Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    
    Way to go Phil, sticking up for what *YOU* believe... I can't believe 
    what you said was considered "out of line"...  Especially since it was
    noted just prior to you getting "scolded" that people have a right to
    "free speech".   You said what was on your mind from *COMMUNICATING*
    with the *MEMBERS*... The reprimand seemed like business as usual.
    
    
    It's a small wonder how anything can get done, but seeing these minutes
    definately gives me an insight as to how some of the other BoD's think
    and act.  It also gives me a better idea of how the outcome of any fee
    vote would turn out..... 5 - 2... Oh well, that's an issue for another
    note.
    
    
    Don't let 'em ruffle you Phil.
    
    
    JOHN
    

"Uncalled for?"  Geez, Phil, are they gonna take away your allowance
and send you to your room next?   Since when is speaking one's mind on
an issue "uncalled for?"  

Personally, I find the remarks in the minutes "reprimanding" Phil to be
completely out of line and offensive.  And what's very surprising here
is that this "reprimand" was offered up by none other than 2 of the 
so-called "Real Choices" board members.

Think about it.

./chris

The utter gaul!

DCU is growing at an unprecedented rate, raising the capital ratio above
the goal for the year, and well on the way to the final goal of 8%.

Management tells the members "No perks until the capital ratio is 8%"

And then slaps us across the face with employee bonuses?

Someone please tell me they are kidding.

Credit unions are in a service industry. In the service industry,
the fastest way to increase income is to reduce service.

I would have as a part of the criteria for receiving a bonus
the maintenance or increase in customer satisfaction as measured
by a outside group selected by the BOD - not by management.

Gim

    Has anyone noticed through the minutes of numerous board meetings
    that there are members who arrive late and / or depart early without
    prior warning ?  Makes you wonder what their committment is doesn't
    it ?
    
    Stuart

   Ms. Ross explained that she felt Mr. Gransewicz's comments in his official
   submission to the minutes of this meeting reflected extremely poorly on the
   entire Board of Directors.  

I personally have no objection to the chairman encouraging a qualified
person to volunteer, but for him to then endorse his candidate is
pretty blatant.  Anyone who doesn't understand why folks like Phil and
I object to that doesn't understand why the entire Board was replaced!

The fact that this occurred does, in my view, reflect poorly on the
entire Board.  But whether or not one disagrees with the process used
in this case, the fact that someone would be chastised for making a
clear and logical statement of his position, as Phil did, reflects even 
    worse on the Board.  Doesn't the Board understand that it was the old
Board's "good old boy" attitudes and avoidance of asking hard questions 
that got us into trouble in the first place?  

Thanks, Phil for exposing this.  If you hadn't written up your comments,
none of us would have a clue as to how the process really works.  

	Larry Seiler

   c.  Credit Scoring
    
   Mr. Prindle explained that DCU has been utilizing Credit Scoring to acquire
   loan applicant credit information for approximately one year.  Enough data
   has been compiled to test if the system is working as intended.  DCU
   conducted a test of 143 loans previously charged off between the months of
   December, 1991, and December, 1992.  The results of this test showed that
   78 of the loans (45%) would have been recommended for denial if Credit
   Scoring had been used.


This is fine, but how many loans that DIDN'T default would have also been
rejected under the Credit Scoring system?  Did Mr. Prindle report on that?
Surely everyone who runs a Credit Union would agree that the goal is to
make good loans, not simply to avoid making bad loans.

	Larry Seiler

    I am dumbfounded by Ms. Ross' comments regarding Phil in the notes. 
    A response will be coming when I get a little time ...
    
    Steve

    
    >Mr. Gransewicz noted that if a Board member resigns within the first year
    >of his/her term, the next candidate in line in the election should be the
    >replacement.  Ms. Dawkins inquired what Mr. Gransewicz feels the Board
    >should do if the next candidate in line received no votes in the election
    >and had no real skills for the position.
    
    Does Tanya believe that a candidate who has been nominated by the
    nominating committee might have no skill for the job? If so, why is there
    a nominating committee?
    
    Or does she believe that a candidate who has been nominated by petition
    might have no skills for the job? Does she therefore believe that the
    petition process that got her elected to the board is invalid?
    
    Utter hogwash! If the nominating committee or the petition process
    don't work, then by all means fix them. But don't take advantage of
    them and then declare them invalid for the next person. The last
    election chose the most qualified from a slate of candidates who were
    deemed qualified by either nomination or petition. To assume now that
    some of the candidates were somehow unqualified is the height of
    arrogance.
    
    ----------------------
    
    I am also utterly astonished at Lisa and Tanys's response to Phil's
    official statement. Please tell me that two of the four people I worked
    so hard to nominate and elect as free thinkers are not saying "shut up
    and be a team player"!!!
    

.9:    
>    I am also utterly astonished at Lisa and Tanys's response to Phil's
>    official statement. Please tell me that two of the four people I worked
>    so hard to nominate and elect as free thinkers are not saying "shut up
>    and be a team player"!!!
    

Well, the remarks speak for themselves Bill.  Perhaps Lisa and Tanya
wish to comment directly in here.  I've avoided saying directly that they
in specific were not holding true to the "Real Choices" ideals and
philosophy, but I'm starting to wonder...

./chris

    
    Well after reading the minutes I've a thought or two.
    
    First the tone of the minutes leaves me thinking that Phil is
    considered a black sheep.  If so, that's reason enough in my
    mind to get rid of all but Phil and Paul.
    
    Second, I served on a school board.  It is totally inappropriate
    for an official to "endorse" a candidate.  It is simply not done
    by anyone who wants to be considered above reproach.
      
    Third, I think Mr. Cockburn has FAR too much to say during board
    meetings (his free speech comment).  The school board I served on had a
    very big problem created because the chairman became too chummy with
    the superintendent and subsequently the superintendent often behaved as
    if he were one of the board members and not subject to their direction. 
    Mr. Cockburn should be the board's technical advisor on CU matters and
    should NOT be taking part in debates among the BoD members unless
    specifically consulted by one of the members on a point where it's
    appropriate to consult him.  No wonder there have been concerns raised
    about whether the BoD despite Phil and Paul's influence has just been
    serving as a rubber stamp.
    
    Finally, gall is an understatement.  Whether or not I agreed wih him,
    Phil's remarks were perfectly appropriate given the events he recounted.
    The facts leave lots of room for suspecting whether the appointment
    was another "handpicked" deal despite denials.
    
    For the life of me I don't understand what "judgement", poor or
    otherwise, has to do with Phil's comments *unless of course*, the
    primary concern is with image and not with properly managing the
    affairs of the credit union.  If what they are about is the former,
    then I understand why they said what they did, but then that's good
    reason to give them their walking papers at the next election.
    
    Steve
    

>   Promotion were distributed to the Board.  Mr. Prindle noted that results to
>   date were as follows:
>    
>            New/Used Auto - Response Rate = 1% (2% projected)
>                          - Total Loans to Date = $1,320,497
>                            ($530,000 Breakeven)
>    
>            Auto Refinance - Response Rate = 5% (8% projected)
>                           - Total Loans to Date = $383,312
>                             ($51,080 Breakeven)
>    
>            Mortgage Promo - Response Rate = .22% (.5% projected)
>                           - Total Loans to Date = $5,993,600
>                             ($854,000 Breakeven)
    
    	All of these responses are on the order of half the projected
    response. Why is that? Are the reasons understood? Did someone ask
    and it not make it into the minutes?
    
    			Alfred

    
    Those were the early figures they had after a relatively short time
    that the offer was out.  I'll see if they have any final figures.
    

    The last meeting minutes posted were for the July meeting.  Any more
    recent minutes?