Conference 7.286::dcu

    I'd like to know if all parties are considered to have broken the
    'rules', or only certain 'camps'.  Assuming 3-Gs have not broken any
    rules, the election should not have been postponed, unless 1 or more of
    those candidates lost - and then challenged the election process, IMHO.
    
    Mark

    re .1 - your bias is showing..
    
    A variety of the activity taking place during the election has been
    questioned as "against the rules" (whatever they are at this moment). 
    Since it has been established that the rules have changed during the
    process and the results have not been tallied, it is fair to cancel the
    entire election, whether or not the outcome may be favorable to those
    that questioned the (changing) rules.  If the results had been
    challenged after the fact, then the results would have been invalid if
    the process had been found to be flawed.
    
    Since actual numbers of votes are important (determines how many years
    the BOD member sits for), I believe that it is important to invalidate
    the election if the process is flawed, whether or not the winners are
    those that challenged the process, or those that didn't.
    
    Rich

re: .2, Rich

>    Since actual numbers of votes are important (determines how many years
>    the BOD member sits for)

Unless I'm mistaken, this is incorrect. I believe all seats were for terms of
equal length. The only time seats of longer duration were in question was in
the 1992 election when the entire board was replaced. This was necessary in
order for all seats not to expire at the same time.

re: General

I agree that the invalidation was important regardless of whom the tainted
process may have affected positively or adversely - that's the only fair
alternative.

But I sorely wish we didn't need to go through this mess all over again. I
was really looking forward to a conclusion next week. So, it's fair, it's
right, it's proper, but I'd rather it were over.

-Jack

    At least there is some justice in the world!

    I would love to read the minutes of the meetings where this decision
    was reached, but I assume they will all be redacted.

    A remaining questions is how to draw the new rules to even the playing
    field and undo the damage which has been done.  (It will be hard to
    erase the messages which have been conveyed given that the same people
    are running.)

	Paul

    
    Something smells.  They should have pulled the plug weeks ago.
    It's too late now.  They should have waited until after the votes
    were counted and acted on any complaints if, and only if, the
    original complainants wished it pursued.
    
    Mike
    

    RE: .5 I disagree. I am glad that they didn't wait until the votes
    were counted. For one thing I suspect that complaints came from
    multiple "sides". It was almost a sure thing that someone would
    want to follow through on complaints no matter how the election
    came out. No good would have been served by waiting until the
    votes were counted. If complaints were not acted on or ruled
    as insufficient to invalidate the election those elected would be
    seated "under a cloud" with lots of people still questioning the
    election. That would not, IMO, be good.

    I really don't think that two weeks ago would have made any difference.
    Three weeks ago there probably wasn't cause. The timing is as good as
    it could be assuming it had to be done at all.

    I was hoping this would all be behind us next Thursday. Given the
    amount of complaints though I don't see how it could have been. I
    await a second election, with clear and (probably) strict rules. I
    look forward to a Supervisory Committee keeping close and impartial
    watch on the process. At the conclusion I hope for a clear mandate
    unclouded by allegations and suspicion for who ever gets elected.

    			Alfred

>    RE: .5 I disagree. I am glad that they didn't wait until the votes
>    were counted. 

Was there an expected date/time the votes would actually be tallied?  I
had thought they were 'processed' as they were received (just an assumption
on my part).  The election SHOULD have been called much sooner than this!!!
What was that saying about Denmark?

    
    Re:
    
>QBUS::M_PARISE "Southern, but no comfort"             8 lines  23-APR-1994 21:15
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    
>    Something smells.  They should have pulled the plug weeks ago.
>    It's too late now.  They should have waited until after the votes
>    were counted and acted on any complaints if, and only if, the
>    original complainants wished it pursued.
>    
>    Mike
 
    Exactly. You have hit the nail SQUARELY on the head.
    
    As a candidate in this election I am outraged at the action of the DCU.
    I was informed on Wednesday April 20th by DCU's General Counsel
    Joseph Melchione that the "current election in which you are a
    candidate has been invalidated".
    
    It is my belief (backed up by legal opinion) that the board went beyond
    its powers in invalidating the election. A Board has no right to
    override provisions in its bylaws. Those bylaws clearly spell out how
    an election should be conducted ie things like dates of notification,
    nomination and petition processes and most importantly of all the
    scheduling of the annual meeting.
    
    I have documented in a Supervisory Committee complaint (an edited
    version appears in .0 of a previous note) clear violations of the
    bylaws by DCU employees. In my opinion Chris Fillmore-Gillett, Phil
    Gransewicz and myself have not violated the provisions of any DCU
    bylaws. We have certainly not been informed of any such violations.
    If we had inadvertently contravened a DCU bylaw I can assure everybody
    that we would have done our best to fix whatever the problem was
    IMMEDIATELY.
    
    The clear bylaw violations I complained about were not dealt with AT
    ALL. The DCU President refused to stop his employees from sourcing
    election literature. He said it was only being done during employee
    breaks which he couldn't control. Even if I accept that (which I don't)
    it defies belief that the President of the Credit Union feels he has
    no control over what employees do on DCU premises. Of course he does.
    That's like saying he couldn't prevent his employees from smoking on
    DCU premises during their breaks. As we well know corporations are
    completely free to impose rules on their employees eg Digital's No
    Smoking Policy.
    
    As for my complaint to the Supervisory Committee I feel their action is
    wholely wrong. The correct action would have been to IMMEDIATELY worked
    through the board to get the DCU President to ensure his employees did
    not violate the provisions of the bylaws. As a candidate I feel I have
    been irretrievably damaged by the failure of the DCU to react
    immediately. Having a new election WILL NOT mitigate that damage.
    Not to mention how can I be sure that the many new rules that are now
    being talked about will be enforced any more successfully than the
    one bylaw rule (no employee electioneering) that was well and truly
    flouted.
    
    But the key thing to all this is that the board (in my opinion) has
    absolutely no right whatsoever to invalidate an election. They have set
    a precident. There is not even ONE CASE covered that falls under the
    jurisdiction of the Federal Credit Union Act or Mass Corporate Law
    where a board has invalidated a properly constituted election.
    
    The way this seems to be being looked at is as follows:
    
    	Both sides have made complaints so let's just reset things to
        ground zero.
    
    This I believe is a totally invalid view for the following reasons:
    
    	1, The Board has absolutely no right to invalidate the election
    	   even if there are bylaw violations. That should be dealt
    	   with in the courts after the election is over.
    
    	2, As far as I'm aware there are absolutely ZERO bylaw violations
    	   by myself and associated candidates or our supporters.
           Accusations of what one candidate has said about another are issues
    	   between those two candidates only and SHOULD NOT involve the
    	   DCU. If damage is alleged then that should be settled through
    	   civil litigation in the courts.   
    
    	3, If the DCU as an entity feels it has been damaged by one or
    	   more candidates that is again something to be settled between
    	   the DCU and the candidates in the courts. Invalidating the
    	   election should not even be a consideration.
    
    I strongly believe that the election should be declared at the annual
    meeting (sure it has to be postponed now) because DCU has decided to
    send out letters telling people that (more waste of DCU funds). But
    under no circumstances should there be a new election. Fairness just
    doesn't come into it. What comes into it is what the Bylaws say.
    
    Dave, a candidate in the now "invalidated" election.

    re: .7
    
    The saying is, "Der er noget galt i Danmark."  Or, for all you
    non-danskers, "There is something rotten in Denmark."  As a Supervisory
    Committee member, there's a lot I can't say.  But, I will say this, it
    is my personal opinion that we on the Committee have acted as quickly, as 
    reasonably and as fairly as we can on this and other issues.  Every 
    indication I have is of a Supervisory Committee that is demonstrating 
    commitment to being objective, sticking to the facts, acting fairly and 
    acting with the highest integrity.
         
    Steve  

    
    Re:
    
>    RE: .5 I disagree. I am glad that they didn't wait until the votes
>    were counted. For one thing I suspect that complaints came from
>    multiple "sides". It was almost a sure thing that someone would
>    want to follow through on complaints no matter how the election
>    came out. No good would have been served by waiting until the
>    votes were counted. If complaints were not acted on or ruled
>    as insufficient to invalidate the election those elected would be
>    seated "under a cloud" with lots of people still questioning the
>    election. That would not, IMO, be good.

    I disagree. Anybody can complain. It is what is proved that counts.
    That requires evidence and a finding.
    
    
>    I really don't think that two weeks ago would have made any difference.
>    Three weeks ago there probably wasn't cause. The timing is as good as
>    it could be assuming it had to be done at all.

    I strongly disagree. I informed the DCU Supervisory Committee of the
    DCU Employee Bylaw violations on 25th March (1 month ago). I met
    personally with Chuck Cockburn on 28th March to personally inform him
    of the DCU Employee Bylaw violations. Neither complaint was acted upon
    in a timely manner. A new election won't undo the harm done to
    my candidacy by that employee participation. About the only thing that
    could possibly mitigate it is DCU sending out a note to ALL members
    informing them that the DCU employee participation in the election was
    against the bylaws and that any partisan information they obtained from
    them should not be considered in the "rerun" election. Now what do you
    think my chances are of getting that to occur?
    
>    I was hoping this would all be behind us next Thursday. Given the
>    amount of complaints though I don't see how it could have been. I
>    await a second election, with clear and (probably) strict rules. I
>    look forward to a Supervisory Committee keeping close and impartial
>    watch on the process. At the conclusion I hope for a clear mandate
>    unclouded by allegations and suspicion for who ever gets elected.
    
    A question. If it is so important to have a well run election why
    wasn't it done the first time? What makes you think things will be any
    different the next time? The leopard has shown its spots.
    
    Dave

    
    RE: .9
    
    I have asked for the specifics on which this decision was based.  I have
    received NONE.  When will the membership be informed of the reasons
    their credit union has taken the unprecedented action of invalidating
    an election 2.5 days before the polls closed?  
    
    There was one and only one "rule" regarding this election, and that was
    the DCU Bylaw restricting DCU employees involvement in the election. 
    DCU and the Supervisory Comm. were notified as soon as it started (on or
    about March 21).  When we met with DCU President Chuck Cockburn on
    March 28, he indicated he had checked with DCU's General Counsel and
    stated he couldn't interfere with DCU employees' "rights" to campaign
    for who they wanted to.  We were told that the "flyer" they were
    handing out weren't being left in DCU lobbys and that employees were
    campaigning on their "break" (totally undefined time) and "lunch".
    Yet a copy was clearly visible on a table in the seating area of the
    DCU HQ branch.  A member was sitting there and I asked her if she had
    read it.  She stated she had.  When I stopped by the MLO branch a large
    stack were next to the exit.  They were tucked into DCU's "who says we
    aren't competitive?" brochure.  Who is responsible for DCU employees
    actions?
    
    Several days later I witnessed DCU employees handing material out from
    behind the counter.  The next week I witnessed the DCU branch manager
    at NIO hand the materials out to people outside the NIO branch.  What
    action did the Supervisory Comm., DCU or DCU's General Counsel take to
    stop this action prior to the invalidation of the election?  It was clear
    that time was of the essence yet I have received no information or
    witnessed no change in DCU employee behavior to convince me that timely
    action had been taken.
    
    Has the "Committee for a Qualified Board" been identified?  And will
    they be pursued to recoup the costs of the new election?  Why should
    DCU, or more accurately its members, foot the tab for their actions?
    Alfred, you indicated earlier you had sent mail to the candidates whose
    name appeared on that flyer.  You asked many pertinent questions. 
    Please update us on the response you received.  Did they take any
    action to stop its distribution in DCU branches?
    

    
    Steve Sherman is on the supervisory committee that decided unanimously
    to recommend invalidating the election. I trust Steve Sherman.
    
    Paul Kinzelman is one of the "disinterested" (HAH!) board members who
    voted unanimously to invalidate the election. I trust Paul Kinzelman.
    
    Therefore, I will regretfully accept the decision to invalidate the
    current election.
    
    I will also redouble my efforts to see that Chris Gillett, Dave Garrod
    and Phil Gransewicz get elected in the rescheduled election, and
    thereafter I will lobby them ceaselessly to remove Chuck Cockburn as
    DCU president, so that we can put this stupidity behind us once and for
    all.
    

    In my opinion, those accused of wrong-doing, are the principal
    beneficiaries of the action taken.

    Unbelievable !
    
    (It seems fitting, this week, to note that we are in the process of
    honoring ex-President Richard Nixon.)
    
    L.

I think the decision is both good and bad.

The goodness that I see is the desire to restore equity
and the hope that a new election will do that.

The badness I see is that it is not clear that a new
election will restore equity or that is proper (i.e. legal)
for a new election to be called at this point, particularly
when formal allegations (to the best of my knowledge) have
only been made against one side in this election.

Finally, what particurlarly concerns me is that there has been
NO mention of any action of any kind taken or planned against
those who willfully chose to either disobey the Bylaws or
refused (illegally) to enforce the Bylaws.  THIS was the
grieveous error made and those who chose to participate in
these activities should be appropriately punished.

Collis

    	I think this makes the DCU look bad.  The organization can't seem
    	to even tie its own shoelaces without getting embrioled in
    	controversy.
    
    	It seemed like such a friendly organization 10 years ago, and
    	that encouraged me to move my business to it.  Now it stinks
    	like a common politician.

    	And now it's going to take that much more time to get the
    	fees removed.

    
    
    The whole thing stinks, but I haven't given it this much of my
    attention to blow it off now.  I'm more committed than ever to
    see the three Gs elected.
    
    Steve
    

    This has helped me come to the conclusion that in addition to directing
    DCU management to back away from the "relationship" model, I'd like the
    DCU board to replace current DCU management.   The election mess is
    clearly DCU managements responsibility (since they are supposed to
    enforce election rules, and the rules weren't enforced), and will
    cost DCU money that would otherwise a) Contributed to the capital
    ratio b) Contributed to employee profit-sharing or c) contribute
    to owner profit-shareing.  

    
    >In my opinion, those accused of wrong-doing, are the principal
    >beneficiaries of the action taken.

    So you see this as a benefit to all the candidates?

    			Alfred

    
.13>    In my opinion, those accused of wrong-doing, are the principal
.13>    beneficiaries of the action taken.

.19>    So you see this as a benefit to all the candidates?
    
    You imply that both sides have accused the other of wrong-doing.
    
    Such accusations as may have been laid on Cockburn and Co. by the 3 G's
    are readily apparent from this conference.
    
    What specific accusations of wrong-doing might Cockburn and Co. have
    made against the 3 G's?
    
    
    

   Re:  Note 818.19 by CVG::THOMPSON "An AlphaGeneration Noter"
    
    Let's not kid ourselves about who the beneficiaries of this action are. 
    The BoD has acted in transparently bad faith, their sanctimonious
    exclamations of fairness notwithstanding.
    
    Mike
    
    

    What's the reason for canceling the ballot?
    
    In the previous note I read something abount unfair, incorrect, etc.
    What happened?
    
    You see I'm living over here in Europe and happen to have a 
    DCU account so I'm sort of remote to all this. I received 
    my ballot early enough (don't remember what mail class it was sent to
    me ;-) and I voted for everybody that stated that they were opposing 
    the fees on 'ordinary' checking accounts. (See below why ...)
    
    Can anybody enlighten me?
    
    Thank's & Regards, 
    
    Arnold Sutter, DEC Unix Support @RLE, Zurich, Switzerland. DTN 760-2714
    P.S.: Incidentaly, this evening I wanted to move my savings account 
    money over to the checking account to make the 500$ full in order to 
    prevent it from draining. Unfortunately, I were a few $ short to make
    it AND leave 5$ on the Share 1 ... :-( . 

    
    >    You imply that both sides have accused the other of wrong-doing.

    Yes, I do.

    >What specific accusations of wrong-doing might Cockburn and Co. have
    >made against the 3 G's?

    I do not want to get into the role of debating the merits of any
    particular accusations. If for no other reason then that I don't
    have time. I also do not know what specific accusations have been
    made and to whom. I do know that issues have been taken with various
    Notes in this conference. Those that came with a request for action
    have been acted on and as far as I know resolved - or are pending 
    in which case I would not, understandably I hope, discuss them.

    I suspect that other accusations have been made as well. Though I
    don't have proof or know specifics. Even as people don't always
    take up Notes issues through the author of a Note or with the
    moderator but take it directly to others I believe that people
    sometimes take other sorts of complaints to other then the individual
    involved.

    			Alfred

    
    Re:
    
>    I do know that issues have been taken with various
>    Notes in this conference. Those that came with a request for action
>    have been acted on and as far as I know resolved - or are pending 
>    in which case I would not, understandably I hope, discuss them.
    
    Just in case erroneous conclusions might be drawn from the above.
    There are no notes that I have written in this conference that are
    "pending" action. If there are I have not been informed of such. Also
    to the best of my knowledge there are no notes authored by Chris
    Fillmore-Gillett or Phil Gransewicz that are pending action either.
    I obviously cannot be certain of the last point (Phil and Chris would
    have to speak for themselves) but it certainly didn't come up in
    conversation when Phil, Chris and myself met yesterday to discuss the
    election.
    
    I am aware of ONE note I wrote a month plus ago that Alfred asked me to
    reword slightly. I did that immediately. The issue on this was brought
    up soon after I wrote the note ie a month plus ago and was fixed
    immediately.
    
    Anyway back to the subject of this notes string.
    
    The bottom line here is that I believe the DCU Board are not legally
    impowered to "invalidate" an election. That is a right reserved to the
    membership. I believe the only possibly way an election might be able
    to be invalidated is through a Special Meeting of the members. The bylaws
    are a contract between the members and the DCU. The Board has no right to
    alter that contract in the way it has chosen to do. For anybody that is
    interested the bylaws are reproduced in note 3.last.
    
    But lets forget for a moment the legality of whether or not the
    election can be invalidated. I say it is bad for the credit union for
    this to have happened. The election occurred, let's let the chips fall
    where they may. I know I personally do not relish going through another
    campaign. Running a campaign is not a cheap undertaking. If the
    election is invalidated all the resources (both financial and
    otherwise) put in by ALL the candidates is essentially wasted. In
    addition and more importantly rerunning the election is yet more
    expense for the DCU (the invalidation notices are being sent out 1st
    class, I guess they are deemed more important than the ballots!!!) and
    the new election will cost more money. That is money that should be going
    to improve rates for all the members.
    
    Dave

    
    Whenever someone is caught in a lie (even a small one) it reminds
    me of what my father taught me when I was in elementary 
    school.  That when he catches me in a lie, it makes him
    lose some of the belief and trust that he has in me.  Things
    like assuming that I am doing things for the best, or that I 
    am telling the truth are much more unlikely to occur.  That I
    must earn his belief/trust back.  
    
    Earning trust is not an easy thing to do.  But, losing trust, is 
    far too easy.  I think this is a problem here.  The SC is
    caught in what looks like a lie.  Because of past actions,
    not even with the SC, but it carries over, people do not
    believe the SC, and do not trust that they acted in the best
    interest of the membership.  
    
    This, of course, also carries over to the CU board, much fence 
    mending has to happen.
    
    Amy

    Folks, I'm biting my tongue here.  Do you have any idea how tempting it
    might be for a SC or BoD member to counter or confirm some of the claims 
    here?  My tendency is to get everything out in the open for free 
    discussion of the facts.  I'd love to throw out all kinds of relevant 
    facts.  But, in doing so I would likely betray confidences.  
    
    Consider what the impact might be if you had trusted me with confidential 
    facts and then found me disclosing them in a public forum.  How long would
    it be until you could no longer trust me?  
    
    If any of you file complaints with the SC or NCUA, these folks tend to 
    take the complaints seriously.  They are considered and often lead to 
    investigation.  We're talking really confidential stuff here.  We're
    often talking balancing between protecting someone's privacy and the rights
    of organizations.  
    
    DCU has confidential information that must be protected, generated and 
    handled with prudence.  It's a delicate balance.  Betrayal of confidence, 
    though it might seem good over the short run, can undermine the trust and 
    confidence that is placed in directors and officers.  And, part of DCU's 
    business is trust.  (Seems to me I recall something about someone saying 
    that that's what it is that such institutions really sell.)
    
    A loose comment here, slight betrayal of confidence there.  Wouldn't take 
    long before nobody can trust anybody.  
    
    So, I can only speak on general terms.  But, in general terms a lot of
    time and effort is being spent by folks whose efforts may never be
    known or appreciated.  Just because you see Mr. Melchione's name a
    lot, do NOT suppose that he is acting alone.  Notice who he is speaking 
    for.  Ask them if he's saying what they mean.  I believe the statements he 
    has publicly made in representing the SC thus far have been true.  He 
    didn't make up the fact that the SC or Board members have acted unanimously.
    And, to attribute it all to Mr. Melchione denies the efforts and
    contributions of a lot of folks, often the same folks that Mr.
    Melchione is speaking for.
    
    Confidences are being maintained to the best of my knowledge.  At the
    same time, appropriate authorities are being consulted.  It appears to
    me that SC functions are being performed with attention to fairness, 
    objectivity, care, timeliness and so forth.  You may never hear about when
    or what the SC is doing.  We *are* paying attention.  We *are* taking 
    actions.  But, because of the need to preserve confidences, maintain
    objectivity and so forth you won't always see or hear about what is being 
    investigated or acted upon.
    
    Personally, it is awfully tempting to defend actions of the SC or of
    the BoD.  It'd be great to be loved and admired in notes or within the
    DCU community.  Frankly, I don't expect either to occur.  What I do
    expect is that I, as a SC member, will be as honest and objective as I
    can.  I will protect confidence where appropriate.  I will encourage
    openness where appropriate.  I will avoid being swayed by one or 
    another political force.  I will work to make sure both sides of an
    issue are treated fairly and respectfully.  Twenty years from now, all
    this will likely just be memories for most folks.  But, what I do now
    and the integrity that I demonstrate, albeit privately, will still be
    with me.  It will be one of the measures I use to determine what kind
    of person I am.  I am keeping thoughts like these in mind in all that I
    do in the SC.  I am convinced that the volunteers and professionals
    that I work with are, in general, of a similar mind.
    
    There is one issue that I believe is appropriate to address.  This has
    to do with the definition of a what constitutes a "disinterested"
    director and why only a few directors made the decision.  Those of you
    familiar with Robert's Rules will probably notice that when decisions
    are being made that could directly affect those making the decision,
    it's usually a good idea for those affected to not take part. 
    Consequently, the only directors that were directly involved in making the
    decision were those that were not running for office themselves.  
    
    I can't comment on specifics as to why the election was determined to be 
    "tainted."  But, having seen a reasonable amount of the evidence and after
    hearing from more than one source of authority on the matter, the 
    conclusion seemed obvious to me.  Appropriate action seemed to me to have
    been taken as soon was reasonably feasible.  I know that folks would
    like to differ in a public forum about it.  But, to really debate we
    would need to present all the facts.  And, because of the need to
    maintain confidences at this time, that just isn't feasible now.
    
    Steve

    
    Through all of this "stuff"  a couple of thoughts come to mind...
    
    1) Once a bullet has been shot out of a gun, there is no taking it
       back.  Anything that has been done to invalidate the "current"
       election will not undo anything.
    
    2) If this is what we get from what some people feel is a "qualified"
       board, I'd hate to see what an "unqualified" board would do (maybe
       not make as many blunders).
    
    JMHO.
    
    ~Jon.

    re: .28
    
    I'll say as much as I think I reasonably can ...  You will note that
    the basis for calling off the election is that the *process* has been
    tainted.  Nothing about the action specifically invalidates the placement 
    of any of the candidates on the ballot.  So, no change to the actual 
    candidates was recommended.  
    
    I don't think that all that was said or done can be erased.  However, I do
    feel that by doing all we can to better define the election process, we 
    stand a chance of avoiding some of the issues that have resulted in a 
    "tainted" election.  
    
    My interpretation of this action is basically that the blame is placed on 
    the process more than on any individuals.  But, why this election?  I don't
    know exactly, this being my first time on the Supervisory Committee
    during an election.  (In previous elections I've spent a bit of time out 
    there campaigning and such.)  But, I do know that this election seems 
    unusual and speculate that the bounds of what is considered permissible 
    may have been stretched as never before. 
    
    Steve

Thank you for your reply, Steve.

I'm willing to trust that what you (and apparently
all those in knowledge of all the facts) have decided
is a reasonable course of action for the credit union.

I still don't know if it's a legal course or if any
of the candidates have legal rights that were violated
by this action.  I have never heard of an election being
declared invalid in the middle of voting before.  I have
heard about protests after an election causing it to be
declared invalid.  I'm concerned that, whatever the
justification, the option selected (invalidating the
election at this point) may not have been a wise one
(i.e. legally defensible).

My other concern is that there still has been no mention
about taking appropriate action against those who 
willfully broke the Bylaws as well as those whose duty
was to uphold the Bylaws and refused to.  Obviously this
has led to a very serious situation.  Can't we even get a
statement of intent on the part of the SC to deal with 
those who chose to invalidate the process?

Thanks,

Collis

    This is unconscionable!   I blame each and every candidate for your
    childish behaviour.   This is a case of the cure being worse than the
    disease.   I can say right now I find it difficult to vote for any of
    you.   How can I trust my money to a group of people with the morals
    and maturity of a group of 10 year olds?
    
    While you guys gripe and moan in this conference, my money is at risk.
    Stop it.  Grow up.  Get a life.  I wonder if any of you has a job to
    do. If all this petty bickering doesn't stop, I'll take all of my money
    somewhere else.
    
    If ever there was a reason for the NCUA to oust the whole board, and
    take this whole thing over, this is it.
    
    Here is my recommendation for the future:
    
    	1.  All candidates withdraw from the election process.   Then the
            election process, which I do believe is tainted from the
            beginning, starts over.   Maybe we'll get some candidates who
            want to run a credit union instead of playing political games
            to see which group can outmaneuver the other.   There is no
            place for this in this organization.
     
    	2.  Members shouldn't vote for any of them.   Vote for write in
    	    candidates.
    
    	3.  Shut down this conference.  All it does is provide the bait for
            the feeding frenzy  that the members of this conference
            (including a few board members and candidates) so dearly love.

Re:  .32

I find your note totally off-base and your
suggestions poor.  But this should not surprise you
since I am one of those that write in this conference.  :-)

Collis

    
    Re: .32
    
    > This is unconscionable!   I blame each and every candidate for your
    > childish behaviour.   This is a case of the cure being worse than the
    > disease.   I can say right now I find it difficult to vote for any of
    > you.   How can I trust my money to a group of people with the morals
    > and maturity of a group of 10 year olds?
    
    Since no one except those involved know the facts about why the
    election was invalidated then the comments above are totally out to 
    lunch.  There is absolutely no clear evidence that any specific
    candidate was to blame for this.  So lighten up.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    Funny that...  the "process" was invalidated as a fait accompli to the
    membership...  we, being the mindless sheep that we are, were never
    ASKED how we felt about the current election process.  I filled my
    ballot out, thoughtfully, in good conscience, and mailed the sucker
    off.  Now I'm being TOLD that my carefully considered ballot is
    considered null and void, by someone(s) who feel that they have
    something to lose.  Excuse me?  Pray tell, why should I bother to vote
    again, knowing that if someone "in power" doesn't like the lay of the
    land, they'll pack their marbles up, again, and go home, saying that if
    I/we don't play the game THEIR way, we can't play at all!  Irrespective
    of what .27, normally a very respectable person, says, if there are
    TRUE violations of the bylaws, they need to be communicated openly in
    all possible forums, get the word out, as it were, but if it's a matter
    of "MO-om!  they won't play my way", then to invalidate the election
    process, WHILST IN PROCESS, is illegal, unconscionable and
    indefensible!  What a slap in the face to the membership!
    
    Gee WHIZ!

    
    
    	As a card carrying member of this credit union, I demand to know
    "exactly" why this election was invalidated. I want to know "exactly"
    how the decision was reached.
    
    ed

    
    Ditto.
    
    Steve Sherman, I said elsewhere that I trust you -- I also understand
    your need for appropriate confidentiality, and I believe you
    voted to invalidate the election in good conscience and for a good
    reason. However, you and the rest of the SC, and the BoD and
    management, should understand that this bone will be gnawed until
    the membership knows precisely what improprieties caused the election
    to be invalidated.
    

RE: Note 818.32 by LEDS::PRIBORSKY

>    If all this petty bickering doesn't stop, I'll take all of my money
>    somewhere else.

Be cautious what you wish for.  Chuck and his new programs are trying to
make this occur...
    
>    If ever there was a reason for the NCUA to oust the whole board, and
>    take this whole thing over, this is it.

Maybe the problem is that DCU management, was involved in ways he should have
not been.  This could have easily 'tainted' the election.  Going by your
recommendations, we should also get rid of DCU management...

I could agree to that...

	- mark

I agree with .36 and .37.  The membership deserves and is rightfully due 
and complete and utterly total explanation of the exact deatails that lead 
to this IMHO 'illegal' decision.  Nothing less than a complete and full 
disclosure will satisfy this DEFCU owner.

Jilly

    
>I agree with .36 and .37.  The membership deserves and is rightfully due 
>and complete and utterly total explanation of the exact deatails that lead 
>to this IMHO 'illegal' decision.  Nothing less than a complete and full 
>disclosure will satisfy this DEFCU owner.

    Steve implied that the investigation is not over. Full details should
    not be expected until the investigation *is* over. Otherwise the
    investigation may come undone or the reputations of innocent people
    may be damaged. Let's insist that things be done right. That's what
    I expect of Steve and until he disappoints me (unlike IMO to happen)
    I'm willing to cut him quite a bit of slack.

    			Alfred

    
    THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHY THE ELECTION WAS
    INVALIDATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just tell us why it was done. Their
    reasons are already know to them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    ed

    RE: .41 If you want to know the details of why the election was
    invalidated just read .0 or the letter you get/got at home. But
    there is still an investigation into improprieties going on and
    giving too many details of that is not a good idea.

    			Alfred

    
    It would be comforting for me to know that the ballots are being
    safeguarded by the auditors.  They do realize their responsibility,
    I hope.
    
    Mike
    

    
    Re:
    
>Note 818.27       Election Invalidated/Annual Meeting Postponed         27 of 42
>NACAD::SHERMAN "Steve NETCAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992," 80 lines  25-APR-1994 22:56
>
>    There is one issue that I believe is appropriate to address.  This has
>    to do with the definition of a what constitutes a "disinterested"
>    director and why only a few directors made the decision.  Those of you
>    familiar with Robert's Rules will probably notice that when decisions
>    are being made that could directly affect those making the decision,
>    it's usually a good idea for those affected to not take part. 
>    Consequently, the only directors that were directly involved in making the
>    decision were those that were not running for office themselves.  
    
    I'm sorry but I just don't understand your line of reasoning here.
    How could Paul Kinzelman be termed a "disinterested" director? He
    openly endorsed Gillett/Gransewicz/Garrod. We passed out many sheets
    with his endorsement on them? In so sense of the word can I see how he
    could be termed a disinterested director. He has openly supported us in
    writing.
    
    As to the other three I'd like to propose that they are not
    disinterested either. The major issues in this election are pretty
    clear. 3 candidates are in favour of fees and relationship banking,
    3 candidates are against them. Mann/McEachin/Dawkins have very clearly
    expressed their support of Relationship Banking/Fees through their
    board votes (see the public minutes for details). These votes were in
    line with the public votes of Milbury/Ross. In other words I'd like to
    postulate that these three directors would be interested in seeing
    Ross/Milbury/Haskins elected.
    
    In an election that is to determine the strategic direction of the
    credit union there is no such thing as "disinterested" directors.
    I know my argument for Kinzelman not being a disinterested director is
    stronger than my argument for McEachin/Dawkins/Mann not being a
    disinterested director. But I maintain the second half of my argument
    has validity as well.
    
    Dave
    
    PS This note has been entered while I am on my lunch break, just in
       case anybody is interested.

    
    
    .0 doesn't answer my question, but I know that this is all I'm going to
    get. So my money is leaving. I will take it somewhere else and I am
    stating directly to the people in charge, it it because of you.
    
    ed

    RE: .35  by BWICHD::SILLIKER 
    
    >Excuse me?  Pray tell, why should I bother to vote again, knowing that
    >if someone "in power" doesn't like the lay of the land, they'll pack
    >their marbles up, again, and go home, ...
    
    Worse yet, those are our marbles.
    

    RE: .45 Who is the "you" you refer to?
    
    Also what part of your question is not answered by .0?
    
    		Alfred
    

    The 'you' is the people who made the decision to invalidate the
    election.
    
    The part of the question not answered is "Why exactly was the election
    invalidated". Not some PR spin like "the process was comprimised"
    
    I'm sick of hearing about process, I want something like "Because
    xxx broke the rules". What I want is facts.
    
    ed

    I suspect that the best you can get is "Because Rule XYZ was broken",
    but you won't get "Because XYZZY broke the rules".
    
    In the current DCU environment, the latter statement would doubtless
    get you a threatening letter from XYZZY's lawyer.

    re:
    
>    I suspect that the best you can get is "Because Rule XYZ was broken",
>    but you won't get "Because XYZZY broke the rules".

    Note at present we are not even getting the former. The letter to
    members starts off with:
    
    "As a result of numerous complaints regarding improper campaigning, the
    1994 DCU Board of Directors election has been invalidated and the
    Annual Meeting postponed... This step was taken on the grounds that the
    process has been irreparably tainted..."
    
    As you see absolutely no mention of any rules being broken. It seems to
    boil down to the DCU received complaints about the election process and
    the action is to invalidate the election. I feel strongly that to
    invalidate the election the invalidation should be based on a strong
    legal principal. In my opinion it is not. Note that nowhere in the
    letter does it say under what legal basis the decision was made.
    
    Just imagine a national (or local) election and some people complained
    about how the election was going and the result was "election
    invalidated". Can anybody think of any precident for that?
    
    Why oh why weren't complaints acted upon? As we well know DCU employees
    continued to hand out election literature well after my complaint was
    filed. I have received NO communication telling me whether my complaint
    was upheld as valid or dismissed as invalid. Ie it must still be
    pending. If on the other hand there are any complaints against me I
    have not been notified of them. That means I can only assume that there
    are NONE. If there were wouldn't you think the investigative body should
    want to hear my side of the story?
    
    And as I stated previously to the best of my knowledge there are no
    complaints against the 3Gs related to the election process.
    
    The membership has voted. Their voice should be heard. That's what an
    election is all about. The membership has a statutary (sp?) right to
    elect 3 members of the board each year. Why is that right being
    interfered with?
    
    Dave

This Note is getting a little too hot!  Let's take a step back and think about
this.

Like many others, I will regretfully accept the decision to invalidate the
current election.  I think we need to give the non-candidate Directors and the 
Supervisory Committee the benefit of the doubt.  They probably do have 
confidential information that they can not share AT THIS POINT.  

I can think of at least one scenario where the process is to blame, and not
the candidates themselves.  Suppose there is evidence to suggest that some of
the ballots that have been received are tainted, either unduly influenced or 
even forged (don't ask me how, I'm not THAT clever).  An action such as this 
could have been committed by someone acting for their candidate, not even
sanctioned by the candidate.  In this case it is more important to invalidate 
the election than to try to pin the blame.

Let's all use this opportunity to support our candidate(s).  I'm still voting
for Chris, Dave and Phil.

re: .-1

I second your sentiments. I have been a staunch 3G supporter and have spent
much of my own time and effort in working on their behalf for this election.
But the fact of the matter is that the election is being reheld. Whether or
not that's appropriate is almost immaterial at this point in time. Arguing
about it won't help any. It's about time everyone quit their bellyaching
and moved on. I've tried to get this message to some people in a polite
manner, but apparently the hint wasn't received.

This whole matter (seated board members, candidates, Supervisory committee,
DCU management, Mr. Melchione, etc.) has me just about worn down and so
disgusted that for a nickel I'd likely pull my loans and accounts and go
elsewhere. I'm sure I'm not alone in my ennui. Let's not make matters
any worse.

-Jack

It appears that many of us are being very accepting
of the position of 4 members of the board and 1 lawyer.
I wonder if someone has taken the matter of invalidating
the election for another legal opinion and/or to the
NCUA for a ruling on validity based on bylaws.

Sometimes state and/or federal laws override bylaws and
that may or may not be the case here (I haven't the
foggiest idea) but I find it unsettling that the board
took upon itself a decision not outlined in the 
bylaws yet did not explain under what authority it 
did so. I would suspect that, unless there is a law
to the contrary, any authority not specifically outlined
in the bylaws rests with the full membership.

    
    I've been trying to call the NCUA since Friday, to ensure they know what's
    going on (or at least to verify the address info in 289.0).
    
    I think their phone is permanently off the hook.
    

    
    
    	That's right, sit back and enjoy it.
    
    ed

    
    
    << Note 818.54 by 2838::KILGORE "Time to put the SHARE back in DCU!"
    >>>
         
     I took your lead from a previous note containing the phone number.
     Constantly busy.
    
    Mike
    

re: .53-.56

Don't get me wrong - it's not that I'm necessarily "willing to accept" where
we're at. I think I had a reply in here somewhere around .3 or so indicating
that I needed this re-election like I needed a hole in the head. But I sure
as hell DON'T need to get into some semantic or pseudo-legal battle over
the interpretation of the bylaws and who can do what at this point. There's
a plan being put in place for a new election process. Same candidates, different
ground rules. So what? If everyone's confident of their position in the
polls as of now, what's to change that?

I don't need the hassle of a new election, I don't need to hear some candidate
crying in his beer over how unjust this is, and I sure as hell don't need to
go through a "special meeting scenario" to sort this all out. There are more
important things in my life than this damn credit union.

-Jack

    Have any (non-candidate) members received anything official from DCU on
    this? This is the 27th and I haven't received anything by mail.
    
    Just wondering.

    RE: .58 My wife and I received copies of the letter in .0 yesterday.
    This was the general mailing not the "pre release" copy I received
    last week as a Nominating Committee member. You may want to check that
    DCU has your address correct.

    			Alfred

    
    Updated NCUA contact info is in 289.71.
    
    I will be sending a letter to Mr. Bumgardner tomorrow morning, registered
    with return receipt, requesting confirmation that he knows about the
    invalidation and his opinion of the legal right of the BoD to
    invalidate the election, develop and enforce new election rules without
    NCUA approval, and indefinitely postpone the annual meeting.
    

    
    For me getting the three Gs elected is THE goal.  I agree totally
    with Jack in .57, I have things to do and have limited energy for
    this no matter how much I value the principles involved.  I do
    NOT want to go through a flap over whether the invalidation was
    valid, etc. thereby further eroding my energy for doing what it takes
    to finally see Chris, Dave, and Phil seated as the winners.  THAT
    is what is foremost in my mind.  If I have to sit through another
    election (Which I don't look forward to) then fine.  Let's not
    have our attention diverted from the goal.
    
    Steve
    

    Got my "official" letter yesterday, it was "round filed" immediately.
    
    You know...  she mused...  one wonders whether the membership would
    have grounds to file a class action suit...  I have NEVER heard of ANY
    election being declared null and void once it had gotten to the voting
    stage, not in any democracy that I'm aware of, at any rate.
    
    The facts as I see 'em:
    
    No CONCRETE evidence is given that any by laws have been broken, nor
    have any of the usual suspects been rounded up.
    
    The voting has been in progress since last month.  Betcha the votes are
    mainly all in and tallied already.
    
    There is NO reassurance that the critters tallying the votes have been
    notified, and have been requested to retain the ballots in a secure
    environment for tallying at any later date.
    
    There is a passle of inuendo being bandied about, but not one single,
    cold, hard FACT that I can sink my teeth into.
    
    There seems to be LOTS of concern for protecting the guilty, ah, er,
    make that the innocent...  but, again, no clue as to what the problem
    was, and who had it.  I guess the membership just can't be trusted to
    have the facts, eh, we might rise up and do something embarassing, such
    as insist that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
    come out...
    
    Something smelleth.
    

    Since this is a FEDERAL credit Union, I asume there must be some
    Federal body that oversees the operations of institutions like DCU.
    
    Is it time to call in the Feds?
    
    					andrew

    
    Re:
    
>        It almost  sounds  like  those  with the most to lose found out
>        from "a trend  analysis"  that the election was "very bad news"
>        and sought a desperate "recount".
 
    The way I understand it only the accounting firm and not
    even DCU management, knows the election result before it is declared at
    the annual meeting. I believe if anybody outside the accounting firm
    were to know it could only be due to a breach of confidence on the part
    of the accounting firm. I severely doubt a reputable business would
    take such a risk. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that a breach
    of confidence  occurred. If it had occurred it would be a very serious
    matter.
    
    I honestly don't know why an attempt was made to invalidate the
    election. I have my own pet theory but I have no facts to back it up
    so I certainly don't want to make what would be a very unsubstantiated
    claim. All I will claim is that the action of invalidating the election
    has no legal basis and this claim I am willing to stand behind.
    
    Dave

        Just wondering. What are people who are complaining to NCUA
    asking them to do?

    			Alfred

    re -.1
    
    	Perhaps, Alfred, they are asking them if there is a precedent for
    what has happened here, and if the actions of the Board have been proper
    based on existing by-laws.  Of those who simply accept what may be in
    fact a somewhat arbitrary decision to hold another election, I ask, how
    do you know that this fiasco won't be repeated?  We shouldn't be so
    quick to capitulate unless we're prepared to accept a reenactment at
    the whim of the powers that be for the same perceived reasons.  While
    I agree that if a formal investigation is under way that might be
    compromised by premature disclosure of certain facts, that we may need
    to sit tight for awhile, but when it comes out, IT HAD BETTER BE GOOD!
    
    Dave

    
.69>        Just wondering. What are people who are complaining to NCUA
.69>    asking them to do?
    
    My request, verbatim:
    
    
National Credit Union Association
Mr. Layne Bumgardner
9 Washington Square
Washington Avenue Extension
Albany  NY  12205
518-464-4180

Dear Mr. Bumgardner:

I am writing this letter to bring to your attention a situation that has
arisen in the Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union (DCU, 141 Parker Street,
Maynard  MA  01754). We are in the middle of an election of three of the seven
members of the DCU Board of Directors. Within the past two days. DCU members
have received a notice (attached) that the election has been invalidated. The 
specific reasons for this invalidation have not been made available to members.

In addition, notice of the invalidation was received by candidates for this 
election. Although I do not have a copy of the notice, I am reasonably certain
 of its contents (attached). The notice states that "Before new elections and 
the Annual Meeting can be rescheduled, fair  and impartial election and 
campaign rules binding all candidates as  well as all persons campaigning on
their behalf must be developed." No further information on these new rules is
available. The notice also states that the Annual Meeting will be rescheduled,
but provide no information on the new schedule.

It is not clear to me that the DCU Board of Directors, specifically the four
of seven directors who are non-candidates, has a legal right to invalidate an
election. Further, since the existing election rules are codified in the DCU
bylaws that were approved by the NCUA, it is unclear to me that the Board of
Directors has a legal right to develop new election rules and make them binding
on the DCU members without first getting the new rules approved by the NCUA.

I request that you reply to this letter at your earliest convenience, signifying
your awareness that the DCU election  for three directors has been invalidated,
and indicating whether the DCU Board of Directors is within its right to
invalidate the election, indefinitely postpone the Annual Meeting, and develop
and enforce new election rules without prior approval of the NCUA.

Thank you for your help in this matter.


						Sincerely,



						William T. Kilgore
						DCU Member

Enclosures: 2

The NCUA has previously stated that they will not get involved in situations 
arising from infighting among the members.  It will when the credit union 
has "failed".   This is not the grand overseer and manager of daily 
operations.  It's what takes over when the credit union moves into 
receivership.

Meanwhile, if it makes you feel better...

This isn't infighting. It's a board that is out of control. They've invalidated
the election; the only recourse is to try and go "above their heads".

-Glenn-

    re: .72
    
    Yes, I suspect the NCUA is not interested.
    
    I suspect if you went to, say, the Mass. attorney general, you'd be
    told it's a "civil matter" and your recourse is to bring suit against
    those involved if you choose to do so.
    
    I doubt that anybody outside the DCU membership has any interest
    or authority in the matter.
    

    
    Re: .74
    
    This is precisely what I would expect also.  Unless the membership
    were filling to file a suit then I doubt there's much that can
    be done.  Alternatively, I think the best course of action is to 
    redouble efforts to get the 3 Gs elected.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

RE: Note 818.72 by LEDS::MACTP::PRIBORSKY

>The NCUA has previously stated that they will not get involved in situations 
>arising from infighting among the members.  It will when the credit union 
>has "failed".   This is not the grand overseer and manager of daily 
>operations.  It's what takes over when the credit union moves into 
>receivership.

This is not true.  They removed a BOD in RI a while back, not because of
receivership, but because they (NCUA) felt the BOD was not acting in the
best faith of the CU.

This is NOT the only time this has been done.

>Meanwhile, if it makes you feel better...

The more aware the authorities are of actions that the management/BOD
are taking the better we all are.  It tends to increase the
accountability of the people involved...

    	re .66, 67
    
    	Perhaps they read the trends as expressed in this notes conference
    	and, though they are far from scientific or reliable, scared
    	someone into believing his/her candidate(s) won't do too well...
    	

    Maybe I'm a little confused here.  Some of you closet parlimentarians
    help me out.  Doesn't it require a certain percentage (I think 2/3's)
    of *those voting* to recend a vote under Robert's Rules?
    
    Doesn't this mean that the election results are valid until a recall
    election can be held.
    
    I could be wrong, of course...

    >Doesn't this mean that the election results are valid until a recall
    >election can be held.
 
Perhaps they are, but no one knows what the results were!

    I just read through the Bylaws of the DCU.  Maybe I missed this one
    too, but what authority does the Supervisory Committee have over this
    election?  It looks like their powers are pretty explicitly defined
    under Article X of the Bylaws
    
    They can:
    
    1.  Cause audits or reviews of accounts or passbooks (10.4)
    
    2.  Suspend director, executive officer, or member of credit committee
        until special meeting of members is called (10.5)
    
    3.  Call special meeting of members to discuss violations of provisions
        of Act or unauthorized or unsafe practices (10.6)
    
    Now, I'd like to pose this question:
    
    Under what authority is the DCU BOD and/or the supervisory committee
    acting to invalidate an election?  As near as I can tell, they seem to
    have voted themselves rights that should only be granted under Article
    XX (Operations Following an Attack on the United States).
    
    Did I miss the mushroom clouds?

Re .79: the bylaws provide no way at all for an election to be invalidated.
What it does provide for is special meetings that can dismiss the board, which
has a similar effect but is not the same thing.

	paul

    One thing to remember is that the NCUA effectively give the board
    powers above and beyond what is actually written in an individual
    credit union's by-laws ...  Remember the one that went something
    to the effect that the membership may do nothing to effectively
    reduce the power of the board except at the ballot box.
    
    It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a thing in the NCUA that
    gives the board sufficient discretionary power in unusual circumstances
    to do just this kind of thing.  Remember all the speculation flying
    around a couple years ago when it was considered that the board may
    chose to ignore the election ?  Well ... look familiar ?
    
    Before anyone invokes lawyers and throws accusations of illegality
    around, it would be a good idea to check to see if the NCUA does in
    fact give this kind of power to part of a board.
    
    Stuart

        This is disgusting.

        I can't see any reason to invalidate an election other than
        outright ballot fraud or irrecoverable tampering with the
        ballots or counting process.

        In an election, at least the kind I'm familiar with, the
        electorate is trusted to see the difference between lies and
        truth and inappropriate behavior and appropriate.

        We don't need a big brother to decide that we wouldn't have
        made a fair decision and thus take (or postpone) that
        decision from us.

        It's made all the worse when the frustrated management of a
        failing company makes what appears on the face of it to be a
        blatant attempt at election tampering.

        There are third world countries that understand democracy
        better than we do.

        Bob

re: .84, Bob

Yes. It's a shame it's inappropriate to start a "Conspiracy theories" topic
in this conference. It could be interesting.

In essence, I agree with all you've said.

-Jack

     While it's not appropriate to discuss the specifics of any DCU-
related conspiracy theory, I think we can discuss the nature of con-
spiracy theories.

     It's my observation (and the observation of others, too) that
people sharing a common fear may react similarly to an event.  This is
often enough to explain something without invoking a conspiracy theory.
(It certainly worked this way frequently during the Cold War).  This is
NOT to say that conspiracies don't exist, merely that invoking them is
often not a required for an explanation.

There's an awful lot of talk in here about having the BoD/SC/DCU decision to
invalidate the election reversed. Talk about whether or not it's legally
within their rights to do so. Talk about getting the results released from
impound.

Plenty of talk.

My question is, is anybody _DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT_?????

I don't have the time or energy to be a frontrunner on that matter, but I'd
sure as heck be willing to help or support anyone who was willing to get
something started there. I don't want to wait around till Chuckles takes
his own sweet time to schedule a new election, if that's even within his
realm of influence.

Who's got a plan for taking some action here?

-Jack

The letter in .0 says that "As a result of numerous complaints regarding
improper campaigning, the 1994 DCU  Board  of  Directors Election has been
invalidated and the Annual Meeting  postponed."

It seems that the election was invalidated because of the number of
unsubstantiated complaints.  Didn't DCU investigate the complaints to determine
if they were valid BEFORE declaring the election invalid?  If not, does this
mean that any group of members can cause any election to be declared invalid
simply by alleging improper campaigning?  If so, why didn't DCU do something
about it and allow the election to continue?

Bob

>It seems that the election was invalidated because of the number of
>unsubstantiated complaints.  


Bob,

  Your thinking like an engineer, in terms of cause and effect.  Try thinking
like a lawyer.  Think in terms of expediency and justification.

  The number of complaints was the justification for the expedient solution.


Al Cook

    re: .89
    
    No.  It was not simply the number of complaints that was the basis of the 
    recommendation and decision.  It was that resulting investigations
    (much of it still in progress, by the way) revealed facts about the 
    election.  The recommendation was made based on the facts known at that 
    time.  I anticipate that more information about this will come out 
    relatively soon.  
    
    Steve

Sure will be interesting if the general membership ever sees any of those
alleged "facks".

I wonder how many complaints it takes to invalidate an election relative to
the number of signatures required to call a special meeting?

-Jack

    I don't expect that you will ever see the level of detail that will
    satisfy your curiousity.  Do you think they will give names and dates?
    They may give general statements about what occurred but won't attibute
    the actions to any people.  I don't think you would either, if you were
    responsible for the DCU and your statements could impact people's
    future.
    
    Jim

    
    	The membership will see squat!!!! I have come to trust nothing from
    this group. I'm not sure I'd believe them if they showed me chapter and
    verse the reason for their actions. I'll vote in the new election, if
    there is one, but I relly don't GAS anymore
    
    ed

re .91

 Not a chance...  We can't seem to get people motivated to do a special meeting
but it sure could solve a lot of problems.

Re .90: I am still looking for a statement saying on what authority the
supervisory committee and the board did what they did.  Do you expect that
there will be any answer to that question?  (If not, why not?)

By "statement" I do not mean "we believe we can do this" or "the lawyer said
we can do this" but rather an explicit reference to a specific bylaw, 
regulation, law, or precedent that is being cited as authority.

	paul

  I.E. Get a Life!!!  They can do anything they want unless we demand a special
meeting and make them do something else under their rules!

I expect it is up to the candidates themselves to take
action (if action is needed) at this point.

Personally, I continue to see a lot of agreement upon this
course of action by those "in the know" and so am content
to wait it out.  I'm certainly not convinced that this is
proper or even best, but I do think there is some
reasonableness to the invalidation.

Collis

    .90...  I don't get it, and stoopid I ain't!  If it was NOT the NUMBER
    of "complaints", but rather, some subsequent of investigations (of
    WHAT, the complaints, the number of complaints, the types of
    complaints) that turned up "facts" (facts are anything ya wanna make of
    'em) that led to the nullification of the election...  under WHAT
    authority did the powers-that-be, and WHO, SPECIFICALLY, are those PTB,
    invalidate an election even as votes were being tallied?  Smacks way to
    much of someone wanting something stopped to suit some personal agenda,
    whether or not that is the case.  Perception is EVERYTHING in this
    company, remember that.
    
    Let's have the facts:
    
    We put together some slate of candidates.
    
    We all get glossy little inserts into our account statements with real
    cute pix, short and useless bios and statements of candidacy.
    
    We all get ballots from some very official sounding audit firm.
    
    We all mark our ballots, like good kids.
    
    We send our ballots in.
    
    We hear rumour that the election will be invalidated.
    
    The election IS invalidated, whilst in process.
    
    The 3 Gs get fired, by DIGITAL, so they tell us, for violations of
    DIGITAL P&P, but whilst mired in the DEFCU invalidated election
    process.
    
    We, the owners/members, know nothing, of course.
    
    What's wrong with this picture?

The authority to void the election does not come from DEFCU bylaws.

It does, apparently, come from the rules of the NCU who grant the
board all kinds of extra-ordinary powers in what may be considered
to be extra-ordinary situations.  The SUpervisory committee seems
to have deemed the situation extra-ordinary, and the Board then voted
under those circumstances.

Has anyone checked with the NCUA, if the board really would have these
powers under the apparent circumstances ?

Stuart

    
    The letter in .71 was sent to the NCUA office in Albany. So far I have
    a delivery receipt but no response.
    
    If .71 does not cover your question, you may want to contact them
    yourself. The address is in .71 (NOTE: it's "Administration", not
    "Association" -- letter corrected before sent.)
    

Thanks Dan,

  I think that note was lost in some "next unseen".  Good work.  Does anyone
have any idea if NCUA is required to respond or not?

Al



    

re: .98

> Smacks way to much of someone wanting something stopped to suit
> some personal agenda,

Gosh. Now there's a thought that had never entered my mind.

> the "PTB" are the DCU Supervisory Committee

Whom, if I'm not mistaken, with the exception of Steve Sherman, were all
hand picked by the pre-1992 BoD.

-Jack

    
>Whom, if I'm not mistaken, with the exception of Steve Sherman, were all
>hand picked by the pre-1992 BoD.
    
    I think there was one other appointed by the current board. If I have
    a chance I'll go back through the minutes and check.
    
    		Alfred

    The other appointee to the current Supervisory Committee by the current
    board was Fred Holland. 
    
    Linda

    
    	What's happened, is everyone just talked out or doesn;t anyone care
    anymore?
    
    ed

Well, there seems to be two choices:  1) Wait until DCU announces the process
for new elections, 2) File suit to force the BoD to proceed using the current
election results.

I haven't heard of anyone doing #2, so I guess #1 is what it will be.

Bob

re: .107, Bob

>                -< Not much we can do at this point in time... >-

Well, I suppose there's no reason why we _couldn't_ do #2.

-Jack

    
    >Well, I suppose there's no reason why we _couldn't_ do #2.

    True. Assuming one has money for the lawyers - who seem to be
    more expensive then either boats or beautiful women but decidedly
    less interesting. :-) But one would probably rather not discuss
    pending legal action in a semi public place such as a Notes
    conference now would one? :-)
    	
    			Alfred

I think it's up to the candidates to do something if
that want action in the area of the election results.
It's fine for the members to do something as well,
but the candidates obviously have the most at stake.

Collis

    RE: .110  by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON 
    
>It's fine for the members to do something as well,
>but the candidates obviously have the most at stake.
    
    That only makes sense if you assume the candidates are the only ones
    who will derive any benefit from their election.  If that were the
    case, why would any of the rest of us bother to vote?
    

re: .109, Alfred

>    >Well, I suppose there's no reason why we _couldn't_ do #2.
>    True. Assuming one has money for the lawyers

Aye. True enough.

>			But one would probably rather not discuss
>    pending legal action in a semi public place such as a Notes
>    conference now would one? :-)

Certainment! I just thought it prudent to observe the possibility.

-Jack

    RE: .109
    
    Well, if anyone is considering option #2, I'd be will to contribute to
    the legal-fees war chest.
    
    Steve
    

re Note 818.113 by SSAG::SUSSWEIN:

>     RE: .109
>     
>     Well, if anyone is considering option #2, I'd be will to contribute to
>     the legal-fees war chest.
  
        But of course neither you nor anybody else would use this
        conference, electronic mail, or any other corporate resource
        to solicit for such a purpose, right?

        Bob

    RE: .114
    
    >>>    But of course neither you nor anybody else would use this
    >>>    conference, electronic mail, or any other corporate resource
    >>>    to solicit for such a purpose, right?
    
    Of *course* not.  I was simply making an unsolicited offer of support.
    
    Steve
    

Re:  .111

     >>It's fine for the members to do something as well,
     >>but the candidates obviously have the most at stake.
    
   >That only makes sense if you assume the candidates are the only ones
   >who will derive any benefit from their election.  If that were the
   >case, why would any of the rest of us bother to vote?
    
We all have something at stake.  The candidates have the most
at stake.

Collis

    
    Me too.
    
    Geez, I wish I knew where to send it.
    

Actually, I have to agree with Ed in .106. The lack of activity in here,
given the tension in the current situation, is somewhat interesting.

It's about as quiet as an ex-DCU pres skipping the country in here.

-Jack

    
    Re .119
    
    Be careful, I was chastised in here for questioning the noting activity
    of late. But you can't tell because the replies were deleted.
    
    ed

Yes - I saw it before she deleted it, Ed. Something about fingers . . . 

-Jack

RE the quietness - maybe people have other things on their minds at the moment,
like whether they're still going to have jobs in the near future...

				-- Nina (10% of whose organization will be
					 laid off next week)

    Hey, troops:
    
    It's pretty darn quiet EVERYWHERE...  even ::Digital has been rather
    quiet of late...  the calm before the storm?  Actually, it's storming,
    big time, but I'm in the wrong conference to discuss that...
    
    I shudder to think...

    
    re .71:
    
    Here is the response:
    
    
                    National Credit Union ADministration
                                  Region 1
    
                                May 16, 1994
    
    
    Dear Mr. Kilgore:
    
    This acknowledges receipt of your letter concerning the propriety of
    certain actions taken by the board of directors of Digital Employees
    Federal Credit Union.
    
    The National Credit Union Administration does not involve itself in
    internal credit union disputes unless the credit union's safety and
    soundness is threatened.
    
    If you have any other concerns, please contact the INsurance Division
    of this office.
    
                                 Sincerely,
    
                         <Anthony LaCutz -- signature>
    
                            (for) Layne L. Bumgardner
                                  Regional Director
    
    
    I/SJC:sc
    23521-02B
    

Well, thanks for the effort and the update, Bill.
-Jack

    re .124
    
    Doesn't the mass exodus of people from the credit union apply as a
    threat to the solvency of the CU?

       
>    Doesn't the mass exodus of people from the credit union apply as a
>    threat to the solvency of the CU?

    What mass exodus? Oh sure, maybe a few people, even a few hundred
    (though I doubt that), have left over this flap. But a mass exodus?
    I've seen no indication of that. I seriously doubt that there is
    any risk to the DCU.

    			Alfred

No, and there isn't likely to be any, based on the fact that well over half
the membership probably doesn't even know or care what's going on.

-Jack

When people leave, it helps the DCU capital ratio and moves DCU further along
towards its goal of being a boutique credit union for the privileged few:-(

Bob

> 2) File suit to force the BoD to proceed using the current
> election results.

The problem with this is the Election was Invalidated before the end of the
election.  This in itself affects the outcome of the electrion.  Because of
this  I believe the election must be redone.

Ken

Careful now. We can't mention DEFCU and solvency in the same statement. The
DEFCU lawyer has already told us that.

-Glenn-

    
    So does this mean that the NCUA didn't tell the DCU board that is was
    ok to invalidate the elections?
    
    ed

    
    Re: .132
    
    > So does this mean that the NCUA didn't tell the DCU board that is
    > was ok to invalidate the elections?
         
    Yes, and it also means that the NCUA will take no action of any kind
    of any kind.  We either dispute it ourselves by any means we can or
    we live with it.  I assert that our best method of "dispute" is to
    ensure that the three G's remain on the ballot AND are elected.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

         
>    Yes, and it also means that the NCUA will take no action of any kind
>    of any kind.  We either dispute it ourselves by any means we can or
>    we live with it.  I assert that our best method of "dispute" is to
>    ensure that the three G's remain on the ballot AND are elected.
    

but if the NCUA doesn't enforce its rules and the board can invalidate any
election for any reason, what incentive does the board/executive branch have
to allow the three G's to run?

al

    
    
    

The obvious answer is the threat of a civil suit claiming that the Credit Union
is violating it's Bylaws, or any other grounds that a creative lawyer can
come up with.  It appears that the NCUA is mainly interested in protecting
the insurance fund.

	Tony

    
    Re: .134
    
    > but if the NCUA doesn't enforce its rules ...
    
    What rules?  I'd say the NCUA is saying that internal matters are not
    within its jurisdiction.  The NCUA is only going to do what it is
    obliged to do by law and is clearly saying that getting involved in
    this matter is not included in that.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

    Of course the other side of the coin is that we wouldn't be to
    happy if NCUA interfered when things were going are way. I can
    sort of see NCUA's point of view. After all, doesn't a CU belong 
    to the members? If the members don't like it, it's up to the
    members to change it. This of course ignores the case of someone
    not letting the members have their say but that's the way things
    work in government these days I guess.

    			Alfred

    
    	If I read this correctly, there is no NCUA 'rules' for the DCU
    board to cite as authorization to invalidate the election. And we know
    there is no bylaw in the DCU charter to authorize it either. So the
    original question still stands - What was the authority?
    
    It seems like a month is a long time for the DCU to wait to issue a
    statement if they already knew what they wanted to say.
    
    ed

re Note 818.124:

>     The National Credit Union Administration does not involve itself in
>     internal credit union disputes unless the credit union's safety and
>     soundness is threatened.

        Then why did they make a rule saying, categorically, that a
        members meeting could not define or limit policy in any way? 
        (Or are they saying that democratic governance of credit
        unions is inherently unsafe and/or unsound?)

        Bob

    
    Re: .138
    
    >	If I read this correctly, there is no NCUA 'rules' for the DCU
    >board to cite as authorization to invalidate the election. And we know
    >there is no bylaw in the DCU charter to authorize it either. So the
    >original question still stands - What was the authority?
    
    It is quite simple.  The NCUA is telling us that unless the BoD has
    done something that would jeopardize the solvency of the DCU or we, the
    DCU members, are willing to put up or shut up with the DCU BoD in
    court, then learn to live with it.  It may not sound very satisfying
    but that's what it amounts to.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re .139:
    
    You raise a good question.
    
    It seems totally inconsistent to me that the NCUA would
    
      o  insist on approving any bylaw changes (they essentially shot
         down our Member Bill of Rights, didn't they?)
    
      o  shrug off flagrant violation of existing bylaws as "internal
         disputes"
    
      o  totally ignore the question whether the bod can write and impose
         new bylaws regarding elections without NCUA approval
    
    But then, inconsistency is a common trait of such beauracracies.
    

    
    	Basically it's like the lawyer who was executor of my M-I-L's will
    said. If you don't like a decision that I make, sue me.
    
    As I have my hands full with so many other things and I plan to
    withdraw from this institution after the election, I'm not going to get
    worked up about it anymore. My advice is , let them do what ever they
    want. If they don't care , I don't either
    
    ed

Maybe Mangone didn't leave the country afterall. He might well be a consultant
or advisor at the NCUA.

-Jack

    
    Current candidate for the DCU Board of Directors and former DEC
    employee Dave Garrod informs me that a date has been set for rerunning
    the 1994 Board election. Has anyone else heard this. I will try to get
    particulars.
     

    
    According to Dave Garrod, this is the schedule for the new election,
    provided by current DCU president Chuck Cockburn in a letter to
    candidates dated June 8, 1994, and assuming "that the election rules
    will be approved by the Supervisory Committee within the next few
    weeks":
    
    
    Contact Candidates re: Statement Adjustments		7/1/94
    Adjusted Candidate Statements Returned			7/5/94
    Notification of Annual Meeting				7/7/94
    Candidate Statement adjustments to MIS			7/12/94
    Ballot Tape to MIS						7/19/94
    Ballot & Candidate Statements finalized and approved	7/25/94
    Election posters displayed at branches			8/4/94
    Ballots mailed						8/5/94
    Ballots returned						9/15/94
    Annual meeting						9/20/94 

    ------------------
    
    Because of the timing involved, the letter also included directions to
    the Annual Strategic Planning Conference in October at the Waterville
    Valley Ski Resort.
    

   >Contact Candidates re: Statement Adjustments		7/1/94
   >Adjusted Candidate Statements Returned			7/5/94
 
I smell a rat.  Candidates have the 4th of July holiday to "Adjust" their
statements.

Bob

    All I know is that the 3Gs had BETTER be viable candidates on the slate
    of candidates.

The following quote is taken from Volume 5 Number 3 of NETWORK, received
today with my monthly statement, from the front page article entitled
"New Election and Annual Meeting Dates Announced" -

" ... As promised in the [4/20 BoD] letter, the Supervisory Committee
  has established rules to ensure a fair and impartial election and
  that the facts are presented accurately."

Now, one would think that this is a factual statement, hence the "rules"
must now be cast in concrete.

So, where are they for our review?

-Jack

    The plan is to have them available at DCU branches for inspection, as I
    recall.  I expect that they are available now, but I've not confirmed it.
    
    Steve

Is an electronic copy posted here a possibility?

re: .149

What provisions have been made for those of us who live 1000+ miles from a
DCU branch?

Bob

They'll no doubt mail you a copy - for a price, Bob. :^)

But my cynicism is getting the best of me. I'll wait patiently for 
a valid response.

-Jack

    As Rodney Dangerfield might say, "Ooooh, tough crowd ..."  
    
    Anyway,  I checked with DCU today to see what the scoop was on the 
    rules being made available to members.  Copies of the rules are going 
    out today to all DCU branches (15 copies per branch).  Also, DCU can 
    make copies for folks that want 'em and each DCU employee is getting 
    a copy.  
    
    Now, I also have a copy with me right now.  I have the permission to
    type it in, but not a lot of time.  If someone wants to make
    arrangements with me to get a copy of my copy and then enter it into
    notes, feel free.  Otherwise, if I'm entering it in you'll need to wait
    until I find the time to do it.  Or, one of y'all can enter it in when
    you get it from a branch.  
    
    Steve

    Guess it was hand-typed or calligraphed eh.  Too bad it never existed
    on a word-processor, whence it could have been promulgated
    electronically without someone having to re-type it.  Oh well
    

    
    >>out today to all DCU branches (15 copies per branch).  Also, DCU can 
    >>make copies for folks that want 'em and each DCU employee is getting 
    >>a copy.                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
    UNBELIEVABLE... Why not just make sure they read one of the 15 copies 
    at the branch too.. Why such 'strict' control, everyone needs to be 
    made aware of the rules that will be used not just those that 1. have
    the time to go to a branch and 2. are within 'striking distance' of
    a branch...
    
    Lastly a copy should be made and then SIGNED by each employee indicating
    they've read it and agree to abide by it
    
    Steve, you shouldn't have to type it in, you should get it "on tape"
    just like we get the board minutes... Perhaps, someone has a scanner
    around that could more easily get the data online?
    
    
    John
    
    
    
    

    
    Update to .145:
    
    Information on the rescheduled election is now available at branches.
    A poster is on display, and packages containing revised statements from
    all caldidates, prefaced by a Supervisory Committee letter reviewing
    these statements, is available.
    
    Ballots are being mailed today, and the polls close September 15.
    

    Are the ballots being sent out first class mail, or are some of
    us in for another "rush to the wire" to get our ballots back in
    time?
    
    

I received ballots for all three of our accounts on Saturday.
They were sent presorted firstclass from Hingham, postmarked the 5th.

	Paul

Our ballots arrived yesterday and went out in this mornings mail.

We voted for CHANGE .... again!
And I will encourage others to do the same.

//bruce  

re: .-1

Oooo - pretty risky admonition, there, wouldn't you say?

-Jack

    
    Delivered Saturday, returned Sunday.
    
    BTW, does anyone know why Lois Haskins no longer shows up in VTX ELF?
    

Because she is no longer a DIGITAL employee.

Did anyone else get a glossy ad in the US mail for three DCU candidates?
(NOT the "3Gs".)  I'm wondering: do all candidates have equal access to
DCU's customer mailing list, and are they all spending their own money on
this sort of stuff?
							- paul

Didn't receive it. My understanding is that you can have the mailing house
distribute something to the membership for a price, but I don't recall the
actual figure. It's several thousand dollars. As it's a private concern
separate from DCU, it would have to be paid up front.

-Jack

    
        In fine print on the back, it says:

    "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. For
    information, contact Paul Milbury, P.O. Box 9116-199, Concord, MA
    01742."

This mailing had to cost many thousands of dollars.
Did the candidates really want this election enough to pay that themselves?

The mailing is very short on content, so I don't know who it would
influence.  It also very closely resembles other junk mail.  I almost threw
it out without realizing what it was.  With luck, most people will have
received and mailed their ballots before they receive this.

In any case, I am glad to have learned that our credit union is a "special
place".  Also it is good to know that Lisa DeMauro Ross is a great leader
who rose to the occasion in a time of crisis.  ("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...")

	Paul

re: .166, Paul

> Did the candidates really want this election enough to pay that themselves?

I don't know, but I'm sure they still have the "support" of the
"Committee for a Qualified Board", who, having seen the new election
rules, must know better than to splash their own name in front of the
public.
And I'm sure that the CQB has plenty of dosh.

-Jack

    
    I have it on good authority that such a mailing costs $1900 per 5000
    pieces.
    

    My wife and I received our ballots Monday.  My wife received one of
    these fliers yesterday, but I did not.  Timing?  Or selective mailing?
    
    In any case, their (in my opinion) fluff, did not sway our votes.

Anyone want to input the text?  I was wondering how they did this without
viloating any of the rules.

al

    

re: .-1


>Anyone want to input the text?  I was wondering how they did this without
>viloating any of the rules.

The way things get hidden these days, I have a strong suspicion that entering
it here _would_ violate the rules.

-Jack

    
    The mailings can be done selectively, and the cost probably dictates
    that they are done selectively. One wonders how three recently-fired
    candidates could ever manage it.
    
    Bill -- concerned member
    
    ----------------
    
    Don't bother entering any election material in this conference, even for
    the sake of discussion. It will be hidden. One hopes that more
    information will be available shortly.
    
    Bill -- co-moderator DCU
    

    
    
    	I didn't get the campaign material via snail mail. By any chance,
    are the people who have received the mail "relationship" members???
    
    JimH
    
    

    re .172:  Grr!  The glossy mailing raises a number of questions, and
    this is the proper forum to discuss them.  Perhaps the issues can be
    discussed without committing anything that could be called electioneering
    by Digital's management.
    
    That raises a separate question, though -- I don't recall seeing ANY
    statement from Digital proposing a new restriction on what can be
    discussed in notes files.  I believe that the previous rules did not
    require discussions of DCU election rules to be deleted from the
    notes file.
    
    Now, of course, as a good DEC doobie, I don't propose to deliberately
    post notes that are contrary to clearly explained guidelines on what
    the company allows in notes files.  But nothing's been explained!
    
    Therefore, could someone please post the new rules?  Alternately, could
    someone explain how we're supposed to abide by a rule that is so secret
    that we're not even allowed to know what it is?  Talk about a catch-22.
    
    	Thanks,
    	Larry

    
    Hypothetical question...

    Would it be a violation of election guidelines to infer that the credit
    union could possibly be in the same precarious position we were in
    before (ie: teetering at the brink of financial ruin) unless certain 
    individuals were elected? Or that our money would not be protected? 
    Or that the credit union would not be a special place?

    Just wondering.

re: .175

Gosh! Now that you mention it, those questions/inferences do kinda cast
a disparaging light on the old DEFCU, don't they? Sounds like a violation
of the rules to me. One should probably tell the SC that there might be
a lawsuit brewing there. Wonder why they (the SC) didn't catch that?

-Jack

re: .165

Ah, good.  When i saw what it was i just chucked it without reading any of
the fine print.  It did make me wonder if the SC has any campaign financing
rules (which seem to figure so prominently in government elections).  I
probably am a "relationship" member due to having direct deposit and an
auto loan, but that seems secondary vs. getting to the bottom of the
shady-seeming tactics that have been in abundance since just before the
BOD recall meeting of a coupla years back, so i voted for the 3Gs.  I
think the SC made a good-faith effort at trying to bring things under control,
but the only solution ultimately is getting the right people back on the BOD.

								- paul

At least it reminded me to vote...
Maybe not the way they wanted me to...

Amy  

>    Hypothetical question...
>
>    Would it be a violation of election guidelines to infer that the credit
>    union could possibly be in the same precarious position we were in

    - So now someone will file a complaint...
    - And we'll continue to go through the election process...
    - And then the SC will determine that some election rules have
      been violated...
    - And then ????

    I've got a sick feeling in my stomach that I've already seen this
    movie :-(

    Charly

re: .179

I agree...if you really want change, just skip the small sh** and get the
3Gs elected!  Anything else that delays that is just working to keep the
status quo in place.  If the 3Gs and Kinzelman can get control of the BOD,
then remedying the election rules and CQB junk can be dealt with, and we
can hopefully find out what role the powers-that-be at Digital are playing
in all this.
							- paul

IF (big if) the SC can be ditched in the process.

    Perhaps the slogan:
    
    	"The floggings will proceed until morale improves"
    
    could be paraphrased ?
    
    	"The elections will continue until they come out right"
    
    (Interpretation left to the reader).
    

    Well, I got mine today, 4 days after I sent my ballot back. Bulk mail
    gets short shrift the farther away from the point of embarkation...