts Department of Employment and Training to object and
    indicate my knowledge to the contrary.  Clearly, Digital's policies are
    not uniformly enforced.  Your support is welcome; please send your
    comments to

	Commissioner Nils Nordberg
	Department of Education and Training
	19 Staniford Street
	Boston, MA  02114

    Mention docket number 147096 (David J. Garrod).  The law (see below)
    states that Digital's claim of discharge must be shown "to the
    satisfaction of the commissioner".  So anything you can tell the
    commissioner to the contrary can help Dave Garrod's case.  For example,
    if you can send copies of email solicitations you have received, that
    would help show that actual practice in Digital differs from policy. 
    If you don't have examples saved, write about solicitations you
    remember or any other knowledge you have about how Digital's policy is
    not enforced.

    There is a hearing on this September 14.  Send mail soon.


				-- edp


[This is not a private message. It may be shared with anybody you
 want to share it with.]

Eric,

You indicated interest in hearing about the difficulties I am
having in claiming unemployment. I fail to understand how
Digital is getting away with claiming that I have no right
to unemployment benefit.

In regards to claiming unemployment. The MA statute Chapter
151A, says:

Section 25. No waiting period shall be allowed and no benefits
shall be paid to an individual under this chapter for-

(a) [irrelevent text omitted]

(d)  [irrelevent text omitted - there is no (b), (c) by the way]

(e) For the period of unemployment next ensuing and until the
individual has had at least eight weeks of work and in each of
said weeks has earned an amount equal to or in excess of the
individual's weekly benefit amount after the individual has left
work
(1) voluntarily unless the employee establishes by substanttial
and credible evidence that he had good cause for leaving attributable
to the employing unit or its agent,
(2) BY DISCHARGE SHOWN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
COMMISSIONER BY SUBSTANTIAL AND CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO DELIBERATE
MISCONDUCT IN WILFUL DISREGARD OF THE EMPLOYING
UNIT'S INTEREST, OR TO A KNOWING VIOLATION OF A
REASONABLE AND UNIFORMLY ENFORCED RULE OR
POLICY OF THE EMPLOYER, provided that such violation is not
shown to be as a result of the employee's incompetence, or
(3) because of conviction for a felony or misdeameanor.

(the capitalization above was done by me, otherwise it is an
exact transcript of the MA statute.)

It is section 25e(2) that Digital is using to prevent me from claiming
unemployment. It's highly questionable as the whether the
mail message I sent out was a violation ofthe no solicitation
policy (I maintain it wasn't a solicitation). My action most certainly
[was not] a deliberate misconduct or a wilful disregard of policy. Quite the
contrary in fact I worked EXTREMELY hard to word the message
to stay within the policy guidelines. But even if it was a violation
of the "no solicitation policy" as alleged, as everybody knows
solicitations go out over the ENET every day. So much for
a "uniformly enforced policy".

I believe the real reason Digital railroaded me out is because
certain individuals in Corporate HR objected to the fact that I was
(and AM) running for a DCU Board position. Picking on the mail
message was a way of railroading myself and the other 2Gs out
of the company.

Dave

    August 14, 1994

    Commissioner Nils Nordberg
    Department of Employment and Training
    19 Staniford Street
    Boston, MA  02114

    Re: Docket Number 147096 (David J. Garrod)

    Dear Commissioner Nordberg:
    
    I am informed that Digital Equipment Corporation, my employer, is
    attempting  to deny unemployment benefits to David J. Garrod under
    Chapter 151A of the  Massachusetts statutes, section 25 (e)(2), "by
    discharge shown to the  satisfaction of the commissioner by substantial
    and credible evidence to be  attributable to deliberate misconduct in
    willful disregard of the employing  unit's interest, or to a knowing
    violation of a reasonable and uniformly  enforced rule or policy of the
    employer . . ." It is my further  understanding that Digital claims
    David J. Garrod sent or was involved in  the sending of an electronic
    mail (email) message that Digital deems to be a  solicitation in
    violation of policy prohibiting the use of corporate email  for
    solicitations.
    
    The enclosed evidence demonstrates that Digital's policy is in no way 
    uniformly enforced. Indeed, the policy is virtually completely ignored. 
    Several employees collected the dozens of email messages enclosed.
    These are  a variety of solicitations of sorts that are sent
    frequently. To my  knowledge, none of the authors of these messages
    have been disciplined in  any way or even advised that their email
    violates policy. Actual practice  within Digital has not conformed to
    purported policy at any time within the  past decade. Almost all
    employees, except the diminishing few without any  email access,
    regularly receive solicitations, and many employees send them.
    
    Managers and supervisors are among the recipients of such
    solicitations, so  Digital is surely aware of the actual use of its
    email, yet employees are  never warned that these messages are
    violations of policy. More than that, I  know Digital's policy makers
    have been asked repeatedly over a period of  years to clarify the
    meaning of "solicitation" as it pertains to the email  policy, but
    employees have never received any usable definition. Because of  this,
    it is impossible to say that Garrod's act was a knowing violation of a 
    rule of the employer; one cannot know when the knowledge has been
    willfully  withheld.
    
    Even if Garrod's mail had violated a uniformly enforced policy,
    termination  is entirely disproportionate to the act. Digital has
    another policy it is  not following in this matter, a disciplinary
    policy which specifies the  procedures for progressive corrective
    action. When an employee has committed  a serious policy violation,
    which the sending of a single email could not  constitute, the
    appropriate action is an initial written warning. A  subsequent
    violation may call for a final written warning, and only then  should
    termination be considered. Firing Garrod without warning for sending  a
    single email message is uncalled for; that Garrod violated policy is
    not a  credible explanation for his firing. The severity of Digital's
    act does not  make sense unless there is some other motivation.
    Violating its own  disciplinary policy is evidence Digital fired Garrod
    for some reason other  than sending an email solicitation.
    
    The law quoted above says the discharge must be shown to your
    satisfaction.  Surely you will be most dissatisfied on three points:
    The purported policy  is barely enforced at all, let alone uniformly,
    Garrod did not knowingly  violate policy, and Digital did not terminate
    Garrod for violating policy.
    
    For your information, I am employed by Digital Equipment Corporation in
    New  Hampshire, and I have no relationship with David J. Garrod. His
    activities  in regard to the Digital Credit Union, of which I am not a
    member, are my  first recollection of any knowledge about him. My
    observations are those of  another employee, one very dissatisfied with
    the behavior of Digital  Equipment Corporation.
    
    Please advise me about other ways that I or other employees can help
    David  J. Garrod. In New Hampshire, ten employees can ask the
    Department of  Employment to render an opinion in a dispute. If there
    are similar  provisions in Massachusetts by which employees can ask
    that Digital's  actions be investigated, please inform me of them. I
    very much would like to  know why Digital is railroading employees who
    are running for positions on  the Digital Credit Union Board of
    Directors, and any assistance you can  provide in this matter would be
    greatly appreciated.
    
					Yours truly,
					Eric Postpischil

    I have seen only rumors about the formal justification for termination. 
    I believe Digital has said that such matters are private.  (Rightly so
    in general.)

    It would help if the 3Gs could provide a transcript of the exact
    charges which they were accused of.  Then it would be able to provide
    more meaningful support and assistance.

	Paul

re .-1

see .93

Re: .236 & .93

I had forgotten that even that much had been published, and it is better
than nothing, but I regard .93 as hearsay.  What I had in mind is a
transcript of whatever written excuse was presented to the 3Gs by Digital
when firing them.  Perhaps I am naive to assume that any such written
document ever existed, but if not then I expect there is no grounds for
denying them unemployment.

For instance, is there any assertion that they had been previously warned?
If so, what was the substance of the previous warning?

If there is no documented previous warning, then this goes into the same
category as all the solicitations I have received (and sent) for GirlScout
cookies and Little League candy.  Unfortunately I have saved none of those.

	Paul

re .-1

See 1.10

    Last night I was at the Nashua Public Library doing research in the
    business section.  I sat at a table under a bulletin board and noticed 
    a publication called "Employee Terminations Law Bulletin."  This
    bulletin is intended for employers to keep them from making gaffes that
    can cause them to be sued or lose law suits.  I am typing (without
    permission) the text of one of the "tips" sections (caps are mine):
    
    "Fired Employee Can Draw Unemployment
    
    "Usually, an employee fired for cause is not eligible for unemployment 
    compensation.  However, there are exceptions.  Recently a court in
    Arizona ruled an employee who tested positive for drug use and was
    fired could receive unemployment benefits.  The court noted if an
    employer fires an employee for cause, THEN THE EMPLOYER MUST PROVE THE
    REASON FOR THE DISMISSAL IS JOB-RELATED."
    
    The bulletin is Volume 15, Number 7, by Quinlan Publishing Co.
    
    Quinlan Publishing Company
    23 Drydoc Avenue
    Boston, MA 02210-2387
    
    Precedent has been set in Arizona.  I hope this can help Dave.
    
    
    Susan (who mailed in her vote for change!)

    There's a typo in .233; the correct name of the department is
    "Department of Employment and Training".
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.