| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 512.1 | | CSC32::S_MAUFE | society needs a cat proof keyboard. | Thu Mar 26 1992 18:52 | 7 |
|
well done!
excellent work by somebody somewhere!
Simon
|
| 512.2 | Wonder when the WSJ will sideline it? | 16BITS::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Thu Mar 26 1992 20:10 | 6 |
| re: .0
Well, isn't that SPECIAL?
:^)
-Jack
|
| 512.3 | Interesting DCU statements | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | REAL CHOICES for a REAL CREDIT UNION | Fri Mar 27 1992 00:00 | 56 |
| >At most, they say, DCU has
>withheld financial information from members.
>
>DCU hotly disputes that claim.
>
>"We have a policy that any member can write to the credit union and get
>any information that they want," said DCU spokeswoman Mary Madden. "Are
>we keeping information from these particular members? No."
Hmmm... I guess all those rejections for not having the magic business
reason don't count. Or maybe this means DCU will NOW release the
information and documents we ask for. Wait a minute, I figured it out.
They aren't "keeping information from these particular members",
they're keeping information from *ALL* members.
>DCU's participation loans with the Barnstable Credit Union began to
>default last year. The credit union lost $290,000 for the first six
>months ending June 1991, according to annualized figures of NCUA, as a
>result of bad loans.
Ouch! No wonder they aren't releasing the 1991 Annual Report before the
annual meeting. I guess we can thank Treasurer Susan Shapiro who states
one of her priorities is "make sound business decisions to further
strengthen DCU's financial position". And Abbott Weiss gets second
billing for supporting the basics, one of which is "conservative
financial policies". And WE aren't qualified to run a credit union?
Pretty unbelievable if you think about it.
> It was "several" out-of-state credit union members who prompted DCU to
> change its bylaws, according to Madden. They complained it was unfair
> that a small group of members - 1,300 of whom showed up for the special
> meeting - could decide issues of the credit union. The NCUA
> pre-approved the bylaws ammendment, Madden added.
OK, let me get this straight. We submit 1220 signatures to call a
special meeting, over 1300 people show up, some were turned away, and
that was unfair. "Several" members call to complain so they make a
change that damn near eliminates the right to call a Special Meeting.
It's logic like this that has brought the credit union to the condition
it's in.
> The two incumbents are uniquely qualified, Madden countered, and were
> choosen from a pool of 42 applicants.
"The two incumbents are uniquely qualified"??? I have to admit Mary
Madden is correct. They are "uniquely qualified" to direct a striving
credit union from good condition to bad condition. What we need now
though are people "uniquely qualified" to bring it back to health.
Mary's statements are beginning to insult the intelligence of informed
DCU members.
> Madden declined to comment on the Real Choices candidates.
Thank God for small favors.
|
| 512.4 | | 16BITS::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Fri Mar 27 1992 01:20 | 12 |
| re: .3
Your points are well taken, Phil. And they ought to be intuitively obvious
to the most casual observer.
But it _was_ a great article, wasn't it? And it got all of the issues
(including the now well known DCU sidestep) out in the open quite well.
Yes. Special!
-Jack
|
| 512.5 | | 16BITS::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Fri Mar 27 1992 01:33 | 10 |
| Another observation I make is that this article is not particularly good
press for DEC. Oh, it's not as damaging as the recent Washington Post bit
about the expense account abuse. But it does pretty clearly point out that
the right thing isn't necessarily being done at DEC as frequently anymore.
And, of course, the article _IS_, after all, quite factual.
Oh, well, call a spade a spade, I guess. Maybe DEC, the corporation, should
have put more thought into what the right thing to do was regarding the DEFCU.
-Jack
|
| 512.6 | So many quotes, so little truth | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | REAL CHOICES for a REAL CREDIT UNION | Fri Mar 27 1992 03:22 | 13 |
|
RE: .4 & .5
Yes Jack, the article is pretty factual. Some minor exaggeration, a
few minor inaccuracies, but overall an decent portrayal of the
situation.
It's always interesting to hear those DCU quotes though. Unfortunately,
the uninformed DCU members out there might believe some of it. But it
still should be noted the doublespeak and BS is still coming from
DCU. I would have expected it to improve by now. Maybe someday
soon...
|
| 512.7 | Reporting the truth doesn't always mean it was told | 16BITS::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Fri Mar 27 1992 10:23 | 5 |
| Well, of course, just because the article honestly reported the statements
of the DEFCU, that doesn't necessarily man that there was any basis in fact
in the statements being made. :^)
-Jack
|
| 512.8 | Maybe they'll be communicative after election? | MLTVAX::SCONCE | Bill Sconce | Fri Mar 27 1992 10:52 | 9 |
|
.0> The nine
.0> DCU-nominated candidates declined to comment or did not return phone
.0> calls by the Boston Business Journal.
Really? All nine?
But they're ready to lead Massachusetts' largest credit union?
|
| 512.9 | We need even more Press | XCUSME::LEVY | | Fri Mar 27 1992 11:39 | 11 |
| Welcome back to Ms. Madden! I've missed her.
Can't help but wonder why the major papers (the Globe for instance)
don't show any interest in the story. No offense to the papers that
have shown interest, by the way, but I never see them. Maybe when the
election deadline is closer the news media will step in, but stories now
will enlighten those members whose only information on the subject
would have to be what's made public.
Janet
|
| 512.10 | Permission to fwd | PLOUGH::KINZELMAN | Paul Kinzelman | Fri Mar 27 1992 12:08 | 5 |
| Re: .0
Forgot to mention (thanks Phil) that .0 may be forwarded to any DCU
member, tho since it's only a publically available newspaper reprint,
permission from me should be irrelevant.
|
| 512.11 | Things that make you go "Hmmmmm...." | AOSG::GILLETT | Petition candidate for DCU BoD | Fri Mar 27 1992 12:21 | 23 |
| DCU says:
"We have a policy that any member can write to the credit union and get
any information that they want," said DCU spokeswoman Mary Madden. "Are
we keeping information from these particular members? No."
DCU does:
12 December 1991, letter from Sandra Ramalho, DCU information officer:
"Your request for specific bonding information on DCU's officials
is denied. Generally speaking, howeever, officials and directors
are provided with the maximum coverage available from our insurer,
as well as indemnification, as authorized by the NCUA, to the
maximum permitted by law.
Finally, we maintain our response to your request for Participation
Loan Agreement information as stated in our correspondence to you
date 12 November 1991."
Their response to my 12-November-1991 information request regarding the
Participation Loan Agreement was to deny it.
|
| 512.12 | | INDUCE::SHERMAN | ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 | Fri Mar 27 1992 13:21 | 25 |
| There is a fundamental thing that we engineers often fail to understand
about upper-level management. It is that, good or bad, *any*
experience that an upper-level manager gets makes the manager more
qualified for the next job.
When I worked for Mostek about 10 years ago they hired in a bunch of
high-level managers at a high price. These were brought in because
Mostek was going through difficult times and needed to get the very
best managers that money could buy. These managers came from the
then-failing International Harvester company. The reason they were so
intent on bringing them in, and they told us this reason, was that
having worked in a failing company, these new managers now knew how to
avoid making the same mistakes at Mostek ...
I learned that the *only* thing that looks bad on the resume of an
upper-level manager is having managed a company that stayed the same.
If they led the company to new fiscal heights, they are more qualified.
And, if they drove the company into bankruptcy, they are more
qualified.
Thus, though engineers may look at a manager as being less qualified
after running an organization poorly, others may well regard them as
more qualified for the exact same reasons.
Steve
|
| 512.13 | Amazing. Simply amazing. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri Mar 27 1992 14:09 | 38 |
|
RE: <<< Note 512.0 by PLOUGH::KINZELMAN "Paul Kinzelman" >>>
-< Boston Business Journal on the DCU election >-
> The band of rebels, calling itself "Real Choices," gathered 9,000
> signatures to get on the ballot for the Digital Employees' Federal
> Credit Union's (DCU) election of its board of directors next month.
> They are up against nine top-level managers, including one vice
> president, all hand-picked by DCU's nominating committee.
It seems that "the right thing" is being done; BUT by whom and to whom?
> "We have a policy that any member can write to the credit union and get
> any information that they want," said DCU spokeswoman Mary Madden. "Are
> we keeping information from these particular members? No."
Amazing. Simply amazing.
> While the Real Choices candidates are concerned with the credit union's
> fiscal health and management, the group's biggest beef is that DCU
> quietly changed its bylaws a day after November's special meeting to
> require 5,000 signatures to call special meetings in the future. Only
> 200 signatures were necessary to call last November's meeting, although
> 1,200 shareholders signed that petition.
>
> New rules
>
> It was "several" out-of-state credit union members who prompted DCU to
> change its bylaws, according to Madden. They complained it was unfair
> that a small group of members - 1,300 of whom showed up for the special
> meeting - could decide issues of the credit union. The NCUA
> pre-approved the bylaws ammendment, Madden added.
If the answer was *so* simple, how come we haven't heard it before this?
|
| 512.14 | | DEMING::DEMING::VALENZA | Life's good, but not fair at all. | Fri Mar 27 1992 14:16 | 6 |
| This is a rathole, but I did want to point out that a lot of DCU
members are not engineers (myself included). Among the Digital
employees who belong to the DCU are those with a variety of job titles,
spanning many different organizations.
-- Mike
|
| 512.15 | | TOMK::KRUPINSKI | I'm voting for 'REAL CHOICES' candidates in the DEFCU election | Fri Mar 27 1992 14:27 | 7 |
| > Among the Digital employees who belong to the DCU are those with a
> variety of job titles, spanning many different organizations.
Wouldn't it be nice if the DEFCU BoD reflected that diversity of
job titles and organizations.
Tom_K
|
| 512.16 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | I like it this way. | Fri Mar 27 1992 16:02 | 4 |
| Re .12 -- Mostek
Maybe we should hire in a bunch of S&L convicts to be our
new DCU BOD!
|
| 512.17 | No comments about non RE/QB candidates either | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Fri Mar 27 1992 16:51 | 5 |
| 512.18 | | INDUCE::SHERMAN | ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 | Fri Mar 27 1992 16:56 | 11 |
| re: .16
You know, sorry to go off on (even more of a) tangent, but I will not be
surprised when many of the former S&L biggies and stock market gurus
now in the pen have little trouble getting similar jobs when they
get out. The point is many of us forget that often the perception
of being "qualified" boils down to having both good and bad experience.
Sorry that I singled out engineers.
Steve
|
| 512.19 | Clarification please? | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | REAL CHOICES for a REAL CREDIT UNION | Fri Mar 27 1992 17:38 | 13 |
| 512.20 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Fri Mar 27 1992 17:53 | 7 |
| 512.21 | ????? | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | REAL CHOICES for a REAL CREDIT UNION | Fri Mar 27 1992 17:58 | 10 |
|
RE: .20
I still have no idea of what you are trying to say or what your point
is. .20 added to the other reply leaves me even more baffled.
Anybody else know what he's talking about or trying to point out? I
usually pickup on his cute little replies but these escape me.
HELP!
|
| 512.22 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Fri Mar 27 1992 18:04 | 12 |
| OK, I'll try to slow down and spell it out.
The article says that Real Choices candidates were excluded from
contacting the DCU membership due to the $20K price tag. It then goes
on and mentions that the Qualified Board candidates came up with a
method for contacting the membership. Taken at face value, the article
implies that the Qualified Board Candidates had an unfair advantage in
communications over the Real Choices candidates, when in reality, they
have both excercised the same tactics. If anything, the Real Choices
candidates have been able to reach out to more people since their flyer
did not violate P&P, they actively participate in the notesfile, and
there is an electronic mail distribution of information.
|
| 512.23 | Flyers vs Flyers | SLOAN::HOM | | Fri Mar 27 1992 18:12 | 68 |
| re: .17 comments on flyers. Both flyers contain some amount of rhetoric.
For those who haven't seen one or both, here is a side by side comparison.
For any voters who haven't decided, please read the ballots as well
as the "Vote for a Qualified Board" flyer and the "Real Choices"
flyer and make YOUR OWN informed decision.
I have extracted fully the position statements from both sides and
attempted to make a side by side comparison. Deepay Goyal does NOT
support have him name associated with the Qualified board flyer.
Disclosure: Though I am a BOD candidate I have made every attempt to
transcribe accurately the points on the QB flyer as well as the RC
flyer. No changes were made in the wording; no points were added or
removed from the original flyers. I did shift the order of the QB
points so that the reader more easily compare the two.
Gim
Extracted from "Real Choices" Flyer | Extracted from "Qualified Board" flyer
--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------
|
o Restore membership confidence | * full disclosure of audited financial
through more extensive, honest, and | reports
open communication about what is | * on going communications
happening at *our* credit union. | * quality member service
No more glossy brochures offering |
"more choices" that are actually |
fee increases. |
|
o Return power to the members by |
reviewing all recent bylaw changes |
and seeking membership approval for |
future bylaw changes. Rescind the |
bylaw change that requires 5,000 |
signatures to call another special |
meeting. |
|
o Increase membership feedback into |
credit union operations and restore |
member involvement in advisory and |
oversight committees. Recognize |
that most members are good credit |
risks and should be treated that |
way. |
|
o Improve the financial status of the | * competitive savings and loans rates
DCU by focusing on long range | within sound business practices
solutions instead of short term |
fixes. Focus on loaning money to |
members at good rates and try to |
hold the line on fee increases. |
|
o Review the lending and investment | * fiscal saftety and soundness
practices that led to the current |
state of the DCU, and report |
findings to the membership. |
|
o In short, turn the DCU back into |
the successful credit union it once |
was. We need a credit union that |
is committed to serving its |
members, not one that is committed |
to trying to imitate a commercial |
bank. |
|
|
| 512.24 | Thanks, Gim | BSS::C_BOUTCHER | | Fri Mar 27 1992 18:25 | 5 |
| re:23
Good summary. Thanks for going to the effort to do this.
|
| 512.25 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | DCU -- I'm making REAL CHOICES | Fri Mar 27 1992 18:30 | 15 |
|
Re .22: I have to ask, Mr. MacNeal... were you able to write .22 with a
straight face? :-)
Both sides in this matter have been able to reach a rather small
percentage of the DCU membership by distributing information at DEC
facilities. (The relative merit and acceptability of their tactics is
left to another discussion.)
The crux of the "contacting the DCU membership" issue is that petition
candidates were barred from contacting each and every DCU member,
through a mailing, because they couldn't possibly cough up the $20,000+
privately, while the nominated candidates were given that exposure through
the use of DEC resources. On that count, the article was dead-on correct.
|
| 512.26 | Darn, following P&P helped us... | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | REAL CHOICES for a REAL CREDIT UNION | Fri Mar 27 1992 18:42 | 29 |
|
RE: .22
No need to slow down, just to adequately explain what you're talking
about. If you had taken the time originally to enter .22, then at
least I would have known what you are trying to say.
You think the paragraph you quote is related to a paragraph two
paragraphs back dealing with a direct mailing? I guess that's your
interpretation but I didn't correlate the two that way.
BTW, I think the first paragraph describes RC flyer efforts. Miss that
one? It is a bit disjoint though. I could see how you wouldn't
correlate the two.
>If anything, the Real Choices
>candidates have been able to reach out to more people since their flyer
>did not violate P&P, they actively participate in the notesfile, and
>there is an electronic mail distribution of information.
Sorry, we can't help it if we took the time to know and understand DEC
P & P and Ray Schmalz and Mark Steinkrauss did not. Looks like 'doing
the right thing' paid off for us. As for notesfile participation, last
I knew this was not a private conference. I think some people have
dang near begged these people to participate. And yes, electronic mail
distribution of information is very important. Why aren't people who
say they stand for open communication, communicating NOW? Or are they
only saying that because that's what the polls tell them people are
concerned about? Everybody must read, listen and decide for themselves.
|
| 512.27 | Amazing | STAR::BUDA | DCU Elections - Vote for a change... | Fri Mar 27 1992 19:18 | 11 |
| RE: .22 (MACNEAL)
>contacting the DCU membership due to the $20K price tag. It then goes
>on and mentions that the Qualified Board candidates came up with a
>method for contacting the membership. Taken at face value, the article
I think it would have been fair for DCU to help pass out handouts for
RE/QB. Seems sort of starnge to see DCU management asking site DCU
managers to pass them out for the QB group.
-mark
|
| 512.28 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Fri Mar 27 1992 19:28 | 12 |
| 512.29 | | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | REAL CHOICES for a REAL CREDIT UNION | Fri Mar 27 1992 19:50 | 34 |
|
RE: .28
Now calm down Keith. No need to burst an artery this late on a Friday
afternoon. Let's talk about this some.
> Of course you didn't. There is never any correlation between the way
> the Real Choices candidates operate and the way the
> Bod/QB/Establishment operates. I should know that by know I've been
> told enough times. Sorry.
All this from one sentence you pull out of that article huh? We didn't
write the article Mr. Macneal. I suggest your beef is with the
reporter. Give her a call and chew her out. Ooops, but wait. She did
say she tried to contact them for comment but they wouldn't comment or
didn't return the calls. Darn! There we go again. Guess we should
have forced them to communicate their side of the story. We really are
a band of no-good-niks. 8-)
> The criticism of my comments is somewhat ironic coming from someone who
> appears to love to find such correlations and hidden meanings in other
> publications.
Criticism? Where did I criticize your comments? I went to great
efforts to understand what you were trying to say. All I said was that
I didn't interpret it the way you did. Sorry for that harsh "criticism".
Now don't go saying such nasty things without backing them up Mr.
Macneal. Let's see the proof. Or is it that you just don't interpret
some things the way I do? Oh well, that's what makes this all so
*interesting*. There wouldn't be anything to discuss if we all saw and
interpretted things in the same way, right?
Have a nice weekend Keith!
|
| 512.30 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Fri Mar 27 1992 19:54 | 5 |
| My initial comments were criticism of the article. I haven't and
didn't intend to criticize any of the candidates. I just pointed out
something that appeared to be a bit slanted. This is commonly done
with DCU literature and the criticisms are rarely questioned.
Something Jim Oppelt said springs to mind...
|
| 512.31 | | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | REAL CHOICES for a REAL CREDIT UNION | Fri Mar 27 1992 20:23 | 27 |
|
RE: .30
Ahhhhh.... Then I am right? You're beef IS with the reporter. I
suggest you call her immediately and complain. But I suspect she would
tell you what I have already attempted to point out to you; 1) RC flyer
activity was mentioned in the first paragragh and 2) they wouldn't
comment. Geesh, how much do you expect a reporter to do if people
don't comment or return calls?
And again, you attempt to pin this on RC people. Do you not believe
the name of the person who wrote the article?
>This is commonly done
>with DCU literature and the criticisms are rarely questioned.
People can post whatever they wish. But if people ask them to defend
their statements or accusations, what's the big deal? That's what is
commonly called debate, discussion, the exchange of opinions, etc.
>Something Jim Oppelt said springs to mind...
Oh geez, here we go. Why bother getting into discussions if all you're
going to do is shutdown and claim people are beating up on you? I've
hoped for a long time you would post some replies with sufficient
content to warrant a discussion. Guess you don't like to discuss things.
Oh well, sorry for all the attempts to communicate. I tried...
|
| 512.32 | Make DCU a better place for our money!!!! | F18::ROBERT | | Fri Mar 27 1992 20:34 | 6 |
| All of us people are trying to make DCU a better place for our money.
Let's keep this our goal. I think this is what we all are trying to do.
Dave
|
| 512.33 | | SCHOOL::RIEU | Support DCU Petition Candidates | Mon Mar 30 1992 14:17 | 5 |
| Mac,
Do you think spending $20,000+ plus of DEC money for the Sims memo
was a justified expense. You've been avoiding this issue, which is one
of the major points.
Denny
|
| 512.34 | | VERGA::WELLCOME | Steve Wellcome (Maynard) | Mon Mar 30 1992 15:17 | 13 |
| Does anybody have any more information about that $290,000 loss the
credit union is supposed to have had between January and June of last
year?
I've lost track of the timeline here, but weren't we being told by
the DCU "powers that be" last summer that everything was just fine
financially with DCU?
Why hasn't information about the loss shown up in the DCU quarterly
reports? Quite likely my total ignrorance of accounting is showing,
but it seems to me as though it should have...assuming the BBJ statement
about the loss is true.
Can any accounting gurus enlighten me?
|
| 512.35 | | PATE::MACNEAL | ruck `n' roll | Mon Mar 30 1992 15:58 | 6 |
| 512.36 | | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | REAL CHOICES for a real CU! | Mon Mar 30 1992 16:10 | 59 |
|
RE: .34
> Does anybody have any more information about that $290,000 loss the
> credit union is supposed to have had between January and June of last
> year?
No more info on it but I can guarantee you that the 1991 Annual Report
will show MUCH more than a $290K loss. DCU (according to Chuck
Cockburn) was going to write all the bad loans off by the end of the
year. Expect to see a loss in the millions. It's hard to tell exactly
how much we'll see because DCU will also be applying this year's
earnings against the losses. Then add in the cost of lawyers, etc. and
it all becomes a haze.
> I've lost track of the timeline here, but weren't we being told by
> the DCU "powers that be" last summer that everything was just fine
> financially with DCU?
Now that you mention it, wasn't Mary Madden, DCU Communications Dept.,
telling callers that DCU hasn't lost anything or something to that
effect? Her comment that the incumbents are uniquely qualififed certainly
puts things into perspective.
But I think DCU was also telling people that DCU was 'safe and sound',
which is correct, to a point. DCU is 'safe' since deposits are
guaranteed by the government (NCUA) which boils down to guaranteed by
our tax money if NCUA can't take the hit. As for 'sound', I guess they
can always claim they didn't know the full extent of the losses at that
point. But the losses never threatened to wipe out all the equity DCU
had taken 11 years to accumulate.
> Why hasn't information about the loss shown up in the DCU quarterly
> reports? Quite likely my total ignrorance of accounting is showing,
> but it seems to me as though it should have...assuming the BBJ statement
> about the loss is true.
> Can any accounting gurus enlighten me?
It has been showing up in the monthly statements of condition as
declining equity. These statements are snapshots of account balances
at the end of the period. They are similar to a balance sheet and are
not meant to reflect income and expenses. I believe statements that
DCU submits to the NCUA (twice a year) are available by requesting them
from the NCUA under FOIA. I think that is how these independent rating
agencies get the info they use to evaluate credit unions, banks, etc.
I called one agency (Veribank) and 1991 end-of-year data won't be
available until mid-April. Their evaluation for the first six months
of 1991 agrees with what was reported in this article (might even be
the same source).
The 1991 Annual Meeting could be a real shocker in more ways than
one. The old Board leaves one hell of a mess for the new Board to deal
with. People shouldn't expect miracles in a short time no matter who
is elected. But the actions taken can certainly go a long ways towards
re-building membership confidence and trust in DCU. I think the
membership will stay for the long hual if they feel DCU can be trusted
once again, to 'do the right thing'. If they don't, DCU could be in
for some real rocky times ahead. Simply stated, April 23rd is going to
be a defining moment in DCU's history.
|
| 512.37 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | DCU -- I'm making REAL CHOICES | Mon Mar 30 1992 16:31 | 12 |
|
.34> I've lost track of the timeline here, but weren't we being told by
.34> the DCU "powers that be" last summer that everything was just fine
.34> financially with DCU?
.36> Now that you mention it, wasn't Mary Madden, DCU Communications Dept.,
.36> telling callers that DCU hasn't lost anything or something to that
.36> effect? Her comment that the incumbents are uniquely qualififed certainly
.36> puts things into perspective.
Good memory, Phil -- refer to note 258.6.
|