Conference 7.286::dcu

>>3) According to Phil, Phil, Chris, and Dave were fired by DEC for
>>"solicitation" in the notes posting of their position statement.

And, once again, what about those other candidiates that solicited by phone, or
who also posted positions in this conference?

    
   >> >>3) According to Phil, Phil, Chris, and Dave were fired by DEC for
   >> >>"solicitation" in the notes posting of their position statement.
   >>
   >> And, once again, what about those other candidiates that solicited by
   >> phone, or
   >> who also posted positions in this conference?
   >>
    
    It's not tracable like an electronic message..
    
    
    Of course, which is cheaper?  Which can the general worker bee
    associate more with?
    
    
    Think about it folks, that's why the infamous committee is secret and 
    perhaps why their "papers" appear in your *PHYSICAL* mailbox in paper 
    format rather than your *VIRTUAL* mailbox to allow you to find the source
    
    
    John
    

    Don't forget that Dave G. also sent mail messages regarding the
    election to employees and that Phil G. set up an account with "DCU
    Election Information".  The solicitation went well beyond the
    notesfile.

                <<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 824.77       Phil Gransewicz fired for involvement in DCU?         77 of 81
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      14 lines  29-APR-1994 14:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    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
================================================================================
Note 824.78       Phil Gransewicz fired for involvement in DCU?         78 of 81
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                       9 lines  29-APR-1994 14:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

I do not believe the position of the BoD invalidating the election
is tenable and am confident it will not survive legal scrutiny.
I am disappointed Paul Kinzelman would be a party in this action.
I do not feel we as members have been well served by this action
of the board.  I am inclined, in the absence of clear communication
in this matter, to suspect the worst and expect nothing.

Mike
    

    I believe Paul acted in good faith ...
    
    The decision to invalidate the election, on the face of it, makes
    sense.  But the face of it is about how far it goes.  I feel it
    was not a fully thought through decision ... and let's face it, these
    decisons are made by board members on pretty short notice without
    a lot of time spent on the "what ifs".
    
    Personally, I believe that if the election was to be invalidated, then
    the whole election should have been invalidated, right back to chosing
    candidates etc.  This would wipe the slate more cleanly.
    
    I am disappointed that Paul voted as he did, and I suspect it was a
    tough decision for him ... but I know that he will have given it as
    much thought time as the process would allow, and would not have
    voted for it purely on the recommendation of others.  If I were in
    his shoes I certainly would have been torn between the two ideas.
    It is easy looking back and saying that he shouldn't have voted as
    he did ... but it certainly would have been different to be there.
    
    I also suspect that the board was privvy to more information than
    we have about the goings on.
    
    Stuart

    Are the sharks out today?  Lemee just stick my little toe in ...
    SNAP!  SNAP!  YYEEEOOOW!  Ah, well ...  it's just a toe ...
    
    I breathed a bit of a sigh of relief when Paul proposed writing the
    memo that was posted at the beginning of this string.  I believe what
    he has posted to be truthful and honest.  Before he requested folks
    here to have it posted, he bounced it off me and others to make sure it 
    was a fair and accurate representation.  If you know Paul, you probably 
    know this is his style with respect to this kind of thing.  
    
    Feel free to say what you want about me.  I've already resigned myself
    to being unpopular (for now, anyway).  But, before lobbing any criticism
    toward Paul, please think about how Paul works and what you know about him.
    I have personally *never* known him to be anything but genuinely concerned
    about issues like this while doing his best to be honest, probing and 
    courageous.  I believe Paul is just as committed to truth, integrity and 
    justice as always.  He hasn't changed, in my view.  I would be disappointed
    if he had.  I have no fears of any such disappointment.  
    
    Steve

        
    >Personally, I believe that if the election was to be invalidated, then
    >the whole election should have been invalidated, right back to choosing
    >candidates etc.  This would wipe the slate more cleanly.

    What would you see happening differently earlier in the process? The
    draw ordering the way are names listed on that ballot? What was/is
    wrong with the current draw?

    The position statements on the ballots? What's wrong or bad about 
    them and how should they be changed?

    Lastly, and most important to me personally, what did I and the rest
    of the nominating committee do during the nomination process that 
    we should have done differently? Or that we should do differently
    in a re-set of the process? If you have something bad to say about
    a candidate however do that privately. Doing so publicly in Notes
    is a no no.

    			Alfred

While I still respect and like Paul Kinzelman, I do NOT AGREE with
things he said in his mail message that I posted in .0.  To be specific:


> 1) DCU is financially sound and many people there are concerned about
> doing the right thing. Watch the board meeting minutes for proof of this.

Sure, it's sound.  I'm taking most of my money out anyway -- not because 
of the firings, because of the election invalidation.  Paul, PLEASE do
not again vote to hide parts of the Board meeting minutes.  I know why
you did, I know you acted in good faith, but I think you were wrong.
That vote makes me doubt I'll see some tough issues in the minutes.
Like this one -- can you ENSURE that it'll be fully in the minutes?
    

> 2) DCU has not accused my election endorsement of slander.

How could "the DCU" do such a thing?  I admit I'm curious if
such an accusation has really been made, and if so by whom.


> 3) According to Phil, Phil, Chris, and Dave were fired by DEC for
> "solicitation" in the notes posting of their position statement.

An important nit:  it was the MAIL message, not the notes posting.
I have this both from Phil and from an HR manager who checked.


> 4) I have no evidence that DCU was involved with the DEC action
> against Phil, Chris, and Dave.

I don't recall anyone suggesting this.  People have suggested that
they may be linked.  If that were true, it wouldn't suggest (to me)
any wrongdoing on the part of the DCU.  Indeed, for these events to
be linked wouldn't necessarily imply any wrongdoing at all.
    
> I was not happy about voting for election invalidation, but it seemed
> that it was the cleanest way of moving forward due to the voluminous
> quantity of complaints against both sides.

One can't move forward past an obstacle without removing the obstacle,
unless one gives up and takes a different path (like leaving the DCU).  

Was any attempt made to get the candidates together and try to get them
to agree to accept the election?  I'm not going to ask if you thought the
complaints were JUSTIFIED against both sides -- I know you cannot answer.
I do think that that's a key question.  

Was a legal opinion obtained that the Board has the authority to do this?
If so, how about the DCU Board annoucing the basis?  We need to know
that this action was not an arbitrary usurpation of power.  

> I have heard concern about the notice that went out to the candidates
> concerning the invalidation. The section threatened legal action
> against any party harming the credit union.  The intent of this
> section was not to limit members' rights to campaign in favor of one
> or another candidate. It is just a restatement of current policy to
> protect the credit union.

Sorry, I want it more explicit.  Does "campaign" include the right to
say what I think is wrong with the DCU, even if that statement could
be construed as harmful to the DCU?  That's MY concern.


> You can help with the future of DCU by expediting the new election
> process and continuing to support DCU.

But do I want to be part of that future?  That's what I must decide.
In any case, I'm glad that you sent your message, and I'm glad that we
can openly discuss these issues (well, as openly as your responibility
to maintain confidences allows) with passion, but without acrimony.  

	Sincerely,
	Larry Seiler

    Re .8
    
    Alfred ...
    
    My saying that the entire process be restarted is because I believe
    that the membership deserves the right to determine if it would like
    now to add new petition candidates.  This is NOT to say that by
    suggesting this that the way I would vote would necessarily change,
    nor that I am accusing any candidate of specific wrongdoing.  Nor that
    I believe the Nominating Committee made any mistakes in chosing the
    candidates it did.
    
    I know this is a crazy analogy ... but it's kind of like a car ...
    you start having lots of niggling problems with it ... nothing major
    though ... and you are disgruntled with it ... the only way of finally
    being satisfied is usually to change the car.
    
    So, what I am in essence suggesting is that the existing candidates,
    both nominated and petition, continue to stand for the replacement 
    election if they so wish.  I see nothing that says they should not
    continue to stand ...   But I believe that the membership should have
    its say in this tainted process by being given the chance to add petition 
    candidates, on the grounds that they may be disgruntled sufficiently with 
    the existing candidates that they would like an alternative to vote for
    in the coming election.
    
    No... this is not because I would like to throw my hat into the
    ring either!  The waters look too shark infested for me!
    
    I don't recall having said ANYTHING ANYWHERE in here negative about
    any candidate ... so I don't understand that part of your response
    Alfred.
    
    Stuart

    
>    I don't recall having said ANYTHING ANYWHERE in here negative about
>    any candidate ... so I don't understand that part of your response
>    Alfred.

    It was a general comment in case anyone (not specifically you or any
    one else) wanted to suggest that a candidate or candidates should
    either not have been nominated in the first place or should not be
    re-nominated. Sorry if my intent was unclear.

    				Alfred

It appears to me that having more "no-fee" candidates than the 3Gs could
potentially dilute the votes and guarantee that the other candidates win.

/john

    Yes, John, it could ... but the trouble is when an action like this is
    taken for reasons other than specific ballotting irregularities, where
    is the line between a tainted election and a non-tainted election.
    
    I've been pondering where that line is ... I'm not even satisfied with
    my suggestion of earlier really ...
    
    The question really boils down, I guess, (and this is also where one
    wonders if the tainted call was a fair one) to WHERE did the tainting
    occur ?  Was the tainting a direct result of the action of one or more
    candidates ?  If so, should these candidates be permitted to continue
    to run, having caused DCU such considerable expense, aggravation etc ?
    Or did the tainting occur as a direct result of actions of people other 
    than the candidates ?  If so, then perhaps the decision to proceed 
    from square 2 is a valid one.  BUT what of those who caused the
    tainting ... They are responsible for considerable expense to the CU
    what should be done about them ?
    
    Or the thrid option is of course that the tainting occurred as the 
    result of both the above ... How should that be dealt with ?
    
    Personally I'd speculate the latter given the number of complaints ...
    But what is fair to do ?  I really believe something should be done
    other than restarting the election from square 2 instead of square 1.
    
    Voiding the election probably causes more problems, provides few
    solutions, poses more questions and again provides few answers. So
    the one big question I have is who or what was responsible for
    tainting at such a level that the election was voided.  If it was
    candidates, then it seems to me the electorate has a right to know,
    and if it was others, the membership has a right to know what will
    be done about it other than just a new election.
    
    These are just ramblings and musings and refelctive of the debate in
    my mind, and most certainly aren;t meant to reflect badly on any
    individual(s) involved with DCU.
    
    Stuart

Folks,

I've spoken with Paul Kinzelman off-line, and he has prepared another
message to post, which he will send to me as soon as he can track 
obtain one last needed review.  So watch this space!

Paul said that his first message was clearly inadequate, and he wants
his second one to address people's concerns about the DCU and his own
actions.  For what it's worth, I thought the draft that he read me
was pretty good.

	More news soon,
	Larry Seiler

    
    Re: .6
    
    >I believe Paul acted in good faith ...
    >
    >The decision to invalidate the election, on the face of it, makes
    >sense.  But the face of it is about how far it goes.  I feel it
    >was not a fully thought through decision ... and let's face it, these
    >decisons are made by board members on pretty short notice without
    >a lot of time spent on the "what ifs".
    
    Although I personally disagree with both Paul Kinzelman's and Steve
    Sherman's support of invalidating the election, I would not go so far
    as to think they have acted in bad faith.  It's a tough job.
    
    When I served on a school board, I arrived for one meeting to find that
    it had been moved to the auditorium to accomodate a crowd of well
    over a couple of hundred expected to show up and that the
    superintendent wanted all the board members to meet with the high
    school principal and his lawyer privately before the meeting was to
    come to order.  I found out right then and there that, among a number
    of other things, a member of the high school staff (supported by her
    husband who was also a staff member and had been a recent candidate for
    an administrative position that he was not appointed to) was accusing
    the principal of sexual harrasment.  With virtually no time to think,
    the superintendent, the board chairman, the principal, and his lawyer
    asked the board to agree to a resolution on the spot of support for the
    principal.  Can you say SET UP!  We had 5 minutes to make this decision
    and I can tell you the pressure was there.  I was not comfortable but
    went along with it.  After the fact, I was sorry I had.  Nothing more
    came of it publicly but personally I suspected the woman had a
    legitimate gripe because of personal observations of my own.  nuff
    said.
    
    It's a tough job.  I don't envy either of them.
    
    Steve
    

   Re: .14
   
   Gosh, Larry, is Paul actually emailing this stuff to you?
   
   

    Folks,
    
    Here is the message that Paul sent me (from his CompuServe account)
    adding more information about recent events.  Leaving Digital does
    not stop anyone from sending email or from being a DCU member.
    Paul explicitly asked me to post this here as soon as possible.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry
    
    
From:	PASTA::CRL::"[email protected]" "Paul Kinzelman  01-May-1994 2143"  1-MAY-1994 21:50:31.23
To:	"TO:LARRY SEILER" <pasta::SEILER>
CC:	
Subj:	Upload: NOLOBOT.TXT

My apologies to all who read my message of last Friday and thought I
might have had a lobotomy :-). I wanted to respond quickly with a memo
that addressed the facts because there are so many rumors floating
around but the note of last Friday obviously did not do it.

It's easy to criticize the Credit Union.  It's much more difficult to
provide constructive criticizm to help build it up. I was elected to
do my best to build up DCU and that's what I'm trying to do.

I'm very aware of the frustration felt by many DEC employees. I left a
year ago for precisely that reason. But please don't make DCU the
scapegoat for your frustration with the actions of DEC management. 
Please channel your frustrations toward the proper place.

THE FIRING

Let me try to correct a misquote I made concerning Phil, Dave, and
Chris's, firing. According to Phil, they were fired from DEC, without
any previous written or verbal warning, because of lines at the end of
their joint statement which was included in their rebuttal to the
"Committee for a Qualified Board" flyer. The last sentence from the
quote below ("We feel...") was interpreted as solicitation.

	"Candidates for the DCU Board of Directors:
		Christopher C. Fillmore-Gillett
		David J. Garrod
		Philip J. Gransewicz (incumbent)
	We share a similar philosophy and vision for DCU. This
	philosophy and vision will be the basis of all decisions made
	as directors. We feel it is very important for all DCU members
	to consider this when deciding who they should vote for in the
	upcoming election for DCU's Board of Directors."

Let me quote from a letter sent to all DCU members during the DCU
Board of Director's elections two years ago:

	"With your thoughtful and responsible participation in the
	election, the DCU will provide even greater service as a
	financially sound institution for the Digital Community."
		-John Sims, March 10, 1992

Note that Digital paid over $20,000 to mail out John Sims's memo,
whereas the rebuttal was sent out electronically with no real
corporate cash expense.

Furthermore, I have heard speculation of a DCU and DEC connection in
the firing of the 3G's. I'm very uncomfortable with the amount of
coincidence too, but I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that
this connection actually exists. I am, however, committed to making
sure that whether there was a connection or not is rigorously
investigated.  If anybody has any evidence of a connection, you may
call me at home at 408-279-2268 or write me at 611 Pamlar Ave., San
Jose, CA 95128-4224.  As always, I will hold your communication in
the utmost confidence.

ELECTION INVALIDATION

I voted for the election invalidation because I was convinced that it
was the least bad alternative in a no-win situation and I still am. I
thought it would contribute to the building up of the integrity of the
Credit Union. Furthermore, DCU would not be well served if the result
of the election were a "tainted election" lawsuit which would either
drag on for a long time and/or force the election to be done over
anyway. I believe that this scenario was highly probable.  At the
time, I was not aware of any plans to fire the 3G's.

LITIGATION THREAT

I have heard concerns expressed about a recent posting in the notes
file saying that DCU might pursue legal action against anybody who
defames DCU.  This memo was not intended to limit expression by the
members, but more to emphasize to the candidates the importance of
abiding by the election rules. These rules will be determined, in
part, by the candidates themselves. I will fight to the death to
prevent any lawsuits designed to intimidate any members from lawfully
expressing their sentiments. On the other hand, please bear in mind
that I have a responsibility to protect the credit union from unlawful
conduct.

-Paul Kinzelman

This may be forwarded to any DCU member.


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA24407; Sun, 1 May 94 21:45:53 -0400
% Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/21Mar94) id AA28976; Sun, 1 May 94 18:43:52 -070
% Received: from localhost by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.930129sam) id VAA19293; Sun, 1 May 1994 21:41:18 -040
% Date: 01 May 94 21:38:11 EDT
% From: Paul Kinzelman <[email protected]>
% To: "TO:LARRY SEILER" <pasta::SEILER>
% Subject: Upload: NOLOBOT.TXT
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>

re Note 827.17 by WRKSYS::SEILER for Paul Kinzelman:

> Furthermore, DCU would not be well served if the result
> of the election were a "tainted election" lawsuit which would either
> drag on for a long time and/or force the election to be done over
> anyway. I believe that this scenario was highly probable.  
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        I think Paul has acquitted himself and his vote well if this
        is indeed the case.

        However, I think it at least somewhat likely that any
        subsequent election involving these same issues will produce
        a similar level of controversy.  The conflict may be
        unavoidable.

        Bob

        P.S.  I did not read this DCU notes conference throughout the
        balloting period.  As far as I could tell as an "outsider",
        this election was running in as orderly a fashion as any
        other, especially in contrast to the conflict leading up to
        the previous election.  I was *stunned* by the letter
        announcing the invalidation of the election.  It was a bolt
        out of the blue.  It was like hearing that your government
        had been taken over by a coup.

    
> Furthermore, DCU would not be well served if the result
> of the election were a "tainted election" lawsuit which would either
> drag on for a long time and/or force the election to be done over
> anyway. I believe that this scenario was highly probable.  
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
    And they didn't think invalidating the election could relsult in
    lawsuits that would drag on for a long time?
    
    ed

    
    When does electioneering and politicking, polemic and refutation in 
    a campaign to garner votes become solicitation?  I always thought
    solicitation had some connotation of something given in return for
    financial gain.  Why does feeling or believing a commitment to a
    shared vision warrant censure?  What is the real reason Digital has
    such a tough time permitting its employees to have autonomy over
    their own credit union?
    
    Mike
    

re: .-1

> 				What is the real reason Digital has
>    such a tough time permitting its employees to have autonomy over
>    their own credit union?

Gosh - that question had never entered my mind.

-Jack

    
    RE: .17
    
    Thanks Paul for your contribution. I well understand your position and,
    for one, support what you have done. 
    
    It, however, doesn't change my sentiments about moving to another
    financial institution. After all, since DCU is spending fair sums of
    money comparing itself to banks, behaves like a bank, treats its
    membership like a bank (by withholding information), treats its
    employees like a bank (profit-sharing plans for DCU employees while it
    pays awful interest rates like a bank) and charges fees like a bank, I
    might as well be at a BANK instead of a CREDIT UNION. When did the
    Digital Credit Union become the Digital Bank?
    
    RE: .20 and .21
    
    The answer to this question is probably as simple as walking in to the
    HLO2 lobby and withdrawing money from the cash machine. 
    
    For those of you who may not have noticed, the HLO2 cash machine has,
    in a noticable location, a DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION ASSET TAG on
    it, implying that it IS Digital property. 
    
    If you are looking for a connection, look no further than there. You
    may draw your own conclusions......but look at what DCU actually pays
    for in terms of office space, buildings, capital equipment, etc. As I
    said, you can draw your own conclusions.
    
    
    

    
    I suspect though, that the Digital asset tag will be removed by someone
    once they have discovered it...

Sunday night I got a call from Joe Melchione, DCU General Counsel.
I had asked Paul Kinzelman some questions about Joe's warning to
the candidates regarding actions that defame or damage the DCU,
and whether this really meant that he'd sue people who say that
they will take their money out of the DCU.  Paul passed on my
questions to Joe, who very kindly called me directly.

Unfortunately, I don't feel 100% clear on the answer!  Joe talked
a lot about how engineers try to draw lines, when the legal world
isn't that precise (at least, that's how I interpreted his words).
I encouraged Joe to write up something that could be posted.  In
the meantime, here's my best understanding of what he said.

First and foremost, he said he doesn't want to stifle discussion
of the election issues.  He does want people to be balanced in their 
comments about the DCU.  E.g., is vitally important to him that
people acknowledge that the DCU is not in financial difficulties.
I told him that I thought the reason we weren't talking about this
is because no one questions this.  

    Anyway, for the record:  I believe that the DCU is in excellent
    financial condition.  I know of no reason to doubt the safety of
    anyone's funds at the DCU.  Indeed, part of the reason I question
    the fee scheme is because I think the DCU is far too healthy to
    need new fees.  But that's another story.

Second, Joe said that he would be compelled to defend the DCU against
any attempt to organize a "run on the bank".  He made it clear (without
saying it outright) that either he or the NCUA would probably sue anyone
who did that.  He also made it clear that such an attempt need not be
explicit.  He quoted a Supreme Court labor relations ruling to me,
to the effect that "a wink or a nod is as good as a word", regarding a
ruling that someone organized an illegal strike, even though he never
actually asked anyone to go out on strike.

So, I asked Joe whether he thought it was organizing a "run on the bank"
to tell people that one was planning to remove money from the DCU.  I
didn't get a clear answer -- I got the above analogy, plus the classic
"you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater".  

OK, here's another analogy.  Suppose I stand up in a crowded theater
and say "I don't like the movie, I'm leaving".  Am I legally responsible
for lost revenue of the movie house if other people also walk out?
Because, after all, there's nothing financially unsafe about the DCU,
and I haven't heard anyone claim there is.  I'm not even closing my
accounts there.  I simply don't want to have as much of my money there
as before, because I don't like what I see.  And it's my money.  

I hope that Joe considers this to be toward the "white" side of the 
undefinable line.  Joe asked me whether a $500,000 depositor might
read words like these and damage the DCU by deciding to pull out.
I told him that $500,000 depositors probably don't read this notes file, 
and don't take it seriously if they do.  Certainly my own much more
modest withdrawl won't harm the DCU.

	Sincerely,
	Larry Seiler

    
    	I'm taking my money out of the DCU
    
    ed

    I don't like the movie either Larry
    
    Joyce

I don't like the lawyer. _WE_ are paying this man. How do _we_ get a new one?

-Jack

Just because a lawyer supposedly knows the law and can quote the law,
doesn't mean that the law is on his side or even agrees with his opinion.
By his examples, the lawyer seems to be confusing libel with malicious
mischief.  There is no calumny in stating that an institution is not
providing the services and benefits that one requires.

Mike

>I don't like the lawyer. _WE_ are paying this man. How do _we_ get a new one?
    
    That's one of the little things that our Board and CEO take care of
    for us. We get a new one by electing a board that agrees that we need
    a new lawyer.
    
    			Alfred

>We get a new one by electing a board that agrees that we need
>    a new lawyer.
    
    Of course, the little trick there is trying to elect a new board. Heck,
    getting through the election process even!
    
    -Glenn-

    RE: .27  by SCHOOL::KOPACKO 
    
    >... encouraging other folks to make a statement by voting with their
    >pocketbooks and/or feet.
    
    By invalidating the election, the DCU board has left people with very
    few options for voicing their opinions.  When public discourse is
    threatened by firing and/or legal action, it is much easier to simply
    put your money where your mouth can be.
    
    I do not believe the DCU is on shakey financial ground, but I am
    disappointed that a resolution of the fees question has been put off
    indefinitely.  My only relationship with the DCU is my savings
    accounts.  It gives me some satisfaction that I am making this money
    available to my fellow members for borrowing, but I need to think about
    the return on my investment.  Therefore, I am looking into moving my
    deposits to an institution that gives me more interest and no fees.

    You guys are right.  Pull all your money out.  A dictatorship is now in
    charge of the DCU and we'll never see another election in our
    lifetimes.

              <<< Note 827.33 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>

    You guys are right.  Pull all your money out.  A dictatorship is now in
    charge of the DCU and we'll never see another election in our
    lifetimes.

-----------------------------------------------------
Actually, people have been saying they'd pull out all but the $5 to 
eligible to vote in the election.  And I'm not betting on my lifetime - 
that's why I have term insurance.

    It seems to me the most tangible way one can support the 3G's is
    to remain a member of DCU and vote for them in the election.
    Unless .33 is correct, of course, then none of this matters.... ;-)

    I am so frustrated by this whole smelly mess, that it just ain't
    funny!
    
    Disclaimer:
    
    What follows is MY personal opinion, ONLY MY personal opinion, and
    represents ONLY my personal opinion:
    
    To do *anything*, we have to have an election.  We just *did have* an
    election, but someone didn't like the potential outcome, packed all
    their marbles up, and went home pouting, and we can't play marbles
    anymore until the self-proclaimed "owner" of the marbles says that we
    can, IF we play by his/her/their rules.  And just to be sure, there are
    "enforcers" in place.  Interesting, that, how so many can be held
    hostage by so few...
    
    In the birthplace of the First Amendment, we're also told by some legal
    beagle and gang, what we *can* and *cannot* say in a public discussion
    forum.  Actually, we can *say* anything we want, but, we can also be
    threatened with what amounts to legal intimidation if we do so.  I say
    that's splitting hairs, and it's un-American.
    
    We're being sold a bill of goods that there is *no* connection between
    matters pertaining to the DEFCU, that stands for Digital's EMPLOYEE'S
    Federal Credit Union, and the sudden firing of the 3 Gs.  I speak for
    myself, and myself, only, I do not believe that, not for one
    nano-second, some more "rational" noting of mine notwithstanding...
    
    It would be real *interesting* to know definitively how many of DCU
    members are terminating their active "relationship accounts (sorry,
    couldn't resist that) on a monthly basis with what is supposed to be an
    EMPLOYEE'S private CU...  I bet that number is significant...  of
    course, I realize that as a VERY small member, one of those the DEFCU
    mgmt. would rather not have, seeing as I don't fit their upscale
    marketing model, paycheck is gone before I even see it type of thing...
    I, once I complete my modest exodus, will not be missed...  I simply
    don't have enough money...  but, that's all that's left to me, is to
    vote with my feet...  can't vote, I did, or thought I did, but that
    didn't count, I certainly can't take on the corporation and it's Panzer
    Division of legal types to argue the firing of the 3 Gs...  so, what
    else is left to me?  Suggestions, anyone?
    
    I, for one, have lost sleep over this mess...  I honestly never thought
    I'd see such a mess in the DEFCU and Digital, I really didn't.  Pure
    naivit� on my part, I guess...
    
    BTW, had a l-o-n-g chat with Phil Gransewicz last night, and he urged
    me to tell folks to be of good cheer, DON'T GIVE UP THE BATTLE, DON'T
    LET "THEM" WEAR US OUT...  he sounds cheery, strong, upbeat, says he
    has never been so busy...  is looking forward to continuing the battle
    for what is right...  oh, the chat was on MY time, OUR telephones,
    that's NYNEX, for which we pay for...
    
    Can you spell f-r-u-s-t-r-a-t-e-d???
        

    
�    To do *anything*, we have to have an election.  We just *did have* an
�    election, but someone didn't like the potential outcome, packed all
�    their marbles up, and went home pouting, and we can't play marbles
�    anymore until the self-proclaimed "owner" of the marbles says that we
�    can, IF we play by his/her/their rules.  
    
    You seem to be forgetting that the 3G's did their fair share of
    pointing out that their opposition wasn't playing by the rules.

I don't see any indication that .33 is not correct.

An election has been "invalidated".  No time table has been set for a 
new election.  No explanation of how a new election will be conducted in such
a way as to satisfy the incumbants.  There has been no statement of under what
circumstances they will allow any election results to stand, now or in the 
future.

Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

And just remember, dictatorship or not, that from this point on, there is a 
precedence for invalidating elections within the DCU.

    
>    election, but someone didn't like the potential outcome, packed all

    What do you mean by potential outcome? Who might win? I don't think
    that was taken into consideration. My understanding is that who ever
    won would result in problems and that is why the election is being
    restarted. I doubt that Paul Kinzelman was all that afraid of Phil
    getting re-elected.

>    In the birthplace of the First Amendment, we're also told by some legal
>    beagle and gang, what we *can* and *cannot* say in a public discussion
>    forum.  

    Really? Who said that? So far as I know the problems have all been with
    private forums (Email and Notes). What problems have there been with
    public forums?

>    We're being sold a bill of goods that there is *no* connection between
>    matters pertaining to the DEFCU, that stands for Digital's EMPLOYEE'S
>    Federal Credit Union, and the sudden firing of the 3 Gs.  I speak for
>    myself, and myself, only, I do not believe that, not for one
>    nano-second, some more "rational" noting of mine notwithstanding...

    Yours seems to be a common belief. But it's based more on suspicion
    then actual evidence. I have suspicions but have yet to raise all of
    them to the level of belief.

    People can take out their money if they want. I'm keeping mine at 
    DCU. People can give up fighting for DCU to be what they want it
    to be but I'm not giving in. Heck, I may even run for the Board
    again. Can't lose (an election) worse then I did last time. :-)

    If you're losing sleep over this maybe it's best if you do give 
    it up. It's not the kind of thing I lose sleep over. If I ever
    get that wrapped up in it I'll start to get worried and it will
    be time (for me) to leave. But I'm still getting great service 
    at the branch and my money is safe. Those are my hot items. Yours
    may vary.

    		Alfred

    Re .37:
[1]    
>�    To do *anything*, we have to have an election.  We just *did have* an
>�    election, but someone didn't like the potential outcome, packed all
>�    their marbles up, and went home pouting, and we can't play marbles
>�    anymore until the self-proclaimed "owner" of the marbles says that we
>�    can, IF we play by his/her/their rules.  
    
    
[2]
>    You seem to be forgetting that the 3G's did their fair share of
>    pointing out that their opposition wasn't playing by the rules.
    
    
    What, if anything, does [2] have to do with [1]??
    

I regret that some people reacted against Joe Melchione after reading my
note 827.24.  Please keep in mind that Joe is responsible for defending
the DCU, and (as I understand it) he bases his choice of actions on the
wishes of DCU's management and DCU's regulators.  Also keep in mind that
he is a lawyer, and views the world like a lawyer, not like an engineer.
We had a fair bit of discussion over that difference and the (from his
viewpoint) black and white view of the world that engineers often take.

	Enjoy,
	Larry
    
    PS -- I mentioned to a teller at my bank "my credit union Board
    invalidated our election" and she reacted with shock.  I guess
    she's never heard of such a thing.  I'll ask Paul to ask Joe 
    for examples of a credit union Board invalidating an election,
    to see whether it's really as unprecedented as folks in this
    notes file seem to think.

>              <<< Note 827.41 by WRKSYS::SEILER "Larry Seiler" >>>
>                            -< about Joe Melchione >-

> I regret that some people reacted against Joe Melchione after reading my
> note 827.24.  Please keep in mind that Joe is responsible for defending
>the DCU, and (as I understand it) he bases his choice of actions on the
>wishes of DCU's management and DCU's regulators.  Also keep in mind that
        ...
        
        "defending the DCU" - against it's owners? Hmmmm ...
        

    
    And why don't you ask him under what authority the election was
    invalidated. As far as I know , there are no lawsuits pending about
    this, so there's no need to refuse comment. If there are written
    by-laws, we are entitled to see the section that authorizes this
    action. 
    
    The thing that makes me the maddest about this whole thing is the
    unwillingness of the people who did this to talk to us about it. It
    really pisses me off to be considered the enemy.
    
    ed

>    You seem to be forgetting that the 3G's did their fair share of
>    pointing out that their opposition wasn't playing by the rules.
    
    Exactly! And look what it got them!
    
    -Glenn-
    

    Re:  .39...  gee WHIZ!  You're splitting hairs!
    
    "Potential outcome", as in no matter what happened, it had potential to
    have continuing negative on-goings...  but should have been allowed to
    "play through", let the membership decide whom they want representing
    them...  and then deal with any aftershocks AFTERWARDS, WHEN and IF
    they actually occurred!
    
    "Lose sleep", as a person of principle, when I see the mgmt. of an
    employee's CU treating it's members, make that OWNERS, as enemies, and
    making peremptory decisions it has no right to make, withhold
    information, not running the CU, (NOT a bloomin' bank!) in accordance
    with the majority wishes, when I see the mgmt. of a once great
    company treating its "valued" employees as enemies, making peremptory
    decisions that have far reaching negative impact on the already
    non-existent morale of the employee population, witholding
    information, not valuing its employees' opinions, hearing their
    concerns, empowering them...  then I lose sleep, I am that personally
    affected by such sad turns of events.  I don't believe that that
    heartfelt sentiment was open to ridicule...
    
    "Public forum", within the "4 walls" of Digital, one might argue, if
    one had absolutely nothing better to do, that the Notefiles are
    "public" forums, forums wherein the Digital employee population "meets"
    to exchange ideas, information, concerns, whatever...  talk about
    hair-splitting...  mutter...  and the discussions therein should NOT be
    subject to the possibility of participants having to fear either legal
    or upper management "retribution" of ANY sort...  in ANY successful
    "civilization", and one might argue that each group in society, whether
    a familial group, or a business group, is a microcosm of society... 
    the tenet of freedom of speech has been key to the success and
    continuing existence of that civilization, or society.  The great ideas
    move a society forward, the mediocre and "crazy" ones simply, if left
    out there for full public consumption, die a natural death.  Stifling
    of ANY sort of free expression is counter-productive to the success of
    a society, nay, I would say, fatal, in the long run.
    
    I guess I am viewing this in VERY philosophical and global terms, i.e.,
    the far-reaching implications of the events of the past week, well... 
    coupla years, come to think of it...  and the implications, so far,
    don't seem to be good ones, constructive ones, ones that build...
    
    IMHO  

    RE: .36  by BWICHD::SILLIKER 
    
    >...someone didn't like the potential outcome, packed all their marbles
    >up, and went home pouting, and we can't play marbles anymore until the
    >self-proclaimed "owner" of the marbles says that we can, ...
    
    Might I remind you all, gentle readers, those were OUR marbles.
    

    re .42:  `""defending the DCU" - against it's owners? Hmmmm ...'
    
    Defending the DCU against harm.  I'm saying that I don't think it's 
    Joe's call to decide strategy.  Also, Joe told me that the NCUA
    would very likely step in if they think someone's trying to organize
    a run on the bank.  
    
    
    re .43:  `And why don't you ask him under what authority the election
    was invalidated.  As far as I know , there are no lawsuits pending about
    this, so there's no need to refuse comment.'
    
    I did ask -- he didn't tell me.  I suggested that waiting for a
    lawsuit to be filed and *then* invalidating the election would at
    least have brought things into the open.  He replied that it's far
    better to stop a lawsuit before it starts, or words to that effect.
    
    
    Please, those who have questions for Joe, I encourage you to route
    the questions to Paul Kinzelman and give him your phone number so
    that Joe can call you.  There may be a small delay, since Paul's job
    is pretty heavy right now, or so I understand.  
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

    re: .46
    
    You mean, we've all lost our marbles??
    
    	Steve

RE: Note 827.37 by PATE::MACNEAL

>    You seem to be forgetting that the 3G's did their fair share of
>    pointing out that their opposition wasn't playing by the rules.

You bring up an EXCELLENT point...  The biggest problem that they had is
their opposition was:

	*** DCU ***

in most cases...  DCU should not have been involved, but was.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

	- mark

    
    
    why the hell are we being treated like this? I would think that the
    management of this organization would WANT to explain their actions.
    Well, I guess I'm the stupid one. 
    
    	I wouldn't bother myself to talk to anyone of these &*&**s
    
    eD

    
>    Re:  .39...  gee WHIZ!  You're splitting hairs!

    I don't think so.

>    affected by such sad turns of events.  I don't believe that that
>    heartfelt sentiment was open to ridicule...

    I certainly meant no ridicule. I do lose sleep over some of the
    things happening to Digital. I lose it both figuratively and literally.
    It's just the DCU I'm not that worked up about. It's just too easy
    to change where I bank.

>    "Public forum", within the "4 walls" of Digital, one might argue, if
>    one had absolutely nothing better to do, that the Notefiles are
>    "public" forums, forums wherein the Digital employee population "meets"
>    to exchange ideas, information, concerns, whatever...  talk about

    One might argue that but I doubt they'd ever convince a court. It's
    not a split hair by any means. Digital's computers and networks are
    not in any way shape of form public. The word public has some very 
    specific meanings in cases like this. Especially once lawyers get
    involved. We're dealing with private property that is owned to do 
    private work. One can't reasonably IMHO consider that a public forum.

>    hair-splitting...  mutter...  and the discussions therein should NOT be
>    subject to the possibility of participants having to fear either legal
>    or upper management "retribution" of ANY sort...  in ANY successful

    Great in theory but in practice both Digital and individuals can and
    have gotten into trouble over things said in Notes or mail. Mail that
    has gone around too much and finally passed outside the company is
    responsible for much of what's in policy 6.54. That is reality.

    >    I guess I am viewing this in VERY philosophical and global terms, i.e.,

    I guess you are right. But one has to return to the actual state of
    affairs from time to time.

    			Alfred

    
>    why the hell are we being treated like this? I would think that the
>    management of this organization would WANT to explain their actions.
>    Well, I guess I'm the stupid one. 

    I believe that management would love to explain their actions. But
    realistically they can't. DO do so would violate the rights of those
    fired and be against company policy. Perhaps even violate the law.

    			Alfred

	Re. 45 
    
    >"Public forum", within the "4 walls" of Digital, one might argue, if
    >one had absolutely nothing better to do, that the Notefiles are
    >"public" forums, forums wherein the Digital employee population "meets"
    >to exchange ideas, information, concerns, whatever...  talk about
   >>hair-splitting...  mutter...  and the discussions therein should NOT be
   >>subject to the possibility of participants having to fear either legal
   >>or upper management "retribution" of ANY sort...  in ANY successful
   >>"civilization", and one might argue that each group in society, whether
   >>a familial group, or a business group, is a microcosm of society... 
   >>the tenet of freedom of speech has been key to the success and
   >>continuing existence of that civilization, or society.  The great ideas
   >>move a society forward, the mediocre and "crazy" ones simply, if left
   >>out there for full public consumption, die a natural death.  Stifling
   >>of ANY sort of free expression is counter-productive to the success of
   >>a society, nay, I would say, fatal, in the long run.
   
    I think you're confusing the US Constitution with the Digital
    Philosophy.  Just because you have been free to use things like Digital
    Notes files to share ideas and offer opinions doesn't mean that you
    have any "rights" to say whatever you think at any point in
    time...certainly not the same rights you would have standing on a
    soapbox in the city square.
    
    Employees most certainly should expect that whatever they say in this
    medium may be under scrutiny....and in my humble opinion, it should be.
    (I'm not offering opinion on the DCU or Digital Management recent
    events).
    
    What we say here has absolutely nothing to do with the tenets of free
    speech, the continued existence of civilization or the like.  I think
    you're going just a bit overboard.  In most companies you wouldn't have
    nearly the freedom of speech you have here.
    
    	Jim

    re .52
    
    I am asking WHY THE ELECTION WAS INVALIDATED AND UNDER WHAT SECTION OF
    THE BYLAWS IS THE AUTHORITY GRANTED? What has that got to do with
    employees getting fired?
    
    ed

    I suspect that the authority probably comes from NCUA and not
    specifically from DCU By-laws.  It seems that the NCUA grants
    CU Boards the authority to do some extra-ordinary things ... just
    like the ability to impose a fee structure in spite of the vote
    by membership to denounce fees.
    
    That "rule" from NCUA was essentially that the membership did not
    have the right to undermine the authority of the board, just the
    right to remove the board.
    
    Remember that the CU By-laws are essentially DCU's portion of the
    overall NCUA laws governing credit unions.
    
    Stuart

    re .55
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the election process the step the
    membership takes to remove the board?

re Note 827.56 by OASS::MDILLSON:

>     Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the election process the step the
>     membership takes to remove the board?
  
        Ok -- so we've even lost that one remaining right.  Big
        whoop!  :-{

    re .56
    
    No, it is a part of the process to select members to serve on the
    board.  
    
    The process to remove the board is the 'member meeting' plus the 
    gathering of 'n' petition signatures, or gathering 'y' petition 
    signatures to get a Special Meeting to vote for the ouster of the
    board.
    
    When there are board positions vacant, either by this mechanism,
    or normal process, an election is held.
    
    
    Stuart

    re .58
    
    Maybe I'm wrong, but if three incumbents are running for the board, and
    none of them are voted back into office, isn't this, de facto, removal
    of at least part of the board?

Re: .36 "...a public discussion forum."

Public or private, the point is that it is a discussion medium which is
serving as an information line of communication in the absence of any
communication from those in authority.  If the concern of those in
control of our money were legitimate and not self-serving protectionism,
they wouldn't be scaring people off with talk about a "run on the bank."    
Who writes this lawyer's material anyway?
No wonder we're all nervous and frustrated.

Mike

        

    Re .59 ...
    
    Not quite what I meant ...
    
    What the NCUA allows is in essence the "extra-ordinary" removal of the
    board.  What it doesn't allow is a Meeting of the Members (Special or
    Regular) to make decisions that the duly elected board is responsible
    for making.
    
    So, when the Special Meeting was called 2 years ago, the board was,
    in essence removed ... ie all positions on the Board of Directors
    were made vacant.  (The way it was done didn't quite work that way,
    but the essence is right) In a normal election there is always a full 
    board.  No positions on are ever vacant; they are filled before and after
    the election.  The individuals filling those positions may be removed 
    ... but that's NOT the same as removing forcing a vacant board
    position.
    
    
    Stuart
    

    Re.:  .60 - a heartfelt THANK YOU for helping explain what it was I
    meant...!  :^)  I'm glad someone understands the principle I was trying
    to get at...

re: .61, Stuart

>    board.  What it doesn't allow is a Meeting of the Members (Special or
>    Regular) to make decisions that the duly elected board is responsible
>    for making.

I don't believe that's actually the case. At the special meeting two years
ago there were three items on the table, only one of which was removal of
the board.

-Jack

>
>>    board.  What it doesn't allow is a Meeting of the Members (Special or
>>    Regular) to make decisions that the duly elected board is responsible
>>    for making.
>
>I don't believe that's actually the case. At the special meeting two years
>ago there were three items on the table, only one of which was removal of
>the board.
>

From my understanding of the proceedings, while there were other items on
the table, like the removal of fees, the votes taken by the meeting were
NOT binding on the board to implement.

Further notes in here regarding responses from the NCUA confirmed that
approach.

Stuart