Conference 7.286::dcu

I find the, er, confusion? lack of understanding? misunderstanding? vagueness?
of the role and responsibilities of the Superviory Committee vs. the BoD to
be somewhat unsettling. I hope we soon receive some reassurance that this
has been cleared up.

re:  VISA Pricing

>Mr. Prindle reviewed a handout outlining management's research on Patelco's
>VISA Preferred Program.    Highlights of the program are:

[bullet list deleted]

>Based on the results of this program, DCU's General Counsel feels this
>product appears to be very anti-competitive and recommends against this type
>of pricing.  Also, it is a violation of Regulation Z if members are not
>notified prior to a detrimental change in terms, as was the case with
>Patelco.

I understand to a degree Mr. Melchione's advisement regarding regulation
violations, but why on earth is the lawyer passing judgement and making
recommendations based on the features of a program from a competetive
standpoint when we have a raft of DCU management people with Financial
backgrounds who are far better equipped to make such pronouncements?

And, as an aside, since I haven't asked recently, when do we replace the
lawyer?

    
    
>I understand to a degree Mr. Melchione's advisement regarding regulation
>violations, but why on earth is the lawyer passing judgement and making
>recommendations based on the features of a program from a competetive
>standpoint when we have a raft of DCU management people with Financial
>backgrounds who are far better equipped to make such pronouncements?
    
    
    	I think the anti-competitive comment is a legal issue. Specifically
    the condition that only that particular VISA card could be used in the
    future to get the terms listed. This would in effect 'lock out'
    competitor credit cards from DCU members that signed up for this card.
    I think that type of program would be inviting a lawsuit.
    
    	Sounds to me that Mr. Mechione is just doing his job in this
    case....
    
    
    JimH
    
    

re .1:

I don't think there is much confusion about the actual duties of the
S.C. -- the bylaws and some massive NCUA documents have a lot to say
about that.  Of course, people like myself have a lot to learn on the
subject, and that can lead to confusion.  But I think this is really
just a training issue, and it's being worked on.

In my view, the difficult issue is exactly how the S.C. and the BoD
should interact with each other.  There needs to be a close working
relationship -- but not too close!  As Tom McEachin pointed out at
the November BoD meeting, it is very important for the S.C. to be
indpendent of the Board.  I think this is being worked on, as well.

These are all my personal opinions, of course.  

	Regards,
	Larry

    
    At Larry Seiler's request, I have hidden the original minutes
    in 2.42, and posted a revised set in 2.44. The revision was to redact a
    section  that evidently was presented in executive session and should
    not have been in the original minutes.
    
    I expect confirmation from the BoD on this next week.
    

    I HATE REDACTED MINUTES.  I don't recall anything that bad in them as
    posted.  I thought we elected people for open communications?
    I hope this isn't any indication of the intent of the SC.
    many ;-(s
    

    I should add that I didn't request Bill to permanently remove the
    paragraph -- I asked for him to take it out of the notes file while
    some people get a chance to look at it.  Normally, I and other
    S.C. members get the BoD minutes before the BoD meeting, so that
    questions of whether something should be redacted can be raised
    at the meeting.  This time, apparently the S.C. didn't get the 
    minutes in advance.  Personally, I don't care if that paragraph
    is in the published minutes, but I want a chance for the S.C. chair
    to be able to comment on the issue.  It's the Board's minutes, so
    it will be the Board's decision what happens with this.
    
    I apologize for the confusion over this -- please bear with me
    for a while.
    
    	Regards,
    	Larry