Conference 7.286::dcu

    I like the additional detail I'm seeing in the BoD Minutes, especially
    those discussing the reasons for various changes in financial
    indicators.
    
    I also support Carlo's comment that the $1,000,000 member rebate should
    not be a regular feature of the credit union, but rather the members
    should receive the benefit throughout the year in the form of lower
    interest rates on loans and higher yields on savings.
    
    Who are the companies that we have included in our field of membership?
    
    Bob

>Mr. Garrod requested that all EXECUTIVE SESSION items be redacted from the
>minutes upon distribution to the membership.

I'm trying to grasp the significance of this point.

How is this different than any other such action, or isn't it?

If you look at pass minutes, often topics/items of
executive sessions are included in the minutes. In this case, Mr. Garrod
asked that even the topics be redacted.

Gim

    re: .3
    
    If that's what it means, I'm 200% against it.  Even when my local city
    council meets in Exec Session, the items discussed are listed.
    
    Bob

I agree with Bob.

I seem to recall some time ago that the suggestion was raised in here
that the topics at least be noted, or the reason for a redaction noted.
I got the sense that there was some compliance from the board on this
request for a time.

If Dave is calling for a reversal of this, I request that one of the
Directors reading this conference please bring the issue up for further
discussion and/or a vote, indicating the dissatisfaction of the membership
at this move. Minimally, I'd like to hear the rationale behind proposing
this change for the worse.

RE: Note 981.5 by MOLAR::DELBALSO

>I agree with Bob.

I STRONGLY agree with Bob and Jack.  It is an indicator that
something has occurred.  It always behooves
the membership to be aware that something is happeneing.



	- mark

There is really nothing sinister going on.  In this case, Mr.  Garrod
asked that month's executive session be redacted.  Since the Executive
Session minutes consisted of a few sentences, there was nothing to
include in the minutes.  I don't believe that it was a general policy
change to redact all future executive session items but only that
month's.  I will verify at the next board minutes.

I'm sensitive to the issue of redaction. Attached is my note
from 9/95:


               < UPSAR::USER$411:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;1 >>>
                                 -< DCU >-
   ==========================================================================
   Note 950.4     Discussion of July 24, 1995 BoD Minutes             4 of 10
   SLOAN::HOM                                     11 lines  11-SEP-1995 14:44
                        -< opinions on redaction >-
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Regarding the  redacted minutes:
   
   I've had an opportunity to review the full un-redacted minutes. In
   general, I agree with the decision to redact those sections.
   
   While there may have been a few cases that were judgement calls,
   NO sections were redacted where I felt they should have been
   made public.
   
   Gim
   
    

> I will verify at the next board minutes.

Thanks very much, Gim. We appreciate it.

From:	US2RMC::"[email protected]"  6-MAR-1996 23:20:48.85
To:	rowlet::ainsley, wldbil::kilgore, molar::delbalso
CC:	
Subj:	Clarification regarding DCU Bod minute redactions

Dear DCU notesfile moderators,

If you feel it is appropriate please post this message in total in the
DCU notesfile.

I understand that there has been some discussion in the DCU notesfile
regarding the DCU BoD January minutes. Specifically my comment:

"Mr. Garrod requested that all EXECUTIVE SESSION items be redacted from
the minutes upon distribution to the membership."

and that maybe I was trying to hide something from the January minutes.
This is not the case at all. If you look carefully at my comment in the
January minutes you'll see that it is in the section where we are
approving the DECEMBER minutes for publication. If you look back at
the December minutes you find some executive session sections that were
indeed redacted. You'll also see that the subjects of those sections are
noted. And I'd hope everybody would agree that the subjects were
appropriate for Executive Session, specifically "1995 CEO Evaluation"
and "President/CEO Final Relocation Expenses".

In fact as board secretary ultimately responsible for board to member
communication I instigated a procedure to make sure that the minimum
possible is redacted. After the board goes through the minutes and
makes corrections we specifically have another item where we are
explicit about what is (usually nothing except Executibe Session) to
be redacted from the minutes. If subsequent to the meeting when the
redacted minutes are being prepared for me to distribute if DCU
management notices anything they feel should be redacted, that
wasn't noticed at the board meeting, the redaction will only happen
with my explicit approval. This of course rarely needs to happen,
but occasionally it does.

I, as are all others on the board, are very pro member communication
and we try to err on the side of redacting too little rather than too
much. As you've probably noticed we now include the monthly financial
overview verbatim in the minutes. We feel it is important for the
owners to be able to easily see how their institution is doing.

I hope this clears up any minunderstanding regarding my comment
reported in the January minutes.

Regards,

Dave Garrod
Secretary DCU Board of Directors


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA29224; Wed, 6 Mar 96 23:04:33 -050
% Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA24354; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 22:55:52 -050
% Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06478; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 22:54:34 -0500
% Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 22:54:34 -0500
% From: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: rowlet::ainsley, wldbil::kilgore, molar::delbalso
% Subject: Clarification regarding DCU Bod minute redactions

.1>    Who are the companies that we have included in our field of membership?
    
    See the DCU web site http://www.dcu.com
                          `-Information Desk
                             `- Membership Information
                                 `-Who may Join DCU
    

RE: .10
>    See the DCU web site http://www.dcu.com
>                          `-Information Desk
>                             `- Membership Information
>                                 `-Who may Join DCU

I would if I could.  The DCU web page is no longer available inside 
Digital to folks who use Netscape.  There's exactly 0 chance I'm 
going to give up Netscape to be able to see the DCU web page(s).  I 
know the issue has been raised here before...

	To use the DCU home page from inside Digital,

	use the URL

		http://www.dcu.com/home1.shtml

Note the "shtml" instead of "html" and also note that leaving off the
"home1.shtml" will point you down the "https:" rather than "http:" dead end.

/john

Works like a champ.

Gim

First, I'm glad we have a work-around.  Thank you, John.

Having said that, THIS IS STILL BROKEN!!  The web page is 
inaccessible to a large block of the field of membership, many of 
whom will not have found this work-around here in this conference.

The https problem seems to have been fixed some time this afternoon.

j.

    did I miss Feb BOD minutes?  I can't find them anywhere.

I don't think we've received them for posting yet, Ed.

-Jack,
	Co-mod