| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 865.1 | | NACAD2::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Fri Aug 12 1994 12:39 | 6 |
| One should still submit a complaint with the SC. My understanding is
that if satisfaction is not obtained from the SC, one can also go to
the insuring authority, the NCUA. One can also consult independent
legal authorities for satisfaction.
Steve
|
| 865.2 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | DCU 3Gs -- fired but not forgotten | Fri Aug 12 1994 12:40 | 13 |
|
Re .0:
The best bet would be to contact Steve Sherman or another SC member
directly. See one of the first notes in this conference for SC contact
info.
My personal opinion, though, is that the first election should never
have been canceled, that this election should not be canceled, and tha
anyone who is truly interested in letting the DCU owners ultimately
speak for themslves should let this election proceed and see where it
takes us.
|
| 865.3 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | DCU 3Gs -- fired but not forgotten | Fri Aug 12 1994 12:43 | 9 |
| .1> ...My understanding is
.1> that if satisfaction is not obtained from the SC, one can also go to
.1> the insuring authority, the NCUA.
On the other hand, we have already verified that the NCUA does not
involve itself in internal CU matters, and is interested only when the
CU is in deep financial doo-doo.
|
| 865.4 | | NACAD2::SHERMAN | Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2 | Fri Aug 12 1994 12:53 | 18 |
| I agree and don't deny that. The NCUA tends to maintain a "hands off"
attitude. Frankly, I wouldn't know how much further to go than the SC.
You could go to independent legal or auditing services, of course.
The SC already consults with DCU's General Counsel, independent
auditors and other independent legal services, especially when it comes
to matters of controversy. Much of what is discussed is considered
what is called "Attorney-Client Privilege." That's why you don't hear
about any of this kind of communication.
And, because folks don't hear about this, they tend to assume the SC is
shooting from the hip or operating in the dark. That's simply not the
case. I expect that some folks, if they work a bit to check out the
details, will find that the SC is, more often than not, in compliance
with the opinions of outside legal and auditing sources who specialize
in credit union law. And, the reason for that should be elementary.
Steve
|
| 865.5 | | RLTIME::COOK | | Fri Aug 12 1994 15:48 | 17 |
|
> And, because folks don't hear about this, they tend to assume the SC is
> shooting from the hip or operating in the dark. That's simply not the
> case. I expect that some folks, if they work a bit to check out the
> details, will find that the SC is, more often than not, in compliance
> with the opinions of outside legal and auditing sources who specialize
> in credit union law. And, the reason for that should be elementary.
Actually, Steve, I don't think that is the concern I hear expressed. The SC
appears to not be shooting from the hip. The shooting appears very deliberate.
I think the overriding fear is that the shooting is in one direction only.
al
|
| 865.6 | the issue isn't the candidate statements | WRKSYS::SEILER | Larry Seiler | Sun Aug 14 1994 16:17 | 26 |
| Steve,
If I formally ask the SC to comment on election materials, apparently
the committee is obligated to do so. Great, but that's not my concern.
Nor do I feel that the SC is "shooting from the hip". What I feel is
that the SC is NOT BASING ITS DECISIONS on the publicly released
criteria of ensuring a fair and open election with vigorous debate.
Possibly the SC is again making its decisions on attempts to avoid
lawsuits. That may or may not be the right choice, but it is NOT
WHAT THE SC PROMISED US IT WOULD DO.
Anyway, I have a question for you, Steve. If I write up my concerns
and present them formally to the SC, will you commit to try to get
the SC to answer my concerns, to the extent that is legally possible?
I have noticed that the SC has NO obligation to answer questions about
its own actions, and the NCUA will certainly not act, either. My only
choices seem to be to sue or else to try to convince the SC to answer
voluntarily.
I realize that you are only one vote of three, Steve, but if I do go to
the trouble to formally write up my concerns, will there be at least
your vote in favor of giving an honest response that is as completely
as it can be?
Thanks,
Larry
|
| 865.7 | or sue them..... | RANGER::TRYST::Rozett | We're of difn't worlds, mine's EARTH! | Mon Aug 15 1994 09:33 | 8 |
| Another option is to file suit against the DCU for violation of your First
Amendment rights to free speech. Given the outcome of several recent cases
against universities that have established rules for PC behavior and one under
consideration now concerning gender bias in election materials, I (and I an NOT
a lawyer) do not think that the DCU election rules have a fat chance in hell of
standing up. But that is ONLY IF they are chellenged.
//bruce
|
| 865.8 | | SCHOOL::LEKAS | From the Workstation of Tony Lekas | Mon Aug 15 1994 10:27 | 1 |
| I'll wait to here what the response is to the request generated by 862.45
|