| From: US1RMC::"[email protected]" 17-AUG-1995 01:08:43.51
To: npss::badger
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], cadsys::ritchie
Subj: Re: name change? in the works
Hi Ed:
You may post this note, in full and unedited in the DCU conference if you
would like, under the proviso that you first post the entire text of your
note and make this one of the replies to your comments. It's important
that the readers see your comments as well as mine.
I wrote this late at night, so I apologize apriori for any misspellings,
grammatical weirdness, etc. All the usual disclaimers apply: these
are my opinions as an individual DCu Director. I speak for myself, and
not for the entire Board or DCU management.
You wrote:
> Given that minutes of meetings, nearly two months old, is the only way
> we can guess the direction of the credit union, I find it alarming that
> major shifts can occur in the credit union with no polling or feedback
> of members.
One does not have to guess at the direction of the credit union. I
think it's fairly clear by DCU's actions what the direction is.
However, if people are concerned about the direction, then *please*
contact members of the Board (like you have) and express those concerns
so that we may respond.
Minutes of meetings are released as soon as the Board approves them.
Approval of minutes for the previous month is always the first order of
business at the current month's meeting. There are almost always
corrections required. Our recording secretary does a marvelous job of
documenting the meetings, but a lot happens and sometimes things get
noted incorrectly and need to be revised. When the Board has approved
the minutes, they are drafted for release, redacted as necessary (like
when the Board is acting on personnel matters, matters of
attorney/client privilege, or acting on matters where the privacy of a
particular member must be protected). After that, they are released.
It does take time, and we have taken steps to streamline the process.
You wrote:
> I would like to charge you with attempting to find a way for open,
> honest, TIMELY communications. I realize this is an expanded view
> of the plank you might have campaigned on.
Charged? We've been working to improve communications with the
membership at all levels within the credit union. A prime example of
this was the Chairman's letter. This letter, sent to all members,
described in detail the direction that many on the Board wanted to point
DCU. Another example are the feedback "How are we doing?" cards in the
branches. The feedback from these cards goes directly to the CEO, is
collected and tabulated, and fed back directly to all employees and
members of the Board. It helps management to know what things are
important to the membership, and it helps the Board better understand
membership sentiment. All comments are fed back - the good, the bad,
and the ugly. If somebody comments about a particular employee,
everyone at DCU sees it whether it's a good comment or a bad comment.
This program, instigated by our new CEO, has obvious quality improvement
and communication benefits.
Additionally, DCU has an electronic presence on the World Wide Web.
The URL is http://www.dcu.com . While this program is still in its
infancy, I believe it will expand in the future and be an additional
source of information for members. Right now you can obtain information
about DCU's rates and current programs, and you can send email to DCU
management.
Note too that the entire Board of Directors is available electronically
(I'm certain that somewhere somebody has posted a list of addresses).
Write to us, give us your comments, criticisms etc. We are listening.
I would point out though that the majority of us cannot read DCU notes
or participate actively. Please send us email.
Finally, note that comments from individual Director's have been
appearing in DCU's newsletters. While space is restricted there, we've
been able to talk about our vision for DCU.
You wrote:
> Of particular conern in June 26th's meeting minutes [made available
> today] are two items, 1. a possible name change for DCU, which probably
> ties into 2: expanded membership field.
>
> I realize Digital has reduce [sic], maybe in half, and that
> resources/memberships in DCU are reduced. I do not believe it is in our
> best interest to solicit large and varied fields to join with us. One
> of the benefits of being in a pool with other Digital employees [past,
> present] is a reduced default ratio on loans. And a fellowship.
> Yes, perhaps DCU will have to reduce in size to match Digital's
> reduction. This could upset someone's kingdom and empire building, but
> it would enable DCU to retain it's original charter.
I fear that you are making some serious leaps to unfounded conclusions
here, Ed. First, let me address the comment about soliciting large and
varied fields to join with us.
DCU has been expanding its field of membership by a process call SEG
Expansion. SEG is an abbreviation for Select Employee Group and is a
term that the NCUA uses to describe a group of employees operating under
a common bond. All the employees who work for Digital would be
considered the "Digital employees SEG."
Our initial expansions have been small, and are consistent with the
direction that our sponsor has been going. An excellent example is the
recent SEG expansion in which we have taken into our field
of membership the employees of Quantum in areas where Quantum was
acquiring facilities from Digital, and taking Digital employees into the
Quantum employee base. DCU had and continues to maintain a presence in
these facilities and we do business with employees of Quantum who were
already members of DCU, or who want to join. This makes good sense to
me. First, we were already there serving many people. Second, Quantum
has a relationship with the sponsor via their purchase.
Note that SEG expansion is a highly regulated undertaking which requires
approval from the National Credit Union Administration. With many
credit unions engaged in Field of Membership (FOM) disputes, NCUA is
somewhat reluctant to allow any credit union to take in large and
unrelated groups. Further, it is not the intention of DCU to take on
large groups at this time, and to the best of my knowledge is not part
of our overall strategic plan.
I don't believe that SEG expansion, in general, will have a negative
impact on DCU in terms of loan default percentages. Additional members,
be they from SEG expansion or from within-FOM, bring additional money to
DCU that we can turn into loans, and additional demands for loans. Our
default rate is absolutely fantastic - in fact I've heard arguments that
it's too low (the argument is that we're being too restrictive with our
credit granting...I tend to reject this argument). Taking on additional
members is good for the business - it allows us to do more for our
members and to help more members with financial needs. Like our
sponsor, DCU has seen a shrinking membership base. That trend is
starting to turn, due to a number of factors including SEG expansion,
but also due to current Digital employees and families joining. We're
not seeking to grow for the sake of getting bigger, but rather with an
objective of being able to do more.
I think your remarks about upsetting kingdoms and empires is unfounded.
First, just because we are doing some SEG expansion does not mean that
we are backing away from our commitment to the overwhelmingly large
percentage of our membership: current and former employees of Digital
Equipment Corporation and its subsidiaries. In fact, DCU just recently
completed a membership drive, with cooperation from Digital, during
which we had a presence in Digital facilities and talked directly with
current members about their needs and with potential new members about
the benefits of membership with DCU. Further, we have been able to
relax our eligibility requirements so that people within a member's
extended family are eligible for membership.
Second, when the Board was hiring our new CEO we were very careful to
steer away from the empire-building, fast-tracking, spotlight-seeking
candidates and focused more on "stick to the knitting" candidates. We
were interested in a CEO who would grow or stabilize the credit union in
a responsible manner, who was accepting of the majority board position
on a number of issues (pricing strategies, the role of members, etc),
who would empower DCU employees and management to improve service.
Finally, we wanted somebody who was interested in working at DCU for the
sake of improving the credit union. We didn't want a Mister Fixit or
somebody who was seeking the national spotlight within the credit union
industry.
We found that CEO in Carlo Cestra. I had the privilege of chairing the
search committee, and in that role I spent many hours talking with
Carlo. Based on those discussions, and based on his track record with
AT&T Employees Credit Union, I am positive that this is someone who is
most happy when he is at the office, working with his staff, and
employing his substantial skills and creative energies to improving DCU.
Carlo spent over a decade at AT&T in an industry where CEO turnover is
much higher. He is not someone who wants to build an empire, or
establish a kingdom. Carlo's vision is "OFI - Only Financial
Institution" where a member is so satisfied with DCU that DCU is the
only financial institution that individual needs or uses. The Board
shares that view, the management team shares that view, the employees
share that view. And it is a vision I hope we see someday at DCU.
You wrote:
> We should focus on being leaner and meaner. Someone, anyone should
> investigate why the branch [at LKG] has four tellers on some days
> and no line, while other days it can have a line around the lobby
> with only one teller in the branch. It appears as though someone
> is incapable of planning.
Ed, problems you've seen at LKG are clearly operational issues and should
be addressed to DCU's management. There are a number of ways to do
that - writing to the Board is one way, filling out a "How are we doing?"
card in another way. We do listen, and we do convey member concerns to
management both in our informal conversations with management and during
Board meetings. A third way to convey issues like this is to use the
Web page and send mail to DCU management.
It's important for the Board to remain the strategic direction-setting
body within DCU and for the Board not to become 7 wanna-be CEOs barging
all over DCU trying to give orders. The management team and CEO are
professional credit unionists, and we compensate them for their
expertise. The only time the Board should be diving in to operational
issues is in rare circumstances - like when we made significant changes
to DCU's pricing based on what the membership was saying.
We have a fantastic management team that was largely hand-selected by the
Board
of Directors after the old management team left. We have a gifted CEO, hired
by this Board who believes in our direction. They will listen if you send
comments to them and let them know what's happening.
With all that said, DCU is striving to become leaner and meaner. During
the past year the F&I committee has been holding management's feet to
the fire about DCU's expense ratio. This will continue into next year's
budget. We care very deeply about reducing expenses, doing more with
less, as long as we can do that without sacrificing quality of service
to our members. We are positive to budget so far on the expense side
this year, and I hope that this favorable trend continues.
You wrote:
> We should focus on gaining more Digital employees as members of the
> credit union. If you can't even attract Digital employees, what makes
> you believe you can attract employees at another organization?
I refer you back to my earlier comments about our membership drive and
our recent moves to make it easier for family members to join DCU. I
think these steps demonstrate clearly that we (a) value our current
members, many of whom are Digital employees and their families, and (b)
we want more Digital employees to join.
You wrote:
> We are still NOT competitive. My kids can still purchase a $500 CD at
> most banks, while they can't afford a DCU CD. WHY? Who is addressing
> this problem? Lets focus on why we can't turn all the employees in the
> GMA into complete DCU members.
Ed, management is currently working on plans designed specifically to
encourage children of members to join DCU and participate actively.
Management recognizes that kids today are the homeowners of 20 years
from now, and we are taking steps to foster that relationship. Stay
tuned for more details.
I would disagree with your assesment of our competitiveness. There are
always opportunities for DCU, and both management and Board continue to
look for them. On the other hand, we've done a lot as a team over the
past year to make DCU more competitive:
(1) Eliminated checking account fees
(2) Reduced the cost of accessing DCU via "foreign" ATMs
(3) Eliminated fees for using your DCU debit card
(4) Eliminated annual fees on DCU Visa Cards.
According to the Federal Reserve, banks took in $15.3 billion in service
charges last year, up 134% since 1984. According to one study, the
average consumer pays $162 a year in bank charges. Consumer backlash
against these practices is increasing, as is regulator's scrutiny of
these practices. DCU is out there ahead of the competition eliminating
fees that we see an inhibitors to business. And I think we're ahead of
the credit union industry in paring "non-business-related revenue" (fees
which might someday be taxed if Congress eliminates the tax-exempt
status from credit unions).
(5) More competitive rates on savings and CDs.
DCU made a series of rate adjustments early this year to reflect changing
economic conditions, and we continue to monitor our rates for
opportunities. Here are a few numbers to consider:
Savings:
National Average DCU Rate Hotline
6/21/95 8/16/95
Money Market Accts 2.87% 4.02%
Six Month CDs 4.97% 5.6%
One Year CDs 5.25% 6.05%
Five Year CDs 5.73% 6.40% (60 month)
Credit Cards:
Bank Rate Monitor DCU Rate Hotline
Nat'l Average 6/21/95 8/16/95
Standard Card 18.17% 11.9% or 13.9%*
"Gold Card" 17.06% 11.9% or 13.9%*
* 11.9% DCU rate applies to balances > $2,500
13.9% DCU rate applies to balances < $2,500
Mortgage Rates:
HSH Associates DCU Rate Hotline
Nat'l Average 6/16/95 8/16/95
30 Year Fixed: 7.82% 7.125% - 8.875%
15 Year Fixed 7.36% 7.25% - 8.625%
One Year Adjustable 5.98% 5.50% - 7.875%
Mortgage rate ranges for DCU are low and high rates based on progam
selected and number of points paid.
I took this information from DCU's rate information while writing this,
and believe it to be accurate. Contact DCU at 1-800-328-8797 to get the
numbers for yourself.
It's clear that we have more work to do, but I think that we are
competitive now, and that DCU management and Board is more aware now of
our need to be competitive than ever before.
You wrote:
> In summary,
>
> - more timely communications needed,
> - test some far out ideas before implementing
> - Don't expand our field of membership
> - Don't change the name!
> - work/plan on gaining more share of Digital Employees as owners.
Now that you've made it nearly to the end of this rather lengthy
response, I hope that some things that were perhaps unclear are
clarified for you. I hope that this email addresses your concerns.
Please let me know if it hasn't. I'm not sure about your comments
concerning testing "far out ideas." Presently, I'm not aware of any
"far out" ideas under consideration.
Thanks for the note and concerns, Ed! Always a pleasure to hear from you.
Regards,
Chris Gillett
[email protected]
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA02147; Thu, 17 Aug 95 00:56:15 -040
% Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA20438; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 21:45:17 -070
% Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA141144608; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 00:43:28 -040
% Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 00:43:28 -0400
% From: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: npss::badger
% Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], cadsys::ritchi
% Subject: Re: name change? in the works
|
| From: CADSYS::RITCHIE "Elaine Kokernak Ritchie, 225-4199, HLO2-2 Pole E11 17-Aug-1995 1123 -0400" 17-AUG-1995 11:25:12.40
To: NPSS::BADGER
CC: RITCHIE
Subj: RE: name change? in the works
Hi, Ed -
Gee, go off-site for the day, and the notes file gets active! Thanks for your
mail. It seems that in my absence, several of the directors have already
responded to your mail. I'd like to comment on just a few things. These are my
feelings as an individual director, and not necessarily of the Board as a whole.
Communication is important, and I agree that DCU can be doing better. We will
certainly be discussing this during the Strategic Planning Conference next
month, including a plan for publishing the goals we come up with.
>> We are still NOT competitive. My kids can still purchase a $500 CD at most
>> banks, while they can't afford a DCU CD. WHY? Who is addressing this
>> problem? Lets focus on why we can't turn all the employees in the GMA into
>> complete DCU members.
I beg to differ with this. I think DCU is tops in almost every area. I did
say "almost", and those are things that are being worked on. The one, single,
driving goal at DCU is to make this credit union so attractive that you will
use it for _ALL_ your business.
One excellent way to point out things which are keeping you from moving your
business to DCU is the "How are we doing?" surveys that are in each branch, and
also on-line through the DCU Web page (http://www.dcu.com/). The very first
question asks what DCU must do to be your first choice for financial services.
This is the place to put short direct messages to DCU. In your example, you
could say "Minimum balances for CD's of $1000 are too high. If the minimum were
$500, I could move my children's CD's to DCU." I've actually filled one of
these out myself.
There is also a place to say what you think DCU is doing well.
The board sees copies of these survey responses. To be honest, many are
completed by members who already use DCU exclusively, and are very happy. This
is good to know, but comments like yours are what will help us make DCU better
still.
DCU is addressing many of your concerns. I think you'll agree that a lot of
improvements have been made in the past few months. And, since communication
is a two-way street, it is good to receive your input. I encourage anyone who
has a reason to not be happy with DCU to do what you have done: contact the
Information Center, ask at your branch, fill out a survey, send e-mail to DCU,
or contact some of the Board members.
Thanks for your continued involvement.
Elaine
p.s. you can post this in the notes file.
|
| From: US2RMC::"[email protected]" 25-SEP-1995 12:03:27.71
To: rowlet::ainsley
CC: npss::badger
Subj: Please post this in the appropriate note.
Hi Bob,
Could you please post this response to Ed Badger in the DCU notes
conference? In speaking with Elaine Ritchie at our recent planning
conference, it came out that my response to Ed had not been posted
with other Directors' responses. I didn't get any indication of a trans-
mission failure to Ed so I don't know what may have gone wrong.
Thanks,
Phil
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Subj: RE: name change? in the works
Date: 95-08-26 21:17:24 EDT
From: Gransewicz
To: [email protected]
>Greetings BOD,
Greetings to you Ed.
>Given that minutes of meetings, nearly two months old, is the only way we
can
>guess the direction of the credit union, I find it alarming that major
shifts
>can occur in the credit union with no polling or feedback of members.
I disagree that you, or any one else, need to "guess the direction of
the credit union". If you have a question or concern, all Directors
are reachable via e-mail.
As elected Directors, it is our responsibility to determine the future
direction of DCU. We are constantly evaluating DCU's priorities and
direction with our goal being a better credit union for ALL members.
We use member feedback (such as yours), formal surveys, response cards,
as well as the information we receive concerning industry trends. But
as Carlo is so fond of saying, the best judgement is in how many
members use DCU! And one of our primary goals is to increase that
number.
>While the board is elected to represent the members, those elected should
>attempt to judge what the members would like. Within hours, you can
>send information to a large percent of members.
I do not believe the last sentence is neither accurate, nor a prudent
thing to do. In the future, this capability may exist, without
interfering
with a member at work but right now it is not possible.
>I would like to charge you with attempting to find a way for open, honest,
>TIMELY communications. I realize this is an expanded view of the plank
>you might have campaigned on.
I assume you are referring to the lastest posting on minutes with you
statements on timeliness. If that is correct then I would like to detail
the process for you so that you can see that they were timely.
June Board Meeting June 26, 1995
Minutes Approved July 24, 1995 (July Board Meeting)
Minutes Sent Aug. 15, 1995
Minutes Posted Aug. 16, 1995
In the BEST situation, it may be 6-7 weeks before minutes are posted
because Board meetings occur once a month and there may be 4-5 weeks
between meetings. After they are approved, they must then be amended
and typed up in their final approved form. Then Dave will get them
and send them to Bob for posting. It would be safe to assume that there
will be times when people have their real jobs to attend to, vacations,
etc. and the connections will not always be made with the optimal speed.
I do not see the times above to be out of the realm of timeliness given
what must occur.
>Of particular concern in June 26th's meeting minutes [made available today]
>are two items, 1. a possible name change for DCU, which probably ties into
>2: expanded membership field.
>
>I realize Digital has reduce, maybe in half, and that resources/memberships
>in DCU are reduced. I do not believe that it is in our best interest to
>solicit large and varied fields to join with us. One of the benefits of
>being in a pool with other Digital employees [past, present] is a reduced
>default ratio on loans. And a fellowship.
>Yes, perhaps DCU will have to reduce in size to match Digital's reduction.
>This could upset someone's kingdom and empire building, but it would enable
>DCU to retain it's original charter.
We have, for several years, expanded the field of membership where it
made sense for DCU and its members. These have for the most part been
small groups, or "new" companies as a result of a sale of a portion of
Digital's business (ie. Quantum).
Any major addition would require NCUA approval as well as extensive
evaluation by DCU to make sure it makes sense for everybody concerned.
Our current membership can be roughly divided into 3 general categories;
current Digital employees, former Digital employees, and family members.
Currently each category is about the same. Our charter is to serve our
membership, whoever they may be. Even as a large number of people
found themselves with a different employer, our default rates remained
low. The low default rate has more to do with the people than the
employer.
You propose we consider a "leaner and meaner" DCU? If membership
continues to decline (which it is NOT for the first time in many years,
could we be doing something RIGHT?) DCU could conceivably not be able
to offer certain products and services. I am sure you would agree, that
would NOT be to everyones advantage. There are many advantages to size
and with many banks getting larger and larger, we must be ready and able
to compete with them, as well as other credit unions.
"Leaner and meaner" is OK if you're referring to cost containment and
aggressive competition for members business, but it is not an advantage
when it comes to the number of members we should have. There is strength
in numbers as well as an advantage in diversifying our membership makeup.
Number one rule of business and investment, never put all your eggs in
one basket.
>We should focus on being leaner and meaner. Someone, anyone should
investigate
>why the branch [at LKG] has four tellers on some days and no lines, while
>other days it can have a line around the lobby with only one teller in the
>branch. It appears as though someone is incapable of planning.
Since you are there, why don't you simply ask? What days were these?
What time of the day? There may be good answers to your questions.
If you're not satisfied with the answers, then submit a written complaint
to DCU via a response card so that the situation can be evaluated. Those
response cards go to Carlo, as well as senior management and the Board.
>Had it ever occurred that a little sign at the branch directing people to
the
>ATM in the same building would be a good idea. A lot of people are unawhere
>that there is an ATM in LKG. As a matter of fact, the ATM should be near
>the branch!
Good idea. Did you suggest it to the people behind the window? What was
their response?
As for the ATM location, isn't the door where the ATM is located
considered
the after hours entry to the building? Members can use the ATM after
hours
since the guard desk is always manned. If it were only near the branch,
then
access would eliminated. If space permits, an ATM near the branch may be
a possibility. But right now there are many places without one ATM and
we're trying to get ATMs installed in these locations.
>We should focus on gaining more Digital employees as members of the credit
>union. If you can't even attract Digital employees, what makes you believe
>you can attract employees at another organization?
I agree and we are actively doing this. We've had membership drives and
will continue to try and increase membership of Digital employees as well
as eligible family members. But why not increase membership in other ways
if it makes sense to do it? And I would STRONGLY DISAGREE that we can't
attract Digital employees to be members. We have made many changes and
improvements that have resulted in an INCREASE in membership for the first
time in as long as I can remember. And believe me, there are more changes
and improvements in the pipeline. Of course some members may find some
new products or services extremely helpful, while others might have a
different opinion (such as the check card, which has been a success by all
measurements). With over 66,000 members, that is to be expected. One
shoe
does not fit all.
>We are still NOT competitive. My kids can still purchase a $500 CD at
>most banks, while they can't afford a DCU CD. WHY? Who is addressing this
>problem? Lets focus on why we can't turn all the employees in the GMA
>into complete DCU members.
The availability of $500 CDs is a gauge of competitiveness? I could tell
you that we are competitive because we attracted millions of dollars in
CDs
earlier this year. Or that we are competitive because nearly 1,000
members
took out close to $11,000,000 in car loans during the June promotion.
I am not sure that if we polled the membership, that your definition of
competitiveness would be the one they would choose.
On the "kids front", look for changes down the road. Carlo is a very
strong
believer in this area and people are currently working on it. Since this
area has been a concern of yours over the years, I would ask that you help
us out by putting your thoughts down on paper and sending them in for
consideration.
>In summary,
>
>- more timely communications needed,
>- test some far out ideas before implementing
>- Don't expand our field of membership
>- Don't change the name!
>- work/plan on gaining more share of Digital Employees as owners.
In summary,
I believe we are timely communicating Board Minutes,
We are not implementing "some far out ideas",
Expanding our field of membership is prudent and inevitable,
No name change is underway,
We are constantly working/planning on increasing Digital employee
participation.
>regards,
>
>ed badger
>[if you choose to respond to me, please indicate if it can be posting in
>the notesfile, this is a current topic of discussion]
Yes Ed, please do post this and thanks for asking AHEAD of time on this
one. Since you value open and honest communication, I'd like to say that
I didn't think it was fair of you to engage in a private mail discussion
and then ask for public posting, or post your summarization of "sit on
it".
I would like to add the last few lines in my last message to you which I
believe
more accurately summarizes my position concerning your message:
"Reasonable expectations and needs can be worked and negotiated
where
everybody will benefit. But the key word here is reasonable. BOTH
parties must be willing to be reasonable. We're working on the DCU
side. You need to work on your side."
If I may, I'd also like to "charge you" with something. Could you please
write
up your feedback on all of the changes we have made over the last year and
let
us know what you think of them? You haven't mentioned all the fees we
have
eliminated, 4 free ATM per month, new delivery/communication vehicles,
etc.
Regards,
Phil
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail2.digital.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA09695; Mon, 25 Sep 95 12:37:26 -040
% Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com by mail2.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA03621; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 09:22:41 -070
% Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA03716; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:22:35 -0400
% Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 12:22:35 -0400
% From: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: rowlet::ainsley
% Cc: npss::badger
% Subject: Please post this in the appropriate note.
|