Conference 7.286::dcu

    Today my wife received a glossy brochure from the three non-G
    candidates.  I'm concerned that it appears to have a large number
    of unproven assertions about the candidates.  It also makes statements
    that seem to me to clearly tell only a part of the story regarding the
    issues that are raised, and that can easily leave incorrect impressions
    regarding events at the DCU and their competitors for the Board.
    
    None of this is contrary to Digital policy, so far as I know.  None of
    it is improper, in my view.  My concern arises from the statement on
    the back that it was mailed "pursuant to DCU's 1994 Election Rules."
    This suggests to me that the Supervisory Committee approved it.
    
    Now, the Supervisory Committee's Election Rules are pretty clear and
    draconian on the subject of telling only part of the story on an issue.
    And, as applied to election material proposed by the 3G candidates,
    the rules seem to have beem pretty rigidly enforced.  So I'm confused
    why the Supervisory Committee approved this mailing, assuming they did.
    
    Could it be that the Supervisory Committee has no problem with general
    statements, however sweeping, but doesn't want people to make specific
    statements about dollars, policies, or other credit unions?  If not,
    then why exactly did the SC pass this document but not the specific
    statements and explanations offered by the 3G candidates?  
    
    Could a member of the Supervisory Committee please clarify this?
    
    		Thanks,
    		Larry

Maybe the supervisory committee hasn't been asked to rule on the material?
There's nothing in the rules that say they have to sign off on it beforehand.
The fact that some candidates have gone this route is their own choice.

If someone feels that there is a problem with the statements in the mailing
(which I haven't seen), then that person can, if they wish, file a complaint
with the supervisory committee.

-Jeff

re: .2, Jeff

Consider the points raised in 818.175, as an example.
That would seem to be sufficient cause for a ruling. I will request
same with this posting.

SC? Comments?

-Jack

    
.0>    This is also a good place for the moderators to explain such rules,
.0>    if any.
    
    Please allow me to apologize for making a mess out of this "new
    rules" situation, and to explain what I can at this point.
    
    On Thursday, 04-Aug, I was informed that a new set of DEC rules regarding
    DCU elections and electronic media was soon to be released. I was
    give a preliminary copy of the new DEC rules. I was also asked to hide
    note 850.69, as it was in violation of the new DEC rules. (Transcribing
    into this conference from election material sent through the post
    office from candidates would also be in violation, as would
    transcribing into this conference from the material currently available
    at DCU branches.) I was promised an official copy of these new DEC rules
    by Monday, 8-Aug.
    
    In the crystaline clarity of hindsight, what I *SHOULD HAVE DONE* was
    to insist on a final, publishable and attributable copy of the new
    DEC rules, at which point I would post them and hide the offending note.
    
    What I *DID* was to hide the note on the assumption that I would be
    able to justify this action early this week. I have not yet received
    the official copy, and I believe the new DEC rules are still being
    discussed. I most sincerely regret the ensuing confusion.
    
    I am willing to hang around on this clothes line until the end of business
    tomorrow (Thursday, 11-Aug). At that time, either the new DEC rules will
    be posted in this conference, or I will announce that to my knowledge
    there are no new DEC rules and discussion of the issues may proceed,
    keeping in mind the existing DEC rules posted in note 1. (Note that under
    the existing DEC rules, publicly distributed election material has been
    transcribed into this this conference for puposes of discussion, not
    solicitation, and has not been declared in violation.) 
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    

So, in order to clarify it a bit more for us, Bill, does that mean that if
you haven't new rules to post by the end of business tomorrow, you will
set note 850.69/unhidden?

-Jack

    
    
    Re .5:
    
    I have two request to hide 850.69, for two distinctly different
    reasons. If the first (the alleged new rules) goes away, I will attempt
    to determine whether the second still applies.
    
    At any rate, the important information in 850.60 is reproduced in the
    election package available at all DCU branches.
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    

    re .4:  Thanks!  I probably would have done the same as you, but I
    absolutely agree that if Digital wants anyone to abide by a policy
    ruling, they should first *publish* that ruling.  Anything else is
    a classic example of catch-22.
    
    re .2:  You are correct -- the SC might not have been asked to rule. 
    However, the mailing itself asserts that it is in accordance with the 
    election rules ("pursuant" means "in accordance with").  I feel that 
    it would be hard to be sure of this without a ruling.
    
    If the SC was *not* asked to rule on this election material, then I
    join my voice to those asking for a ruling.  If the SC *did* rule in
    favor, then I would greatly appreciate an explanation of their ruling.
    
    	Keep the faith,
    	Larry

>>   <<< Note 862.6 by WLDBIL::KILGORE "DCU 3Gs -- fired but not forgotten" >>>

>>    At any rate, the important information in 850.60 is reproduced in the
>>    election package available at all DCU branches.
    
>>    Bill -- co-moderator DCU


How nice.  Of course, the two nearest branches to me are equally far distant.

I live between Boston and Colorado Springs, so that would be about 1000 miles.

I don't actually care; I have made my decision already.  But one impact of
the SC (and maybe Digital) rules limiting free discussion in this forum is
that we who have no branches are effectively cut off from information.

Fortunately, this won't be a problem for me soon, whichever way the
election goes.  By December, my money will be with an institution that
wants to serve me.  I hope that's DCU.

JPB

Re .4: bravo!

	paul

    Is it my fancy or are the three non-G candidates targeting non-Digital
    people.  Both my family members received material, I did not.  Where did
    they get their names for the distribution.  Could it be the DCU sold
    them their mailing list?    

    I finally picked up the election info available at my local DCU branch.
    It's astonishing.  Without going into details that may be frowned upon
    by our keepers (I don't mean the moderators), here's what it contains:
    
    
    First, a four page letter from the Supervisory Committee to the members,
    explaining that numerous points in the 3G election material could be
    argued to violate election rules 1 and 2.  As an example, the 3G election
    material cites a statistic for the DCU as compared to the average for
    all credit unions.  The SC says this might be considered misleading
    or unfairly slanted, since there might be reasons why the statistics 
    turned out the way they did!  
    
    Second, six sheets, one from each candidate.  Note that the SC has
    more pages to argue against the 3G material than the 3Gs have to
    argue for their points.  
    
    
    The SC apparently did not review the non-3G material.  I am astonished
    that the SC would feel it "necessary to include excerpts" of their
    opinion of the 3G material when the didn't even review the other stuff.
    Even a cursory reading makes it obvious that the argument cited above
    can be applied to every single use of statistics in the whole packet.
    
    
    The overwhelming appearance is that the SC is defending the status quo.
    Statistics and even opinions contrary to the status quo in the 3G
    material are challenged as being potential violations;  statistics
    and sweeping statements in the non-3G material are not challenged.
    
    If the SC is not intending to defend the status quo, then why didn't 
    they either not comment on any of the material, or else make the same 
    type of comments about all of it?  
    
    		Larry Seiler
    
    PS -- No, I am not issuing a complaint about the non-3G election
    material.  They have a right to their world view.  I am asking the
    SC to please explain how it helps us to make "free and informed"
    choices when they make a detailed critique of the statements of one
    group while saying nothing about similar statements by the other group.

    
    Steve Sherman, you still out there?
    
    Did the Supervisory Committee review the material provided by Lisa
    Ross, Paul Milbury and Lois Haskins and distributed in the election
    package that s available at DCU branches?
    

    The SC has decided to keep reviews of materials confidential between
    the candidates and the SC, as a rule.  I'm not going to go into details
    about what the sequence of events is that resulted in the insert.  In
    general terms, the SC was faced with only a few unpleasant options with
    regard to the DCU distribution of campaign materials.  Use of the insert 
    seemed to us to be the least objectionable.  
    
    I agree with encouragement to shareholders to study and judge for 
    themselves.  Let the candidates debate the issues freely and vigorously.  
    Let the shareholders have an orderly process with a free and informed 
    choice.  The job of the SC involves balancing between these as defined 
    in the rules.  I make no claims of being perfect, but we *are* doing our 
    best to be independent and objective during this election.
    
    
    Steve

re: <<< Note 862.13 by NACAD2::SHERMAN "Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2" >>>

> Let the candidates debate the issues freely and vigorously.  

EXCUSE ME!!??

Where do you propose that they do this now that, between your election rules
and DIGITAL policy, there are no "safe places"?

Wake up.

-Jack

    re: .13
    
    I don't understand your question, Jack.  I'm not sure what you mean 
    by "safe places."  As to where I propose that candidates campaign ...
    I leave that up to the candidates.  The rules were specifically
    designed to be relatively independent of media form.  I'm not inclined
    to censure or police how candidates campaign, as a rule.  
    
    How Digital wants to handle things is Digital's business, from my point 
    of view as a member of the SC.  I don't have any direct control or
    influence over Digital policy as far as I know.  At this time, I also have 
    no more info than anyone else as to what Digital's rules are or will be.  
    I await whatever Bill finds out just like other noters.  
    
    FWIW, not that it has to matter to anyone, but I also have personal 
    concerns about what might happen to my career at Digital as a result of 
    postings with my name on them.  I try to be as fair, objective and careful 
    as I can.  But, I recognize there are no guarantees.  Not for me, anyway.
    
    Steve

    Steve,
    
    I really appreciate your being willing to comment about SC actions here
    in the notes file.  I appreciate that you have to be careful about what
    you say, and that there is much that you cannot say.  Finally, I 
    realize that what you say may be the SC's opinion rather than your own.
    
    Given all this, I'm astonished that you can claim that the SC wants the
    issues debated vigorously.  If SIMPLY CITING A STATISTIC is judged by
    the SC to be a likely violation of the campaign rules, then there can
    be NO vigorous debate.  If STATING AN OPINION about use of income
    is judged to be "misleading" and "incomplete" based on the fact that 
    the DCU's auditors don't agree, then their can be NO vigorous debate.
    If stating that "DCU should do X" is called a false statement since
    no surveys were cited in proof -- and if citing a survey result is
    itself judged "misleading", then there can be NO vigorous debate.
    
    And further, if the SC chooses to say all this to the DCU membership,
    but chooses to say nothing when non-3G candidates do similar things,
    then it seems to me that the SC is taking sides in the campaign!
    How does this get defined as objectivity?  I'd really like to know!
    
    I'm sure that there were many worse alternatives that the SC could
    have chosen.  I fail to see why the SC did not either comment EQUALLY 
    on all material, or else NOT COMMENT publicly on any of it.  Surely
    those are both better choices than what the SC actually did.
    
    		Larry Seiler
    
    PS -- Oh, yes, no one can campaign near DCU branches, and no one can
    campaign on Digital property (apparently), but you can still campaign!

1) The "new rules" prepared by the SC, as has been stated, appear to favor
   the status quo and DCU management.
2) The candidates statements distributed under the new rules by the DCU
   are accompanied quite conspicuously by the SC's "position statement"
   regarding the 3G's publication and nothing similar regarding the
   opposition.
3) Given the above, it's quite clear that a "media" for debate is _not_
   to be the official channels available to the candidates through the
   DCU, by the rules.
4) There is ample evidence already in this medium, that the rules
   forthcoming from DIGITAL will either prohibit or severely limit
   the use of DIGITAL's electronic resources for the purposes of debate.
5) Four of the candidates up for election are not permitted access to
   DIGITAL facilities without permission, and most probably not for
   the purposes of open debate.

For you to suggest "Let the candidates openly debate" in the shadow of
these prevailing conditions appears to be rather disingenuous. One
cannot debate through the newspapers. One cannot "buy television
time" for a debate of matters pertaining to the DEFCU. Should they,
perhaps, select a soapbox on the Boston Common, Steve? Is that the
medium for debate available to them?

-Jack

    Of course, there's another possibility here.  The SC could be acting
    as it is to ward off the threat of more lawsuits -- presumably by
    someone in favor of the non-3G candidates, given that they've taken
    a position against the 3G campaign material but not against the 
    similar (though far less detailed) non-3G campaign material.
    
    We've got evidence that the SC is willing to take the nearly
    unprecendented(1) step of invalidating an election based on the
    threat of lawsuits.  So I'm really not sure what else they'd do.
    I had hoped that their decisions would be based on "what is right".
    Maybe that's too dangerous.
    
    	Larry
    
    (1)"Nearly unprecedented" is here used literally.  The DCU General
    Counsel called me to chat and I asked him if there was a precedent.
    I think he said he didn't know of a precedent -- certainly he made
    it clear to me that such an election invalidation was highly unusual.

    
    Re .4 - .6:
    
    I have not yet received a memo from Corporate Employee Relations
    regarding any new rules concerning the DCU election and use of this
    conference (though I understand they are working hard on said memo).
    
    In accordance with my promise, and with the approval of Corporate ER,
    I have unhidden note 850.69. I also retract any notes I've made as
    moderator in the past few days in this conference, concerning any
    further restrictions applied to this conference at this time.
    Specifically, I see no reason to prohibit the transcription of any
    publicly available campaign material (such as the election package
    distributed at DCU branches or any election material mailed to DCU
    members) into this conference for the purpose of discussion. As has
    always been the case, solicitation is prohibited.
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    

    Steve,
    
    Anent .13. I realize that reviews of campaign materials should be kept
    confidential, but can you say whether the SC reviewed the campaign
    material of the non-3G candidates? I'm not asking you to tell us what
    the response was, if any, just if a review of the materials was done.
    
    Having said that, I have to completely agree with the .11 and .16 by
    Larry Seiler. I was dumbfounded when I read the campaign package!
    
    Pat McMahon

What are the backgrounds of the supervisory committee members?
Does anyone know?

Gim

>    The SC has decided to keep reviews of materials confidential between
>    the candidates and the SC, as a rule.  I'm not going to go into details
>    about what the sequence of events is that resulted in the insert.  In
>    general terms, the SC was faced with only a few unpleasant options with
>    regard to the DCU distribution of campaign materials.  Use of the insert 
>    seemed to us to be the least objectionable.

If you have to keep these reviews confidential, to the extent that you have
not even acknowledged whether you reviewed the other candidates' materials,
then what gave you the right to distribute your review of the 3G's
materials?  Did they give you permission to do so?
    

    I feel that even aknowledging a review could compromise confidentiality 
    with a candidate.  SC pressing that candidate to publish or aknowledge 
    a review could also be inappropriate.
    
    However, the review of the 3G's material was voluntarily made public.  
    Therefore, it is no longer confidential.  I encourage any shareholder 
    with greater interest to consult DCU's General Counsel for more 
    information regarding the review included with the candidate materials 
    in the DCU distribution.  
    
    Normally, I don't "duck" questions.  But, given how charged up things
    are in this election, I'm pretty much obliged to for now.
    
    Steve

re: .23

> DCU's General Counsel

That would be Chuck's lawyer, Mr. Melchione, wouldn't it?

Think we're likely to get any straight answers there?

-Jack

re: .24

>    To protect our money and to keep our
>    credit union a special place we must elect
>    Lisa DeMauro Ross, Lois Haskins, and
>    Paul Milbury to the Credit Union board.

>    Remember to vote for Lisa DeMauro Ross, Lois Haskins, and Paul Milbury.

Imagine that. And all the 3G's material said was "Please Vote".
And that was interpreted as solicitation, for which they were canned.

How is this different? Because it's the other side?

-Jack

re: <<< Note 862.23 by NACAD2::SHERMAN "Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992, LKG2-A/R05 pole AA2" >>>

>    I feel that even aknowledging a review could compromise confidentiality 
>    with a candidate.

Very well. As I requested in .3, may we please now have from the SC, an opinion
of the Milbury-Ross-Haskins materials? Both those being distributed by the DCU
and those in .24 of this topic? A comprehensive analysis such as the one that
was made of the 3G's materials?

Is it not within our rights as members to ask you for your official opinion
as a committee on these? Is it not your duty to provide that to us?


-Jack

re: .whatever


Just out of curiosity, was any material sent to the members with the election
material to let them know just what sort of restrictions the "vigorous"
debate/campaign are under?  Why not?  To not do so gives the impression that
election is being run "normally".  It is obvious (to me) that it is not.

    re .26
    
    My interpretation of the difference between what led to the firing of
    the 3G's and the mailing from Ross, Haskins & Milbury is the method of
    distribution of the material.  Ross, Haskins & Milbury have use the
    U.S. Post office (i.e. public mail) to mail their material; the 3G's
    used Digital's electronic resources to distribute their material. 
    Digital has no regulation over the U.S. Post office, but can regulate
    the use of its electronic resources.

Immaterial, Rich. It's here, electronically, now.

    I also have to wonder where the money for the postage comes from.  Mass
    mailings cost a bunch...
    
    Jim Morton

re .30

Everything that I read said that it was mis-use of electronic mail that was the
reason for firing the 3G's.  I don't recall hearing that there was any problem
having information posted in this conference.  If I've got it wrong, then there
is the possibility that Mr Kyzivat is risking his job, and may be those of Mr. 
Milbury and Ms. Ross.

Re .31

I'd suspect that the candidates paid for the cost of the mailing themselves. 
Maybe they are paid better than the average engineer.

Rich

I would like to support the request in .27:

>Very well. As I requested in .3, may we please now have from the SC, an opinion
>of the Milbury-Ross-Haskins materials? Both those being distributed by the DCU
>and those in .24 of this topic? A comprehensive analysis such as the one that
>was made of the 3G's materials?
>
>Is it not within our rights as members to ask you for your official opinion
>as a committee on these? Is it not your duty to provide that to us?

This information is now in the public domain since it has been sent out.
If need be I can get permission from the addressed recipient of one copy
for you.  You should not need the permission of the authors to review it
and make the review public now.

IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DO SO, I CONSIDER THIS DIRECT EVIDENCE OF BIAS
AND GROUNDS TO HAVE THE SC REMOVED AND POSSIBLY TO HAVE THE ELECTION
OVERTURNED.

	Paul

,32>                         I don't recall hearing that there was any problem
.32> having information posted in this conference.  If I've got it wrong, then there
.32> is the possibility that Mr Kyzivat is risking his job, and may be those of Mr. 
.32> Milbury and Ms. Ross.
    
    No, you don't have it wrong. Posting publicly available information in
    this conferences for the purpose of discussion is permissible. There
    are at least two examples of that in this conference (850,69, and a
    previous posting of the anonymous flyer that was circulated in the voided
    election.) Both have been acknowledged and allowed by Corporate
    Empolyee Relations.
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    

    
    Attached is the contents of the cover sheet on the election package
    available at DCU branches. It is provided here for those DCU members
    who have limited access to branches.
    
    Bill -- DCU member and noter
    
    ------------------
    
    
                       PLEASE VOTE IN THIS YEAR'S DCU
                       ------------------------------
    
                                 ELECTION
                                 --------
    
    
    Below are meterials provided by various candidate(s) in the
    DCU Board of Directors Election. This material is provided as
    a convenience to you and the statements represent solely the
    views of the candidates.
    
    If you require a replacement ballot, please call (800)328-8797
    or notify your branch representative.
    

    
    Attached is the DCU Supervisory Committee letter included in the
    election package available at DCU branches. It is provided here for
    those DCU members who have limited access to branches.
    
    Bill -- DCU member and noter
    
    ------------------
    



     Dear Member:

     Your Supervisory Committee is an independent volunteer committee which
     serves as the "watchdog" of the Credit Union to insure that the laws,
     regulations and rules of the Credit Union are complied with and
     enforced.  Among other duties, your Supervisory Committee is charged
     with enforcing the 1994 DCU Election campaign Rules.  Pursuant to
     those rules, the Committee must establish and maintain an election
     process in which the choices of the Credit Union's members are free
     and informed.

     In connection with the candidate materials submitted by David
     J. Garrod, Phillip J. Gransewicz, and Christopher C. Fillmore-Gillett,
     it is necesssary to include exerpts of the opinion of your Supervisory
     Committee on those materials.  Our opinion was provided to the
     candidates in question when they voluntarily submitted their materials
     for our review.  It should also be noted that much of our opinion has
     already been made public by these candidates.  We believe that to
     insure a process where members' choices are free and informed and
     because these materials are being distributed by DCU at its branches,
     the following exerpts of the Supervisory Committee's opinion must be
     provided.

     The following, then, are exerpts of the August 1, 1994 opinion of your
     Supervisory Committee on the candidate materials of David J. Garrod,
     Phillip J. Gransewicz, and Christopher C. Fillmore-Gillett:



A. We have the following concerns related to the sheet, "VOTE THE ISSUES":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 "Did you know that DCU fees are already 21.4% ($505,983 in 1993) above 
  the national average for credit unions?"

We have not confirmed the accuracy of the figures cited.  Assuming the figures
are accurate, it could result in violation of election rule 1.  In particular, 
we are concerned that this statement may be ruled "misleading" or "unfairly
slanted."  Considerations not mentioned could include the standing or practices 
of credit union peers, the relatively high number of branch personnel that DCU 
requires to meet member demand for local services, the fundamental costs of 
services, recommendations from independent audits and so forth.  The 
implication of this statement is that fees are too high, which may not be the
case when taking the above into consideration.

 "... It's time for DCU to stop doing business like a commercial,
  profit-driven BANK ..."

It is clearly implied here that DCU is currently run like a "BANK."  As DCU is 
chartered and run as a Credit Union, verified by independent audits and peer 
reviews, this implication could be argued to be "misleading" and in violation
of rule 1.


B. We have the following concerns related to the sheet, "VOTE THE NUMBERS":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 " ... which DCU management attributed to 'account cleanup'"

This could be argued to be a violation of election rule 2 in that by quoting
'account cleanup' and without clarification this could amount to the
implication that DCU management was lying about the reasons for the membership
decline.  As such, it could be interpreted as "defamation."

 "... We believe a more moderate net income is the proper approach
 for a credit union.  The members that have contributed to the success
 of the credit union should and must share in that success."

This is apparently in conflict with the opinion of DCU's external and
independent auditors, DCU management and the majority of the current Board who 
have recommended a continued increase in the capital ratio.  In the above 
discussion and in the accompanying chart "Capital Ratio and Equity Growth" 
there is no mention of DCU's capital ratio targets, its standings with respect 
to its peers or the reasonings behind the current ratio goal.  Though you 
express it as your common belief, it could be argued that implication of 
impropriety in your conclusion is a "misleading statement" that is materially
"incomplete" and in violation of rule 1.  

Further, the implication that contributing members currently do not share in 
the success in the credit union may also be considered "misleading."  It could
be argued that the increased capital ratio results in improved financial 
security in the institution and that this is a benefit for all shareholders.
Thus, the implication could be argued to be in violation of rule 1.

 "... DCU does not pay rent for its branches on Digital property.  All
  of these savings result in greater net income for DCU which we believe
  should be shared with DCU's members/owners."

This statement does not mention the relatively high number of branches that 
DCU maintains with respect to its peers.  It ignores the associated costs of 
personnel required to maintain those branches and the relation that this has
to the overal cost of services.  As such, the above statement could be 
considered "misleading" or materially "incomplete" and in violation of rule 1.


C. We have the following concerns related to the sheet, "VOTE THE FUTURE":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 " ...  The ownership should expect no less, in the form of bonus
  dividends and loan interest rebates.  A portion of profits must be
  set aside each year for the membership."

What is being proposed here seems to be conflict with what DCU's external and
independent auditors have recommended for the credit union.  It could be
argued that this fact is substantial and that its absence would leave the
above materially "incomplete," "misleading" and in violation of rule 1.

 "DCU must listen to its membership..."

This statement implies that DCU does not listen to its membership.  This could
be argued to be a "false statement" citing surveys, board minutes and so forth
as proof.  Thus, the statement could be argued to be in violation of rule 1.

 "62.1% of surveyed members believe that 'all members should have 
 free checking'" 

The above claim is apparently from the response given to question 15 from the
recent phone survey.  In the above claim, it is not mentioned that members 
effectively changed position when responding to questions 26 and 27 from that
same survey.  This concept is in line with comments from the surveyor on page
23 of the survey.  Thus, it could be argued that this statement is "misleading" 
and in violation of rule 1.

 "The capital ratio must be grown ...  However, this should not be the
  sole focus of managment and the Board."

The above statement implies that the sole focus of the management and Board 
of the credit union is to build the capital ratio.  As such, it could be argued
to be a "misleading" statement and in violation of rule 1.  The use of surveys,
Board minutes, newsletters and other documents could be cited as proof.

 "We believe it is inappropriate to fee the membership when there is no
  good business reason."

The above statement implies that the management and Board have engaged in
inappropriate behavior with "no good business reason."  As such, it could be 
argued to be a "misleading" statement and in violation of rule 1.  The use of
audit results and recommendations based on peer review could be cited as proof
of propriety and of sound business reasoning.




     At the close of our August 1, 1994 opinion letter, Mr. Garrod,
     Mr. Gransewicz and Mr. Fillmore-Gillett were also advised that again,
     any changes they might make to their statements would be voluntary and
     the Supervisory Committee could not guarantee that their candidate
     statements would be immune to member complaint or future Supervisory
     Committee action.  They were also advised that your Supervisory
     Committee appreciated the opportunity to pre-screen their campaign
     materials and anticipated that their cooperation would reduce the
     probability of any difficulties.  We also expressed the hope that the
     opinion would prove useful to the candidates.

     Respectfully submitted,


     DCU Supervisory Committee





     ---------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 1.  Misleading or false statements by any candidate or any
              candidate supporter deprives Credit Union members of
              relevant and accurate information and impairs the right
              of members to make an informed choice. As Such, any
              misleading or false statement by any candidate or any
              candidate supporter is prohibited. Statements which are
              in any material way incomplete, unfairly slanted or
              minimize the issues unfairly shall be considered
              misleading and are prohibited.

     Rule 2.  Candidates and their supporters may not engage in
              disparaging or defamatory statements, in any form,
              concerning any candidate, any candidate supporter, the
              Credit Union, any Credit Union employee, official,
              volunteer, or member or any other person or entity.
              This rule shall not be construed to restrict the ability
              of a candidate to factually and fairly criticize another
              candidate's record or position on Credit Union issues or
              that candidate's qualifications.

    
    

re: .36

I can't believe what I'm reading.  It's so obvious what is going on.

Bob

The inclusion of what is in .36 for the 3G candidates alone is obviously
intended to bias the election.  I was willing to give the benefit of the
doubt to the SC, but what has transpired is beyond any doubt.  

I wonder if biasing the election was the intent all along or the result of the
implied job threats to SC members that Steve refered to.


Unbelievable.


I'm worn out.  I'm am closing my account no matter what the outcome of the
'election' is.



al

    Election rule 15 allows for a candidate or candidate supporter to
    request review of any communications medium for compliance with the 
    rules.  So, if anyone wants review by the SC of any campaign materials
    and provides written request to the SC, the SC is obliged to provide
    a review in a reasonable time after the request is sumbitted.
    
    FWIW, I don't regard posting a note in DCU notes as being the same as 
    a written request.
    
    Steve 

Fine.
Will you regard an electronic mail message as such, or do you require
the use of the United State Postal Service?

    Hardcopy to the SC is satisfactory.  In some situations, e-mail and FAX
    are also acceptable.  The problems we've seen so far include e-mail
    that is dependent on links, FAX that is unreadable and so forth.  But,
    I don't feel that Digital note files should be considered a formal mode of
    communication between shareholders and the SC.
    
    Steve

>    Hardcopy to the SC is satisfactory.  In some situations, e-mail and FAX
>    are also acceptable.  The problems we've seen so far include e-mail
>    that is dependent on links, FAX that is unreadable and so forth.

sigh.

Let me ask more specifically then.

If I send an electronic mail request to you, Steve Sherman, as a member
of the SC, and you verify to me electronically or by phone that you have
received it, will that be sufficient to start the process?

-Jack

    Of course!
    
    Steve

From all indications when I sent the request just now, you should have it,
Steve.

-Jack

    
    Attached is the second of three 3G statements included in the
    election package available at DCU branches. It is provided here for
    those DCU members who have limited access to branches.
    
    Bill -- DCU member and noter
    
    ------------------
    
    
    




                                 VOTE THE NUMBERS
                                 ----------------

     Vote for
                                                             3Gs
     Philip J. Gransewicz (incumbent)                      No Fees*
     Christopher C. Fillmore-Gillett
     David J. Garrod                                       

         Relationship Banking - Some members are more equal than others

     Why is "relationship banking" the wrong direction for DCU?  We believe
     "relationship banking" (with its new fees) to be a short-sighted
     strategy to improve DCU's profitability at the expense of some of the
     membership.  In fact, the "relationship banking" approach has resulted
     in classes of DCU members; 1) "relationship members" who are exempt
     from some fees, 2) members who don't pay checking fees, pay other fees
     yet are not "relationship members" and 3) members who pay fees and are
     not "relationship members".  With the current approach, a member could
     actually move between these classes based on their DCU account
     balances.  Do DCU members need or want this complexity at their credit
     union?

     We have been told that this approach is a "carrot" that will attract
     more members and members' business to DCU.  After six months of
     "relationship banking", the numbers don't indicate that members are
     joining DCU or that members are bringing more business to DCU.  What
     hsa happened is that many DCU members have decided to close their
     accounts and leave the credit union.  Membership has declined and is
     coutinuing to decline at higher rates (317% increase not counting
     September 1993**), even after factoring in sponsor layoffs.

     Analysis of Membership Decline since Relationship Banking Announcement

                         1993   1994
                         ----   ----
     January - June       622   2598     ** The fee structure was announced in
     September-December  9618**             September, 1993. That month member-
                                            ship declined 7,600, which DCU
                                            management attributed to "account
                                            cleanup".

                     Record DCU Profits and Capital Growth

     DCU has reported two consecutive years or record profits; 1992 net
     income of $4,897,002 and 1993 net income of $5,272,415.  1994 DCU net
     income is also on target toward another very good year with $2,523,654
     net income as of June.  These very profitable years have allowed DCU
     to rebuild its equity base at a very fast pace.  We recognize the need
     for DCU to make a profit and to build its capital base.  The questions
     are "How much profit does DCU need?" and "How fast does DCU need to
     build capital?".  We recognize that for every dollar DCU retains,
     there is one dollar less interest paid on deposits, or one dollar too
     much charged in interest rates or fees.  We believe a more moderate
     net income is the proper approach for a credit union.  The members
     that have contributed to the succeess of the credit union should and
     must share in that success.

                        Capital ratio and Equity Growth

                    June 1992   Jan. 1993   June 1993   Jan. 1994   June 1994
                    ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
     Capital Ratio     3.74%       5.15%       5.79%       6.82%       6.97%
     Equity        $12,568,442 $15,512,777 $18,041,154 $20,678,076 $22,717,157


                            Credit Union Advantages

     Besides a very strong membership base which defaults less than
     average, DCU enjoys other advantages.  While DCU sets its interest
     rates accordingto its for-profit bank competitors, DCU does not pay
     income tax and does not pay rent for its branches on Digital property.
     All of these savings result in greater net income for DCU which we
     believe should be shared with DCU's members/owners.


     This material was produced using the private funds of David Garrod, Philip
     Gransewicz and Christopher Fillmore-Gillett.
     3G's Election Campaign, P.O. Box 615, Bolton, MA 01740

     * Refers to new fees imposed in 1993 and 1994

    
  >  Lisa responded by leading DCU back to solid business principals -- 
  >  protecting your investment in our credit union.

      The implication here is that Demauro Ross is solely responsible for
    "turnaround". DCU management, the BOD and the members are
    responsible for the turnaround. 
      The statement is misleading and incomplete, and violation of Rule 1.



>     Progress to Date
>     ----------------
>
>     o  Improved... DCU's financial soundness by doubling the Capital ratio.
>     o  Expanded ...branch hours to be open during lunch.

      o  etc.....
      o  etc...
  

    Again, the implication is that DEmauro Ross is soleley responsible
    for all of these actions. Without mentioning the fact that the CEO, 
    and other board Members were/are involved in this progress, these are 
    all incomplete and misleading and are in violation of Rule 1. 


  > Today, we are at a crossroads and must decide to stay the course of
  > fiscal responsibility and stability or change direction, 
  > possibly landing DCU in the same precarious position we were in before.  
  > There is a slate of candidates that has the experience and ability to lead
  > your credit union into the future.  
  > To protect your money and keep our
  > credit union a special place, we must elect Lisa DeMauro Ross, Lois
  > Haskins, and Paul Milbury to the credit union Board.


    The above paragraph implies that not electing these three will
   result with the Credit Union heading back to the turmoil it was 
   in before. These statements are unfairly slanted and are in
   violation of Rule 1 

  > To protect your money and keep our
  > credit union a special place, we must elect Lisa DeMauro Ross, Lois
  > Haskins, and Paul Milbury to the credit union Board.
 
   This statement is presented as fact that your money will not be
   protected, and your credit union will not be a special place if
   the three mentioned are not elected. This statement is unfairly
   slanted and is in violation of Rule 1.

    

    
    Attached is the statement from Lois Haskins included in the
    election package available at DCU branches. It is provided here for
    those DCU members who have limited access to branches.
    
    Bill -- DCU member and noter
    
    ------------------
    
    
    
    



                       LOIS HASKINS, Petition Candidate:

     No candidate has greater ability in areas that are important to the
     future of DCU than Lois Haskins.  She has great insight and experience
     in the areas of financial controls, investments, and planning.  These
     areas are citical in fulfilling the Board's most important
     responsibility...  protecting your money.

     If elected, she promises to focus on the following issues:

      -  Ensuring financial soundness and safeguarding your funds

      -  Providing excellent loan and savings rates

      -  Enhancing servies, especially for members without branch access

      -  Maintaining open and honest communications

      -  Expanding products to better meet members' needs

     Credit Union at a Crossroads
     ----------------------------

     DCU's improvements in recent years have been a result of your support
     and a team effort by the Board, management, and credit union staff to
     improve the financial performance and services of the credit union.
     Ross, Milbury, and Haskins want to continue this success.  With
     Digital Equipment Corporation continuing to downsize, it is imperative
     that the credit union meet the future challenges head-on.  We offer a
     continuation of sound business practices, a safeguarding of your
     money, and a responsiveness to your needs.

     DCU Responsiveness to Members
     -----------------------------

     Credit unions are special and their success depends upon being in
     touch and responsive to members needs.  DCU regularly conducts surveys
     to determine the level of service and member attitudes and opinions.
     The Board's decisions are driven by the members' input and the need to
     safeguard your funds.  For example, the latest survey shows that the
     majority of members believe it is fair not to subsidize low-balance
     checking accounts.  Similarly, members who were informed of the
     relationship pricing policy overwhelmingly agreed (72%) that it is
     appropriate.  Ross, Milbury, and Haskins pledge to continue being
     responsive to the general membership and not to make changes that
     threaten the financial security of DCU.

     Qualifications
     --------------

      -  Digital Manager of Corporate Finance Investment/Divestment
         Planning and Analysis

      -  Twenty years of financial and accounting experience, including
         thirteen with Digital and three with Union Carbide Corporation

      -  Plant Controller (NPO) and CBU Finance Manager

      -  Bachelor of Science, Accounting



                                It's Your Money
                              in the Credit Union
                                 ...Protect It!

                          Vote for Lisa DeMauro Ross,
                         Lois Haskins, and Paul Milbury
                               for the DCU Board



     This statement was authorized and paid for by the candidates.  This
     material was not provided or endorsed by Digital Employees' Federal
     Credit Union and was provided pursuant to DCU's 1994 Election Rules.
     For information, contact Paul Milbury, P.O.  Box 9116-199, Concord, MA
     01742.

    
    Attached is the statement from Paul Milbury included in the
    election package available at DCU branches. It is provided here for
    those DCU members who have limited access to branches.
    
    Bill -- DCU member and noter
    
    ------------------
    
    
    
    
    



                            PAUL MILBURY, Incumbent:

     As a member of the Board over the past two years, Paul Milbury was a
     vital force in bringing stability and confidence back to the credit
     union.  Paul believes that DCU's remarkable accomplishments have been
     a result of your Board's strong committment to traditional credit
     union philosophy and a consistent focus on rebuilding capital reserves
     and safeguarding the assets of DCU.

     Continue Sound Business Practices
     ---------------------------------

     The most important responsibility of the Board is to safeguard your
     funds and build capital to ensure DCU will continue to survice and be
     able to provide enhanced services to members.  The team of Ross,
     Haskins and Milbury will continue sound business practices while
     protecting the integrity of our credit union.  We need your vote to
     ensure DCU remains a special place for financial security for all our
     members.

     Accomplishments
     ---------------

      o  Achieved steady improvement in reliability, responsiveness, and
         assurance, as measured by our member surveys.

      o  Enhanced Board communication with the distribution of Board
         Minutes and Special Memos.

      o  Revised DCU bylaws to protect your rights.

      o  Improved Operational Policies and Internal Controls.  Our outside
         auditors commended the Board for our success in correcting
         problems in these areas.

      o  Maintained excellent loan and savings rates and kept fees to a
         minimum.

      o  Achieved record 1993 growth in Consumer Loans of 20.9% and real
         Estate Loans granted of $161 million.

      o  Strengthened DCU's Capital Base, the key measure of financial
         soundness and stability.

     Members Say No to Subsidies
     ---------------------------

     A recent DCU member survey showed that members do not want to
     subsidize the costs of individual members' use of services.
     Ninety-two percent believe an individual member who bounces a check
     should cover the cost rather than the entire membership.  When
     presented with the cost generated by maintaining a low-balance
     checking account, 67.8% of the membership agreed the member involved
     should cover the costs.  In addition, a majority believes that the
     fairest way to price a checking account is to offer such services free
     to those who maintain minimum balances or use direct deposit.  Ross,
     Haskins, and Milbury offer fiscally responsive solutions that are
     based on member input and do not jeopardize the financial soundness of
     DCU.

     Qualifications
     --------------

      o  DCU Board Member, 2 years

      o  Member of DCU's Finance and Human Resources Committees, 2 years

      o  Twenty years experience in investment, finance and management

      o  Digital Assistant Treasurer, 9 years

      o  M.B.A., Finance



                                It's Your Money
                              in the Credit Union
                                 ...Protect It!

                          Vote for Lisa DeMauro Ross,
                         Lois Haskins, and Paul Milbury
                               for the DCU Board



     This statement was authorized and paid for by the candidates.  This
     material was not provided or endorsed by Digital Employees' Federal
     Credit Union and was provided pursuant to DCU's 1994 Election Rules.
     For information, contact Paul Milbury, P.O.  Box 9116-199, Concord, MA
     01742.

    
    Attached is the third of three 3G statements included in the
    election package available at DCU branches. It is provided here for
    those DCU members who have limited access to branches.
    
    Bill -- DCU member and noter
    
    ------------------
    
    
    
    




                                 VOTE THE FUTURE
                                 ---------------

     Vote for
                                                             3Gs
     Christopher C. Fillmore-Gillett                       No Fees*
     David J. Garrod                                       
     Philip J. Gransewicz (incumbent)                      

                        A Business Model for the Present

     DCU is a $350,000,000 credit union with more than 70,000 members which
     does business in many states.  Over the past three years, DCU has
     survived an $18,000,000 fraud, aggressively grown its capital ratio,
     and produced record earnings.  We have not gotten where we are today
     with a magical formula for success.  We have been very successful due
     to the strength of our membership.

     What is the right direction for DCU?  DCU's history has shown that a
     business model which focuses on the strength of its membership leads
     to profitability and growth.  At DCU management's recommendation,
     DCU's Board approved relationship banking which imposes new fees and
     divides the membership.  We believe relationship banking is a strategy
     better suited to a for-profit commercial bank, not a member-owned
     credit union.

                        A Business Model for the Future

     Focus:  DCU's Valuable Membership

     The membership of DCU must be valued and grown.  According to recent
     surveys, 65.6% of DCU members believe that DCU is special - that it is
     not "just another way to access banking services." DCU must do all it
     can to encourage these members to do business with DCU, and to
     encourage membership growth.

     DCU must be better than "competitive".  Being a credit union member
     does not oblige one to buy non-competitive products or services.  A
     credit union must uphold it's send of the deal and offer products and
     services which members value.  Rates on loans and savings must be
     carefully monitored and adjusted so that DCU can offer the best
     possible rates.  Fees must be held to a minimum to make doing business
     with DCU easy and affordable.

     Members should share in the success of DCU.  The membership made the
     credit union successful.  Member/owners should expect a return on
     their investment, and reward for their participation.  DCU shares
     profits with employees in the form of "Gainsharing." The ownership
     should expect no less, in the form of bonus dividends and loan
     interest rebates.  A portion of profits must be set aside each year
     for the membership.

     There must be a focus on services.  DCU's field of membership extends
     far bwyond Corporate Headquarters in Maynard, Mass.  DCU must be
     accessible to members who are not near a branch.  Programs must be
     established to make it easier to do business with DCU from a distance.

     DCU must listen to its membership.  The Board is the membership's
     voice to management.  62.1% of surveyed members believe "all members
     should have free checking." 82.5% believe excess profits should be
     shared with the membership.  Whenever possible, the Board should
     listen to, and implement, the wishes of the membership.

     Focus:  Protecting and Safeguarding our Equity

     The capital ratio must be grown.  A healthy equity base is our
     insurance against unforeseen circumstances in the future.  However,
     this should not be the sole focus of management and the Board.  it is
     time to better balance the needs of the membership with the need to
     build equity.

                   The decision is Yours - The Owners of DCU

     We believe it is inappropriate to fee the membership when there is no
     good business reason.  We should not divide ourselves into classes
     based on wealth or ability to save or borrow.  DCU is strong and
     healthy only when ALL members are able to fully participate.
     Candidates Christopher Fillmore-Gillett, David Garrod, and Director
     Philip Gransewicz stand prepared to lead DCU in this direction.
     Incumbent Director Paul Kinzelman has endorsed us and shares many of
     our views.  Together, the four of us can make DCU your first and best
     choice.


     This material was produced using the private funds of David Garrod, Philip
     Gransewicz and Christopher Fillmore-Gillett.
     3G's Election Campaign, P.O. Box 615, Bolton, MA 01740

     * Refers to new fees imposed in 1993 and 1994

Re .13, last sentence: I disagree strongly.

	paul

    
    Before my finger cool off and stiffen up, I had to make a few
    comments:
    
    
.50>      o  Maintained excellent loan and savings rates and kept fees to a
.50>         minimum.
    
    Of couse, Paul is one of five directors who voted FOR relationship
    banking and new fees, especially the nefarious checking account fee.
    
.50>     Ninety-two percent believe an individual member who bounces a check
.50>     should cover the cost rather than the entire membership.
    
    Ah, a classic red herring. Have any of the candidates ever argued
    against bounced check fees?
    
.50>                                                               When
.50>     presented with the cost generated by maintaining a low-balance
.50>     checking account, 67.8% of the membership agreed the member involved
.50>     should cover the costs.
    
    This statement is completely misleading. The membership has never been
    present with "the cost generated by maintaining a low-balance checking
    account"! What was presented was the potential profit difference
    between low-balance and high-balance accounts. DCU has never
    calculated the cost of maintaining an account, and at least one
    director maintains that DCU does not track the information that would
    allow it to calculate such a cost. In effect, the directors who voted
    in the fees could not know whether the fees were reasonable.
    

    
    RE .19:
    
    The definititive new rule (singular) from Corporate Employee Relations
    is posted in 1.15. A moderator interpretation is posted in 1.16.
    
    Please read and heed.
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    

    	First, let me thank those who must have typed like crazy
    to get various text in here for discussion, and to Steve Sherman
    for what is apparently becoming a dreadful task (SC).
    
    	I must say that I was more than a little surprised to see the
    SC analysis published as a part of the candidate "package".  There
    was certainly no NEED to include it, and such inclusion will certainly
    be construed as evidence of bias by some.  I would have strongly
    preferred that the candidates statements be packaged with no kind
    of introduction - just the facts (such as they may be...).  I
    presume that DCU paid for those pages to be reproduced/included;
    I do not consider that money well spent.
    
    	I will not ask why the SC decided this was the best course of
    action.  I'm sure that they must have reasons for doing so.  It is
    immaterial to me that "the review of the 3G's material was
    voluntarily made public" (note 862.23).  That's certainly NOT a
    reason to include it in the package (although it removes what might
    have been an obstacle to including it).
    
    	It is amusing to consider the possibility that someone might now
    claim that the SC has irrevocably tainted the current election process
    by including the review - and such a complaint gets initial review
    by the SC...
    
    	Well, I certainly don't wish to waste my time with such pursuits.
    I will continue to watch, wait, vote, and express my views as calmly
    as possible.  And I'm still thankful that when all is said and done,
    I still have the option to vote with my feet as well.
    
    Dave Eklund
                                           

    I am surprised that no one has even raised the issue of why DCU is
    selling or giving it's mailing list. I always thought that account
    information is confidential.  
    
    I wonder what other information is being sold by DCU.
    
    Ken

>>    I am surprised that no one has even raised the issue of why DCU is
>>    selling or giving it's mailing list. I always thought that account
>>    information is confidential.  
>>    
>>    I wonder what other information is being sold by DCU.
    
Ken, 

I don't believe that the DCU is 'selling or giving' the mailing list.  
What they have said is... you provide the materials and a payment and 
the DCU's mailing house will forward the materials.  No one ever sees 
the list.

//bruce

    I can accept that.
    
    Thanks
    
    Ken

My girlfriend, whose hand was shaken in January, got the
Ross/Haskins/Milbury flyer in the mail today.  I did not.
Same address.

- Jim

RE: .45

Would you please post your letter here or send me a copy?  If it covers
everything that I am concerned about I won't have to put one together.

		Thanks,
		Tony

    
     re: .50  Paul Milburys statement.
    
     Under accomplishments, Paul lists the following:
    
     o enahanced Board communication with the distribution of 
       Board Minutes and Special Memos
    
    
     Can anybody point me to Board Minutes or Special Memo's that
    were distributed by Mr. Milbury? I've only seen them in 
    this notesfile, and most, if not all, Board Minutes and memos were
    typed up and submitted by Phil Gransewicz. 
    
       

    Boy, this steams me ... I have been a member of the DCU since
    its inception.  I have always been happy with the DCU, and
    I will admit -- for the first time -- that I have never sent in
    my ballot for voting before.  
    
    This is the first time, that I have made an effort to VOTE,
    and I believe, as many of my friends do, that this election will
    be quite a surprize.  
    
    Honesty & hard work will win in the end.
    
    You can't "buy" this election at any cost.  Why waste money on
    material that people just will not believe and/or read!
    
    The bottom line is ...... VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE
    
    YOU WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

    I have received a reply from the SC to a complaint I lodged regarding
    the Ross/Haskins/Milbury mailing.  I would like to post it here, but
    first want to ask the moderator whether this is permissible.  I have
    received the mail as email direct from Sherman (representing the SC)
    addressed to me.  This mail contains neither permission nor prohibition
    from redistribution.  Since it was addressed to me I believe it is now
    my property to post if I wish.  Correct?

    Meanwhile, it says they reviewed the R/H/M materials and found "no
    major concerns" with i!#@$%.  What more can I say?

	Paul

    >Meanwhile, it says they reviewed the R/H/M materials and found "no
    >major concerns" with i!#@$%.  What more can I say?
    
    
    	Incredible ... absolutely incredible.

Included herein is the message I sent to the Supervisory Committee on
August 12th, along with the response I received today. I specifically asked
Steve Sherman for permission to post their response and he replied that
"the Supervisory Committee has no objections to [me] having [my]
 correspondence with [them] made public concerning this matter."

I have, as indicated below, removed the posting of 862.24 from this
conference from my original mailing to them, to eliminate material
available in this conference already.

-Jack



From:	TOOK::DELBALSO     "Jack DelBalso TAY2-2/C1 227-3744" 12-AUG-1994 12:14:54.79
To:	NACAD2::SHERMAN
CC:	DELBALSO
Subj:	A/Q/U: Request for review by DEFCU CU - Please verify successful receipt

To: Members of the Supervisory Committee
    of the DIGITAL Employees Federal Credit Union

Dear Supervisory Committee Members:

Pursuant to Rule 15 of the DCU BoD Election rules, I am hereby formally
requesting a comprehensive review and statement of opinion from this
committee with respect to the following materials, as to their compliance
with the above mentioned set of rules -
	The Candidate Statements currently being distributed at DCU
	   branches for candidates:
		Lisa Demauro-Ross
		Paul Milbury
		Lois Haskins
	The campaign flyer being mailed by the above three candidates
	   (which I've included an electronic version of here for
	    convenience sake, though I'd recommend your obtaining an
	    original document from the authors if possible to eliminate
	    and questions of discrepencies. Contact information is
	    included at the end of the attachment. This material was
	    extracted from the SMAUG::DCU notes conference, note 862.36.)

Please provide a review and opinion of similar depth to that which you
did for other candidates. (See note 862.36 in same conference for
reference.)

I will appreciate your formal response on this matter in as timely a
fashion as possible.

Respectfully,

Jack DelBalso
    DEFCU Shareholder

Attachment:

[Attachment removed for posting, 8/22/94, JDB]


From:	NETCAD::SHERMAN      "Steve NACAD::Sherman LKG2-A/R5 pole AA2 DTN 226-6992" 22-AUG-1994 12:26:03.54
To:	TOOK::DELBALSO
CC:	SHERMAN
Subj:	RE: A/Q/U: Request for review by DEFCU CU - Please verify successful receipt


				August 22, 1994                                
				
				Supervisory Committee
				Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union


Dear Jack,

This memo represents a formal response to you from the Supervisory Committee.
You should also be receiving a hard copy of this complaint from DCU in the 
near future.

The Supervisory Committee has carefully reviewed the materials distributed at 
DCU branches on behalf of Lisa Demauro Ross, Lois Haskins and Paul Milbury.
We have also reviewed materials sent by the above candidates by way of 
direct mailing that begins, "There will be no election that will have a
greater impact on your life ..."  The Supervisory Committee currently
has no major concerns regarding these materials as distributed with respect 
to the current election rules.

As the Supervisory Committee reviews candidate statements, care is taken to 
specifically address statements that appear to us to be provably defaming or 
misleading.  The Supervisory Committee concerns itself with serious violations 
of the election rules while recognizing that the candidates are entitled to 
express opposing views.  We attempt to review all campaign materials with a 
reasonable degree of tolerance.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this response, feel free to
contact any Supervisory Committee member.


				Sincerly,



				DCU Supervisory Committee

    re: .63
    
    Digital P&P prohibits the posting of mail message in a conference
    without the author's permission.  Please get permission from Steve
    Sherman before posting the response.
    
    Bob - Co-moderator DCU

It is becoming quite hard to view the SC as being unbiased.

The reply in .65 appears to be word for word the same as what I received,
so I won't bother get permission to post it.

I can no longer give the benefit of the doubt to the SC regarding their
neutrality.  Their bias can no longer be doubted.

	Paul

    They have NO ISSUE with the phamplet and statements??????
    
    
    UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!
    
    
    Any creditability of these election rules and enforcement just went
    right down the tubes....
    
    very disappointing

It's becoming pretty apparent that something very underhanded is going on here.

I just hope we'll eventually get to know the details, before it's too late.

Again, i'm afraid that the only way to straighten this mess out is to GET THE
3Gs ELECTED.  Anything that delays that only plays into the hands of the
existing power structure.  If they're not elected and this tainted process
seems to be the reason, a special meeting of the members should be called to
deal with this mess by whatever means necessary.
								- paul

This reminds me of Olympic judging in the Cold War days. The judges from
eastern-bloc countries would give great scores to eastern-bloc athletes, no
matter how they did, and miserable scores to Western athletes.

Any resemblance to the Supervisory Committee is ...

(And I'm NOT calling the SC communist - they clearly aren't, whatever else they
might be.)


At least non-Party candidates don't get shot. Only fired.

re: .71, Paul

> a special meeting of the members should be called to
> deal with this mess by whatever means necessary.

Provided they don't ammend the bylaws to require 30,000 signatures to call
a special meeting. 

-Jack

  Yup... I have been arguing for a Special Meeting for MONTHS... But I
get accused of starting a Nuclear War.

Again re: .71, Paul

>  If they're not elected and this tainted process
>  seems to be the reason

This is a potential dilemma, though. The last "election" was invalidated
prior to its conclusion when threat of suit existed due to "tainting".
If this election is allowed to conclude, and the results appear due to
a "taint", it's too late to invalidate the election. It may also be too
late to do _anything_ about it other than wait for the _next_ election,
which will undoubtedly be too late (assuming the special meeting requirements
are once again made unreasonable).

-Jack

    It may be too late to invalidate the election, but if this current
    crew is allowed to keep steering DCU's ship I'm bailing!!
    
    

I have edited one note, submitted it to legal, gotten comments back, made a
few changes and submitted it for approval.  I have also made a cut at the
other notes and have submitted them.

Now for the embarrassing part.  When all this discussion was going on, network
problems had cut my node off from the network and I had to access the notesfile
via an alternate node.  It appears that I managed to lose the copy of 862.39.
Would the author of 862.39 please send a copy of the document to me at
ROWLET::AINSLEY so I can edit and repost it.

Thanks,

Bob - Co-moderator DCU

This is the reposting of the Ross, Haskins, and Milbury mailer.  Deleted text
is represented by a series of ".....".  The length of the series of dots is
random.  It is determined by how long I happen to leave my finger on the "."
key.

Bob - Co-moderator DCU

================================================================================
Note 862.24               DCU Election Material Issues                  24 of 66
MONTOR::KYZIVAT "Paul Kyzivat"                      107 lines  11-AUG-1994 18:17
                  -< Mailing from Ross, Haskins, and Milbury >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who have not seen it, the following is a transcript of the mailer
sent out by candidates Ross, Haskins, and Milbury.  It does not seem to carry
a copyright, so hopefully I can't be sued for fired for typing it in.

I don't think there is anything I could say about it that would be more
meaningful than just reproducing it.

	Paul

[outside front cover]
    
    There will be no
    election that will have a
    greater impact on your life
    than the one that
    begins August 5th

[inside front page]

    A Remarkable Achievement

    Last year was the most successful year in the history of the Digital
    Employee's Federal Credit Union.  DCU improved financial performance,
    enhances services for members, and capital reserves were built...
    protecting your money!  This is a remarkable achievement given that it
    was just three years ago our credit union was in complete turmoil.
    Fraud committed by the former president, negative loan growth, and
    massive workforce reductions by our sponsor led to low member
    confidence and left our credit union teetering at the brink of
    financial ruin.

    DCU Federal Credit Union at a Crossroads

    We are at a crossroads and must decide whether to stay the course of
    fiscal responsibility and stability, or change directions, possibly
    landing the DCU in the same precarious position we were in before.
    When ballots are mailed out August 5th your vote is critical.  It is
    you who will decide which direction we are headed.  The choice is
    yours.

.................

[inside back page]

    Lisa DeMauro Ross

    In times of crisis great leaders rise to the occasion.  That is exactly
    what Lisa did as Board Chairperson the past two years.  When others
    would not have known what to do in the face of adversity Lisa moved
    confidently to bring DCU back to solid business principals...
    protection your investment in our credit union.

    Lois Haskins

    No candidate has greater ability in the areas that are important to the
    future of DCU than Lois Haskins.  She has great insight and experience
    in the areas of financial controls, investments, and planning.  These
    areas are critical in fulfilling the Board's most important
    responsibility... protecting your money.

    Paul Milbury

    As a member of the board over the past two years, Paul Milbury was a
    vital force in bringing stability and confidence back to the credit
    union.  Paul believes that it is time to now look to the future... it
    is time to look at ways to enhance the credit union for all members.

    THE TEAM OF ROSS, HASKINS AND MILBURY
    will provide long term security.  They will continue sound business
    practices while protecting the integrity of our credit union, to ensure
    that Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union will remain a special
    place of financial security for all members.

............

[outside back cover]

....

    P.O. Box 9116-199					CAR RT SORT
    Concord, MA 01742					Bulk Rate
							U.S. Postage
							PAID
							Lithographic
							Communications, L.P.
    

    This mailing was authorized and paid for by the candidates.  This
    mailing was not provided or endorsed by Digital Employees" Federal
    Credit Union and was mailed pursuant to DCU's 1994 Election Rules.
.................................

    I received a letter from the 3 G's that made me feel uneasy.  I've been
    a read only participant in this note file because I feel it's political
    correct, especially since the noters seem to be heavily pro 3 G's.   The
    letter stated I'm receiving this letter because I've been charged a fee
    and I'm a non relationship member ( I don't have the letter with me and
    I don't remember the exact words).  However, I am a relationship 
    member.  I woud like to know where did they get this information and
    does someone has access to my personal account information?
                              

    The short answer is no, I am certain that this mailing did not result 
    from any candidate accessing your personal account information.
    
    If you give me permission, I'll forward your note to the 3G's for a
    direct answer.  In the meantime, here is what is happening to the
    best of my understanding:
    
    1)  One of the new election rules specifically allows candidates to
    send mailings to DCU members, but does NOT allow the candidate access
    to the member mailing list or any part of it.  Instead, the candidate
    pays to have a mailing list company address and send the letters.
    
    2)  The non-G candidates used this priviledge, selecting a subset
    of the DCU members to send mailings to.  I don't know how they
    selected their subset, but in a number of cases (myself included)
    the non-Digital employee in the family received a copy of their
    brochure and the Digital employee in the family did not.
    
    3)  Later, the 3G candidates sent out a mailing.  Phil told me that
    they asked the DCU to send the mailing only to those members who had
    been charged a fee for use of their checking account.  I understand
    that the DCU reported to them that there were about 10K names matching 
    this description.  Clearly the list went back in time a ways, since 
    only about 9K of these names matched against *current* members.
    
    
    I have no idea why you got one of the 3G mailings if you are a
    relationship member and haven't paid a checking account fee.
    Perhaps you were charged a fee at some point before the relationship
    system was put in place?  Maybe Phil can find out for you how the
    DCU happened to put you on that list, if you want him to.
    
    In any case, based on what I've been told, the 3G candidates did not
    even know that you were on the list of people their mailing was sent 
    to.  I'll ask the 3G's to contact you with more information, if you
    give me permission to forward your note to them.  
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

    I'm not a relationship member, but I also do not pay fees. However, at
    one point I was charged a fee *by mistake*. The mistake was corrected
    that same month, but it still showed up as a fee (followed by a
    credit). Possibly something similar happened here?
    
    Marleen (usually read-only)

No, no one outside DCU is viewing your account.  The 3Gs asked, fully
according to election rules, * DCU *  to mail these flyers to members
who, at some point were non-relationship members.

If you are not being charged fees for chequing that doesn't necessarily
mean that you are a relationship member ... There are other ways to meet
free chequing. If you are really a relationship member and have been since
inception of this plan, then there is some technical glitch in DCU that
has had you on a non-relatioinship member status at some point.

So, bottom line ... 3Gs send flyers to DCU with a mailing list request
and DCU send the flyers according to members meeting the 3Gs selection
criteria.

Your account information is still as safe as always.

Stuart

    I guess they weren't kidding about 'quiet time', huh?

    I want my bankie back!  He took it!!!

Be vewwy, vewwy quiet...
		-Elmer Fudd

    re .84
    
    It's a kwedit union, not a bankie.

re Note 862.86 by HYDRA::BECK:

>     It's a kwedit union, not a bankie.

        Can you substantiate that?

    So when are we supposed to hear about the results?
    
    I've lost track as to when the cut-off for voting and such was (since I
    sent my stuff in well before the deadline).
    
    Gee.. quiet time has really been quiet!
    
    janetb.

    
    The polls close (and the quite time ends) tomorrow.
    
    The results are announced at the annual members meeting, 20-Sep.
    

    Last one voting, please turn out the lights!