Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    From the "Nominating Committee Report, Rescheduled 1994 Election":
    
        "Results of the election will be announced at the Annual
         Meeting on September 20, 1994, at 5:00 p.m., at the Maynard
         Rod and Gun Club, Maynard, Massachusetts. All members are
         invited to attend."
    
    Directions to the Maynard Rod and Gun Club are posted in note 490.12.
    
    

>         Meeting on September 20, 1994, at 5:00 p.m., at the Maynard


Do you think we could get someone to take a laptop along and post the results
immediately?


    
    

    I'm sure the results will be posted by the following morning.
    The best way to get the results more quickly is to be there.
    I intend to attend.  I realize that not everyone is able to.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

re: .3

Yes, in person is best, but both .2 and I live in Dallas, so we have no choice
but to rely on others.

Bob

I just realized from coordinating my calendar that next Tuesday is also the Mass
State Primary.  For me, that's a busy enough day as it is without trying to
squeeze in an annual meeting.

I wonder if they thought about that when they scheduled it!?

Elaine

    I wouldn't think that they were thinking about the primary when
    they scheduled this.  I suspect that the 15th seemed a natural date
    to close the election and that they worked backward and forwards from 
    that date to schedule everything else.
    
    It sure does make it a pain, though.  Regarding being out-of-state,
    I assumed that you folks couldn't come in person, but for many
    DCU readers it's a viable option.  And yet, one cannot actually
    use an action verb in the same sentence with a statement about
    attending the DCU annual meeting, for fear of being flushed for
    solicitation.  DEC is a very strange place these days.
    
    Counting the hours until "noisy time"...
    
    	Larry

    
    Well, it's officially "noisy time".
    
    Many previous annual meetings have been mind-numbingly boring. It was
    not until the 1992 meeting that anything interesting happened
    (unnominated, non-financial-management candidates got elected) and not
    until the 1993 election that new business could be raised at the
    meeting. After such a hotly contested election as 1994, it's anyone's
    guess what might happen at this meeting.
    
    The annual meeting is typically preceded by a DCU employees' meeting,
    and a good number of DCU employees who are also DCU members stick around
    for the annual meeting. My interest in attending the annual meeting stems
    partly from my conviction that having the DCU members represented
    predominantly by people who get their pay checks from DCU is not
    necessarily a good thing.
    
    Therefore, I will be there, to learn first hand the results of the
    election, to represents my interests as a DCU member, and to bring up
    any new business as the situation warrants.
    

    
    Phil Gransewicz asked your humble moderators to post this letter, which
    he received via Federal Express on Saturday.
    
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    
    
-----------------------------------------------------------------


[DCU letterhead]


September 16, 1994

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

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter represents the Supervisory Committee's conclusion regarding
complaints of campaign violations submitted to the Committee during the
rescheduled 1994 Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union ("DCU") Board
of Directors' Election.  All balloting for this election ended on
September 15, 1994 and results are scheduled to be announced
September 20, 1994.

The Supervisory Committee has had the task of enforcing Election Campaign
Rules promulgated as a result of the invalidation of the balloting conducted
in connection with the originally scheduled 1994 Board of Directors Election.
In fulfilling its responsibilites, the Supervisory Committee has attempted
to balance each candidate's right to freely and vigorously campaign with
each shareholder's right to an informed and free decision as well as an
orderly process.  The Supervisory Committee routinely consulted with experts
in attempting to carry out its responsibilities.  While numerous complaints
have been received, it should be noted that campaign literature provided
at branches of DCU and mailings by several candidates appear to have had
little impact on the balloting.  This conclusion is based on the fact that
there has been little material picked up by members at DCU branches and very
few requests for replacement ballots as a result of the mailings.

The Supervisory Committee has determined that there were several campaign 
violations during this election.  However, the Committee has also determined
that: (1) appropriate action in response to violations has been taken;
(2) the violations had little causal effect on the balloting; (3) on balance,
all candidates have had an opportunity to freely and vigorously campaign;
(4) shareholders have been given an opportunity to make a free and informed
choice; and (5) on balance, the process has been orderly.

It is, therefore, our opinion that the election process has not been
significantly tainted and that the results should be free from substantial
challenge.

Sincerely,

Supervisory Committee

> The Supervisory Committee has determined that there were several campaign 
> violations during this election.

So how do we find out *what* the SC considered to be violations?

	Paul

re: .8

Sounds like a pre-emptive strike to me.  What a bunch of BS!!!

Bob

>and very few requests for replacement ballots as a result of the mailings.

Anyone have any idea what this is supposed to mean?

I, too, would love to know what kind of "complaints" were received. Perhaps
that can be asked tomorrow at the meeting. I hope they aren't classifying
requests for analysis of campaign materials as complaints.

-Jack

    RE: .8  by WLDBIL::KILGORE 
    
>It is, therefore, our opinion that the election process has not been
>significantly tainted and that the results should be free from substantial
>challenge.

    Do you suppose this means the election turned out "right" this time and
    they won't need to play the invalidation card after all?
    

    
    I personally assume that the SC did not play the invalidation card
    because although they saw some "tainting", it was not enough to stand
    up in a court of law as a reason for once again invalidating the
    election. (And the court would most certainly become involved if the
    election were again invalidated.)
    

    .12
    
    I held off doing anything about moving my money until the election
    results came in.  But, if the election results turned out "right" this 
    time (by the SC's judgment), but different than the way I voted, then 
    it's the Workers Credit Union for me and my money.
    
    It's more than just the issue of fees.  It's a matter of openness and 
    trust.

    On September 7nd, the SC received a complaint from me.  I did not
    complain about the election -- I complained that the SC's public
    conduct appeared to be massively biased and asked them to justify
    their own conduct as supposedly impartial arbitors of the election.
    I have had no reply yet but I understand that I will get one.
    
    It will be interesting to see whether the SC actually responds to
    my complaint by either explaining why they think their actions
    were unbiased or by acknowledging that they were not.  I hope that
    they do not pretend that I was complaining about the candidates --
    it is VERY OBVIOUS in my text that I was complaining about the SC,
    not about anything any of the candidates or their supporters did.
    
    	Larry

The message from the SC in .8 leaves me curious about many things.
I'll ask the SC these questions directly, if I get a response to my
earlier complaint that suggests that they might answer me.  


> The Supervisory Committee routinely consulted with experts
> in attempting to carry out its responsibilities.  

Whom?  DCU Counsel Joe Melchione?  Director Kinzelman told me that Joe
had told him that Joe had very little input to the SC about this stuff.
If that is actually true, then whom did the SC consult?

> While numerous complaints
> have been received, it should be noted that campaign literature provided
> at branches of DCU and mailings by several candidates appear to have had
> little impact on the balloting.  This conclusion is based on the fact that
> there has been little material picked up by members at DCU branches and very
> few requests for replacement ballots as a result of the mailings.

I believe Chris complained that the SC's letter in the branch literature
was unfair to him.  Unless the SC knows the result of the balloting, how
can they judge that their statements against Chris did not tip the scales?
I've seen elections decided by 2 votes.  Also, I note that they do not
address the question of whether Chris' complaints about their statements
are or are not justified.


> The Supervisory Committee has determined that there were several campaign 
> violations during this election.  However, the Committee has also determined
> that: (1) appropriate action in response to violations has been taken;

I beleive the SC said that they'd report on the election violations.  I
thought the "quiet time" was when this was supposed to happen.  The above
statement does not constitute a report on election violations.

> (2) the violations had little causal effect on the balloting; 

And how can they be sure of this?  Do they have access to the results?

> (3) on balance, all candidates have had an opportunity to freely and 
> vigorously campaign;

Does the SC assert that their public public criticisms of a subset of the
candidates did not harm their ability to freely and vigorously campaign?

> (4) shareholders have been given an opportunity to make a free and informed
> choice; and (5) on balance, the process has been orderly.

I don't understand the basis for asserting these statements.  I beleive
that Chris asserted that the actions of the SC was contrary to at least
the first of these points.  Does the SC mean that these were fulfilled 
in spite of their actions or does the SC assert that their public criticism
of Chris helped shareholders to make a "free and informed choice"?

> It is, therefore, our opinion that the election process has not been
> significantly tainted and that the results should be free from substantial
> challenge.

I see.  Is then, the whole point in the SC's view to have an election that
cannot result in a successful lawsuit?  Weren't the criteria supposed to
be fairness and openness?

	Sincerely,
	Larry Seiler

re: .-1, Larry

>If that is actually true, then whom did the SC consult?

I'm curious about this as well. Are any of the members of the SC employees
in the Legal Department?

I certainly can't see any reason to trust the SC.  Unfortunately, while
there does appear to exist a procedure for dismissing the board, I haven't
found one for dismissing the SC.

	paul

    
    Re .18: See note 858.5; specifically Article VII, section 8 of the DCU
    Bylaws (full text in note 3.*).
    

    
    Remember...
    
    When posting the results - give permission to forward wide and far -
    especially on the internet...
    

3Gs elected.

9,103 valid ballots received
  816 additional invalid ballots (illegible, no signature, etc.)

elected to 3-year terms:

Gransewicz		5,472
Garrod			5,044
Fillmore-Gillett	4,926

not elected:

Ross			3,966
Haskins			3,822
Milbury			3,155

    
    Awsome..!! when is the party..??
    

This is fantastic.  It looks like we will start moving towards the
members owning the CU again.  I am sure it will take time, but it shows
*WHAT* members want...

I am sure Chuck views this as a defeat, but he needs to realize that it
is a MEMBER owned group and they have spoken.

			!!! OUT WITH THE FEES !!!

	- mark

After months of feeling as though there was a losing battle being fought,
it sure feels neat to have won! I can't think of a better way to start
my three week vacation than with this news!

My heartiest congrats to the 3G's!!!

-Jack

    I hope this isn't a joke.  This is such a build up, that a let down
    would put me in depression for years.
    
    I think the best MEN won...  There is hope after all.
    
    Jim Morton

    YES!!! This is great news for the DEFCU.
    
    Out with the bank mentality! In with the credit union mentality!
    
    Ken....

    Congrats to the 3Gs.

    I suppose we'll never know, but it would be interesting to find out if
    the outcome of this rescheduled election is any different from the
    cancelled election.  But no, maybe we shouldn't ask.  It would probably
    make us all realize what a colossal waste of time and resources this
    has been to say nothing of the sharp bend taken in three careers over
    this.

    Ah well, onward and upward, what's done is done.

    Bruce

    I feel that this puts the E back in DEFCU.  I'm very pleased with this
    outcome and will keep my account open even though I'll no longer be an
    employee after Friday.
    

    I hope this shows that DCU members are smarter than the average voter
    and that FUD won't win elections.
    
    My joy is tempered by the thought that we all felt this way after the
    election 2 years(?) ago and look what that got us.  We need to remember
    that just because we won, it doesn't mean that we can all go away and
    all live happily ever after.  I believe that we REALLY do have the
    credit union back in the MEMBERS hands this time and once again pledge
    to work with the BoD to help make this the credit union it should be.
    We MUST stay involved, not only to watch out for problems, but to HELP
    build the credit union.
    
    Now, how can I help?
    
    Bob

    Was there any other business transacted at the annual meeting?

I had a lengthy phone conversation with a member-attendee about an hour ago.
No other business brought up, motion to adjourn raised and seconded within
moments of reading the vote counts, and meeting concluded within seven
minutes of opening, was what I heard. Also, very low attendance by non-DCU
employee members.

I wish I could have been there, but with it being my last day prior to vacation
I wasn't able to leave Nashua in time to make it. There are several faces I
would have liked to have seen upon announcment of the results.

-Jack

I was honored to be able to shake Dave and Chris's hands first (after they had
congratulated each other).

The report that it was almost all DCU employees appeared to me to be true.

/john

    As a practical matter, how long can we expect it to take to remove the
    fees.
    
    L.

    What else is on the winning parties agenda besides doing away with the
    fees? As someone who personally knows a DCU employee very well I have
    to wonder if this is going to lead to turmoil between DCU management
    and the board.... 
    
    Bw 

Between DCU management and the board? Possibly, but I'm only speculating.
Between the general DCU employee populace and the board, doubtful (and
much less speculative on that). In any of my conversations with the 3G's
they have never indicated any intentions to make waves for the work
force, and they have consistently indicated the contrary in here. I think
that a lot of the FUD that DCU employees have shown in the past is due
more to propaganda fed to them by DCU management more than anything else.

There was much concern at the time of the special meeting a few years ago
on the part of employees that removal of the board would not be goodness.
There was concern on their part regarding the election of Real Choices
candidates the following spring. To the best of my knowledge, none of
the fears were realized. It's my opinion that the board now in place will
benefit _all_ the members - DCU employee and non-, alike.

-Jack

    
    Re .32:
    
    John, we were speculating last night -- did you have a lap-top and a
    cellular phone in your car?
    
    -------------
    
    The 1994 annual meeting started promptly at 5:00 p.m. with a brief
    statement from the vice-chairperson, Tom McEachin, and the
    introduction of the Board, Supervisory Committee, Credit Appeals
    Committee and various other cu luminaries. [It is notable that of the
    incumbent Board, only Tom McEaching and Phil Gransewicz were in
    attendance, and of the Supervisory Committee, I believe only Steve
    Sherman was present.]
    
    It was observed that a quorun had been achieved. [A quorum for the
    Annual Meeting is 15 cu members.]
    
    It was moved, seconded and voted to accept the minutes of the previous
    annual meeting.
    
    The annual report was presented. [This consisted of noting that the
    report had been handed out at the door and of pointing briefly to a
    few sections of the report.]
    
    The election results were announced. In addition to the tallies
    recorded in a previous note, the following information was presented:
    
        9103 votes -- validated and tallied
    
         449 votes -- invalidated; illegible
         275 votes -- invalidated; no signature
          24 votes -- invalidated; signature did not match
          35 votes -- invalidated; blank
          11 votes -- invalidated; more than three candidates selected
          32 votes -- invalidated; miscellaneous reasons
        ----
         816 votes -- total invalidated
    
        ----
        9919 votes -- total received
    
    It was moved, seconded and voted to adjourn the annual meeting.
    
    -----------
    
    An informal meeting of the elected Directors and various supporters was
    then convened at a different venue, Amory's in downtown Maynard. Dry
    throats were lubricated (albeit with great moderation) and many
    humorous, ribald and shocking tales were told.
    
    Phil, Chris and Dave were in marvelous spirit, as much due to their
    personal status as their victory at the polls. Phil is racking up
    frequent flyer miles as a representative of SAP America (featured in a
    recent Business Week article); Chris is hard at work at Fasfax in
    Nashua; Dave is contracting at Stratus. They thank all their supporters
    for the fortitude demonstrated during the past few months.
    
    

The report said 9000 ballots were processed successfully and about 1000 more
invalid ones for various reasons.

I'm curious (am I the only one?) to know how many were sent out.  In other
words, what portion got returned at all ?  (ok ok I'll admit it, I threw
mine out)

Thanks.

/Eric

I found it interesting that only 2 of the incumbant board was present.

This makes me wonder if they knew in advance...

Thoughts?

	- mark

    Someone asked how he could help.  I urge anyone who is enthused by
    the election of Phil, Dave and Chris to send them a brief note to
    congratulate them and ask how you might help.  You can always say
    no if they suggest something you don't want to do!  But I think 
    they need to know who is at least willing to be asked.
    
    Their email addresses are:
    
		US4RMC::"[email protected]"
    		US4RMS::"[email protected]"
    		US4RMC::"[email protected]"
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

re: .39

That was me and I've already been in contact with Phil.  My asking how I could
help was purely symbolic, the 3G's know I will do whatever I can to help make
DCU successful.

Bob

    This is wonderful news!

    re .39:  Well, I hope others follow your example.  There was a while
    when many people (including me!) feared to be too public in our
    support for the 3Gs.  But now that they've won, there need be no
    limit to our public support for the DCU Board of Directors and
    for the successful operation of our credit union.  I am sure that
    the next election, for example, will not be marked by the degree
    of upper management scrutiny that we all witnessed with these two.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry
    
    PS -- I wonder how long the honeymoon is going to last?  It's already
    held up longer than the one two years ago!  

That would all depend upon whether or not anyone in upper management
simply chose to bear a grudge - not uncommon in the new DIGITAL.

    One thing that I *do* appreciate is that this election was relatively
    "clean."  I still agree with the SC judgement that the election was
    valid.  That is, I believe that the 3G's won fair and square.
    
    Steve

    Has any one considered that 4 of the board are NOT DIGITAL employees
    and therefore NOT able to be influenced by personel actions ?
    

You betcha, Bill!

re:<<< Note 876.44 by NETCAD::SHERMAN "Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2" >>>

This would imply that there is doubt somewhere?

    re: .44
    
    Doubt?  Not on my part.  But, many have challenged whether or not this
    election was clean.  And, there were complaints about this election.
    And, was it just my imagination or were there not postings here 
    implying that various election results were leaked before the Annual
    Meeting?  I know of no such leaks.
    
    Steve

    re .48:
    
    > And, was it just my imagination or were there not postings here
    > implying that various election results were leaked before the
    > Annual Meeting?  I know of no such leaks.
    
    It's your imagination, Steve.  Look again and you'll see a note
    asking what the explanation might be for the fact that the Board
    members who lost their seats did not attend the annual meeting --
    including the Chairperson.  That's a surprizing enough event to
    make a question justified.  And there are other ways that they
    could have known (or felt that they knew) the election results,
    besides an illegal pre-release of the information.  Anyway, I'm
    glad that you know of no leaks.  But let's not get into the
    business of reading implications into people's questions.  I
    think it is very important to be free to ask questions -- for me,
    that's a big part of what this struggle (both with the DCU Board
    and with Digital upper management) has been all about.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry
    
    PS -- Don't forget that *I* never complained about the election
    not being clean.  I asked the SC to explain the apparent bias in
    their public actions.  I think it is important that the SC be (and
    be seen to be) absolutely impartial.  Therefore I think that it is
    important that the SC explain the evidence of bias that I gathered and
    presented to them -- or alternately, if there really was bias, I hope
    the SC studies how it came about and seeks to prevent its happening
    again in the future.  LS

    Nah ...  It ain't my imagination.
    
    Steve

    
    
    
    Sweet Justice at last.
    
    Too bad we'll never know what the count was six months ago. 
    
    

RE: Note 876.48 by NETCAD::SHERMAN

>    And, was it just my imagination or were there not postings here 
>    implying that various election results were leaked before the Annual
>    Meeting?  I know of no such leaks.

It is your imagination.

I just asked a simple question intrying to explain why so many board
members were not present.  At the previous election, we had a better
presence than this time...

If one or two did not show, then I would not be suprised, but when 4
(not counting Kinzleman) did not show, then I wondered.

I guess the question would be:

	'Who knew about the elections BEFORE they were anncounced?'

	- mark

>================================================================================
>Note 876.49         1994 Election Results and Annual Meeting            49 of 51
>WRKSYS::SEILER "Larry Seiler"                        30 lines  21-SEP-1994 15:15
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                     -< A question is not an implication >-
>
>    asking what the explanation might be for the fact that the Board
>    members who lost their seats did not attend the annual meeting --
>    including the Chairperson.

Larry, please remember that Ms. Ross now lives in Europe:

$ el2 lisa ross

Common Name:   LISA ROSS
Search Surname:  ROSS,  ROSS DEMAURO,  ROSS  Search Given Name:  LISA,  LISA,
LISA  DTN:  889-9050,  889-9050,  fax 889-9696,  secr 889-9955
Telephone:  [31]80529911  Intrnl Mail Addr:  B/2.19  Location:  JGO
Node:  JGODCL  Username:  ROSS  Org Unit:  STORAGE SUBSYSTEMS
Position:  European Controller

    Mark,
    
    I also thought Steve was referring to your note .38, but in a private
    discussion with Steve I discovered that he had some other notes in
    mind.  Anything more is for Steve to say, if he wishes.  I personally
    see plenty of criticism of the SC in this notes string, but I don't 
    see anyone saying or implying that they think the SC (or anyone else) 
    had the results leaked to them.  But that's my interpretation.  It's
    awfully easy to misinterpret in this electronic environment.
    
    
    re .53:  I thought she was temporarily working in Europe.  I didn't
    realize (or didn't remember) that she was still over there.  Thanks
    for the correction.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

    
    Yippee!!  Wocka, wocka, wocka!!  Now maybe we can get back to the
    business at hand, becoming a true credit union.
    
    P.S.  Couldn't help but notice the latest mortgage rates posted in
    the papers for area banks and CUs.  DEFCU was far and away the lowest
    for a 15-year fixed at 7.97 APR.  WCU was near 8.5 as were most of
    the banks.
    
    Lou
    

As untrustworthy as they became as a result of their actions over the past
several months, I couldn't personally care less as to whether or not the
SC had inside info on the results prior to Tuesday, 9/20/1994. It's still
curious that Mr. Milbury wasn't in attendance.

-Jack

    The possibility that the results six months ago might have been
    different adds a certain spice to these results -- what kind of spice
    depends on one's opinion of them.
    
    Dick

Certainly if the SC knew about the results of the first election, that would
explain a lot of things. I was considering more the issue of whether or
not they had a "preview" of the second election results prior to Tuesday's
meeting. My understanding was that when Board Member McEachin read the
ballot results, he did not remove them from a secret enevlope which had
been hermetically sealed in a mayonaise jar on Funk & Wagnall's front
porch. At least he had seen the results prior to publicly reading them.
For how long, I have no idea. Who else he might have shared them with
prior to the reading, or whom he may have gotten them from who might
have shared them, I don't know. And it's immaterial to me at this point,
really.

    re: .58
    
    In my mind, a "preview" would be no different from a "leak."  But, if I
    assume that a "preview" is some indication of voting trends toward one
    or another candidate, the SC had no such information that I'm aware of
    in either the invalidated election or the recent election.  To this
    day, I still have *no* idea of what the trends were for the invalidated
    election.
    
    Steve

>My understanding was that when Board Member McEachin read the
>ballot results, he did not remove them from a secret enevlope which had
>been hermetically sealed in a mayonaise jar on Funk & Wagnall's front
>porch. At least he had seen the results prior to publicly reading them.

What I saw was an envelope handed to McEachin by an employee of the
auditing firm which did the counting.

Not hermetically sealed in a mayonaise jar, but I didn't see anything
that would indicate that he had seen the results.  Or that he had not.

/john

    
    FORMER CREDIT UNION WORKERS WIN POSTS
    
    [Boston Globe, Sep 22, 1994. p. 41]
    
    A showdown for control over the Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union
    ended with three former employees winning spots on the seven-member
    board of directors.
    
    Their victories may have come at a heavy cost: their jobs. The three
    winners -- Philip Gransewicz, David Garrod and Christopher
    Fillmore-Gillett -- say they were fired by Digital Equipment Corp. in
    April allegedly because they sent out campaign materials onthe firm's
    electronic mail system in violation of company rules. A spokesman for
    Maynard-based Digital, which has no connection to the credit union,
    woud not confirm the terms of their departure.
    
    Incumbents voted out were Lisa DeMauro Ross and Paul Millbury. Neither
    could be reached for comment.
    
    The results, announced during a seven-minute board meeting Tuesday
    night, concluded a bitter election that involved accusations of
    improper campaigning. The dispute became so heated that results of a
    previous election in the spring were voided because they had been
    "irreparably tainted".
    
    "It's been a very difficult lection," said Fillmore-Gillett, who was
    fired along with Gransewicz and Garrod.
    
    The imbroglio began as a battle over checking account fees and evolved
    into a full scale fight over the future of the credit union, which has
    $360 million in assets and is the second biggest in the state. One
    group advocated the fees. Another, led by the recent winners, wanted to
    get rid of them.
    
    "In the past it has been run a lot like a commercial bank. There were
    fees on everything," said Fillmore-Gillett, who said he wants to give
    members dividends and refunds on part of the interest they pay on their
    loans. "It's a fundamental shift."
    
    Only 16 percent of the 72.000-member credit union pay the checking
    account fee, which generates just $200,000 a year, said Charles
    Cockburn, president and chief executive of the credit union.
    
    The donnybrook was the latest in a series of troubles plaguing the
    credit union in recent years. For instance, the credit union is just
    starting to recover from a financial scandal involving a former
    president, Richard D. Mangone, convicted of defrauding the credit union
    of millions of dollars. Mangone disappeared shortly after conviction.
    

>    Only 16 percent of the 72.000-member credit union pay the checking
>    account fee, which generates just $200,000 a year, said Charles
>    Cockburn, president and chief executive of the credit union.
    
    Gee Chuckie, if it's such a piddly amount of money why is it so
    important to charge that fee?
    
    -Glenn-
    

.62>    Gee Chuckie, if it's such a piddly amount of money why is it so
.62>    important to charge that fee?
    
    To set a precedent?
    
    (Hopefully we'll soon be able to ask, "Why *WAS* it so important...")
    

Anyone have an answer to my question yet ?  It was:

	What percentage of the distributed ballots do the 8000 returned ones
	represent ?  (i.e. how many were distributed?)

I'm curious what percentage the participation was.

Thanks.

/Eric

RE: Note 876.61 by WLDBIL::KILGORE

>    Only 16 percent of the 72.000-member credit union pay the checking
>    account fee, which generates just $200,000 a year, said Charles
>    Cockburn, president and chief executive of the credit union.

Only 16%???  That is a LOT of people for the small amount of money and
ill will it has created.  We are loosing members every day.  We should
not give members a reason to leave DCU.  We should be giving them
reasons to stay.

		It is JUST *** 11500+ *** member.

The good news is management will be changing one way or another in the
future... :-)

	- mark

    re .64:
    
    The DCU used to have about 80,000 members, if I remember correctly.
    Assuming that the Globe is right that we now have 72,000 members,
    then about 14% of the members returned ballots.  But not all members
    are eligible to vote -- my house has 4 members but only 2 are voters.
    If only 2/3 of the members are eligible to vote, then the participation
    was over 20%.  14% or 20%, I think that's a pretty big turnout for
    this kind of election.  Keep in mind that according to the DCU's
    membership survey, only 1/4 of the membership even knows that the
    DCU has relationship banking.  I find it encouraging that the 
    number of members who voted is a large fraction of the number of
    members who have a basic awareness of what's happening at the DCU.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

Here's some info on past elections:

1988 ballots distributed    68,260	100.0%
1988 ballots processed       9,049	 13.3%
1988 valid ballots counted   7,076	 10.4%
1988 invalid ballots          1,973	  2.9%

1992 ballots distributed    ??,????
1992 ballots processed      18,774
1992 valid ballots counted  17,943
1992 invalid ballots           831

1994 ballots distributed    ??,????
1994 ballots processed       9,919
1994 valid ballots counted   9,103
1994 invalid ballots           816


Taking 1988 as a baseline, it appears that we had a larger than typical
vote this year, but not dramatically larger.  Certainly nothing like
1992.  That makes me suspect that all of the campaign mailings and
such didn't increase the number of voters very much.  Still, those
who voted made their opinion very clear.  

Somewhere in this notes file I think there is information on the
other elections, but I couldn't find it.  I encourage everyone who
wants to know more to directly contact the DCU and ask for the
information.

	Enjoy,
	Larry
    

    My understanding is that this good news if followed by more GREAT news.
    Someone wake me up.
    ed
    

        FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
        For Additional Information
        Contact:  Tim Garner, 800/328-8797 x 204
         
        
              Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union announces
                Directors' election results - selects officers
        
        
        MAYNARD, MA - Results of Digital Employees' Federal Credit 
        Union's (DCU) 1994 Board of Directors' election were announced 
        at the credit union's Annual Meeting on September 20.
        
        Elected to three-year terms were Philip J. Gransewicz 
        (incumbent, 5,472 votes), David J. Garrod (5,044 votes), 
        Christopher C. Fillmore-Gillett (4,926 votes).  Other 
        candidates were Lisa DeMauro Ross (incumbent, 3,966 votes), 
        Lois G. Haskins (3,822 votes), and Paul J. Milbury (incumbent, 
        3,155 votes).
        
        The overriding issue of the election was checking account fees 
        implemented in January, 1994.  All three candidates elected 
        favored elimination of those fees.
        
        At their September 27 meeting, the new seven-member Board 
        selected officers:
        
        	Philip J. Gransewicz, Chairman
        	Christopher C. Fillmore-Gillett, Vice Chairman
        	Tanya L. Dawkins, Treasurer
        	David J. Garrod, Secretary
        
        The other members of the Board are Thomas McEachin, Paul M. 
        Kinzelman, and Gail S. Mann.  All DCU Board members are unpaid 
        volunteers elected by the credit union's members.
        
        DCU is a member-owned not-for-profit financial cooperative.  
        It provides savings, loan, and financial services to its 
        member/owners.  It is the second largest credit union in 
        Massachusetts with more than $350 million in assets and 71,000 
        members.  DCU currently operates 20 branches in 8 states.
        
                                     ###