Conference 7.286::dcu

869.0. "Letter from DCU Supervisory Committee" by ROWLET::AINSLEY (Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!) Sun Aug 21 1994 16:38

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" 21-AUG-1994 01:37:13.86
To:	rowlet::Ainsley
CC:	
Subj:	SC notification of action


Bill & Bob,

Please post the following correspondence that I received from the SC
concerning our request to meet with them to resolve any issues that
they had with our materials.  I believe their insertion in the packets
in branches to be EXTREMELY MISLEADING in that they do not state
that we did try and resolve any issues they had with the statements.

They have pointed to the section of the rules that essentially says
they can do whatever they want to do when asked where they get the
power to insert their statement in CLEAR VIOLATION of their own
rules concerning the materials and the order of the materials that were
to appear in the packet. They could have used this same clause to
delay the packets in the branches (which may not have even needed
to be delayed) for one day.  I fail to see how their statement can be
viewed as anything other than interference with our campaign statements,
especially when a similar statement concerning our opponents literature
was not inserted.

Where are the rules being enforced against our opponents in this
election?  As I read our opponents literature, I read statements like
"or change direction, possibly landing DCU in the same precarious
position we were in before." from Lisa Demauro-Ross.  The obvious use
of fear by Lisa Demauro-Ross in her statement is appalling.  Her comments
might lead many members to withdraw funds from DCU out of this false
fear if we are elected.  Where is the SC in protecting the credit union?
The problems of the past were due to fraud on the part of the past
DCU President Dick Mangone and his cohorts.  Is Ms. Ross drawing
a comparison between Mangone's fraudulent behavior and our proposals?
Given the action (and inaction) of the SC with regards to the statements in
the packet, I have a very hard time believing that they are "independent".

Why am I not surprised by any of this?  We were smeared in the first
election with trash handouts by the CQB, now fear is being used in this
election.  I maintain that all DCU members have to fear if we are elected,
is an END to this type of baloney.  We have remained focused on the issues
and presented facts, figures and our proposed directions to the membership.
We will continue to do so.

Phil



Subj:	Response to request for publication delay and Emergency Meeting ...
Date:	94-08-02 17:39:37 EDT
From:	[email protected]
To:	Gransewicz


     DCU Supervisory Committee
     Digital Emplyees' Federal Credit Union

     August 2, 1994



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


Dear Chris,

We have carefully considered your request for both an Emergency Meeting and
a delay of the publication of candidate statements.  We regret to inform you
that we have decided to allow the election process to continue without delay
and without an Emergency Meeting.  

We understand that you have already submitted your candidate statements to
the
DCU without change.  It has been confirmed that you have also published our 
opinion in a public forum.  Given the material concerns of the Committee
regarding your candidate statements, we have decided to include in the 
distributed materials relevant portions of our opinion.

We regret the need to take this action.  We are responding in the way that we

feel is most appropriate, balancing your rights to wage a free and vigorous 
campaign with the rights of the membership to a free and informed choice.


Steve Sherman

DCU Supervisory Committee


----------------------- Headers ------------------------
From [email protected] Tue Aug  2 17:38:51 1994
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by mailgate.prod.aol.net with SMTP
 (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA23445; Tue, 2 Aug 94 17:38:51 -0400
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from us1rmc.bb.dec.com by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com (5.65/27May94)
 id AA03363; Tue, 2 Aug 94 14:24:28 -0700
Received: from netcad.enet by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94)
 id AA28469; Tue, 2 Aug 94 17:24:28 -0400
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Received: from netcad.enet; by us1rmc.enet; Tue, 2 Aug 94 17:24:29 EDT
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 94 17:24:29 EDT
From: Steve NACAD::Sherman LKG2-A/R5 pole AA2 DTN 226-6992  02-Aug-1994 1653
<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
        mail11:;%[email protected] (@dcusc),
        [email protected]
Apparently-To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Response to request for publication delay and Emergency Meeting ...
AOL-Member: gransewicz



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA25506; Sun, 21 Aug 94 02:37:00 -040
% Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA10704; Sat, 20 Aug 94 23:34:29 -070
% Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA02462; Sun, 21 Aug 1994 02:34:25 -040
% From: [email protected]
% X-Mailer: America Online Mailer
% Sender: "Gransewicz" <[email protected]>
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: rowlet::Ainsley
% Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 02:34:23 EDT
% Subject: SC notification of action