Conference 7.286::dcu

     Please convey to the secretary the difference between "moral" and 
"morale".

                                     Greg

    The Gainsharing discussion from that meeting ought to silence anyone
    who still asserts that the "board majority" all have the same opinions.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

The gainsharing topic is definately a hot potato.  I'm a firm believer in
rewarding people on goals that they can affect.  As such, I don't think
non-operating income/losses should be part of any gainsharing program.
On the other hand, if the employees were told it would be, then DCU should
honor its word.  The formula for '95 should NOT include non-operating income.

Bob

    I think its about time we stopped fooling ourselves about what we want
    for a credit union.  This is improved BUT.  why go to waterville valley
    for a meeting that couldn't have taken over 2 hours, at least the
    minutes don't reflect a lot of time in session.
    
    re gainsharing.  It's funney how things change once elected.  read
    garrods comments about gainsharing prior to elections.  Phil's right,
    its dead wrong to pay the employees a bonus on monies collected for 
    the fraud.
    
    I sent 'words' to the directors in support of Phil on gainsharing for
    non-operating income. 
    Does this bother anyone else?
    
    It appears we have increased our representation by one: Chris.
    
    ed
    

If you read back a few weeks they went to waterville to go to a conference, and
while there they held the BOD meeting.

                <<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 907.9         Discussion of October 24, 1994 BoD Meeting            9 of 11
MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"              4 lines  14-DEC-1994 12:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's no secret that Dave's taken a more "independent" position than we
might have hoped when we elected _THREE_ G's. We live and learn. Paul's
stand on a number of things isn't what I'd like to see, either.

    
    I agree with .3. No matter how silly it was for the previous
    administration to include non-operating revenues in the gainsharing
    plan, one cannot simply change the rules on the 340'th day and expect
    to accomplish anything useful. The board's decision to leave the
    gainsharing plan alone for this year was the correct one to make, and
    it goes more toward the the stability and credibility of the credit union
    than any silly NCUA discussion on capital ratios (note 907).
    
    The board will have done its job smashingly if it institutes in CY95 a
    reasonable "gainsharing" plan for employees *AND* owners.
    
    As to the question of whether we are being well represented by our
    newly elected directors: The board as a whole made a good decision on
    this issue -- and we knew about it less than two months after the fact.
    The voting on this issue demonstrated concern for and committment to a
    well established understanding with DCU employees, tempered by a strong
    urge to do the right thing for the owners -- and we knew who lined up
    on which side of th issue. I expected no less from the people for whom
    I voted; I certainly did *not* expect blind partisan votes.
    

    
    RE: .anit-gainsharing
    
    I also agree with .3.  I also have experienced this within Digital.  I
    was told about a raise I was "suppose" to get in June.  Since my salary
    action did not have *ALL* the necessary signatures when Bob instituted
    the salary freeze, I was SOL.  I considered this completely unfair, but
    god (note the small-g) had spoken.
    
    Telling the DCU employees all year that they'd be getting this bonus
    and how to figure out how much it is and then pulling it out from under
    them is completely and unequivocally WRONG.  Therefore, keeping it as
    it is for this year and reevaluating it for next year is the right
    thing to do.
    
    ~Jon.

    *if* a contract exists, then it must be honored.  If the deal was made
    without knowledge of the windfall of the fraud money, then *I* think
    it's reasonable to see an adjustment.  No one person should benefit
    from fraud.
    the sponcering company saw fit not to honor any raises last june that 
    might have been promised.
    One can reasonable argue that there was extra time involved with
    getting this money, but sometimes you got to expect to do the work that
    you were paid to do. 
    ed

re: .9

>    the sponcering company saw fit not to honor any raises last june that 
>    might have been promised.

Just because one company feels it's O.K. to treat its employees in this manner,
it doesn't make it right.

Bob

>>   a.  Home Equity Loan Promotion
>>
>>   Mr. Garner presented two overheads which provided an update on DCU's Home
>>   Equity Loan Promotion.  The results showed a 4.65% response rate with 44
>>   loans generated (totaling $167,349).

Gee, this does not seem like a tremendously successful promotion!  I would think
that Home Equity loans would be in big demand, because of the possibility of
getting an income tax deduction for the interest paid.  This tidbit in the
minutes may be factual, may be accurate, but it it not informational.  I've
always questioned the many promotions that DCU has had.  If it begins to look
as if they are not effective, I suggest we find another way to attract business.

Elaine

A 4.65% response rate is excellent for this sort of thing.  The loans are
not of interest to people who don't like to live in debt all the time...

				Steve