Conference 7.286::dcu

    I have been informed that Digital has sent a letter to Chuck Cockburn,
    DCU President, informing him that DCU employees handing out literature
    on Digital property is a violation of Digital policy. Further that he
    is to make sure that DCU ceases and desists from this violation of
    policy.

    			Alfred

    
    Re .1:
    
    Well, *that's* certainly a welcome difference from two years ago.
    

The electioneering has been so blatantly in violation of both
DCU and Digital rules that I'm amazed that it has been going
on as well as that action from the top (of both organizations)
has been so slow to deal with it.  Why isn't it standard
procedure to notify all employees of election rules shortly
before an election takes place? - particularly after what
happened 2 years ago???

I'm disappointed that there has not been a peep in this notesfile
from the three candidates who can profit from this illegal
campaigning with a strong denouncement of it.  If this isn't
worth responding to us about, what is?  But it's not too late.
If any of you read this, please let us know what your position
on this campaigning is; and not just us, but DCU management
and particularly the DCU branch managers who willing violated
and allowed to be violated DCU bylaws.

Collis

re: .3, Collis

(I expect the silence will be deafening.)

(-Jack)

    RE: .3 I sent mail to the "other 3" candidates the other day. I
    have heard back from one of them. I'll summarize that conversation
    and any other correspondence/calls I receive this week end.

    			Alfred

Thanks, Alfred.

I expect that some or all of the 3 candidates have
taken some action.  It would be nice for this action to
be publically visible (as well as behind the scenes) so
that everyone knows exactly what they think about this
turn of events.

If all candidates clearly and publicly denounce this form
of electioneering, then I expect this will greatly reduce
the possibility of it happening again.

Collis

    re .1:  Alfred, who exactly informed you that Digital sent a letter
    to Chuck Cockburn objecting to DCU employees engaging in solicitation
    on Digital property?  If it was proper to reveal that such a letter
    was sent, then surely it is proper to know who at Digital is asserting
    that the letter was sent.
    
    In general, I believe that it is inappropriate to post anonymous 
    claims, unless there is some compelling reason why the claimant needs 
    to be anonymous -- and even then only if there is some independent
    reason to believe the statement.  E.g., documents or pictures, 
    that at least have been revealed to the person posting the claim.
    
    		Thanks,
    		Larry

    Re .-1
    
    Last Monday Chuck Cockburn told me in person that he had NOT received a
    letter from Digital concerning DCU employees campaigning on Digital
    premises. I have no reason to disbelieve him and I believe he was
    telling me the truth.
    
    Dave

    
>    re .1:  Alfred, who exactly informed you that Digital sent a letter
>    to Chuck Cockburn objecting to DCU employees engaging in solicitation
>    on Digital property?  If it was proper to reveal that such a letter
>    was sent, then surely it is proper to know who at Digital is asserting
>    that the letter was sent.
    
    John Murphy at MSO. 
    
    		Alfred

    
    Well one thing is for certain, something doesn't add up here.  Maybe
    Digital sent it 3rd class mail... 
    

    I thought it was time to update everybody on progress so far.
    
    Friday 25th March	- I filed my original complaint (see .0).
    
    Monday 28th March	- Expanded version of the complaint filed in hard
    			  copy with the Supervisory Committee
    
    Monday 28th March	- Prompt acknowledgement received from Supervisory
    			  Committee chairman Steve Behrens notifying me that
    			  my complaint had been assigned to supervisory
    			  committee members Fred Holland and Bob Ketz for
    			  investigation.
    
    Wednesday 6th April	- Surprised that I had heard absolutely nothing I
    			  send a request to Fred Holland and Bob Ketz for
    			  a status update on what is happening regarding
    			  my complaint
    
    Thursday 7th April	- Receive acknowledgement from Bob Ketz indicating
    			  that he had just got back from vacation that day
    			  and had not had any contact with Steve Behrens
    			  up until that time. He planned to talk to him
    			  that day.
    
    And that's it to date. I must admit I find it slightly surprising that
    what I consider to be flagrant violation of DCU bylaws during an
    election by DCU employees is assigned to someone who was on vacation.
    
    I will keep this note updated the best I can. Obviously I expect that
    if anything actually starts to happen it may have to remain
    confidential for a while. I will let everybody know though as soon
    as I actually see any action. To date I've not been asked for any
    additional information.
    
    Dave

     
    Serious allegations evoke serious stonewalling.  ;-)
    
    Mike
    

    Hi.  I am Bob Ketz, and I want you to know that I, along with the
    balance of the Sup Comm are working hard on this issue.  I take offense
    to 794.12 regarding stonewalling. We have had late night meetings on
    this topic, I spent this past Sunday reading more formal complaints
    that came via Fed Exp. I undersanding the urgency of the issue.  I am
    doing my best, this is one of many issues we are investigating.  I
    believe we are close to recommending a course of action to the Board. 
    Please do not for a moment think I, or others on the committee are
    Stonewalling.
    
    Boston Bob

    Re: .13
    
    	Thank you Bob for replying directly.
    
    This place does get a little bit of hip shooting and foot in mouth
    disease, which all of us at one time or another have participated in.
    
    I think we would look forward to any further updates that you can give,
    though I assume there is much you cannot say, until much later.
    
    Again, thanks.
    
    Bill
    

RE: Note 794.13 by ISLNDS::KETZ

>    Hi.  I am Bob Ketz, and I want you to know that I, along with the
>    balance of the Sup Comm are working hard on this issue.  I take offense
>    to 794.12 regarding stonewalling. We have had late night meetings on
>    this topic, I spent this past Sunday reading more formal complaints
>    that came via Fed Exp. I undersanding the urgency of the issue.  I am
>    doing my best, this is one of many issues we are investigating.  I
>    believe we are close to recommending a course of action to the Board. 
>    Please do not for a moment think I, or others on the committee are
>    Stonewalling.

Thanks for responding.

I can understand you position and also Dave's position.  Dave would like
to know that his complaint has not been thrown in a basket and ignored.

As a suggestion, a simple update every week or 10 days would be useful
for people who have submitted a formal complaint and have not heard
anything.  This will let people know that work is being done.

	Thanks,
	- mark

     
>    Serious allegations evoke serious stonewalling.  ;-)
>    
>    Mike

    I took Mike's (half joking) comment to say that assigning
    the investigation to someone on vacation implied it was
    not being given top priority.

    I did not get any impression that it was not getting
    priority now that you're back.
    bob

re: .13

I think you missed the :-) on .12

I do wonder why an issue of such time-sensitive nature was assigned to someone
on vacation.

Bob

    Re .13
    
    Thanks. I am happy to know that my complaint is being processed.
    I look forward to finding out, in due course, what end action is taken
    on it. As suggested by one of the later repliers I do feel an update
    to the complainant every week or two would be in order. Even if the
    update is something like "we're working on it, can't say anymore at
    present, expect to be able to tell you more on date xxx".
    
    Again thanks. I am pleased to know that my complaint is being taken
    with the high level of seriousness in which I intended it.
    
    Dave
     

After two weeks Dave finds out that his complaint has effectively
been stalled, and only after a "tickler" update request has the
investigation into the complaint been jump-started.  After another
week (nearly) of no update Dave is understandably concerned.  
My sympathy is with Dave, not the DCU Supervisory Committee.
If anyone can be justifiably offended it is Dave.

Mike

    re.19
    I can see how things get taken out of context when only half the
    situation is known.  Things did not take weeks to get jumpstarted. 
    When I got back from vacation I found that Fred Holland already had the
    auditor investigating some matters, the committee had meetings the week
    prior to my return, our lawyers had been contacted for advice.  The
    note did not jump start anything.  I am just as concerned arround this
    matter as any noter in this file is.  I do not want to "one up" anyone
    by my response, but if you believe I am not doing my job on this
    committee then talk to me directly, not via this file.
    Boston Bob

    Re .several
    
    Please folks. Let's not make too many assumptions here. I posted my
    update on the situation. My only issue was the lack of being updated
    on progress. I feel more than comfortable that my complaint is
    being processed (thanks to Bob's replies).
    
    Yes I'm a bit miffed that not much was done to prevent the bylaw
    violation during the election process. But as far as I'm concerned that
    is a failure of DCU management not of the Supervisory Committee. The
    reason I went to the Supervisory Committee was because management
    failed to get the issue addressed after it was brought to their
    attention.
    
    Now it is just a case of letting the Supervisory Committee do its job
    and take action on my complaint. As long as I'm kept updated I'll be
    happy. I also hope I'm happy with the outcome of the investigation.
    
    Dave

    
    Had the DCU management been interested in ensuring a smoother
    election process, these same kind of complaints would be unnecessary.
    Are we going to have to look forward to this acrimony and
    divisiveness at the next election?
    When does it get fixed?
    
    Mike
    
     

  >When does it get fixed?

Not until top management is committed to fair and open
elections and enforces this through the ranks.

Collis

Let's assume the investigation shows that Dave's allegations
are indeed valid and that Dave looses by a few votes.

What recourse does Dave have? Will this election be invalidated?
Will justice be served in this case if the response is
"Don't do it again."?

I think these possibilities need to be considered prior to
the announcement of the results.



Gim

    Why didn't any of this happen last year?
    
    			Alfred

>         <<< Note 794.25 by CVG::THOMPSON "An AlphaGeneration Noter" >>>
>                 -< under things to wonder about tonight ... >-
>
>    Why didn't any of this happen last year?
    
    Some possibilities...
    
    1. Because fees hadn't been instituted.
    
    2. Because a current Director that stated she would "hold the line on
       fees" somehow translated that into a vote for fees.
    
    3. Because the majority on the Board, and thus the future direction of
       DCU, wasn't riding in the balance.
    
    4. Because a new majority on the Board would mean a change in DCU's
       current direction.
    
    5. Because some people don't want that change to occur.

    The Supervisory Committee has acted in a decisive manner. They
    unanimously recommended that the election and annual meeting be
    restarted. The members of the Board of Directors have agreed with
    that recommendation. The nominating and petition process as well
    as the draw for ballot ordering and the statements sent to the
    members with ballots are judged not to be tainted. The process will
    re-start after those steps. The dates for the new balloting and
    annual meeting have not, as I write this, been set. 

    New rules are being formulated for the election process. More
    information as I get it.

    		Alfred

>    New rules are being formulated for the election process. More
>    information as I get it.

I wonder if past mistakes will be corrected (like mailing ballots FIRST
class this time).

-Joe