Conference 7.286::dcu

Hi

Thanks Phyllis for your note.  Maybe you would go a 
little further in your explanations and explain how
you hit upon the number of 7 (+ 2 incumbents) for
candidates?  This low number of candidates has caused
a lot of concern here and your willingness to share
info on the process would help us to understand.

Thanks
Chad
DCU Member in Munich

    
    	Phyllis,
    
    	Thanks for putting your comments in here.  People will obviously
    have differing opinions on any topic (ie. so expect some pushback from
    this not-too-shy crowd!) but having you directly participate in this
    discussion is, in itself, goodness.  Thanks for taking the time.
    
    	I do have one question about the list of criteria.  Without
    divulging names (which I'm certainly not asking you to do), were any
    candidates considered qualified except for their answer to the "reason
    for running?" question?  Could you give us some examples of acceptable
    and non-acceptable reasons for running?
    
    							-craig

    Phyllis, thanks very much for entering that. I'm sure we all
    appreciate hearing the opinions from the committee. I know I do.
    I also appreciate the time and effort you put in having served
    on selection committees myself in other organizations.

    I hope people will appreciate that Phyllis said that the nominating
    committee picked the people they felt were *best* qualified. No
    where did she say they picked the *only* qualified people. I do not
    yet know anything about most of the nominated candidates so I'm
    going to assume she meant what she said. Of course I reserve to right
    to view others as better qualified. That is after all why we have an
    election rather than appointments. I'm sure the nominating committee
    believes in that too.

    I think the thing that bothers many people though is that there were
    only 9 nominated for 7 positions. I know that I personally would
    not be getting petitions signed if 14 or more people had been
    nominated. If that had happened I would have felt that there were a
    reasonable number of choices for people. I would have felt more
    confident of there being a truly independent board answerable only
    to the membership as a whole. That is not to imply that I think that
    is impossible with the 9 people nominated. It may very well be. It's
    just that since I don't know those people the limited number of
    options concerns me. 

    I'm sure, Phyllis, that you could make the most people feel better
    about the nominating process if you could explain why you stopped
    at the best 9 rather than the best 14 or some other number.

    BTW, I do hope that the nominated candidates will take advantage of 
    this conference to introduce themselves. I have suggested that to 
    them all by mail.

    			Alfred

         Phyllis,

	Thanks for your note, and welcome to the conference.

	Could you tell us how the committee addressed the fact that 
	Nominating Committee member Chuck Cockburn directly
	reports to the Board for which the Nominating Committee
	was nominating candidates to?

	You state that the committee decided to nominate the "best candidates",
	how was the number 9 decided? Why did the committee decide not to 
	nominate candidates that the committee felt *were* qualified?

	Were there any applicants that had been nominated by previous
	Nominating Committees, that were not nominated this time? 
	If so, was the rejection this time due to a change in the applicant's
	credentials, a change in nomination criteria, or simply a different
	interpretation of the fit between credentials and criteria?

	Thanks for your work and interest.
	
					Tom_K

    
    Phyillis,
    
    Could you find out from Chuck Cockbrun if he has any thoughts on note
    413.80, regarding his position on the nominating committee?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Bill Kilgore
    

	Phyllis

	One more thing, the "DCU Election Guidelines" claim that the 
	Nominating Committee is appointed by the DCU President, while
	the By-laws say that the Nominating Committee is appointed by
	the Chairman (presumably of the Board of Directors).

	Could you tell us which is correct? (ie: who appointed you)

			Thanks,

				Tom_K
	

                      <<< Note 434.0 by PICKET::LENGLE >>>

>         NOTE FROM DCU'S NOMINATING COMMITTEE
         
Phyllis,

	I too want to thank you for posting your note. 

	That said, I would like to share my feelings regarding this
	process.

	I believe that the Nominating Committee has done the membership
	a great disservice. I see the function of the Committee as screening
	the qualified candidates from the unqualified, nothing more.

	In making a determination that a person is the "most qualified"
	as opposed to simply "qualified" the Committee has gone beyond,
	in my opinion, the scope of it's duties.

	The determination of "most qualified" should be made by the members
	voting in the election. That is OUR function, not the Committee's.

	Because of this I, and many others like me, will not vote for
	a Committee candidate. I believe the nomination of only 9
	candidates out of 42 applicant's is an insult to the intelligence
	of the membership. I cannot and will not accept the implication 
	that only the Committee is qualified to determine "most qualified".
	I will make that determination for myself, thank you.

Jim
	 

Thanks to Phyllis to posting the note.  Here is a rebuttal:

I question the entire nominating process. 

1.  Take a look at the bylaws:

     >      Article VI. Elections
     >
     >          Section 1. (10/80) At least 120 days prior to each annual
     >       meeting the chairman shall appoint a nominating committee of not
     >       fewer than three members.

     For "the largest credit union in Massachusetts with assets of $370
     million" I expect the selection of the nominees to be entrusted to
     MORE THAN JUST 3 INDIVIDUALS.  Given the controversial nature of
     the situation, wouldn't a larger nominating committee have made
     more sense?

2.   Take a look at the background of the nominating committee:

         Phyllis Lengle/Chairperson
         Business Unit Management Reporting Manager/Central
         Finance Group, MBA Wharton
         
         Anita Cohen
         DCU member
         Anita is a retired Digital Equipment Corporation employee 
         with 12 years of management experience.  Her position as 
         Programs Manager in Digital's Personnel and Corporate 
         Personnel organizations challenged her with the management of 
         fair and equitable Personnel policies and practices. 

         Chuck Cockburn
         DCU President/CEO

     Finance, personnel, and finance respectively.  Is it any wonder
     they selected individuals with similar backgrounds as qualified?
     I am sure that they in a clear conscience selected what they
     consider to be the best qualified.  What would have been the
     outcome if the nominating committee consisted of individuals in:

	- engineering,
	- manufacturing,
	- sales,
	- service, etc?

     My opinion is that there would have been less questions concerning
     the fairest of the outcome.  

3.   The nominating committee based their selection on a 30 minute
     interview. How can you make judgements on individuals with
     3-17 years of Digital experience with on 30 minute (and in
     some cases less) interview?


                                                      Judge
                                                      in 30 minutes?
  
       Education                                       yes
       Business/management experience                  no
       Conceptual skills                               no
       Group decision making skills                    no
  
       Independent decision maker                      no
       Volunteer experience                            no
       Time/availability                               yes
       Credit union/financial industry knowledge       yes
  
       Area of expertise                               yes
       Understanding a board's role                    yes
       Commitment                                      yes
       Communication skills                            no
       Reason for applying                             yes


4.  If they followed the bylaws, then the nominating committee was
    appointed by the current chairman, Mark Steinkrauss:

          Addendum (12/82) (4/91) The title and rank of the board officers
          and management officials of this credit union are as follows:
          (a)     The executive officer is to have the title of CHAIRMAN.
          (b)     The assistant executive officer is to have the title of
          VICE -CHAIRMAN.
          (c)     The financial officer is to have the title of TREASURER.
          (d)     The recording officer is to have the title of SECRETARY.
          (e)     The management official is to have the title of
          PRESIDENT/CEO.
          (f)     The assistant management officials are to have the
          titles of DIRECTOR OF LENDING and DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND
          OPERATIONS.

          Article VI. Elections
             Section 1. (10/80) At least 120 days prior to each annual
          meeting the chairman shall appoint a nominating committee of not
          fewer than three members. It shall be the duty of the nominating
          committee to nominate at least one member for each vacancy,
          including any unexpired term vacancy, for which elections are
          being held, and to determine that the members nominated are
          agreeable to the placing of their names in nomination and will
          accept office if elected. 

Gim

>	Keep in mind that the more people in on the decision making process,
>	the longer it takes to make a decision.
    
>	Heck, the people voting will probably spend less than 5 minutes 
>	making a decision.

	Ok, assume that doubling the size of the committee also doubles
	the decision time. 5 minutes to 10 minutes. Just in case, double
	it again. 20 Minutes. after spending 30 hours in interviews,
	the delta is insignificant.

						Tom_K

re .9 and .10:

I think McNeil meant that the mass of DCU members will spend 5 minutes
each considering who to vote for, not that the Nom Comm spent 5 minutes
per candidate.  Although if they spent 30 hours on 42 candidates, that's
only 43 minutes per candidate, and that includes about 20 minutes of
interview each, so it's just 23 minutes of discussion per candidate, on
average.  A large task, but only because of the large number of
candidates, not because a lot of time was spent on each individual.

My take on .0 is that it is well written and clearly stated -- and I
greatly appreciate the information.  Unfortunately, though, I feel that
I must judge it on what it *doesn't* say more than on what it says.
If Phyllis has been reviewing this file, then surely she knew that
their choice of just 9 candidates was the big question.  Did they think
*only* 9 were qualified?  If not, where did that number come from?

The irony is that, as others have noted, there would be little or no
interest in running petition candidates if the Nom Comm had done something
less obviously biased as to tell the membership to choose all but 2 out
of 9 nominees to be on the Board.

	Enjoy,
	Larry Seiler

PS -- Shame on you, Mark Steinkrauss.  Last October you personally assured
me that your standard practice was to make sure the Nominating Committee 
was representative of many different areas, including engineering.  Should
I guess why you didn't do it that way this time?

PPS -- I hope everyone understands that saying someone's decision was
biased is *not* the same thing as saying that it was deliberately biased.
Although the effect is the same, and the effect is what counts here.

	re .11, .12:

	Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

				Tom_K

<    This is done all the time in a process called a job interview. 
>    Considering this is just a recommendation for a job and not the final
>    decision this may have been sufficient.  Heck, the people voting will
>    probably spend less than 5 minutes making a decision.
    
       Don't know about you Mac, but I can't remember getting a job as an
    adult after only 30 minutes worth of interviews.
                                     Denny 

    but it only took me 30 minutes talking to a recruiter to get in and
    have a day of interviews with prospective managers.

.15>                            -< it's called "screening" >-
.15>
.15>      but it only took me 30 minutes talking to a recruiter to get in and
.15>      have a day of interviews with prospective managers.


So far so good.  And then the prospective managers get to Vote.

It's the recruiters' job to pass through all candidates among whom
the prospective managers might reasonably wish to choose.

It's the nominating committee's job to pass through all candidates among whom
the voters might reasonably wish to choose.

It appears that the nominating committee has attempted to not do that,
but to do the hiring.  That appearance upsets some voters.

(A recruiter who screened out all but nine applicants for seven jobs would
upset most prospective managers.)

    The uproar over the nominating committe may be much ado about nothing. 
    The nominating committee has not said that there will only 9 candidates
    on the ballot.  The election system allows for additional candidates to
    be appointed outside of the nominating committee.  Noone's choices are
    being compromised here.  All it means is that some folks have to be
    willing to put in a little extra effort.  I think getting on the ballot
    via petition says something positive about the amount of committment of
    the petition candidate.  
    
    Some kind of screening has to take place.  It makes no sense to put 42
    candidates on the election ballot.  Having candidates screened by a
    committee or having them supported by 500 DCU members is a big help to
    making the right decision.  Afterall, the voters can only go by the
    information in the ballots unless they know candidates personally.
    
    Having said that I personally hope that people sign petition forms only
    for those they would vote for and not simply to get names on the
    ballot.  Let this second method of screening mean something.

              <<< Note 434.17 by 6602::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>

>    The uproar over the nominating committe may be much ado about nothing. 

	I disagree. The Committee went beyond what I, as a member, would
	expect them to do when they start using a "most qualified" criteria.

	If they were going to weed out 33 candidates, why not 35 so that
	only 7 names appear? As had been said if they had reported 15 or
	20 candidates as "qualified" none of this backlash would have
	happened. 

>All it means is that some folks have to be
>    willing to put in a little extra effort.  

	The reverse side of this coin is that 9 candidates will not
	need to expend that effort. By what criteria is this determined?
	What makes these 9 "special"?

>    Some kind of screening has to take place.  

	Yes, "qualified" and "not qualified". No other screening
	should be performed.

>It makes no sense to put 42
>    candidates on the election ballot.  

	If 42 candidates are qualified, then they SHOULD be on the ballot.

>Having candidates screened by a
>    committee or having them supported by 500 DCU members is a big help to
>    making the right decision.  

	You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either EVERY candidate
	should be by petition or the Committee needs to understand it's
	job better.

	As it stands now, the system intentionally or not, smacks of
	an "Old person" network at its' worst.

	I have removed virtually all of my business from the DCU. This 
	particular episode simply reenforces my decision.

	I will vote for petition candidates only, I will not vote for
	Committee nominees. My sole criteria in this choice is the fact 
	of how the system came to "recommend" these folks. They may be
	superbly qualified for the positions, however I must cast my votes	
	in protest aginst this system.

Jim

    
    >All it means is that some folks have to be
    >willing to put in a little extra effort.  
    
    A "little extra effort"?  Have you ever tried collecting signatures
    for something like this?  I think if you did, you would not be making
    this statement.  Hmmmm, maybe you could help and see how "little"
    effort it takes?
    
    Considering it only takes 200 signatures to have a special meeting
    called (and all of the thousands of dollars it cost), it is a bit
    ironic it takes more than twice as many (actually 3 times counting
    expected rejections) to simply have a name placed on
    a ballot.  I get the distinct impression DCU doesn't trust the
    membership to choose "qualified" people.  There are some people I know
    who have little or no "eduation" that I would trust my money to. 
    "Qualified" doesn't always mean a person has to work with numbers all
    day or have a piece of paper that says they are qualified.  After all,
    it was these "unqualified" people who started credit unions in
    the first place and serve on Boards all over the country.  
    
    All of the "qualifications" in the world won't do the membership any 
    good if the person that possesses them wants to run DCU like a commercial 
    bank.  I think we have pay big money and learned that lesson the hard 
    way.  I just hope we remember it when it comes time to cast our vote.
    

    RE: .0

    Phyllis,

    Thank you for posting your note.  Personally I would like to thank you
    and Anita Cohen for taking time to help DCU by serving on the
    Nominating Committee.  However, I must exclude giving thanks to Mr.
    Cockburn for reasons I will discuss later.  I hope you do not
    misconstrue criticism of the process as criticism of you.  There is a
    big question which does involve personal judgement on the part of the
    Nominating Comm. which needed to be answered though, "Why 9?".  I think
    you answered that when you said you chose the "most qualified
    individuals".

    I couldn't agree more with reply 7.  "Best" is a very subjective
    determination.  I firmly agree that it is the DCU's membership right to
    decide who is "best".  The 88,000 members of DCU may place a high
    value on some of the criteria you used to judge candidates.  Many
    others might value very different qualifications.  We, the membership, 
    should have been the ultimate judge of "best".
    
    As for only choosing 9 people, I feel you have nullified my vote as a
    DCU member and owner.  Given the current strong anti-incumbent feeling
    among DCU members, there are many who will not vote for incumbents. 
    These members can now either not vote, or vote for the Board of
    Directors which the Nomionating Comm. has effectively APPOINTED.  I
    believe a Nominating Committees' responsibilities also include providing
    adequate candidates.  Regretfully, the Nominating Comm. failed to 
    fulfill their responsibilities in this respect given the current
    climate.

    It cannot go unnoticed that DCU President Chuck Cockburn participated
    in this process inspite of explicit DCU election guidelines which
    prohibit such involvement.  So the membership is now faced with a
    situation where the DCU President has actively participated in a
    process from which he is prohibited.  And the result of that process was
    an appointed Board for those who do not wish to vote for incumbents. 
    As a member and owner of DCU, I consider this a serious situation.  Why? 
    Because Mr. Cockburn works for *US*.  We do not work for him.  He
    should not be interviewing potential future superiors.  Out of
    thousands of members, were there not more than *2* that were qualified 
    to be on the Nominating Comm.?  
    
    There needs to real change in this process to restore confidence in the 
    system.  I am beginning to believe that nobody at the credit union has 
    read the Bylaws, Election Guidelines or understands the meaning of 
    conflict of interest.  Can't DCU understand that it is cases like this 
    that undermine membership confidence in it?  Sadly, I have concluded 
    "You just don't get it.".   
    
    One day DCU will understand, however I think it will happen the day 
    of this years annual meeting.  
    

	Interesting thing about numbers. Anyone want to guess how many
	names on a petition one has to get to get their name on the ballot
	for Governor of New Hampshire? If you guessed 200 you are right. But
	perhaps that's an easier job than DCU BoD?

			Alfred

    So, what's the Gov. of NH do?  Hope to get a better job?

    
    An excerpt from the infamous BoD "witchhunters" memo:
    
	 .
    	 .
    	 .        
        "Implications are that the DCU board manipulates the 
         election process.  THIS IS UNTRUE.  As with previous 
         years, the October NETWORK has been a vehicle to 
         communicate a call for candidates to run for DCU's Board 
         of Directors.  According to our bylaws, DCU must notify 
         our membership of the opportunity to run.  Utilizing our 
         member newsletter saves the credit union thousands of 
         dollars.
         
         It is important to note that this process always runs 
         approximately 7 months.  At this time, 2 of the 3 
         nominating committee members have been selected.  None 
         of them are DCU officials.
         
         Rather than continue responding to other false 
         allegations, we believe it is appropriate to summarize 
         the positive steps the board has taken to recover from 
         the fraud and to improve DCU's operations."
	 .
    	 .
    	 .        
    
    
    
    So the Board appears to use as evidence that they do not manipulate
    the election process, the fact that there are no DCU officials on the
    Nominating Committee.
    
    I will point out that DCU President Chuck Cockburn WAS the third 
    member of the Nominating Committee.  Does this mean the Board agrees
    that they HAVE manipulated the election process?
    

RE: .23

I'm usually read-only here, and have been following all this for some time with 
interest.  But I have to ask, have anyone actually sent these kinds of 
OBVIOUS false statements and the questions they raise to the people who make 
them (either electronically or hardcopy) and asked for some kind of explanation 
instead of waiting for them to read this file??  I have been tempted to do so 
because I'd really like to know the response (if any).  I'm truely shocked by 
some of the inconsistencies between the words and actions of DCU officials 
over the past several months.

People trying to make positive changes at the DCU will have my support come 
election time, no doubt about it.  And I'm sure I'm not the only "silent" 
supporter out there...

Scott

	RE: .24 While I haven't sent mail to Phyllis Lengle regarding my
	questions about the nominating committee, I assumed she had some
	interest in reading replies to her note, I have sent mail to the
	DCU members who have been nominated for the BoD suggesting that they
	put at least an announcement note in this conference. None of them
	have even responded to my mail. Perhaps they're not interested in
	the support of people who read here? I really do not know why they
	have not responded.

				Alfred

    re: .25
    
    Do you really expect nominated candidates would get a fair shake in
    this forum?  Why would any of them want to post something here and
    provide ammunition to the "firing squad".

>    Do you really expect nominated candidates would get a fair shake in
>    this forum?

	Well I believe they'd get a fair shake from me. And yes I believe
	from most other people. Why wouldn't they?

> Why would any of them want to post something here and
>    provide ammunition to the "firing squad".

	You appear to be assuming that they are all of opinions that are 
	counter to those expressed here. You may be right but if you're
	wrong we're never going to know are we? I expect that if people have
	ideas that they believe will help the DCU that those people and ideas
	will receive a warm welcome here.

			Alfred

I exchanged messages with a couple of board members last fall, and with
Phyllis Lengle a few weeks back.  The results didn't encourage me to
believe that they really want to hear from me by mail.  Nor was anything
positive accomplished.  Not that they were rude, just unforthcoming.
And that was with much lower temperature issues than these recent ones.

Also, I have good reason to know that Board members see what's written
here, when they want to.  So I post things here, in the open for everyone
to see.  If they want to respond, they can, and I'm glad when they do.
I wish they would answer the questions they *don't* want to answer, and
not just the ones they *do* want to answer, but I've concluded that to
achieve that, we'll need a different board with a whole new way of
relating to the membership.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    Well, right here in the notesfile some of the nominees have been linked
    to Ilene Jacobs.  I do not know the intent of the person that pointed
    this out, but I got the impression that this link was "bad".  Their
    reputations have been soiled.  What incentive do these nominees have to
    try to set this straight by posting something?  None that I can see.
    
    Mark

    
    RE: .24
    
    Personally, I'm very hesitant about sending mail like that to people. 
    It is unsolicited and they may get upset (rightly or wrongly).  I have
    heard some weird cases of people claiming harassment when receiving a
    mail message.
    
    RE: .26 (?)
    
    Ammunition for the firing squad???  I don't know any of the nominated
    people at all.  Absolutely NOTHING about them.  I will not prejudge
    them.  However, it is up to them to convince the voters (including me)
    to vote for them.  Dead silence usually works against that.  I'm more
    impressed with somebody who will at least try to communicate and
    discuss their positions.  For too many years we asked too little.  We
    participated too little.  We payed a price for it too.
    

FYI:  I have heard very good things about one of the official nominees --
from one of the petition candidates.  I do not think the official nominees
are necessarily bad, I just think the process that selected them was flawed.  

I'd like to know more about each of the candidates than just the 150 words
that the Nom Comm will allow them on the ballot.  If the official nominees
do not respond to mail or here in the notes file, how am I going to learn
about them?  

One particular thing I want to see is whether each candidate is willing 
to listen to and interact with the DCU membership, including people with
dissident viewpoints.  That will win my respect.  Candidates who act like
they are above it all will not get my vote -- this is a cooperative, and
to represent the membership, they've got to *listen* to the membership.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    RE: .29
    
    If you got that impression, ask yourself why you got that impression. 
    How does the posting of somebody's position or reporting chain "soil"
    their reputation?
    
    The facts of the matter concerning Ilene Jacob's involvement or 
    non-involvement with the special meeting must be evaluated by each
    person.  Had the memo been issued several months earlier when the
    extent of the loss to DCU first became apparant, I don't think anybody
    would have cared.
    
    On the other hand, given all that has gone on at DCU, we would be fools
    to ignore the fact that the same names, or groups, or whatever keep popping
    up.  I guess some people just have a lower threshold before reaching
    the "It's not a coincidence." stage.
    

I have been following the escapades of the DCU with great interest through this 
conference over the past few months, and eagerly await the upcoming elections,
but this is the first time I have "noted".  Like most of the other noters, I
feel that the nominating committee's decision to limit the number of "approved"
candidates to 9 was a very poor decision.  Therefore I have signed petitions in
order to place more candidates on the ballot, and will vote for some of the 
petition candidates if they make the ballot (which they should).

However, unlike others who have replied to this note, I urge everyone to refrain 
from rejecting a candidate just because they were choosen by the committee.  
Unlike .30 I DO know at least one of the candidates.  Rick Sample managed the
finance group for TP Systems here in TAY1 before moving on.  I had no idea he
was running for the BOD until I saw his name on the list of candidates.  I am in
engineering, not finance, but I got to know him while he was here.  I don't need
to read his statement, I will definitely vote for him.

I believe that ALL of the candidates deserve our due consideration, but I, too, 
would like to see everyone post their views here.

-- Elliott

    re: -.1
    
    Absolutely!  I agree with you that we need to look at ALL of the
    candidates, including those selected by the Nominating Committee.
    I support the petition drive.  I also don't know who I'm going to vote
    for and may well pick some of the folks that the Nominating Committee
    selected if I think they are among the seven best choices.  I would
    appreciate it if any of them would make information about their
    backgrounds available, perhaps through notes, as others have already
    done.  I don't think the 150-word summaries will be sufficient.
    
    Steve

re .33:

I'm glad to see your note, and glad to hear positive things about one of
the nominees.  I'm afraid that I've given the impression that I'm against 
the official nominees.  Actually, I'm against the nomination process, not
the nominees -- a very important distinction.

Could you please encourage Rick Sample to join in either email or notes
discussions about the DCU?  You see, I'm assuming that all of the official
nominees have excellent credentials for financial and management experience.
But so do most of the current Board members.  Something more is needed.  

Therefore, I'm looking for candidates who can reason logically and clearly,
who display common sense, and who have an attitude of being the servants
of the members.  These are areas, in my observation and judgement, where 
the current Board has fallen down badly.

An open, free-wheeling discussion like those that occur here can expose a
lot about a candidate -- whether they can express their views clearly,
how they view the DCU members, and how they act under pressure.  None
of these things can be learned from a 150 word statement.

Therefore, if the only contact I have with a candidate is that candidate's
150 word statement, I will not vote for that candidate.  Period.  I am
very interested in hearing from the official nominees, because I'm sure
that I will want to vote for some of them, if only I knew about them.  But 
I'm just not prepared to take the chance that a nominee isn't using email
or notes because they don't think they need to talk to the unwashed masses.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- Candidates who are not notes users can still get their views aired
here.  There are people who are willing to send them copies of relevent
notes and post their email replies.  

    Some people might consider this unfair, but as far as I am concerned, I
    will only vote for candidates who have shown their willingness to
    contribute in this forum.  Being in this company for a long time and
    having witnessed the growth of this medium (VAXnotes) since its
    conception, I can get very accurate idea about a person from the
    history of their "noting".
    
    If some candidates consider themselves to be above the rest of us and
    would not contribute to this forum for whatever reason, be it lack of
    time or lack of inclination, I for one do not want them sitting on the
    next BoD.  I had enough of ivory towers BoD.
    
    Thanks,
    - Vikas

    re: .-1  Then you would reject Ken Olsen, should he enter the petition
    drive.  Ken does not "note", but I don't hold it against him.
    
    Mark

Maybe not by noting, but a candidate and BoD should be willing to give a
direct answer to a question from a member (excluding confidential info
of course). The current BoD has shown that they are unwilling to give
answers to reasonable questions. That immediately disqualifies the incumbents
who have chosen to run in my mind. Perhaps "response to questions" is
a better measurement than their noting status. I will respond to any question
asked to me now and after the election (whether I am a BoD or not).

As to KO, I feel that if KO were to enter the petition drive for a BoD, then
yes, he should also respond to questions from members. I realize he's busy
running the company, but if he's too busy for questions about DCU then he
will be too busy to run DCU.

As I've said elsewhere, I've heard good things about two of the nominated
candidates. I might even vote for them. But I'd sure like to know more about
them than 150 words. The notes file is one way to find out about them.

     <<< Note 434.33 by TPSYS::WHITNEY "Elliott Whitney : TP/DB 4-Ever" >>>

>However, unlike others who have replied to this note, I urge everyone to 
>refrain from rejecting a candidate just because they were choosen by the 
>committee.

	Well it's my vote and I'm going to choose to "spend" it in protest
	of the system. All I will recommend to others is that they vote
	the way they want to for the reasons they want to.

	My opinion is that any other recommendation is presumptuous.

Jim

	Phyllis,

	I am disappointed that you appear to be "write only". Several
	replies have brought up reasonable questions, but you have
	not seen fit to share your thought with us on these subjects.
	Following your initial posting, I had looked forward to a 
	reasonable dialogue which would	answer the several questions
	asked. Again, I am disappointed.

					Tom_K

    So forward Phyllis some VAXmail and ask to join this discussion. Or
    call her on the phone.  Maybe she only enters notes when she has
    something specific to say.  As you suggested, "Write Only".

Ken Olsen may or may not type and note, but he does send mail -- I got a
message from him today (via many forwards, of course).  I've noticed that 
most of his messages explain "why", instead of just giving orders.  (The
recent Simms memo on appropriate use of email and notes is an example of
giving orders).  The base note here is another great example of a message
that explains "why" -- the problem is that it ducks the key question!

When Ken doesn't answer the question people want an answer to, there are
other ways of getting the answer.  E.g., the first word on the reorg came
out the day before a pre-scheduled group-wide meeting.  So a lot of us
made it clear to our group manager that he had better put the reorg on 
the agenda, or answers would be demanded from the floor.  And he did.

The problem with both the Board and the Nom Comm is that there are many
things for which there is no way to get an answer if they don't give it.
Questions about what they have done or why need to go directly to them.

But then, the situations are different.  We all work for Ken through a
chain of command.  We serve him.  The Board (and indirectly the Nom Comm)
work for us as representatives.  Perhaps part of the problem is due to
the Board thinking that we as members ought to communicate with them in
the same way as the people who report to them communicate with them, rather 
than the way that people communicate with elected representatives.  

It's just a theory.  But it would explain the incredible (and at the time
incomprehensible to me) hostility expressed by a number of Board members
about the way their actions were being scrutinized in this notes file.
Real politicians don't complain about constituents who question what they
are doing -- they try to win the constituents over.  Managers, on the
other hand, are very frequently angry if their employees presume to 
question their actions.

Or maybe it's just because I'm an engineer and the members of the Board 
and Nom Comm aren't.  Engineers are used to questioning everything -- and 
being questioned in return.  However, I suspect that the wish to question
authority is common among people in general, and that engineers are simply 
able to act on it more often.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

re .42

>                                 Perhaps part of the problem is due to
>the Board thinking that we as members ought to communicate with them in
>the same way as the people who report to them communicate with them, rather 
>than the way that people communicate with elected representatives.  

Yup.  I believe you've hit the problem squarely on the head.  Perhaps
some of the current board are having difficulty separating their
two roles.  Or perhaps they're not aware that they should separate them.

Dave C.

Re: .6

>         One more thing, the "DCU Election Guidelines" claim that the
>         Nominating Committee is appointed by the DCU President, while
>         the By-laws say that the Nominating Committee is appointed by
>         the Chairman (presumably of the Board of Directors).
> 
>         Could you tell us which is correct? (ie: who appointed you)

There is no conflict here.  The Bylaws of 1/24/92 were changed
so that the Nominating Committee is (Article VI, Section 1)

"... the president shall appoint a nominating committee of not fewer
than three members."

Gim

re .44:

I wonder when the change took place?  If it took effect on 1/24, that was
after the Nom Comm were done with their duties.  I know the change wasn't 
in effect last October, since Mark Steinkrauss told me that he was then in
the process of choosing the Nominating Committee.

However, I don't want anyone to think that I or others were claiming that
Chuck Cockburn wasn't *allowed* to be on the Nom Comm.  After all, so far
as I know, the prohibition on DCU employees being on that committee wasn't
in the bylaws even last October.  I'm not a lawyer, but I can imagine 
a lawyer saying that the DCU Election Guidelines are just guidelines, and
are not binding on the Board.

But since I'm not a lawyer, I'm not concerned with what they were *allowed*
to do -- I'm concerned with what they *should* have done.  The DCU Election 
Guidelines make a very good point, which is that it is inappropriate for 
DCU employees to be involved in elections because of their great potential
influence on the election.  That's why DCU employees, and especially Chuck 
Cockburn, should not have been on the Nom Comm.

Lest anyone talk about limitations on the rights of the DCU employees, I'll
just note that there are strict limits on the ways that Federal employees
are allowed to participate in Federal elections, for the same good reason.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    Mmmmmmmm.....  This lunch sure is good.  My compliments to the TTB
    chef.
    
    
    Excerpts from the "DCU Election Guidelines":
    
    "composition of the nominating committee", Page 3:
    
    The ideal nominating committee member should know a large number of DCU
    members.  The more people the committee knows, the more likely its
    slate will be outstanding."
    
    		Question:  Since Mr. Cockburn has only been in office about
    			   6 months, how many members could he know?  I
    			   guess this 'ideal' is a very subjective call.
    
    
    "composition of the nominating committee", Page 3:
    
    "Nominating committee members should be:
    		- impartial
    		- fair
    		- have awareness of how DCU functions
    		- intelligent
    		- have a 'reasonable amount' of Digital seniority
    		- good judgement (especially of people)"
    
    		Question:  Mr. Cockburn spent much time before the Special
    			   Meeting defending the Board at various sites. 
    			   He also spoke very strongly in favor of the status 
    			   quo at the Special Meeting.  I'm not at all
    			   certain how that jives with fair and impartial
    			   when it came time to interview candidates for
    			   the Board.  Guess everybody will have to decide
    			   for themselves.  He certainly has no 'Digital
    			   seniority' though.
    
    "operating methods", Page 6.
    
    "The nominating committee can either serve as a passive screening body
    or it can actively recruit the best candidates.  An active committee is
    recommended.
    
    .
    .
    .
    
    recruiting - the chairman should review the DCU's communications
    director the recruiting material.  In addition, members of the
    committee should contact DCU members whose qualifications would make
    them likely prospects..."
    
    		Question: Were any of the nominated candidates actively
    			  recruited by anybody on the Nominating Committee 
    			  or any other person associated with DCU?  Should
    			  this fact be made known either way?