Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    Please remember Dave Garrod is no longer an employee of
    Digitial Equipment Corporation and does not have access to this
    notesfile. If you'd like him to see any of your comments please also
    mail them to him at [email protected] as well as posting them here
    

>               In metings with DCU General Counsel (Joe Melchione) and
>               the current DCU President (Chuck Cockburn) Phil, Chris
>               and myself have voluntarily made it as clear as we
>               possibly can that we have no intent whatsoever on going
>               on a a witchhunt regarding the happenings during the 1994
>               election campaign. We are obviously not happy with a

This statement is very gracious. I can obviously understand not going on a
witchhunt, however, a "head-in-the-sand" attitude just doesn't seem prudent.

I would think it would be in the best interest of the DCU, in fact possibly
negligent not to do so, to investigate the previous relationship between
DCU and Digital officers.  The results of an investigation do not have to be 
made public unless unlawfull activity has taken place.  This would protect what
could have been just strenuous politicing.  Remember, many of these
relationships will continue far into the future, to not bother to determine if
all activities have been in the best interest of DCU and, in fact, legal seems
an invitation for more problems in the future.


It is the responsibility of the elected officials to vigilently protect DCU.
I encourage their tenacity in doing so and not to let a personal sense of 
fair play overshadow these duties.



Al Cook

    re .2:  There's much in what you say, and I agree with you that the
    things that were broken about the previous process have to be fixed.
    But I think Dave Garrod plans to do that.  I also suspect that he and
    Phil and Chris have a pretty clear idea of exactly who did what to whom.
    
    I doubt that much more could be learned from a formal investiation,
    keeping in mind that they don't have power to compel testimony.
    And anyway, since the 3Gs won the election, they can attack the root 
    causes of our past problems, without needing a divisive investigation.
    It shows their quality that they are focussed on what is best for
    the DCU, rather than on seeking redress for personal injuries.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

Larry,
    
>    I doubt that much more could be learned from a formal investiation,
>    keeping in mind that they don't have power to compel testimony.

Are you implying that all the information of the occurances around the election
and the firing by Digital of DCU board candidates are known and that no federal
or state laws or regulations (SEC, NCUA, etc) were broken?

If this is the case, then obviously no investigation needs to occur.

If this is not the case then failing to investigate has its own implications.

This is irrespective of who won or lost or how we personally feel about the
integrity of an individual.  I am simply stating a personal sense of fair
play, which I strongly applaud, is not a good enough reason to fail to 
protect the interest of DCU.

I should also state that I have no personal knowledge of wrong doing.  My only
source of information are public forums.  I am merely responding to the 
imlications in .0.

Al

re .4:

> Are you implying that all the information of the occurances around the
> election ... are known

I implied nothing.  I tried to state clearly that I suspect that the 3Gs
probably already know about as much as can be found out without the power 
to compel testimony.  Hence an investigation BY THE BOD wouldn't gain
significant new information, I suspect, and would create many problems.

> Are you implying that all the information of the occurances around ...
> the firing by Digital of DCU board candidates are known 

That issue is unrelated to the DCU and it would be both improper and
pointless for DCU officials to try to investigate it.  I'm not implying
that everything is known; I'm stating that a DCU investigation would
not, I think, accomplish anything useful.  Nor do I think that pursuing
this issue through Digital channels would accomplish anything useful,
based on my own experience pursuing ethics issues at Digital.

> ...and that no federal or state laws or regulations (SEC, NCUA, etc)
> were broken?

Like you, I'm not aware of any laws being broken.  I have no idea 
about NCUA regulations, but in some past disputes the NCUA basically
said that if we didn't like what the BoD was doing we should vote
them out.  OK, so we did that.  Case closed.

> I am simply stating a personal sense of fair play, which I strongly
> applaud, is not a good enough reason to fail to protect the interest of
> DCU.

In my opinion, this has NOTHING to do with a personal sense of fair play.
It has to do with protecting the interests of the DCU -- which I strongly
believe that the 3Gs are trying to do.  Dave said that they plan to fix
the problems so that this sort of thing cannot happen again.  That's what
they need to do to protect the interests of the DCU.  If they were to
hold an investigation, I think it would be a case of "destroying the DCU
in order to save it".  These guys aren't addicted to phyrric victories,
and I'm glad of it.  
    
I'm guessing that part of what you are reacting to is a strong desire 
to know what really happened -- who did what to whom and why.  Well, I
share that desire!  But investigation or no, that kind of information
could not be shared in a public forum, so we're stuck.  At least, as
with the "member bill of rights", we can tell what happened by the
sorts of reforms that are implemented.
    
Anybody else have an opinion on this?
    
	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
.5> Anybody else have an opinion on this?
    
    Yes -- yours!
    

IMHO they *NEED* to release the invstigations done by the SC.  Remove names 
dates places whatever to satisfy the DCU lawyers (oxymoron I know but if 
they can't satisfy the lawyers then tell them to go to he!!) but the details 
of the investigation *MUST* be released.  This still 'smells' of coverup to 
me and my personal sense of trust in the DCU will be dependent on the release 
of these details.

Jilly

    
    Re .7:
    
    I sort of agree. Now I trust the Board -- but after this past election, I
    am exceedingly displeased with and distrustful of the Supervisory
    Committee. Some kind of report needs to be made public, or at least
    some SC positions have to change hands, before I will place any
    credence on them again.
    

    
>I'm guessing that part of what you are reacting to is a strong desire 
>to know what really happened -- who did what to whom and why.  Well, I
>share that desire!  

Bad guess.  I really don't care, I'm just happy that the 3Gs won. Nor do I 
generally think that results of investigations of this nature should be made
public.  An investigation in not an indictment.  Additionally, any negative
findings would be more properly turned over to the appropriate officials, not
forwarded around a network.

My concern is future liability.  Inaction by a board on suspected illegal 
activities could be construed as tacit approval, therefor, bringing liablity
forward into the current board.  If your assuptions are correct, and you sound
like you have much more information than I do, and there is good reason to
believe that all parties acted in strict legality then there is not an issue.

I understand and share the 3Gs desire to act in good faith and move forward.

I understand the issues of divisiveness that would arise from the "witch hunt"
style of investigation that was commented on in the memo.

I tried very hard in my original statement to avoid these inflamitory issues
as I don't think they have any place in bussiness dealings.  My concerns were
directed strictly at the single statement I highlighted and toward the legality
and future liability of inaction.


Al Cook

I would be very disappointed if the BOD did not ensure that any attempts by
Digital (either Personnel or other bigwigs in the company) to manipulate
the electoral process (or other DCU internal affairs) will be squashed, sat
upon and legally redressed if necessary.  If that takes some sort of informal
investigation of what went on this last time, then Do It!

- paul

    
    I think without an investigation we will never know if this
    was just the head of a giant serpent.
    
    I don't want any witches to burn. I just want to make sure it was
    only done out of pettiness. It should be put to rest not ignored.
    
    

I find it interesting that the agreement to not witchhunt was struck betwixt
the 3G's, Mr. Cockburn (soon to be departed) and Mr. Melchione, whom we'd
likely be better off without.

-Jack

I think there are multiple issues here:

1) The behaviour of DCU employees during the cancelled elections.

2) The behaviour of the SC during the replacement election.

The following are my opinions:

	1) The behaviour of DCU employees during the cancelled elections.

During the cancelled election, the DCU bylaws prohibited ANY DCU employee from
taking ANY part in the election, other than executing their right as a member
to vote for candidates of their choice.  We know that this bylaw was violated.
There should be an investigation to determine which DCU employees violated
this bylaw. All DCU employees that are found to have violated this bylaw should
be subject to normal DCU disciplinary procedures.  In the case of tellers
handing out inappropriate information, it may be that they were unaware that
they were prohibited from doing this, and were told by their supervisors to
hand out this information if they were asked for any information.  I strongly
suspect that non-management DCU employees were simply pawns in this and feel
that any non-management DCU employee should NOT be severely reprimanded.  ALL
DCU management employees should have been aware of the appropriate bylaws
and any employees who violated the bylaw OR were aware of violations AND did
nothing to stop them, should be subject to DCU disciplinary procedures,
UP TO AND INCLUDING DISMISSAL!  I view this violation of the bylaws by DCU
management as equivalent to treason against the credit union.  I can NOT say
this strongly enough, the BoD elections are the very heart of any credit union,
and the attempt by some to manipulate the outcome of this process is very
serious, and probably should be a violation of U.S. law, not just of the
bylaws.  If it is determined that entities other than DCU employees improperly
attempted to influence the election, the information should be referred to
the appropriate authority for possible criminal prosecution.

	2) The behaviour of the SC during the replacement election.

Something smells here.  The behaviour of the SC during the cancelled and
replacement elections is entirely out of character for the individuals on the
SC.  There should be an investigation to determine if any DCU employees
interfered with or influenced the functioning of the SC.  Any DCU employee
found to have engaged in these actions should be subject to DCU disciplinary
procedures, UP TO AND INCLUDING DISMISSAL!  If it is determined that entities
other than DCU employees influenced or interfered with the functioning of the
SC, the information should be referred to the appropriate authority for
possible criminal prosecution.

Bob

    I guess [I know] I am a bit disappointed that no attempt will be made
    atdiscovery of influences.  We'll never know if the Ford pardon of
    Nixon was good for the country.  It was noble, and so is this.
    What still remains will be the threat of action against any Digital
    employee who runs for a DCU position whose idea vary from an unknown
    entity.  It may become the case that only non-DEC people can safely run
    for a board position.  there is still a question/concern on the floor
    that needs to be addressed and not put under the carpet.
    
    a SC report with DETAILs needs to be released.  There was an apperance
    of bias in the election.
    
    there is the appearnce of a monster out there.  we hired good zoo
    keepers *today*.  what happens when they leave, or new zoo keepers get
    hired, or, the monster grows?
    I am dissappointed with the first actions of the new board.  They
    suffered the high price for the job, but they should remember the rest
    who supported them that are still here and can come to the same fate.

I'm much less interested in any investigation of DCU structures (SC, etc.),
because the people who can fix that are now in place.  The possibly continuing
unsavory Digital management influence is what needs to be checked out and
firmly squelched if found to be there.  I would think that some informal
detective work would be better for this than a formal investigation with a
report in triplicate though.
							- paul

    As a supporter of the 3G's, let me say I think it would be
    inappropriate for the 3G's (as winners) to now put it upon themselves
    to go after those that appeared to have fought against them (correctly
    or incorrectly).  I applaud David, for indicating he will not be a part
    of it.
    
    However, I, as a member/owner, am concerned by the actions of the SC
    and possibly certain members of the DCU staff.  While it is, in my
    opinion, iappropriate for the 3G's to call for and/or conduct, an
    investigation, maybe the other 4 members can/should.  Maybe, I/we, as
    the members/owners can/should.
    
    Not that I am advocating a special meeting (not necessary), are enough
    folks willing to call for some sort of action, from our board, to
    determine how this might have happened.  Or, maybe we should simply ask
    for assurances, that this never happens again.  I do not accept the new
    'rules' for campaigning as evidance that it will not happen again.
    
    Mark

> I do not accept the new 'rules' for campaigning as evidance that it will
> not happen again.

I would think that these "new rules" should be one of the first things to go.
It was pretty apparent from the 3G's themselves that they didn't consider
them to be "good" rules, much less the manner in which they were "enforced".

-Jack

    re .9:  I'm sorry that I guessed wrong about your interest in this.
    Here's another guess:  I am guessing that no one on the Board is
    aware of any laws that were definately broken.  I agree that if
    laws were broken, it must be faced.  However, if people simply
    violated internal DCU regulations, then that's different.  Rather
    than attacking the problem at the level of the people who did things,
    I would prefer that the new Board concentrate on the individuals and
    groups who were responsible for enforcing behavior during the election.
    For the DCU employees, that's Chuck and it's moot.  For everyone else,
    its either the Board itself (also moot) or the Supervisory Committee.
    
    And speaking of which, the S.C. did promise a report on the election.
    They also promised replies to individual complaints.  I haven't gotten
    a reply, and I haven't seen a report.  I do think that this issue needs
    closure of some kind.  It's the Board's job to see that it happens.
    
    
    re a few back:  I don't think the comparison to Ford's pardon of Nixon
    is valid.  Ford was NOT the injured party in that case.  If McGovern
    had won the election and issued the pardon, THAT would be comparable.
    Also, I don't think that even Ford's motive was nobility.  Right or
    wrong, Ford issued the pardon because he felt that doing so would be
    less harmful to the country than continuing to investigate Nixon.
    
    
    re 15:  I share your concern about the possibility of Digital
    management influence on the DCU.  I'm just saying that the DCU cannot
    investigate Digital, nor even find out what influence (if any) occurred
    unless someone involved speaks out voluntarily, which I don't expect.
    Lacking that, it's hard to see what can be done.  I invested a year
    of my life trying to pursue a set of ethics issues that were complex
    but well documented and got nowhere.  What can be done with this?
    I expect that the 3Gs will keep their eyes and ears open, though,
    
    
    Finally, please no one think that I'm hinting at some deep reserve
    of secret information about what happened during this election.
    I don't think that I have much non-public information about how this
    election was carried out.  I'm basing my assumptions mostly on what
    was publically reported and on my past experiences with the DCU.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

>   What can be done with this?

I'm not sure, but it certainly would be nice to have brought out in the
open why the SC (or some part thereof) felt that their positions at DIGITAL
might have been jeopardized if they hadn't toed a line being defined by
(someone?) No one should be expected to have to function under those
types of threats for work that they do in a voluntary capacity separate
from DIGITAL work. If nothing is done to expose any of that, there will
be nothing to prevent it from happening again. If something is done, the
possibility exists that the appropriate pressuring parties may have to
publicly respond.

-Jack

    FWIW, as a SC member my feelings of being threatened had to do mostly 
    with not knowing what was happening at Digital.  For example, I didn't 
    know (and still don't know) the particulars that resulted in the 3G's 
    getting fired.  I knew about as much about that as most who read these 
    note files.  At times, I wasn't certain whether anything I said or did 
    might lead to my own termination at Digital.
    
    But, as far as being forced to "toe a line" by some powerful folks at 
    Digital ...  That just didn't happen.  Not to me.  As far as I know, 
    not to other SC members.  Nor am I aware of pressure or inappropriate 
    influence from DCU management or employees that affected SC opinions
    or actions.  
    
    Steve

Then what _DOES_ explain the bias that was apparent in the actions of the
SC, Steve?

-Jack

    
    Ditto.
    
    Steve, don't take this personally. The SC is going to have to answer
    the question in .21, or face consequences similar to the 1991 BoD when
    they stood fast in their defiance and arrogance against the DCU
    membership.
    

>    FWIW, as a SC member my feelings of being threatened had to do mostly 
>    with not knowing what was happening at Digital.  For example, I didn't 
>    know (and still don't know) the particulars that resulted in the 3G's 
>    getting fired.  

Does this mean that the only way to get independent representation for DCU 
members is for that representation to not be employed at Digital?

Al

    I regard the SC actions as objective.
    
    As for the question on "the only way to get independent representation
    for DCU members," Digital and DCU are independent organizations.  They 
    cooperate with each other.  But, one does not run the other.  Each is 
    responsible for its own policies.
    
    As to aknowledgement that did not get to some people, I am checking 
    on that.  My understanding is that the same memo that went to the
    candidates and directors will also go out to complainants.  This is 
    basically a formal, public report from the SC on this year's election. 
    Other relevant reporting was done during the Annual Meeting and during 
    the last Board meeting.  Those who insist on more information are 
    welcome to contact DCU's General Counsel or Directors.
    
    Steve                                        

re: .24

>    I regard the SC actions as objective.

Steve, I have tried to give you the benefit of doubt in every situation, even
to the point of thinking that maybe some senior Digital person threatened you
with the loss of your job if you didn't do a hatchet job on the 3G's campaign,
but the above statement leaves me with only one conclusion;  You do not belong
on the SC if you believe your above statement.  I'm sorry, but you have lost
all credibility in my eyes.

Bob

    Bob,
    
    To defend myself, I would have to betray confidences.  I'm not going to
    do that.  If you insist on having SC members that betray confidences,
    so be it.  I would not have any part in such an organization.
    
    Steve 

    
>    As for the question on "the only way to get independent representation
>    for DCU members," Digital and DCU are independent organizations.  They 
>    cooperate with each other.  But, one does not run the other.  Each is 
>    responsible for its own policies.
    

Steve,

  I agree that Digital and DCU are supposed to be independent organizations.
That is what I would like to see.  But you already expressed that your actions
were modified by the fear of being fired.  Three candidates were fired for their
activities with DCU.  I agree that DCU is not run by Digital, but the 
influence and preasure that is being exerted is far beyond that of independent
organizations.

Al

    Al,
    
    My concern had to do with being careful about what I might say in notes
    and other media in Digital's purview.  The issue was whether or not I 
    felt obliged to "toe the line" of someone at Digital.  As for SC opinions 
    and actions, I feel the SC operated independently of Digital.
    
    Steve

    
    Can the SC enlighten us as to why it felt the necessity to attach
    an apparently biased letter to the campaign material that was
    circulated in DU branches for this past election, without breaching
    confidentiality?
    

    Steve, do you understand where many [or at least me] see an apparent
    bias on the part of the SC?
    to help clear up the appearnce of bias, one step would be to explain
    why the attachement to the handouts, and if needed, why weren't the
    same examining methods used for all candidates?  or did the sc not
    see the same thing other dcu members experienced?  can you shed some 
    light in this area?
    
    it would help
    ed
    

    The 3G's chose to include their materials exactly as they were 
    distributed by the DCU.  Phil Gransewicz chose to publish the opinion 
    of the SC regarding these materials.  The attachment consisted mostly 
    of that published opinion.  We felt that by including the attachment, 
    the SC struck reasonable balances between the rights of candidates to 
    vigorously campaign and the right of shareholders to an informed 
    choice.  As stated in the attachment, the SC felt that the materials 
    as they were could lead to violation of campaign rules.
    
    Steve

    In my opinion:
    
    It has been stated that the SC released it's analysis because part of it
    was release by the 3G's (I believe this recap is an accurate statement
    of why it was released.)
    
    It seems to me that this implies the SC felt used by the 3G's, and felt
    a need to level the playing field, and release the statement in order
    to NOT be used.  Unfortunatly, I believe the SC made an error in
    judgement in their means.  By releasing an analysis on ONLY the 3G's
    statements, their opinions became predudicial.  If the SC felt obligated
    to release the analysis of the 3G's statements, they also should have
    released a similar analysis of the other candidate statements.  Now, it
    could be argued that the other candidates did not request an analysis. 
    True, but the SC is the Supervisory Committee (hense the initials) and
    so should be able to take actions, to insure a fair election.  By only
    releasing the 3G analysis, the 3G's were penalized for being proactive
    in testing the new 'rules'.  The leason learned is, don't pre-release
    your statements to the SC.
    
    Now, in the future, the SC may wish to state that statements will not
    be judged, prior to public release, and such analysis will be released
    publically as well, but it seems that the SC made up rules along the
    way on this one.  An independant observer should not be allowed to make
    up rules along the way.
    
    Also, rules implemented should not provide for gray areas, which as
    shown by the analysis, clear have areas which are left open to
    interpretation.
    
    The SC should meet in secret, and we need to assume that the folks on
    the SC understand their roles, and if preasured should to consider
    resigning from the SC.
    
    I feel a sense of a which hunt here.  In my opinion, the good guys won,
    the membership has spoken, clearly.  Lets move on, and let our new
    (independant - majority are now non-Digital employees) BoD take care of
    business.

    re: .31
    
    If the SC felt the 3G's violated the rules, why wasn't their some sort
    of sanction.  As I understand the recent SC findings, this was a fair
    and impartial election.  Either the rules were violated (by the 3G's)
    or the rules were followed.  You can't have it both ways.
    
    Mark

    I agree that the material appears biased.  I'll comment on as much as 
    I think I can in this forum.  (For a brief instant, I felt tempted to 
    encourage the SC to "invent" something to make it look more balanced.  
    But, the inappropriateness of that should be obvious.)  
    
    The information in the attachment had already been made public, and 
    not by the SC.  I'm *not* going to claim that we got all potential 
    violations in the materials we received from candidates.  (We did miss
    some, but still feel in our reviews we hit most or all of the major 
    ones.)  But, everything that we found in materials that we thought 
    could lead to significant violation, we reported back to candidates.  
    
    Other candidates responded by making appropriate changes and meeting
    deadlines.  The 3G's responded, in this instance, by publishing our 
    opinion and (in the end) insisting that their materials be published 
    in the form that they were published.  We felt we could strike the 
    best balance through including the attachment.
    
    Steve

    Steve, I don't understand .31.
    
    did all candidates submit materials for review before publication?
    
    do you think the same audience saw phil's mailing as the people who got
    the handouts?
    
    did materials in non-3g violate any rules in the handouts?
    	if not, what would be the difference
    	if so, why wasn't it noted,
    	if no comment, why?
    
    some may enjoy the outcome of this election, but if we don't
    understand the problems, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes.
    and if we hide the problems, we are guilty of non-communication
    and isn't that one thing we didn't like?
    ed
    

    re: .35
    
    >did all candidates submit materials for review before publication?
    
    I'm not going to comment much on that.  However, I have no objections 
    to candidates themselves volunteering that information.  That's one 
    of the confidences that the SC is committed to maintain.  (I am
    concerned that I am already disclosing too much info on this already,
    but at this point I think I'm acting appropriately in maintaining
    confidences.)
    
    >do you think the same audience saw phil's mailing as the people who
    >got the handouts?
    
    I have no idea.  My understanding is that Phil's mailing reached many
    more shareholders than did the in-branch materials.  Also, during the
    election very few shareholders requested second ballots from DCU.
    But, I don't plan to disclose numbers.
    
    >did materials in non-3g violate any rules in the handouts?
    >        if not, what would be the difference
    >        if so, why wasn't it noted,
    >        if no comment, why?
    
    I'm not going to comment on what was and was not finally considered to
    be campaign violations.  I will affirm that the SC felt that there were
    material campaign violations, that appropriate steps were taken and 
    that the election results are valid.  
    
    In the case of the attachment, I understood that inclusion of the 
    attachment would likely constitute reasonable proof that DCU did not 
    intentionally participate in violating election rules.  Being
    published already, it could be shown to have been public knowledge
    that the SC considered portions of the material to potentially be in 
    violation of election rules.  My understanding is that if DCU were to 
    simply distribute those materials without an attachment or some other 
    action, it could have readily been argued that DCU inappropriately 
    distributed materials that were known to be potentially in violation 
    of election rules.  I am firmly against DCU knowingly participating 
    in the violation of election rules.
    
    The SC has committed to recommend to the Board changes to the rules 
    that will allow future elections to run more smoothly based on the 
    experiences of this election.
    
    Steve
    

    re: .36
    
    >The SC has committed to recommend to the Board changes to the rules 
    >that will allow future elections to run more smoothly based on the 
    >experiences of this election.
    
    There is only one change that needs to be made.  Put the rules back the
    way they were, AND ENFORCE THEM!  If Chuck had enforced the rules the
    first time, there would have been no need for changing the rules and a
    second election.  It's as simple as that.
    
    Bob
    

Steve,
    I rec'd the SC's response to my request for an analysis of non-3G
materials (published herein) which stated that the SC found no problems
with that material, even though it contained misleading statements very
similar to those included in the 3G's materials. I fail to see why this
argument of DCU's compliance in viloation of rules doesn't equally apply
to that side of the coin unless bias is being veiled.
-Jack

    I've refrained from commenting on the SC up until now.  Steve, since
    you have been responding, I have to address this to you.  A few notes
    back, you said that IT APPEARED that the SC report was BIASED.  To
    correct you.  IT WAS BIASED!  The same criticisms of the 3G's could
    have been made about the current Board Members who were running.
    
    Steve, I use to have a lot of respect for you.  If you think what the
    SC put out wasn't biased, which is what I hear you saying, you've lost
    my respect, and it appears a lot of other peoples respect.  If you
    continue saying that you can't say anything else because of
    confidentiality, and you really believe the SC was wrong in its actions,
    then the best thing for you to do is resign.  Your honor has been too badly
    tarnished from this point on...  I know this sounds harsh, but it's the
    truth.  I hope you can say something that will change my mind, but with
    you current defensive position, I have my doubts.
    
    Jim Morton

    Steve,
    
    Thanks for participating in this notes string!  I now have a better
    understanding of how things look from the point of view of the SC.
    Ignoring some tempting side paths, here is the point I think is the
    most important (from your .36):
    
    > In the case of the attachment, I understood that inclusion of the 
    > attachment would likely constitute reasonable proof that DCU did not 
    > intentionally participate in violating election rules.  
    
    All very lawyerly and CYA.  None of us, I think, have the least 
    objection to your having protected the DCU in this way.
    
    BUT WHAT ABOUT EQUIVALENT STATEMENTS IN THE OTHER CAMPAIGN MATERIAL?
    
    You thought it necessary to CYA on the 3G stuff, since your opinions
    about "possible" violations were public.  OK.  But having done so, 
    IMO you were obligated to subject the other statements to the EXACT
    same level of scrutiny and public reporting.  Yet you chose not to.
    You let pass language far more blatant than any in the 3G statements, 
    and only complained about the 3Gs.
    
    In the end, one must assume that you decided that neither the 3G
    statements nor the others constituted a clear violation of the
    election laws.  Great.  And as you said in .36, you felt that the
    3Gs had forced you to CYA by publishing your memo to them.  Great.
    
    Now why can't you see that we expected the SC to do more than
    concern itself with legalisms?  We expected the SC to treat
    the candidates equally, NOT to simply do legal CYA for the DCU.
    THAT's why people are upset with the SC.  You did part of your
    job, by protecting the DCU from theoretical potential legal
    problems.  But you didn't do the part of your job that we cared
    about and trusted you to do.  You didn't treat the candiates
    equally in your public actions.
    
    If the SC thinks their job is JUST to provide legal protection
    for the DCU, then I think it's time we get a new SC who believes
    that fairness and equal treatment is also a key part of their job.
    
    	Sincerely,
    	Larry Seiler
    
    PS -- Remember the Board communication meetings, the first time that
    checking fees were introduced?  The old Board told us that since the
    "participation loans" were investments, it was all perfectly legal.
    I don't think they ever understood that we wanted something more than
    just "perfectly legal".  LS

    I said that the SC was objective.  I said the response appeared to be
    biased.  I have been careful about how I have picked my words in this
    matter.  The attachment focuses on potential violations in the 3G
    materials.  It does *NOT* draw attention to potential violations in
    the materials of others.  In that sense it appears "biased."  
    
    However, in labeling it "biased" there is also an implication that it is
    prejudiced and that it was generated through other than an objective
    process.  That part of calling it biased would be untrue.  So, while I
    grant that it APPEARS to be biased, I stop short of calling it biased
    because the process involved was, in my view, impartial and
    unprejudiced.
    
    What some seem to want is aknowledgement that other materials from
    other candidates were reviewed, that potential violations were found
    and that these were corrected by the submittors.  I'm saying that I 
    regard that as confidential information and that those with further 
    interest would have better luck approaching the candidates about that.
    
    As for whether or not anyone has respect for what I say or do
    personally ...  think about it.  When was the last time you or anyone 
    you know went up to a referee after a Little League game or a high 
    school basketball game and complimented him or her on the calls?  I've 
    never heard of that happening.  Everybody tends to hate the ref.  
    Everybody disagrees with calls from the ref.  "Kill the ump!" is 
    pretty fun to yell from the stands.  I've seldom seen a coach smile 
    at a ref.  During the heckling before, during and after a game, I have
    never heard a ref being thanked for a job well done.  Insults are
    frequent and largely go ignored, at least from all appearances.
    
    So it is with being on the Supervisory Committee.  I have been
    insulted, prodded and poked at by a LOT of people who all hope to sway
    the SC.  Sometimes, these proddings and pokings have seemed to me to 
    encourage me to do things that I regard as illegal, immoral and just 
    plain wrong.  (I'm NOT going to give details.)  For what it's worth, 
    I have never gotten such pressure from Digital management or DCU 
    management.  To date, it has ALL come from folks apparently supporting 
    the election or the agenda of the 3G's.  
    
    Now, tell me, from my point of view and assuming that what I am writing 
    right now has a tiny grain of truth to it, who do you think I would be 
    inclined to struggle with as far as trust and respect?
    
    Take a look again at the attachment if you feel like it.  What is the
    nature of the areas where the SC expressed concern?  The term
    "misleading" comes up a lot.  I've heard a lot of grousing about how
    other materials had misleading stuff and why didn't the attachment hit
    all those?  I have *yet* to hear anyone put up a substantial argument
    showing me why the 3G materials were NOT misleading (not that I'm
    looking for or even care much for one).  In fact, there seems to have 
    been a rather tacit agreement with the SC on this.  
    
    More, the SC has explicitly left it up to the shareholders to decide.  
    I think that's the way it should be.  And, the SC has also been very 
    clear that there is room for tolerating a certain amount of, shall we 
    say, campaign rhetoric for materials from all sides.  It's part of 
    balancing between the rights of the candidates and the rights of the 
    shareholders.
    
    I know that some favor some sort of conspiracy theory with respect to 
    the DCU.  And, there are some who feel comfortable with the idea that 
    there is still some deep, dark conspiracy going on.  They figure that 
    I and others who have become involved with DCU have somehow been given 
    money or privilege or some such nonsense in order to push the agenda 
    of powerful people.
    
    Do you want to know what I found out when I joined the SC?  Surprise!
    No conspiracy.  I was misled.  I was encouraged to think that there 
    was some sort of conspiracy going on and someone pulling strings over 
    at DCU through the SC.  If I had found anything like that, I would have
    probably gone straight to the Board or the NCUA about it.
    
    What about some of the former Directors that some have so readily and
    publicly exacerbated here?  I've seen them work.  I've seen and heard
    what has gone on in the Board room.  I've seen a lot.  But, I've not
    seen a conspiracy.
    
    So, how are some of the goings on to be explained over the last year?
    How would I, as a SC member, explain what has really been happening?
    Well, here's my take on it ...
    
    Years ago I worked fairly closely with folks to reform DCU.  There was
    clearly something wrong.  Changes clearly needed to be made.  I worked
    hard with many folks to make changes happen.  My heart is still in that
    effort.  There was and still is a lot to learn on the part of the
    "revolutionaries."  And, there are a bunch of folks who have come a
    long way to improving the DCU.  I think DCU is on a good track.  And,
    believe it or not, I feel that shareholders have chosen good Board
    members.  Then again, I felt that shareholders had a raft of good
    people to choose from.
    
    So, why the problem?  I think that in addition to strong, leadership
    characters and the type of friction that can arise, many of the
    problems have stemmed from gaps in understanding.  That is, we have
    folks new to positions that have tremendous knowledge about segments of
    the business -- and gaps in understanding regarding some critical areas.
    
    This is perhaps like an engineer who perhaps went to school and learned 
    about circuits and computers but never learned about, say, calculus.
    The engineer may be a wiz at circuits and computers, but when a
    calculus problem hits may be at a loss as to how to best understand
    or approach it.
    
    This isn't all due to lack of learning.  It's also due to
    inexperience in matters where there are no courses, no textbooks,
    nothing to show how it's done.  These elections are a case in point.
    Few, if any, credit unions have had to deal with elections as they are
    done here.  Even here, the past few elections have been quite heated.
    But, how many people have really been involved?  10%?  20% of the
    credit union population?  With most credit unions, the reality is that
    there is mostly apathy regarding elections.  I'm glad we have a much
    less apathetic collection of shareholders.  But, it brings challenges
    along with it.
    
    So, where are these gaps I'm alluding to?  Much of it has to do with a
    fundamental understanding of how credit unions work, how valid audits 
    are done, what survey results mean, why and when experts should be 
    trusted, accounting processes, confidentiality and so forth.  It may be 
    more than any one person can understand.  Because the assets of real 
    people are at stake, it's vital that the right things be done.  So, 
    there's a lot of pressure to follow process and rules for the survival 
    of the credit union.  And, all of that requires a lot of work -- 
    a lot of work for volunteers.
    
    Some have the mistaken notion that I, as a SC member, have been
    pleading or hoping that I won't be thrown out.  Frankly, it hasn't
    been fun and I have taken a lot of abuse.  I'm not really
    "fighting" with anybody to keep this position.  If anything, I am
    fighting with myself.  It would be easy to just resign and not look
    back.  But, my own sense of integrity -- having to face myself in the
    mirror each morning -- is what kept me on and what keeps me in.  As 
    long as I feel I can operate with integrity, independence and 
    objectivity on the SC, I plan to continue.  It's a personal thing.
    
    Meanwhile ...  "Play ball!"
    
    Steve
                                                                      

    re: .41
    
    Larry, you and I disagree in a fundamental way.  I'd love to go down
    the rathole on this issue, but have been constrained from doing so.
    And, I agree with the reasons for why I shouldn't.  Has to do with
    potentially litigious circumstances.
    
    Steve

        Well, I  for  one have no axe to grind with Steve.  Having read
        .42 a couple  of  times,  it seems clear that Steve is making a
        definitive statement that there  is and has been no evidence of
        conspiracy and I'm prepared to  accept  that.  Similarly, there
        are a number of issues of  a confidential nature that Steve has
        alluded to do and (correctly) declined to discuss.
        
        So given the above, why don't we  all stop poking at one of the
        few people who has been responsive in this  conference and look
        to the future of the DCU.  Let the  past  go  -  the  3 Gs have
        carried the day, which is what most folks wanted -  let's  move
        on.
        
        Andy
        

RE: <<< Note 894.42 by NETCAD::SHERMAN "Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2" >>>

>>    Everybody tends to hate the ref.  
>>    Everybody disagrees with calls from the ref.

     Sadly enough, this statement indicates that you have given up even 
trying to do the right thing.  This kind of sentiment excuses any and every
bad decision made by the SC.  While I certainly think the members should 
thank the SC for the good calls it makes, this part of your message is a 
pretty good indication that not many good calls are going to ever occur.

                                   Greg

re: .45

I don't agree with you...it seems to me that only the most uncharitable
interpretation would read that into what Steve said.  The SC may or may
not have done the job as we wanted in this last campaign, but i don't
think we should be imputing motives to their actions when we can't know
what the motives were.  I certainly haven't lost any respect for Steve,
although i was less than pleased with some of the SC actions.  If anything,
the fact that he keeps communicating back in spite of all the shots taken
at him raises my respect for him.
							- paul

RE:   <<< Note 894.46 by ARCANA::CONNELLY "Don't try this at home, kids!" >>>

>>I don't agree with you...

     That's OK.  I don't agree with you either.  That is often the case in
these heated issues..

                                     Greg

    re: the last few ...
    
    Thanks, guys.  I hear where you're coming from.  I agree that it's time
    to pick up and move on.  I *do* appreciate the interest folks are
    showing in the credit union and hope your interest and enthusiasm for
    shaping DCU continues.
    
    Steve

    
    
    
    .42 Was a good read. I've stopped being mad at the SC now.
    
    

Well, I ain't defused yet.

.42>    What some seem to want is aknowledgement that other materials from
.42>    other candidates were reviewed, that potential violations were found
.42>    and that these were corrected by the submittors.

I don't particularly care whether or not any corrections were made to the
materials of the other candidates. What I care about is that I requested
a formal review of materials of the other candidates, and that the SC
formally responded that they saw "no problems" in these materials which
were, according to the unbiased and objective logic you used in responding
to the 3G's materials, at least a blatently "misleading" or otherwise
inappropriate. I don't care if you reviewed them before that in another
state. I don't care what you may have found or not in any such review. I
don't care about what recourse may or may not have been taken. I care
about the SC's publicly stated attitude of "these are just dandy" compared
to their view of the 3G's materials.

-Jack

Jack,

How long does this horse have to be dead before you quite whackin' it?

You had some good points and still may, but eventually you need to 
realize that your forehead is bleeding and that brick wall isn't gonna
give, even a little.

Your with humor.....

John I

re: .51

It's real simple.  The 3G's won in spite of having the playing field tilted
badly against them.  NO CANDIDATE should have to go through what the 3G's did.
I want to know what is being done to ensure that this can NEVER happen again.
As far as I can tell, all the losers have learned from this election is that
they didn't tilt the playing field enough in their favor.  That is NOT the
lesson any member should want anyone to have learned.

Bob

    
    Amen. Amen. Amen.
    
    (It's not only Jack's forehead that's getting bloodied against this
    brick wall -- and this will be just one of the DCU brick walls that
    falls to the will of the owners.)
    

re a few back:  I for one am not picking at Steve.  Quite the contrary,
I have frequently thanked Steve for his contributions, which have
(especially recently) gone a long way toward explaining how the S.C.
came up with the decisions that they did.  Steve's openness in this
notes string is refreshing.

But I *emphatically* don't agree that this issue should be dropped.
If the S.C. appears to be acting in an unfair fashion, then that's
a serious issue that needs to be resolved.  At some point the whole
issue gets turned over to the Board, but I think comment here is
still valid.

Note that I said "fair", not "unbiased" or "objective".  Criteria can
be completely objective and even unbiased, and yet not be fair.  I
expect more than objectivity out of the S.C. -- I expect fairness.

re .43:  
>    Larry, you and I disagree in a fundamental way.  I'd love to go down
>    the rathole on this issue, but have been constrained from doing so.
>    And, I agree with the reasons for why I shouldn't. 

My thanks to Steve for saying this much about the issue -- I'm quite
aware that many things cannot be spoken of.  However, this was in
reply to my note .41 on the importance of fairness as opposed to *just* 
being satisfied with legal protections.  If Steve really does see that 
concern as a "rathole", then there's no question that we disagree
fundamentally.  Well, I'm used to that.


re .42:  There's a lot here, but I'll try to select and illuminate the 
most significant areas where I disagree.

>    What some seem to want is aknowledgement that other materials from
>    other candidates were reviewed, that potential violations were found
>    and that these were corrected by the submittors.  

I don't recall a SINGLE request for this.  Many people asked the S.C.
to acknowledge that the non-G materials AS PRINTED contained many
statements just as problematic (and in some cases more so) than the ones
the S.C. complained about in the 3G materials AS PRINTED.  *Nobody* asked
if there were changes in the non-G material prior to publication.

>    As for whether or not anyone has respect for what I say or do
>    personally ...  think about it.  When was the last time you or anyone 
>    you know went up to a referee after a Little League game or a high 
>    school basketball game and complimented him or her on the calls?  

Everyone in my town praises one of the toughest referees that we've got.
The reason is because he calls ALL violations, NOT just the violations
committed by one side!  Some of the soccer teams that we play against are 
quite rough -- their coaches explicitly instruct their teams to knock
down their opponents.  Other refs aren't biased, it's just that they
frequently miss incidents or are simply inconsistent.  With this ref on
the field, every such case results in a penalty call and an explanation of
what was wrong.  We like that, and we're happy when we see him on the field.

Is the parallel sufficiently obvious?  

>    So it is with being on the Supervisory Committee.  I have been
>    insulted, prodded and poked at by a LOT of people who all hope to sway
>    the SC.  

I'm sorry if I'm seen in this light.  I have called for fair and equal
public treatment of all candidates by the S.C.  I have explicitly said
that I was not criticizing candidates.  I guess that still counts as
hoping to sway the S.C. -- well, it is, and it's valid to do so!


>    Now, tell me, from my point of view and assuming that what I am writing 
>    right now has a tiny grain of truth to it, who do you think I would be 
>    inclined to struggle with as far as trust and respect?

I beleive that Steve is sincere and that what he wrote is absolutely true
from his viewpoint.  But I believe that the former Board members, as well as
most of the Board members from 2 years ago, were completely sincere, too.
Sincerity doesn't make someone right (not even me!).  The issue is, should
the S.C. *publicly* treat all candidates the same, or not?  They didn't.


>    I have *yet* to hear anyone put up a substantial argument
>    showing me why the 3G materials were NOT misleading (not that I'm
>    looking for or even care much for one).  In fact, there seems to have 
>    been a rather tacit agreement with the SC on this.  

Not true!  I offered a few comments on this subject in my complaint to the 
S.C., which was a complaint ABOUT the S.C., not about the campaign literature.
I explicitly said that I didn't object to any statement by any candidate.
For the record, I consider not one of the 3G statements to be misleading.
    
But mostly I focussed on comparisons.  I do not presume to judge how
severely the S.C. should have enforced the rules.  I presume to judge
that if they publicly call a statement by one candidate "misleading", 
they must make the same public statement about any equivalently 
"misleading" statement from anyone else.  That's fair.


>    I know that some favor some sort of conspiracy theory with respect to 
>    the DCU.  

Actually, some people *guessed* that there might be pressure on the S.C.
because they couldn't understand any other reason why the S.C. behaved
in blatantly unequal ways toward different candidates.  Myself, I always
suspected that there was a legal basis to it.  I guess I was right.


Regarding the rest of what Steve wrote, I'll just note again that I
agree about the sincerity of those he refers to.  And certainly many
people involved with the DCU have a lot to learn.  But I think Steve
missed one crucial point -- this really was a clash of philosophies.
Some people want meeting minutes to hide as much as possible; other
people want meeting minutes to reveal as much as possible.  Some
people want credit unions to think in terms of "how can I make basic
services as affordable as possible"; others think in terms of "how
can the credit union maximize its service income".  Neither position
is evil; neither position is the result of lack of education.
Sincere people can disagree on these and many other issues.  

But I trust and respect people who try to be open and fair in the way
that they expound their positions and try to convince others to agree.
My own biggest issue with the former boards has always been that I did
not feel that they lived up to my standard of openness and fairness.

Based on what I have seen, the S.C. as a whole doesn't, either.  For
example, I wrote to them asking for a justification of their apparently
biased and unfair conduct.  I hoped for an explanation, e.g. mention of
some of the issues that Steve has hinted at.  I thought I'd get a polite
letter saying that confidentiality prevented them from explaining.
Instead, I got a letter saying that they found no major problems with the
campaign statements -- which was completely irrelevant to the issues I
raised!  They either didn't even read my complaint, or else they decided
to ignore it and pretend that they had answered it.  That simply doesn't
live up to my standards, but more on that elsewhere.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

re: .-1, Larry

Well said.

> They either didn't even read my complaint, or else they decided
> to ignore it and pretend that they had answered it.

This was the impression I got from their response to my request for
analysis of non-3G materials. It was alomost as if they were condescending
to say to me, "Yes, yes, little man, now go away and be quiet."

-Jack

Folks,

I forwarded my note 894.54 to the 3Gs, as allowed under Digital policy.
Phil Gransewicz asked me to post the following in response.  Phil
comments on a quote that I included from an earlier note written by
Steve Sherman.  Naturally, it is my responsibility if the quote is
taken out of context or is inaccurate in any way.  Steve, I'd appreciate 
it if you would forward your complete note to Phil, to ensure that Phil 
understands your whole position on this issue, rather than basing his
ideas on my comments about your position and the position of the S.C.

	Thanks,
	Larry

    

From:	US3RMC::"[email protected]" 20-OCT-1994 04:30:09.03
To:	wrksys::seiler
CC:	
Subj:	Election actions of the SC

Larry,

I have received many messages concerning Mr. Sherman's postings in
the DCU notes conference.  Please post this in the appropriate note.

Thanks,
Phil


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

Mr. Sherman has claimed he is being constrained from responding to
members' questions concerning the actions of the SC during the past
two elections.  I would simply ask him to give a COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
presentation of what happened where our statements are concerned, as
well as the making of the election rules.

After the first election was cancelled (one day after the three of
us were fired by the new Digital) we attended a meeting where our
input on new election rules was given.  Our overriding concern was
the issuance of slander sheets by faceless committees.  Just about 
our only, non-negotiable point was that ALL campaign material
contain the name of a responsible individual.  We were lead to believe
that that would happen.  When the final rules were issued, the wording
of the rules did NOT support that requirement.  After seeing all of the
new and ambiguous rules, I was not pleased that such a basic and easily
addressed requirement hadn't been met.  I asked for the SC to clarify
the rule and say that it interpretted it to mean the name of an
individual was required.  THE SC *REFUSED* TO ISSUE THAT CLARIFICATION.
I would ask that Mr. Sherman, or any other SC member, explain their
response.

If that wasn't enough, the final rules contained a rule that hadn't
even been discussed in any meeting or rules discussion that I partici-
pated in, namely the rule allowing candidates to access DCU mailing lists
for mailings to the membership.  I knew the minute I saw that rule, what
was in store for us in a few weeks.  Where did that rule come from? 
Who introduced it into the rules?  When we saw it, we asked that it be
modified to notify all candidates if a mailing list was obtained
by any one of the candidates.  That request was denied.  So much for
getting input from the candidates.

>    I have *yet* to hear anyone put up a substantial argument
>    showing me why the 3G materials were NOT misleading (not that I'm
>    looking for or even care much for one).  In fact, there seems to have 
>    been a rather tacit agreement with the SC on this.  

The above statement by Mr. Sherman is a misrepresentation of the
facts and is extremely disturbing.  I was contacted by the SC in the
course of the election concerning the usage of a percentage figure that
indicated DCU fees were above the national average for credit unions.
The number was one of the numbers that the SC took issue with in their
attack on our statements.  I responded with a complete, detailed,
point-by-point explanation of each point raised.  I explained in detail
where the base numbers came from and how the percentage
was calculated.  I never heard back from the SC, either way, on whether
the complaint was valid or the numbers were valid.  Had the SC offered
us a similar opportunity for all of the other statements they claim
*MIGHT* violate the election rules, they would have received similar,
in-depth explanations of our statements and numbers.  We were never
given that opportunity.  We were, in essence, denied due process.

The SC claims of protecting the membership and providing for a vigorous
campaign simply don't hold water when placed next to their statement 
that our questioning the direction of the credit union was somehow 
misleading, incomplete or whatever they called it.  It was NOT the task
of the SC to protect the credit union from a direction and philosophy
that was not in harmony with direction and philosophy in place at the
time.  A vigorous campaign means that supporters of the current
direction and philosophy must explain and defend it to the membership.
Yet, somehow, we were at fault for not including reference to others
that didn't agree with us.  Simply ludicrous.

The most ridiculous (and damaging) part of the past election was the
use of fear by certain candidates.  Two of those people were WELL aware
that DCU's surveys indicated that DCU's number one priority was
improvement in the area of assurance (memberships opinion of DCU's safety
& soundness).  Yet they issued campaign materials which seemed to play
upon that point.  Maybe Mr. Sherman could explain why those statements
did not violate any of the election rules.  If the SC should have done
ANYTHING, they should have acted on statements such as those.  And then
I hear that Ms. Ross posts a note in the conference questioning my
commitment to open and honest communications when Mr. Cockburn announces
his resignation three days of our victory and I don't post it
immediately.  To be honest, I was extremely concerned that his resig-
nation, combined with previous election statements by some candidates,
might cause many DCU members to mistakeably fear for DCU's safety and
soundness.  Reality is that DCU is as strong as EVER, and after the
election many people indicated they intended to return their business
to DCU.  I think the membership will be truly supportive of the new
direction in which DCU is headed.  I would ask that people continue to
use DCU, even if they do not work for Digital.

There is much more to this past election that people aren't aware of
and probably never will be.  I can state in very clear and unambiguous
terms that as a director of the credit union that I am opposed to the
types of rules that were placed on the candidates in the last election.
My opinion is that they, and their enforcement, did not serve the
membership as advertised.  I will not support any such rules in future
elections.  If members wish to run for the Board and criticize direction
or policies, then they should be allowed to do so without fear of some
set of ambiguous and unevenly enforced rules.  Others running for
Board can choose to respond, or not.  THAT is open, honest and vigorous
campaigning.  DCU members can judge for themselves without the help
of the SC or anybody else.

Phil

P.S.  I'm behind on responding to my mail but I'd like to let people
know that I will respond to all mail sent to me.  Please help keep the
lines of communication open.  Let us all know what you're thinking.


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us3rmc.pa.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA01827; Thu, 20 Oct 94 01:26:05 -070
% Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA05829; Thu, 20 Oct 94 01:24:15 -070
% Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA13829; Thu, 20 Oct 1994 04:23:41 -040
% Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 04:23:41 -0400
% From: [email protected]
% Sender: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: wrksys::seiler
% Subject: Election actions of the SC

    I will forward my note to Phil.  I personally have no objections to any
    of my notes being forwarded or read by any DCU Director.  Given the
    inflammatory nature of Phil's response, given that he is the Chairman
    of the DCU Board of Directors and is here publicly disparaging me and 
    the SC in his response, I plan tonight to generate a more formal 
    response to post here.  I also intend to forward his posting and my 
    response to DCU's General Counsel.
    
    Steve

re: .57

>    response to post here.  I also intend to forward his posting and my 
>    response to DCU's General Counsel.

One of the reasons given for invalidating the first election and the weird
campaigning rules was to avoid any lawsuits.  Now, when you find you can't
defend your position, you run to the lawyers.

Bob

    Bob, I am concerned about litigious implications of personal 
    and public disparagement of SC officers by the Chairman of the BoD.  
    In addition, an answer Mr. Gransewicz's claims could involve 
    confidential information issues.
    
    Steve

Steve,

Clearly Phil is objecting to some actions taken by the S.C. and is asking
the S.C. to justify others.  But why do you feel that he "is here publicly
disparaging me"?  He only made one comment about YOU in the message that I
posted, as opposed to comments about the actions of the SC.  Here it is:


Steve>  I have *yet* to hear anyone put up a substantial argument
Steve>  showing me why the 3G materials were NOT misleading (not that I'm
Steve>  looking for or even care much for one).  In fact, there seems to have 
Steve>  been a rather tacit agreement with the SC on this.  

Phil>   The above statement by Mr. Sherman is a misrepresentation of the
Phil>   facts and is extremely disturbing.  


I made essentially the same statement as Phil -- that you are incorrect
to assert that no one put up a subtantial argument against the SC's claim 
that the 3G election materials were misleading.  Futher, I disagreed with 
your assertion that there is a tacit agreement with the SC that the 3G 
materials were misleading.  I posted material regarding this two months
ago, as well as later sending it to you for direct forwarding to the SC.

Does that mean that I disparaged you?  I'm sorry if you took it that way.
I thought that I was disagreeing with your factual claims.  I thought it
was valid to publicly state opinions and disagree about facts (as opposed
to personalities).  Given the numerous claims that the SC has published
against now-Board Chairman Phil, I thought you'd agree that this is valid.

Further, I don't understand what in Phil's reply you are labeling as
"inflammatory".  Phil claims that certain events are facts and 
expresses his opinions about them.  Are you disagreeing with his
claims about what happened?  If so, I hope that your more formal
response makes it clear where you think Phil's facts are incorrect.

	Sincerely,
	Larry Seiler

PS:  Disparage is defined as "to speak of as unimportant or inferior; 
belittle".  Perhaps another word would be more accurate?  None of us
are acting as if the SC is unimportant!  Quite the contrary...

Trying to find anything remotely disparaging in Phil's response is IMHO
impossible because there *isn't* anything.  

Phil responded that he/they had responded point by point to the SC's objections
to his/their statements:  

Phil> I responded with a complete, detailed, point-by-point explanation of each
Phil> point raised.

Steve has previously said:

>    I have *yet* to hear anyone put up a substantial argument
>    showing me why the 3G materials were NOT misleading (not that I'm
>    looking for or even care much for one).  In fact, there seems to have 
>    been a rather tacit agreement with the SC on this.  

So we have a difference of opinion between Phil and Steve.  All I can say is
that truth is often in the eye of the beholder.  In this case I doubt we'll find
a right or wrong.  But it does raise questions on the way buisness was conducted
within the SC.

Jilly

I read nothing either disparaging or inflammatory in Phil's message, either.

Perhaps this is a good example of how opinions differ - some folks saw
"nothing wrong" with the non-3G campaign materials, as well.

I'm unsure what value there is in running to a (hopefully) lame-duck
general counsel, either.

-Jack

    Larry, 
    
    Do you feel that it should be ignored if the Chairman of the BoD of 
    DCU publicly calls a member of the SC a liar?
    
    Steve

    As for the last few, as I said, I plan to work on a response tonight.
    I haven't stated my case, yet.  And, I don't know how much I will be
    allowed to discuss in a public format.
    
    Steve

    
    	A couple back...
    
    	You mean "Vu-Ja-De" the feeling that we will do this again.
    
    	People should get over it and do their job or get a new hobby.
    

>And, I don't know how much I will be
>    allowed to discuss in a public format.

Steve, who's holding you back? You keep making statements like this as if there
is someone out there pulling your stings and telling you what you can and can't
say here. If there is, who is this person?

-Glenn-

    Glenn, I signed agreements with DCU not to divulge DCU confidential
    information.  This is pretty much required of all volunteers who serve
    DCU.  I am also under agreement not to divulge attorney/client and 
    other information.  The main thing that keeps me from divulging certain
    information is my sense of integrity with respect to the agreements I
    made.
    
    Steve

Steve, I fail to see anything in Larry's posting of Phil's message in .56
wherein Phil has publicly called you, or anyone else on the SC, a liar.
Please clarify.

-Jack

>    Glenn, I signed agreements with DCU not to divulge DCU confidential
>    information.  This is pretty much required of all volunteers who serve
>    DCU.  I am also under agreement not to divulge attorney/client and 
>    other information.  The main thing that keeps me from divulging certain
>    information is my sense of integrity with respect to the agreements I
>    made.

Steve, how do you determine if something is DEFCU confidential information? Is
this your own personal judgement call or is this defined somewhere? If it's
defined somewhere, where is that somewhere and how does it define DEFCU
confidential?

I have a hard time seeing where DEFCU confidential information (whatever that
is) and attorney/client privilege has to do with the SC not answering the
questions asked in this note. Can you at least tell us the *category* of DEFCU
confidential information that can not be discussed here relative to the
questions that have been posed to you? Or is even the category of confidential
information confidential?

Do you see a pattern here?

-Glenn-

    Steve,
    
    >  Do you feel that it should be ignored if the Chairman of the BoD of
    >  DCU publicly calls a member of the SC a liar?
    
    No, of course not.  But...
    
    1)  You aren't ignoring Phil's message, and no one has asked you to.
    I'm glad that you are writing a formal reply, since I would like to
    see the SC's view of events published.
    
    2)  Phil did not call you a liar.  Lying is a deliberate act.  Phil
    said that your statement misrepresented the facts.  He did not say
    that you did this deliberately.
    
    3)  I'm sure that there is much confidential information that you
    cannot reveal.  The facts that Phil asserted in his message are
    pretty obviously not in that category.  I can't imagine that there
    is any bar to the SC talking about its interactions with Phil.
    
    
    Of course, what we have here is a major failure to communicate.
    Steve, I really don't understand why you are flying off the handle
    over people disagreeing with the SC's actions.  Charges of lying
    and being inflammatory are, in my view, simply not justified.
    
    Furthermore, many of your messages charge that people are trying
    to force you to tell about confidential things.  But the categories
    you cite in evidence of this are not things that I've heard anyone
    ask about!  Who *CARES* what discussions the SC had with the nonG
    candidates?  *ALL* we care about is the SC's public actions during
    the campaign.  I feel that we have a right to insist that the SC
    justify their public actions on our behalf.  I'm sorry if that
    makes you angry or makes you feel that I'm questioning your honesty.
    I'm not.  I'm not even saying that you shouldn't have published
    the text about the 3G statements.  I'm asking why you didn't treat
    the 3G and nonG statements in an equal fashion.  You have answered
    many questions -- thanks! -- but you haven't answered that one.
    
    	Sincerely,
    	Larry
    
    PS:  We used to have a Board Chairman who publicly called a lot of 
    members (including you, I think) "Witch hunters".  That was out of 
    line, I felt, but nobody ran to lawyers about it.  

    As I understand it, the Board, DCU's General Counsel, the
    Supervisory Committee and other DCU officers determine what is 
    confidential.  Some information becomes confidential by default with 
    action to be taken to make it non-confidential.  Some is explicitely 
    non-confidential.
    
    So, why don't I just make something non-confidential?  First, I don't
    do it alone.  A process has been established to make confidential
    information non-confidential.  Often, things have to be determined as 
    events progress as to what should be confidential and what should not.  
    DCU's General Counsel is often consulted by the Board and the SC.  That 
    advice has to be carefully weighed since that's who may wind up 
    representing DCU in court.  And, in considering what to make 
    confidential or non-confidential DCU has to consider effects 
    other than legal concerns.  My acting alone could deny DCU of its 
    rights and obligations with respect to maintainenance of 
    confidences.
    
    With respect to matters involving the election, DCU was in a 
    potentially litigious situation specific to the election.  Just 
    because the election is over doesn't necessarily mean DCU is 
    now in the clear.
    
    Steve

    Folks,
    
    .71 is obviously true.  At this point, I suggest that a meeting,
    either between Steve and Phil or between the SC and the BoD, is
    the best course of action.  The DCU General Counsel obviously
    should be present as well.  Hopefully such a meeting would start
    by establishing agreement on objective facts (what events occurred).
    It might also end there, but at least that would be constructive.
    Ideally, it would continue into discussion of the reasoning (both
    legal and otherwise) behind various actions.
    
    I hope this meeting happens, and I hope that a report of some kind
    is released to the membership.  Naturally, there's a lot that couldn't
    be revealed to the membership.  But it's time for the SC and the BoD
    to speak plainly with each other.
    
    I will try to resist responding in this string again until such a 
    meeting happens, until it becomes clear that it won't happen, or 
    unless someone asks me a question or comments on my earlier replies.
    
    	Sincerely,
    	Larry

There seems to be a LARGE disagreement over the 'facts' in this case.  I believe
it is in the interest of both the SC and the BoD and especially the DEFCU to
have the meeting proposed in .72.  I'll be forwarding my request to the BoD
later today.

Jilly

    I'm checking now about having a meeting.
    
    Steve

    re: .72
    
    > With respect to matters involving the election, DCU was in a 
    > potentially litigious situation specific to the election.  Just 
    > because the election is over doesn't necessarily mean DCU is 
    > now in the clear.
    
    I'm not sure I understand what is being said here.  It seems to read
    like the SC must keep quite, rather then possibly provide information 
    that might be used in court for any possible law-suit brought by anyone
    who might feel they were wronged...  maybe?
    
    I hope someone might explain what the above paragraph from .72 means.
    
    Mark
    
    very curious

    I don't mean to be rude, but I'll not be participating in this notes string 
    for the time being.  Also, I'll not be posting a response to note
    894.56 anytime soon.  I do, however, plan to post information later
    as it becomes appropriate.
    
    Steve

    
    
    yawn.
    

    
    re. .77  >>yawn.
    
    
    Aw come on now, this is better than OJ isn't it? ;-)
    
    
    I am definately glad to see there will be a "meeting"... hopefully
    something good will come out of it.
    
    Let's not dwell so much on the history, let's work to make sure history
    doesn't repeat itself...  
    
    
    
    John
    

From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" 22-OCT-1994 21:48:43.88
To:	wldbil::kilgore, wrksys::seiler
CC:	
Subj:	Information...

Bill and Larry:

This may be posted in its entirety in the the DCU notes conference,
and may be shared with any DCU member as long as the appropriate
forwarding headers are retained and the contents of the message
is not altered in any way.  This is NOT an official correspondence 
from DCU.

The Board of Directors is in receipt of a resignation letter from
Supervisory Committee member Steve Sherman.  The two sentence
letter, announcing his immediate resignation, was dated October
21st.  It was delivered to all board members via overnight courier on
Saturday, October 22nd.

Chris


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AB00607; Sat, 22 Oct 94 21:44:39 -040
% Received: from mail02.prod.aol.net by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA18588; Sat, 22 Oct 94 18:41:16 -070
% Received: by mail02.prod.aol.net (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA01433; Sat, 22 Oct 1994 21:40:54 -040
% Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 21:40:54 -0400
% From: [email protected]
% Sender: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: wldbil::kilgore, wrksys::seiler
% Subject: Information...

    Steve,
    
    I think you did the right thing.  You have gained back a little bit of
    my respect.
    
    Bob

    
    
    I'm sorry that Steve was the focus of anger on an entire commitee.
    Who's members I can not list because Steve is the only one I know.
    
    

    
    Re .81:
    
    A mailing list for the DCU Supervisory Committee is maintained in
    note 7.
    

    Steve,
    	It was the right thing to do
    Jim Morton

        I just saw  a  current  note  (ie May 95) in another conference
        from SMAUG::GARROD - is there something I missed?  :^)
        
        Andy