Conference 7.286::dcu

    re: .0  I don't think we can all agree to work towards a new election
    because we don't all agree that it would be a positive action.  I
    voted for the candidates of my choice, I believe I filled in the ballot
    correctly, I sent it in on time, and I want my vote to count.
    
    If campaign irregularities, complaints about campaign tactics, or the
    possibility of lawsuits constituted reasonable cause to nullify
    elections, then I doubt we could ever actually get through one. There
    is always the threat that the loosers would challange something about
    the election.  How many federal, state, local, or organization
    elections have you observed that had no dirty campaigning, no
    namecalling, no insults at all, no dirty tricks, no campaign tactcs
    that came "close to the line" - or even crossed it?   Lets take an
    example from today's news.  Should the election in South Africa be
    invalidated by the very government that is about to be changed because
    some group planted bombs and killed people during the campaign?  I
    think killing people is significantly more serious that anything that
    happend during the DCU election.  Should South Africa just do it all
    over again and try to get it right next time?
    
    No.  The only way to preserve the integrity of the election process is
    to see it through.  Any other course of action leaves the process open
    to manipulation by whichever side sees benefit in stopping the process. 
    Challenges should be dealt with after the fact using the appropriate
    due process.
    
    I think the reason why I, and probably many others, are angry is that
    the DCU used rather a rather flimsy excuse to tell me that my vote
    doesn't count and someday, who knows when, they will let me try again. 
    This is certainly not my understanding of how the process is supposed
    to work.
                    

    RE: .1 I think it'd prefer to judge the DCU election by US rather
    then South African standards. This is not the Third World thank you
    very much.

    			Alfred

    True this notesfile may be one-sided, but should we just shut up about
    how we feel because those with other opinions aren't as vocal in the
    notesfile.  I think not.

    
    Perhaps the "other side" chooses anonymity.  Who is this nameless
    Committee for a Qualified Board anyway?
    
    Mike
    

Re:  .1

I think it is fine if you don't wish to work towards a
new election.  That was not the primary purpose of the
note (just an example of what may be a positive action
as opposed to some of the negative actions that I've seen
in here).  Working to accept the existing election can
also be a positive action.

Collis

>   Who is this nameless Committee for a Qualified Board anyway?

You don't suppose Chuck Cockburn might know, do you? Or, maybe some high
level DIGITAL officials?

-Jack

    re .0:  [Says that we as a group should not be]
      - trying to find means so that other Digital employees
        who are candidates can be fired
    
    
    I haven't read a SINGLE message in this notes file that I personally
    thought was trying to find a means to get somebody else fired.
    It is very clear to me from context that the people who have asked
    "why weren't other candidates fired" are asking about FAIRNESS.
    
    If EVERYONE who did something in the campaign that seemed to violate
    policy were fired, then all we could say is "gee, that's an awfully tough
    penalty to apply to all of those people".  But that didn't happen.
    Some people arguably broke the rules and were fired.  Other people
    arguably broke the rules and (so far as we have heard), have suffered
    no penalty at all.
    
    I don't wish to prejudge this issue.  But I do think that it is
    reasonable and appropriate to ask why the 3Gs were fired and others
    weren't.  That doesn't mean I want anyone else fired -- it means
    that I want to believe that policy is being applied FAIRLY.  
    
    As I have personally said to Win Hindle (VP of Ethics) and John Buckley
    (Ethics Office Ops Mgr), an APPEARANCE of unfairness in applying policy
    harms Digital, by creating distrust for the process.  I don't want 
    Digital to be harmed, which is why I'm asking questions instead of
    just assuming that I know the answers.
    
    To judge whether any given note expresses concern for fairness or
    a wish for more firings, ask yourself the question:  would the
    author be happier if there were more firings or if the 3Gs were
    reinstated?  I think the latter is true for all the notes I've seen.
    Certainly it is true for this note.  Yes, people are angry and upset.
    But no, I don't think the noters are turning on their fellow employees.
    
    		Sincerely,
    		Larry Seiler
    
    PS -- And yes, I think the points in .0 are well made, and that we
    should all strive to avoid the behaviors that Collis describes.  LS

�Other people
�    arguably broke the rules and (so far as we have heard), have suffered
�    no penalty at all.
    
    Such as?

>�Other people
>�    arguably broke the rules and (so far as we have heard), have suffered
>�    no penalty at all.
>    
>    Such as?
    
    Oh, yeah, there's a great idea. Let's name people who broke rules
    and see if we can get them fired.  NOT!
    
    			Alfred

    Sorry, Alfred, that wasn't my intent.  I know folks are stirred up
    about Ms. Ross' email invitations to discuss notes posted in the
    conference.  Personally, I don't see those as violations of the
    solicitation policy (there were also at least an attempt at the open
    communication folks in here were screaming for).  If Larry's comment
    was in reference to this, then it might be considered a false
    accusation.

>    I haven't read a SINGLE message in this notes file that I personally
>    thought was trying to find a means to get somebody else fired.
    
    	I disagree with this.  Check out topic 824, starting with reply
    	.118 or so.
    
>    Some people arguably broke the rules and were fired.  Other people
>    arguably broke the rules and (so far as we have heard), have suffered
>    no penalty at all.
    
    	This also can be construed as a call for justice-balancing firings.
    
>    reasonable and appropriate to ask why the 3Gs were fired and others
>    weren't.  That doesn't mean I want anyone else fired -- it means
>    that I want to believe that policy is being applied FAIRLY.  
    
    	And this.  Sure you SAY you're not looking to get anyone else
    	fired, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a different appearance.

    What I find most disturbing is that three people were fired because
    they publicly rebutted an anonymous attack on their positions.  It's
    hard enough to get people willing to run for such an office and serve
    on the board.  Allowing them to be mugged along the way and then
    restrained from defending themselves puts an even bigger chill on
    people's enthusiasm for serving the Digital community.
    

re: .11

>    	I disagree with this.  Check out topic 824, starting with reply
>    	.118 or so.

As the author of 824.118, my assessment would be that you're doing a bit of
accusing yourself there, Joe. You're more than welcome to disagree with Larry's
statement, but you're in no position to pass judgement. And I certainly
wasn't doing so in 824.118. I stated a fact and posed a question.

-Jack

    re .8, .10:  The term "arguable" means that one can make an argument in
    support of the claim.  I did not say that either the 3Gs nor anyone 
    else actually "broke the rules".  However, I think the fact that 
    complaints were made against both the 3Gs and other candidates means
    that someone "argued" that they broke the rules.
    
    You are of course welcome to your opinion on who broke the rules. 
    But when you respond to my notes, I think you should respond to what I
    wrote, not to your assumptions about what I think.
    
    
    re .11:  I'm sorry my note appears to you as an attempt to get someone
    else fired.  That was not my intent.  I'll try to make my position clear:
    
    I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE DCU BOD CANDIDATES SHOULD BE FIRED FOR THINGS
    THEY DID DURING THE CAMPAIGN.  
    
    
    	Sincerely,
    	Larry

    	Well appearances can be deceiving.  That portion of the topic
    	made me uncomfortable.  I'd venture to guess that I am not the
    	only one affected that way.
    
    	Thanks for the clarification.

�    But when you respond to my notes, I think you should respond to what I
�    wrote, not to your assumptions about what I think.
    
    After some of your responses to me in the past, I got a good chuckle
    out of this one.

    
>    What I find most disturbing is that three people were fired because
>    they publicly rebutted an anonymous attack on their positions.  It's

    That's not quite correct. It was not for rebutting an anonymous attack
    that they were fired. It was for using Email to do so. There was no
    official action against their posting the same rebuttal in this
    conference. I tend to doubt there would have been an official response
    to a hard copy flier that they handed out.

    		Alfred

    re. 17
    
    	So you're saying that if someone says something about me in a
    flyer, I cannot rebut them in email without the fear of getting fired?
    I thought the reason stated for their firing was 'solicitation by
    email'
    
    

    
>    So you're saying that if someone says something about me in a
>    flyer, I cannot rebut them in email without the fear of getting fired?
>    I thought the reason stated for their firing was 'solicitation by
>    email'

    Are you a candidate for office? If you are and you use Email,
    especially if you were told not to, as part of your campaign I think
    that some reasonable people will consider rebuttal of campaign ads
    as solicitation. Others will disagree. :-)

    			Alfred

    
    
    Without further dragging this note and conference down with DEC stuff,
    I'll leave it at that. The only DCU tie-in here is that this difference
    of opinion has caused me to stop all contributions to DCU. If DCU wants
    MY business, they have to satisfy ME that they are an organization that
    I want to do business with and I can set the standards for my
    association with the organization. 
    
    I don't know how I am going to deal with DEC about this yet, I haven't
    decided.
    
    ed

    re .17
    
>    That's not quite correct. It was not for rebutting an anonymous attack
>    that they were fired. It was for using Email to do so. There was no
>>   official action against their posting the same rebuttal in this
>>   conference. I tend to doubt there would have been an official response
>    to a hard copy flier that they handed out.
    
    There may not have been any official action against their posting here
    but the policy against misuse of network resources covers NOTES as well
    as electronic mail.  There's actually a section that states that you
    cannot solicit in a NOTES conference.
    
    Jim

    RE: .21 You are correct. Note though that the memo in 1.10 defines
    things a little bit more narrowly in terms of this election. I
    wouldn't be surprised if 6.54 gets a top to bottom re-write when
    the dust settles. It's probably time.
    
    			Alfred

    RE: .17  by CVG::THOMPSON 
    
>>    What I find most disturbing is that three people were fired because
>>    they publicly rebutted an anonymous attack on their positions.  It's

    >That's not quite correct. It was not for rebutting an anonymous attack
    >that they were fired. It was for using Email to do so. ...
    
    Oh, I see.  They got nailed on a technicality.  I guess it's OK then.
    

    
    >    Oh, I see.  They got nailed on a technicality.  I guess it's OK then.

    Whether it's a technicality or not is open to opinion. And I didn't
    say I agreed with the firing (just for the record I don't). I'm just trying
    to clear up points of information.

    		Alfred

    re .16:  And I've always invited you to state your real position,
    like I always do for you.  I'm not holding my breath.
    
    Re others:  There are a lot of assumptions about exactly why the
    3Gs were fired.  I think people should state where their data comes
    from when they say "the 3Gs were fired for X".  Based on what I've
    heard, both from them and from contacts in HR, Paul Kinzelman's
    second message (see the Kinzelman note a few farther on) is accurate.
    He said that one sentence of their email was called out as solicitation,
    and he quotes that line.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

>>    I haven't read a SINGLE message in this notes file that I personally
>>    thought was trying to find a means to get somebody else fired.
>    
>    	I disagree with this.  Check out topic 824, starting with reply
>    	.118 or so.

    Since I entered one of the replies that some might construe this way
    (824.119),  allow me to clarify...

    It is essential that any penalty, particularly a penalty as harsh as
    this, be applied fairly and consistently.  To do otherwise is not in
    Digital's best interest because it creates, at best, the appearance
    of impropriety. This, in turn, undermines morale and potentially
    creates several much more serious problems for Digital (which good
    sense and policy prohibit me from speculating on).

    As Larry pointed out earlier, there are two ways to apply the
    penalty fairly -- recind the decision to fire the 3Gs or fire
    everyone else in Digital guilty of substantially similar offenses.
    Since we all know using Digital resources for solicitations occurs
    frequently for everything from political causes to selling Girl Scout
    cookies, one would hope the choice would be obvious.

    If pointing out a policy violation very similar to that the 3Gs are
    accused of helps senior management realize the absurdity of its
    position, my reply (and others "starting with reply .118 or so")
    will have served their purpose, IMHO.

    --Steve

    P.S.  This entire discussion pre-supposes the mail the 3Gs sent out
    does indeed contain a solicitation, which in my opinion, it does
    not.

>    That's not quite correct. It was not for rebutting an anonymous attack
>    that they were fired. It was for using Email to do so. There was no

How can you be so positive Alfred? To my knowledge, no one in an official
capacity has told us why the three were fired. All we have to go on is heresay
from Internet mail messages and phone calls, but no one from Digital has yet
said the official reason for their firings.

-Glenn-

    re .26
    
    >P.S.  This entire discussion pre-supposes the mail the 3Gs sent out
    >does indeed contain a solicitation, which in my opinion, it does
    >not.

     And in my opinion the last section of the mail suggests just the
    opposite to me. It appears to me to be offering a coice,and then
    explicitly saying to VOTE - not for any particular candidate, just VOTE
    
    But.... life is not fair and this decision will mean nothing, life will
    go on as usual. No rules(guidelines) will change because of this and if
    morale dips a little, who cares?
    
    Have you noticed how many people are NOTING about this in the 3 notes
    files that have a subject about it? Very, very few. And that's because
    noone cares about it, except those very few.
    
    ed

    RE: .28  by SUBSYS::NEUMYER 
    
    >Have you noticed how many people are NOTING about this in the 3 notes
    >files that have a subject about it? Very, very few. And that's because
    >noone cares about it, except those very few.
    
    That's a relief.  I thought it was because there were very few of us
    foolish enough to stick our necks out and discuss it.
    

    
    >How can you be so positive Alfred? To my knowledge, no one in an official
    
    Well, I'm pretty much taking Dave Garrod's word for it.
    
    			Alfred

    
    There may be many more noting than you are aware (read only). I
    am hearing my views in the majority who are writing here, and much 
    more eloquently than I can express ..
    
    I am listening, and I care. yesterday we moved our assets to another 
    credit union (with just enough left in DCU..) and I will vote again.
    I don't know a better way to make myself "heard".
    
    /Karen 

    re .28
    
>    Have you noticed how many people are NOTING about this in the 3 notes
>    files that have a subject about it? Very, very few. And that's because
>    noone cares about it, except those very few.

Ed,

Unless you have an accurate sense for the read/write ratio, I'd say you are
jumping to a conclusion.   In my opinion, a conclusion that is completely
wrong.

Ray

In the past month I too have closed all my "U-name-it" accounts, eliminated
one of my two loans, and opened a checking account at a local bank (just this
past weekend).  All as a direct result of the nonsense going on with DCU.

As soon as I can get the financing to move the remaining loan, I too will be
a simple low dollar savings account, but voting, member - COSTING the credit
union, rather than PROFITING it.

DCU made nearly $300 net profit from my business last year, and several
thousands in the past 11 years.  With the exception of a house purchase, nearly
all my normal financial affairs have been handled at the DCU.  I can not think
of a better definition of a "relationship member" than myself. (The house would
have been financed via DCU but they wouldn't work with me.)

I've finally had enough.  Until Chuck and co. is gone and a stable board of
directors who want a credit union is in office, I'll be keeping my business
where it is appreciated.

Ray

    
    > Have you noticed how many people are NOTING about this in the 3 notes
    > files that have a subject about it? Very, very few. And that's because
    > noone cares about it, except those very few.
    
    Most co-workers I know won't note in *uncontroversial* notesfiles, even
    off work-time.  Some, like you say, don't care.  Some are shy.  Many
    just feel uneasy about doing kind-of sort-of non-work-related activities 
    in full unretractable view of managament in a time of continuing 
    down-sizing.
    
    Interesting that you think the lack of noting on this topic, a topic
    about and for which people got fired from their livelihood, is because
    people simply don't care.
    
    A poll of non-noters who know what's going on here might surprise you.
    A look at the DCU customere base near-term might surprise you if things
    don't change and stay changed (and maybe even of they do).
    
    - Sean

    Re Last few.  Right on we care about what is going on.  All of my
    accounts have been closed except for $5.00 membership so that I can
    vote against the current board.  Two years ago I did nothing but it is
    a mistake that I will not make again.  Six years ago when Homer Cates
    was shut out of the election I let it pass, but enough is enough.
    Chuck.

For the past twelve or so years (since its inception) I have redistributed
the Internet Telecom Digest mailing to employees within Digital.  I did this
redistribution because I was interested in the telephony material contained
in the Digest as well as to make more efficient use of the network by
concentrating the distribution at a central internal point.

However, I will be terminating redistribution of the digest after Friday,
13 May.  I have reached this decision for a number of reasons, but the
principal reason is concern about interpretation of the Digital policy
which forbids the use of Electronic Mail for solicitations of any kind,
and provides for penalties up to and including termination for violating
that policy.

Telecom Digest frequently contains solicitations for technical conferences,
trade shows, products, and services.

Those persons on the internal mailing list who wish to continue to receive
Telecom Digest by mail are invited to subscribe directly by contacting the
moderator at [email protected].  Alternatively it can be read
as comp.dcom.telecom using a newsreader such as VNEWS.

I apologize for any inconvenience this causes to persons who have been
subscribers to this service.

Regards/john

    re: last few about depleting/closing DCU accounts
    
    It would be interesting to see what affect all this controversy is
    having/will have on DCU's net cash on hand.  Sounds like a lot of folks
    are pulling out significant chunks of change, and I have done the same. 
    Many members I've spoken with are also considering this move.  I wonder
    if this sudden move of funds will affect DCU's short-term cash
    management strategies?  Headlines such as 'Digital Credit Union in
    Turmoil" in a major newspaper doesn't tend to help matters, either. 
    I'll keep my money elsewhere at least until the next election -- sounds
    like it could be a while.
    
    	Steve

I am mostly a reader of this file, but count me in with those in shock 
over the firings.  I am more depressed over this than over Digital's 
financial state - and that's saying something.

Being a temporary relocatee in France, I am using several DCU accounts 
to juggle various substantial U.S. dollar obligations for convenience.  
On my next trip back, I will find a new way to work the expenses, 
keeping my 4 family accounts at $5 for the vote.


- Scott

re .27:  Digital officials HAVE spoken about why the 3Gs were fired.  
They just haven't spoken on the record.  

I have had contact with a lot of Digital officials over the years,
what with pursuing one ethics complaint and another (none sucessfully,
but that's another story).  I've also had contacts with a lot of people
concerned with ethics issues, who have lots of contacts.  I activated
this network to try to find out what happened from the Digital viewpoint.

All I will say here is that, based on what I've heard back, Paul Kinzelman's
statements in 827.17 appear to me to be factually accurate from the view
of the people who consented to the firing, with just one exception.
Apparently the view at the top of Digital is that the 3Gs were "warned"
not to do what they did.  Phil has directly stated that they were not
warned -- they were fired with no warning.  

I believe that this disagreement centers on the question of whether being
told that email solicitation is not allowed, without any definition of
what solicitation is, constitutes a "warning" that a specific text would
be considered to be so severe a solicitation that it justified firing them.
In deciding this issue, one should note the similarity between their
"solicitation" and the non-solicitation sentence cited in 827.17.  One
would expect that the 3Gs and Digital's officials would disagree on this.
    
Well, that's how I got my information, though I won't say who gave it to me.
I'd appreciate hearing other people's sources of info (827.17, the 3Gs, or
some other source) when statements are made about why the 3Gs were fired.

	Sincerely,
	Larry

    
    RE: .28
    
>   Have you noticed how many people are NOTING about this in the 3 notes
>   files that have a subject about it? Very, very few. And that's because
>   noone cares about it, except those very few.
    
    For what it's worth, the day the 3G's got fired, the SMAUG system
    manager had to up the number of NOTES servers that can run on the
    SMAUG cluster from 1 to 3 to deal with the links.  At one point I
    believe there were about 160 active links to the server (there is
    currently about 60 - and this is about 2 normal).
    
    FWIW:  IMHO, The "infamous" mail message was *NOT* solicitation.  But,
    I am also *NOT* the person interpretting what is solicitation and what
    is not.  It is also my opinion that someone went to great lengths to
    find solicitation in the the mail message.  Be that as it may, I think
    the 3Gs made a mistake and needed to be reprimanded, but that the
    punishment did not fit the crime.
    
    ~Jon.

re: .40

>    FWIW:  IMHO, The "infamous" mail message was *NOT* solicitation.  But,
>    I am also *NOT* the person interpretting what is solicitation and what
>    is not.  It is also my opinion that someone went to great lengths to
>    find solicitation in the the mail message.  Be that as it may, I think
>    the 3Gs made a mistake and needed to be reprimanded, but that the
>    punishment did not fit the crime.

What, in your opinion, was the mistake they made?

Bob

�I believe that this disagreement centers on the question of whether being
�told that email solicitation is not allowed, without any definition of
�what solicitation is, constitutes a "warning" that a specific text would
�be considered to be so severe a solicitation that it justified firing them.
�In deciding this issue, one should note the similarity between their
�"solicitation" and the non-solicitation sentence cited in 827.17.  One
�would expect that the 3Gs and Digital's officials would disagree on this.
 
    No definition of solicitation?  Although a bit vague, there is one in
    the Orange Book.  If it were me and after receiving a warning of any
    kind, I would have sent a proof copy to Ron Glover for his approval
    prior to sending it out to a distribution list.

    Could you imagine what would happen if Ron Glover received a copy of
    every mail message for approval before sending to ensure that it
    doesn't violate some policy?
    
    -Glenn-

    But if Ron Glover had personally warned me in a meeting called by him,
    I certainly think it would be reasonable to expect him to proof a
    message.

>    I certainly think it would be reasonable to expect him to proof a
>    message.
    
    I don't know what is reasonable to expect anymore after the events of
    the past couple of weeks. I wouldn't assume anything anymore.
    
    -Glenn-
    

    RE: .42 I have gone to Ron Glover with things that I was unsure of.
    He has been very helpful. Though of course as he's pretty busy I
    don't always get an instant response. But I haven't been left hanging
    either. I did run things by him during the election 2 years ago for
    example. I did one thing without checking and was called on it. I
    checked on later things and stayed out of trouble. It was worth the
    time to me because I'm still here. :-)

    RE: .43 Sure, passing every mail message by would be a waste of time 
    for most things. However, for an issue that is already controversial
    and for which there have been meetings about it may be a wise
    precaution at times.

    			Alfred

I believe the the use of the term "solicitation" in the PP&P manual
is deliberately vague in its definition and application to facilitate
its use in abruptly terminating undesirable employees.  It provides
a thin mask of justification for a decision that would otherwise be
judged arbitrary or capricious.

Mike

    re .46 

    > I did run things by him during the election 2 years ago for
    > example. I did one thing without checking and was called on it. 

    Did Ron make ever forbid you to do things, did he make you modify what
    you were doing, or did he pretty much "rubber stamp" what you were
    doing? I am wondering if it's a problem with content or not showing due
    humility toward authority that is at issue. 

    I wonder what the real figures are wrt people pulling funds and closing
    accounts both over the last few monthes and the recent past; how many
    5 dollar accounts they are carrying on the books at the moment...
    
    All this talk about organizing a run on the CU; who says it has to 
    be organized? If the notes in here and elsewhere are even remotely
    representative, I wonder if it isn't already happenning (and NCUA
    or whatever are going to step in and start restricting withdrawals).

    I can see it now.  DCU says, "You can't withdraw your money, we need it
    more than you."
    
    I don't think so...
    
    Jim Morton

Jim,

If the DCU told me I can't have my money, then they'd be holding $2.45
captive...I'd leave $5 to vote and I have $7.45 total on deposit.

Abuser_BobW

>================================================================================
>Note 829.50                   Mob mentality spotted                     50 of 50
>CSC32::MORTON "Aliens, the snack food of CHAMPIONS!"  6 lines   4-MAY-1994 19:31
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    I can see it now.  DCU says, "You can't withdraw your money, we need it
>    more than you."
>    
>    I don't think so...
>    
>    Jim Morton
>

    Hey, doesn't anybody remember all the S&L fiascos not to long ago,
    where some S&Ls were forced to put weekly withdrawal restrictions
    in place? Or going back further, during the crash leading into the 
    Great Depresssion, when banks were told to close their doors in order
    to prevent a run by depositers? It _can_ happen.
    
    No financial institution has all its assets in liquid form; if there is
    a significant run of withdrawals, the available liquid assets can be
    depleted. at that point the institution has two options; (a) close down
    temporarily and/or restrict the cash outflow or (b) borrow against the
    non-liquid assets to get more cash (with associated interest costs).
    
    BTW, in case anyone is thinking otherwise - I do not believe DCU is in
    any sort of financial trouble. However if all this talk about people
    closing accounts//withdrawing funds is indicative of a larger short
    term trend, their cash reserves could be getting depleted...
    
    This is all idle speculation on my part; I pulled out in January. But the 
    statistics (rate of closures, number of $5 accounts) would be interesting.
    
    Dave

    
    RE: .41
    
>   What, in your opinion, was the mistake they made?
    
    I heard it from my management, that when the 3Gs were called into Ron's
    office about the mail, they preceeded to read the definition of
    solicitation from a dictionary.  Never understanding that the policy
    was written by and interpretted by Ron.  Therefore, if he says they
    crossed the line, then in his mind, as an officer of the corporation,
    they crossed the line.  Additionally, the 3Gs were in a position to put
    Ron on their side to put pressure on DCU to stop the "Committee for a
    Qualified DCU Board" communications.  Finally, the "rebuttal" could
    have been put in this notes file without any problem.  The fact that
    Email was used, is what ultimately got them fired.
    
    FWIW: I think this whole thing stinks.  There are too many coincidental
    relationships and uneven enforcement of the policy for me.
    
    ~Jon.

re: .53

Actually, I don't think Ron is "an officer of the corporation". Many VP's
aren't even corporate officers.

re: Funds withdrawal

I could help out some on the liquidity of funds issue, I suppose. I have
a very active checking account which rarely has much of a significant
balance. I keep little in savings. My biggest "investement" with DCU
is my second mortgage for which I provide the DCU with a few thousand
dollars worth of interest income per year. I'd be happy to refinance
that in another institution and pay them the interest instead. Then I
could provide the DCU with the principal of that investment as some
more liquidity. Should be a good deal for DCU, eh?

-Jack

    re .53:  
    
    If by "mistake" one means "what did they do that resulted in their
    being fired", this is (so far as I know) accurate.  Still...
    
    > I heard it from my management, that when the 3Gs were called into Ron's
    > office about the mail, they preceeded to read the definition of
    > solicitation from a dictionary.  
    
    But Ron hadn't provided them with a definition -- aren't they allowed
    to explain why they in good faith thought they weren't soliciting?
    
    > Never understanding that the policy was written by and interpretted 
    > by Ron.  Therefore, if he says they crossed the line, then in his 
    > mind, as an officer of the corporation, they crossed the line.  
    
    I hope everyone understands that there is no recourse for such decisions.
    
    > Additionally, the 3Gs were in a position to put Ron on their side to 
    > put pressure on DCU to stop the "Committee for a Qualified DCU Board" 
    > communications.  
    
    What could they have done to achieve this that they didn't do?  The
    last time I asked, they told me they still had not gotten any response 
    from Ron regarding the complaints and requests that they made to him
    long ago, neither regarding the content of the "Qualified Board" flier 
    nor about its alleged distribution in office areas.  
    
    > The fact that Email was used, is what ultimately got them fired.
    
    We cannot know whether they would have been fired for some other
    reason, had they not used email.  I assume that the "email solicitation"
    charge was considered to be the strongest grounds against them.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

>    What could they have done to achieve this that they didn't do?  The
>    last time I asked, they told me they still had not gotten any response 
>    from Ron regarding the complaints and requests that they made to him
>    long ago, neither regarding the content of the "Qualified Board" flier 
>    nor about its alleged distribution in office areas.  

Not surprising.  At the end of a one-hour telephone conversation while I was
on vacation the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, Ron promised to reply to me in
a week's time.

What's today's date?

/john

    
    Re: .4
    
    > Perhaps the "other side" chooses anonymity.  Who is this nameless
    > Committee for a Qualified Board anyway?
    
    I have no idea who they are but I am 100% convinced of who they are not.
    In my opinion, they are most certainly not persons of integrity or
    worthy of my trust.  Casting their invective anonymously is proof enough
    of that for me.  I also have no respect for anyone who participated in
    distributing it.
    
    Steve
    

    
>    In my opinion, they are most certainly not persons of integrity or
>    worthy of my trust.  Casting their invective anonymously is proof enough
>    of that for me.  I also have no respect for anyone who participated in
>    distributing it.

    My theory is that the people behind it probably fear for their jobs
    if they are discovered and their candidates lose. I think they are
    also afraid that the 3Gs are bad for the DCU. They are entitled to
    their opinions. I wish they would come out in the open but this is
    the real world. People who need their jobs and have a lot of fear
    are likely to do such things as they feel they need to to protect
    themselves.

    Frankly, if I were a DCU employee, for example, I'd be hard pressed
    to see Phil as my friend given his voting record. I don't know who
    is behind this flier and I don't know where it came from. But I suspect
    both DCU and Digital employees are involved.

    			Alfred

    
    Re: .58
    
    > My theory is that the people behind it probably fear for their jobs
    > if they are discovered and their candidates lose. I think they are
    > also afraid that the 3Gs are bad for the DCU. They are entitled to
    > their opinions. I wish they would come out in the open but this is
    > the real world. People who need their jobs and have a lot of fear
    > are likely to do such things as they feel they need to to protect
    > themselves.
        
    Alfred,
    
    You're probably right, they would have to fear for their jobs because
    the tone and message of that trash would be deserving of it.  It may
    be "the real world", but there are still those of us who are willing
    to stand behind what we say.  I'm usually willing to cut people some
    slack but not on this one.  The tone and message of that trash was
    personal.  It had nothing to do with ideology.  That's just the excuse
    for looking out for their own interests.
    
    >Frankly, if I were a DCU employee, for example, I'd be hard pressed
    >to see Phil as my friend given his voting record.
    
    Perhaps, but why?   It would have been much wiser not to pursue a
    policy which would pit the financial interests of the members who
    happen to be DCU employees against the financial interests of the rest
    of the membership.  That's a recipe for disaster IMO.
    
    > But I suspect both DCU and Digital employees are involved.
    
    I share that suspicion and more so in the wake of the firings.
    
    Steve
    

    
>    You're probably right, they would have to fear for their jobs because
>    the tone and message of that trash would be deserving of it.  It may

    Oh, I think they're afraid that even of mild criticism would get them
    into trouble. That's why I think they "pulled out all the stops."

>    Perhaps, but why?   It would have been much wiser not to pursue a
>    policy which would pit the financial interests of the members who
>    happen to be DCU employees against the financial interests of the rest
>    of the membership.  That's a recipe for disaster IMO.

    I don't think the Board, or rather management, is trying to pursue a
    policy which would pit the financial interests of the members who
    happen to be DCU employees against the financial interests of the rest
    of the membership. I think the bonus and compensation plan makes some
    sense. I suspect that many DCU employees agree with me. I know that
    Phil does not. I can see how some might assume that Phil wants to
    take out his dislike to some DCU management and policies on the
    employees to use that as a wedge to get what he wants. I've wondered
    about that myself.

    			Alfred

    Since DCU employees don't have access to eMail and Notes, does anyone
    have any evidence that DCU employees know anything about individual
    board members voting records (aside from what Chuck tells them?)
    
    Have the minutes of board meetings been published outside of this
    notesfile?  And how would a non-DEC-employee member from outside of the
    greater Maynard area get them?

    I thought Phil said that meeting minutes are also available at all the
    branches.

    
    Re: .60
    
    >I don't think the Board, or rather management, is trying to pursue a
    >policy which would pit the financial interests of the members who
    >happen to be DCU employees against the financial interests of the rest
    >of the membership. I think the bonus and compensation plan makes some
    >sense. I suspect that many DCU employees agree with me. I know that
    >Phil does not. I can see how some might assume that Phil wants to
    >take out his dislike to some DCU management and policies on the
    >employees to use that as a wedge to get what he wants. I've wondered
    >about that myself.
    
    I wasn't referring specifically to the bonus plan.  I was referring
    to the obvious misinformation that has been spread among DCU employees
    that a vote for the 3Gs is a vote for losing their job!  I've overheard
    DCU employees say this.  I wonder what they've been told?   The DCU
    financials clearly show that there's enough profit being made to
    eliminate the fees, still have a bonus system for DCU employees, AND
    also continue to build the precious ratio.  It just can't happen
    overnight.
    
    Steve