Conference 7.286::dcu

re Note 850.0 "Election Campaign Rules":

> C.   "Disparagement" is the act of discrediting a thing by
>      comparing or connecting that thing to something of less
>      less value or worth.
  ...
> 1.   Misleading or false statements by any candidate or any
>      candidate supporter deprives Credit Union members of
>      relevant and accurate information and impairs the rights of
>      members to make an informed choice.  As such, any misleading
>      or false statement by any candidate or any candidate
>      supporter is prohibited.  Statements which are in any
>      material way incomplete, unfairly slanted or minimize the
>      issues unfairly shall be considered misleading and are
>      prohibited.
> 
> 2.   Candidates and their supporters may not engage in
>      disparaging or defamatory statements, in any form, 
>      concerning any candidate, any candidate supporter, the
>      Credit Union, any Credit Union employee, official,
>      volunteer, or member or any other person or entity.  This
>      rule shall not be construed to restrict the ability of a 
>      candidate to factually and fairly criticize another
>      candidate's record or position on Credit Union issues or
>      that candidate's qualifications.

        This looks like total crap to me.  How in the world can one
        *fairly* and *impartially* evaluate campaign statements with
        regard to truth?  How in the world can one *fairly* and
        *impartially* decide if campaign statements constitute
        disparagement?

        How in the world can one hold in an election (other than a
        sham) in which disparagement as defined was outlawed?

        How can one possibly hold the threat of disqualification of a
        candidate over the independent actions of *supporters*?  This
        just invites all sorts of dirty tricks!

        Does the "quiet period" during the balloting preclude
        discussion among "supporters" (who could be anyone) in places
        such as this notes conference?

        Bob

    re .1:  But this is a "corporate election", not a "political election"!
    I think that's a code phrase indicating that there is legal precedent
    to impose restrictions like this -- which of course could never be
    imposed on a governmental election.  I expect that this is a point
    that Mr. Melchione could clear up.  Whether it *ought* to be that
    way is a different issue, of course.  
    
    To me, the "no disparagement" rule seems to mean that one cannot make 
    *any* kind of comparisons whatsoever.  The acid test will be whether 
    these rules will be applied fairly, consistently, and with common sense.  
    We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?  Keep in mind that any 
    rule that is used to prevent discussion of problems at the DCU is a
    rule that favors the status quo, just as any rule that allows people
    to complain about the current situation is a rule that favors changing
    the status quo.  
    
    
    re .0:  The rule that disturbs me the most is #11, which says "All
    candidates and their supporters are required to comply with all 
    policies and rules of Digital and any other employer".  Well, of
    course.  However, surely it is the job of Digital Equipment Corp.
    to enforce its own policies, NOT the job of the Supervisory Ctty.
    
    For example, the Supervisory Ctty's rules are carefully drawn to
    apply equally to all forms of communication -- verbal, written,
    electronic, etc.  This is in stark contrast to the last election,
    where a charge of improper electronic communication got three 
    people fired, but charges of improper written and verbal communcation
    were (to the best of my awareness) entirely ignored by Digital.  
    
    Now, suppose Digital's officers behave the same way in this election.
    In fact, suppose (as I once heard suggested) Digital's officers 
    decide to implement a special rule banning *all* electronic 
    discussion of the DCU election, but continue to take the same
    hands-off attitude to other forms of communication.  Would that be
    fair?  More to the point, would it be fair for the Supervisory Ctty
    to take part in enforcing this?  
    
    In conclusion, I think it is perfectly reasonable to remind everyone
    that they need to abide by Digital's policies.  But I don't think
    the Supervisory Ctty should get involved as an enforcer or even
    interpreter of Digital's policies.  Surely it's tough enough for
    them to fairly enforce the other rules without taking on that job.
    And besides, the DCU and Digital are supposedly separte companies.
    Or at least that's the last way I heard it.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

>13.  Candidates and their supporters may not campaign in any
>     fashion (including participating in public forums), during
>     the twenty-one (21) days prior to the close of Credit Union
>     member balloting. The Supervisory Committee will take
>     action against any material violation of this rule up to and
>     including disqualification.

>A.   "Campaigning" is activity by candidates or their supporters
>     within a public medium during an election and intended to
>     support one or more candidates.

This is very vague to me.  This could be interpreted to mean that ANY
discussion of the election during this time is prohibited, and that ANY
participation at all by a candidate in a public medium might be forbidden,
including posting or clarifying minutes of board meetings.

	Paul

re Note 850.2 by WRKSYS::SEILER:

>     re .1:  But this is a "corporate election", not a "political election"!
>     I think that's a code phrase indicating that there is legal precedent
>     to impose restrictions like this -- which of course could never be
>     imposed on a governmental election.  I expect that this is a point
>     that Mr. Melchione could clear up.  Whether it *ought* to be that
>     way is a different issue, of course.  
  
        The election itself is the mechanism to determine the degree
        to which the statements of the candidates impress the
        electorate as true and appropriate.  I don't trust some
        committee to make either determination for me.  The most
        effective means of exposing misstatements of fact is to let
        the opposition do it!  

        (I really do wonder where the NCUA's heart is regarding this
        election.  Officially they appear to be hands-off.  On the
        other hand they are on record with rules that severely limit
        the direct control of CU policy by members.  Might they not
        fear that a too-open and too-effective election process would
        give members nearly the same degree of control over CU policy
        via elections that they are denied at a member meeting? 
        After all, that is the essential question of this election: 
        do members have any control over DCU policy?)

          
>     We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?  Keep in mind that any 
>     rule that is used to prevent discussion of problems at the DCU is a
>     rule that favors the status quo, just as any rule that allows people
>     to complain about the current situation is a rule that favors changing
>     the status quo.  
  
        For that matter, having an election process facilitates
        changing the status quo!  (My fear, of course, is that these
        rules are an attempt to minimize such a possibility!)
          
        Bob

    I have a question about the 100-foot rule and supporters. Since the
    credit union doesn't own any offices except headquarters, once you step
    out of a CU office, you're basically out of their 'sphere of
    influence'. How do they propose to enforce the 100-foot rule if, say,
    I wanted to show my support for a candidate outside the doors to the
    HLO2 lobby which would fall within the 100 feet? Do they "tell" Digital
    Security to make me stop? Do they close my account and keep my money?
    Presumably, they would take action against the candidate for whom I'm
    showing support. What if that candidate doesn't know of or condone my
    actions? Are they still subject to action? I can think of a scenario
    where someone might campaign 50 feet away from a DCU branch for a
    candidate (unknown to that candidate) knowing that action might be
    taken against that candidate. To spell it out completely:
    
    a supporter of candidate A campaigns for candidate B outside a DCU
    branch, within 100 feet of the branch but outside of the DCU's 'sphere
    of influence' knowing that the supporter's actions would cause problems
    for candidate B. Candidate B disavows any knowledge of the supporter's
    actions but at the very least, has caused candidate B some trouble.
    
    I AM NOT ADVOCATING THIS ACTION BY ANYONE, but my background causes me
    to come up with these kinds of possible scenarios. These kinds of
    things can cause the election-disqualify election-new election loop to
    go on forever.

    
    Larry, I think you're reading a bit too much into part of this.  As
    an election guideline, if someone violates the policies of their
    employer to campaign, this could also constitute an election violation.
    
    In general, note that the rules are to be both interpreted and enforced
    by the SC.  There is nothing to keep folks from discussing DCU issues
    during the "quiet time."  There is an effort to avoid having folks
    actively campaign during that time, which could result in SC action.
    If folks want to discuss DCU issues at any time, no big deal.  If
    someone wants to set up a table in the Mill cafe and aggressively 
    campaign during the quiet time, that's not regarded as a Good Thing.
    
    The main action to be taken by the SC if there are violations
    during the campaign period is to invoke a second ballot -- allowing the
    shareholders to decide whether or not they want to change their votes
    based on the findings of the SC.  In the end, I expect it to be the
    *shareholders* who decide if defamation or whatever is bad enough to
    warrant a change in vote.  We feel that the "quiet time" is necessary 
    to allow this to happen.
    
    At the same time, the SC has, per the rules, to take other actions as
    necessary.  In discussion, this usually involved some pretty wild and
    unusual circumstances.  But, even with the goings on of the recent
    election, it's pretty much expected that the SC won't have to take 
    such actions this time around.
    
    Finally, though we've done our best on these rules, nobody is claiming
    they're perfect.  I expect the Board will make changes as needed and
    over time.  But, on a positive note, if any of you don't like the
    rules, don't like how the Board is doing things, don't like how the SC 
    is doing things, then by all means, run for the Board or volunteer to 
    serve on the SC.  Contact those you trust and who represent you.  
    Whatever, but get involved!  Opportunities to get involved are and will 
    be presenting themselves.  It *is* your CU and you can change it, 
    perhaps in more ways than you realize.
    
    Steve

    Uh -- my cubical is within 100' of a DCU branch.  If someone comes
    into my cube and I make a statement to them supporting a candidate for
    the DCU board, it seems that a rule violation has occured, since
    I am within the area in which campaigning is proscribed, and my
    behavior appears to meet the definition of "campaigning by a
    supporter".    On the otherhand, I don't see how DCU or the supervisory
    committee could possibly (or legally) enforce this proscription.

    re: the past few ...
    
    If someone comes into a cube and you make a supportive statement to
    them the SC basically doesn't care.  It doesn't fit the definition
    of "campaigning."  It's not regarded as use of a "public medium" 
    as defined in the rules.
    
    If someone does "campaign" within the 100' zone, that's probably a
    campaign violation.  Will the SC do anything about it?  Depends.
    There needs to be a complaint filed per rule 17.  What will the
    SC do about it?  Depends.  But, actions along the lines of rules
    6, 13, 18 and 19 may be viable options.
    
    Steve

    It seems to me that any attempt at eliminating campaigning during the
    so-called quiet period has 1st Amendment implications.
    
    Bob

    1st Ammendment implications?  Would you care to elaborate?
    
    Steve

It seems to me that the 100' rule should be modified to something a little bit
more workable ...

Something like 100' of open area ... and limited by cafeteria doors or office
doors etc. making it legal to campaign in a cafeteria ... after all, the
CXO1/2 cafeteria is vertically above the DCU branch ... ie within about 20'
meaning no-one can campaign in the CXO cafeteria.

HMMMMM

Stuart

    re: .11
    
    As for the 100' rule, or any other rule for that matter, if you've got
    a question you can hit on the SC for an opinion since they are the ones
    that will have to interpret and enforce the rules.  
    
    The 100' rule was not meant to entirely preclude campaigning in a 
    cafeteria.  In fact, measurements were taken at a few sites of concern 
    to make sure that campaigning in cafeterias could still be done without 
    violating the rule.  My *opinion* is that the SC would consider separation 
    of the DCU from the cafeteria at CXO1/2 by a floor to be okay.  But, in 
    this situation if one is concerned about complaints, it might be best to
    go for this in writing from the SC.
    
    As a rule, the SC isn't going to investigate election violations unless
    there are complaints.  So, if you are going to "test" the rules, you
    have to ask yourself, "do I feel lucky?"  Seriously, you're dealing
    with people on the SC.  The part in the beginning of the rules stating
    intents and purposes hits the nail on the head.  The SC would rather
    deal with questions and concerns proactively before they become issues 
    that lead to complaints and investigations.  That's one reason for
    rules 15 and 16.
    
    Steve

I was really worried after seeing the first two pages, but after reading
the whole document, I do believe it deserves credit for making a serious
attempt.

However, some questions/concerns...

These rules are in effect an amendment to the DCU bylaws.  Have they, or will
they be, voted by the board, and submitted to NCUA for approval?

Second: it appears we have here some very loosely worded, wide-ranging
provisions, that are to be "interpreted" by the Supervisory Committee in order
to make them reasonable.  This is NOT a good thing.  As the membership of
the SC changes from time to time, likewise the effective rules (as enforced)
may change.  The rules are written give far too much leeway for unreasonable
interpretations.  While one SC may not do this, others may.

The right answer is to have clearly written and closely defined rules that
leave as little as is feasible for interpretation, in order that the rules
will be known and understood by all and enforced consistently.

	paul

    re: .13
    
    The election rules required SC approval, the way things were set up
    this time around.  I expect the future Board will make any changes they
    feel appropriate.  I don't know about submission for NCUA approval. 
    From what I understand, this falls under the domain of the SC as a body
    that oversees the operation of DCU, including elections.  But, during
    this whole thing General Counsel has been in touch with the NCUA
    getting feedback where we can.  And, Board direction and approval has
    been sought every step of the way.
    
    As for the quality of the SC, I believe that a member of the SC can
    do damage and be abusive, perhaps nearly as much as a Director.  Future
    success will depend upon the shareholders providing and supporting good
    people as Directors, volunteering for positions such as on the SC and
    on other committees, taking interest in DCU matters and providing
    feedback, and so forth.  I hope that the improprieties of Mr. Mangone
    and others will serve in the future as a reminder of the need for
    vigilance.
    
    The goings on with DCU are a bit cutting edge, in my opinion. 
    Traditionally, CU elections are yawners.  But, given the
    remarkable history of the DCU over the past few years, shareholder
    interest -- make that passion -- is much higher.  "Outsiders" have
    found their way into the highest ranks of the CU and are changing the
    way DCU does business.  It's painful now.  But, if we get through this
    and do this well, DCU may well become something of a model for other
    CU's -- especially when shareholders of other institutions link up
    electronically and realize that they *can* change things.
    
    In many ways, the DCU has undergone a revolution of late.  The election
    rules represent a part of that revolution, IMO.  I fully expect the day
    will come when other CU's approach DCU to find out how to handle
    heightened shareholder interest in the running of the CU.  I also
    hope that DCU will establish itself as a recognized leader in 
    successfully managing employees who service these interested 
    shareholders.  I think approaches like the new election rules are 
    steps in these directions.
    
    Steve

    re .13:  True, there are vague areas.  But with this set of rules we are 
    much better off than before, since before, *everything* seemed to be open
    to interpretation or denial, including the few written policies!
    
    I trust the SC has gotten a lawyer's opinion that these rules are
    legally defensible?  I only ask because we were told during the
    invalidated election that a rule barring DCU employees from 
    campaign activities on DCU premises was a violation of their civil
    rights.  Is this rule different because it bars everyone, not just
    DCU employees, from campaigning near DCU property?  Or has the
    legal opinion on this issue changed in the interim?
    
    Steve, I'm glad to hear (if I may take your words that way) that the
    SC would not consider invalidating a candidate or the election
    simply because Digital (or some other employer) decided that a
    candidate or supporter had violated their policies.  I think it's
    reasonable -- and indeed necessary -- for the SC to enforce
    sanctions for violations of the SC's rules.  I don't think it
    would be reasonable for the SC to enforce sanctions based on
    violations of some other organization's rules.  
    
    Finally, I GREATLY appreciate the provision that all campaign
    material must identify its source and that the SC will issue
    a public report on whatever complaints and issues occur during
    the campaign.  These two issues still rankle from the invalidated
    campaign.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

    re: .15
    
    I think you've got it right.  Part of the whole thrust of this is to
    *avoid* having to *ever* invalidate another election.  
    
    Lawyers?  Yup! 
    
    Steve

re Note 850.16 by NACAD::SHERMAN:

>     I think you've got it right.  Part of the whole thrust of this is to
>     *avoid* having to *ever* invalidate another election.  
>     
>     Lawyers?  Yup! 
  
        But the only reason for invalidating this election was to
        avoid lawsuit(s).

        If these proposed rules are enforced to the point of
        disqualifying a candidate (and what other enforcement threat
        is there, really?), then I'd place money on a bet that you'll
        have a lawsuit.

        Bob

    re: .17
    
    As far as lawsuits go, if someone wants to sue, they'll sue.  It's a
    free country.  However, I believe it is fair to say that in just about
    everything I've seen the SC do, emphasis has been placed on acting
    prudently so that we avoid more serious lawsuits.  Contrary to what
    might be seen on TV, talking to lawyers is a way to *avoid* going to
    court.  It's when you *don't* get counsel that you stand a good chance
    of burning your cookies.
    
    Steve

re Note 850.18 by NACAD::SHERMAN:

        The new guidelines would seem to prohibit a candidate or
        supporters from even discussing the issues in a public way
        during the quiet period of the election (under threat of
        disqualification).

        I find that repugnant.

        I guess I find it very hard to believe that courts would
        support such a suppression of free speech just because this
        isn't a "political" election.

        Bob

    re: .19
    
    I doubt the SC is going to prevent someone from campaigning during the
    "quiet time."   People can say what they want.  It's a free country.
    
    But, they risk being disqualified in the election.  I don't see 
    that as a conflict.  (I'm sure you disagree.)  I regard this, as
    well as any of the rules (limitations) on how candidates may 
    campaign, as part of the balance to be struck between the rights of
    candidates to wage vigorous campaigns with the rights of shareholders
    to an orderly process.  
    
    The "quiet time" is calculated to be at the end of the election time 
    when the least amount of activity is expected.  Its duration is set as 
    the minimum time that could be allowed for the SC to process violations 
    and for the shareholders to respond to second balloting.  It is felt 
    that if campaigning were allowed during this time it would deprive 
    shareholders of their right to an "orderly process."  I'll leave the 
    amount of disorder that could otherwise occur as an exercise for the 
    casual observer ...
    
    I'll point out that under Robert's Rules there are times when 
    discussion is permitted and when it is not.  My understanding is that 
    this is done to promote an orderly process.  Even so, it is seldom 
    that folks regard compliance with Robert's Rules as a violation of 
    free speech rights.  Rather, folks are willing to be silent to 
    maintain order in a decision-making process.  Similarly, I expect 
    compliance with the election rules, including compliance with the 
    "quiet time," to help maintain and support an orderly process.
    
    Steve

RE: Note 850.20 by NACAD2::SHERMAN

>    But, they risk being disqualified in the election.  I don't see 
>    that as a conflict.  (I'm sure you disagree.)  I regard this, as
>    well as any of the rules (limitations) on how candidates may 
>    campaign, as part of the balance to be struck between the rights of
>    candidates to wage vigorous campaigns with the rights of shareholders
>    to an orderly process.  

If I were a candidate and I was disqualified because of campaigning, you
can bet a lawsuit would be forthcoming, along with an injunction.

This is like pouring gas into a fire, IMHO.  Most people will ignore
it...
    
>    The "quiet time" is calculated to be at the end of the election time 
>    when the least amount of activity is expected.  Its duration is set as 
>    the minimum time that could be allowed for the SC to process violations 
>    and for the shareholders to respond to second balloting.  It is felt 
>    that if campaigning were allowed during this time it would deprive 
>    shareholders of their right to an "orderly process."  I'll leave the 
>    amount of disorder that could otherwise occur as an exercise for the 
>    casual observer ...
    
The quiet time made me and many others laugh...  It is another attempt
at another FAMOUS IPP (Information Protection Policy).

Funny thing is, there is NOTHING they can do to a poor old member who
campaigns during the quiet time -- according to my lawyer...

They cannot force you to leave the CU.  They can try to harass a
person, but that is easily taken care of -- lawyers talk to lawyers...

>    I'll point out that under Robert's Rules there are times when 
>    discussion is permitted and when it is not.  My understanding is that 
>    this is done to promote an orderly process.  Even so, it is seldom 
>    that folks regard compliance with Robert's Rules as a violation of 
>    free speech rights.  Rather, folks are willing to be silent to 
>    maintain order in a decision-making process.  Similarly, I expect 
>    compliance with the election rules, including compliance with the 
>    "quiet time," to help maintain and support an orderly process.

An interesting thing about 'Roberts Rules' -- the folks can change the
rules at ANY time, if they wish.  They are NOT forced to follow the
moderators wants, except in regards to law.  If the people want to talk
about something for 3 hours or 21 days -- they can choose to do so, at
ANY TIME...

The next quiet time will be for 353 days before the next election, if
the management of DCU has its way.

DCU seems to have lost site of who owns the credit union.

	- mark

The SC isn't going to prevent people from campaigning, but it is going
to threaten them with disqualification if they do.  You don't see that
as a conflict?

That's absolutely and totally absurd.  I can't believe anyone would say
something like that.

This is equivalent to saying that free speech exists so long as you don't
throw people in jail until after they speak.

	paul

    Okay, guys.  Do you have a better solution?  If so, propose and do.
    As mentioned before, the rules aren't perfect and you can change them.
    
    Steve

re: .23, Steve

>    As mentioned before, the rules aren't perfect and you can change them.


Can we really? Or can we only disuss them with a high probability of being
ignored?

re: .21, Mark, re: DCU having lost sight of who owns it

You forget, Mark, this happened years ago.

-Jack

Re .23: sure, here are some suggestions.

1. No quiet period.  Let people campaign anytime they want.
2. No restrictions on content.  (Note that people who feel slandered have
   recourse against the slanderers, as always.  DCU or the SC need not and
   should not get in the middle here.)
3. Keep the requirement that all campaign materials have their author's name(s)
   on them.  (That will help keep the slander down.)
4. Keep the rule against campaigning in or within close distance to DCU
   branches.  (Probably needs some fixing as mentioned by others before.)

Note that this roughly matches the rules governing political elections, which
we know work adequately.

Note also that the SC retains the authority given to it by the bylaws, which is
to call a special meeting to replace the board, in those cases where things
get really out of hand.

Apart from the excessively broad wording of the rules as currently proposed
(giving too much leeway for interpretation) there is also the issue of
conflict of interest -- the SC, which is appointed by the sitting board, being
the arbiter of elections to that same board.  The proposal I made eliminates
both problems.

	paul

    re: the last few
    
    So, take your suggestions to the Board.  See if they will approve
    changes.  And, if the Board won't do it, you can always go the Special
    Meeting route.  And, if you want more influence on the directions of 
    the DCU, become a Director or volunteer for one of the committees.
    
    Steve

Wait a minute.  First you say "so propose something" and then when I do,
you change your tune and tell me to try to talk to the board or push
for special meetings or stuff like that.  What gives?  I thought .23 meant
that you (the SC) were interested in hearing suggestions.  I guess that
was a mistaken interpretation...

	paul

    No, I said propose and do.  You proposed.  Now, what's left is the "do"
    part.
    
    Steve

I think these 'rules' have an awful lot of the old BoD's arrogance in them.

Bob

re Note 850.23 by NACAD2::SHERMAN:

>     Okay, guys.  Do you have a better solution?  If so, propose and do.
>     As mentioned before, the rules aren't perfect and you can change them.
  
        Well, umpteen elections were run with the old rules, and one
        was canceled.

        For example, as abhorrent as I found anonymous campaign
        literature, I can't think of any really fair and effective
        way to ban it.  The only fair and effective way to counter it
        is to allow the targets of such literature to respond
        (without being fired!!!).

        The antidote to bad campaigning is more information, not
        less.

        Bob

    re: .29
    
    The folks that worked on the rules made a reasonable effort to address 
    all relevant complaints and all the relevant feedback (including but
    not limited to mail messages I got, notes I read and so forth) we got 
    from shareholders.  I think the current rules reflect that.  I think 
    the Board will eventually revise the rules.  And, hopefully, they will 
    do this in a way that is sensitive to feedback from shareholders.  
    The rules are in place for the current election and, from what I 
    understand, the candidates intend to abide by them so that we can 
    proceed with the election.  I expect that changes to the rules will be 
    done by the next Board and will apply in the next election.
    
    Steve

RE: Note 850.23 by NACAD2::SHERMAN

>    Okay, guys.  Do you have a better solution?  If so, propose and do.
>    As mentioned before, the rules aren't perfect and you can change them.

I appreciate your candidness, but when rules created without input from
those who it affects (membership included), then I think the 'propose
and do', concept is ill conceived.

It is fairly evident that some of the rules are unenforcible and make
good coffee talk -- nothing more.  They remind us of the CEO's IPP
system of keeping information from the owners.  The less they(members)
know, the less they can be involved with and change.

Seems like the members are always working to change things AFTER some
'DCU' officer/BOD/SC/etc. group has set something up.

The rule that makes me laugh is the 21 date quiet period.  It is
unenforcible and will likely result in a lawsuit on whoever the SC tries
to enforce it on.

Even more laughable is the '2nd' ballot.  I guess the members are not
smart enough to make up their mind the first time and should be allowed
to do it again, within 21 days of the cutoff...

First time I have ever heard of such a ploy.

I wonder if Digital will try and get involved with the 21 day rule on
Digital property?

	- mark

    re: .32
    
    I might accept the assertion except that the rules were done *WITH*
    input from members, candidates and others.  In fact, it might be
    somewhat insulting that someone would accuse this of not being the 
    case when I even invited input in this very note file.  Noters did 
    respond and mailed input to me.  I made a reasonable effort to address
    these and other concerns are part of my effort in the design of the
    rules.  Several meetings were held where input was sought and gotten
    from Board members and from the candidates running in this election.
    The rules weren't released until a lot of conditions were satisfied,
    mostly having to do with the concerns of candidates and shareholders.
    
    Steve

    
    
    But we had rules before!! It doesn't matter if there are a hundred
    rules if they are not enforced. This election was cancelled.. 
    
    	Were rules broken? If so , who has been punished?  If not, why was
    the election cancelled?
    
    This can happen again, there is nothing new here!
    
    ed

re Note 850.33 by NACAD::SHERMAN:

>     I might accept the assertion except that the rules were done *WITH*
>     input from members, candidates and others.  In fact, it might be
>     somewhat insulting that someone would accuse this of not being the 
>     case when I even invited input in this very note file.  Noters did 
>     respond and mailed input to me.  

        You do realize the failing in this logic, don't you?  Those
        who felt that no additional rules were needed most likely
        wouldn't have written in.  Those who think that there should
        be no quiet period would not have written in.   Those that
        think that there shouldn't be a new rule that candidates be
        invalidated due to the acts of supporters wouldn't write in.

        The process -- "write in and then we'll give you the final
        results" -- is inherently flawed.  You need iterations before
        the membership and not just a select few.  The new rules make
        "supporters" -- and that means everyone -- party to their
        candidate's campaigns.  They were not involved.

        Bob

RE: Note 850.33 by NACAD::SHERMAN

>    I might accept the assertion except that the rules were done *WITH*
>    input from members, candidates and others.  In fact, it might be
>    somewhat insulting that someone would accuse this of not being the 
>    case when I even invited input in this very note file.

You are talking about a one way street.  Tell me what is wrong and 'we'
(whoever we is) will fix it.  The problem is you have 'fixed' things
that were not broken.

We are not mind readers and could not offer suggestions on ways of making
things better, unless shown proposals of changes.

I hope that makes it clearer...

I do want to thank you for at least communicating with the membership. 
It is more than our BOD currently does or can do in some cases...

	- mark

re: .31, Steve

>			I expect that changes to the rules will be 
>    done by the next Board and will apply in the next election.

Well, a fat lot of good that will do us when the next board has to be elected
under these rules, which tend to smack of the old and which therefore favor
the status quo.

Steve, I respect and appreciate the effort and the integrity which you have
personally brought to this process.

However, these rules, this board (largely), the bulk of the SC, and the
management and policies of this FCU remain, as always a joke. And a very
poor one at that.


-Jack

    My thoughts on the issue of election rules:
    
    1. Elections are inherently confrontive and "messy" because they
    are contests among individuals, or groups, for control of an
    organization.   Its a war.
    
    2. Efforts to make elections "neat" and orderly with lots or rules is
    counterproductive. The more rules you have the more likely there will
    be arguments and lawsuits as attempts are made to enforce the rules,
    many of which tend to be rather arbitrary, unenforceable, or superfluous.
    
    3. The only really important election rules are those that deal with
    disclosure.  Who is spending money to influence the election, how much
    money, and who is responsible for verbal and written campaign material
    and statements.  The voters need information above everything else.
    
    4. The only rules that need to be enforced are those covered in item 3,
    and they should be vigorously enforced.
    
    I think we should throw the rascals into the ring and let them fight it
    out. 

There was nothing wrong with the current election rules.  The problem was that
DCU REFUSED to enforce them!!!  Had the DCU enforced the current rules, we
wouldn't have had an invalidated election and no need for these new rules.  I
don't see how anything has changed except to further limit information to
the DCU owners.

You can make all the rules you want, but until DCU MANAGEMENT wants a fair
and proper election, it won't make one bit of difference.

Bob

    OK folks, I've had it with the attitude being presented here by what
    you think to be a majority.  You aren't.
    
    I disagree with the basic premise that the participants in this
    election seem to be holding dear .  Any election to a professional
    association by professional people that is messy, considered "a war"
    and proceeds in a confrontational is being run (and those running in
    it) are either politically motivated or extremely immature. 
    
    I want a group of people on the board who are working towards
    maximizing the viability of the credit union and want to work as a
    team.  This means working as a team with the other board members as
    well as with DCU management to increase DCU revenues.  I don't want a
    group of people who will splinter the board, work against DCU
    management, and essentially distract everyone from achieving maximum
    benefit.
    
    The group of people I'm looking for are NOT represented in this
    conference.  This group of people doesn't want to  do the right thing,
    they want to do their thing.
    
    I'll tell you - when Quantum buys SHR and CXO, the DCU branches in
    those facilities will probably close.  At a minimum, access to an
    alternate location will not be convenient and members will move to
    other institutions *unless* DCU provides other reasons to stay.  Right
    now, there are none.  Multiply this by the additional 20000 that won't
    be here any more, and DCU is in deep trouble.   I'd rather have a board
    that was working to address that problem than trying to play the "us
    against them" wars.  A group of mature candidates would be more worried
    about that and trying to work as a team than what has been going on for
    the last year.
    
    Here's the bottom line;  If the 3G's WIN, I walk.

    
    re .40 LEDS::PRIBORSKY
    
    >be here any more, and DCU is in deep trouble.   I'd rather have a board
    >that was working to address that problem than trying to play the "us
    >against them" wars.  A group of mature candidates would be more worried
    >about that and trying to work as a team than what has been going on for
    >the last year.
    
    I'd have to venture an opinion that *BOTH* sides played us vs. them...
    I also think that we're all pretty much mature adults now aren't we?
    Or is your "mature candidates" a euphamism for "NOT ENGINEERS"...
    Anyways that's a rathole for another note... Just remember, at least
    the people who back the 3 G's identified themselves, the "other side"
    didn't have the courtesy (or was it guts) to do so.  Nothing like
    playing on a level surface..
    
    > RE: Rules and "member input"...
    
    Just a comment, if member input was used, then perhaps you should have
    solicited some of the vocal people in this notesfile, that way there
    wouldn't be any complaints... Of course, the rules probably wouldn't be
    written by now, but at least we'd get away from this diatribe...   I
    see that as the biggest problem, DCU mgmt complains about the "small
    group of vocal people" (and vice versa), but when it comes down to
    tryinng to do something better for the DCU, their input isn't valued?
    Just doesn't make sense.
    
    Do you care to identify *ALL* the people who input to this?
    
    FWIW: I think "rules" are necessary, but the fact that we work for a
    company that has a great network that 'could' be used for everyone's
    gain shouldn't be overlooked.  Yes, I realize that not every DCU member
    has access to the network and it's "against company policy to use the
    network for non work solicitations", but since the DCU is somewhat of a
    company benefit (et. al.), then perhaps special considerations could be
    made.
    
    
    
    John
    

re: .40

>>    The group of people I'm looking for are NOT represented in this
>>    conference.  This group of people doesn't want to  do the right thing,
>>    they want to do their thing.
    
  Well then..... open your notebook and DELETE ENTRY DCU

//bruce

    
    > OK folks, I've had it with the attitude being presented here by what
    > you think to be a majority.  You aren't.
    
    First off, how do you know, and secondly, what makes you think we care
    if we are in the majority or not?  We just care about what we think is
    best for the DCU - let a vote decide if we are in the majority.  Maybe
    a vote did, but you and I didn't get to see.
    
    All your notes float the same idea:  dissent = immaturity.  And that's
    really uncalled for.  There's nothing wrong with questioning your 
    precious status quo when they've shown again and again that despite
    all their vaunted "qualifications," they can't run a decent CU.  You 
    seem more interested in the appearance, professional style, and 
    whether or not a board member has and MBA or not, than what that person can
    actually accomplish.  It's that kind of elitism that keeps entrenched
    incompetence in power.
    
    > I want a group of people on the board who are working towards
    > maximizing the viability of the credit union and want to work as a
    > team.
    
    I want a board that gets DCU back on track.  We're all leaving DCU, Tony.
    It doesn't matter if the board plays nice together, it matters if they
    get the job done.  What good is a Board of Director Buddies if the
    DCU can't attract and hold membership?  What will your candidates do
    that's any different than the previous boards, besides have the
    "correct" resume?
    
    > I'll tell you - when Quantum buys SHR and CXO, the DCU branches in
    > those facilities will probably close.  At a minimum, access to an
    > alternate location will not be convenient and members will move to
    > other institutions *unless* DCU provides other reasons to stay.  Right
    > now, there are none.  Multiply this by the additional 20000 that won't
    > be here any more, and DCU is in deep trouble.   I'd rather have a board
    > that was working to address that problem than trying to play the "us
    > against them" wars.
    
    > Here's the bottom line;  If the 3G's WIN, I walk.

    These two statements are so opposed, its almost sad.  You don't really
    want what you're saying in the first part, if you're dead-set against
    a group of people who've promoted wayst to accomplish the very things you 
    say you're looking for.
    
    You're not going to swing many people to your side with condescension, 
    either.
    
    - Sean

    re: .40
    
    Perhaps you could disagree in a less confrontational manner.  It is
    possible to express a view of the election process that differs from
    yours and not be either "politically motivated" or "extremely
    immature".  Also, it doesn't follow that the individuals elected through
    a "messy" election process can't cooperate in the best interest of the
    CU.
    
    I would characterize our differing opinions as a naive, idealized,
    'this is the way I want it to be' view versus a real-world, 'this is
    the way it really is' view.  The process of effecting change in an
    organization is not particularly neat.
    
    In the case of the DCU, if the candidates all held essentially the same
    views I doubt there would be much controversy.  When you have
    candidates that disagree with the status quo and want to make changes,
    then you are set up for confrontation.  To make changes you have to
    make noise.  A 250 word statement in a DCU election flyer doesn't do
    it.  To make changes you need to feel some passion.  To make changes
    you need to say that your ideas are better than someone elses ideas. 
    To make changes you need to convince other voters that your ideas are
    better.  To make changes you need to step on somebody's toes.

    
    Re:

    >    OK folks, I've had it with the attitude being presented here by what
    >you think to be a majority.  You aren't.

    	OH Man!  I'm really sorry I'm so stupid that you have to tell me
    what I'm thinking.  I'm glad you know what is in my head...  Sir! I had
    no idea you were in charge here.  Please forgive me for thinking
    without your permission...

    >I disagree with the basic premise that the participants in this
    >election seem to be holding dear .  Any election to a professional
    >association by professional people that is messy, considered "a war"
    >and proceeds in a confrontational is being run (and those running in
    >it) are either politically motivated or extremely immature. 

    	Sir!  I object to your name calling (immature).  With your obvious
    intelligence, I'm sure you can think of another more appropriate word.
    I would also like to point out that ELECTIONS ARE POLITICAL, contrary
    to the statement you made in you last sentence.  Please be more
    accurate...

    >I want a group of people on the board who are working towards
    >maximizing the viability of the credit union and want to work as a
    >team.  This means working as a team with the other board members as
    >well as with DCU management to increase DCU revenues.  I don't want a
    >group of people who will splinter the board, work against DCU
    >management, and essentially distract everyone from achieving maximum
    >benefit.

    	Well if that is what you want, then vote for it.  I'm sure as heck
    not going to hand you anything.  I suggest you work hard for your
    candidates.  If you expect people just to bow down to your,  ALL
    authoritative presence, you have another thing coming.  The best
    advice I can give is work for you candidate, not against others.

    >The group of people I'm looking for are NOT represented in this
    >conference.  This group of people doesn't want to  do the right thing,
    >they want to do their thing.


    	Sir!  If the people you are looking for aren't here why are you
    looking here?  Most people learn at a very young age to look where they
    expect to find whatever it is they are looking for...
    	I'm impressed that you can read motives of others ( in the last
    sentence I copied ).  You stated that we don't want to do the right
    thing, instead of saying that it appears we don't want to do the right
    thing!  How can you know our motives so well?

    >Here's the bottom line;  If the 3G's WIN, I walk.

    	Sir!  You used the word IMMATURE earlier, and I suggested that you
    find a more appropriate word.  This is one place that the word IMMATURE
    FITS...  I suggest that if the election doesn't go your way, do what
    you have to do, and do it privately, rather than throw a tantrum. That
    way, you can hold your head up knowing you did what your heart told you
    to do.  Telling others, as if to scare them, or make yourself look big,
    is what I would expect from a child, not an ADULT.


    	Sir!  I hardly ever write in this conference.  I had to do so,
    because I PERCEIVE that you  are use to getting your way, and wanted to
    impose it on me and others.  That may not be what you wanted, but that
    is what came across.  Please learn humility, for I saw none in your
    message...

    Jim Morton

Tony,

   Regardless of your perceptions of majorities, or your preferences as to
the winners in this election, plenty of folks are walking already. Regardless
of your stand on the matter.

But thanks anyway,
-Jack

    
    RE: .40
    
    Knowing one of the 3Gs personally (Dave Garrod), I think that you
    might need to mature a bit more.  So you might as well start walking
    (this is a real mature response on your part).  Dave was my supervisor
    (and mentor early on in my career).  In the case of what he wants for
    DCU, it has nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with their thing.  They
    truely and honestly feel that a majority of the current BoD are only
    rubber stamping DCU managements thing.  And DCU management are doing
    their thing (e.g., keeping profits from the membership to be dispersed
    to DCU employees [which should be done for the top 1-5% performers
    only], putting policy in place to prevent owners from having *ANY*
    control over what happens to DCU, not being BEST in class, etc.).
    
    The 3Gs want to make DCU best-in-class and the first choice for
    members when wanting to business with any bank/credit union.  If you
    have not figured this out for yourself, then YOU have not been mature
    enough to read, and understand, what the 3Gs are trying to do fo the
    membership as a whole.  If, after reading and understanding what the
    3Gs would like to do with/for DCU, you still do not think they would be
    doing what's best for DCU, then, please, feel free to vote for someone
    who you thing would.  This is your right/privilege.
    
    BTW: I'm affended that you had to attack the 3Gs by calling them
    immature.  I think it would be within my right to report you and have
    your note removed, but that would not be the mature thing to do.  So,
    please, feel free to continue to speak your mind.
    
    ~Jon.
    
    PS:  The above is my opinion and is therefore subject to being
    erroneous.  I welcome any responses what will allow me to adjust any
    errors in my opinions.

    .40 ff:
    
    The "3Gs" promise change, particularly regarding things about members
    have been complaining (and leaving with their money, in too many
    cases).
    
    Of the other three candidates, two are incumbents, and one might
    reasonably presume that if elected the future will reflect the past.
    
    If the supporters of change should win, some fraction of those who are
    satisfied with policies of the recent past (such as Tony, it seems) can
    be expected to leave.  If the other candidates should win, it seems
    credible that some fraction of their critics will pull out their money
    and leave;  to judge by the participants in this forum, that group
    would outnumber the first, although the self-selection of participants
    makes this assumption a shaky proposition.
    
    Tony is on the money in his statements about the shrinking of the
    membership.  Given the current definitions of eligibility for
    membership, it's unclear to me why any member should be given any
    encouragement to take his (or her) money elsewhere.
    
    Dick

    
    
    
    
    Wow, Steve. I believe you are failing us.
    

Re: .50

>    Wow, Steve. I believe you are failing us.

Could you be more specific?  

The request was only for more detail and specifics.  The suggestion could lead
to a clearer and more precise statement of campaign issues.  There was no
suggestion that a more precise statement of the same issues would not be
published.

Al

    re: .50
    
    I don't blame you.  I might have felt the same way if I didn't
    know what I know now.                          
    
    By the way, the response is in reference to candidate materials
    submitted by the candidates to the Supervisory Committee.  Also,
    as to "failing" I anticipate that the assertion is in reference to 
    the position of the Supervisory Committee to review candidate 
    materials as opposed to guaranteeing that materials will be immune 
    to claims of violation.
    
    Steve

    
    
    	These are simple views that I want to hear. So that I can
    	make my own judgements.
    
    	To censure this tells me there is strong fear.
    
    	Smoke/fire and I have lost all trust. 
    
    	I'm amazed how angry I feel. How bland do you want the campaign.
    	"This is me , my experience and I think I can do a better job."
    	Ooops 'I can do a better job', *might* suggest that someone else
    	is doing a lousy job.
    	
    	I'm truly glad that the last election was voided. My votes are-a
    	changing.
    
    
    
    
    
>C. We have some concerns regarding the "Commentary from Director Paul
>Kinzelman"
>   sheet.  Sections of this may be in conflict with rules 1 and 2.  In
>   particular:
>
> "Furthermore, the recent Board Memo ... is completely onesided and
>         contains false information ..."

>>   This statment may lead to violation in that it can be argued to be a
>>   "misleading statement."  The argument may not present all of the "facts"
>>   regarding the memo, may lead one to believe the Board Memo was invalid,
>>   may not sufficiently present which information is false with explanation
>>   as to why and may be taking what information is provided out of context.
>>   In addition, those who drafted and approved the Board Memo may argue that
>>   the above represents a "false statement" and that the memo presents an
>>   objective (versus "onesided") opinion.  As such, the statment would be
>>   "defamatory."

>        "Decisions are made purely on the basis of financial numbers without
>         regard for the membership."

> " ... the majority is not listening to the membership."

>>  These statements may lead to violation in that they can be argued to
>>   "defame" since the Board can demonstrate through its minutes that it has
>>   debated issues, reviewed member surveys and otherwise observed more than
>>   just financial concerns.

>>   There may be more among the implications that could also lead to
>>complaint.  
>>  However, the above appeared to be explicit and not readily dismissed,
>>should
>>   a complaint be lodged with the SC concerning them.

>D. "HOW A REAL CREDIT UNION WORKS" could be argued, in its presentation, to 
>  include "misleading statements."  It may be argued that significant facts
>   regarding the financial standing of the LAFCU are be missing.  It is our
>   understanding that the financial standing of LAFCU are apparently and
>   significantly different from that of the DCU.  Thus, the manner of
>   presentation may be "misleading" in violation of rule 1.

>   In addition, there is no aknowledgement of permission to reproduce the 
>   article from LAFCU.  This is likely not explicitly in violation of any of 
>   the campaign rules but may be in violation of copyright law.
   

    re: .53
    
    Now, hold on there!  The SC is *explicitly* not censuring.  This is an 
    *opinion* from the SC -- NOT approval or disapproval.  This opinion was
    kept confidential within the SC and not shared with anyone except the
    candidate wanting review.  (It was the candidate that requested the
    opinion be posted here and the SC had no objections.  Confidentiality
    was maintained so as to avoid injury to the candidate's campaign.  We
    will continue to maintain confidentiality concerning candidate
    materials and other information entrusted to us.)  The SC is not
    rebuking.  It is a review and the candidates are free to modify their 
    documents as they see fit, if at all.
    
    Even if the SC figures there could be a violation, it does *NOT* mean
    there will be.  In general, there needs to be a complaint first.  Note that
    the very first lines of the election rules state that the DCU is *NOT* 
    intending to police or censure.  The rest of the rules build on this
    concept with restraint and an emphasis on balancing the rights of folks
    to campaign with the rights of shareholders to an orderly process.
    
    And, let's say that even after a "cleanup" there is *still* a violation,
    perhaps one that the SC missed.  The candidate that had the material
    reviewed STILL HAS a document showing that the violation was missed by
    the SC and that the candidate operated in good faith.  The SC *must*
    take this into consideration in an investigation and in any
    recommendations, in my opinion.
    
    Finally, if there is a real violation that the candidate missed, that
    the SC missed and that results in a second ballot.  Look at who
    has the final say.  It's the shareholders.  The shareholders decide 
    whether this violation should result in any changes to a vote.
    
    And, in the end I trust and accept the vote of the majority of the
    shareholders.  Let the candidates campaign freely and vigorously.
    As an SC member I do what I can to support that, including reviewing
    their materials in advance as they request.  Then, let the members
    decide.
    
    Steve

Given the generally bad state of spelling in most DEC (excuse me, Digital)
notes confereneces, I wonder whether .53 really meant "censure" or if it
was a bad spelling of "censor".

-Hal

re: .55

>Given the generally bad state of spelling in most DEC (excuse me, Digital)
>notes confereneces ...
               ^
               |
I see I'm no exception! :-)

-Hal

re: .52, Steve

>   I might have felt the same way if I didn't know what I know now.

Steve, once again let me state that I appreciate your effort and
involvement. However, statements such as the above, while they may
help you feel personally more at ease with the situation, add no
benefit for the frustrated members who observe this travesty in
the silence provided to us.

The silence and indifference seen from DCU management and DIGITAL
management is almost more palatable than "If you knew what I knew".
Even "Trust me" begins to wear thin in matters associated with
this FCU. We don't know what you know, and trust is dissipating
at a greatly accelerated rate.

-Jack

    
    
    
    .56 I lesser person would have deleted and rewrote .55
    
    

    So, Jack, if I understand what you are saying, you would rather I
    remain silent as it is more palatable?  Hey, it's easy to keep quiet. 
    I can do that ...
    
    Steve

Personally speaking, yes, that would be preferable to statements which
indicate that there are extenuating circumstances upon which you cannot
comment further. Those simply add to the frustration and leave folks
speculating aimlessly as to what else may be afoot.

I'm sure, as always, that my feelings aren't widely shared.

-Jack

    
    
    
    I'm sure that Jack has a better imagination than me, because
    I can't even begin to speculate.
    
    :|
    
    

    
    The point Jack's trying to make, and I agree, is that there is nothing
    more frustrating than to be told by somebody that they have incredible
    information -- but that they can't tell you about it.
    
    "I have this GREAT secret, but I promised not to tell you!"
    
    It makes us all feel even more like outsiders, like being prohibited from 
    the club.  When somebody says "Trust me, I know what's going on, I can't 
    talk about it, but if only you knew!...." it can never come off as 
    anything less than condescending (just by default).  It's just human
    nature to be annoyed by that.
    
    I *know* you don't mean it that way, Steve.  I, like everyone else,
    appreciate the efforts anybody puts into making the DCU better.  But, 
    in the end, if there's a bunch of stuff you're doing that we can't 
    know about, well, we (the member/owners) aren't really a whole lot better 
    off than we were before, are we?
    
    If we feel like we're in the dark and powerless, we're probably going to 
    get out of that situation.
    
    - Sean

    Well, the truth is that there is a bunch of stuff that I'm working on
    that is confidential.  That's part of the nature of being on the SC.
    But, if what I'm doing doesn't make the members better off, then
    there's no point to putting any effort in at all.  I prefer
    the concept of letting everybody see everything, but that is *not* the
    nature of information handled by the SC.
    
    I *do* expect that in time folks *will* know about some of the stuff 
    we're doing.  But, even Directors don't get to see *all* of the stuff 
    the SC does.  Back to the topic at hand, the SC and others have made
    the election rules public.  What is not public are the complaints that
    led to the rules, attorney-client discussions, executive sessions and
    so forth.  I have to exercise discretion if/when I mention things from
    those areas, striking a balance between reasoning and compromising
    confidences.
    
    By rights, I don't *have* to say anything.  But, as I try to strike
    that balance I sometimes have had to bite my tongue when it comes to
    providing more concrete information.  It's a lot easier to just be
    quiet and not give anyone a peek into what goes on behind the scenes. 
    But, if has been asserted, folks would rather I keep quiet, as I
    mentioned, that's a lot easier to do.
    
    Steve                                

    
    Steve,
    
    As others have, I will continue to thank you for sharing what you can.
    I am also thankful for what you personally bring to the effort to make
    the best of DCU. I am aware of the difficulties inherent in being just
    a part of a committee. That said...
    
    The SC has failed miserably to improve the DCU election process. What
    was called for was a strict application of a then much simpler set of
    election rules -- particularly prohibiting the involvement of DCU
    employees in election affairs. What was delivered was an overblown
    set of draconian measures aimed at returning the DCU elections to the
    state they were in before anything interesting ever happened: "I'm OK,
    you're OK. Life is good. Vote for me." Rather than allowing useful
    debate to occur in a reasonable manner, the new rules will stifle
    such debate and support the status quo. The work of the SC in this area
    is a grave detriment to the health of the credit union.
    
    Please feel free to forward this opinion to other members of the SC and
    others who were involved in formulatig the new election rules.
    

    
    .49 has been hidden at the request of Paul Kinzelman, who is quoted in
    some of the election material referenced therein.
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    

    re: .64
    
    Dang!  Well, at least this begins to explain that pesky "666" birthmark
    on my scalp ...
    
    Steve

Don't take it personally, Steve. You are but one member of a committee
which didn't have much credibility to begin with.

-Jack

RE: Note 850.65 by WLDBIL::KILGORE
    
>    .49 has been hidden at the request of Paul Kinzelman, who is quoted in
>    some of the election material referenced therein.

For those who are interested in what .49 said, see alt.digital.dcu for the document.

	- mark

    
    The following is posted at the request of DCU BoD candiadate and former
    DEC employee Phil Gransewicz, and with the permission of the original
    author.
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    
    -------------------
    
From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]"  2-AUG-1994 06:56:21.32
To:	wldbil::Kilgore
CC:	
Subj:	Please post


Bob & Bill,

Please post this in the DCU conference.  It is the latest Supervisory
Comm. response to our submission of 3 entirely new pages for
distribution in the packages that would be available in the DCU
branches.  It is clear that is not much we can say that CAN'T
be interpretted as a violation of the current rules.  We will have
to count on the intelligence of all DCU members to see through
these rules and how they may be enforced.  These rules clearly
interfere with a candidates ability to express an opinion without
issuing 3 pages of counter arguments (the role of our opponents).

We waited several months for this election re-run.  We have tried
to comply with these rules.  It appears that the only way we can
be sure of complying without fear of "misinformation", "misleading
statements",  "minimizing the issues", etc. is to be silent.  We will
NOT be silent on the issues and WILL express our opinions and 
invite our opponents to do the same.  Let the membership decide
who is right or wrong and who they want to lead their credit union.

I hope all DCU members can read this.  What is happening is exactly
what we are fighting to change at DCU.  I hope DCU members recognize
this and support us in our efforts to return DCU to its CREDIT UNION roots
and an environment where opinions and different approaches are valued
and considered.

Regards,
Phil







Subj:	Response to request for review ...
Date:	94-08-01 22:13:42 EDT
From:	[email protected]
To:	Gransewicz













     DCU Supervisory Committee
     Digital Emplyees' Federal Credit Union

     August 1, 1994



Christopher C. Fillmore-Gillett
P.O. Box 615
Bolton, MA   01740


Dear Chris,

We're sending this to you by e-mail to quicken things.  Per your request, we
are also copying this message to David Garrod and Philip Gransewicz.  You
will 
also be receiving a hard copy of this memo, either by FAX or by mail.  

Today, SC members have both reviewed and discussed the campaign materials
that
you provided.  As with previous reviews, this review represents the opinion
of the Supervisory Committee and explicitly does not represent approval,
disapproval, rebuke or blame.  Further, we do not intend to control or order
you or your associates as to your publication of these materials.  We are
maintaining confidence regarding the content of your materials so as not to
interfere with your right to a free and vigorous campaign.

We received the materials yesterday afternoon (Sunday, July 31).  The
materials
consisted of a cover sheet, and three attached sheets; "VOTE THE ISSUES," 
"VOTE THE NUMBERS" and "VOTE THE FUTURE."  Per our previous correspondence 
with you over e-mail, we found it necessary to render an opinion later than 
your stated deadline of 5:00 PM on August 1, 1994.  Review by the Supervisory
Committee is voluntary.  Again, our intent is not to police or censure.  

Though you mention in your cover sheet that you base facts and raw data
on materials, we did not attempt to verify all of your claims or
calculations.
We trust that your numbers do not use DCU Confidential sources and that you
will be able to successfully defend your figures should there be complaint of
election rule violation concerning the accuracy of these.  This review takes
no position as to the confidentiality of all of your sources, trusting that,
per your cover letter, you will obtain clearance as necessary via DCU General
Counsel.  Should you need clearance regarding specific portions of your
documents you can also get such from the Supervisory Committee.

We will be glad to review specific calculations and quotations should you
reasonably cite references and provide sufficient notes for each specific
calculation or quotation of concern.  We do not feel compelled to search
through all of DCU's reports, minutes and surveys in order to construct a
basis for your figures or to find specific quotations.  But, we do note in
this review those calculations and quotations that we feel could potentially
be of concern as well as justification for why these may be of concern.
                                                     
We have the following concerns and comments regarding these materials:


A. We have the following concerns related to the sheet, "VOTE THE ISSUES":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 "Did you know that DCU fees are already 21.4% ($505,983 in 1993) above 
  the national average for credit unions?"

We have not confirmed the accuracy of the figures cited.  Assuming the
figures
are accurate, it could result in violation of election rule 1.  In
particular, 
we are concerned that this statement may be ruled "misleading" or "unfairly
slanted."  Considerations not mentioned could include the standing or
practices 
of credit union peers, the relatively high number of branch personnel that
DCU 
requires to meet member demand for local services, the fundamental costs of 
services, recommendations from independent audits and so forth.  The 
implication of this statement is that fees are too high, which may not be the

case when taking the above into consideration.

 "... It's time for DCU to stop doing business like a commercial,
  profit-driven BANK ..."

It is clearly implied here that DCU is currently run like a "BANK."  As DCU
is 
chartered and run as a Credit Union, verified by independent audits and peer 
reviews, this implication could be argued to be "misleading" and in violation

of rule 1.


B. We have the following concerns related to the sheet, "VOTE THE NUMBERS":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 " ... which DCU management attributed to 'account cleanup'"

This could be argued to be a violation of election rule 2 in that by quoting
'account cleanup' and without clarification this could amount to the
implication that DCU management was lying about the reasons for the
membership
decline.  As such, it could be interpreted as "defamation."

 "... We believe a more moderate net income is the proper approach
         for a credit union.  The members that have contributed to the
success
  of the credit union should and must share in that success."

This is apparently in conflict with the opinion of DCU's external and
independent auditors, DCU management and the majority of the current Board
who 
have recommended a continued increase in the capital ratio.  In the above 
discussion and in the accompanying chart "Capital Ratio and Equity Growth" 
there is no mention of DCU's capital ratio targets, its standings with
respect 
to its peers or the reasonings behind the current ratio goal.  Though you 
express it as your common belief, it could be argued that implication of 
impropriety in your conclusion is a "misleading statement" that is materially

"incomplete" and in violation of rule 1.  

Further, the implication that contributing members currently do not share in 
the success in the credit union may also be considered "misleading."  It
could
be argued that the increased capital ratio results in improved financial 
security in the institution and that this is a benefit for all shareholders.
Thus, the implication could be argued to be in violation of rule 1.

 "... DCU does not pay rent for its branches on Digital property.  All
  of these savings result in greater net income for DCU which we believe
  should be shared with DCU's members/owners."

This statement does not mention the relatively high number of branches that 
DCU maintains with respect to its peers.  It ignores the associated costs of 
personnel required to maintain those branches and the relation that this has
to the overal cost of services.  As such, the above statement could be 
considered "misleading" or materially "incomplete" and in violation of rule
1.


C. We have the following concerns related to the sheet, "VOTE THE FUTURE":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 " ...  The ownership should expect no less, in the form of bonus
  dividends and loan interest rebates.  A portion of profits must be
  set aside each year for the membership."

What is being proposed here seems to be conflict with what DCU's external and
independent auditors have recommended for the credit union.  It could be
argued that this fact is substantial and that its absence would leave the
above materially "incomplete," "misleading" and in violation of rule 1.

 "DCU must listen to its membership..."

This statement implies that DCU does not listen to its membership.  This
could
be argued to be a "false statement" citing surveys, board minutes and so
forth
as proof.  Thus, the statement could be argued to be in violation of rule 1.

 "62.1% of surveyed members believe that 'all members should have 
 free checking'" 

The above claim is apparently from the response given to question 15 from the
recent phone survey.  In the above claim, it is not mentioned that members 
effectively changed position when responding to questions 26 and 27 from that

same survey.  This concept is in line with comments from the surveyor on page
23 of the survey.  Thus, it could be argued that this statement is
"misleading" 
and in violation of rule 1.

 "The capital ratio must be grown ...  However, this should not be the
  sole focus of managment and the Board."

The above statement implies that the sole focus of the management and Board 
of the credit union is to build the capital ratio.  As such, it could be
argued
to be a "misleading" statement and in violation of rule 1.  The use of
surveys,
Board minutes, newsletters and other documents could be cited as proof.

 "We believe it is inappropriate to fee the membership when there is no
  good business reason."

The above statement implies that the management and Board have engaged in
inappropriate behavior with "no good business reason."  As such, it could be 
argued to be a "misleading" statement and in violation of rule 1.  The use of

audit results and recommendations based on peer review could be cited as
proof
of propriety and of sound business reasoning.


==============================================================================
==

Again, any changes you make are voluntary.  We cannot guarantee that your 
final result would be immune to member complaint or future Supervisory 
Committee action.  However, we appreciate the opportunity to pre-screen your 
campaign materials and anticipate that this cooperation will reduce 
probabilities of any difficulties.  We hope that the opinions rendered here 
will be useful to you.  If you have questions or concerns, feel free to
contact 
any Supervisory Committee member.



     Sincerly,



     Steve Sherman
     DCU Supervisory Committee


----------------------- Headers ------------------------
From [email protected] Mon Aug  1 22:12:21 1994
Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by mailgate.prod.aol.net with SMTP
 (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA25811; Mon, 1 Aug 94 22:12:21 -0400
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from us1rmc.bb.dec.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/27May94)
 id AA20824; Mon, 1 Aug 94 19:06:00 -0700
Received: from netcad.enet by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94)
 id AA18126; Mon, 1 Aug 94 22:06:01 -0400
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Received: from netcad.enet; by us1rmc.enet; Mon, 1 Aug 94 22:06:01 EDT
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 94 22:06:01 EDT
From: Steve NACAD::Sherman LKG2-A/R5 pole AA2 DTN 226-6992  01-Aug-1994 2205
<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
        mail11:;%[email protected] (@dcusc),
        [email protected]
Apparently-To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Response to request for review ...
AOL-Member: gransewicz




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us2rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA28158; Tue, 2 Aug 94 06:51:29 -040
% Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/27May94) id AA12886; Tue, 2 Aug 94 03:52:28 -070
% Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA07231; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 06:51:54 -040
% From: [email protected]
% X-Mailer: America Online Mailer
% Sender: "Gransewicz" <[email protected]>
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: wldbil::Kilgore
% Date: Tue, 02 Aug 94 06:51:53 EDT
% Subject: Please post
    

    
    Basically, it sounds as if you can't say that you think anything is
    wrong with the present management of the DCU. And why would you want to
    change anything if nothing is wrong.
    
    ed

So, there shouldn't be any question in anyone's mind at this point as to
which side in this election the Supervisory Committee is on, right?

If this weren't so pitiful, it would be laughable.

-Jack

    
    It's beyond pitiful... I don't know why the 3G's even bother. I took
    most of my money out already and moved it to St. Marys CU in 
    Marlboro --- definately check them out if youre local --- and the
    rest is out after reading the SC's comments...
    
    I do have a question for the SC though.
    
    If the statements were preceeded with clarification as follows, would you
    still feel the need to comment as you did?
    
    "It is our belief that..."
    
    "In our opinion..."
    
    "Based on our research..."
    
    "We have observed that..."    etc..
    
    
    thanks for your reply,
    Karen
    
    

Steve,

  How would you suggest a candidate word a statement that holds a different
opinion from the BODs?  

  The statements seemed made by the 3Gs seemed as direct and as backed by 
data as any opinion could be.  Could you give us an example of a properly
worded campaign statemet for comparison?

Al Cook

    
    

	Merely a hypothetical situation:

	Suppose I were on the SC and, in the long run sympathetic to the 3Gs.
Suppose I also knew from being on the SC and things that had been said to me that
that person or persons in opposition to the 3Gs would attempt to use the rules to
work at getting the 3Gs disqualified.  Would I not then wish to subject the
voluntarily submitted material to minute scrutiny so as not to give any possible
opening to the opposition?



	(I have no knowledge that the above paragraph reflects any actual events.
It is merely one possible conclusion I could draw from a set of data that has been
presented both here and in alt.digital.dcu.  I make no claim that it represents the
feelings or motives of anyone involved in any way with this election. It just goes
to show that from most any set of results, one can draw any of a large set of
conclusions. Title and tax extra. Some assembly required. Ask your doctor. Void
where prohibited by law.  Color and styling may vary from illustrations. Not
recommended for children under 3 years.)


						--Doug

     re. 74
    
    If you were on the SC and sympathetic to the 3G's, would you have 
    approved rules that are ambiguous to the degree that any attempt to state 
    an oppossing position could be grounds for disqualification?
    
    It seems that the ones who approved the rules have essentially tied the 
    hands of those who dare to campaign for change in the current BOD. Is that 
    sympathetic (or ethical, or honest)?
    
    /K
    

re: .75

	Without answering the specific question (since I, in fact was playing an
intellectual game of 'what other theory can I fit to the facts'), I will offer the
following as anecdotal evidence of committee/board interaction:


	My community theater group wanted to change the ticket exchange policy for
subscribers.  The current, very liberal exchange policy was causing a hardship on
the box office and the person volunteering was threatening to quit if it didn't
tighten up.  The board initially voted to go to no exchanges, but the membership
voted that down at one of our meetings.  I volunteered to sit on a committee
(actually, I volunteered to draft a proposal - I got saddled with a committee)
to develop a new exchange policy.  I was not the chair of the committe.

	I drafted a proposal. We met.  The current box office person couldn't
attend, but sent along her proposal which we all pretty much agreed was too
restrictive.  We compromised between my proposal and hers (the major issue being
the number of days before performance that the tickets had to be returned for
exchange - this is an issue since the it has to be done via mail) and the
proposal was given to the chair to deliver at the next board meeting.

	At the next general meeting, I was quite surprised to discover that the
chair of the committe had delivered not only the committee's proposal, but the
original proposal from the box office person and the board, fearful of having
the box office person quit, had voted her proposal in.  This was written up in
the minutes as "at the recommendation of the ticket exchange policy committee."
Needless to say, we had quite a few words about that.

				********

	Sometimes it's just that you have to make the best of a bad situation.
I've often been stuck working with guidelines I actively fought against.  Once
again, I'm not claiming any additional knowledge, I just think that a lot of 
people in this conference are ready to yell "Conspiracy" every time anything they
don't like happens.  

	For the record.  While I agree with Phil philosophically on most things, 
I don't always agree with his methods.   I'm watching... if I don't see a change
in the way things are going, I've got a fair chunk-o-money in DCU that's going to
be looking for another home.

					--Doug

>people in this conference are ready to yell "Conspiracy" every time anything they
>don't like happens.  

Actually, what I would like is clarification on what the committee considers
an acceptable campaign statement.  Surely, they had some type of campaign in
mind when the rules were written.


Steve,

  Could you elaborate on what would be considered an appropriate campaign 
statement that would show an alternative to what the current board is 
proposing.  I think that would help us understand.

Al

re: .-1, Doug

>						I just think that a lot of 
> people in this conference are ready to yell "Conspiracy" every time anything
> they don't like happens.  

Personally, if I were thinking about "conspiracies", I'd be naming names.
I think what's happening, rather, is people noting that the situation
stinks, and it's not going unnoticed. What's the point in being "involved"
in a situation if you don't speak up about your concerns regarding it?

-Jack

    I appreciate the response folks are having here.  Though I don't always
    agree, I encourage folks to speak up.
    
    I'd like to share a bit of insight on what it's like to have to deal
    with reviewing campaign materials in general.  For one thing, pretty
    quickly you have to make some decisions about what you're trying to do. 
    It is awfully tempting to try to "coach" someone and tell them what
    they should or shouldn't say.  But, that gets you into the area of
    censuring or giving unfair advantage.  Or, you'd like to control 
    what someone says.  But, that gets you into the area of policing.  
    Right off the bat, the rules establish that censuring and policing 
    are, as a rule, a no-no for DCU.
    
    In reviewing, the SC is obligated to render an opinion as to whether
    what is being reviewed is in compliance with the rules.  That means
    we have to reasonably determine whether or not we think the material 
    is misleading, defamatory, disparaging and so forth.  In my opinion, 
    if one is going to campaign in this election and has a different 
    opinion, this is A Good Thing.  But, the election rules also emphasize 
    that *how* you campaign is also important.  In *this* election, you 
    are not supposed to defame, mislead, disparage and so forth or be at
    risk of violating the rules.  
    
    What is at issue is also having to balance between the rights of
    candidates to a free and vigorous campaign and the rights of members to
    an orderly process and an informed choice.  The Supervisory Committee
    has to weigh that balance and measure against the rules.  I would be
    the first to admit I make mistakes (but I usually have to wait in line).
    I'm not claiming we're perfect.  But, I do claim that we on the
    Supervisory Committee are trying to be as objective, careful,
    reasonable and independent as we reasonably can in this election.
    And, we intend to continue to support and enforce the rules as well as
    we reasonably can.                                      
    
    Steve

    
    	After reading .69 it's plain to me the powers that be have put in 
    place a set of rules that make it against the rules to say or do any 
    thing against the status quo which is what the opposition against the 
    three G's wants.  Well my money and business is long gone from DCU (the 
    straw that broke the camels back for me was changing my Christmas club 
    to a Holiday club but that's another story) and all that's left is the 
    minimum savings account so I can vote.  My only question is, is it 
    against the rules to vote for the three G's? (sarcasm intended)

    Joe                       

Maybe the 3Gs should just publish their material and append the SC's opinion. 
This would be like the health warning on a pack of cigarettes.  It would
also give the electorate a chance to see what's going on.

    
    
    
    
    The DCU is not even close to going 'The Right Thing'.
    It's what the members want.
    
    Watch the election and see what the people want.

How come we haven't seen any statements from DIGITAL management regarding
their view of these rules?

Steve,

>    It is awfully tempting to try to "coach" someone and tell them what
>    they should or shouldn't say.  But, that gets you into the area of
>    censuring or giving unfair advantage.  


  I'm not asking for a rewording of the 3G document.  I should think it would
not be unreasonable to ask for an example of a generic campaign statement
that could be used as a model.  Otherwise it's a case of '20 questions' 
until the election is over.

Al Cook

    re: .84
    
    I think the ideal situation would include friendly, unhurried and 
    open dialog between the candidates and the SC after a review so 
    that they can informally discuss any SC concerns.
    
    Steve

    
    Note 850.69 has been set hidden at the request of Corporate Employee
    Relations. More information concerning this request should be available
    early next week.
    
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    

RE: Note 850.86 by WLDBIL::KILGORE

>    Note 850.69 has been set hidden at the request of Corporate Employee
>    Relations. More information concerning this request should be available
>    early next week.

If this is the letter from SC to 3G's about their pamphlet's, I notice
that the hidden message is available on the Internet in the newsgroup:

	alt.digital.dcu
	Title: 'New "rules" applied'

	- mark

>    Note 850.69 has been set hidden at the request of Corporate Employee
>    Relations. 

    Did "Corporate Employee Relations" cite a reason or policy violation?

    --Steve

re: .86

Well, I guess that's a partial answer to the question I posed in .83.

sheesh,
-Jack

    Well, I only have $5 in my DCU account, so my interest is philosophical
    rather than personal.
    
    Consider this likely scenario:  Someone campaigning states that various
    things have happened under the administration of the current board;
    fees have risen, membership has decreased, whatever.  And let's say
    that these statements are appropriately documented facts.  Facts are
    okay, according to the rules, but disparagement is not.  The intent
    behind these facts is obviously to disparage the management of the
    current board.  So, are they legal or not?

	Chelsea,

	I would offer that any communication or comments, in any notesfiles, 
	that can reasonably be interpreted as electioneering, campaigning, or 
	solicitation for, or on behalf of any candidate for Election to the 
	DCU Board will be prohibited, for the pendency of the election.

	My expectation is that there will be a communication of such to all
	employees.

	-Ken

Hi Ken!

Long time no see!

That would kinda result in no discussion in notes whatsoever, wouldn't it?

-Jack

    Ah, but what about telephone solicitation?  I seem to recall some
    remarks about that during the balloting that was suddenly voided.
    
    Dick

    
    Re .69, .86:
    
    Note 850.69 has been unhidden by agreement with Corporate Employee
    Relations.
    
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    

re Note 850.79 by NACAD2::SHERMAN:

>     What is at issue is also having to balance between the rights of
>     candidates to a free and vigorous campaign and the rights of members to
>     an orderly process and an informed choice.  The Supervisory Committee
>     has to weigh that balance and measure against the rules.  

The problem with the current rules and the apparent approach to enforcing them
is that there is no balance:  "orderly process" wins out over "free and
vigorous campaign" and "informed choice".

The rules as currently written are just plain *bad*.  To enforce them as-is is
to create a sham election.

Bob

    I don't seem to recall that Federal, State, and Local elections have
    such a rule as "quiet time".  That rule is only utilized in Kindegarten
    or early childhood education!

    Election Freeze
    
    In compliance with regulations of the Senate Rules Committee for a
    Senator who is a candidate for any public office, no materials will be
    electronically posted to the Internet or other computer bulletin boards
    from Senator Kennedy's office between July 23rd and November 8th,
    Election Day. Senator Kennedy's WWW pages and FTP directories at M.I.T.
    are frozen, except for routine maintenance. The Senator's Gopher site
    and FTP archives at the Senate will also remain largely inactive. But,
    the Senator's electronic mail address ([email protected]) will
    remain active. 
    
    
    								-mr. bill

RE: .97

That's so there is no question about using congressional resources to 
further a campaign, which is illegal. That seems like a legitimate "freeze".
The equivalent would be no political advertising on TV for 2 weeks prior
to election day.

We should just sit down and say "Yes, Teacher."
1/2 :-)

Bryan

RE: Note 850.97 by MSBCS::LICEA_KANE

>    Election Freeze
    
>    In compliance with regulations of the Senate Rules Committee for a
>    Senator who is a candidate for any public office, no materials will be
>    electronically posted to the Internet or other computer bulletin boards

This is done to make sure there is not any usage of government funds for
electioneering and to keep the playing ground even for all people trying
to get elected.

This is a reasonable thing to do.

IF Kennedy had a seperate internet address that he personnally paid for
all the time, then he should be allowed to use it all the time.

	-mark

    Ah, I see.
    
    Kennedy and his staff should be permitted to post information to an
    internet address such as www.ai.mit.edu (with tenuous ties at best to
    taxpayer funds), but should not post to an internet address like
    ftp.senate.gov.
    
    Except of course, the rules prohibit Kennedy and his staff from posting
    to www.ai.mit.edu.
    
    								-mr. bill

If Kennedy is posting information about him and/or his campaign from an account
or access they get for free within the election timeframe, it could be a
violation of FEC rules, because that is an "in-kind" contribution, and would
have to be within the FEC rules and reported on their campaign finance report.
If the "Kennedy for Senate '94" committee *buys* an account and posts things,
that is ok, and Mark is right, it is completely different.

And Mark is also correct about not using government owned equipment for
campaigning. The stuff at MIT is not, to my knowledge, government owned. Do you
have knowledge about it being "government owned?" That's not the same as
"government paid for." Using it still could be a violation, even if it isn't.

FEC rules are VERY confusing, almost as if they are intended to be..

Bryan

    Posting to the internet by Senator Kennedy is *NOT* in violation of any
    FEC rules, it is in violation of Senate Rules.
    
    For postings of information by members of Government currently up for
    re-election *to* government internet servers, see for example:
    
    http://ftp.senate.gov:70/0/committee/Repub-Policy/releases/crime_bill
    
    
    Which is all quite besides the point.  There are indeed similar "quiet"
    times which effect other elections.
    
    								-mr. bill

re:  <<< Note 850.40 by LEDS::PRIBORSKY "AVASTOR: A Digital Equipment Company" >>>

I was just thinking, on this "Eve of the quiet period" -

I wonder if Tony still feels the same way he did when he originally posted
that reply, given the turn of events we've witnessed in the interim.

It's even possible that we can discuss that matter without talking about
the candidates, the sides, or the election itself, assuming we're careful.

re Note 850.103 by TOOK::DELBALSO:

> It's even possible that we can discuss that matter without talking about
> the candidates, the sides, or the election itself, assuming we're careful.
  
        I never really thought that this kind of gag order, and
        resulting atmosphere, could happen here.

        Bob

Hey! Welcome to the New DIGITAL, Bob!

:^)
-Jack

    FWIW, last election, my 17 year old son was able to vote altho his
    account is a trust account (ITA?) under my own. This time, he is not 
    eligible to vote because their names are under the trust account.
    
    One less ballot, one less vote.

        re: -1
    
        "This is DIGITAL, not DEC"
    
        I would like someone to show me where DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
        has a trademark or copyright on "DIGITAL." On the logo, yes. The
    	work, no.
    
        It *has* a trademark on  "DEC."
    
          Ben
        DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
    

Digital claims it has a trademark on "Digital".  You're quite right to be
skeptical, though.  For the saga, see note 2433 in HUMANE::DIGITAL.

					Steve

re: .108

I think you've missed the whole point.  Things that would have never happened
when the place we work at called itself "DEC", are now commonplace at the
place that calls itself "Digital", even if no one else does.

Bob