Conference 7.286::dcu

        This looks like "normal elections", not the special election we
        are asking for. It looks like they are trying to put off any
        special election at least until the next annual meeting, where
        they might have a chance to recind the changes we are proposing.

>                 GMA News Briefs                       LIVE WIRE

Aren't there DCU members outside of the GMA?  sigh...

This is the normal annual election except it looks as if they are getting the 
word out earlier than normal.  They ahve been criticized in the past for 
not getting the info out in a reasonable time.  All the DCU can do is to 
provide the info to DTW - Livewire etc - they cant control publication.

I bet if you were to call Mary she would be glad to provide you with copies or 
to send copies to any group in DEC.

My mind is not completely made up but my inclination is still not to throw
this BOD out until I have a good idea of who might be willing to replace them.

    Curious.  There is no mention of how many seats will be available.
    Also, the first sentence says the message that's desired.  Timing is
    everything.  
    
    Since requests for the application won't even be accepted until November 1
    it will be a month before DCU is taking any sort of real step towards
    attaining the stated goal of "seeking candidates".  And, it's another
    month before the applications have to be in.  And, another month before 
    petitions will be available, leaving one month for gathering
    signatures and one month after that for campaigning.  
    
    Sure looks like an effort to defuse things to me.
    
    Steve

>  Applicants will be interviewed by a nominating committee of Digital employees 
>  who are members of DCU.  The deadline for submitting an application is 
    
       Am I missing something or has this sentence changed? Wasn't 
    the 'Nominating Committee' made up a little differently before? Is
    "Digital Employees who are members of DCU" new? I thought the BoD
    screened the applicants in the past.
                                  Denny
    

    
    [Permission to forward this note to other DCU members is granted.
     Original header must be retained.]
    
    Isn't this a little too obvious people?  I really did expect a better
    stunt from the BoD than this.  I hope "our" high paid lawyers didn't
    help them with this non-event.
    
    As I stated when they "delayed" the new fees, they are now involved in
    a jerk around game with us.  They tried to pre-empt and derail the 
    special meeting petition drive by announcing that the new fees were
    going to be delayed.  Only to find out that not ALL the new fees were
    going to be delayed.  Now they send the new DCU President out on a two
    month road show (since they have absolutely NO credibilty anymore) to
    sell their grand plans for a new credit union.  I like the new
    President, but he can do NOTHING that his bosses, the BoD, don't let
    him do.  They call the shots.  And if you want the shots to be
    continually pointed at the DCU members, then believe this ridiculous
    announcement.
    
    Now they come up with this pathetic manuever to circumvent items 2 & 3
    of the special meeting agenda.  Announcing a general election 6.5
    months early is NOT what the special meeting agenda item called for. 
    The only way the BoD can meet item 2 is to RESIGN.  They have offered
    up NOTHING that we didn't already have coming according to the Bylaws
    of the Credit Union.  If they think for a second that this will delay
    their inevitable departure from the DCU premises, they are saddly
    mistaken.  The ground swell is growing by the minute of every day they
    choose to hang on beyond their benefit to the Digital Credit Union. 
    Their presence on the Board has hurt DCU tremendously in the
    past and while continue to hurt DCU in the future.
    
    Again, I urge all DCU members to re-double their efforts, to attend the
    special meeting which we have called for.  I truly believe the BoD
    believes they can ignore us.  That they and their lawyers can tie our
    hands with manuevers such as this.  We didn't fall for the 'choices'
    brochure.  Let them know we aren't going to fall for this snow job
    either.

    
>       Am I missing something or has this sentence changed? Wasn't 
>    the 'Nominating Committee' made up a little differently before? Is
>    "Digital Employees who are members of DCU" new? I thought the BoD
>    screened the applicants in the past.
    
	RE: .8
    
    	The BoD appoints the people on the Nominating Committee.  The
    Nominating Committee then decides who will run against the BoD.  The
    BoD can also affect the writeups done by candidates also ("...in such form
    as shall be approved by the Board of Directors...").  Article 6,
    Section 1.
    

    
>This is the normal annual election except it looks as if they are getting the 
>word out earlier than normal.  They ahve been criticized in the past for 
>not getting the info out in a reasonable time.  All the DCU can do is to 
>provide the info to DTW - Livewire etc - they cant control publication.
    
    I beg to differ.  DTW and Livewire all have time frames and deadlines
    which are known when you submit something to them.  The time of this
    early announcement is in direct response to special meeting item 3
    which calls for new elections within 90 days to replace any directors
    which are removed at the special meeting.
    
>I bet if you were to call Mary she would be glad to provide you with copies or 
>to send copies to any group in DEC.

    I'm sure she would to if you sent it in writing and stated your
    business reason for the request.
    
>My mind is not completely made up but my inclination is still not to throw
>this BOD out until I have a good idea of who might be willing to replace them.
    
    At this point in time I have been contacted by at least 7 people who
    are willing to run for the BoD.  Some have run in the past.  Some are
    new candidates.  You can't expect people to announce their candidacy
    for positions which do not yet exist.  This BoD is nothing but a
    detriment to DCU.  I fear if they are not replaced, and replaced soon,
    DCU will suffer the loss of thousands of members (more?) .  Many are
    waiting for the special meeting to turn DCU around.  If that doesn't
    occur, DCU's bad times have just begun IMO.

> My mind is not completely made up but my inclination is still not to throw
> this BOD out until I have a good idea of who might be willing to replace them.

Personally, I'd vote for a random sampling of names out of Digital's
workforce before I'd vote for the current BoD to stay in.  

But please note that deciding whether to disband this BoD and deciding who 
to vote into a new BoD are two entirely different questions.  I don't think
that anything prevents any current member of the board from running for
re-election if the current board is disolved.  And if they run, those who
consider them the best candidates can vote for them.

Failing to vote for the special election, though, will only teach the the
current BoD that their tactics work, with the result that they will
continue with their current outrageous actions.  

Finally, note that any new board that is voted in will be aware that they
are still in the spotlight, and that they had better act with openness
and integrity (the opposite of the behavior of the current board to me
personally, not to speak of the membership at large), or they too will
be kicked out.

	Larry Seiler

>     Now they come up with this pathetic manuever to circumvent items 2 & 3
>     of the special meeting agenda.  Announcing a general election 6.5
>     months early is NOT what the special meeting agenda item called for. 
>     The only way the BoD can meet item 2 is to RESIGN. 

By announcing the annual meeting, I'm sure the BOD can argue that
they have announced a meeting within 30 days after receipt of the
petiition - particularly when I found the "Network" brochure in
my monthly DCU statement received on 10/4. I would be surprised if
a real special meeting took place before 10/17.

Note that the generally accepted intepretation of special meeting
within 30 days is not necessarily the only intepretation

Gim

>By announcing the annual meeting, I'm sure the BOD can argue that
>they have announced a meeting within 30 days after receipt of the
>petiition - particularly when I found the "Network" brochure in
>my monthly DCU statement received on 10/4. I would be surprised if
>a real special meeting took place before 10/17.

I don't believe this is the case, and it had better not be!  The announcement
was for the Annual Meeting, not for any special meeting.  The bylaws state
clearly that what we have successfully petitioned for is a "special meeting."
They'll need to call it that, and they must schedule and hold the meeting
very soon, or the BoD will be in violation of their own bylaws.

By the way, I wouldn't get too exercised over the announcement of the annual
meeting and the call for candidates.  Candidate packages are available from
DCU beginning November 1st.  The October statements (typically the vehicle that
DCU uses for communicating with us) won't arrive until the 2nd week of November
(as is typical).  It makes sense to put the announcement in the September
materials.  Seems to me they've done this for the past few years at least.

And I'm certain that if the DCU BoD thinks that this is some sort of great
tactical coup to keep the membership from voting them out they'll be in for
a surprise.  You can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool
all the people all of the time!

/Chris
 

>>I bet if you were to call Mary she would be glad to provide you with copies or 
>>to send copies to any group in DEC.
>
>    I'm sure she would to if you sent it in writing and stated your
>    business reason for the request.
 
	Don't forget to enclose $.25 per page.

					Tom_K

    You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people
    all of the time, and that's good enough.

    re: .16
    
    Or, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, and that
    is sufficient."