Conference 7.286::dcu

    The latest issue of Network (in December statements mailing) announces
    the 1995 BoD Election; text below.

    -----------

    Call for Candidates -- 1995 Board Election


    DCU is seeking candidates for the 1995 Board of
    Directors election. There will be two positions open in
    1995. Our directors are volunteers elected by the
    members to set the strategic direction of the credit union.

    Prospective candidates may request an application
    package beginning January 9, 1995. Call Pat Coyle at
    800/328-8797, extension 180. Applicants will be
    interviewed by a Board-appointed Nominating Commit-
    tee. Submit your application by February 24, 1995.

    Applicants not selected by the nominating Committee
    may be added to the ballot by petition. Candidate
    petitions will be available beginning April 3, 1995.
    Petition candidates must obtain 200 valid DCU member
    signatures by May 5, 1995 to appear on the ballot.

    DCU will mail ballots to all members at least 16 years of
    age beginning in mid-May. The Board will announce
    election results at the DCU Annual Meeting July 18,
    1995, at a time and place to be announced.

Whose seats are up this year? I believe Tom's was one but can't
recall if the other was Tanya's or Gail's.

And, perhaps Larry can tell  us which set of Election Rules
will be in effect.

    Re .2: I believe it's Gail Mann and Tanya Dawkins this year.


                         Term years      Consecutive 
    April 1992           remaining       years served
    ----------------     ----------      ------------
    Gail Mann                3                0
    Tanya Dawkins            3                0
    Paul Milbury             2                0
    Phil Gransewicz          2                0
    Lisa Ross                2                0
    Tom McEachin             1                0
    Paul Kinzelman           1                0 


                         Term years      Consecutive 
    April 1993           remaining       years served
    ----------------     ----------      ------------
    Paul Kinzelman           3                1 
    Tom McEachin             3                1
    Gail Mann                2                1
    Tanya Dawkins            2                1
    Paul Milbury             1                1
    Phil Gransewicz          1                1
    Lisa Ross                1                1


                         Term years      Consecutive 
    September 1994       remaining       years served
    ----------------     ----------      ------------
    Phil Gransewicz          3                2
    Dave Garrod              3                0
    Chris Gillett            3                0
    Paul Kinzelman           2                2
    Tom McEachin             2                2
    Gail Mann                1                2
    Tanya Dawkins            1                2


    (BEFORE ELECTION)    Term years      Consecutive 
    July 1995            remaining       years served
    ----------------     ----------      ------------
    Phil Gransewicz          2                3
    Dave Garrod              2                1
    Chris Gillett            2                1
    Paul Kinzelman           1                3
    Tom McEachin             1                3
    Gail Mann                0                3
    Tanya Dawkins            0                3
    

    .4 is correct -- Gail Mann and Tanya Dawkins are board members whose
    terms expire this year.  
    
    re .3:  My understanding of the bylaws is that election rules are
    not under the authority of the S.C., unless the Board chooses to
    give the S.C. authority for them.  I am very interested in the topic
    of election rules and how the election is conducted.  If you have
    any specific ideas or suggestions, please post them here, mail them
    to me, and/or mail them to a Board member or other S.C. member.  I'll
    listen to everything and respond when I feel that I can.  The down
    side of volunteering for the S.C. is that it I have to be more careful
    about expressing opinions, due to the possibility that people might
    think I'm speaking for the S.C. or the DCU.  It doesn't mean that I
    can't say what I think, it just means that I have to be more careful.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

    The following schedule was provided by Pat Coyle, the DCU coordinator
    for this year's election.

  
                  1995 ANNUAL ELECTION SCHEDULE
                                          
             TASK                               DATE
             ----                               ----
                                            
    Select Teller of Elections                12/19/94

    Select Nominating Committee               12/19/94

    Notification to members                   12/31/94
    (Annual Meeting, Nomination and         
    Petition Process via Network)           

    Nomination process begins                 01/09/95

    Nomination applications returned          02/24/95

    Nominating Committee selections           03/10/95
    finalized. Nominees, DCU secretary      
    & candidates notified.                  

    Membership notification via               03/31/95
    Network; Annual Meeting, Nominees       
    and Petition Process                    

    Petition process begins                   04/03/95

    Nominated candidates' statements due      04/17/95

    Petition process ends                     05/05/95

    Notification of Petition                  05/08/95
    Candidates to DCU secretary             

    Determine order of names for ballot       05/08/95
    (Teller of Election)                    

    Petition Candidates' Statements Due       05/09/95

    Annual Report available                   05/15/95

    Candidate names posted in Branches        05/15/95

    Ballots mailed                            05/19/95

    Quiet Period Begins. All rules            06/09/95
    violation complaints due to SC          

    SC reports to membership on any           06/20/95
    campaign violations, if necessary.      

    Ballots returned & verified               07/11/95

    Annual Meeting                            07/18/95
 
    

With regard to the schedule in .6, I would like to point out the following
DCU bylaws (note 3.3):

  Article V. Meetings of Members

  Section 2. At least 75 days before the date of any annual
  meeting or 7 days before the date of any special meeting of
  the members, the secretary shall cause written notice
  thereof to be handed to each member in person, or mailed to
  each member at his/her address as the same appears on the
  records of this credit union. The written notice for the
  annual meeting will advise the members of the various voting
  procedures that are available, the deadlines required by
  each method of voting, and the date and time of the annual
  meeting...

  Section 6.  Any member may submit a proposed new business 
  item(s) for the annual meeting.  The proposal must be submitted
  in writing and received by the chairperson at east twenty-one 
  (21) calendar days prior to the date that the annual meeting
  notice is scheduled to be mailed pursuant to Section 2 of this 
  article.  Each proposed new business item will be designated as 
  advisory in nature and will not be binding upon the board of
  directors.


It has been asked in the past whether and how members can introduce new
business at the annual meeting. These bylaws show how, and set deadlines.

By my calculation, the absolute deadline for submitting new business proposals
for the 1995 annual meeting should be 13-Apr-1995 (annual meeting minus 75 days
minus 21 days).

    

Why is the schedule pushed out so late into the year, rather than the usual
much earlier annual meeting climax in the spring?

How did the "quiet period" come to be a matter of course? I thought that
was a one time exception for last year's SC debacle? How do we address
this for modification?

And who comprises the nominating committee this year?

    
.8> Why is the schedule pushed out so late into the year, rather than the usual
.8> much earlier annual meeting climax in the spring?
    
    The cancelled election debacle of last year pushed the actual election
    out roughly five months. I would wager that the schedule this year
    attempts to pull the election back toward it's normal time, keeping in
    mind that the length of the the election cycle could well make it
    impossible to schedule elections seven months apart. Last year we moved
    out five months; this year we're moving back two. I would not be
    suprised to se another month or two recovered next year, and a return
    to the April annual meeting in '97. Just my opinion.
    
.8> How did the "quiet period" come to be a matter of course? I thought that
.8> was a one time exception for last year's SC debacle? How do we address
.8> this for modification?
    
    Good questions.
    
    Larry Seiler, currently on the SC, has expressed an interest in any and
    all comments on the rules surrounding this year's election process, and
    has suggested that the BoD would be similarly interested. I would start
    there.
    

Well, hopefully Larry's reading. I'd hate to think that we need to go
through that ridiculous Formal Query Process that we did last year . . . 

    Yes, I'm reading.  As the recently posted BoD minutes state, setting
    the new election rules is the responsibility of the BoD, not the S.C.
    So I presume that there will only be another "quiet time" if a majority
    of the Board votes to have one.  :-)
    
    If you have opinions on the election rules, I encourage you to either
    post or write to me and/or a Board member.  I will forward any ideas
    I receive to the Board Chair, not disclosing who sent them.  I'll 
    include my own comments, of course.  So far, I've received nothing.  
    
    	Regards,
    	Larry

The nominating committee for the 1995 DCU Board election consists of:

	Bill Kilgore
	Maryellen Joyce
	Alfred Thompson

I encourage anyone interested in running for the Board to contact 
Pat Coyle at DTN 223-6735 X180 to get candidate information.

Alfred sends his regards.


Maryellen

    
    Just a reminder -- The deadline for getting nomination applications
    back to Pat Coyle is 24-Feb. See .1 for details.
    

Apparently no one from DCU checked the calendar when they made up this schedule.
According to what was posted in .6, something is due to happen on April 17th.
That's a holiday in Massachusetts, so the Digital offices will be closed that
day.  As a matter of fact, people that live in New England have until April 18th
to file their income tax forms this year.

I assume that event will be moved out a day also.

Elaine

    
    According to Pat Coyle, the dates on the schedule are selected
    conservatively, to allow adherence to the election bylaws with some
    margin for errors. I'll ask her to make sure, but I don't think
    Patriot's Day will pose a problem.
    

According to a recent telephone conversation with a member of the
BoD, there will be no "quiet period" for this election.

    Yet another benefit of the most recent election.
    

Folks,

DCU Direction Paul Kinzelman asked me to post the following text on
the subject of election rules (or lack of same) for this year's
DCU Board election.  


From:	US1RMC::"[email protected]" 24-FEB-1995 22:21:26.10
To:	wrksys::seiler
Subj:	DCU Election Rules

A few of us on the board are kicking around some ideas concerning how
to run the next BoD elections. The basic fundamental issue is over
whether DCU should get involved and if so, at what level concerning
enforcing anything on the candidates.

One question is whether there should be any rules at all.

If no, then a candidate could say something illegal in his election
statement. For instance, he could promote a run on DCU and DCU would
have to pay to print and distribute it. Other statements are in a gray
area, however. If DCU will filter *at all* what it prints on the
ballot information sheet, who should do that filtering and against
what standard should the filtering be done? Enforcement here is easy
because DCU could just refuse to print something.

Should DCU have candidate statement information available at the
branches? Should it be officially distributed like last year? Or
should each candidate just make his own information available in
whatever branches he chooses? Either way, should DCU filter it (as
discussed above with ballot information)? I'm concerned that DCU might
be liable for the contents given that they are officially distributing
it no matter what disclaimer is printed on the sheets. If DCU filters
it, how and by whom should the filtering be done? There were some
major problems with how it was done last time. Enforcement here is
more difficult.

Should campaigning be allowed in DCU branches? If not, what rules
should exist about distance, or whatever? If we just say something
like "not disrupting business at the branch" somebody needs to make a
judgement call and that gets messy. Should anything be done about
violators?

Should DCU employees be treated any differently (as far as campaigning
goes) than any other member? DCU employees could have different
pressures on them given they are employed by DCU.

Should "anonymous committees" be allowed? Or should names be required
on all literature?

Should DCU try to enforce anything against somebody who does violate
rules, say, in campaigning in branches? Or distributes material with
illegal statements? What sort of enforcement would be appropriate? 
Should redress be done in court should it get to that point? The court
system to me is useless because of the time and money required, not to
mention that too many court decisions lack common sense.

If DCU needs to enforce anything (other than just not printing
something), is 'quiet time' a useful concept? The idea is that if a
candidate knows that DCU might notify the membership of his
violations, he may be more likely to follow the rules. But then, the
judgement about what constitutes a serious offense can be very
subjective and difficult to determine (as we saw during the last
election). If quiet time is done, what should be done about a
candidate who violates it? Or should we just scrap the entire concept?

I'm not interested in coming up with an intimidating 90 page document
or anything, but I want the election to be done fairly. Writing a set
of rules to enforce mature, common sense and that doesn't appear
intimidating is difficult to do.

Things are hectic at work here, so I won't guarantee an immediate
response, but I'll do what I can. Or if posters don't mind (each
response note should probably explicitly say this if so), perhaps the
moderator can forward the entire string at some point.

-Paul Kinzelman
[email protected]

I'm not completely sure what my own views are on election rules.
Actually, I try hard not to have an opinion, since reviewing
how the Board carries out their job is sort of in my charter,
but deciding what policy they should choose definitely isn't.

However, I see three basic alternatives for the election.
For each, I see a way that the DCU can be harmed.  They are:

1)  Enforce specific rules about what a candidate can say.
    The down side here is that the rules or their interpretation
    may seem to be unreasonable or biased.

2)  Enforce rules without being specific about what they are.
    The down side here is that the Board's choices to restrict
    or not restrict a candidate's statements may seem arbitrary
    or biased.  

3)  Enforce no rules at all.  This might (I'm no lawyer) make it
    possible to successfully sue the DCU for statements that the 
    DCU prints and distributes.


We all are familiar with the danger inherent in #1.  

I don't know if #3 is a real danger.  I'd want to hear what a
real lawyer has to say.

The real sleeper, in my mind, is #2.  To cite an example many
of us are familiar with, Ron Glover appeared arbitrary in his
enforcement of the "no solicitation" policy precisely because he
refused to state any guidelines about what it meant.  The same
sort of charges could be leveled against the Board if there are
rules, but they are not stated and are decided on a case by case
basis.

So, does anyone see a fourth alternative?  Does anyone have opinions
on these three alternatives?  Please explicitly say if you are willing
to have your note forwarded to non-Digital employee directors.
    
	Regards,
	Larry Seiler
	Speaking for myself only

    The following may be distributed to any DCU member, provided it is not
    edited in any manner.
    
    I vote for as few rules as possible.
    
    1)  No campaigning in any DCU branch/or property.
    
    2)  Print whatever the candidates want, as long as it's not illegal.
    
    3)  ALL literature must identify the sender.  No anonymous literature
    allowed.
    
    4)  Distribute candidate statements as widely as possible, including
    DCU branches, via 1st class mail, etc.  Some of us don't have a DCU
    branch within 1,000 miles of where we live/work.
    
    Bob

    Re: .21 
    
    "Illegal" should encompass "untrue" as well, although sometimes the
    truth is a function of one's personal viewpoint.

I also agree with .21. If I'm not mistaken, that would get us pretty much
back to where things were up until a few years ago, with the added benefit
of specificly banning publications by anonymous committees.

I note that .21 didn't address partisanship/campaigning by DCU employees. I
don't know whether that was intentional or not, but I feel that that is
goodness. I don't think we would have seen stuff from "The Committee
For a Qualified Board" if it hadn't been for the fact that certain high
ranking DCU officials  were supposed to maintain neutrality. As members
of the CU, they should probably have as much right as anyone to campaign
or support the candidates of their choice, provided they don't so so on
DCU premises, on DCU time or using DCU resources.

    Let me know if you want me to bring your replies to today's
    DCU Board meeting.  Mr. Modereator, I assume that I need 
    permission to show these replies to a non-Digital employee
    Board member?  Or do the rules still permit that?
    
    	Regards,
    	Larry

    
    Re .25: Yes, you can bring my reply to the board meeting.
    
    RE .24: As you point out, "untrue" is often a matter of perspective.
            Let the candidates write and the cu distribute whatever is
            not "illegal", and let the voters decide what is "untrue".
    

Larry - by all means feel free to take my reply.

    (Larry, you may also take my comments to the Board meeting)
    
    I like the idea of .21 as well.  The Board could sit around making up 
    complex rules that are meant to cover every eventuality in detail. Those 
    kinds of rules tend to leave loopholes.  They are hard to understand by 
    the average member. And they change the focus of the campaign so it is not
    on the issues, but rather on conformance to the rules.  DCU members really
    deserve a high-quality, issues-oriented discussion.
    
    I would tune (3) a bit:

    *3a) All literature must identify the sender with at least one individual's
	 name, and a valid address.  

    Remember, the Committee for a Qualified Board literature identified the 
    sender, but not specifically enough.
    
>>    4)  Distribute candidate statements as widely as possible, including
>>    DCU branches, via 1st class mail, etc.  Some of us don't have a DCU
>>    branch within 1,000 miles of where we live/work.

    Okay.  Sounds simple enough.  So you would have campaign literature for any
    candidate that wishes available in the branches.  When you talk about First
    Class Mail, do you mean DCU mails the campaign literature to everyone?  Or
    they will mail it to anyone on request.  I understand from past elections 
    that it is pretty expensive to do a first class mailing to everyone.  Doing
    it on request saves some money, but how many people would call up to ask 
    for it?

    Re: .24
    
>> As members of the CU, [DCU employees] should probably have as much right as
>> anyone to campaign or support the candidates of their choice, provided they
>> don't so so on DCU premises, on DCU time or using DCU resources.
    
    So where can they campaign, then?

    After the last election, when the 3G's sacrificed their jobs while
    campaigning, I would think this would be a fairly conservative
    campaign, myself.
    
    Elaine
                     

>    So where can they campaign, then?

I haven't any objection to them campaigning in the lunchrooms, which is where
DIGITAL employees are normally restricted to by policy. I don't know how that
would sit with DIGITAL policy.

I really haven't any objection to them campaigning on DCU premises, other
than that then you should probably also allow DIGITAL employees to do so
there, while the branches are really there for the transaction of business.

Offsite campaigning (if one were interested) should be allowable as well.

re Note 910.26 by WLDBIL::KILGORE:

>     RE .24: As you point out, "untrue" is often a matter of perspective.
>             Let the candidates write and the cu distribute whatever is
>             not "illegal", and let the voters decide what is "untrue".
  
        Illegality is not always that easy to determine.

        While "untrue" is often a matter of perspective, determining
        "illegal" may require a trial (and often more than one
        court).

        Bob

re: .28

Elaine,

Currently, the candidate statements are sent out with the ballots.  We've
seen the fiasco that has ocurred because they were sent out 3rd (?) class.
I want to make sure that any DCU provided literature (and the ballot) actually
reaches the members.

They should be sent to EVERY member who is entitled to vote.  It may be
expensive, but it is well worth it, IMO.

Bob

    RE: .31
    
    Ah!  I understand, and I agree completely that ballots should be sent
    first class to all.  Thanks for bringing that up.
    
    Elaine

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]" "Bob McCormick"  3-MAR-1995 21:51:28.56
To:	'Mark A Buda DTN 381-1969  01-Mar-1995 0803' <star::buda>
CC:	
Subj:	RE: DCU Election Rules

Mark:

No, no problem posting to the new group.

Thanks for asking, and sorry for the slight delay in my reply.

Regards,

Bob McCormick			Windows 95
Feeding Hills MA		build 345

----------
From: 	Mark A Buda DTN 381-1969  01-Mar-1995 0803
Sent: 	Wednesday, March 01, 1995 08:04
To: 	[email protected]
Subject: 	Re: DCU Election Rules

Mind if this gets posted in the DCU notes file?

    	- mark

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]" "Bob McCormick" 28-FEB-1995 22:54:25.22
To:	star::buda
CC:	
Subj:	Re: DCU Election Rules

I agree with Alan H. Martin's comments - I'll also add my own.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

>A few of us on the board are kicking around some ideas concerning how
>to run the next BoD elections. The basic fundamental issue is over
>whether DCU should get involved and if so, at what level concerning
>enforcing anything on the candidates.
>
>One question is whether there should be any rules at all.

Reading this, and the following comments, gives me the uncomfortable
feeling like there's some problems or politics (continuing?!) with
both people and the process ...

Indeed there should be some level of rules, otherwise someone who's
bent on getting a board seat could become "over creative" and possibly
get/maintain a seat that would otherwise go unearned.

Heck, isn't the whole scheme that the board is supposed to be elected
on an individual's qualification(s) for the job?  It shouldn't be like
US politics where its a mud slinging or popularity contest.

Give me enough information so I can intelligently exercise my
right to vote ...

>Should DCU have candidate statement information available at the
>branches?

Sure - same thing that's sent to members who are not near branches,
or not DEC employees any more ... so that everyone has access to the
same information.

> Should it be officially distributed like last year? 

I think so ...

>Or should each candidate just make his own information available in
>whatever branches he chooses?

No - I don't think that a candidate should be able to use DCU facilities
or DCU mailing list / database to distribute information (ie campaign).

>Should campaigning be allowed in DCU branches? If not, what rules
>should exist about distance, or whatever?

NO.
What percentage of members visit a branch, versus are only
serviced by remote methods (mail, direct deposit, easy touch)?

Of the people who voted last time, what percentage are those who
have access to (or have visited) a branch?

(I'd tend to think that branch campaigning is not really usefull...
maybe I'm wrong ...)

>Should anything be done about violators?

Yes, but you should consult the legal department, because if you
set rules (like disqualification for violators) I could imagine
a possible court suit ...

>Should "anonymous committees" be allowed?
>Or should names be required on all literature?

Anonymous committees?! Absolutely not.

>Should DCU try to enforce anything against somebody who does violate
>rules, say, in campaigning in branches? Or distributes material with
>illegal statements? What sort of enforcement would be appropriate? 

Kind of redundant: yes ... as for what would be appropriate,
disqualification - but again, better see what legal ramifications
this would have.

-- 
Bob McCormick                   [email protected]
Feeding Hills MA                [email protected]


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA19513; Tue, 28 Feb 95 22:54:09 -050
% Received: from rmc1.crocker.com by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/24Feb95) id AA02687; Tue, 28 Feb 95 19:51:01 -080
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 22:49 EST
% To: star::buda
% Newsgroups: alt.digital.dcu
% Subject: Re: DCU Election Rules
% From: [email protected] (Bob McCormick)
% X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.11
% Distribution: world
% References: <[email protected]>
% Mime-Version: 1.0



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA01732; Fri, 3 Mar 95 21:51:07 -050
% Received: from rmc1.crocker.com by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com (5.65/24Feb95) id AA21095; Fri, 3 Mar 95 18:45:49 -080
% Received: by iplink103.crocker.com with Microsoft Mail id <[email protected]>; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 21:46:15 -050
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% From: Bob McCormick <[email protected]>
% To: 'Mark A Buda DTN 381-1969  01-Mar-1995 0803' <star::buda>
% Subject: RE: DCU Election Rules
% Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 21:46:09 -0500
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The DCU Board nominating committee has nominated three candidates 
for the two open Board positions in this year's election.  A 
notice to this effect is included in the March statements to all
members.  This notice identifies the candidates nominated and, in
accordance with the bylaws, has a brief description of each
candidate. 

We'd like to remind members that petitions are now available from 
Pat Coyle, DTN 223-6735, extension 380.

Members of the committee are:

Maryellen Joyce (Chairperson)
Bill Kilgore
Alfred Thompson

I received the mailing today, however, it wasn't clear as to how
many applications the nominating committee received before selecting
the three candidates which they did.

Could that information (number of applicants considered) be made
available here?

    
    The turnout for nominations was quite sparse this year. The Nominating
    Committee received and accepted only one application for nomonation.
    

I just spoke with Pat Coyle, DCU's Election Coordinator.  She said ballots will
be mailed next Friday, May 19.  They will be mailed first class this year, to
eligible members of record as of April 28th, 1995.  She said to say that if you
have changed your address since then, the ballot may take a little while to get
there because it will be forwarded by the Post Office.

Elaine

Further to what Elaine said in -.1, Pat suggested that people who 
have moved wait about 2 weeks to get their ballot before 
contacting her for another one.

Maryellen

Any word as to whether or not there were any petition candidates?
I would expect not, but was wondering if we could find out before
receipt of ballots.

-Jack

    I'd like to draft someone from the DCO branch.
    
    Does DCU really want to increase the field of membership.  This whole
    deal reminds me of the 'real choices' flap, where fees were sold as a
    good idea.  When I read the DCO closing announcement, it read like
    closing the DCO branch was good for me.  Then, reading David's response
    to Jeff...  Well, until I can cash a check electronically, I think
    maybe I need access to a real financial institution.
    
    Mark
    
    P.S. So, how many signatures would I need anyway, to get my name on the
    ballot, and is it too late?

There are no candidates running via petition this year.

Maryellen

My ballot arrived in yesterday's mail and is filled out, signed, and on
its way back.

I have a WONDERFUL problem this year.  There are three candidates for two
positions and I think all three would be great!  This is the first time in
years I've had to spend more than 30 seconds filling out my ballot.  My
heartfelt thanks to everyone who has helped provide me with this wonderful
problem!

Bob

Well, yesterday was the target for the SC to report to us on any rules
violations, and all was quiet, so I guess we're home free for this year.

Ballots are now "returned and verified". The Annual meeting is but a
week away. And it's as silent as death in here. The culture shock is
downright traumatic.

:^)

Congrats to the new directors, whoever you are!

HELLO? HELLO?


July 18th, after 9PM? For sure the meeting is over, No?

Who are our new directors? DIDN'T ANYONE GO TO THE MEETING???

The culture shock is almost unbearable . .  .

    There weren't many at the meeting.  It went by so fast that I didn't
    get the numbers (I'll call and get them later today).
    
    Elected were Gim Hom and myself.
    
    Elaine

Well, congratulations to you and Gim, Elaine.

GREAT!  That should just about complete the renewal of the BoD!

Bob

	Gim Hom	                 4574
	Elaine Kokernak Ritchie  4078
	Dan Long		 3330

	Total valid ballots	 6628

	Invalidated (signatures)  183
	Blank			   44
	More than 2 candidates	   27

	Total invalid		  254

	Total ballots received	 6882

I really have to wonder about the people who voted for more than 2 candidates
or left the thing blank.  Don't they read the instructions???

I'm also disappointed that apparently < 10% of the membership voted.  That's
as bad as U.S. political races.

Bob

2300 ballots (slightly more than 25%) less than last year, which was an
extremely political situation, doesn't seem all that surprising, I guess,
Bob. Folks tend to not want to be involved when appearances lead them
to believe that little risk exists as a result of their absence. From
all appearances, this year was a good demonstration of that - no incumbents
running, no political issues, few candidates, and no favoritism being
displayed by DCU management.

I just hope folks continue to pay enough attention that if and when we
get back to a more political situation, they are ready to join the
fray with their ballot.

    To add to Jack's comments, this year brought forth 3 fairly evenly
    matched candidates saying somewhat similar things.  The write-ups are
    good for pointing major differences and "hot" issues, but they really
    don't give the voter tons to go on when you have a bunch of candidates
    saying similar things.
    
    I can understand the low turn out.  Most people probably figured that
    they would "win" regardless of who got the positions.
    
    Personally, I read the write-ups and at no time did I think "boy, I
    don't want THIS person on the Board!"  Kinda hard to get motivated to
    make a choice when you don't know enough to see clear differences
    between the candidates.
    
    -- Russ

    Who is now our treasurer?  I noticed that 5.x didn't list the position.
    I know it isn't done at the annual meeting, but I couldn't post the
    question in note 5.
    ed
    

RE: .54

5.Last did not list the treasurer position because it had not been voted yet. At
Tuesday's board meeting, we elected Tom McEachin as DCU Treasurer for this year.

Elaine

    re .44:  The SC wasn't involved in the election process this year.
    For some reason the Board decided not to delegate that part of their
    power to the SC this time.  :-)  
    
    But don't think the SC has been idle -- we've simply been focussing 
    on areas that are a specific part of our charter, such as acting as
    watchdogs over audits and over the Board's actions.  see the SC
    report section of each month's Board minutes for some details.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry