[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::dcu

Title:DCU
Notice:1996 BoD Election results in 1004
Moderator:CPEEDY::BRADLEY
Created:Sat Feb 07 1987
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1041
Total number of notes:18759

841.0. "Memos on 1994 DCU Election ..." by NACAD::SHERMAN (Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2) Thu Jun 02 1994 02:22

The attached is an electronic copy of two memos authorized by the Supervisory
Committee and the Non-Candidate Directors of Digital Employees' Federal Credit 
Union.  Permission is granted to distribute this so long as such distribution
falls within applicable guidelines of Digital Equipment Corporation.  My 
understanding is that copies of these memos will be made available to DCU 
members.  

Any typographical errors are my own.  In my opinion, we would all have liked 
this information to have come out sooner.  But, revisions, approvals and so 
forth necessitated unavoidable (and at times anguishing) delays.  
Nevertheless, I and others appreciate the opportunity to finally provide
members with hopefully straightforward and substantial information regarding 
the invalidation and rescheduling of the 1994 elections.

Steve Sherman
Member of DCU's Supervisory Committee

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re: Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union 1994 Board of Directors Election

Dear Member,

The Supervisory Committee and the Non-Candidate Members of the Board of
Directors are sending this to you to help address concerns you might have
about the current election.  We emphasize that the Credit Union is in strong
financial condition.  The action taken does not reflect in any way upon the
safety and soundness of Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union.  Your money 
continues to be safe and insured by the National Credit Union Administration.

As you probably know, the 1994 DCU Board of Directors Election was recently
invalidated.  The ballots have not been tabulated and are being held by the
Tellers of Election.  In straightforward terms, here is what happened.  As
the election progressed, the Supervisory Committee received a surprisingly 
large number of complaints from DCU members.  The Supervisory Committee found
that some of these complaints were very serious.  It soon became apparent
to them that significant dissatisfaction with the election process was 
leading to a high probability of lawsuits against the Credit Union regardless
of the outcome of the election.  And so, it did not seem reasonable to allow
the election to continue.  After much consideration we determined that 
making important changes and restarting the election process was the most 
appropriate action to recommend.

Based on this, the Supervisory Committee recommended that the election be
invalidated.  The Non-Candidate Board Members decided to accept this 
recommendation.  The recommendation is not simply a restart of the election
process, but also includes making important changes so that this and future
elections will be more fair.  These changes include creating a set of 
campaign rules with input from the candidates AND the Board as well as 
approval by the Supervisory Committee.  We expect these new campaign rules 
to be in place within the next thirty (30) days.  From that date, the entire
process, including the annual meeting will take seventy-five (75) days.  This
will require a tremendous effort and cooperation from all concerned.  But, as
soon as these new rules are developed, the formal restart of the election
will commence and you will be notified of the new election and annual meeting
dates.

The Supervisory Committee's recommendations and the Non-Candidate Board 
Members decision was based on election practices in the corporate setting, 
not the more familiar standards common to political campaigns.  In a credit
union election, our obligation is to protect the fairness and integrity of the
electoral process by enabling all members to cast a fully informed vote based
on the facts.  Where information is incomplete, slanted or misleading or the
process is not orderly, invalidation is appropriate and supported by the 
courts.  Please understand that there were numerous complaints by candidates
and their supporters regarding defamatory and misleading statements and 
alleged violation of DCU's and Digital's policies.  Some of the members 
complaints explicitly threatened legal action to remedy these complaints of
misconduct.

We feel this was a difficult but necessary decision.  We appreciate your 
patience in this matter and apologize for any inconveniences that this may 
have caused you.  We ask for your patience and support in ensuring that the
1994 election as well as future elections are fair and successful. 

Sincerely,

[Non-Candidate Directors and Supervisory Committee members will be listed on
the hard copy.  I believe the list will include:

Directors:        
        Tom McEachin
        Tanya Dawkins
        Paul Kinzelman                                                      
        Gail Mann

Supervisory Committee:        
        Steve Behrens
        Bob Ketz
        Karen Kupferberg
        Fred Holland
        Steve Sherman]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The next memo includes the letterhead of:

Bingham, Dana & Gould
150 Federal Street
Boston, Massachusetts  02110-1726

I'm leaving out some of the details at the top of the first page.  
It is addressed to DCU's General Counsel, Joe Melchione. The original is 
double-spaced.]

May 10, 1994

Re: Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union Board of Directors Election

Dear Mr. Melchione:

As general counsel to Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union (the "Credit
Union"), you have previously asked this firm to review allegations of 
electoral misconduct which have been made by various members of the Credit
Union relating to the present election of candidates to three seats on the
Credit Union's Board of Directors.  By letter dated April 11, 1994, we gave
you our original advice containing our legal analysis of those allegations,
including, most importantly, the propriety of the Board postponing the annual
meeting and invalidating the election as a result of numerous complaints made
by members charging electoral misconduct.  You have now asked us to restate
that analysis, in summary form, for distribution to the Credit Union's 
membership.  This letter constitutes our response to your request.

The complaints concerning electoral misconduct center on (1) the allegedly 
widespread use by certain candidates and their supporters of defamatory and
materially misleading statements in soliciting votes for the contending 
slates of Directors; and (2) alleged violations of bylaws and policies 
regarding the conduct of elections and the scope of authorized employee 
participation in election campaigning.  In addition, you have asked us to 
undertake a review of relevant decisional and statutory law which provides
guidance on the propriety, under the present circumstances, of postponing
the annual meeting and invalidating the election.

In summary, the unanimous decision of the disinterested (i.e., non-candidate)
Directors to postpone the annual meeting and invalidate the election, which
followed the unanimous recommendation of the members of the Credit Union's
independent Supervisory Committee that such action be taken, appears to have
been made to protect the fairness and integrity of the election process from
the pervasive misconduct alleged by the candidates themselves and their 
supporters.  Accordingly, because the disinterested Directors' decision 
appears to have been undertaken for the purpose of safeguarding the election
process, their decision was within their legal authority and was justified
by their fiduciary duty to all members of the Credit Union to protect the 
sanctity of their voting rights.

Below we detail:  1) the factual basis for the unanimous view of the 
disinterested Directors and the Supervisory Committee members that the 
election process had become irreparably tainted, thus requiring a new 
election;  2) the support in the bylaws for the disinterested Directors' 
authority to remedy that problem;  and 3) the case law allowing the 
disinterested Directors to exercise this authority under the present 
circumstances.

        I. The Candidates Assert That The Integrity of the Election Process
        Had Been Irreparably Tainted, Necessitating a New Election.

There are seven seats on the Credit Union's Board.  Three seats are contested
in the current election.  The Nominating Committee nominated five Credit 
Union members to compete for these three seats.  A sixth member announced her
intention to run as a petition candidate.  The six candidates appear to be 
divided into two camps.  One camp consists of incumbents Lisa DeMauro-Ross
and Paul Millbury and petitioner Lois Haskins.  A second camp consists of 
incumbent Phillip Gransewicz and nominee candidates David Garrod and 
Christopher Fillmore-Gillett.

The two camps apparently have widely divergent views as to how the affairs of
the Credit Union should be conducted.  The clash of these divergent views has
resulted in a high degree of acrimony between the two camps and their 
supporters.  As the level of acrimony increased, members charged that the 
election process was being unfairly manipulated.

Both camps, through one or more of its members, as well as other 
non-candidate members, lodged complaints with the Credit Union's Supervisory
Committee detailing alleged misconduct by the opposing camp's members and
supporters.  These allegations centered on:  (1) the allegedly widespread
use by certain candidates and their supporters of defamatory and materially
misleading statements in soliciting votes, and (2) alleged violations of the
bylaws and policies governing the conduct of elections and the scope of 
authorized employee participation in election campaigning.  Certain members
had also explicitly threatened legal action to remedy the misconduct they
perceived to have tainted the election process.

The Supervisory Committee met on its own accord on April 12, 1994 to discuss
the appropriate response to the formal complaints it had received from 
candidates in both camps.  No Board members serve on the Supervisory 
Committee, whose basic mission is to audit the Credit Union's financial 
condition and serve as a watchdog over Credit Union affairs generally.

As a result of the Supervisory Committee's deliberations at the April 12th
meeting, and in light of the allegations of misconduct made by candidates in
both camps, the Supervisory Committee determined that the election should
be rescheduled.  In a memorandum written to the disinterested, non-candidate
members of the Board, the Supervisory Committee expressed its findings and
recommendations.  The Committee expressed a belief that the "election 
misconduct [had] irreparably tainted the electioneering and balloting 
process."  The Committee concluded that it had "unanimously formed a good
faith opinion and reasonably believe[d] that the electoral misconduct has 
been so pervasive that it [was] reasonably likely that it [had] affected
the voting decisions of the members of the Digital Employees' Federal Credit
Union."

The Supervisory Committee recommended that the disinterested members of the
Board immediately call a Board meeting to "invalidate the current election[,]
schedule new elections [and] reschedul[e] the Annual Meeting."  The Committee
further recommended that the entire Board "establish fair and impartial 
election campaign rules . . . . developed utilizing such professional 
assistance as is necessary as well as obtaining the concurrence of the 
Supervisory Committee."

A Board meeting to consider the Supervisory Committee's recommendations was
held on April 20, 1994.  Although all Board members were given notice of the
meeting, only the four non-candidate Directors participated in the 
deliberation and decision regarding the recommendations.  At the meeting,
the four voted unanimously to invalidate the election and postpone the annual
meeting.  The disinterested Directors further decided to schedule a new
election and annual meeting at the earliest practicable date and to work
with an independent professional consultant to establish a set of new 
campaign rules to ensure a fair and impartial election.  As of the date of
this letter, the Board has not reprimanded any candidate and no candidate
has been precluded from running in the new election.

        II. The Credit Union Board Has the Authority to Protect the Election
        Process From Manipulation

The Credit Union's bylaws constitute a bargained-for contractual agreement 
between the Credit Union's members and the Board.  Pursuant to the bylaws, 
the members of the Credit Union have delegated to the Board responsibility
for "the general direction and control of the affairs of this credit union"
and for the performance of "all the duties customarily performed by boards
of directors."  Article VII, S. 5.  This grant of authority includes the 
power to direct "the affairs of the credit union in accordance with the 
[Federal Credit Union] Act, these bylaws, the rules and regulations and
sound business practices."  Id.  The bylaws specifically delegate to the 
Board the power to determine the time and place of the annual meeting to 
elect directors.  Article V, S. 1.  The Board is further empowered to perform
"such additional acts and exercise such additional powers as may be required
or authorized by applicable law and regulations."  Id.  This applicable law
includes the Federal Credit Union Act (the "Act"), 12 U.S.C. S. 1751 et seq.
which provides, at S. 1761b, the Board "shall have the general direction
and control of the affairs of the [Credit Union]" and "[a]mong other things,
the board of directors shall ... do all other things that are necessary and
proper to carry out all the purposes and powers of the Federal Credit Union
. . . ."  12 U.S.C.  S. 1761b(21).

These broad, general grants of authority contained in the Credit Union's
bylaws and the Act have previously been construed by the Credit Union's 
federal regulator, the National Credit Union Administration (the "NCUA"), to
authorize action such as that taken by the Board here.  When considering a
similar election at another credit union, the NCUA advised the credit union
that:

        [a]nother alternative that may be considered is for the board, 
        including the appointed board members, TO DECLARE THE ELECTION NOW
        IN PROCESS AS VOID DUE TO INTERVENING CIRCUMSTANCES, RESCHEDULE THE
        ANNUAL MEETING AND CALL FOR A NEW ELECTION.  The appointed board
        members would continue to hold office until that time in accordance
        with ... the bylaws.

Letter from the NCUA dated March 14, 1990 (emphasis added).

In this instance, therefore, the Credit Union appears to have done nothing
more than exercise its rights previously recognized by its own federal 
regulator under facts and circumstances that the candidates themselves have
alleged, in their formal complaints to the Supervisory Committee, constituted
misconduct of the level that tainted the entire election process.

Thus, both the bylaws of the Credit Union and the provisions of the Act vest
the Board with broad powers to exercise general direction and control over
the Credit Union, including the safeguarding of the election process.  The
disinterested Directors have exercised those powers in a manner which appears
to be consistent with the Credit Union's bylaws, prior authority from its
federal regulator, the NCUA, and the Board's fiduciary duty to ensure the
fairness and integrity of the election process.

        III.  The Board's Decision to Postpone the Election Was a Reasonable
        Exercise of Its Business Judgment

The case law reflects a long tradition of the courts protecting not only the
right to vote, but the right to vote IN A FAIR AND UNMANIPULATED ELECTION.
When confronted with postponements of annual meetings in order to protect the
fairness and integrity of the voting process, the courts have uniformly 
upheld, or themselves ordered, such postponement.  See, e.g., Larkin v. 
Baltimore Bancorp, 769 F. Supp. 919, 927-28 (D. Md.), aff'd 948 F.2d 1281
(4th Cir. 1991);  Metro Mobile CTS, Inc. v. Centel Corp., 694 F. Supp. 806
(D. Kan. 1988);  King v. Edwards, 559 F. Supp. 75, 94 (N.D. Ga. 1982);  
Cooke v. Teleprompter Corp., 334 F. Supp. 467, 473-74 (S.D.N.Y 1971);  
Steinberg v. American Bantam Car Co., 76 F. Supp. 426, 437 (W.D. Pa. 1948);
SEC v. O'Hara Re-election Committee, 28 F. Supp. 523, 525 (D. Mass. 1939).

For example, in Larkin, the court was confronted with a situation where 
management had adjourned an annual meeting without compliance with the 
corporation's bylaws.  In upholding the adjournment, the court noted "the
very purpose of the adjournment was to protect the fairness and integrity 
of the proxy process by enabling all stockholders, not simply those present
at the meeting, to cast a fully informed vote on the question of control of
the Bank."  769 F. Supp. at 927-28.  The court afforded management wide 
latitude in adjourning the meeting when the purpose of the adjournment was
to protect the election process.  Id.

We do not mean to suggest that a decision of the Board of Directors to 
postpone an annual meeting once scheduled can be taken lightly.  The facts
as alleged by the candidates here, however, establish that the Directors 
acted in good faith, based on a review of all available evidence, to 
safeguard the integrity of the election process and, thereby, the members'
right to vote in a free and fair election.

FIRST, the election will be held as soon as practicable.  The Board has 
already taken steps to retain an independent consultant to establish fair
election guidelines to govern the course of the succeeding election.  These
guidelines will be clearly stated and rigorously enforced.

SECOND, the evidence establishes that the Board acted in good faith to 
protect the fairness and integrity of the election process.  The formal 
complaints filed with the Supervisory Committee by various candidates set
forth facts which establish a PRIMA FACIE case of conduct which the Board
could have reasonably concluded tainted the election.  The course of action 
adopted by the Board in stepping back and resetting the election procedure is
a far more orderly and reasonable method of addressing the complaints of BOTH
camps than to allow an election process to proceed which ALL candidates have
decried as tainted and then subject the newly elected Board to protracted,
expensive and disruptive legal proceedings challenging the validity of the
election results.

THIRD, the Board and Supervisory Committee members who unanimously voted for
the election postponement were "disinterested."  No Board member standing for
election was allowed to vote.  Moreover, the Supervisory Committee is wholly
independent of the Board and therefore even less subject to any claim of
being interested.  The fact that both groups of independent members 
unanimously voted to postpone the election following their review of the 
formal complaints lodged by the candidates is indicative of the underlying
justification and reasonableness of their actions.

FOURTH, the fact that the election was postponed in response to the assertion
of both camps that it was riven with misconduct strongly suggests that the 
Board's decision was undertaken in order to protect the integrity of the 
process for all members, not for the purpose of favoring one camp over the
other.

FIFTH, there is no suggestion that the Board had any indication of the
probably outcome of the election at the time of the postponement.  The 
election results have not been tabulated and therefore could not have been
known to the Board.

        CONCLUSION

In summary, based on all the facts and circumstances known to the Board when
its disinterested members voted to postpone the annual meeting and invalidate
the election, the Board appears to have acted in conformity with the 
authority granted to it by the Credit Union's bylaws, the Federal Credit
Union Act, and common law.  Had the disinterested Directors failed to take
such a remedial action they may well have been accused by the membership of
having failed in one of their most important duties:  ensuring the 
fundamental fairness and integrity of the process by which Directors are
elected to the Board of the Credit Union.

Sincerely,

BINGHAM, DANA & GOULD

Charles L. Janes
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
841.1of course you can pay a lawyer to justify itLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T)Thu Jun 02 1994 09:4319
        I get the impression that democratic member control of credit
        unions is more illusion than fact.

        We used to think that a member meeting could steer high-level
        credit union policy, but then we were told that the members
        can only exercise their control of the credit union through
        the election of the board members.

        Then we were told that the election of board members can be
        canceled or postponed at any time if there are enough
        complaints.

        I am moved to paraphrase a Vietnam-era quote:  "the election
        had to be destroyed in order to save it."

        If "justice delayed is justice denied", then "an election
        delayed is an election denied".

        Bob
841.2a few questions...RLTIME::COOKThu Jun 02 1994 10:3322

Steve,

  This does answer the question of legal authority.  Although the length of 
time it took to deliver those statements begs the question of justification
after the fact.


  Will the "disinterested board members" terms of office be lengthened by
this delay or will their elections be held on the original schedules?


  I understand that contract renewals for some senior officers of DCU occured
during this delay.  Will those renewals be delayed until after the new
elections?



Al
841.3TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 10:478
>  I understand that contract renewals for some senior officers of DCU occured
>during this delay.  Will those renewals be delayed until after the new
>elections?

Now that _IS_ an interesting question. I suppose the answer is "ask a board
member whom you trust".

-Jack
841.4Generalities and more generalitiesCRASHR::JILLYCOSROCS -- In Thrust We TrustThu Jun 02 1994 11:5010
What I find lacking is any material explanation of the 'facts' the 
Supervisory Committee used to form their recomendation.  Again all we get 
are general allegations of misconduct.  As an owner I will be satisfied 
with no less than a listing of the specific allegations and the Committee's 
finding whether these allegations were deemed to be based in fact.  I know 
I'm just pi**ing into the wind and getting my feet all wet.  It is my 
opinion that, lawsuits be damd (we know lawyers will sue for any reason), 
the allegations would be found to not merit invalidating the election.

Jilly
841.5TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 11:584
It's called "lawyerspeak".

-Jack
841.6CVG::THOMPSONAut vincere aut moriThu Jun 02 1994 12:0117
    I know about some of the allegations. Anyone who reads this conference
    should know about some of them. I believe that the ones I know about
    are based in fact. I don't care what the rest are because the ones
    I do know about tick me off quite enough. Frankly, I'm glad the 
    election was put aside. I've seen Junior High student government
    elections that were handled with more dignity and respect then this
    DCU election. 

    I'd just hope it starts up again so we can put this all behind us.

    			Alfred
    
    PS: Because of TFSO this is my last note in this conference. Good luck
    to you all.
    
    PPS: I'm not yet giving up on DCU though. Heck, I may still run for
    the Board next year.
841.7My mail to Super. Comm.CRASHR::JILLYCOSROCS -- In Thrust We TrustThu Jun 02 1994 12:0817
Dear DEFCU Supervisory Committee Member,

	After reading note 841 in the DCU VAX Notes conference, I find one 
important piece of information very much lacking to support your 
recomendation to invalidate the DEFCU.  Specifically the information that I 
as an owner require is a list of the sepcific allegations and whether the 
Supervisory Committee found them to have merit.  I have held off on this 
request hoping that the Committee would have the wisdom to know that this 
information would be required by some (most?) owners to convince them of the 
need for your action.  Instead the information you have posted essentially just 
asks us to trust you (we all know that lawyers can be paid to find a 
possible justification for anything).  I respect that the committee may not 
be able to release the names of those making the allegations but I can see 
no justification for not releasing the allegations themselves and the 
Committee's findings as to whether they had merit.

Mark D. Jilson
841.8TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 12:163
I predict you may get a response from Steve Sherman. Period.

-Jack
841.9say what?RLTIME::COOKThu Jun 02 1994 12:1622

>important piece of information very much lacking to support your 
>recomendation to invalidate the DEFCU.  Specifically the information that I 
>as an owner require is a list of the sepcific allegations and whether the 
>Supervisory Committee found them to have merit.  


The memo said the PRIMA FACIA evidence was that some of the accusations were
well founded.  I maybe missunderstanding lawyerspeak but I believe that means
that at first sight the accusations had merrit but that there are no results
from a formal investigation.


Steve,

  Was there a formal investigation of the allegations?

Al
841.10WWDST1::MGILBERTEducation Reform starts at home....Thu Jun 02 1994 13:3154
The question of whether or not the Board had the right
to the actions it took appears to be answered. There
may well bne those who disagree and to them I will
leave it to read the case law cited for themselves. IMHO,
I don't know too many lawyers who'll cite case law and
not be able to back it up. 

On the question of specific impropriety by individuals,
it is neither prudent nor warranted to spell out who 
did what. The potential for litigation, no matter who
is right or wrong, is huge and the issue of individuals
and character is rightfully kept in executive session
unless agreement can be reached by both parties for
disclosure. These individuals are not in the public
domain and the rules that apply to public officials 
do not apply here. 

Now, on to the new election rules. It appears that in
this as well as in the previous election the appearance
of involvement in the process especially through 
interpretation of the rules and procedures of DCU
employees and management became a major issue for
candidates and owners. The position of "interpretor"
of the rules becomes difficult when those asking for
interpretation can imply a vested interest on the part
of the interpretor. I would recommend that the full
board, following each election, elect a committee
consisting of an odd number of DCU members as an
election rules committee. Their job would be to 
review past practice and recommend changes for the 
next election and to oversee the next election process.
No board member or former board member who had served
with any current board member would be allowed to serve.
Nor could any member of this committee become a candidate
for election to the board in the 2 years prior to or
after the election they were overseeing. This committee
would issue a "rule book" to candidates consisting of
the rules and answers to commonly asked questions about
the process. In addition if a question arose about an
activity it would be the job of this committee to 
establish the answer. 


I, like Alfred, have been TFSO'd and this is likely to
be my last note as well. I will continue to be a member
of DCU, at least through this election process. While
the election of candidates I agree with is important to
me, it is essential (IMHO) to the viability of the
institution that integrity be restored to the process
and that is what will be the first basis for my
decision to remain a member after the election is over.


Mike
841.11SUBSYS::NEUMYERIf Bubba can dance, I can tooThu Jun 02 1994 13:3712
    
    It appears to me that the biggest reason for the invalidation was the
    threat of lawsuits. It was stated in the memo that therer were specific
    threats of this and the reason the election was invalidated was to
    protect the credit union. 
    
    So if the threat of a lawsuit is all that is needed, what protects the
    same thing from happening again. All the new rules in the world don't
    protect agains lawsuits being filed. After all, a lawsuit can be
    started even if the rules are followed.
    
    ed
841.12CRASHR::JILLYCOSROCS -- In Thrust We TrustThu Jun 02 1994 13:479
>    It appears to me that the biggest reason for the invalidation was the
>    threat of lawsuits. 

All too true it appears to me and to the detriment of the integrity of the 
DEFCU, IMO.  Seems like a severe response to a Chicken Little syndrome
"I'm gonna sue, I'm gonna sue, I'm gonna sue" :*(  Lawsuits be damed the 
integrity of the DEFCU means more than a few $$$$ to fight a lawsuit.

Jilly
841.13NACAD::SHERMANSteve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2Thu Jun 02 1994 14:2940
    A coupla comments.
    
    re: a few back ...  I expect the Board will schedule the 1995 annual
    meeting for the "usual" time.  As for any contracts and such, I expect
    that if changes are needed, the new Board will handle it.  But, that's
    just my opinion.
    
    As for the suit issue, it's absolutely true that anybody can sue for
    anything.  Everyone seems to agree with that.  The burning questions
    are along the lines of: "Can they prove damages?"  "Who would win?"
    "What is the case law?"  and so forth.  You can't keep folks from
    suing.  What you can do is identify where there are credible threats
    to the Credit Union, where there is potential for damage and take 
    reasonable steps to protect the Credit Union and its members.  
    
    In my view, the two main points of the memo had to do with the 
    threat of credible suits that would likely damage the Credit Union 
    and the indications that the rights of the members to a fair
    election were compromised.  I feel the memos represent a reasonably
    accurate description of what occurred as well as a citing of 
    supportive case law that, as was indicated in the second memo, was 
    requested.
    
    The question, "how can we avoid having this happen again?" is the 
    $64 question.  It looms over any discussion of the new election rules.
    Even when the rules are "done," I expect that future boards will
    make appropriate changes in the future.
    
    Finally, in defense of the other volunteers that serve as Directors,
    SC members and such ...  It really is a serious time commitment to 
    do this stuff.  Of late, it's been much more than I thought I would
    have to do.  (I have to type fast -- I'm late to a meeting ...)
    Even though you hear from me, don't assume I'm alone in my concern for
    the interests of shareholders and such.  As it happens, I'm more prone
    to be active in notes and in use of e-mail.  But, I have witnessed the
    same concern for shareholders from other volunteers.  There's a lot of
    effort that goes on that folks just don't see.  It's just that notes
    and e-mail tend to be more visible, IMO.
    
    Steve
841.14What will be done about those who allowed the interference?ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Thu Jun 02 1994 14:5912
We have had these problems for the past two elections.  Remember the flyers
that showed up in peoples mail boxes two years ago, the infamous witch-hunters
note in here, etc.

So, I've gone looking for common threads in the past two elections.  The BoD
is different, so I can't place much blame there.  I blame Digital senior
management for allowing the interference in the previous election, but I blame
DCU senior management 100% for allowing the interference in the current
election.  If they can't/won't ensure that the bylaws of the credit union are
enforced fairly and equally, EVERY SINGLE ONE MUST BE REPLACED IMMEDIATELY!

Bob
841.15LGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T)Thu Jun 02 1994 15:067
re Note 841.14 by ROWLET::AINSLEY:

> EVERY SINGLE ONE MUST BE REPLACED IMMEDIATELY!
  
        How would you propose doing that?

        Bob
841.16OASS::MDILLSONGeneric Personal NameThu Jun 02 1994 15:091
    Maybe he was referring to Board Members?
841.17ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Thu Jun 02 1994 15:567
re: .15, .16

No, I meant senior DCU management and probably should have said ASAP rather
than immediately.  We know the credit union can run w/out a CEO for a while.
We just can't gut all of senior management at the same time.

Bob
841.18KONING::KONINGPaul Koning, B-16504Thu Jun 02 1994 16:209
Re .13: new rules are all well and good.  But as I understand it, quite a lot
of the issue had to do with allged violations of EXISTING rules.  To handle
that problem, the last thing you need is new rules.  What you need is for
the existing rules to be enforced by those whose duty it is to enforce them.

Passing new laws is a standard political trick for dealing with the failures
of existing laws, but it doesn't work there and it won't work here.

	paul
841.19If you ran the same test data through the program...RLTIME::COOKThu Jun 02 1994 16:4219


Steve,

  There were many existing election rules in the previous election that were 
violated.  The election committee and board felt that the best recourse 
was to overthrow the election (unknown) results.

  Do the new election rules have less severe methods for dealing with 
violations?  In other words, how will the new rules provoke a different 
outcome given a similar situation?


Al
841.20NACAD::SHERMANSteve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2Thu Jun 02 1994 18:0611
    Well, we're calling these election rules, but you need to understand
    that part of what is happening is a (re)definition of the election
    *process*.  I understand the tendency/inclination to be pretty negative
    about this since y'all area basically getting NO information about what
    the new rules will actually contain.  All I can really say is judge for
    yourself once the new rules come out.  If you want say in it now, I'm
    listening and considering all input that I get.  As I mentioned
    elsewhere, I am (somewhat unexpectedly) getting more say in how the
    rules might be developed than I at first anticipated ...
               
    Steve
841.21TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 20:0010
re:.20, Steve

> If you want say in it now, I'm listening and considering all input

OK - I'd like to have it ensured that the "new Rules" are very explicit
about seeing to it that it is _enforced_ that DCU employees _NOT_
participate in any campaigning or support activities of any parties
up for election while in a DIGITAL facility.

-Jack
841.22TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 20:0310
re:.20, Steve

> If you want say in it now, I'm listening and considering all input

I'd also like it to be _enforced_ that any campaign literature for any
parties clearly indicate whom the individuals responsible for the
literature be, rather than some faceless, anonymous "committee", such
as one for "A Qualified Board".

-Jack
841.23TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 20:0510
re:.20, Steve

> If you want say in it now, I'm listening and considering all input

I'd also like it to be _enforced_ that any DCU officer who's job is directly
dependent upon approval by the board of directors, such as our friend Mr.
Cockburn, be forbidden from either participating in or influencing any
campaigning activities for any parties.

-Jack
841.24TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 20:2313
re:.20, Steve

> If you want say in it now, I'm listening and considering all input

And, while I'm at it, before I forget, in the interest of fairness -
   As one "side" in this election (assuming the slate of candidates isn't
   modified) now has access to the Easynet while the other "side" does
   not, it should probably be enforced that any use of DIGITAL telecom
   resources (voice or data) for campaign purposes by candidates be strictly
   forbidden under penalty of termination. This would, of course, include the
   use of this forum by the "qualified board" candidates for any communications.

-Jack
841.25No! It would eliminate any possibility of discussion of the issuesROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Thu Jun 02 1994 21:3625
re: .24

I disagree.  This notesfile, e-mail, etc. provide a valuable means of
communication between the membership and the BoD.  If strictly implemented as
you want, your prohibition would make it impossible for a sitting BoD member
to respond to member concerns in this or any Digital forum as someone might
decide that it is campaigning and terminate them.  We have already seen just
how egotistical and power hungry some people in Digital can be, with the
recent firings of the 3G's.

And BTW, if DCU were to make such a rule, there is no way they could force
Digital to enforce it fairly.

For example, hypothetically, suppose someone reported that DCU called in a
loan because a member had mistakenly made out a payment for $XXX.54 instead
of $XXX.55.  And furthermore, suppose that DCU emptied that member's savings
account and checking account to pay off the loan, causing many checks to
bounce and charged the member hundreds of dollars in bounced check fees.
Now, supposed that person A who was a BoD candidate replied in here that
what happened doesn't sound right and DCU shouldn't do that.  Is person A
campaigning?  I don't think so, but under a strict interpretation of your
rule, someone in Digital could decide it was and have person A fired.
Sounds sort of like what happened to the 3G's, doesn't it?

Bob
841.26Let's not recurseTOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 22:3113
re: .-1, Bob

Maybe I misread something somewhere, Bob, but I could have sworn claims had
been made in here that the "new rules" were going to be closely scrutinized
(and, thus, I assume, at some level, enforced) by DIGITAL. This being an
important employee benefit and all, doncha know.

My .24 stands. If it doesn't take effect, then Milbury/Whats-her-name/Ross
have a very unfair advantage over the 3G's which, in my estimation, would
be cause to bring suit against the DEFCU unless that election were
invalidated.

-Jack
841.28Paul K could - except he can't, unless indirectlyTOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 22:3411
Also re: .25

> you want, your prohibition would make it impossible for a sitting BoD member
> to respond to member concerns in this or any Digital forum as someone might
> decide that it is campaigning and terminate them.

If you reread my .24, I believe I phrased it in such a way that it only
applied to candidates during the election, not other seated board members.
If it didn't read that way, that is at least how I meant it.

-Jack
841.29-< Disinterested. Not! >SUBPAC::POTENZAa Republic, if you can keep it.Thu Jun 02 1994 22:3521
    
    
           IMHO Bingham, Dana & Gould's use of the term 
      
           "disinterested members" seems inappropriate.  
     
           Did anyone else feel this way?
    
    
    re: .24 
    
    Jack,
    
         I'm not sure I understand you meaning of "access to Easynet".
    Would it not be possible, with the right equipment and associated 
    cash expenditure, for all candidates to achieve such ACCESS.  If 
    such access isn't at all possible, I agree with you.  If such is 
    feasible, then isn't that their choice as part of their campaigning.  
    
    
                                                           Dan
841.30Oooops...mind going faster than fingersROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Thu Jun 02 1994 22:4313
re: .28

> you want, your prohibition would make it impossible for a sitting BoD member
> to respond to member concerns in this or any Digital forum as someone might
> decide that it is campaigning and terminate them.

should have read:

> you want, your prohibition would make it impossible for a sitting BoD member
> up for re-election to respond to member concerns in this or any Digital forum
> as someone might decide that it is campaigning and terminate them.

Bob
841.31TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 22:4416
re: .29, Dan

>         I'm not sure I understand you meaning of "access to Easynet".
>    Would it not be possible, with the right equipment and associated 
>    cash expenditure, for all candidates to achieve such ACCESS.

Non-DIGITAL employees have NO access to the Easynet and this conference
other than through channels whereby DIGITAL employees send them extracts
(which Skip Readio cautions us to be against DIGITAL PP&P) or they submit
posting via DIGITAL employees. I call that non-access. You can't "buy"
anything more extensive. The "Qualified Board" candidates, on the other
hand, can read with anonymous impunity, as well as freely write, though they
seldom do. I expect they'd be more vocal with a captive audience, free from
competition, however.

-Jack
841.32CVG::THOMPSONAut vincere aut moriThu Jun 02 1994 22:4527
    RE: .25 The proposal that Board candidates not be permitted to write
    in this conference was made before the election really got started. I
    opposed it, as did others. In hind sight I believe that to be a
    mistake. This conference is a Digital resource not a DCU one. It 
    should not be used to campaign. Unfortunately the line between
    answering a question and campaigning is too fine a line to run.

    Constituent service *is* (IMHO) a form of campaigning. Almost everything
    a candidate says or does can be considered by someone to be campaigning.
    That's the simple truth of things. Digital should not be in the middle.

    The Board can still reply. DCU management can still reply, albeit
    indirectly. That channel is still open. However, it is DCUs
    responsibility to provide access to the membership not Digitals.
    Were I to be around for future elections I would ask for Digital
    management support to keeping all candidates read only from the
    time nominations are announced and the ballot deadline is past.

    I wouldn't be happy about it but I believe it is the right thing
    to do. Even if all candidates have access. If even one candidate
    does not have access then it is without question or regret that I
    would insist that all refrain from write access to the conference.

    			Alfred
    
    PS: OK so I made one more note. Couldn't help myself. They don't shut
    off the account until tomorrow.
841.33TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 22:4810
re: .30, Bob

Well, now's the time for what's fair for the goose to be fair for the gander,
Bob. Why should the QBC's get a break that the 3G's weren't afforded due to
"interpretation"? I expect such response _would_ be solicitation or campaigning,
at least in my eye. They were in the past, but it seemed not to matter to some.
If the 3Gs can't communicate in here, why should anyone lese have an unfair
advantage? Like I said - clear cause of suit to me.

-Jack
841.34TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Thu Jun 02 1994 22:505
re: .32

Good to "see" you tonight, Alfred!

-Jack
841.35I'm still 'interested'.SUBPAC::POTENZAa Republic, if you can keep it.Thu Jun 02 1994 23:006
    Jack,
    
         Thanks for the clear and concise explanation.  Such responses
    have been sorely lacking on all fronts as of late.
    
                                                           Dan
841.36ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Thu Jun 02 1994 23:578
re: .33

I don't trust DCU or Digital to be fair in anything that concerns a DCU
election.  They have both given us many reasons not to trust them.  DCU
management and the current BoD have shown that they will use their control
over the communications with the membership to their best advantage.

Bob
841.37TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Fri Jun 03 1994 00:2814
re: .-1, Bob

So, is allowing the current(ly employed) BoD member-candidates and their
buddies free access to this conference and other DIGITAL telecom resources
while non-DIGITAL members or candidates are denied it, going to help matters
any?

I don't trust 'em either. All the more reason to keep this forum restrictive.
Because if that isn't done, it will look and smell like an unfair advantage.
And I can guarantee that the matter will be raised legally if need be. Let's
state the risks up front. That way we don't need to worry about them being
shrouded in secrecy.

-Jack
841.38WLDBIL::KILGORERemember the DCU 3GsFri Jun 03 1994 09:0222
    
    Re .20:
    
    Steve,
    
    The new election rules/process need to increase the DCU-sponsored
    communication between candidates and members during an election. This
    is especially true in light of the high probability (IMHO) that the new
    rules will severly restrict access to DEC resources for campaigning.
    
    At very least, the election package that is mailed to all members must
    give candidates more space to express their viewpoints. In the 1992
    election the candidates had 150 words in which to make their case; in
    the latest election, they had 300. This is still not enough.
    
    Compare candidate statements in the 1994 DCU election package with
    candidate statements in the DECUS '94 Journal (U.S. Chapter, Volume 2,
    Number 1; I have a copy). In the latter, the candidates use more than
    three hundred words just to let voters know who they are and what they
    do or have done; in addition, each candidates hsa two or three times
    that much space to address the issues of the election.
841.39ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Fri Jun 03 1994 09:1713
re: .37

Digital P&P does not prohibit any employee from discussing anything in an
employee interest notesfile with non-employees.  Nor does it prohibit any
employee from posting statements from non-employees in such conferences.  It
does hold note authors for the contents of their notes, so anyone posting a
solicitation from outside the company would be violating the rules just as they
would be if they had written it themselves.

Non-Digital employees have enough access to this conference for me to feel that
there is no significant advantage for the employee-candidates.

Bob
841.40DEFCU premises tooUSCD::DOTENFri Jun 03 1994 11:518
>OK - I'd like to have it ensured that the "new Rules" are very explicit
>about seeing to it that it is _enforced_ that DCU employees _NOT_
>participate in any campaigning or support activities of any parties
>up for election while in a DIGITAL facility.

Or a DEFCU facility.

-Glenn-
841.41One listRLTIME::COOKFri Jun 03 1994 11:5647

Steve,

  I want to thank you for your efforts and your willingness to take feedback 
from the members into consideration.


  I believe that the most important part of the document will be that which 
describes how the procedures will be enforced.  I believe many of the people
involved in the current problems were well aware that they were violating the
procedures, but with no enforment why should they care.  Some independent
arbitration group, with enforcement powers, might be the prefered avenue.


  Second, annonymous campaign groups were very disconcerting in the  previous
(non)election.  No process or rule can be enforced when "secret society" 
tactics are used to circumvent those processes.  I believe that the  new
procedures document should state that all campaign literature must have a
contact name and some association with a condidate.  Many people believe that
officers of DCU used these tactics to attempt to influence the last two election
processes.  True or not, the annonymous campaigning leads to distrust of 
the process and should be eliminated.


  Finally, some agreement must be included and agreed upon by Digital 
management about how far senior digital managers can go in influencing a DCU
election.  Normal elections cannot occur when some groups can be singled
out and fired, or where mass solicitations are made by senior management.  The 
process under which those firings or disciplinary actions can occur must be 
understood by the candidates and the electorate.  The restrictions on management
in campaigning must be understood by all, including at the highest levels of
management.  Again, enforcement could be performed by independent arbitration.


This is my list.  I don't have too much hope of these actually being included,
but I do thank Steve for listening.



Al Cook
841.42HANDS OFF!SSAG::TERZAHome of the Save Set ManagerFri Jun 03 1994 12:035
   I wholeheartedly agree with Al Cook's reply, especially the last major
   paragraph.
   
   						Terza L. Z. Ekholm
841.43ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Fri Jun 03 1994 12:215
I was just thinking...With all alleged interference in the elections by DCU and
Digital Management, maybe it would have been better for a court supervised
election, as DCU thinks would have happened as a result of a lawsuit.

Bob
841.44TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Fri Jun 03 1994 12:3812
re: .41, Al

>					The restrictions on management
> in campaigning must be understood by all, including at the highest levels of
> management.

I agree that this is key. I haven't any idea how it might be stated, but at
least if I, as an engineering supervisor, were constrained from campaigning
for the 3G's, I'd want to be darn sure that Irene Jacobs wasn't launching
an Email campaign through upper management to garner support for the QBC's.

-Jack
841.45STAR::BUDAI am the NRAFri Jun 03 1994 18:164
DCU employees and management should not be allowed to INTERPRET
bylaws/rules.  The supervisory committee should do this.  

	- mark
841.46NACAD::SHERMANSteve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2Fri Jun 03 1994 18:174
    I really appreciate the responses and ideas being suggested.  They are
    not going to waste.  Thanks!
    
    Steve
841.47SHRPS1::CMCSYR::BISSELLFri Jun 03 1994 18:1712
STEVE, I think that it is imperative that DCU employees and particularly any
one who serves at the pleasure of the BOD or whose contract and salary is 
determined by the BOD be prohibited from campaigning or influencing the election

The constants between this election and the last one are Mary Madden and Chuck
Cockburn.  I remember the denial of information that we faced and other problems
as well (remember the IPP). 

I have no idea of their roles but I do know that one is now a VP.   They are
both directly impacted by decisions of the board and should not even allow the 
appearance of misconduct during an election.
841.48KLAP::porterthe joy of clicheFri Jun 03 1994 18:2142
>  Second, annonymous campaign groups were very disconcerting in the  
>previous
>(non)election.  No process or rule can be enforced when "secret society" 
>tactics are used to circumvent those processes.  I believe that the  new
>procedures document should state that all campaign literature must have a
>contact name and some association with a condidate.  

I agree with the sentiments behind this, but I started wondering
how enforceable it was from the DCU's point of view.

Suppose I (not a candidate and not officially representing anyone)
took it upon myself to spread some handbills around a few DEC
facilities.   These handbills contain a partisan message, either
for or against some group.   They are not signed by me or anyone else.

Now, what can be done about that?  Assuming I don't get my
cover blown.

Do they invalidate the election because of it?  Hmm, looks like
I just found a way to get the election postponed when I want to.

Do they reject a particular candidate because of it?   Hmm, looks like
I just found a way to get rid of candidates I don't like.

I presume that, if I was found out, then although the DCU couldn't
do much to me (since I am not an employee and am not running for
anything), I would be liable for disciplinary action from DEC
of some sort--and rightly so.  "Fomenting a riot" or some such.
But wouldn't that only hold if it occurred on DEC premises?
And what if the "I" wasn't a DEC employee?

----

The climate of the times being what it is, perhaps I'd better
add a rider to this note saying that this is just a hypothetical
discussion about how an obviously good rule could in practice
be enforced.   I'm certainly not in favour of the anonymous-campaign
approach, particularly since I'd expect the likely reaction from
the DCU would be to cancel the election again and perpetuate the
status quo.
841.49TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Fri Jun 03 1994 20:2719
re:              <<< Note 841.48 by KLAP::porter "the joy of cliche" >>>

I thought about that issue when I posted one of my .2x's about the impropriety
of campaign literature unattributable to an identified source. Obviously, I
think such literature, like the CfaQB smear sheets, should be destroyed. I'm
not sure how to enforce that, though. We've had plenty of problems already
with DCU employees destroying 3G's material. We don't need a situation that
nurtures vigilantism. Asking the party _supported_ by such literature to
be required to publicly denounce the literature would be of some interest,
and probably smack of Medieval Europe, as well, but I don't know how effective
it would be. It's probably a good idea to include, in DIGITAL's side of
responsibility toward these rules, a very clear stipulation that penalties
including termination of publishers of such, or criminal/civil charges against
non-employee publishers of such, will be pursued. Still an empty promise,
though.

Anyone have any good ideas on this one?

-Jack
841.50Is this really such a threat?QETOO::FERREIRAI&#039;d give my right arm to be ambidextrousFri Jun 03 1994 23:1511
    re -.1
            Yeah, here's my cut on it.  Why are we so concerned about the
    possibility that someone or some group is going to spread fibs about
    some candidate(s)? This has happened once or twice in politics before,
    after all.  In these cases the voters can seek out the validity of the
    claims and make their own determination.  If they are unwilling to do
    so, they deserve what they get.  Of course these attacks are sometimes
    timed so that there is little or no time before the eletion to respond.
    In my experience, however, these tactics usually backfire.  In an open
    society, vigilante attacks are bound to occur.  The unrelenting power
    of the Truth is, IMO, an adequate defense.
841.51SMAUG::WADDINGTONBrother, can you paradigm?Sat Jun 04 1994 06:5613
    re -.1
    
    It is certainly true that a DCU member who is a DEC employee can "seek
    out the validity of the claims" because there are numerous tools at
    their disposal with which to gain information.  On the other hand, how
    about the member who's only source of info is "official DCU
    communications"?
    
    Philosophically, I agree with you.  Yet I wonder how much support there
    would be for the 3Gs if we were all ignorant of the past couple of
    years shenanigans?
    
    Rich
841.52Let DCU police the DCU facilitiesWAYLAY::GORDONNever trust a man in tights.Sat Jun 04 1994 10:2721
	At the very least...

	If we assume that the new election guidelines will permit
candidates to place election material in the branches (not being handed out
by the employees, just available like any other flyer) then, any such
literature must be signed by named individuals.  This, of course, doesn't
mean that a group couldn't just put some innocuous members names on the
literature and leave the high visibility names off, but then if I saw
"Group To Elect Good Directors, Josh Blodnik Chairman" I'd have to wonder
what makes Josh Blodnik any more qualified to determine who should serve on
the board than I.  It kind of defeats the whole concept of endorsement.

	I do think literature should be available in the branches.  For
many non-Digital members, the branches and mass mailings are their only
source of information and the number of non-Digital members is growing by
leaps and bounds these days.  The way things are going, I may be one before
this election is over.

					--Doug
841.53information is the enemy of the status quoLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&amp;T)Sun Jun 05 1994 10:3029
re Note 841.51 by SMAUG::WADDINGTON:

>     It is certainly true that a DCU member who is a DEC employee can "seek
>     out the validity of the claims" because there are numerous tools at
>     their disposal with which to gain information.  On the other hand, how
>     about the member who's only source of info is "official DCU
>     communications"?
>     
>     Philosophically, I agree with you.  Yet I wonder how much support there
>     would be for the 3Gs if we were all ignorant of the past couple of
>     years shenanigans?
  
        I am convinced that the answer *cannot* be less
        communication, less information, controlled official channels
        only.

        Now that it is relatively cheap to do so, perhaps somebody
        can set up a bulletin board, newsgroup, and/or web server
        outside of Digital's network for such communication. 
        (Interestingly enough, Alfred Thompson expressed an interest
        in such an idea.)

        That, of course, wouldn't reach the member who can't or won't
        use such electronic means.

        Is the DCU membership mailing list available to the
        candidates?

        Bob
841.54DRDAN::KALIKOWWorld-Wide Web: Postmodem CultureSun Jun 05 1994 11:4424
    Not that I have much right to comment here, having withdrawn my funds
    from the DCU, but re --
    
    .53> Is the DCU membership mailing list available to the candidates?
    
    I know Bob's aware that it was the use of EMail (for "solicitation" as
    defined by the Powers That Be) that got the 3G's fired.  
    
    I would go further than .53 and ask not only that the EMail list of DCU
    members be made available to candidates, but that an EMail-to-FAX-to-
    surface-mail gateway be provided (out of DCU funding!) to reach those
    members who do not have intra- or extra-DIGITAL EMailboxes.  
    
    And as a corollary of this extended encouragement of the use of EMail,
    and in light of the fact that no parties have yet -- after MONTHS --
    been publicly identified as the originators of the flyers for the
    "Committee for a Qualified Board" whose printed statements prompted the
    allegedly solicitatory electronic comments of the 3 G's, that they be
    rehired forthwith.
    
    ... and that the Office Filter be offered for installation on the
    EMail-box of anyone who might inadvertantly delete an important message
    while aiming for a DCU-related one! :-)
841.55old-fashioned mail addressesLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&amp;T)Sun Jun 05 1994 23:0842
re Note 841.54 by DRDAN::KALIKOW:

>     .53> Is the DCU membership mailing list available to the candidates?
>     
>     I know Bob's aware that it was the use of EMail (for "solicitation" as
>     defined by the Powers That Be) that got the 3G's fired.  
  
        I wasn't thinking EMail -- I was thinking of postal mail --
        the same address list used to mail out the ballots and the
        official statements of the candidates.

>     I would go further than .53 and ask not only that the EMail list of DCU
>     members be made available to candidates, 

        Such a list probably doesn't exist, even for those members
        who have Digital EMail addresses (the DCU doesn't generally
        use EMail to reach members).


>     And as a corollary of this extended encouragement of the use of EMail,
>     and in light of the fact that no parties have yet -- after MONTHS --
>     been publicly identified as the originators of the flyers for the
>     "Committee for a Qualified Board" whose printed statements prompted the
>     allegedly solicitatory electronic comments of the 3 G's, that they be
>     rehired forthwith.
  
        I certainly agree that Digital must, as a minimum level of
        decency and equity, take reasonable measures to determine
        the authors/sponsors of the anonymous CQB statement and, if
        they can be identified, deal with them as ones who also
        misused corporate resources for solicitation.

        Has anyone heard anything to suggest that the corporation is
        actvely trying to identify the source of the CQB flyer?
          
>     ... and that the Office Filter be offered for installation on the
>     EMail-box of anyone who might inadvertantly delete an important message
>     while aiming for a DCU-related one! :-)
  
        See Abbott::Office_filter

        Bob
841.56After all, All note entries must be from legal accounts....RLTIME::COOKMon Jun 06 1994 00:2117
As has been practiced in the past, campaign groups that keep their identity 
secret cause the electorate to feel that there may be underhanded, possible
illegal, attempts to influence the election occuring.  An election rule that
states that all campaign literature must have a contact name and an associated
candidate would be followed by any legal campaigners.  If unsigned
literature started to appear, it would be a easy task to remind the
electorate that all such literature was illegal under the campign rules and
should be ignored.  That would be a simple solution.

A more meaningful solution would be to have a supervisory commitee that would
investigate and have the power to disciplin offenders.  That is too much to
ask, I fear.


Al Cook
841.57TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Mon Jun 06 1994 08:5511
re: <<< Note 841.50 by QETOO::FERREIRA "I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous" >>>
>                       -< Is this really such a threat? >-

As has been stated - when you consider the fact that the CQB smear sheet
was what prompted the 3G's to circulate their position statement, which
Glover interpreted as solicitation and cause for their termination, I
think it's a very real and potent threat. Of course, granted, Glover
hasn't any further influence over the 3G's at this point. . .  only over
the QBC's.

-Jack
841.58TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Mon Jun 06 1994 08:5813
re:, .54, Dan

>    I would go further than .53 and ask not only that the EMail list of DCU
>    members be made available to candidates, but that an EMail-to-FAX-to-
>    surface-mail gateway be provided (out of DCU funding!) to reach those
>    members who do not have intra- or extra-DIGITAL EMailboxes.  

Dream on. If we can't see the results of the member survey because it's
"confidential" and of "potential value to competitors", do you think for
a moment there's a chance of having a member mailing list made available?

-Jack
841.59TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Mon Jun 06 1994 09:2223
re:.55, Bob

>        I certainly agree that Digital must, as a minimum level of
>        decency and equity, take reasonable measures to determine
>        the authors/sponsors of the anonymous CQB statement and, if
>        they can be identified, deal with them as ones who also
>        misused corporate resources for solicitation.
>
>        Has anyone heard anything to suggest that the corporation is
>        actvely trying to identify the source of the CQB flyer?

Well, I suppose if the CfaQB was populated largely by DEFCU officials
and employees that there'd be little if anything DIGITAL could do about
it, regardless of the influence that the DEFCU sometimes appears to have
on DIGITAL practices.

Besides, I don't think the CfaQB smear sheet was interpreted by Glover
as solicitation since it didn't say "Please Vote. Your vote counts."
Rather, it said something like "These candidates [3G's] aren't capable."
Libel and slander are far less serious offenses than solicitation, doncha
know.

-Jack
841.60No electronic campaigning on internal systemsLEDS::PRIBORSKYD&amp;SG: We are opportunity drivenMon Jun 06 1994 10:3329
    Blasphemous as it may seem, how about leveling the playing field and
    disallow all kinds of electronic campaigning?  No EMAIL, no NOTES,
    especially this conference.
    
    Electronic campaigning is NOT available for a large portion of the DCU
    membership - they don't get to see either side because they have no net
    access.   What if a qualified candidate (a retiree, for example, or an
    ex-emloyee) wanted to run?  Campaigning on internal DEC resources is
    not an option for that group of candidates, and so should be disallowed
    for all.
    
    The only form of mass campaigning allowed would be something available
    to all candidates which could be distributed fairly to all members.  I
    think this means that a subsequent mailing (real US Post Office) is the
    only form of campaigning allowed.  Each candidate is allowed a
    statement that accompanies the ballot, the cost of which is borne by
    the membership.  The cost of subsequent mailings - remembering equal
    access - should NOT be borne by the membership.
    
    My model for a fair board of directors campaign is Consumers Union.
    (Consumer Reports.)  In my 20 years of voting in their annual board of
    directors election, I never received a single solicitation from Betty
    Furness (rest her soul).   The statements that accompany the ballots
    are all you have to go by.  Sure, they may be prepared by a
    professional, but noone has any more advantage.  They rest solely on
    their laurels and the membership (as a whole) responds.
    
    Those people are professionals.   Try it.   I'll bet they've never had
    an incident such as is happening here.
841.61And no local branch handouts different from the mailingTOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Mon Jun 06 1994 10:423
.-1, Tony
I don't disagree with that.
-Jack
841.62ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Mon Jun 06 1994 10:548
re: .60

I disagree.  I find the write-ups from Consumer's Union to be next to useless
in choosing a Board candidate.  This year I decided some fresh blood was
needed, so I voted for the youngest candidates I could find.  Pretty bad when
the candidate info reduces me to this kind of guessing.

Bob
841.63TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Tue Jun 07 1994 01:0318
I think there are several cogent points regarding the matter of DIGITAL
telecom resource access. Regardless of various personal opinions about
the accessability and utility of these resources to DIGITAL v. non-DIGITAL
personnel, the fact remains that there will be a significant number of
personal opinions to the contrary. Those holding such opinions will
view it as unfair, and a reasonable basis to raise a stink about, formally
or otherwise. Limiting communications to what can be distributed directly
to all members, on the other hand, appears to be unargueable with respect
to its equanimity.

I can even live with the concept of "no partisan campaign materials".
I've sufficient confidence that the 3G's already have enough support
to win this election. And, if I'm wrong, then the majority rules anyway,
which is the way it should be (although it will have to be that way
without me and my $$$). Lord knows I don't need to spend time in the
Cafes handing out literature, anyway.

-Jack
841.64I disagreeLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&amp;T)Tue Jun 07 1994 11:5910
re Note 841.63 by TOOK::DELBALSO:

> Limiting communications to what can be distributed directly
> to all members, on the other hand, appears to be unargueable with respect
> to its equanimity.
  
        It may appear to be equitable, but it isn't.  Limited or no
        information favors the status quo.  Always.

        Bob
841.65FWIW, I also disagree... let the info flow.NRSTA2::KALIKOWWorld-Wide Web: Postmodem CultureTue Jun 07 1994 12:195
    Witness the role of the Internet and FAX machines (and before them
    the Samizdats) in the decline & fall of European Communism.  It's
    futile imho to legislate against communication, the most human of
    activities.
841.66LEDS::PRIBORSKYD&amp;SG: We are opportunity drivenTue Jun 07 1994 12:504
    Re:  Electronic communication:  In addition to:  Yes.  Instead of:  No.
    The same information must be distributed equally and fairly.  Anything
    else biases the election process to a class of members.  The courts
    will certainly have something to say about that!
841.67Some things never change...TLE::EKLUNDAlways smiling on the inside!Tue Jun 07 1994 16:4127
    	All the new rules in the world won't amount to anything when you
    don't pursue the violators with a certain amount of vigor.  Consider
    that the authors of certain campaign material seem to be still unknown.
    I would suggest that if this is an important issue, take a look at
    notes 786.2, .18, .29 and .44 where plenty of names were listed as
    handing out material in question.  Bring pressure to bear on these
    individuals to find out where the material was obtained.  It was in
    their possession and didn't appear there by magic...
    
    	I conclude that no one in authority has wished to pursue this with
    the same vigor that was used on those who responded to the material.
    There's probably a message there.  Why would anyone believe that a new
    collection of rules would change the enforcement?!
    
	If you are in charge of enforcing the rules, you can ignore whatever
    rules you want.  Does not necessarily make you popular, but it does
    keep you immune (temporarily).
    
    	So, let me ask, perhaps once again, were the people in the notes
    mentioned above specifically asked, "Where did you obtain that
    material?".  If not, why not?  And I bet I don't get a good answer to
    the question - after all, if you are in charge of enforcing the
    rules, you don't have to answer questions, either.
    
    Dave Eklund
    Who will never, NEVER be afraid to sign what he writes!
841.68Something smells, er, FISHY.TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Tue Jun 07 1994 17:5217
re:        <<< Note 841.67 by TLE::EKLUND "Always smiling on the inside!" >>>

>	If you are in charge of enforcing the rules, you can ignore whatever
>    rules you want.

Well now, Dave, lets be fair. DCU management didn't exactly ignore the
complaints about the violation of the rules by their employees. They
consulted with the honorable Mr. Melchione who ruled, as if from the
bench, that attempting to stifle the activities of the DCU employees
would be a violation of their constitutional rights. At the same time,
of course, totally ignoring the fact that they were also violating
DIGITAL policies and procedures, which, of course, is none of his concern.
And the DIGITAL powers that be who should have been concerned about
that were, of course, personally involved in matters of much more gravity,
what with three "miscreant" employees to "deal with" and all.

-Jack
841.69can't hide behind anonymous materialLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&amp;T)Wed Jun 08 1994 07:4913
re Note 841.67 by TLE::EKLUND:

>     I would suggest that if this is an important issue, take a look at
>     notes 786.2, .18, .29 and .44 where plenty of names were listed as
>     handing out material in question.  Bring pressure to bear on these
>     individuals to find out where the material was obtained.  It was in
>     their possession and didn't appear there by magic...
  
        In the absence of any identified source, the presumption
        ought to be that if you are handing out or otherwise
        distributing material then you are a co-author or endorser.

        Bob
841.70Our will be done.MIMS::WILBUR_DWed Jun 08 1994 10:306
    
    
    
     I'm just so tired of it. I can't wait to vote and be part of a
     sweeping backlash.
841.71No bearingSTAR::BUDAI am the NRAWed Jun 08 1994 11:3016
RE: Note 841.66 by LEDS::PRIBORSKY

>    Re:  Electronic communication:  In addition to:  Yes.  Instead of:  No.
>    The same information must be distributed equally and fairly.  Anything
>    else biases the election process to a class of members.  The courts
>    will certainly have something to say about that!

The courts will have nothing to say, as long as information is available
-- which it will be.  Your thoughts about the courts have no bearing.

If people choose to communicate using other means, that is their choice. 
Any information that DCU provides, but be available for all -- the
medium does not matter -- the courts have already said that...

	- mark
841.72WRKSYS::SEILERLarry SeilerFri Jun 10 1994 16:5638
    Two years ago I tried to get someone passing out the Qualified Board
    sheets to tell me where they came from.  Every time I asked "who gave
    them to you", she wrote back to say "contact the candidates for 
    information about their positions."  "Yes but who gave you the
    sheets?"  "Ask the candidates."  "I asked one, he doesn't know, he's
    asked for his name to be taken off, so who gave them to you".  "All
    I can tell you is to talk with the candidates".  
    
    Therefore, I think more is needed than simply asking people who
    passed out the sheets.  I think we need a report from the Supervisory
    Committee on not just what they discovered, but whom they asked.  For
    example, Lisa Ross was reported to have passed out the Qualified Board
    sheets this time -- in office areas, no less.  They should ask her
    where she got them and tell us what she answers.  If she won't answer,
    that's data that the electorate deserves to know.
    
    No doubt someone is already itching to say how unfair this would be.
    I ask you to recall that we are already required to identify our
    sources for all electronic communication -- it is against Digital
    policy to remove the original header from a mail message or note,
    for example.  Requiring people to say where they got the paper fliers
    that they distribute is simply leveling the playing field.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry
    
    PS -- I've heard various assertions that electronic communication is
    somehow different from pre-computer forms of communication, e.g.
    phone calls.  I find most such arguments to be absurd.  One such
    argument I find to be rational, though frightening.  Tom McEachin
    told me that he thought that *all* electronic communication about
    the election ought to be outlawed during the election, since email
    and notes can be controlled!  I asked what about phone calls and
    he replied that there was no point in outlawing them because such
    a rule cannot be enforced...  I find it disturbing that such an
    attitude exists, both on the Board and among Digital's management.
    I never would have listed "control" as a key feature of electronic
    communication.  LS
841.73very distressed by your commentsWONDER::REILLYSean Reilly CSG/AVS DTN:293-5983Sat Jun 11 1994 19:3936
    
    re.  Tony
    
    > Blasphemous as it may seem, how about leveling the playing field and
    > disallow all kinds of electronic campaigning?  No EMAIL, no NOTES,
    > especially this conference.
    
    Hmmm, less information for the electorate.  I'm usually afraid of people
    who want me to know less than I do or can when I need to make a decision.
    I think they have something to hide or are in a position to take advantage
    of my ignorance.  Thank goodness for people like Phil.
    
    I also think "leveling the playing field" is just and lazy way for the
    status quo to ensure they stay that way instead of having to make them 
    work for that honor.  They can rest on their laurels just as easy when
    they talk to us.
    
    Bring the people NOT willing to communicate up to higher standards,
    don't drag the people who ARE willing to communicate down to lower
    ones.  That's anti-progress.
    
    Seems somewhat aristocratic to be against arming the owners of the credit 
    union with information.  Are we too dim to wield the information 
    intelligently?  I don't enter into those types of market relationships.
    Be honest and forthright with me and you'll maybe get my business - don't 
    and you're not even in the running.
    
    > My model for a fair board of directors campaign is Consumers Union.
    > (Consumer Reports.)
    
    I used to trust CR universally.  Lately, I find their findings quite
    suspect as do many others who used to be staunch supporters.  Perhaps
    they, too, would benefit with some shaking up, before they experience
    a similar exodus of consumers (I know more than a few, btw).
    
    - Sean
841.74TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Sun Jun 12 1994 21:1420
Several months ago I sent a memo to Mr. Glover copying a memo which Ms. Ross
had sent to me, unsolicited, inquiring as to whether or not that mailing to me
from Ms. Ross was "out of line", given the circumstances that prevailed at the
time (the week of the 3G's termination). I waited. And waited. For a response.

I received one finally last Friday (after some Email prodding from me) from
Mr. Glover and some other individual in HR who had been charged with providing
an answer. The gist of the answer (which, I of course, cannot post, without
their permission, which I haven't either the time or interest to obtain) was
that Ms. Ross didn't violate any rule.

Not surprising. Perhaps Ms. Ross had personal counsel available from HR, or
maybe she just lucked out. But I will state very clearly that if she ever
sends me another electronic mail message, I will bring it to HR's attention
as a matter of harassment. Also, I suppose it is not surprising as to the
delay that transpired in responding to my inquiry.

No. Nothing surprises me anymore.

-Jack
841.75DRDAN::KALIKOWNo Federal Tacks on the Info Hwy!Sun Jun 12 1994 22:084
    Thanks for the pointer, Jack.  I, too, have a message in to Ron Glover
    on a related matter, and am awaiting a response.  Perhaps an informal
    reminder would be an appropriate next step.
841.76By all meansTOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Sun Jun 12 1994 22:473
No doubt, Dan.

-Jack
841.77Consumer ResearchSTAR::BUDAI am the NRAMon Jun 13 1994 12:4214
RE: Note 841.73 by WONDER::REILLY
    
>    > My model for a fair board of directors campaign is Consumers Union.
>    > (Consumer Reports.)
>    
>    I used to trust CR universally.  Lately, I find their findings quite
>    suspect as do many others who used to be staunch supporters.  Perhaps
>    they, too, would benefit with some shaking up, before they experience
>    a similar exodus of consumers (I know more than a few, btw).

I agree.  I quit and now get Consumer Research.  They give you the facts -- no
political slant like Consumer Reports does.  Now how to get DCU to be like CR?

	-mark
841.78re .72WRKSYS::SEILERLarry SeilerMon Jun 13 1994 13:0511
    I'm afraid that I gave a wrong impression the postscript to my note .72.
    The reason why Tom McEachin personally prefers strong restrictions on
    electronic communication during the next election is because he is
    convinced that this will be more fair.  While I agree with him that
    it's good to provide more ways of getting information about all of
    the candidates to all of the voters, I do not agree that it other
    forms of communication should be cut off.  However, I guess that
    issue is for the Supervisory Committee to settle.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry
841.79STAR::BUDAI am the NRAMon Jun 13 1994 15:0312
RE: Note 841.78 by WRKSYS::SEILER

>    convinced that this will be more fair.  While I agree with him that
>    it's good to provide more ways of getting information about all of
>    the candidates to all of the voters, I do not agree that it other
>    forms of communication should be cut off.  However, I guess that
>    issue is for the Supervisory Committee to settle.

I hope that the supervisory committee realizes that it will be
IMPOSSIBLE to stop electronic communication, even within DEC.

	- mark
841.80TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Mon Jun 13 1994 15:2410
re: .79, Mark

>I hope that the supervisory committee realizes that it will be
>IMPOSSIBLE to stop electronic communication, even within DEC.

It's not so impossible to stop if you make it a condition of continuancy
in the campaign for a candidate. Look at how neatly personnel stopped
some folks from communicating electronically within DIGITAL.

-Jack
841.81Thanks for your clarification, Tom. Good to hear from you,DRDAN::KALIKOWNo Federal Tacks on the Info Hwy!Mon Jun 13 1994 15:254
    Notes>dir *.*/auth=MCEACHIN
    
    No such note
841.82WRKSYS::SEILERLarry SeilerMon Jun 13 1994 17:276
    Actually, I still haven't gotten Tom's position quite correct.  
    Perhaps the best thing is to simply delete my references to him.  
    I did not intend anyone to think that I was speaking for him, or
    representing him in any capacity.  
    
    	Larry
841.83Any DIGITAL employee can do it, doncha knowTOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Mon Jun 13 1994 18:114
Actually, if Tom would take the trouble to sit himself down at his keyboard
and speak for himself in here we wouldn't be left wondering, now, would we?

-Jack
841.84STAR::BUDAI am the NRAMon Jun 13 1994 18:3113
RE: Note 841.80 by TOOK::DELBALSO

>It's not so impossible to stop if you make it a condition of continuancy
>in the campaign for a candidate. Look at how neatly personnel stopped
>some folks from communicating electronically within DIGITAL.

If they choose to do that, I will make sure I run the next time...  I
would use the external networks in a legal and moral way.  If they chose
to try to stop me, they would have to take me to court.

I would not put up with limitations on free speech...

	- mark
841.85re .83 my point eggzacktly, but U knew that, Jack :-)DRDAN::KALIKOWNo Federal Tacks on the Info Hwy!Mon Jun 13 1994 19:381
841.86Just "driving it home", Dan. :^)TOOK::DELBALSOI (spade) my (dog face)Mon Jun 13 1994 20:120
841.87WLDBIL::KILGOREDCU 3Gs -- fired but not forgottenTue Jun 14 1994 09:245
    
    I'll wager that some people feel electronic communication in an
    election is "unfair" because, unlike anonymous fliers and telephone
    calls, it is traceable and undeniable.
841.88ROWLET::AINSLEYLess than 150 kts. is TOO slow!Tue Jun 14 1994 11:005
re: .87

You've got that right!

Bob
841.89KLAP::porterjustified and ancientTue Jun 14 1994 11:293
Traceable and undeniable?   Hmm, you guys don't know much
about MAIL-11, do you?   :-)
841.90STAR::FERLANDECamds as your cluster mgmt toolThu Jul 07 1994 14:1811
    
    Well how long before we start to see stuff??
    
    It seems we're getting bogged down with ratholes and the unending
    wait..  Is DCU waiting for more layoffs ;-) so that more mgmt is around
    ;-) to vote the way they want... many ;-) - and no I *don't* want to 
    start *that* debate in here!
    
    
    John