Conference 7.286::dcu

    	Seems like adequate advance notice for TV coverage.  I bet that a
    request for such coverage would be denied...
    
    	Make no mistake, this represents a rather BIG news event.  How many
    credit unions get their BOD summarily dismissed like this?  How many of
    this size?  In general the organization required to do such a thing is
    simply NOT possible.  I believe that now is the time to really go
    public with the news media.  They WILL have a field day with all
    aspects of how this came to be.
    
    Dave Eklund
    

	OK, it isn't thirty days, but it isn't 6 months either. I'll
	be reasonable, and accept this date.

	Would the drafters of the please give their interpretation
	of what will constitute a quorum?


					Tom_K

    Hmm, Framingham.  Sort of inconvenient to those of us who don't
    live on or near the 495 Belt.  Such as, potentially, a large number
    of participants employed at ZK (the number one signature gatherer).

    Sorry BOD, I'll be there.  Perhaps we should Vanpool people there?
    I have a vehicle that can take 7.

    Bill

    	A. Call to Order and Introductions
    
    	B. Ascertainment that a quorum is present.
    
    	C. Consideration of the following:


    Phil, how do the DCU bylaws define "quorum"? A dictionary definition is
    "The minimum number of officers and members of a committee or organization,
    usually a majority, who must be present for the valid transaction of
    business."

    Had we been making the assumption that a quorum (i.e. a majority) of
    those members present at the meeting could carry the motions? Whereas
    the board's interpretation could be that a quorum of *all* (all 88K!)
    members is required? If the latter could be true, the meeting will be
    called to order, it will be "ascertainmented" that no such quorum is
    present, and the meeting will be closed. End of business...

    Say it ain't so, Phil.

    Jim

    Don't know the number, but I think it is  <100 that are rewuired for
    quorum for a special meeting. (Phil?)
    
    Bill
    

    
    Re .0:
    
    "Proper identification will be required."
    
    We should find out what constitutes "proper identification".
    

    It sounds to me like Ms Madden needs another written request (with the
    appropriate business reason) in order to get the information on what
    constitutes a quorum and what constitutes proper identification. "I
    think" on these points really isn't good enough.  There are more then
    15 days to get the information.
    
    I think we can safely count on no DCU person posting the information
    here, although it would save them time and effort.

       We had to show our badges to get into the sessions with the BoD at
    DCU headquarters. 
       I would certainly think that they would book a room big enough to
    hold their so-called 'quorum'. They can't have a conference room with a
    maximum capacity of 200 and say 500 is a quorum. Can someone check with
    the Sheraton and see what the capacity of the room they booked might
    be.
                                 Denny

According to the bylaws, Article V Section 5, 15 members 
constitutes a quorum for an annual or special meeting.  This 
should not be a problem.

Maryellen

DCU Charter, Article V, Section 5.

"Except as hereinafter provided, at annual or special meetings, 15 members
shall constitute a quorum.  If no quorum is present, an adjournment may be
taken to a date not fewer than 7 nor more than 14 days thereafter; and the
members present at any such adjourned meeting shall constitute a quorum,
regardless of the number of members present.  The same notice shall be given
for the adjourned meeting as is prescribed in section 2 of this Article for
the original meeting, except that such notice shall not be given fewer than
5 days previous to the date of the meeting as fixed in the adjournment."

Any typos are mine.

/Chris

    
    Article 5, Section 5.
    
    Except as hereinafter provided, at annual or special meetings, 15
    members shall constitute a quorem.  If no quorem is present, an
    adjournment may be taken to a date not fewer than 7 nor more than 14
    days thereafter; and the members present at any such adjourned meeting
    shall constitute a quorem, regardless of the number of members
    present.  The same notice shall be given for the adjourned meeting as
    is prescribed in section 2 of this Article for the original meeting,
    except that such notice shall be given not fewer than 5 days previous
    to the date of the meeting as fixed in the adjournment.
    

    
    CRASH BOOM BAM!!!!
    
    Geez, do I hate those 3 way note collisions...
    

Looks like Phil, Maryellen, and myself are all thinking alike :-)

/c

    I guess the dire predictions that the BoD would hold the meeting 6
    years from now in February at 2 am in Anchorage, Alaska and require 40K
    people were a little off.

>
>    I guess the dire predictions that the BoD would hold the meeting 6
>    years from now in February at 2 am in Anchorage, Alaska and require 40K
>    people were a little off.

    	They are already violating the Bylaws by disregarding the 30 day
    requirement.  The other items you suggest have no other possible
    interpretation and have never been in doubt.  While they have tried to
    do their best to mess with it, even they have their limits.
    
    Also, I consider it no coincidence that the meeting being called when
    it has been, now puts the call for new elections right in the middle of
    the annual elections that they announced last month.  There COULD be
    problems here.  Had the meeting been called according to the NCUA
    interpretation, the elections could have been held before the end of
    this year.  Time will tell.
    

    So how many people is the BoD going to try to get there?

Are DCU employees allowed to be members?  The board members, as longtime 
DEC employees in high positions, no doubt have a lot of DEC employee
friends who are DCU members and who'll be there.  There's certainly
nothing wrong with that.  However, if DCU employees can be members, then
it seems to me that we have a right and a responsibility to explain the
other side of the story to them.  The board could certainly arrange for 
an awful lot of DCU emplyoyees to be present!

	Enjoy,
	Larry

<<< Note 317.11 by ALPHA::gillett "And you may ask yourself, 'How do I work this?'" >>>
                               -< Quorum is... >-

DCU Charter, Article V, Section 5.

>"Except as hereinafter provided, at annual or special meetings, 15 members
>shall constitute a quorum.  If no quorum is present, an adjournment may be..."

Thanks, Maryellen, Chris, and Phil for providing this information in
triplicate. However, since this was done through no fault of my own,
do I still have to pay .25 three times?

Seriously, we can assume that there is no "Except as hereinafter provided..."
later in the bylaws...Right?

I'd be glad to look this up myself if I had a copy of the bylaws. If anyone
that does would care to make a copy for me, I'd rather pay you .25/page than
DCU...

Jim Syiek
LJO1/H4

    
    Yes, DCU employees can be DCU members.  I have a plan though.  Don't
    want ol' Mark to catch wind of it here.
    
    From what I've heard, DCU employees may be our strongest supporters!
    

    
    RE: .19
    
    The "except as hereinafter provided" refers to the elimination of the
    quorun requirement if a meeting is adjourned (due to lack of quorum)
    and re-held.
    
    Trust me (my best DCU impersonation), lack of quorum will NOT be a
    problem.

How many employees does DCU have?

    
    Concerning the elections, we have to wait and see what happens.  If
    there has been one thing I've come to expect, it has been the
    unexpected.  Wonder whether we will be allowed to see the election
    results next year?  Guess we should start organizing the attendance for
    next years DCU annual meeting so we don't have to pay for it.
    
    I was told they have about 250 employees.  But that would include
    employees at various branch locations I would imagine.
    
    

For starters, I'd be real interested to see if next year's annual report will
have some cryptic line item in it that boils down to expenses for flying every
DCU employee into town for the meeting.  Count on it.

Second, yes, call the media, but we haven't voted the BoD out of office yet (if
at all).  Somehow, this is shaping up like a slasher film:  I just don't think
this BoD monster is going to stay dead.

We're really going to have to get serious about this, and that means not only
spreading the word to the 1200 people who signed the petitions, but also to
just about anyone who's a current DCU member.  I don't want this to go down in
flames just because the BoD was better at packing the meeting than the owners 
were.

One almost wonders if members will be enticed to vote for the current BoD
with special interest rate loans or extra "dividends" at the end of the year.

So far, this fish has been stinking from the head down to its tail.  I see no
reason why it's going to stop stinking, or any reason to believe that it'll be
this easy.

     RE: .18
     
     If you  find  my Notes on the Annual Meeting (this year's), you will
     see where I  stated  that  the  meeting  room  was  packed  with DCU
     Employees (ALL of whom are DCU Members)!
     
     You can count on  a  large  number  of  DCU  Employees being at this
     special meeting, and IF any  votes  are taken by Voice/Hand, you can
     count on them NOT VOTING OUT  THE BOD!!  Please, we MUST ensure that
     ALL votes are by SECRET BALLOT (with  at  least  one  member  of the
     "special committee" present for the count.
     
     The Sheraton Tara is a "convention center" hotel with Huge rooms.  A
     good location for the meeting.  Also the hour  they picked is better
     than having the meeting during "normal working hours".

     The hotel is on Rte.  9, right next to  I90  (Mass  Tnpke),  so  the
     location is an easy one to get to.
     

    Re .26:
    
    Questions for people with copies of bylaws (and/or parliamentary
    procedure experts)...
    
    What is necessary to force secret ballots on the questions?
    
    How open is the ballot-counting process (i.e. can the meeting decide
    who is to observe/conduct the count?
    
    I absolutely agree that voice votes should be contested.  Whether
    secret ballots should be required depends (to me, anyhow) on the
    second of these questions...

    RE .26
    
    Secret ballots are not the answer if your concern is fair and honest
    vote counting.  The more secretive the vote counting process, the more
    ways there are to manage the totals.  I'd suggest bringing video
    cameras and requesting that at least one video camera be designated as
    an official witness of the proceedings including the counting of the
    hands (or people standing, etc) as votes are taken.
    
    If the votes are taken using paper ballots, I'd request that they be
    counted on a table in front of all concerned.  Because there will
    probably be a crowd, I'd also request that certain individuals, most of
    whom are active in this notes conference, be given front row positions
    as well as a number of folks who advocate the retention of the BOD. 
    I'd also request a signed statement (affadavit, if possible) of the
    vote totals from the meeting's Secretary after each vote.
    
    In case there is interest in amending our by-laws regarding future
    elections, I'll volunteer to help in writing new procedures.
    
    
                                 Kurt Hyde
                                 Co-Chair of the First National Symposium
                                 on Security and Auditability of Computers
                                 in the Electoral Process -- Boston
                                 University, August 1986

    
    We will attempt to discuss voting procedures with the other involved 
    parties.  All of these concerns will be made known and their response
    posted.
    
    A secret ballot would be best.  It wouldn't be secret in that we
    wouldn't know what was going on, just that individual choices are not
    made public.  Before voting begins, we also expect to know how many
    people there are there so that everything adds up, if you know what I
    mean.  This should actually be handled by independent auditors and have
    a group of 2-3 people from each group of people present.  Again,
    hopefully we can get this all squared away soon.
    
    In the meantime, mark those calendars, book those baby-sitters, and get
    the car in good running order because you won't want to miss this once
    in a lifetime event.  
    

    That proper identification section could be a real stickler.  Has that
    ever been officially documented in our bylaws or by precedent?  Has
    anyone contacted the DCU requesting an official definition of proper
    identification of a DCU member?
    
    Are they going to produce a printout of members on November 1st?  If 
    so, what will they use as ID?  They can't make a Digital badge the one
    and only picture ID because not all DCU members are current Digital 
    employees.  They may decide to require picture ID with an address that 
    matches their records, so get your driver's license address up to date.
    They may allow a Digital badge with a badge number that matches their
    computer printout.
    
    I'd hate to see them require the November 1st (or is it October 31st)
    monthly statement along with picture ID.  I just got last month's
    statement and today is the 16th!  November 1st is a Friday.  It might
    be a good idea to transact some business with the DCU that produces a
    document with your badge number, your address, or both on Friday,
    November 1st.
    
    Too bad Colorado is too far away and proxies aren't allowed.
    
                                          Kurt

    
    I would expect a simple statement of your name, followed by any picture
    ID with that name on it would then be checked against DCU's roles as of
    Nov. whatever.
    
    I don't expect DCU is willing to risk a membership riot over denying. 
    access.  We will also have people at the doors to assist people in any way
    possible.  If this becomes a problem, then we'll make it an issue when
    the meeting opens.

From:	SMAUG::GARROD "Rumours are usually young facts  16-Oct-1991 2002" 16-OCT-1991 20:18:44.06
To:	SNA$DEVTEAM
CC:	
Subj:	DCU special meeting

Attached is information on a special meeting that has been scheduled
concerning DCU business. This meeting was scheduled as a result of 1200+
DCU members demanding it. The major purpose of the meeting is to remove the
complete board of directors of the DCU and force them into a later election
process along with anybody else that wants to stand for the board.

As you are probably aware in 1985 the DCU made some very speculative
investments in participation loans that were used to purchase Cape Cod
Real Estate. These loans went bad. This is all tied in with the alleged fraud
of the former DCU president Richard Mangone. The investments were for $18M.
Of which $6M has been recovered through an insurance bond on Richard Mangone.
The property is worth a few million (estimates vary from $1M to $5M) the
rest is thus a loss. DCU is sueing Mangone etc for the rest but my guess is
that they won't recover much. DCU put about $4M into a loan loss reserves last
year and I believe will do the same this year. My estimation is that DCU will
end up having squandered $8M of our money.

Now why are we trying to recall the board you may ask. Well a lot of us believe 
that the board failed to oversee the credit union properly and ignored the
provisions of some key byelaws. Also the existence
of these speculative investments was covered up between 1985 and 1990. Partial
financial statements (annual reports) were issued, they did not include
the auditors notes mentioning the participation loans.

Lately the board has instituted a new information protection policy preventing
members from getting information on what has been happening at the DCU.
Add to all this the famous black pamplet on choices has made a lot of us mad.
I personally feel there is no recourse other than to recall the whole board
and attempt to put in place a board that ensures that the credit union
takes better care of our money.

Much more detail regarding all of this can be found in the DCU notesfile.
If you are at all interested in reforming the DCU I urge you to come to
the special meeting and vote your conscience. A simple majority of members
present will be sufficient to force the board out and thus subject them
to a new election.

Please feel free to forward this memo to whomever you choose.

Dave, a very upset DCU member


              <<< BEIRUT::R7XBOK$DIA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;4 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 317.0     Special Meeting 11/12/91 at 7:30pm - PLEASE ATTEND     31 replies
CVG::EDRY "This note's for you"                      47 lines  16-OCT-1991 11:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The follwoing was received at my PO box today 10/16/91:
    
    		Notice of Special Meeting
    
    	PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 12, 1991 at 7:30pm at the
    Sheraton Tara Hotel, located at 1657 Worcester Road in Framingham, MA,
    a Special Meeting of the membership will be held to consider the
    following items:
    
    	A. Call to Order and Introductions
    
    	B. Ascertainment that a quorum is present.
    
    	C. Consideration of the following:
    
    	  1. A rescission of all changes to DCU "checking" (sharedraft)
    	     account terms, conditions, options and fees made since August
    	     1, 1991.
    
    	   2.  A removal of all DCU Directors, under Article XIX, Section 3
    	     of the DCU Bylaws.
    
    	   3.  A call for new elections within ninety (90) days of the
    	     Special Meeting to fill all Board of Directors positions,
    	     under article VI of the DCU Bylaws.
    
    	D. Adjournment.
    
    	Only matters related to the Agenda set forth above can be
    considered at the meeting.
    
    	PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that only those members in attendance at
    the meeting will be permitted to vote.  The record date for qualified
    members is November 1, 1991 and our Bylaws prohibit voting by
    individuals under the age of sixteen (16( years.  Proper identification
    will be required.
    
    	If you have questions regarding this Notice or the Special Meeting,
    please contact the Credit Union through its Director of Communications,
    Ms. Mary madden, at the address and phone number above.
    
    ===================================================================
    
    please ingore any typos,
    
     - Bob
    

This is all well and good.  However, there was one statement made that really
bothered me.  I think it was Phil that said he had some kind of plan for
handling the DCU employee issue but would not tell anyone what it was.  Also,
much of what is being said also assumes that Phil runs the show with his
committee.

Well, I have a real problem with that.  I don't know Phil from anything.  I have
not been invited to know what is going on.  I have not even been notified of
what is going on, except for what I accidently heard.  My wife and I plan on
being at the special meeting, but in no way do I want Phil or anyone else
being treated as my representative.  If there is a need for certain people to
certify results, it should be people that cross the spectrum of the membership.
The vote counting should also be done in front of the membership as a whole,
and not in some secret back room.

I don't know where any of these supposed "representatives" work, live, or
anything.  None of you represent me and I don't like it being insinuated as
such.

Ed..

    Somebody could post the direction to Sheraton from 495?? We all should
    plan to car pool or van pool. It does not make sense to have 1200+ cars
    at sheraton. I live in Nashua, NH. My wife is a member also. Let's
    start planning on this.
    
    Bharat

Folks,

{Massive flame}

Lets not start this rathole again.   The special " secret" committee is well
known to all who signed petitions as that has been "our" only function.

	Phil DOES NOT have a secret adgenda, but he probably does not want
	to reveal his tactisc any more than the "PUBLIC" board of directors
	who are probably also working on tactics AND reading theis notes file.

	Phil does NOT have a secret committee to PLOT to run the DCU in
	his interest.  Anyone who knows him (vs thinking they have him
	figured out) knows he is putting in a lot of time and energy
	to get ALL members of both persuations to attend this meeting.

	PHIL DID NOT CALL THE MEETING, 1200 of us did.,

	PHIL DOES NOT PUBLICIZE ALL PERSONALLY MAIL SENT TO HIM,
	since it would be read with glee by those interested in countering
	any competition, should the board be voted out and new elections
	called.

If you want to vote the fees out and/or the board out, come to the meeting,

IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THE CURRENT BOARD AND STATUS QUO, come to the meeting.

{Gas off}

Please folks, lets quit the paranoia and instead work to a solution which
will be to all of our benefits, EITHER WAY THE RESULTS COME.

Bill

(If I give rides to the meeting, I don't care which way you who ride
 intend to vote, but I do have a right to my opinion also).

From:	GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "Phil DTN 264-1680 TTB1-2/B1 pole 2A3  17-Oct-1991 0102" 17-OCT-1991 02:56:54.74
To:	@DCU_INTEREST_LIST
CC:	@VOLUNTEERS,GRANSEWICZ
Subj:	DCU Special Meeting Announced


    [Permission to forward or post this mail is granted.  However, the
     original mail header and names at the end of the message must be
     retained.  The contents of the mail may be shared with any DCU member.]


							October 16, 1991


	--- DCU Interest List ---

	   If you received this message via forwarding and wish to be added to
	the original distribution list, please send mail to GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ.
	Please include your location with the request.


	--- DCU Notes File ---

	BEIRUT::DCU 


	--- DCU Special Meeting Announced ---

	   Notice of the special meeting went out in Wednesday's mail and
	some people have received it already.  The text of the letter is
	at the end of this message.  It will be held on Tuesday,
	November 12, 1991 at 7:30pm at the Sheraton Tara Hotel, located
	at 1657 Worcester Road in Framingham, MA.


	--- DCU Special Meeting Attendance ---

	   We will be trying to get a handle on how many people are planning
	on attending the special meeting.  We don't want to run out of seats.
	If currently plan on attending the special meeting, please send mail
	to GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ stating whether you will be there, might be
	there, or cannot be there.  Also, please note if other family members
	who are not DEC employees are planning on coming with you.


	--- DCU Special Meeting Directions ---
	
	   We will be developing directions for people who don't know where
	it is.  They will be sent in a subsequent message.


	--- DCU Special Meeting Carpools ---

	   We will also try and coordinate car pooling for those who wish
	to do so.  More on this in later messages also.


        Regards,
        Phil Gransewicz & Members of the DCU Special Meeting Committee



    		Notice of Special Meeting
    
    	PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 12, 1991 at 7:30pm at the
    Sheraton Tara Hotel, located at 1657 Worcester Road in Framingham, MA,
    a Special Meeting of the membership will be held to consider the
    following items:
    
    	A. Call to Order and Introductions
    
    	B. Ascertainment that a quorum is present.
    
    	C. Consideration of the following:
    
    	  1. A rescission of all changes to DCU "checking" (sharedraft)
    	     account terms, conditions, options and fees made since August
    	     1, 1991.
    
    	   2.  A removal of all DCU Directors, under Article XIX, Section 3
    	     of the DCU Bylaws.
    
    	   3.  A call for new elections within ninety (90) days of the
    	     Special Meeting to fill all Board of Directors positions,
    	     under Article VI of the DCU Bylaws.
    
    	D. Adjournment.
    
    	Only matters related to the Agenda set forth above can be
    considered at the meeting.
    
    	PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that only those members in attendance at
    the meeting will be permitted to vote.  The record date for qualified
    members is November 1, 1991 and our Bylaws prohibit voting by
    individuals under the age of sixteen (16) years.  Proper identification
    will be required.
    
    	If you have questions regarding this Notice or the Special Meeting,
    please contact the Credit Union through its Director of Communications,
    Ms. Mary Madden, at the address and phone number above.  (DTN 223-6735
    ex. 207)

I don't consider my comments a rat hole.  Rather, I took (take) offense at any
consideration that Phil's SECRET strategies should be my strategies.  If he
wishes to play some fancy moves at the meeting, he should have to follow the
same requirements as the rest of us.  I was not asked to sign a petition.  I
did not even know about the petition until LONG after it was sent in.

You keep saying 1200 of you are in this majical committee.  Well, I still don't
feel that this committee means anything.  Now that the meeting has been called,
the committee is dissolved.  It is no longer needed.  The signatures were only
needed to call the meeting.

We all represent each other.  I don't happen to believe the statements that
there are no SECRET things going on.  If you wish us to feel this includes us,
then you should tell US what is going on.  If you wish to keep SECRETS, then
don't expect any support or assistance from us folks being kept in the DARK.

When the time comes to vote a new board, I don't have any plans on voting on
a slate created by this committee.

Ed..

    RE: .37
    
    Whats going on is the BoD is being thrown out.
    
    If you don't agree, go to the meeting and vote against us.
    The strategy is VOTE.  For more strategy read up on parliamentary
    procedure.  If you don't choose to follow that strategy...oh well.
    
    cbc

Ed,

As has been explained to you in the past, the committee is not
secret and what Phil (and Bob and John and Larry and fill in the
name) is doing is not a secret.

As has been explained to you in the past, neither Phil nor the
committee has ever attempted to claim that they represent you.

  >We all represent each other.

You don't represent me and I don't represent you.  However, we can
both represent ourselves.

  >Well, I still don't feel that this committee means anything.

That's evidently because you disagree with the goal that the committee
is pursuing.  The committee has never heard from me (other than a signed
petition), but I think/feel that the committee is acting quite
appropriately.

  >...I don't have any plans on voting on a slate created by this committee.

Since the committee has already publicly stated that it would not be
creating a slate, none of us have such plans.  :-)

  >I was not asked to sign a petition.

It is very true that getting the word out was problematic.  The committee
will attempt to do better next time (should there be a need for another
petition).

Collis_up_til_now_a_secret_member_of_the_committee_whose_cover_has_been_blown

    
    Gee, here we go again...  Wish I could understand this paranoia but I
    truly must say I don't.
    
    This "committee" is trying to get the meeting called (done, although
    until recently in doubt), create awareness among DCU members of DCU
    issues, help get people to/from the meeting (carpools, etc.), publicize
    the meeting, etc.
    
    I have taken create pains to make it very clear to people that nobody
    is endorsing anybody.  PLEASE LOOK AT THE AGENDA ITEMS.  Item 3 calls
    for new, open elections.  We represent the interests of 1220 people who
    signed petitions to call this meeting.  IMO, it is in everybodys best
    interest if the meeting is attended by as many DCU members as possible.
    We are doing what we feel is appropriate towards that goal.
    
    If you, as an individual, don't wish to be involved, then don't be
    involved.  I respect that decision.  At the same time, I ask that you
    respect the decision that others have made to give their time and
    efforts toward these goals.
    
    And finally, baseless accusations and insults are not required and I
    would ask that you refrain from such.  If you have questions, fine. 
    Simply ask them and I will attempt to answer them.  I cannot promise
    that you will agree or like the answer though.

	This morning I talked by telephone to the branch manager at
	the DCU branch at ZKO. I asked her if I could post copies of
	the letter informing members about the special meeting in the
	branch. She said she would have to contact HQ, and would get 
	back to me on it. When she called back, she said that it was
	the opinion of HQ that there was no need to post the letter
	at the branches, since an individual notice had been sent
	to each member, and they regarded that posting the letter
	would clutter up the branch.

	I did send a copy of the letter to ZKO employee activities, 
	and asked them to post it on the ZKO cafeteria bulletin board.

						Tom_K

    
    Interesting.  Do they post notice of the annual meeting at the
    branches?  Every member is also notified of that event.
    
    Guess they don't feel it is in the best interest of DCU members to
    remind them of the meeting on a daily basis when they visit the
    branches.  Also, DCU members who aren't aware of all the issues might
    start asking questions which DCU employees have been explicitly told to
    avoid.

	Re identification:


	Do the By-laws speak to the issue of proper identification?

	I will bring the following documents with me:

		Passport

		Digital Picture Badge

		Copy of most recent account statement

	I can't imagine how these documents can fail to properly identify
	me.

						Tom_K

>The record date for qualified members is November 1, 1991

What does this mean? Do I have to call them and tell them I'll be at the meeting
so they can record it or something? Or are they trying to say that if you are
a member on Nov. 1 then you can attend?

-Glenn_

    Bring the letter that you received in the mail ALONG with the envolope. 
    That is probably the best way to show that you belong in the meeting. 
    All you have to do then, is prove that you are John Doe.
    
    	-mark

I think Ed has a valid point about worrying what 'secret' plan is 
being hatch..  I don't believe Phil has a devious plan, but if you
look at reply .20, then it would be possible to believe something
is happening behind the scene that we aren't aware of.

>< Note 317.20 by GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "Someday, DCU will be a credit union." >
>   
>    Yes, DCU employees can be DCU members.  I have a plan though.  Don't
>    want ol' Mark to catch wind of it here.
>    
>    From what I've heard, DCU employees may be our strongest supporters!
>

>    Yes, DCU employees can be DCU members.  I have a plan though.  Don't
>    want ol' Mark to catch wind of it here.
>    
>    From what I've heard, DCU employees may be our strongest supporters!
    
    Phil may have a plan, but it is HIS plan.  If you have a plan, then
    fine, do something.  He has not said his plan is anything but his. 
    This is his right to do so.
    
    
    
    	- mark

re .33 etc. 

Actually, I think I do understand people getting upset about "secret
strategies".  We as a group were massively defrauded by Mangone, and
so it's only logical to suspect everyone at the top in the DCU -- and
by extension, to suspect everything related to the DCU.

However, while it is rational to question everyone's motives, in this
case I don't see that supcions hold up.  Let me review what happened.

1)  I entered a note saying "oh no, the DCU employees are going to be
there, and since the Board has explicitly told them not to listen to
customers talk about the problems with the Board, they don't know enough
about the problem.  We should do something about this!"

2)  Phil (whom I have never spoken to face to face, although I saw him
at the second special meeting) entered a note saying that *HE* had a
plan for how to deal with that, that he didn't care to discuss in public.


Now, what's there to be suspicious of in this?  So Phil's got a plan?
Great, I've got a plan, too, and I'm not on any special committee.  
Phil can carry out his plan, I can carry out mine (though I probably
won't, as it's a lot of trouble), and anyone else who wants to can do 
anything they want to about the problem -- including ignoring it.

I don't see that there's any grounds in any of this for assuming that
Phil or anybody else thinks he's acting on behalf of anyone else.  The
point is that we all have a right to do anything we like that is legal
and ethical.  I assume Phil's plan is both.  If I were really curious
about what his plan is, I'd ask him off line what it is.

In conclusion, while it's reasonable to raise the question of whether
there is some secret group running around with a hidden agenda for the
DCU, the fact is that there isn't anything observable to uphold such a 
suspicion.  Well, I take it back.  The Board does give that impression.
But the special meeting committee doesn't.

	Enjoy,
	Larry


PS -- Please nobody mention my name in connection with the special
committee.  I like the things I've seen that the committee is doing, but I
deserve no credit for any of it.  So I speak solely for myself.  For that
matter, the committee members seem to mostly speak for themselves, too.

PPS -- So they won't let you post a notice in the DCU branch about the
special meeting? OK, post it outside.  I strongly encourage anyone who
posts a notice to include a contact name -- someone local who agrees to
be the point of contact for people who want further information.  I also
feel that when providing information, one should provide the board's 
positions on the issues -- partly out of fairness, and partly so that
people have plenty of time to decide whether the board's positions make
sense.  I believe the board members have a right to speak at the special
meeting before the vote, and I wouldn't have it any other way.  But I
wouldn't want people confused by hearing claims they hadn't had a chance
to think about in advance.

    Just wondering ... My wife and I have a joint account, does that mean
    we only have one vote?
    
    Bob

    
    For crying out loud!  My investigations of DCU have brought me so
    close to them I appear to have taken on some slime.  Let me attempt to
    wipe it off right now.
    
    My sinister plan was to buy a t-shirt that had a catchy phrase on it.
    Similar to the phrase in the National Credit Union Week note.  Whatever
    that was.  No you've gone and ruined my surprise.  I hope you're happy.
    Now I'm going to have to think of yet another sinister plan.  But
    can we please start a seperate paranoia-conspiracy note please?!  I
    don't want to rat-hole this discussion again.

    
    I was just walking through the TAY1 caf, and I noticed some small green
    pieces of paper on the condiment stand.
    
    
    			     Meet Chuck Cockburn
    		          DCU's new president/ceo.
    
    			DATE:  October 21, 1991
    			PLACE: TAY2-1/E5 MIT Conf. Rm.
    			TIME:  11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
    
    				(DCU logo)
    
    I thought it was a pretty good idea.
    
    Below is a PostScript file of a similar DCU special meeting notice. Print
    landscape, copy (onto colored sheets, if available) and cut on the dotted
    line to make four notices from each sheet. Drop them off in well-traveled
    locations in your building.
    
    
%!PS-Adobe-2.1
%%Creator: DECwrite V1.1
%%+Copyright (c) 1990 DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION.  
%%+All Rights Reserved.
%%DocumentFonts: (atend)
%%EndComments
%%BeginProcSet DEC_WRITE 1.06
/DEC_WRITE_dict 150 dict def DEC_WRITE_dict begin/$D save def/$I 0 def/$S 0
def/$C matrix def/$R matrix def/$L matrix def/$E matrix def/pat1{/px exch
def/pa 8 array def 0 1 7{/py exch def/pw 4 string def 0 1 3{pw exch px py 1
getinterval putinterval}for pa py pw put}for}def/pat2{/pi exch def/cflag
exch def save cflag 1 eq{eoclip}{clip}ifelse newpath{clippath
pathbbox}stopped not{/ph exch def/pw exch def/py exch def/px exch def/px px
3072 div floor 3072 mul def/py py 3072 div floor 3072 mul def px py
translate/pw pw px sub 3072 div floor 1 add cvi def/ph ph py sub 3072 div
floor 1 add cvi def pw 3072 mul ph 3072 mul scale/pw pw 32 mul def/ph ph 32
mul def/px 0 def/py 0 def pw ph pi[pw 0 0 ph 0 0]{pa py get/px px 32 add
def px pw ge{/px 0 def/py py 1 add 8 mod def}if}pi type/booleantype
eq{imagemask}{image}ifelse}if restore}def/PS{/_op exch def/_np 8 string def
0 1 7{/_ii exch def/num _op _ii get def _np 7 _ii sub num -4 bitshift PX
num 15 and 4 bitshift -4 bitshift PX 4 bitshift or put}for _np}def/PX{[15 7
11 3 13 5 9 1 14 6 10 2 12 4 8 0]exch get}def/FR{0.7200 0 $E defaultmatrix
dtransform/yres exch def/xres exch def xres dup mul yres dup mul add
sqrt}def/SU{/_sf exch def/_sa exch def/_cs exch def/_mm $C currentmatrix
def/rm _sa $R rotate def/sm _cs dup $L scale def sm rm _mm _mm concatmatrix
_mm concatmatrix pop 1 0 _mm dtransform/y1 exch def/x1 exch def/_vl x1 dup
mul y1 dup mul add sqrt def/_fq FR _vl div def/_na y1 x1 atan def _mm 2 get
_mm 1 get mul _mm 0 get _mm 3 get mul sub 0 gt{{neg}/_sf load
concatprocs/_sf exch def}if _fq _na/_sf load setscreen}def/BO{/_yb exch
def/_xb exch def/_bv _bs _yb _bw mul _xb 8 idiv add get def/_mk 1 7 _xb 8
mod sub bitshift def _bv _mk and 0 ne $I 1 eq xor}def/BF{DEC_WRITE_dict
begin/_yy exch def/_xx exch def/_xi _xx 1 add 2 div _bp mul cvi def/_yi _yy
1 add 2 div _bp mul cvi def _xi _yi BO{/_nb _nb 1 add def 1}{/_fb _fb 1 add
def 0}ifelse end}def/setpattern{/_cz exch def/_bw exch def/_bp exch def/_bs
exch PS def/_nb 0 def/_fb 0 def _cz 0/BF load SU{}settransfer _fb _fb _nb
add div setgray/$S 1 def}def/invertpattern{$S 0 eq{{1 exch
sub}currenttransfer concatprocs settransfer}if}def/invertscreen{/$I 1
def/$S 0 def}def/revertscreen{/$I 0 def}def/setrect{/$h exch def/$w exch
def/$y exch def/$x exch def newpath $x $y moveto $w $x add $y lineto $w $x
add $h $y add lineto $x $h $y add lineto closepath}def/concatprocs{/_p2
exch cvlit def/_p1 exch cvlit def/_pn _p1 length _p2 length add array def
_pn 0 _p1 putinterval _pn _p1 length _p2 putinterval _pn
cvx}def/OF/findfont load def/findfont{dup DEC_WRITE_dict exch
known{DEC_WRITE_dict exch get}if DEC_WRITE_dict/OF get exec}def
mark/ISOLatin1Encoding 
8#000 1 8#001{StandardEncoding exch get}for /emdash/endash
8#004 1 8#025{StandardEncoding exch get}for /quotedblleft/quotedblright
8#030 1 8#054{StandardEncoding exch get}for /minus 8#056 1 8#217
{StandardEncoding exch get}for/dotlessi 8#301 1 8#317{StandardEncoding 
exch get}for/space/exclamdown/cent/sterling/currency/yen/brokenbar/section
/dieresis/copyright/ordfeminine/guillemotleft/logicalnot/hyphen/registered
/macron/degree/plusminus/twosuperior/threesuperior/acute/mu/paragraph
/periodcentered/cedilla/onesuperior/ordmasculine/guillemotright/onequarter
/onehalf/threequarters/questiondown/Agrave/Aacute/Acircumflex/Atilde
/Adieresis/Aring/AE/Ccedilla/Egrave/Eacute/Ecircumflex/Edieresis/Igrave
/Iacute/Icircumflex/Idieresis/Eth/Ntilde/Ograve/Oacute/Ocircumflex/Otilde
/Odieresis/multiply/Oslash/Ugrave/Uacute/Ucircumflex/Udieresis/Yacute/Thorn
/germandbls/agrave/aacute/acircumflex/atilde/adieresis/aring/ae/ccedilla
/egrave/eacute/ecircumflex/edieresis/igrave/iacute/icircumflex/idieresis
/eth/ntilde/ograve/oacute/ocircumflex/otilde/odieresis/divide/oslash/ugrave
/uacute/ucircumflex/udieresis/yacute/thorn/ydieresis
256 array astore def cleartomark 
/encodefont{findfont dup maxlength dict begin{1 index/FID ne{def}{pop
pop}ifelse}forall/Encoding exch def dup/FontName exch def currentdict
definefont end}def/loads{/$/ISOLatin1Encoding load def/&/encodefont load
def/*/invertpattern load def/+/revertscreen load def/-/invertscreen load
def/:/concatprocs load def/^/setpattern load def/~/pat1 load def/_/pat2
load def/@/setrect load def/A/arcn load def/B/ashow load def/C/curveto load
def/D/def load def/E/eofill load def/F/findfont load def/G/setgray load
def/H/closepath load def/I/clip load def/K/kshow load def/L/lineto load
def/M/moveto load def/N/newpath load def/O/rotate load def/P/pop load
def/R/grestore load def/S/gsave load def/T/translate load def/U/sub load
def/V/div load def/W/widthshow load def/X/exch load def/Y/awidthshow load
def/a/save load def/c/setlinecap load def/d/setdash load def/e/restore load
def/f/setfont load def/g/initclip load def/h/show load def/i/setmiterlimit
load def/j/setlinejoin load def/k/stroke load def/l/rlineto load
def/m/rmoveto load def/n/currentfont load def/o/scalefont load
def/p/currentpoint load def/r/currenttransfer load def/s/scale load
def/t/setmatrix load def/u/settransfer load def/w/setlinewidth load
def/x/matrix load def/y/currentmatrix load def}def
end
%%EndProcSet
%%EndProlog

%%BeginSetup
DEC_WRITE_dict begin
loads
version cvi 23.0 gt {
currentdict {dup type /arraytype eq
{bind def} {pop pop} ifelse} forall} if
0.0100 0.0100 s

%%EndSetup
%%Page: 1 1
/$P a D
g N
90 O
S
R
S
N
900.00 -30600.00 M
79200.00 -30600.00 L
S
50 w
0 c
0 j
2 i
[400 400] 0 d
0.00 G k
R
R

S
N
39600.00 0.00 M
39600.00 -61200.00 L
S
50 w
0 c
0 j
2 i
[400 400] 0 d
0.00 G k
R
R

S
1800 -12600 36000 10800 @
S
0.875 G E
R
S
200 w
0 c
0 j
0.00 G k
R
R

S
5598 -4809 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 $
/Times-Bold & P
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 2400 o f
(DCU SPECIAL MEETING) h
R

S
N
5399.00 -6299.00 M
34200.00 -6300.00 L
S
200 w
0 c
0 j
0.00 G k
R
R

S
7526 -8616 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 1800 o f
(Tuesday, 12\255Nov\2551991, 7:30 PM) h
R

S
4402 -11316 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 1800 o f
(Sheraton Tara Hotel, Framingham  MA) h
R

S
1800 -14400 T
N
0 G
300 -1200 M
/Times-Roman-ISOLatin1 $
/Times-Roman & P
/Times-Roman-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
61.4 0 32 (This meeting was called in response to the signed petitions of over 1200) W
300 -2600 M
(members, to consider the following:) h
300 -4000 M
6060 -4000 M
(1.  recision of recent "checking acount" changes) h
300 -5400 M
6060 -5400 M
(2.  removal of all Directors) h
300 -6800 M
6060 -6800 M
(3.  call for new elections to fill all Director positions) h
300 -8200 M
20.9 0 32 (If you care about ) W
/Times-BoldItalic-ISOLatin1 $
/Times-BoldItalic & P
/Times-BoldItalic-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
20.9 0 32 (your) W
/Times-Roman-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
20.9 0 32 ( credit union, please come to this meeting and vote) W
300 -9600 M
(your conscience.) h
300 -11000 M
300 -12250 M
n 0.833 o f
134.1 0 32 (The Sheraton Tara Framingham is located at the intersection of Rts. 9 and 90 \(Mass) W
300 -13450 M
(Pike\) in Framingham. For more information on the meeting, including car pooling,) h
300 -14650 M
(directions and requirements for entry, refer to Notes conference BEIRUT::DCU.) h
-1800 14400 T
R

S
N
1800.00 -25200.00 M
37800.00 -25200.00 L
S
100 w
0 c
0 j
2 i
0.00 G k
R
R


S
41400 -12600 36000 10800 @
S
0.875 G E
R
S
200 w
0 c
0 j
0.00 G k
R
R

S
45198 -4809 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 2400 o f
(DCU SPECIAL MEETING) h
R

S
N
44999.00 -6299.00 M
73800.00 -6300.00 L
S
200 w
0 c
0 j
0.00 G k
R
R

S
47126 -8616 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 1800 o f
(Tuesday, 12\255Nov\2551991, 7:30 PM) h
R

S
44002 -11316 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 1800 o f
(Sheraton Tara Hotel, Framingham  MA) h
R

S
41400 -14400 T
N
0 G
300 -1200 M
/Times-Roman-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
61.4 0 32 (This meeting was called in response to the signed petitions of over 1200) W
300 -2600 M
(members, to consider the following:) h
300 -4000 M
6060 -4000 M
(1.  recision of recent "checking acount" changes) h
300 -5400 M
6060 -5400 M
(2.  removal of all Directors) h
300 -6800 M
6060 -6800 M
(3.  call for new elections to fill all Director positions) h
300 -8200 M
20.9 0 32 (If you care about ) W
/Times-BoldItalic-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
20.9 0 32 (your) W
/Times-Roman-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
20.9 0 32 ( credit union, please come to this meeting and vote) W
300 -9600 M
(your conscience.) h
300 -11000 M
300 -12250 M
n 0.833 o f
134.1 0 32 (The Sheraton Tara Framingham is located at the intersection of Rts. 9 and 90 \(Mass) W
300 -13450 M
(Pike\) in Framingham. For more information on the meeting, including car pooling,) h
300 -14650 M
(directions and requirements for entry, refer to Notes conference BEIRUT::DCU.) h
-41400 14400 T
R

S
N
41400.00 -25200.00 M
77400.00 -25200.00 L
S
100 w
0 c
0 j
2 i
0.00 G k
R
R


S
41400 -43200 36000 10800 @
S
0.875 G E
R
S
200 w
0 c
0 j
0.00 G k
R
R

S
45198 -35409 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 2400 o f
(DCU SPECIAL MEETING) h
R

S
N
44999.00 -36899.00 M
73800.00 -36900.00 L
S
200 w
0 c
0 j
0.00 G k
R
R

S
47126 -39216 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 1800 o f
(Tuesday, 12\255Nov\2551991, 7:30 PM) h
R

S
44002 -41916 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 1800 o f
(Sheraton Tara Hotel, Framingham  MA) h
R

S
41400 -45000 T
N
0 G
300 -1200 M
/Times-Roman-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
61.4 0 32 (This meeting was called in response to the signed petitions of over 1200) W
300 -2600 M
(members, to consider the following:) h
300 -4000 M
6060 -4000 M
(1.  recision of recent "checking acount" changes) h
300 -5400 M
6060 -5400 M
(2.  removal of all Directors) h
300 -6800 M
6060 -6800 M
(3.  call for new elections to fill all Director positions) h
300 -8200 M
20.9 0 32 (If you care about ) W
/Times-BoldItalic-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
20.9 0 32 (your) W
/Times-Roman-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
20.9 0 32 ( credit union, please come to this meeting and vote) W
300 -9600 M
(your conscience.) h
300 -11000 M
300 -12250 M
n 0.833 o f
134.1 0 32 (The Sheraton Tara Framingham is located at the intersection of Rts. 9 and 90 \(Mass) W
300 -13450 M
(Pike\) in Framingham. For more information on the meeting, including car pooling,) h
300 -14650 M
(directions and requirements for entry, refer to Notes conference BEIRUT::DCU.) h
-41400 45000 T
R

S
N
41400.00 -55800.00 M
77400.00 -55800.00 L
S
100 w
0 c
0 j
2 i
0.00 G k
R
R


S
1800 -43200 36000 10800 @
S
0.875 G E
R
S
200 w
0 c
0 j
0.00 G k
R
R

S
5598 -35409 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 2400 o f
(DCU SPECIAL MEETING) h
R

S
N
5399.00 -36899.00 M
34200.00 -36900.00 L
S
200 w
0 c
0 j
0.00 G k
R
R

S
7526 -39216 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 1800 o f
(Tuesday, 12\255Nov\2551991, 7:30 PM) h
R

S
4402 -41916 M
/Times-Bold-ISOLatin1 F 1800 o f
(Sheraton Tara Hotel, Framingham  MA) h
R

S
1800 -45000 T
N
0 G
300 -1200 M
/Times-Roman-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
61.4 0 32 (This meeting was called in response to the signed petitions of over 1200) W
300 -2600 M
(members, to consider the following:) h
300 -4000 M
6060 -4000 M
(1.  recision of recent "checking acount" changes) h
300 -5400 M
6060 -5400 M
(2.  removal of all Directors) h
300 -6800 M
6060 -6800 M
(3.  call for new elections to fill all Director positions) h
300 -8200 M
20.9 0 32 (If you care about ) W
/Times-BoldItalic-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
20.9 0 32 (your) W
/Times-Roman-ISOLatin1 F 1200 o f
20.9 0 32 ( credit union, please come to this meeting and vote) W
300 -9600 M
(your conscience.) h
300 -11000 M
300 -12250 M
n 0.833 o f
134.1 0 32 (The Sheraton Tara Framingham is located at the intersection of Rts. 9 and 90 \(Mass) W
300 -13450 M
(Pike\) in Framingham. For more information on the meeting, including car pooling,) h
300 -14650 M
(directions and requirements for entry, refer to Notes conference BEIRUT::DCU.) h
-1800 45000 T
R

S
N
1800.00 -55800.00 M
37800.00 -55800.00 L
S
100 w
0 c
0 j
2 i
0.00 G k
R
R


showpage
$P e

$D restore
%%Trailer
end % DEC_WRITE_dict
%%Pages: 1
%%DocumentFonts: Times-Bold-ISOLatin1
%%+ Times-Roman-ISOLatin1
%%+ Times-BoldItalic-ISOLatin1

re .44:

The sentence about "record date" means that if you were a member on
November 1, you'll be able to vote.  If you weren't, you won't.

	Are proxy votes going to allowed for the special meeting? If so
what is the proper way of phrasing a prozy so as not to allow the Bod
to contest it?

Thanks

Todd

    Re .53:
    
>   Are proxy votes going to allowed for the special meeting?  If so what
>   is the proper way of phrasing a prozy so as not to allow the Bod to
>   contest it?
    
    Sorry Todd, but the DCU Bylaws specifically state that proxies are not
    allowed.  That's the unfortunate down-side for members outside the
    "Greater Maynard Area".
    
    The up-side of that is that nobody (not the BoD, not the "committee" --
    NOBODY) will be able to appear at the meeting with thousands of proxies
    to undermine the democratic process.  If you want your vote to count
    (one way or another), you'll just have to attend in person to cast it.
    
    When and if new elections for the Board of Directors are held, though,
    the same DCU Bylaws require for ballots BY MAIL (the meeting at which
    the ballots are "received" and counted is a formality) rather than in
    person.  Even the most remote DCU member has the same voting rights as
    the people who live/work in the GMA.

	Very nice, Bill. I printed your notice and it looks great.
	I'll use them in LJO.

	The little greenies were also placed in our cafeteria. I found
	them interesting as an indication of the effort to encourage
	more employees to meet Chuck before the special meeting. But
	it never occurred to me to borrow the idea!

	Jim

    
    This may be moot but there should be no requirement at the
    meeting to produce a Digital badge as part of identification.
    It is not a Digital facility and the DCU, as we are frequently
    reminded, has nothing to do with Digital Equipment Corporation.
    
    Steve
    

    If someone questions the motives of the special committee it's
    paranoia.  If someone questions the motives of the BoD, it's where can
    I pick up my torch for the public burning.
    
    Perhaps, Phil, you could make people feel a little less "paranoid" if
    you differentiate between what you are doing as head of the special
    meeting committee (which was how you were painted in that Herald
    article) and what you are doing from a personal standpoint.

    
    RE: .58
    
    Let's get something straight.  We aren't questioning the BoD's motives. 
    Their judgement?  Yes.  Their priorities?  Yes.  Their direction?  Yes. 
    
    When you or others can state exactly what you think I, or any
    "committee" person is doing that is adversely affecting your rights as
    DCU shareholders, I will gladly respond to it.  Since the BoD is
    affecting MY rights as a DCU shareholder, I chose to exercise my rights
    according to the DCU Bylaws.  In other words, petition for a special
    meeting where I can vote for their removal.
    
    The words used in the articles that appeared are "spokesman for the
    committee".  Is there a problem with that?  Somebody had to do it so I
    did it?  Should we have waited for you to step forward and do something
    besides take random pot-shots?
    
    >    article) and what you are doing from a personal standpoint.
    
    Explain please.  What do you care to know?

    Re: several

    I think you will find that Phil does NOT have:

    	1. An official information policy that requires a "business reason"
    	for giving out information,

    	2. A charge for his information,

    	3. A person to answer questions for him,

    	4. A 15-day delay to get information,

    	5. A refusal to use VAXnotes or VAXmail

    I don't know Phil; I have never met him or talked to him, but it is
    clear to me as a reader of this notes conference that there is some
    considerable concern about what Phil is actually doing and what people,
    if any, he is claiming to represent.

    I believe that those concerns would subside if the people who have them
    would get a bit more involved in the process.  I was personally
    surprised, for example, to hear there were some people who did NOT know
    that petitions were being collected, and I live in Colorado!

    As a infrequent particpant in this process, I would like to make some
    observations.

    1.  What if Phil did have a secret agenda, what good would it do?  The
    special meeting has 3 and only 3 items that will be considered.  If
    these agenda items pass, then the process moves into a different phase,
    an election process.  In that process each of the 88,000 members gets
    to vote for new board members.  Everyone can run if they so desire.  I
    would if DCU would pay my plane fare from Colorado for meetings so that
    we could have representation on the board.  I'm sure members with less
    DCU presence that Colorado enjoys would also feel like have someone to
    represent their issues.  Even if Phil had all kinds of secret plans,
    the process is still up to the members to vote on.  The new board would
    be selected from those who opt to run.  If Phil has a slate lined up,
    so what, enter youself as a candidate if you do not like the candidates
    he chooses (if he really did).  I don't think a bloodless coup would
    wash with the NCUA unless it is accomplished according to the bylaws
    and every can use the terms of the bylaws to push their agenda, the
    members get to choose if a particular agenda is what they wish to see
    in their credit union.

    2.  Another observation, I worry about the new elections because after
    talking to a number of people, I get the impression that they either
    are not very interested in what the board has been doing or are not
    even aware of the issues being discussed in this notes file.  For the
    democratic process to succeed, the electorate must understand the
    issues.  The election process will not give us a better board if the
    members do not study the issues and elect people who represent the
    views they wish for this credit union.

    3.  The retoric has been somewhat overzealous from both sides of the
    issues here and it may negatively influence many people looking into
    this notes file to gain information on the issues and later the
    candidates.   There has been much emotion and accusation (Personally,
    I like argument, it brings out so many points pro/con) and I feel that
    it may turn off many of the people seeking information.  I would hope
    that the noters refrain from accusations and emotional outbursts.  
    

    4.  I would hope that the BOD does not attempt to end run the special
    meeting.  I think it would create a mistrust of the DCU which would
    IMHO serverly damage the credit union.  It is in the best interests of
    all parties to let the election process show the desires of the
    membership in voting for a new board.  If current members are elected
    again, then they have received a vote of confidence in the policies
    and directions the credit union is moving, if they are not,
    then the membership has decided that they would like new ideas and new
    directions from the new board.

    5.  My personal financial choices will be depend not so much on the
    results of the election of the new board but the directions in which
    the credit union goes with respect to fees, loans, openness of
    information and other factors.  I will make my final choices after
    evaluation of the policies of the new board (if the special meeting
    succeeds).  
    
    Good luck to all parties and may the membership win.    

Sure do wish I could afford to come up from FLA - thanks for 
pinch hitting, Phil.

Barb

Hey, maybe the DCU will give me a loan to make the trip. ;-)

    I called Mary Madden and left a message the following question:
    
    'Will I be allowed to bring my Video Camera to the meeting?  If not,
    why?'
    
    She called back and talked to my voicemail and said:
    
    'No.  Camera and tape recorders will *NOT* be allowed in this meeting,
    because of the confidential information in the meeting.'
    
    (NOTE: This is not word for word, but is close and gets the jist of her
    response across.)
    
    She said something about notes will be taken.  She did not say how much
    they will cost, but it sounded like we might be able to get them.  I do
    not remember her saying for SURE we would or would not be allowed
    access to them.
    
    	- mark

	re notes:

	I expect that if we have a valid business reason for wanting them,
	we can submit a written request, and pay $.25 per page plus $31
	staff time to receive them...
	
					Tom_K

        Yesterday I called the Sheraton Tara to find the size of the room
        that was reserved for this meeting. I called again today and was
        told that "Gina" would get back to me. I just got a call back from
        Mary Madden informing me that this information was not available
        to me unless "I request it in writing". I asked her how much it
        would cost, and she repeated that I must ask in writing. I hung
        up.
        
        Special note to whomever might be elected to the new BoD 90 days
        after the special meeting: PLEASE FIRE MARY MADDEN!

        re: .58
        
        I *AM* questioning their motives. Mark Steinkrauss has lied to the
        members in written communications. It is my personal opinion that
        he should be fired from Digital for this. I am making other
        inquires, and will take whatever action I feel necessary in this
        mater. I will wait until after November 12th for most of it, as I
        don't want to waste too much time needlessly.
        
        

	... and, of course, you can take all the notes you might want to.
Paper & writing sticks were around long before tape & video recorders.

	I'm a lousy note-taker.  Anybody with some experience willing to
volunteer?


					--Doug

re:.66

	Call the Sheraton back, and insist on the information as an owner of
the credit union.  Stay on the phone until you get someone who'll give you
an answer.  Keep asking for the next person in line.


					--D

re .66

>        Special note to whomever might be elected to the new BoD 90 days
>        after the special meeting: PLEASE FIRE MARY MADDEN!

	Hold on. I expect that Mary is simply following the directives
	of her management, who in turn are being, err, directed, by the
	Board of Directors. Mary is probably simply doing her job
	as she has been told to. When the new BoD is in place, if she
	does not follow *their* instructions, then it would be appropriate
	to take disciplinary actions, but not before.

	We all are frustrated, but lets take out our frustrations on the 
	right folks.

					Tom_K

    Surely there is some DCU member who is very good at taking shorthand.
    Find one and help the person get to the meeting.

    
    There are some mighty small tape recorders these days.  Unless the BoD
    is prepared to do body and cavity searches, they don't stand a chance
    of stopping them.  Then again, we ARE dealing with some "people" who
    want to control our very thoughts through information control and
    censorship.  We ARE dealing with "people" who think their position in
    this company and in DCU entitled them to abuse and restrict our right
    to information.  "BoD" has a new meaning in my eyes.
    
    Mr. Mark Steinkrauss, Ms. Susan Shapiro, Mr. Mark Abbott, 
    Mr. Jack Rugheimer, Mr. Jeffrey Gibson, Ms. Charlene O'Brien, Mr. Dan
    Infante, you can run, but you can't run forever.  Your actions have
    sealed your fate.  In any other company these deeds could be done and
    buried.  But at Digital, your actions will be known by THOUSANDS of
    people.  You are doing things which will not stand up to close
    scrutiny.  You will be held accountable for these by the membership.
    Either on Nov. 12th, April 1992, the election after that or the election
    after that.  Time will work in OUR favor.  It will give us more time to
    tell more DCU members about the people running the credit union.  Your
    chances of clinging to power fade with every day, with every questionable
    action.  Even your high priced attorneys can't save you from the BALLOT
    BOX.
    
    This all REALLY makes me wonder what we will find once the dark, smelly
    closets of DCU are finally opened and cleaned out.  Not one day has
    gone by in this entire adventure that hasn't brought shock, dismay,
    disgust, amazement, etc.  But I have a gut feel we don't know the half
    of it.  Yet.  Just MY opinion!  No paranoia notes please.  (Is saying
    that an indication of paranoia? ;-)

re: posting


It should be possible/permissable for people to write up a small mail message
about the meeting and send it to people in their group.  It could also contain
a pointer to the DCU conference for those that would want to see the stories
written here.  I will be doing this for my current group.

re: recorders

Will recorders may be smaller, won't there be a problem since their pickup
range is also quite small?

-Joe

    I'll echo that thought about Mary Madden.  Let's not shoot the
    messenger.  One other thing.  I am a bit concerned about how black the
    picture is that is being painted of the BoD.  Yes, I think there should
    be a complete turnover.  But, let's not blow the picture so out of
    proportion that we lose touch with reality.  For those who are in favor
    of their dismissal, keep in mind that there could be a backlash wherein 
    the BoD is able to disprove the erroneous allegations and sway the
    vote.  Let's stick to what we know.  Even PG has, for the most part,
    stuck with information that has been released and which seems to
    indicate problems.  It's quite another thing to dream up all sorts of
    dark and devious plots which may have no bearing on reality but which
    could do personal damage to people.  The BoD are Deccies, too ...
    
    Steve

    Re: The denial of recording devices.
    
    Maybe I'm lucky I'm so far away that I can't attend.  I would have
    INFORMED the DCU that I INTENDED to bring a video recorder for the
    purpose of having an accurate and unbiased witness to the proceedings
    within the spirit of Nixon vs Sirica where similar devices were
    declared by the US Supreme Court to be accurate and unbiased witnesses
    to conversations.  I would also volunteer a copy of the video to be
    available to the DCU's Recording Secretary in order to correct any 
    accidental mistakes the recording secretary might make.  I would have 
    also added that I would request any denial of what I feel to be a basic 
    Civil Right as guaranteed by the US Constitution be sent to me in 
    writing and that it should include a signed explanation by competent 
    legal counsel as to the legal basis of such a denial and identification 
    of any conflict(s) of rights that s/he feels take precedence over my 
    Civil Right to an accurate and unbiased witness to the proceedings.  I
    would further request that such denial, if made by them, be sent to me 
    early enough for me to petition a court for a restraining order
    stopping them from denying me what I feel to be a fundamental Civil
    Right.
    
    I don't know if I'd win, but it surely beats just asking them for
    permission.  By asking their permission you psychologically establish
    their authority to make a denial.  By informing them of your
    intentions, volunteering to help the Recording Secretary, and asking
    them to justify their denial, you put the onus on them to justify
    turning it down. 
    
    
                                          Kurt

    I can think of a reason for not permitting recorders.  It could be that
    Mangone's attorney's could use some of the information that will be
    presented at the special meeting.  If recordings exist, it may be that
    they could subpoena them.  No?
    
    Steve

    
    RE: .76
    
    So what?  If the BoD hasn't done anything, what could be said to help
    Mangone's case?  Mangone's attorney's can subpoena the BoD if they wish
    and then question them, can't they?  
    

They could aslo subpoena the minutes made by the Recording Secretary.

re .79:

You mean you didn't read the bylaws when you joined the DCU?  If I were you,
I would have marched right out of the Grand Rapids office of the DCU and
joined the Bissell Employee's Credit Union (am I close?).

    re: .79
    
    Yeah.  I really wish you COULD come out here.  But, that's not how the
    system was set up.  The bylaws have set up a process for change that,
    unfortunately, does not permit folks outside the NE area to participate
    at this stage.  It's not fair.  But, I think some of us out here are 
    trying to make things better because even those of us close to DCU HQ are 
    being alienated.  If we are successful, however, you will have
    opportunity to participate in elections for a new BoD rather than just
    the few seats that are scheduled to become available.  And, the new
    leadership will be better able to get a fresh start to do things right,
    I hope.
    
    Steve

    
    Re: .81
    
    > And, the new leadership will be better able to get a fresh start to
    > things right, I hope.
    
    And among such things, I am hopeful, are changing the bylaws to provide
    a process for absentee balloting for Glen in Grand Rapids and others,
    review of all proposed bylaw changes by the membership, etc.
    
    Steve
    

>    A group of DCU members back east conducts a petition drive that results
>    in the calling of a special meeting.  On the agenda of the special
>    meeting are such topics as the ouster of DCU's Board of Directors. 

    Yes.  The Bylaws of the credit union give us this right.  It could have
    been called by 200 signatures from Colorado (we have quite a few from
    Chicago) but DCU would still have been required to call the meeting 
    within 100 miles of Maynard.
    
>    And only people who attend the meeting can vote.

    Yes.  The Bylaws explicitly prohibit proxies.  Not sure whether the
    NCUA views them favorably or not.
    
>    So that means that the fate of DCU could be decided by whomever crams 
>    themselves into a room at the Sheraton Tara in Framingham,
>    Massachusetts on  November 12th, 1991.

    Nothing so drastic as "the fate of DCU" will be decided.  The DCU will
    go along just fine with the people who run the day-to-day operations. 
    The Supervisory Committee will still be intact should the BoD be
    removed.  Please remember the BoD only meets once a month for 4-5
    hours.  They are not involved in the day-to-day operations of DCU.  DCU
    will not fail or be adversely affected should the BoD be removed.  DCU
    will simply go an auto-pilot until the new Board is elected, by ALL DCU
    members.
    
>    And I am being encouraged to attend.
>
>    Perchance, was someone planning on paying my airfare from Grand Rapids,
>    Michigan so that I might do so?

    Well, I know of somebody who will be here from Washington state.  But
    he was going to be here on business anyways.  Bottom line I would have
    to say, yes, it isn't completely fair but it's all we have to work
    with.
    
>    If this isn't the most Massocentric thing I have ever seen... it's not
>    even remotely fair.  And unless I have missed something, I don't
>    really care what anyone else thinks, since they obviously don't care
>    what I think.
    
    Now, now, do't go blaming Massachusetts for this.  We have enough
    hanging on us after the last presidential elections. 8-)  Hopefully,
    very soon we'll all get to vote in an annual election that actually 
    means something.  We do care what you think, but the current process,
    with its limitations, doesn't fit well into the distributed membership
    model.  So I take it your suggestion is to allow proxy votes?
    

.79>    So that means that the fate of DCU could be decided by whomever crams 
.79>    themselves into a room at the Sheraton Tara in Framingham,
.79>    Massachusetts on  November 12th, 1991.
             [...]
.79>    If this isn't the most Massocentric thing I have ever seen... it's not
.79>    even remotely fair.  And unless I have missed something, I don't
.79>    really care what anyone else thinks, since they obviously don't care
.79>    what I think.


I agree.  Our credit union, as it is currently constituted, is exceedingly
Massocentric.  More specifically, it is expressly designed for unhindered
control by the currently-in group (the BoD -- which does, as it happens,
comprise primarily Massachusetts people.)  The purpose of the Special Meeting
is to change that, and give you (and me, and ALL members) a voice that's been
denied.

        Perhaps it is time to remove that tilt towards the northeast. I
        won't rehash all the HQ vs field arguments. 
        
        I will point out that the bylaws does require the BoD to attend
        BoD meetings or be removed, but it also clearly allows
        teleconferencing for that to happen. 
        
        The current bylaws are written as they are in many cases becuase
        of the current BoD. Once they are gone, I would hope that the DCU
        would represent ALL of its members, regardless of where they live.
        I would also hope that some number of the BoD come from the field,
        outside of the New England area (with no offense intended to those
        from the new England area).

    I don't think there would be objections from most shareholders to
    having the BoD teleconference once a month.  I'd certainly be for it if
    it would help to encourage dialogue between the DCU Board and
    DCU owners.
    
    Steve

    Re: .-1
    
    The BoD will first have to recognize who the owners are.

.86>    I would also hope that some number of the BoD come from the field,
.86>    outside of the New England area (with no offense intended to those
.86>    from the new England area).


It seems obvious to this New Englander, at least, that the BoD _should_
represent the whole membership, and that this means some (or most!) of its
members should come from the field.  I think you'll get wide agreement
from other New Englanders that a more diversified membership of the BoD
would yield a healther credit union.

I hope this means you are considering running!

    Re .89:
    
>   It seems obvious to this New Englander, at least, that the BoD _should_
>   represent the whole membership, and that this means some (or most!) of
>   its members should come from the field.  I think you'll get wide
>   agreement from other New Englanders that a more diversified membership
>   of the BoD would yield a healther credit union.
    
    This transplant agrees fully.  Technology has reached the point where
    teleconferencing is a routine part of doing business.  There's no
    reason BoD meetings couldn't be teleconferenced.  Even if no one is
    elected to the BoD from outside the GMA, there ARE a number of former
    field people around here who could serve as reasonable alternatives.
                                            
    DCU's rebirth requires it to address better the needs of ALL its
    members.  I'd like to think that Chuck Cockburn is actually doing some
    of this even now.  One paradigm that I expect to undergo a MAJOR shift
    is the belief that "good service" necessarily equals "a DCU branch at
    every facility".  I (for one), would MUCH rather have a second-to-none
    ATM and telephone support system.  I believe this would serve ALL of us
    better, regardless of location.  It's also considerably more flexible
    as the fortunes of Digital ebb and flow.

I would agree that the field should be represented.  But, I would doubt that
most of the board should be from the field.  I would bet that most of the
membership is from the N.E. area.  Don't we have 85,000 employees in the N.E. 
area alone?

Ed..

I have printed out the DCU meeting notices included in postscript
format earlier (317.51) and placed them in each public bulletin
board (obtaining permission where needed) and each coffee station
in ZK1, ZK2 and ZK3.  Total time needed was about an hour.

The only place I was not allowed to put a notice was (of course :-) )
at DCU itself.

My guess is that this will be an effective way to communicate about
the special meeting.

Collis Jackson

   Re: The  special  meeting poster - there's a new version coming out, not
   substantially  different  from what's posted, but for people who haven't
   started posting it, please use the new version.

>The only place I was not allowed to put a notice was (of course :-) )
>at DCU itself.

So, get a poster stand and put one (with permission of Plant Eng. or some
such) in the hallway right outside.  :-) :-)  it  IS  Digital property,
after all....

-Joe

    Or post it at the DCU branch during their lunch hour!  8-O
    
    Don

I have not had a chance to respond before now, but I noticed
-yet-another-problem- with the special meeting notice.  The first voting item
is a call for rollback of the checking fees (sorry, I don't have the notice in
front of me for the exact wording.)

This is not what I want!  I want *all* the fees rolled back.

I think that the BOD really needs to be removed, just so the first item can be
achieved.

BobW

    Re .96:
                   
>   I have not had a chance to respond before now, but I noticed
>   -yet-another-problem- with the special meeting notice.  The first
>   voting item is a call for rollback of the checking fees (sorry, I don't
>   have the notice in front of me for the exact wording.)
>
>   This is not what I want!  I want *all* the fees rolled back.
    
    Item #1 echoes (more closely than item #2, anyway) the wording on the
    written request forms that were signed and presented to the DCU.  I
    hope you'll forgive us for concentrating upon share draft (checking)
    accounts when we formulated the agenda.  While there may be some need
    for SOME changes, the checking account changes announced in August were
    ill-conceived and did NOT address the problems that were used to
    justify them.  Fortunately, Chuck Cockburn reached the same conclusion
    and convinced the BoD to postpone the effective date for the monthly
    service charge.

    If the BoD is removed, then the issue of the fees can be handled by the
    new BoD.  It will be very clear by then how the DCU membership feels.

(If this has already been dealt with somewhere, I'll appreciate a pointer.)

Can anyone either refute or substantiate the rumor I heard, to the effect
that neither video or audio recording equipment will be allowed to be brought
into the 11/12 meeting?

Thanks,
-Jack

>Can anyone either refute or substantiate the rumor I heard, to the effect
>that neither video or audio recording equipment will be allowed to be brought
>into the 11/12 meeting?
    
    I called and left a message with Mary Madden about this.  She called
    back and left a message for me saying NEITHER would be allowed.
    
    	- mark

.100>    I called and left a message with Mary Madden about this.  She called
.100>    back and left a message for me saying NEITHER would be allowed.
    

Very interesting, if perhaps not exactly surprising.

By what authority does someone not "allow" recording a meeting by parties
who are entitled to be present, to speak, and to participate?

There's nothing in the Bylaws about recorders being prohibited, at any kind
of meeting.  Is this a Massachusetts law?  Or merely a preference on someone's
part, perhaps someone who is used to expressing preferences in terms of "will
not allow"...

Wait a minute.  I remember now.  This isn't the first time:

        "The board will not allow members with limited or no 
         finance or management experience to control 
         Massachusetts' largest credit union."

Perhaps the membership is no longer sure that a person who says "will not
allow" is fully aware of what they are or are not empowered to "allow".

You might want to plan to bring your recorder anyway.  And a pad and pencil
-- in spite of a similar expression of preference by at least one BoD member
that even written notes not be taken in a meeting where he was present.

>Wait a minute.  I remember now.  This isn't the first time:

>        "The board will not allow members with limited or no 
>        finance or management experience to control 
>         Massachusetts' largest credit union."

>Perhaps the membership is no longer sure that a person who says "will not
>allow" is fully aware of what they are or are not empowered to "allow".


But remember, according to the bylaws, the "will allow" themselves to change
the rules (excuse me, bylaws).

    I'll tell you what.  I will bring my camera and let it sit in my
    vehicle.  Once a motion is made and OK'd by the membership, I will
    GLADLY go get it and start taping!
    
    I would be willing to work with BOTH parties to REVIEW the tape IN CASE
    some confidential material was recorded and make sure copies do not
    contain it.  Be aware that confidential material should not show up in
    this meeting, as we do not have a buisness reason to have it. :-(
    
    	- mark
    

    Re: last several
    
    I don't  believe  the  use  of  Video/Tape  recorders are disallowed by
    Roberts rules  of  order.    My yearly Town/School meeting, has someone
    from TV 9 or  an  interested  citizen  taping all the time, and I don't
    recall any motion to the  assembly  at  the  begining of the meeting to
    determine if it was ok by them.
    
    Claude

    
    Re: taping
    
    So, it appears, that all it will take is for someone to make
    the motion that taping be permitted.  That should be simple
    enough to do.
    
    Steve
    

I've reviewed the Charter carefully.  I've looked through Roberts' Rules.
While I haven't had time to visit my favorite legal library lately, nor do I
purport to know anything other than how to program Unix boxes, it seems to me
that there is nothing that the Board, nor anybody else, can do to prevent the
meeting from being video- or audio-taped.  I suupose that those people who do
this must not use TV lights, or be distracting to the proceedings in any way,
but I fail to see why somebody with a handy-cam could be prevented from 
using it.

Does anybody know of any legal reason why the use of tape recorders can be
forbidden?

This also begs the question about what the Board will do to prevent such
devices from being brought in to the facility.  

/chris

.103>    I'll tell you what.  I will bring my camera and let it sit in my
.103>    vehicle.  Once a motion is made and OK'd by the membership, I will
.103>    GLADLY go get it and start taping!


This _sounds_ reasonable:  the _membership_ would have the power to decide
whether it wants to record its own meeting.  (Although the BoD might claim
such a motion can't be entertained, since it wasn't on the published agenda.)

But we're ducking the issue, which is that this BoD has a record of trying
to grab rights not given it by the Bylaws, simply by being composed of VPs
and by being loud.  The attempt to silence LiveWire was an earlier example.

It might be better to start by coming to the door with your video camera,
Mark.  You'll probably be met there by a security guard, and you'll have to
take the camera back to your car.  (You don't want to miss the meeting, and
it isn't reasonable to argue with someone packing a gun.)  But you can first
get the name of whoever issued the orders, challenge the legality of the rule,
and promise to file a protest with NCUA and your elected representatives.
Look on it as an opportunity...

The situation with miniature audio recorders will be more difficult.  Won't
it be tempting, if we're asked if we're carrying a recorder, to reply,

     "You don't have a legitimate business reason to ask that question.
      Information denied."

:)

    
    We should all be looking forward to the frisk that would have to be
    performed to prevent tape recorders at the meeting.  I know I am. 
    Maybe I'll get one of those rubber snakes or a small mouse trap... ;-)
    

>================================================================================
>Note 317.106   Special Meeting 11/12/91 at 7:30pm - PLEASE ATTEND     106 of 108
>ALPHA::gillett "And you may ask yourself, 'How do I work this?'" 16 lines   1-NOV-1991 08:47
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                        -< I'd say just bring them... >-

>Does anybody know of any legal reason why the use of tape recorders can be
>forbidden?
Is there a "Sunshine Law" in Mass. that can be invoked?  That is, a law that
requires public meetings be open and recorded unless there's a legal reason not
to?  In some states, such as Colorado, this applies mostly to legislative
proceedings, but may be used for other purposes.

>
>/chris
BobW

        If tape recorders are prohibited, bring a small wireless mike, and
        have the recorder outside :-)

    Before we get carried away, remember that DCU is more or less a private
    corporation with ownership held by depositors rather than stockholders. 
    As such, I suspect that laws about government meetings have no
    relevance.  I also suspect that the DCU board is acting pretty much
    like any other private corporation about recording the meeting.
    
    Wes

    I believe the best way to challenge the gag ruling on recorders and 
    videocameras is to make the statement like:
    
    "I brought this [tape recorder/video recorder] for the sole purpose of 
    having an accurate and unbiased witness to the procedings in case any
    of the matters discussed here this evening proceed to a court of law.  
    By what authority do you do you deny me this right to have an accurate 
    and unbiased witness?  Do you believe that this denial is
    constitutional?"
    
                                           Kurt

    Re .-1
    
    Not to defend the BOD but... This DCU meeting will be held on private
    property ie the Sheraton Tara Hotel. If the Sheraton Tara management
    decide that they won't let people with video cameras or tape recorders
    in that is their right. Also I'd expect that because DCU has rented
    the room they may have asked the Tara management/security not to
    allow in video cameras etc. That is their right to do this, they're
    paying for the space. Them that pays the piper calls the tune.
    
    So let us not get paranoid about it. Just note it as one more instant
    of the BOD not being open to the people they represent. Let's stop
    this "Is it legal is it not"/"consitutional rights" nonsense.
    The BOD can act just the way they want. But in the end it us we they
    get to judge them. If they choose to act in a manner that offends us
    they're even more likely to get voted out, and good riddance I say.
    Having the BOD continually shoot themselves in the foot only helps our
    case. I sincerely hope they treat us to much more of this nonsense
    before they're voted out, just makes our job easier.
    
    Dave

    I think the tape recording/video recording issue is a far, far lesser
    matter than the REAL issue which is getting shareholders to come to the
    meeting.  We need a LOT of people there.  I don't think the Board or
    DCU management is doing anything to force DCU employees to come.  But,
    I fully expect that they are doing all within their power to encourage
    their supporters to be there.  And, I expect they have many supporter.
    It's a shallow victory if we can have tape recorders there, know
    Robert's rules and eloquently state our case if there are only a few of
    us there.  The straw poll indicates to me that getting lots of
    shareholders there is the key.  Let them come and decide for
    themselves.  Or, let them expect somebody else to decide what's best
    for them.
    
    The biggest obstacle we have is apathy.
    
    Steve

    I think it is very important that we who have been members from
    inception of DCU, and live too far away, to attend. It should be one
    of the things brought up once the meeting starts. I.e. called to 
    order, we out in the field need to find out how this meeting went
    and the events that took place. It should also be put up to vote after
    the video recorder is allowed to be used, to see if everyone agrees
    that within ten days of the meeting minutes will be sent out via
    maybe the dcu notes conference to keep us informed.
    
    Thanks and good luck. You have my vote on whatever you do.
    Choose wisely.
    Dave

    I can think of all sorts of nice little things that might be done. My
    concern is that attempts to do them will somehow derail the main
    business of the meeting, if only by taking time.
    
    Remember that the presiding offer will be the chairman of the board
    of directors.

    >Remember that the presiding offer will be the chairman of the board
    >of directors.
    
    Do you think he is worth $18 million? :-)
    
    	- mark

    
    Hmmm...  He doesn't seem to grasp the obvious conflict of interest
    between chairing the meeting and the agenda which calls for among other
    things, his removal.  Makes me begin to wonder what he DOES consider to
    be a conflict of interest.  It'll be interesting to see how
    objectively he behaves.  Maybe he plans to just relinquish the reins
    when the meeting opens to show his faith in the membership.
    
    But maybe he's concerned about the ability of a mere mortal to chair 
    the meeting. 8-)  8-)  8-)  We'll know in 8 days...
    

    Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for someone like Phil to chair
    the meeting?   Who do you propose chair the meeting if not the chairman
    of the board?
    
    DCU apparently feels that the use of recording devices will breach the
    confidentiality of the meeting.  The meeting is between the
    stockholders and the BoD.  They may feel that recording devices may
    breach this confidentiality.

    re: .119 Who could chair the meeting?
    
    A couple of obvious possibilities, nominally disinterested in the
    recall motion:  DCU President Chuck Cockburn, and any competent person
    from the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).  Either could
    chair the meeting reasonably impartially and without violating any
    confidence.
    
    Wes

    Robert's rules addresses this situation, but I don't have access to the
    version that will be used for the Special Meeting.  (I think it may be
    out of print.)  Does anyone have a copy of the Robert's Rules, Newly
    Revised from 1981 (8th edition)?  It may shed light on this topic.
    
    Steve

	Thinking about it a bit, the only question on the agenda that
	I'd be really uncomfortable with the BoD Chairman chairing
	is the question regarding the unseating of the directors.

	While the BoD Chairman has a position on the other questions, 
	the 2nd question affects him in a major way, and I don't think it
	would be appropriate for him to maintain the chair during that
	portion of the meeting.

					Tom_K

    Regarding cameras, recorders, etc.:

    Since the DCU rented the hall, etc. I expect they have the right
    *initially* to refuse admission to anyone with such equipment.  Once
    the meeting begins it seems reasonable that a motion can be made to
    permit such equipment, and if carried they would have little choice but
    to permit it.

    In that situation, I would not be surprised to have the BOD state
    something like:

      We have information which answers the issues which have been made
      against the BOD.  We will however not present that information
      because doing so in the presence of recording devices would
      compromise our lawsuit against Mr. Mangone.

    While I would not be surprised by such an argument, I also consider it
    irrelevant, because disclosure of such information to such a large
    group would compromise the lawsuit even with recording devices
    prohibited due to the high probability of one being smuggled in.

    This issue could be manipulated various ways to the advantage of either
    side.  It isn't clear to me where the advantage lies.

	Paul

    >  We have information which answers the issues which have been made
    >  against the BOD.  We will however not present that information
    >  because doing so in the presence of recording devices would
    >  compromise our lawsuit against Mr. Mangone.

    If I remember correctly, Mary M. mentioned that they would have a
    stenographer present.  That throws out any of the law suite in progress
    speculation.
    
    I think they have been around Nancy Reagan too long, 'Just say NO!'.
    
    	-mark
    

    
    RE: .19
    
>    Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for someone like Phil to chair
>    the meeting?   
    
    Of course it would be Mr. Macneal.  Seems like a question that didn't
    need asking.
    
    >Who do you propose chair the meeting if not the chairman
>    of the board?
    
    Well, if you think that my chairing the meeting would be a conflict of
    interest, why do think that the Chairman of the BoD presiding over his
    own removal would not also be a conflict of interest?  I guess I miss
    what you driving at here.
    
    >DCU apparently feels that the use of recording devices will breach the
>    confidentiality of the meeting.  The meeting is between the
>    stockholders and the BoD.  They may feel that recording devices may
>    breach this confidentiality.
    
    Recording devices do not breach the confidentiality of a meeting. 
    People disclosing confidential information breach confidentiality. 
    Confidentiality can be breached regardless of whether recording devices
    are present.  Besides, a meeting like this is no place to be discussing
    "confidential" information.  Do they plan on getting sworn affidavits
    from all attendees not to disclose anything about the meeting?  If they
    don't then information disclosed to hundreds, if not thousands, of
    people will surely not be "confidential" for long.
    

    >Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest for someone like Phil to chair
    >the meeting?
    
    Yep and it is by FAR worse for the current Chairman to try to chair the
    meeting.  I doubt he will.  It is my expectation that he will supply
    someone of HIS choosing to fill in.  Note, just because he wants
    someone to be chair does not mean that the body has to use his choice. 
    We can choose ANYONE we want.
    
    	-mark
    

    
    We can also closely watch whatever chairman is selected, and invoke
    Robert's if they show evidence of partiality, in either direction.
    

    re 317.119-.122

    As a NH town meeting moderator, I've some experience with the 
    application of Robert's Rules to large and contentious meetings.  I have
    the seventh edition (1970), however the rules are stable.

    The responsibility of the chairman is to conduct the meeting process,
    and to stay entirely clear of the content.  It is immaterial whether
    he has a postion regarding the issues considered, but it is essential
    that he never express that position from the chair, and that he conduct 
    an orderly and impartial meeting.

    I believe that the agenda of our Special Meeting does present problems
    for Mr Steinkraus as chair.

        "Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding 
         officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, 
         or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn 
         the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary 
         occupant during the assembly's consideration of that motion."

                                     - Robert's Rules, Section 46

    And further...
   
        "If the presiding officer is a member of the society, he has -
         - as an individual - the same rights to debate as any other 
         member; but the impartiality required of the chair in an 
         assembly precludes his exercising these rights while he is 
         presiding.  Normally, especially in a large body, he should 
         have nothing to say on the merits of pending questions.  On 
         certain occasions - which should be extremely rare - the 
         presiding officer may believe that a crucial factor relating
         to such a question has been overlooked and that his obligation 
         as a member to call attention to the point outweighs his duty 
         to preside at that time.  To participate in debate he must 
         relinquish the chair; and in such a case he should turn the 
         chair over (a) to the vice-president, or (b) to the ranking 
         vice-president who has not spoken on the question and does not 
         decline on the grounds of wishing to speak on it, or - if no 
         such vice president is in the room - (c) to some other member, 
         qualified as in (b), whom the chair designates (and who is 
         assumed to receive the assembly's approval by general consent 
         unless member(s) then nominate other person(s), in which case 
         the presiding officer's choice is also treated as a nominee 
         and the matter is decided by vote.)  The presiding officer
         who relinquished the chair then should not return to it until 
         the pending main question has been disposed of, since he has 
         shown himself to be a partisan as far as that particular matter 
         is concerned."

                                            Robert's Rules - Section 42


    I suggest that the BoD identify a person who both has the experience 
    to chair this meeting and is prepared to stay entirely clear of the 
    debate.  When the meeting takes up the second item of the agenda 
    (removal of the BoD), then Mr Steinkraus could nominate that person 
    as chairman pro tem for the consideration of item two.  The members
    could then either accept that nomination, or consider it with others.


    Jack

    re. -1
    
    just an aside,
    
    Do you really use Roberts Rules in your Town meeting? or do you have an
    "real" town meeting?
    
    Leaving Mark as the chair will essentially "gag" him for the meeting,
    not a bad idea...
    

    
    If there is a concern about having the correct edition available,
    I suggest someone who has access to a fairly large library try
    that source.
    
    Steve
    

    re. .129
    
    Never certain whether the meetings are real or imagined - we do
    use Robert's Rules ("as modified by the moderator" to allow a bit
    of discretion).
    
    Come to think of it, I have witnessed some "real" meetings which did
    not use Robert's.  Name-calling, screaming, but no fistfights in
    our case.   Did inspire me to start to learn the rules.
    
    Jack
    

    My point was to try to determine who, in the opinion of those objecting
    to to Mark Steinkraus, should be chairing the meeting.  I just used
    Phil as an example of someone the "opposition" might be opposed to
    having in the chair.

If I had a choice, I would suggest Rob Ayres, Corporate Liason to the DCU.
He demonstrated to my satisfaction that he is interested in resolving the
dispute and is capable of acting in a non-partisan fashion.

However, I don't see much point in making the suggestion.  I offered Chuck
a brief explanation of why it would be better and fairer to simply decide
that the meeting would use secret ballots, and his answer was, in effect,
that it was up to them and they hadn't decided, and they won't commit to 
make any announcement prior to the meeting -- we'll know when it happens.

I figure that if they are prepared to play political games with so simple
and obvious an issue of fairness as whether to use secret ballots, then
there's no point in raising the question of fairness in anything else I
might wish them to do.  

It's really sad to have to say these things.  I'm not being nasty, honest,
I'm just an engineer who is drawing logical conclusions from what I have
personally seen and heard.

	Larry

    
    I have just received a phone call from sources in the know at the
    Sheraton Tara that say the meeting will be held in the Ballroom.  It
    has a capacity of 1,000.
    
    The source also claims there was a "misunderstanding" concerning the
    disclosure of this information which has subsequently been remedied. 
    Can somebody call the hotel and see if they are now releasing this
    information?
    

   It's amazing  what  a  difference  a  little time will make 8*).  I just
   called  there  and  they had no problem giving me the info - it's in the
   Tara Ballroom, capacity of about 1000.

    I just phoned and spoke with Maria. She said she'd have to check and
    could I give her my number so she could call me back. She said she
    needed my name.
    
    I said sure and gave the information to her. She phoned right back and
    said, " the Ballroom, at 7:30, on 11/12/91". I asked about dinner and
    when the Ballroom would be available to the public. She said the 
    restaurant would be open for dinner at a time convenient for me to
    eat before the meeting and that the Ballroom would probably be open
    around 6:30 (an hour earlier than the scheduled meeting) for set-up
    and for those who arrive early.
    
    .......she_who_has_given_her_name_away     ;-)

    
    I'm glad to hear this "misunderstanding" has been corrected.  Have no
    idea why it took weeks.  The pettiness of the old situation was no
    doubt giving either DCU and/or the Sheraton a black-eye neither wanted.
    
    Now maybe we should call DCU and ask that the meeting be conducted
    according the most recent and commonly available set of Robert's Rules
    instead of the copy that only DCU seems to have.  You know, the needs
    of the many outweighing the needs of the few...

re: 

Perhaps this has been asked, but what is the parking situation like at this
place?  Will there be parking available or will it be necessary to hunt for it?
If the latter, people should keep that in mind when timing things to get there.

Also, speaking of timing, at what point are the doors 'closed' to people coming
late?

-Joe

    
    RE: .138
    
    There is quite a bit of free parking there.  There is an office
    building right next to it that should clear out before the meeting
    participants start showing up.
    
    As for the door, give a call to DCU and they might tell me.  I don't
    know why they would stop people from entering late though.
    
    

            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1639.57                  DCU Meeting Nov 12th                      57 of 58
COOKIE::WITHERS "Bob Withers - In search of a quiet" 77 lines   8-NOV-1991 12:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologize for the length of this message, but I feel strongly about the
current state of the DCU and its relationships with its members.

Wow!  I havn't been called this many names in a long time!

First, I'm a "witch hunter," then a "vigilante" (what someone is who 
participates in a lynch mob.)

For me, the issue started with uncompetitive rates and uneven customer service
response.  But I was willing to tollerate that for the convenience.

The next annoying factor was unnanounced changes in the rules (such as the
$1000 checking minimum to get interest.)  But, I was willing to put up with
this for the convenience.

Hey, there are crooks all around.  It looks like Mangone may have scammed the
DCU for several millions of dollars.  It happens, but I'm beginning to suspect
that there may be no one at the helm. ``Captain, my Captain!  Oh, where is my
Captain?''

The final straw that made me move all but $10 from the DCU was the attempt at
communication called the "Choices" booklet.  It contained an amazing set of
insults to my intelligence...including the DCU Director of Communications
telling me I didn't know how to read it.  Not to mention the other fee changes
that went into effect.  That's when I went Bank shopping.  I've now diversified
to three other institutions and feel a lot happier and safer.

A number of dedicated people started researching the current affairs of the DCU
and ran into stone walls.  What they found appears to be appaling.  I'll urge
anyone interested to review notes that detail the issues.

To the DCU's credit (and thus, the board's credit) they hired what seems to be
a very competent CEO in Chuch Cockburn.  He got the board to delay
implemetation of some of the fees, but in the process, the interest
calculations  process changed.  See the relevent notes.

Rather than responding in a forthright manner to shareholder concerns, the BOD
has basically taken two political actions:

	- The instituted an "Information Protection Policy" which aims to
	  charge shareholders for information that is rightfully theirs and
	  allows the DCU to deny any request that the DCU does not view as
	  having business merit.  "I'm a shareholder," is not a valid business
	  reason.

	- Responded in a widely distributed open letter and several private
	  correspondences urging DCU members to support the board.  In the
	  open letter, one Digital employee is, in particular, called out as
	  soreading false information.  The people who support the removal
	  of the current board are called witch hunters.  Lastly, the board
	  says that they will not permit anyone without sufficient business
	  expertise to run Massachetts' Largest Credit Union.

	  To the first point, explaining what was discovered in a reasonable
	  manner would have allayed the suspicions of the DCU membership.
	  Instead, we get accusations sent at specific DCU members.  This
	  strikes me as a "Willie Horton" tactic.

	  Secondly, calling me names won't change my mind, but may get others
	  angry instead.  "Unprofessional" is the best adjective I can find.

	  Lastly, I'm aghast at the Massocentric arrogance of the DCU Board's
	  stance that they will not allow someone to ruin their credit union.
	  Excuse me, folks, but this is the Digital Employees' credit union.
	  The BOD are members just like the rest of us.

The open letter from the board was the last straw.  I've supported removing the
board since the "Choices" brochure, but I'm unshakable now.

If the current board are removed, I will begin doing business with the DCU
again.  If they remain. I will maintain my $10 in my account so I can vote
against the incumbent board members next spring.

I apologize again for the length of this message, but this is something that
all DCU members should take a stand on even if they chose not to participate.

BobW

    RE: .56
    
    >This may be moot but there should be no requirement at the
    >meeting to produce a Digital badge as part of identification.
    >It is not a Digital facility and the DCU, as we are frequently
    >reminded, has nothing to do with Digital Equipment Corporation.
    
    So, does anyone know what constitutes proper identification?  It should
    not be an ATM card because some of us only have savings accounts.  I
    would imagine that a recent statement and a picture ID with address,
    such as a driver's license would suffice, but I'm not sure.
    

    
    Re: .141
    
    The issue has been clarified by the DCU.  Any picture id.  Your
    driver's license should do.
    
    Steve
    

Just found out that there is a notes file for Robert's Rules of Order, newly
revised (1990 edition) at COMET::RONR.  KP7 or SELECT to add it.

j.

    Rep to <<< Note 317.142 by SQM::MACDONALD >>>

>    The issue has been clarified by the DCU.  Any picture id.  Your
>    driver's license should do.

    Hmm, I'd  better  bring my DEC badge as well, since my Driver's license
    doesn't have me  with  the beard, and the DEC badge does, but with also
    more hair on top, hopefully between the two they'll let me in. ;^)
    
    

I just called Mary Madden.  She said that the process of identifying members
will be as easy as they can make it.  They'll have a roster of members, so
you don't have to prove you're a member.  You only have to prove you're you.

Mary said that any valid picture ID will be sufficient.  She specifically
mentioned either a Digital badge or a driver's license from any state which
includes photo identification on driver's licenses as being acceptable.

	I'd like to come, but can't make it until around 8:15.  I'd
	hate to be turned away with some reason like "Sorry, once the
	voting has started, you can't come in."

	-- Jim

.146>	I'd like to come, but can't make it until around 8:15.  I'd
.146>	hate to be turned away with some reason like "Sorry, once the
.146>	voting has started, you can't come in."


1)  I'd suggest you call Mary Madden.  That would get you an authoritative
    answer.  She was very friendly and helpful when I called yesterday to
    ask about what form of ID would be required.

2)  I don't think you have to worry about the voting getting started in
    only 45 minutes   :)