Conference 7.286::dcu

re: .0

>    Those of us in the Washington, D.C. area received letters in the on
>    Friday telling us that the DCU branch in the DCO facility will be
>    closing on June 15th.
>    
>    Nothing was said as to why.
    
Actually, the letter said "This decision is a result of Digital closing
the facility".

Nonetheless, I also find this distressing.  I would prefer that DCU
look into relocating the branch to the COP facility in Greenbelt (a few
miles down the road) where there are 8 floors of DEC (I mean Digital)
employees.  

I currently use DCU as my primary financial institution.  I mostly do
my banking by direct deposit, ATM, and phone, but sometimes I need to
deposit something quickly, or deposit cash.  If this branch is closed
and another isn't opened in the area I'm afraid I'll have to get an
account at a "regular" bank instead of DCU.

-Hal

    
    ...yea, I realize that the letter mentioned the closing of the DCO
    facility...but the point you make about COP is the important one!
    
    We're still here.  How come there is to be no more DCU (in D.C.)?
    
    -Jeff

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the closing of a branch (especially
the only one within hundreds of miles) be a matter to be discussed or
decided by the BoD?

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that there has been
no discussion noted in any of the minutes about closing the DCO branch?

Is it possible that this was under discussion in some of the redacted
portions of the meetings?

Does anyone besides myself believe that such matters should be known to
folks before they become cast in concrete? (Perhaps for some obscurely
novel reason, like, perhaps, to get a sense of member opinion on the
matter, you know, like member opinion about fees, or silly things like
that which have only had _very_minor_ <set sarcasm/off> impact on the
DCU over the past several years.) I can, at some level, understand
that they might want to keep it quiet from branch employees until it's
a done deal to avoid premature departures, loss of morale, etc., but that
doesn't mean it's the right thing to do for anyone, except possibly DCU
management.

re: .1

Actually I thot that the letter was very misleading.  It implied that Digital
was closing its only DC office and therefore DCU had no where to go.  As .1 
points out, the COP facility is only 5 or 6 miles further around the DC
Beltway and is reasonably convenient to those who have been using the current
DCO branch.  Actually, most DC based employees are now in COP and those who
are still in DCO will be moving to COP over the next 2 or so months.

We deserve a complete answer as to why the DCO to COP move is not part of
DCU's plans.

I like others will have to move most of my business to a local bank since
a 7-10 day delay on deposits is unacceptable.

    This sort of thing is included in the "Branch Update" portion of the
    minutes.  I note that that portion of the February minutes does indeed
    have redacted lines, but also mentions the 3/16 closing of the 
    New York branch due to "downsizing [Digital] staff" and "lack of
    branch usage".  I don't recall whether the DCO branch was discussed
    in the redacted part of that meeting or whether it was discussed
    at the March meeting (nor could I tell you if I did), but I can
    assure you that branch closings are discussed at Board meetings.
    
    I urge the noters in this string to forward their notes to Phil
    Gransewicz with a request for further information about the reasons
    for the branch closure and the alternatives that the Board and
    management considered or may be still considering.  I also suggest
    that it was appropriate for the Board to go slowly in terms of
    starting new programs while there was no CEO.  Now that a new CEO
    has been hired, we should all expect more agressive action.
    
    	Regards,
    	Larry

I did some checking here at DCO and Digital was willing to PAY the moving
costs for DCU to move to COP and had set aside two (2) rooms for the DCU
branch in COP!!!

Apparently, DCU chose not to accept the offer because Digital would not 
also pay the cost of fitting up the rooms to DCU specs.

This makes it an even greater misnomer to imply that Digital was shutting DCU
down here in DC.

Dave

Permission to forward granted.

    Can someone point me to an e-mail address for Phil Gransewicz?
    
    I tried his (old) address on WELFAR::PGRANSEWICZ, but that did
    not work....
    
    -tnx,
    	Jeff

    Ahh...missed that somehow!
    
    I've sent an e-mail to those on the list asking for a clarification
    of how/why the decision was made.
    
    I'll post any reply that I get here.
    
    -Jeff

    I received a reply from Dave Garrod......I've appended both my
    original e-mail and Dave's reply.....
    
    
From:	UFP::LARUE "Jeff LaRue: Regional Network Consultant, 339-5886  03-May-1995 1306"  3-MAY-1995 13:07:33.47
To:	decwrl::"[email protected]"
CC:	decwrl::"[email protected]",decwrl::"[email protected]",iamok::dawkins,decwrl::"[email protected]",mts$::"mso::Gail Mann",mts$::"mso::Thomas McEachin",LaRue
Subj:	DCU to close DCO Branch?!?

Phil,

Those of us in the D.C. area who are DCU members received the mailing
that informs us of the decision to close the DCO DCU branch this past
week.

As one of the affected DCU members, I am looking for some elaboration
as to why the decision was made.  There are a number of us who are
deeply disappointed in this decision and would like to see it changed.

I have appended a notes string that I started in the DCU notes conference
where discussion has started.

-looking forward to your reply!

	Jeff

    
    <....stuff deleted, i.e. notes string...>
    
    
    
From:	UFP::US1RMC::"[email protected]"  3-MAY-1995 23:23:26.07
To:	ufp::larue
CC:	
Subj:	Re: DCU to close DCO Branch?!?

Jeff,

Thank you for your message. I've asked that somebody from DCU's
Operations Department gives you a call to take your input and to
also give you more detail than I can as to the reasoning behind
closing the DCO branch.

This subject was discussed at both the March and April board
meetings. DCU management looked into the costs involved in
relocating the branch to COP (Greenbelt) given Digital's closing
of DCO (Landover). As you point out Digital were willing to give
us space at COP, but were quite understandably did not want to
take on the expense of fitting the space out for DCU. DCU's
management looked at the costs involved of establishing and
running a branch at COP and due to a number of reasons could
not justify it. We on the board supported them in this decision.
The main reasons are:

1, There are very few members served by the DCO branch. And the
   number of employees at COP do not warrant a few branch.

2, The costs involved in fitting up a new branch.

3, As a credit union we are moving more towards electronic means of
   providing service to members aiming to become less dependent
   upon branches. Especially branches that do very little traffic. You will
   hear very shortly on some of the ways we intend to improve access
   for those members that do not have access to a branch.

4, The fact that COP is a leased facility and we do not know how long
   Digital intends to stay there.

Please feel free to share this reply with anybody else. I also hope you
can be given more detailed information when you are called by
someone from DCU.

Regards,

Dave Garrod

Subj:	DCU to close DCO Branch?!?
Date:	95-05-03 16:00:47 EDT
From:	[email protected]
To:	[email protected]
CC:	[email protected], [email protected]
CC:	[email protected]
CC:	mso::gail mann@mts$.enet.dec.com
CC:	mso::thomas mceachin@mts$.enet.dec.com
CC:	[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Jeff LaRue: Regional Network Consultant,
339-5886 03-May-1995 1306)
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], mso::gail mann@mts$.enet.dec.com, mso::thomas
mceachin@mts$.enet.dec.com, [email protected]

Phil,

Those of us in the D.C. area who are DCU members received the mailing
that informs us of the decision to close the DCO DCU branch this past
week.

As one of the affected DCU members, I am looking for some elaboration
as to why the decision was made.  There are a number of us who are
deeply disappointed in this decision and would like to see it changed.

I have appended a notes string that I started in the DCU notes conference
where discussion has started.

-looking forward to your reply!

	Jeff



                <<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-

==============================================================================
=
=
Note 931.0                 DCO branch to close!?!?!?!                  6 
replies
UFP::LARUE "Jeff LaRue: Regional Network Consultant" 20 lines   1-MAY-1995 
13:47

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
    Those of us in the Washington, D.C. area received letters in the on
    Friday telling us that the DCU branch in the DCO facility will be
    closing on June 15th.
    
    Nothing was said as to why.
    
    Nothing was said as to what options were looked into, if any.
    
    I have heard some rumors as to why it is being closed, none of it
    very positive towards the DCU folks in charge.  I would like to
    get more (i.e. real) information.
    
    Can anyone help to point me to someone who might be able to help
    me understand *why*?
    
    (...the letter was signed by Tim Garner, but I've not found any
    way to contact him...)
    
    -tnx,
    	Jeff

==============================================================================
=
=
Note 931.1                 DCO branch to close!?!?!?!                     1
of 
6
TAMDNO::LAURENT "Hal Laurent @ COP"                  23 lines   1-MAY-1995 
14:52

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
re: .0

>    Those of us in the Washington, D.C. area received letters in the on
>    Friday telling us that the DCU branch in the DCO facility will be
>    closing on June 15th.
>    
>    Nothing was said as to why.
    
Actually, the letter said "This decision is a result of Digital closing
the facility".

Nonetheless, I also find this distressing.  I would prefer that DCU
look into relocating the branch to the COP facility in Greenbelt (a few
miles down the road) where there are 8 floors of DEC (I mean Digital)
employees.  

I currently use DCU as my primary financial institution.  I mostly do
my banking by direct deposit, ATM, and phone, but sometimes I need to
deposit something quickly, or deposit cash.  If this branch is closed
and another isn't opened in the area I'm afraid I'll have to get an
account at a "regular" bank instead of DCU.

-Hal

==============================================================================
=
=
Note 931.2                 DCO branch to close!?!?!?!                     2
of 
6
UFP::LARUE "Jeff LaRue: Regional Network Consultant"  7 lines   1-MAY-1995 
15:12

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
    
    ...yea, I realize that the letter mentioned the closing of the DCO
    facility...but the point you make about COP is the important one!
    
    We're still here.  How come there is to be no more DCU (in D.C.)?
    
    -Jeff

==============================================================================
=
=
Note 931.3                 DCO branch to close!?!?!?!                     3
of 
6
MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"             21 lines   2-MAY-1995 
09:22

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the closing of a branch (especially
the only one within hundreds of miles) be a matter to be discussed or
decided by the BoD?

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that there has been
no discussion noted in any of the minutes about closing the DCO branch?

Is it possible that this was under discussion in some of the redacted
portions of the meetings?

Does anyone besides myself believe that such matters should be known to
folks before they become cast in concrete? (Perhaps for some obscurely
novel reason, like, perhaps, to get a sense of member opinion on the
matter, you know, like member opinion about fees, or silly things like
that which have only had _very_minor_ <set sarcasm/off> impact on the
DCU over the past several years.) I can, at some level, understand
that they might want to keep it quiet from branch employees until it's
a done deal to avoid premature departures, loss of morale, etc., but that
doesn't mean it's the right thing to do for anyone, except possibly DCU
management.


==============================================================================
=
=
Note 931.4                 DCO branch to close!?!?!?!                     4
of 
6
DESTES::ESTES "Dave Estes DTN 339-5224"              14 lines   2-MAY-1995 
10:47
                           -< Letter was misleading >-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
re: .1

Actually I thot that the letter was very misleading.  It implied that Digital
was closing its only DC office and therefore DCU had no where to go.  As .1 
points out, the COP facility is only 5 or 6 miles further around the DC
Beltway and is reasonably convenient to those who have been using the current
DCO branch.  Actually, most DC based employees are now in COP and those who
are still in DCO will be moving to COP over the next 2 or so months.

We deserve a complete answer as to why the DCO to COP move is not part of
DCU's plans.

I like others will have to move most of my business to a local bank since
a 7-10 day delay on deposits is unacceptable.

==============================================================================
=
=
Note 931.5                 DCO branch to close!?!?!?!                     5
of 
6
WRKSYS::SEILER "Larry Seiler"                        19 lines   2-MAY-1995 
11:03
               -< branch closing discussions at Board meetings >-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
    This sort of thing is included in the "Branch Update" portion of the
    minutes.  I note that that portion of the February minutes does indeed
    have redacted lines, but also mentions the 3/16 closing of the 
    New York branch due to "downsizing [Digital] staff" and "lack of
    branch usage".  I don't recall whether the DCO branch was discussed
    in the redacted part of that meeting or whether it was discussed
    at the March meeting (nor could I tell you if I did), but I can
    assure you that branch closings are discussed at Board meetings.
    
    I urge the noters in this string to forward their notes to Phil
    Gransewicz with a request for further information about the reasons
    for the branch closure and the alternatives that the Board and
    management considered or may be still considering.  I also suggest
    that it was appropriate for the Board to go slowly in terms of
    starting new programs while there was no CEO.  Now that a new CEO
    has been hired, we should all expect more agressive action.
    
    	Regards,
    	Larry

==============================================================================
=
=
Note 931.6                 DCO branch to close!?!?!?!                     6
of 
6
DESTES::ESTES "Dave Estes DTN 339-5224"              13 lines   2-MAY-1995 
12:33
                            -< DCU CHOSE to close >-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
I did some checking here at DCO and Digital was willing to PAY the moving
costs for DCU to move to COP and had set aside two (2) rooms for the DCU
branch in COP!!!

Apparently, DCU chose not to accept the offer because Digital would not 
also pay the cost of fitting up the rooms to DCU specs.

This makes it an even greater misnomer to imply that Digital was shutting DCU
down here in DC.

Dave

Permission to forward granted.



----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From [email protected] Wed May  3 16:00:17 1995
Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by mail05.mail.aol.com with SMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA039081217; Wed, 3 May 1995 16:00:17 -0400
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from enet-gw.pa.dec.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/24Feb95)
	id AA15961; Wed, 3 May 95 10:07:20 -0700
Received: from ufp.enet by enet-gw.pa.dec.com (5.65/09May94)
	id AA08488; Wed, 3 May 95 10:03:57 -0700
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Received: from ufp.enet; by decwrl.enet; Wed, 3 May 95 10:03:58 PDT
Date: Wed, 3 May 95 10:03:58 PDT
From: "Jeff LaRue: Regional Network Consultant, 339-5886  03-May-1995 1306"
<[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
        [email protected], "mso::gail mann"@mts$.enet.dec.com,
        "mso::thomas mceachin"@mts$.enet.dec.com, [email protected]
Apparently-To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
        [email protected]
Subject: DCU to close DCO Branch?!?


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA00379; Wed, 3 May 95 23:25:48 -040
% Received: from mail04.mail.aol.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA24406; Wed, 3 May 1995 20:20:51 -070
% Received: by mail04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA270507468; Wed, 3 May 1995 23:17:48 -040
% Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 23:17:48 -0400
% From: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: ufp::larue
% Subject: Re: DCU to close DCO Branch?!?
    

    I would be interested in seeing the numbers of how many people use 
    the DCO branch... Digital has probably 700 employees in this area
    (this is my guess, not sure the exact number) not to mention
    ex-deccie's that are still using the DCU. As stated earlier, the DCU
    branch that is closing is only a few miles from the office where the
    Digital folks are being moved. It's not like the Digital population is
    going away. Most of the times I go to the DCU, there's at least one or
    2 other people (off peak times) using the facility and if you go at peak
    times you may stand in line behind 10 people, with more coming in
    behind you.
    
    It seems to me that it would benefit the DCU to encourage more
    participants (a pool of 700 potential customers seem like a good
    target) rather than driving current members away?   As opposed to the
    "we're closing, you get 4 free accesses a month to other ATM machines,
    have a nice life" letter we received.
    
    I know  my reaction and everyone else I've talked to is: "close the
    branch, lose my accounts". 
    
    Yes, I joined the credit union when there wasn't a local branch, and I
    know there are plenty of locations that don't have local branches. But,
    when you get used to something and lose it, it's a much bigger impact.
    And with the banking market the way it is, I get solicitations all the
    time for opening accounts. Up until now, I've said no, because of the
    local DCU branch.
    
    I'd also like to point out that every other DCU branch I've been to,
    except for main sites in New England, seems to be much smaller and not
    as "plush" as the branch here in DCO. Did the estimated costs for
    moving include building a similar DCU facility? Did they even consider
    a scaled down version (smaller) so the branch could stay open? Or what
    about installing an ATM machine?
    
    Seems to me the DCU just delivered a big "slap in the face" to
    members in this area. Which is extremely disappointing considering the
    recent turn-arounds and the annoucement of the new CEO.....
    
    janetb.

    Just to add a little to this string.  My phone list shows that 1182
    people in the DC area (though, admittedly, that includes 54 people in
    Richmond [120 miles away] and 21 people in Virginia Beach [about 200
    miles away]).  So, no branch is needed for 1100 actual/potential 
    members.
    
    David Garrod also mentions that COP is leased (so was DCO).  My
    understanding is that the COP lease is 11 years, of which I think we
    are in the 3rd year.
    
    As another interesting point, DCO has 271 employees assigned to it, COP
    has 606, and will acquire [most] or the DCO employees when DCO closes. 
    Sounds like DCU just was waiting for an excuse to close the DCO branch.
    
    Mark
    
    I will be following up on my own to the BoD

Hey, DCU management and BOD can spout nice phrases like "the COP facility
is leased", "electronic/mail banking is the wave of the future", etc., all
they want, but when it takes me a week or more to get a deposit accomplished 
by mail (2-3 days for the mail, several more days while DCU holds the check),
the platitudes really don't matter to me.  I've got two feet that I am quite
capable of voting with, and come June I'll be moving my business to an
institution that can serve my needs.

What's really sad is that I had been feeling a lot better about DCU since
the big change in the BOD.  Now I feel more like I was just being fattened
up before being clubbed in the head.

Sigh...

-Hal

    I hate to say this ... but ...
    
    When it comes to things like operational issues, like closing branches
    etc. DCU management recommends to the board and based on the info
    provided to the board by management to a large extent determines the
    result.  So, I wouldn't entirely blame the board, although it sure
    looks like the board maybe should look a little more closely at the
    whole picture down there in Washington ...
    
    Stuart

    A p.s.  ... I would petition DCU management by calls to the Info
    centre, saying that you officially want to complain about the closing
    and that it is not movingto the other site.  Encourage others to do so
    too.
    
    Then also write to the board to reconsider.
    
    
    
    

    I've written to the BoD (and candidates).  I agree, mass calls to DCU
    might help, but how long can we memberes be expected to fight the
    fight, before we walk...?
    
    Too bad we don't have BoD members in the conference, really to bad.
    
    Mark

I sympathize with the concerns of DCO and COP employees affected by
this. My question is, have you requested a response from Chris
Fillmore-Gillette (sp?) or Phil Gransewicz as well as from Dave Garrod?

-Jack

    Jeff wrote Phil, and copied the rest.  Got a response from David.
    
    I wrote the BoD (addressing Phil, et.al), copied the BoD candidates,
    and got a response from David.  I will post my note later, but didn't
    get permission from David tpo post his reply.
    
    It sounds like the BoD thinks they made a good, sound decission.  I
    have to disagree though.
    
    Mark
    

From:	SWAMPD::ZIMMERMANN   "This is not your father's VAXcluster" 16-MAY-1995 17:44:52.86
To:	@DCU_BOD.DIS
CC:	SLOAN::HOM,WWF::LONG,STRSHP::RITCHIE,ZIMMERMANN
Subj:	DCU closing of DCO branch

Phil, et. al.,

I recently saw some communication from David Garrod regarding the closing of
the DCO branch of the DCU serving the Washington D.C. area.  As a BoD member
who has advocated communication as well as expanding the field of membership,
I was looking forward to hearing YOUR views on this matter, and receiving
your input on what we D.C. members of DCU might do to reverse this decision.

In the D.C. area, Digital still employees over 1,000 employees (606 at COP
and 271 at DCO alone).  Note, it is the DCO facility that is closing, so those
employees will likely move to the COP facility.

COP is an 8 floor facility, exclusivly for Digital's use.

COP is a leased facility, with (I believe) 8 years remaining on the lease.

COP is now the lone 'major' facility in the D.C. area (with several smaller
facilities in the immediate D.C. area [Northern Virginia, D.C. itself, and
a small Baltimore office...]).

With the current 1,000+ Digital employees (and who knows how many former
Digital employees who still bank with DCU) wouldn't it be better to remain
the financial institution of choice for D.C. Digital employees (past and
present) and build upon that base, rather then encourage us to find other
institutions by closing our one and only local branch.

Finally, to address Mr. Garrods comments directly:

>1, There are very few members served by the DCO branch. And the
>   number of employees at COP do not warrant a few branch.

	Again, I do not know how many DCU members are in the D.C. area, but
	with 271 DCO employees and 606 COP employees (note, these locations
	are about 6 miles apart) I don't understand the point being made.
	Further, how many other DCU branches are at risk of closing because
	of the number of members servered being lower then the DCO/COP 
	numbers.

>2, The costs involved in fitting up a new branch.

	I see this as a cost of doing business.  Does DCU want the D.C.
	business or not.

>3, As a credit union we are moving more towards electronic means of
>   providing service to members aiming to become less dependent
>   upon branches. Especially branches that do very little traffic. You will
>   hear very shortly on some of the ways we intend to improve access
>   for those members that do not have access to a branch.

	I am thankful for now having 4 free ATM transactions per month.  
	Assuming we only use a DCU branch 4 times a month for withdrawls, 
	that would be fine.  However, many members also wish to cash checks
	and make deposits.  Will electronic banking address those needs.

>4, The fact that COP is a leased facility and we do not know how long
>   Digital intends to stay there.

	So was DCO, and there are many years left (as I understand it)
	on the COP lease.

I am very disappointed by this decission by DCU (and the BoD) and I
look forward to working with you to resolve this issue.

Mark Zimmermann

P.S. I have also copied the BoD candidates, as I believe their views
are of significant importance regarding this issue.

    re .18 
    >I will post my note later, but didn't
    >    get permission from David tpo post his reply.
     
    I was curious, did you not ask, or did Dave not grant permission?
    I got a reply from Phil and asked if I could post it and he said
    that I could NOT post it.  So much for open communications.
    
    perhaps too much cost to upgrade new office in DCO as they just got
    done rehabing the main office?
    
    I'm begining to think it doesn't matter who gets elected, after they
    are in, they forget about us.
    
    I think I'll flip a coin in this election, no one jumps out as a good
    candidate, and it really doesn't matter after they are elected.
    
    ed
    
                                                      

As a point of information, the DCO site is owned by Digital.

re: .20

>    I got a reply from Phil and asked if I could post it and he said
>    that I could NOT post it.  So much for open communications.
    
Could you paraphrase Phil's response for us?

-Hal (soon-to-be-former-DCU-member)

I think "sit on it" is both open and honest.

    re .24
    
    I disagree.  telling someone to sit on it is open and honest, but can
    not be teamed with 'communications' which *used* to be TWO way
    exchanges.  i.e. they listen to me, they explain/respond.
    when people get elevated to BOD, it appears as though the talk is
    one-way.  With the exception of Paul K, who remains the same Paul, no
    matter what.
    ed
    

>    And taking parts of the note without the whole note would not be fair
>    to Phil, that's why I asked permission from him to post it, and he 
>    refused to give me permission.

>    The topic was car loans, my opinion of what he said translated into
>    printable words was to sit on it.

    Ed, It seems your comments here are little two-faced...  in one
    sentence, you state it wouldn't be fair to Phil to post parts of
    his note to you. Then in the next sentence you proceed to post
    your interpretation of his note to you. Where's the fairness here?

    This type of noting doesn't help to promote open and fair and
    communications. IMHO!

    Charly

> With the exception of Paul K, who remains the same Paul, no matter what.

That's an interesting opinion, Ed, but I don't believe it's one that's
universally held. Paul appears to have taken some particularly odd
positions on some matters over the past two years. It's all in the minutes.

-Jack

    

    Posted with permission
    
From:	SWAMPD::US1RMC::"[email protected]" 17-MAY-1995 01:05:04.29
To:	swampd::zimmermann
CC:	[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subj:	Re: DCU closing of DCO branch




Mark,

Before I address your specific comments I'd like to pass on a piece of good
news for you. This evening I was speaking to the CEO Carlo Cestra and the
senior management team. I was informed that installing an ATM at the COP
facility is now under serious consideration. While at this point no
committment can be made I just wanted to let you know that it is under
consideration. There are a number of logistical issues that need to be
addressed first before this can become a reality.

Regarding your specific comments:

Re:

>Phil, et. al.,
>
>I recently saw some communication from David Garrod regarding the closing of
>the DCO branch of the DCU serving the Washington D.C. area.  As a BoD member
>who has advocated communication as well as expanding the field of membership,

>I was looking forward to hearing YOUR views on this matter, and receiving
>your input on what we D.C. members of DCU might do to reverse this decision.

I hope the information I gave you was useful. I'm sure that if Phil et al has
substantial additional information to add to what I've already said they will
communicate that to you too. In addition I know for a fact that DCU staff are
only too happy to take calls on this subject and have already talked to
several members in the Washington area who have called about the DCO branch
closing. DCU as an institution over the last few years has had a sea change
in regard to the willingness of the staff to communicate openly and directly
with members. If you feel we could do more in this regard I am more than
open to your input.

Re:

>In the D.C. area, Digital still employees over 1,000 employees (606 at COP
>and 271 at DCO alone).  Note, it is the DCO facility that is closing, so
those
>employees will likely move to the COP facility.
>
>COP is an 8 floor facility, exclusivly for Digital's use.
>
>COP is a leased facility, with (I believe) 8 years remaining on the lease.
>
>COP is now the lone 'major' facility in the D.C. area (with several smaller
>facilities in the immediate D.C. area [Northern Virginia, D.C. itself, and
>a small Baltimore office...]).

When the decision was made to close the DCO branch and not relocate
it to COP all of this information was known. An analysis was done of the
level of branch traffic and the cost of relocating the branch. The bottom
line is that the benefit to the Washington based members of relocating
the branch was outweighed by the burden of the cost on the rest of
membership. There just aren't enough members and potential members
in the Wasington DC area to warrant the construction of a whole new
branch.



Re:

>With the current 1,000+ Digital employees (and who knows how many former
>Digital employees who still bank with DCU) wouldn't it be better to remain
>the financial institution of choice for D.C. Digital employees (past and
>present) and build upon that base, rather then encourage us to find other
>institutions by closing our one and only local branch.

Building branches is our most costly way to support our membership. We
are actively moving towards supplementing the branches with other ways
of delivering services. The 4 free ATM transactions a month
is just the beginning. And as I said up front an ATM at COP is now under
serious consideration.

Re:

>>2, The costs involved in fitting up a new branch.
>
>    I see this as a cost of doing business.  Does DCU want the D.C.
>    business or not.

I think a fair summary is to say that if keeping a DC members business
means relocating the branch then yes we are willing to let that business
go elsewhere. That said we are working on other more cost effective
service channels so that remote members, such as the DC members,
can continue to bring their business to DCU. It's just one of those
tradeoffs.

Re:

>    I am thankful for now having 4 free ATM transactions per month.
>    Assuming we only use a DCU branch 4 times a month for withdrawls,
>    that would be fine.  However, many members also wish to cash checks
>    and make deposits.  Will electronic banking address those needs.

If the ATM at COP pans out I think this will address all of the points you
bring up here.

Re:

>>4, The fact that COP is a leased facility and we do not know how long
>>   Digital intends to stay there.
>
>    So was DCO, and there are many years left (as I understand it)
>    on the COP lease.

The costs involved in keeping an existing branch as against building a
new branch are very different. Hence different conclusions may be
reached.



Re:

>I am very disappointed by this decision by DCU (and the BoD) and I
>look forward to working with you to resolve this issue.

I feel confident that we made the right decision for the membership
in general in not relocating the DCO branch. If by resolving this
issue you mean getting the board to change their decision I for one
am not willing to do that. I think to do so would be a diservice to
the general membership.

In closing I'd like to thank you for taking time to communicate with
us. And while I don't know exactly all the reasons behind the
consideration of placing an ATM at COP I wouldn't be surprised if
feedback from Washington based members was a factor. I truly hope
we are able to come up with a cost effective way of continuing to
serve our Washington based membership.

Regards,

Dave Garrod



Subj:     DCU closing of DCO branch
Date:     95-05-16 17:48:43 EDT
From:     [email protected]
To:  mail11@, @, %[email protected]
CC:  [email protected], [email protected]
CC:  [email protected]
CC:  [email protected]

From: [email protected] (This is not your father's VAXcluster)
To: mail11@, @, %[email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
,
[email protected]

Phil, et. al.,

I recently saw some communication from David Garrod regarding the closing of
the DCO branch of the DCU serving the Washington D.C. area.  As a BoD member
who has advocated communication as well as expanding the field of membership,
I was looking forward to hearing YOUR views on this matter, and receiving
your input on what we D.C. members of DCU might do to reverse this decision.

In the D.C. area, Digital still employees over 1,000 employees (606 at COP
and 271 at DCO alone).  Note, it is the DCO facility that is closing, so
those
employees will likely move to the COP facility.

COP is an 8 floor facility, exclusivly for Digital's use.

COP is a leased facility, with (I believe) 8 years remaining on the lease.

COP is now the lone 'major' facility in the D.C. area (with several smaller
facilities in the immediate D.C. area [Northern Virginia, D.C. itself, and
a small Baltimore office...]).

With the current 1,000+ Digital employees (and who knows how many former
Digital employees who still bank with DCU) wouldn't it be better to remain
the financial institution of choice for D.C. Digital employees (past and
present) and build upon that base, rather then encourage us to find other
institutions by closing our one and only local branch.

Finally, to address Mr. Garrods comments directly:

>1, There are very few members served by the DCO branch. And the
>   number of employees at COP do not warrant a few branch.

     Again, I do not know how many DCU members are in the D.C. area, but
     with 271 DCO employees and 606 COP employees (note, these locations
     are about 6 miles apart) I don't understand the point being made.
     Further, how many other DCU branches are at risk of closing because
     of the number of members servered being lower then the DCO/COP
     numbers.

>2, The costs involved in fitting up a new branch.

     I see this as a cost of doing business.  Does DCU want the D.C.
     business or not.



>3, As a credit union we are moving more towards electronic means of
>   providing service to members aiming to become less dependent
>   upon branches. Especially branches that do very little traffic. You will
>   hear very shortly on some of the ways we intend to improve access
>   for those members that do not have access to a branch.

     I am thankful for now having 4 free ATM transactions per month.
     Assuming we only use a DCU branch 4 times a month for withdrawls,
     that would be fine.  However, many members also wish to cash checks
     and make deposits.  Will electronic banking address those needs.

>4, The fact that COP is a leased facility and we do not know how long
>   Digital intends to stay there.

     So was DCO, and there are many years left (as I understand it)
     on the COP lease.

I am very disappointed by this decission by DCU (and the BoD) and I
look forward to working with you to resolve this issue.

Mark Zimmermann

P.S. I have also copied the BoD candidates, as I believe their views
are of significant importance regarding this issue.


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From [email protected] Tue May 16 17:48:23 1995
Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by mail05.mail.aol.com with SMTP
     (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA114240903; Tue, 16 May 1995 17:48:23 -0400
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from us1rmc.bb.dec.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/24Feb95)
     id AA25447; Tue, 16 May 95 14:44:30 -0700
Received: from swampd.enet by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94)
     id AA09167; Tue, 16 May 95 17:41:29 -0400
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Received: from swampd.enet; by us1rmc.enet; Tue, 16 May 95 17:45:33 EDT
Date: Tue, 16 May 95 17:45:33 EDT
From: This is not your father's VAXcluster <[email protected]>
To: mail11:;%[email protected] (@dcu_bod.dis)
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],
        [email protected]
Apparently-To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
        [email protected]
Subject: DCU closing of DCO branch


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA24177; Wed, 17 May 95 01:05:56 -040
% Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA07094; Tue, 16 May 1995 22:00:08 -070
% Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA126766360; Wed, 17 May 1995 00:52:40 -040
% Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 00:52:40 -0400
% From: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: swampd::zimmermann
% Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
% Subject: Re: DCU closing of DCO branch

    re .28:
    
    Well, that looks to me like a very open and honest communication,
    albeit not what those in DCO want to hear.  The only things that
    I can see that are left out are the specifics of the cost of moving
    the branch, the current branch traffic relative to other branches, 
    and so forth.  
    
    I would like to know what DC-area members think about having a
    DCU ATM on-site.  Does this solve the problem, or if not, why not?
    I do practically all of my own DCU business (other than attending
    meetings!) at the ATM down the hall or by phone.  For me, the DCU
    ATM is by far the most conveinent source of banking services around,
    since it is the closest one (quite aside from my other reasons for
    using the DCU).  I'd like to understand how often and in what ways DCU
    members at COP expect that an ATM will be less than what they need.
    
    		Thanks,
    		Larry
    
    PS:  Ed Badger, could you please move your complaints about Phil's
    message to you re auto loans to some other string?  I'm not saying
    your complaint is unjustified (I really don't know).  I do know that
    that complaint isn't relevant to this particular discussion.  LS

From:	SWAMPD::ZIMMERMANN   "This is not your father's VAXcluster" 17-MAY-1995 13:15:40.55
To:	SWAMPD::US1RMC::"[email protected]"
CC:	ZIMMERMANN
Subj:	Re: DCU closing of DCO branch

David,

Can I post your reply in the notes file, for others to review, or would
you prefer that I did not.  If I can post it, should it be posted with
or without the discussion of the possible ATM at COP.

Thanks for the reply, but I respectfully disagree with the decission.

The issue of an ATM at COP was disscuss and considered by DCU a year ago
or more as well.  The machine was never installed.  Unfortunatly, the
closing of the D.C. DCU sends a bad message to the membership, and based
on the discussions in the notes file, the message is being received by
more then just the D.C. members.

It's a tough issue I know, and it sounds like you've decided to ride out
the storm.

Only other question I have now for you is, how would you (and the other
real-choices candidates/BoD-members) view this issue from this side of
the fence.  An ATM might be a good solution, but the entire issue is
being sold very badly.

I also get the impression that it doesn't do any good to discuss this with
the BoD of DCU management.  The decission was made (without member input)
and will not be changed (because of member input).  So, it's the same
ole' song and dance, our only voice is at election time (or with our business
[as in taking it elsewhere]).

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Mark

From:	SWAMPD::SWAMPD::US1RMC::"[email protected]" 17-MAY-1995 22:59:46.87
To:	swampd::swampd::zimmermann
CC:	[email protected]
Subj:	Re: DCU closing of DCO branch

Mark,

Re:

>Can I post your reply in the notes file, for others to review, or would
>you prefer that I did not.  If I can post it, should it be posted with
>or without the discussion of the possible ATM at COP.

Of course you can post my previous reply, as well as this one if you
wish. I am a firm believer in communications being the property of
the receiver unless such communication is somehow labelled as
privileged communication.

Re:

>Thanks for the reply, but I respectfully disagree with the decission.

I respect your right to do and to voice opposing opinion. I feel we hve
made a prudent decision for all the reasons I have stated.

Re:

>The issue of an ATM at COP was disscuss and considered by DCU a year ago
>or more as well.  The machine was never installed.  Unfortunatly, the
>closing of the D.C. DCU sends a bad message to the membership, and based
>on the discussions in the notes file, the message is being received by
>more then just the D.C. members.

I can't comment on what happened last year because I don't have the
information.
But I personally hope that we are able to go ahead with an ATM at COP. In
fact
at the board meeting where we discussed the closure of the DCO branch I
advocated the consideration of an ATM. That was one reason why I was glad
to hear recently that it is under serious consideration. My gut feel is that
it is
an appropriate solution for the level of membership we have in the DC area.
However you cut it, constructing a new branch just could not be justified.
There is also another factor that I haven't previously mentioned. And that
is that not only are there relatively few DEC employees in the area, more
importantly the percentage that are DCU members is low as well.

Re:

>It's a tough issue I know, and it sounds like you've decided to ride out
>the storm.

Unless substantial new data is put on the table I'd say that is a fair
summary.

>Only other question I have now for you is, how would you (and the other
>real-choices candidates/BoD-members) view this issue from this side of
>the fence.  An ATM might be a good solution, but the entire issue is
>being sold very badly.

With the same set of facts I'd feel the same way as I do now. The one
point I will concede to you is that if indeed we do end up going with an
ATM at COP I feel it would have been much better for us to have made
that decision prior to announcing the closure of the DCO branch.
Unfortunately timing was against us. A large reason the ATM is being
considered is due to Carlo's initiative. The decision on closing the DCO
branch had to be made prior to us appointing a CEO. A lot of decisions
on expenditures (of which putting in an ATM is but one) were deferred
until we had the CEO on board. I expect things to flow even more
now we have Carlo Cestra at the helm.

Re:

>I also get the impression that it doesn't do any good to discuss this with
>the BoD of DCU management.  The decission was made (without member input)
>and will not be changed (because of member input).  So, it's the same
>ole' song and dance, our only voice is at election time (or with our
business
>[as in taking it elsewhere]).
>
>The more things change, the more things stay the same.

I feel that is a very cheap shot. We are in the midst of a discussion and I
have
tried to explain the reasonings behind the decision. Regarding gathering
member input one could say we did. The management team carefully analyzed
how important the DCO branch was to the DC membership by looking at how,
and how much it was used. Theose members (and potential members) activities
or rather lack of them I feel is significant member input. I believe strongly
that
concrete actions people take speak louder than words.

As for "the more thangs change the more thy stay the same" I have only
the following to say:

Under the previous regime would:

a) ALL fees on basic services have been eliminated, including annual
    fees on Credit Cards, Checking account fees and most
    significantly of all a number of ATM fees have been eliminated?

b) Would there be a committment to a bonus dividend/loan rebate
    program (assuming financial goals are met?

c) Would you now have in place a CEO whos is even MORE member
    orienated than Phil Gransewicz? And that's saying something.

d) Would board members be communicating with you like I am now?

If that's "staying the same" I'd like to know what your definition of
"different" is.

Regards,

Dave


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA25848; Wed, 17 May 95 23:00:39 -040
% Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA31814; Wed, 17 May 1995 19:57:47 -070
% Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA175025646; Wed, 17 May 1995 22:54:06 -040
% Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 22:54:06 -0400
% From: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: swampd::swampd::zimmermann
% Cc: [email protected]
% Subject: Re: DCU closing of DCO branch

re: .29

>    I would like to know what DC-area members think about having a
>    DCU ATM on-site.  Does this solve the problem, or if not, why not?
>    I do practically all of my own DCU business (other than attending
>    meetings!) at the ATM down the hall or by phone.  

I do practically all of my DCU business by ATM (foreign ATMs) and phone 
as well, but there's two cases where I need a branch:

    o	When I need to deposit a check.  Since DCU holds the check for
	several days, I'm loathe to endure the additional 2-3 days for 
	the check to reach DCU via mail.  Now if DCU got rid of the
	deposit-holding policy, I could live with the mail delay, since
	the mail's usually pretty fast in the northeast corridor.

    o   When I need to withdraw more cash than the ATM allows.  I sometimes
	make purchases from around the country where the seller insists
	on shipping UPS COD, cash-only.

Granted, these aren't my most frequent uses of DCU, but if I have to go
to another institution to get these services, it's easier to just take all
of my business there.

-Hal

    Re: .32
    
    
>    o	When I need to deposit a check.  Since DCU holds the check for
>	several days, I'm loathe to endure the additional 2-3 days for 
>	the check to reach DCU via mail.  Now if DCU got rid of the
>	deposit-holding policy, I could live with the mail delay, since
>	the mail's usually pretty fast in the northeast corridor.

    I thought that you could also make deposits via an ATM, subject to
    end of the day (or whenever the ATM is updated) verification ?  Isn't
    that what the little slot in the lower left of the machine (or upper
    left) for ?   It would seem that your hold on the deposited check
    (which is based on Check size BTW) would be based on the deposit
    verification date which should be quicker than US Snail.
    
>    o   When I need to withdraw more cash than the ATM allows.  I sometimes
>	make purchases from around the country where the seller insists
>	on shipping UPS COD, cash-only.
    
    What about your "green" easy cash card?  Don't the sellers take VISA,
    etc.   It's been a long time since I even accepted COD, so I guess I
    haven't delt with anyone who would not send me somenting based on a
    charge,  check or 5-30 day payment (if I deal regularly with them).
    
    Bill
    

re: .33

>    I thought that you could also make deposits via an ATM, subject to
>    end of the day (or whenever the ATM is updated) verification ?  Isn't
>    that what the little slot in the lower left of the machine (or upper
>    left) for ?   It would seem that your hold on the deposited check
>    (which is based on Check size BTW) would be based on the deposit
>    verification date which should be quicker than US Snail.
    
If it's really true that the hold is based on when the check went into the
ATM that would indeed mitigate the problem.  Can anyone verify if that is
indeed the case?



>>    o   When I need to withdraw more cash than the ATM allows.  I sometimes
>>	make purchases from around the country where the seller insists
>>	on shipping UPS COD, cash-only.
>    
>    What about your "green" easy cash card?  Don't the sellers take VISA,
>    etc.   It's been a long time since I even accepted COD, so I guess I
>    haven't delt with anyone who would not send me somenting based on a
>    charge,  check or 5-30 day payment (if I deal regularly with them).
    
Ah, but this isn't businesses, it's individuals advertising items for
sale on the Internet, for example.

-Hal    

I see two issues here ... not only whether the DCO branch should be relocated,
but also how the branch closing notification was done.  My thoughts:


I don't remember when the board made the decision to close the DCO branch.
I also don't know when Digital announced its intention to close the DCO
facility.  It would make sense to me that Digital would forewarn DCU of
any facility closings wherever DCU has a branch or ATM.  It would also make
sense that, were DCU acting on such information, before Digital announced
to its employees that the site was being closed, that such discussion and
decision should in fact be kept confidential at that time.  So, if the 
board decided to close the DCO branch after Digital decided to close the
DCO facility, but before Digital announced the closing of the site, then
I believe the board made the correct decision to redact this discussion
and vote from the minutes.  Given that the branch wouldn't be relocated to
COP, putting an ATM in certainly seems like a sensible idea.  And it
clearly would have helped if it could have been decided already, and included
in the branch closure notification.  Dave Garrod says that the lack of a
CEO at the time hindered this.  As we can see now, we were fairly close to
having a new CEO in place; I agree that with the new CEO pending, postponing
decisions like this makes sense.  Unfortunately, as Dave pointed out, the
branch closing decision could not wait for the new CEO.  So, it really does
look sloppy, but clearly there were extenuating circumstances.

(Over the last few months, it seems like the board has been frustrated by
the lack of a CEO on a number of occasions ... hopefully, with a new CEO in
place, especially one so member-oriented, the CEO will just do things the
board has found itself having to debate.)


I don't know what it would cost DCU to set up a new branch in COP.  There's
a lot involved in the security system - cameras, alarms, safes, etc.  Yes,
DCU would avoid capital costs, since the equipment is already owned.  But,
the cost of re-installing all this equipment and fitting up a new branch
is still there.

For the moment, let's assume the cost of this work is about $20K.  In this
case, I'd have to say that the cost of opening a branch at COP is well
worth it.  Even if a good cost analysis showed that it wouldn't quite be
worth the cost of the new branch, I would still favor it - think of it as
an acceptable cost of doing business and providing member services.

Now, let's assume that the cost of this work is more like $2M.  Given that,
I'd have to say that opening the branch in COP is simply out of the question.
This would be the case if you counted numbers of members in the area, or if
you counted numbers of those in the field of membership in the area.  I think
this would be the case whether the Digital site was leased or owned.

I have to believe that the dollar amounts I used in each example are way
off base.  But, I honestly have no idea what the costs of opening up a
branch in COP would really be.  Dave Garrod says (repeatedly) that the board
and management could not justify the cost.  I would like to think, then,
that the cost was prohibitively high, and therefore the right decision was
made.

This board has done some very good things and made some significant changes,
and right now I'm willing to believe them if they say the right decision was
made.  (The best from this board hasn't really even shown itself yet - wait
until the new CEO has had a few months under his belt.  Then things will
*really* happen.  But that's for another topic ...)

Since I believe the cost of the COP branch was prohibitively high, I believe
the other items discussed on this issue were secondary.  As far as the dis-
cussion about COP being a leased site, but with 8 years left on it ... I don't
think this should come into play.  A leased site is a leased site.  About 
1 1/2 years ago, my organization was moved out of a leased site with 5 years
left on the lease; a site that was specially fitted for our computing and 
connectivity needs, at (from what I can guess) great expense to us.  8 years
left on a lease wouldn't assure me that it would remain a Digital site for
8 years.

In addition, there was the discussion about the size of the field of member-
ship a potential COP branch could serve.  Some rough estimates showed a
little over 1000.  Dave Garrod refutes that, based on traffic patterns through
the DCO branch, the membership has voted with it's actions.  But again, if
the cost is prohibitively high, it's more than just a cost of doing business,
as I am prepared to believe is the case here.

But, as Larry Seiler points out (in .29), it's all in the details - the actual
costs of moving the branch, and the actual traffic patterns in the DCO branch.
None of us have that information.  Without that information, I don't think any
of us could be in a position to make decisions on this issue.

    after reading the various replies here and having posted at least one
    of my own earlier in this string, I would like to comment again... I
    use the DCO DCU facility and am directly affected by this closing, so
    some bias can be assumed. However, as a DCU member I am concerned about
    what the bigger message is, with the closing of the DCO DCU branch.
    
    The DCU appears to be interested in its "installed base", not expanding
    out to new customers. This is a long-term "going out of business"
    strategy. They have a potential market of approximately 1000 customers,
    but, because their current base is small, rather than trying to attract
    new customers, they are closing this branch. I would think it would be
    a better business strategy to build up rather than drive away. 
    
    If this were happening in other locations, I would be just as
    concerned for the long-term health of the DCU.
    
    janetb.

Given recent comments from the BoD, I suspect that the future direction of the
DCU is to utilize electronic banking (sorry, 'credit unioning' doesn't work)
as much as possible.

Bob

re: .37

>Given recent comments from the BoD, I suspect that the future direction of the
>DCU is to utilize electronic banking (sorry, 'credit unioning' doesn't work)
>as much as possible.

That's all well and good, but until the entire world (or at least the coutry)
goes electronic, we need the ability to deal with things like 
depositing/cashing real checks.  If DCU really wants to encourage
electronic banking, maybe it should consider something as radical as
dropping the hold period on deposited checks.  It probably wouldn't even
be all that risky...I suspect the number of deposited checks that
bounce isn't really that high.

-Hal

    re: .36
    
    I second Janet's comment: DCU should be looking to win more business,
    since there is a considerable "reachable" population in DC.
    
    It seems to me that the activity at the DCO DCU branch dropped
    dramatically when (a) the fees were initiated years back, and (b) DCO
    became largely inhabited by Ed Services.  Seems to me that the DCO
    branch had _tons_ more traffic before Digital began the migration to
    COP (about 5 miles away) about 3 years ago.  A presence in COP could 
    win back many of the people who have relocated there over the past few 
    years.  The 5 mile distance may not seem like much, but one slowdown on
    the beltway can make it a long and unpleasant trip, especially when
    time is tight (which seems to be "situation normal" for most of COP's
    inhabitants).
    
    A presence in COP, accompanied by a little local marketing, could
    make for a measurable increase of membership in this geography.
    
    -- Russ

    I agree as a COP resident and DCU member, it was a shock, why not
    lower expenses, move to COP, eliminate 1 person, and at the same time
    try to get new members, this is a going out of business process,
    I hope the new CEO can see this and reverse direction. All one has
    to do is look at us over the last 5 years, and learn from some of the
    success, and failures.

    
      Let's think ahead. What is everyone going to do when Digital doesn't
    own anymore buildings and most people are on the H.O.M.E program??
    
      Prelude to a ....
    
             Mark

    I had a chance to chat with our new president on Tuesday.  I was
    impressed with what I heard.  He encouraged those who want to know
    the check hold times for checks deposited in an ATM to call the
    DCU InfoLine.  If the person you get doesn't know the answer, they'll
    find the answer and call you back.  Please post it once you know.

    If you don't like the answer that you hear, you could ask for
    someone at the DCU to get back to you on whether it can be changed,
    or you could send a note to one or more Board members.  But it's
    best to take these things through the management chain if you can.
    I think most managers like to have a chance to tell their boss that
    they heard about a problem and fixed it, instead of having their
    boss tell them that there's a problem that they need to fix.

        Regards,
        Larry
    
    PS:  re .41, I don't forsee a time when Digital owns no buildings,
    and I certainly don't forsee a time when most Digital employees
    don't have offices.  I think the H.O.M.E. program is great, and
    work at home should be encouraged, but lots of job functions depend
    on working with other people -- and that means coming to an office 
    most days.  Re .40 (I think), I encourage folks who wonder why the
    Board didn't approve opening a branch in COP to inquire into the
    costs of moving a branch, and into the monthly costs of keeping
    that branch open, as compared to what it cost to keep the DCO 
    branch open.  LS

    re: .42
    
    Larry,
    
    It may not be that way in corporate-land, but someone in DCU had better
    be thinking about the office-less future for the field.  I've heard of
    field office after field office that has shrunken or disappeared as a 
    result of downsizing and telecommuting.  Even those who are "working 
    with other people" are on the plan these days.  No one is exempt from
    the possibility of heading home over the next few years.
    
    If DCU isn't considering an office-less future, then it will have to be
    content with an ever-dwindling number of New England employees as the
    _only_ viable group for DCU membership.
    
    -- Russ

It seems to me that DCU already has been thinking about the "office-less"
future.  Long-term, that's electronic banking, via your PC or whatever.
Shorter-term, that includes things like transactions by phone, mailing in
deposits, etc.

Clearly, this *can* be done right.  From the June issue of "Money", starting
on p 126, is a story on USAA Federal Savings, an S&L in San Antonio with
$4.8B assets.  And not one single branch.  All business is done by phone and
by mail.  (And, they get 5 free transactions per month at any ATM in the
Cirrus network ...)

I agree with Larry's comments in .42.  If there is an issue with check hold
times (or anything else), call the DCU!  I've been on the credit appeals
committee for about six months now, and I've gotten to know quite a few
good people who work very hard over there.  And I'm sure they'd much rather
let Carlo know of the problems they fixed, rather than Carlo telling them
what's broken.

On the issue of check hold times in particular, I don't recall any mention
of USAA hold times in the story.  Suffice to say, if they turn checks around
faster than DCU, then DCU has a target to work to.  And I wouldn't doubt the
resolve of Carlo and the board to get this improved.  But, again, call DCU
and tell them about your issues.

    	If you all want a good laugh, I know of a bank (which shall
    go nameless) which put a hold on cash deposits - the money was not
    available for writing checks until the next day.  And this was
    when the cash was handed to a teller...
    
    Cheers!
    Dave E
    

    In case we're not talking about the same thing, this was true the last
    time I handed a teller at Baybank cash. She said it wouldn't be
    available until the deposits were all processed later that night. And
    this was within the last six months. (BTW: NEVER deposit cash in an
    ATM. Even the banks will tell you this). From the 'aren't coincidences
    funny' file, I'm going to be depositing cash at BB this afternoon. I'll
    reply if the hold-on-cash-deposits rule has changed.
    
    Baybank also told me that my (Baybank)Mastercard payment would be processed
    quicker if I mailed it instead of paying it at a branch! Figure that
    one out!

    re -.1, the delay in paying credit card at Baybank compared to USMail
    is that the local branch sends your payment to the processing center by
    their internal pouch delivery system, and that could mean a two or
    three day delay. USMail should arrive in one or two days, typical.

    I was at a Supervisory Committee training conference for the last two
    days and learned a lot of interesting things.  The thing that is
    relevant to this discussion (though not to its title) is that the
    Standford (University) FCU not only has a web page, but also allows
    loan applications to be filed over the web!  The presenter didn't
    know a lot about it, but mentioned that a PIN has to be entered.
    I hope that the folks at Stanford CU know better than to send an
    unencrypted PIN over a broadcast network... or at least to be
    very careful about validating transactions.
    
    Anyway, their home page is at http://www.sfcu.com.  Check it out!
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry
    
    PS:  They mentioned that there are three other CUs (and one or two
    banks) that have web pages.  I don't know if they were counting us.  LS

    Cash transactions in some banks are the next day, it is crazy.
    On the credit cards at the branch instead of processing center,
    I had one for a week until it cleared, yet they credited
    it on the day I went to the branch. Hardly EFT

    
    
    re: -46 
    
     Except for the most obvious reason of security, what other reasons do
    you see for not depositing cash via an ATM?? 
    
     I've probally deposisted cash about 20 times and checks about 30times
    never once without a hitch.
    
    actually once I had a check and cash in a deposit and the DCU called me
    to tell me that my addition was off .. something like I said $302.40
    and it actually was $304.20
    
    Bill

    re: depositing cash at an ATM
    
    My brother made the mistake of depositing cash at an ATM. He was called
    by the bank and they said the envelope was empty. He had no way of
    proving that he actually put cash in the envelope and they just said it
    was his tough luck (in so many words). He tried elevating it, but got
    the same basic response. He dropped that bank like a hot tomato and now
    only deposits cash with a teller.

RE: .51

	Nothing on the TV camera showing him inserting cash into the
	envelope?

							mike

    
    
    re:-51
    
       Let me guess this wasn't a DCU ATM??
    
    
    Bill

    re: .52
    
    Nope, the camera angle was such that it only showed his face. 
    
    No, it was not a DCU ATM - it was Baybank.

It's too bad -- my mother occasionally uses the DCO branch - it's on her way to
work, and I used it once while on vacation visiting her.

When I read Phil's description of our new CEO, one of the items he mentioned was
some kind of "branch sharing" (I think that's what he said), which I interpreted
to mean where two or more CU's share a branch. Sounds like a neat idea if that's
what he meant. Perhaps that could be explored for DCU in DC?

Bryan
GMA member with a heart

    Thought I'd put my two cents in....
    
    The New York DCU branch closed on 3/17/95 with nary a word from us. 
    With all the downsizing we went from 4 floors and 1100 employees to one
    floor and approximately 300 people here, thus the justification for the
    credit union was gone.
    
    Anyhow, what we weren't told in any of the literature sent to us was
    that when we take money out of our account it can only be done from
    checking or primary savings.  I use my RSVP account for savings.  That
    means I have to call to transfer money to primary saving and then I go to a
    cash machine.  I just received my statement and DCU charges a $1.00
    network transaction fee every time I call to transfer money.  Even with
    the free ATM withdrawals we're still penalized for not being able to
    bank in person!  Now shouldn't we be getting free network transfer fees
    also?   
    
    I write this as an FYI for the DCO/COP people who will be faced with
    this in the not to distance future.
    
    Regards,
    
    Fredda

    can't you call the 800 easytouch number to xfer money?  that option
    even works from a pay phone.
    ed
    

    RE: .57
    
    I have to admit, when I read .56, I was confused. Is the $1.00 fee
    assessed when you speak with someone at HQ? 
    
    I transfer money back and forth all the time using Easytouch, and have
    never seen any fees on my statements.
    
    kjg

    Yes, I've been speaking with a customer service rep.  Are you saying
    that if I do it myself through easy touch - no fee?
    
    Fredda

    RE: .59
    
    As I mentioned, I transfer money myself through Easytouch, without any
    fee. I limit my transfers between savings, checking and a "U-name it"
    account. I recall that you mentioned an RSVP account; you might want to
    inquire whether that type of account has any restrictions/fees with
    regard to transfers or minimum balances.
    
    It is my understanding that anyone that knows their PIN and the
    easytouch phone number should be able to do their own transfers.
    
    kjg
    

    I will call to find out if RSVP has restrictions - I'd rather keep my
    $$ for myself, rather than use it up in fees!
    
    Fredda

    Well, today's the last day the DCO branch is open. 
    
    During the few minutes I was in there saying goodbye and getting some
    cash, several other people were in there closing their accounts. 
    
    confirmed my guess that this closing might lower DCU membership. I know
    that I'm now looking for a local bank. Way to go DCU!
    
    janetb.

    Just read an ALL-IN-1 message, indicating that some changes are being
    made at COP to make room for a DCU ATM machine...  I guess DCU
    decided to install a machine here.
    
    Mark
    

>    I will call to find out if RSVP has restrictions - I'd rather keep my
>    $$ for myself, rather than use it up in fees!

I just did and I was told no restrictions.  Only the balance has to stay
above $1000.

- Vikas