Conference 7.286::dcu

I share your concern. We wanted to make sure we had enough candidates
first of all. We will be meeting shortly to see if we can resolve this
issue.

I am considering withdrawing because there are plenty more
petition candidates with much more financial background than I have. But on
the other hand, the current board has tons of financial background and look
what they did. Having 7 people all with my background on the board would be
suboptimal (dare I say "a disaster"? 8*). But having one or two people with
my background and strengths (connection with the membership) on the board
is essential. One thing going for me in this election is name recognition
from my outspokenness on DCU issues and on issues with Jack Smith. And
considering many people don't really know what's going on with DCU, name
recognition and outspokenness with integrity is important.

I encourage you to stay in the race.  The name recognition is important.

I haven't decided how I will vote yet, but I am considering voting ONLY for
people without financial background.  My ideal board would have a few
people with financial background (perhaps two), but I have the feeling that
there will be plenty of people who vote for such people exclusively.  By
using my votes only on people without, perhaps I will enhance the chances
of getting at least some of them on.

	Paul

    I second that ... I would hope you would not withdraw.

Thanks for the thoughts, but as I stated elsewhere, to be realistic, we
(the petition candidates) all need to consider the possibility of withdrawing
to maximize the chances of the remaining candidates. I have no right to
expect others to withdraw unless I, too, will consider withdrawing.

    Perhaps I am inferring too much here, but it almost sounds like what is
    being suggested here is the creation of a seven person petition
    candidate slate (a kind of DCU "political party"), so that people can
    vote a "straight ticket" for those seven.  With more than seven
    candidates running, the anti-board vote would be spread out among them. 
    For example (assuming for the sake of simplicity a random vote
    distribution among the petition candidates), if there were 10 petition
    candidates running, each candidate would get only 70% of the vote that
    they would get if there were instead only 7 petition candidates
    running.

    -- Mike

Yes, those are exactly my thoughts. But, of course, all the petition
candidates must agree for this to work.

Do folks have an objection to this approach? In the future, the more the
merrier. But we have not yet recovered DCU.

    I hope that we do not 'agree' to have candidates drop out so that
    another has a better chance.  I want to choose the best person, not
    have them chosen for me by a small group.

    I helped collect signatures so that we open the process - no back door
    politics among candidates.

    Lets keep the process open unlike what has happened in the past at DCU,
    in some occasions.

    < joke on>

    Of course if you are going to choose, make sure the people chosen
    have their last names starting with the letter 'A', in case DCU lists
    the names the correct way  - in alpha order!

    <joke off>
    	- mark

I agree that it would be a bad idea for some small group to select a 
very limited set of candiates to be on the ballot ... that is one of my
objections against the official nominations process!

But I have no problems with the *candidates* talking among themselves
and individually deciding whether to go onto the ballot or to stay off
in favor of other candidates.  After all, if I vote for someone, that
means that to some extent I'm ready to trust their judgement about DCU 
matters.  And if that candidate's judgement is that the DCU would be 
better served by some other candidate being on the Board, well, I'm 
prepared to trust that candidate's judgement on that, too.

So it's really a matter of who makes the decisions.  I helped gather
signatures without any consideration of who I personally want to vote for,
because I didn't want to make that decision for any voters.  But I do
support each the petition candidates deciding whether they feel it is 
best for the DCU for them to run.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

Re: .7

Are you willing to risk no petition candidates being elected because there
were too many of them? That's what I'm concerned about. Many of us (myself
included) have put lots of time, energy, and personal money into fixing
DCU. I'd hate to think we blew it by having too many candidates on the
ballot. Besides, people can't really decide on who's the best person with
a limit of 150 words. And remember that 150 words is the only info most
people will have.

I'm not crazy about particpating in what appears to be "back room politics"
(as you quite accurately pointed out), but in this case only, voluntarily
reducing the field might be best or else we may lose everything we've worked
for since last August, and we'll never know what happened with the Mangone
loans, etc.

I'd like the process be more open, and without question it should be next
time. But given we're already trying to open up a closed system, can we
risk splitting the vote?

Personally, I think any of the petition candidates would be fine on the
ballot. So for me, what's important is that we have at least 4 (to be
a majority) win and be on the BoD. That to me is more important than to
have the absolute best ones on the BoD.

There are at least 13 petition candidates, and I believe that nearly all of them
will have enough signatures to run for the BoD.  Combined with the 9 people 
blessed by the nominating committee gives a slate of 22 candidates to choose from.

My feeling is that a number this large will make the decision very easy for 
the voter - elect the incumbents, and vote for the people chosen by the nominating
committee.  The nominating committee candidates have an "endorsement" from DCU,
and when confronted with too many choices, folks will usually punt and look to
outside guidance in making the decision.  Maybe I'm viewing things in too simplistic
terms, but my feeling is that diluting the candidate base too much, no petition 
candidate has much opportunity to get on the Board.

As a petition candidate, I feel it is inappropriate for any group to tell me that
I can/cannot or should/should not run.  On the other hand, I do support, and will
participate in, a dialog or debate amongst candidates in which the petition 
candidates decide amongst themselves to run or withdraw.  While I very much would
like to sit on the BoD, I also feel that a candidate should be willing not to run
if such a decision further strengthens opportunities for a stronger candidate with
similar philosophies and ideas.

/Chris

I think what I hear is that there is a desire to maximize the number of
non-incumbents that get elected (new blood). If this is true (and I support
that position), then consider this:

    If you plan to reduce the number of new candidates to about 7 to
    reduce the amount of "dilution" - what about the idea of a
    pre-vote? A primary? Lets vote on all the candidates to see which
    seven (or eight) have the best chance of getting elected, and ask the
    remaining ones to voluntary drop out of the election. Take a poll - do
    something more scientific than simply having the candidates themselves
    choose the seven best chances.

    You can't go by the number of signatures received on the petitions. I
    signed all the ones put in front of me to maximize our choices. Now I want
    to retain the right to make the choice.

    I'm against the idea of having candidates themselves select the new board.
    I'd like to vote myself. Give me a chance to decide who I want running
    the new DCU. If that means I vote twice (one to select who runs, and one
    to officially vote for them), then so be it.

/egp

    I would like the 13 (or whatever the number is) petition candidates 
    pared down to a smaller number, whether it be by primary or by mutual 
    agreement among the candiates.
    
    I'd certainly trust (at this point) the petition candidates to choose
    the best 7 of themselves more than I trust the wisdom of the official
    nominating committee's choices.
    
    I like the idea of a primary, but I don't know how representative it
    could be of the membership at large.  Not that that is necessarily
    a problem - the citizens of New Hampshire are playing a wildly
    disproportionate role in the choice of presidential candidates, so
    perhaps it wouldn't be all that outlandish to conduct a "primary"
    that happens to be limited to notesfile readers.
    

    I may be nieve here, but I believe in the ability of those voting to
    chose the people they feel can best represent them on the Board of
    Director.  A primary would be a possibility if you could insure a good
    representation of the DCU membership voting - and I don't think we can
    do that.  
    
    Personally, I would like to select who I thought was the best
    qualified candidates that appear on the ballot whether or not they are
    a petition candidate or one of those that was selected by the
    nominating committee.  I got involved in this process to insure that
    there was a better selection of people for voters to chose from and I
    will be quite happy to see everyone that is involved in a petition
    drive, as well as those selected by the nominating committee, appear on
    the ballot and be selected on their individual merits.  If we, the
    candidates, "select" who will represent the petition candidates, are we
    not guilty of the same thing I have seen the nominating committee
    accused of in this forum?  Do we really believe in "MORE/BETTER
    CHOICES"?  ... or is it "our choices"?   I feel very uneasy about what
    is being attempted here, as I percieve it.  Many people signed my
    petition with the intent of them having the ability to vote for me IF the
    thought I was among the seven best candidates available.  I signed
    everyone else's for the same reason.  I would hate to see my signature
    end up in the trash can.                               

    	Whatever we do, we have to be sure to remain above reproach by
    	the DCU.  If they can somehow claim that we are trying to "fix"
    	the election, we will only be hurting ourselves.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

Right.  A "primary" would be slanted, since essentially only those voters who
are aware of this conference would be involved.

I too would be disappointed to lose Paul, or ANY of the folks who have been
willing to offer their time to serve our DCU.  But I think we should be
determined enough, and mature enough, to accept the results of a winnowing-
down in the interest of accomplishing the real goal:  installing a new BoD.

If that winnowing-down should happen by drawing straws, fine.  I'll regret
losing whoever we lose.  But that will be preferable to having ANY petition
candidate lose to an Appointment Committee candidate in the actual election,
simply because of the numbers of voters who will have nothing to go on but
the DCU mailing.
          ^
(That should read "mailings", since the first glossy brochure, with only
the Appointment Committee candidates' names, has already gone out...)

	Just my thoughts, individual candidates will need to decide
	what "feels right" to them.

	First, I believe that those folks who decided to run via petition
	have some responsibility to those that signed their petitions to
	actually run for the office. If personal, or work-related, 	
	circumstances have changed and they no longer feel that they can
	devote the time and effort to the BoD, then that's a different
	matter. But to withdraw in favor of another candidate or group
	of candidates is not, in my opinion, the right thing to do.

	Second, to "confer" with other petition candidates in order to
	determine who should run and who should withdraw so that only
	a limited number of names appears on the ballot is, in my opinion,
	WRONG. My personal feeling is that this "feels" just like the 
	Nominating Committee action is limiting the number of "approved"	
	candidates. Now I do recognize that the motives are likely quite
	different, but the issue of "choice limitation" by ANYONE, no
	matter how "pure" their intentions may be is a serious issue 
	with me. 

	Don't let "us" become "them". Run, and let the members decide
	who is "most qualified". Anything less TRULY dilutes my vote
	because you have already cast a portion of it for me.

Jim

I agree that all the candidate should run. There are only 2 incumbents on
the roster... Sure, not everyone reads this notesfile, but I'm sure that
there are plenty of people who know what has happend lately, etc., and that
the two incumbents are going to have a very hard time getting elected. So,
if some of the 7 nominated people get elected, and some of the 7 petition
candidates get elected... the board will still have new blood on it.

As some folks have said, just because a candidate was selected by the nominating
committee, that doesn't mean they are a bad choice, just like having someone
selected by petition doesn't mean they are the best choice. Let everyone run,
and let the members pick who they feel is best.

	James.

    How will the people be listed on the ballot? In Alpha order?
    
    	- mark

re .16:

	Second, to "confer" with other petition candidates in order to
	determine who should run and who should withdraw so that only
	a limited number of names appears on the ballot is, in my opinion,
	WRONG. My personal feeling is that this "feels" just like the 
	Nominating Committee action is limiting the number of "approved"	
	candidates. Now I do recognize that the motives are likely quite
	different, but the issue of "choice limitation" by ANYONE, no
	matter how "pure" their intentions may be is a serious issue with me. 

Whoa!  I share the concern for openness, but I disagree with all of the
above conclusions:

1)  Why does this feel like what the Nom Comm did?  The difference between 
this and the Nom Comm's actions are like the difference between black and 
white.  Or, I should say, between INVOLUNTARY and VOLUNTARY.  Nobody is
going to prevent petition candidates from running.  We all signed those 
petitions to give THEM a choice of being on the ballot -- and they've got it.

2)  Why are the petition candidates running?  Maybe some are in it for
personal power and glory.  I think most are running because they see that 
as best for the DCU.  I don't think we should criticize petition candidates 
who conclude that the DCU will be better served by their NOT running, no 
matter how or why or when they come to that decision.

3)  I limited your choices, too -- I chose not to run, which surprized
at least a few people who've seen how active I've been in this notes file.
But my decision is that I can best serve the DCU membership in other ways
than by running for the Board.  Each potential candidate has a RIGHT to 
make that same decision for themselves.  


At least some of the petition candidates are running because they want to
return control of the DCU to the membership.  Those who have that viewpoint
would very naturally place their own desire to be on the Board below the
over-riding goal of getting elected a majority of Board members who are
qualified and who agree with that goal.  "Qualified" isn't a problem --
nearly all of those running are, in my opinion, qualified.  The problem
is how to get them elected.  

In conclusion, I do fully agree with the spirit of .16 and other notes
expressing concern.  We have to be *very* careful to make sure that our
effort for reform really does make the DCU more open.  HOWEVER, I see
nothing "back room" about the proposed process.  "Back room" implies a
group of people exercizing power over others through secret deliberations.
Nobody is exercizing power over anybody else -- each candidate will make
their own personal decision about whether to run.  And, nothing about this
is secret -- it's being discussed in notes and anyone can come!

	Enjoy,
	Larry

                <<< Note 459.19 by RGB::SEILER "Larry Seiler" >>>

>1)  Why does this feel like what the Nom Comm did?  

Larry,	Objectively, we are discussing the possibility that a small group
	of members will meet to determine which sub-group of names will
	appear on the ballot from a larger group of qualified candidates.

	I hope that I made my respect and admiration for the current list
	of petition candidates clear in .16, but the open choice issue
	is not one that anyone should be fooling around with at this time.

	As I prefaced .16, I'm just sharing my thoughts and feelings on the
	matter. Each petition candidate can run or withdraw based on any
	criteria they wish.

Jim

I think that we need to know more about how the election will be conducted
before an intelligent choice of strategy can be made.

If voters have (use) ONLY the candidates' statements and personnal
information about the candidates to make their decisions, then I assert
that the more candidates we have on the ballot the better our chances of
getting control.

If the candidates are classified (incumbent, nominated, petition), then it
seems likely that this information may strongly influence the votes of
people who don't know the candidates.  People without any knowledge of the
controversy will probably vote for the incumbents and nominated, while
those concerned with the direction of the DCU will vote for the
petitioners.  In this case, it is probably important to limit the number of
petition candidates in order to avoid splitting the vote.

It is safe to assume that incumbents will be identified, but their number
is small.  Nominated candidates have apparently already been singled out,
but if it is only in a mailing separate from the ballot it probably will
make no difference.

We need to know whether nominated candidates will be distinguished from
petition candidates on the ballot and accompanying literature.  Is this
already known?

	Paul

The petition candidates themselves are probably in the best position
each to judge their respective kindred spirits.  Would any candidates
consider pairing off and choosing between themselves at random?  This
approach could achieve the desirable goals of not forming a "political
party" and of diversity, since the pairing off would be on the basis of
mutual similarity.

\Joe

Re: .21
Good question, why not call DCU and ask? I believe in all the other years
nominated vs petition vs incumbent candidates have been identified.

I would truly hate to see the field of petition candidates narrowed (i.e.
less than all of the petitions submitted to DCU by Feb 19, or whatever the
magic date is), only to find out that after the final hour for submissions,
the DCU found some trivial reasons to disqualify some substantial number
of the petitions, leaving a slate with less than an optimal number of
petition candidate in the running for the final ballot. Of course, this
elimination of choices may very well occur even if all petitions _are_
submitted, however I would hope that if any candidates choose to withdraw,
they would wait to do so until after having been confirmed for the ballot,
rather than before submission.

-Jack

If they were to find some trivial reason, we can go thru the whole special
meeting, vote them out, and have a new election. I'd hate to have to do it,
but if that's what it takes to get a clean election, then we need to do it.

re: .-1, Paul

>              -< I don't think they'll reject for trivial reason >-

I hope and pray you're right, Paul. I just keep being reminded of how 34
out of 43 people who submitted their candidacy to the nominating committee
got sloughed off like so much chaff.

-Jack

But we do have the ability to fight DCU decisions we believe unreasonable.

For instance, we didn't like the fact that 34 of 43 were rejected so we ran
a drive to put more candidates on the ballot.

So, if we don't like the way the election was done (rejection of petition
candidates for trivial reason and the stacking of the board with
nominated candidates because of that), and we can convince members that DCU is
no more open than it was when they lost $18M, we can just vote them out and
go thru this whole election mess again. It's difficult and expensive, but
at least we have the option.

True. But my understanding is that recent changes in the by-laws will make
another special meeting more difficult to arrange by orders of magnitude.
And, even then, past experience shows we were unable to vote the board out.

I have a very sad, sick feeling that this election is our one last opportunity
to regain the DCU. If the ballot ends up being stacked, we have likely
lost for good. It's going to be next to impossible to get people to continue
to support the effort, since it'll be a lot less sapping to the spirit to
simply pick up and leave in disgust.

-Jack

Very true points. I think a meeting would be doable, but just more difficult.
That's why I believe it's so essential to reduce the number of petition
candidates (by a fair process) THIS ELECTION ONLY, EVEN IF IT MEANS
SACRIFICING MY CANDIDACY. There was a mail msg going around that the person
circulating the idea of limiting petition candidates was just a ploy to
win. Let me reiterate: I was the one who initiated the proposal AND I'm
willing to withdraw if that's the result of the process.

If the new BoD succeeds in opening up and cleaning up DCU (whether by the
nominated or the petition candidates) there's no reason for this limiting
process to happen next year.

	Should we go whole hog and limit candidates to 4? That way we place
	all our efforts in a smal basket to try and get a simple majority on
	the board?

			Alfred

re: concerns about DCU rejecting large amounts of signatures for 
    frivolous reasons.

I tend to agree with Paul that DCU is unlikely to play games at this point.
So far, they've been reasonably uncooperative, but the have - to their
credit - gone with the will of the majority with regard to new elections.

Sufficient to say that if DCU does something terrible like blow off all 
the petitions submitted for some arbitrary reason, there are strong measures
that can be taken.  As this probably *is* our last chance to get things
right over there, I'm willing to do what's necessary to ensure that 
shareholder rights (and petition candidate rights) do not get trampled.
I would hate to get involved in a legal dispute with DCU, but stand willing
if it's needed.

I tend to believe that this sort of thinking may be a bit too far on 
the paranoid side.

./Chris

>The petition candidates themselves are probably in the best position
>each to judge their respective kindred spirits.  Would any candidates
>consider pairing off and choosing between themselves at random?  This
>approach could achieve the desirable goals of not forming a "political
>party" and of diversity, since the pairing off would be on the basis of
>mutual similarity.

    PLEASE - Lets stay away from ANYTHING random...  I want diversity, but
    the person must also be qualified to do the job.  The qualifications
    that I lay down are not the same as DCU's.

    Would you want to loose by a coin flip, if you feel you can do the best
    job possible for DCU members?  The person who wins may not be willing
    to put their heart into the job...

    I will state my change in position on petitioners:
    
    If you are not sure you want to run, get out of the way - NOW!  I am
    not interested in someone who will not put their whole heart into this.
    
    	- mark

	RE:.31 (Gillett)
    
>I tend to agree with Paul that DCU is unlikely to play games at this point.
>So far, they've been reasonably uncooperative, but the have - to their
>credit - gone with the will of the majority with regard to new elections.

    The last part of your last sentance, keeps echoing in the background. 
    It is the wrong mindset.  They have not had a choice BUT to go with the
    elections, IMHO.  DCU management/BOD would like you to believe
    otherwise, but this is not so.
    
    The BOD could have gone to court and tried to disallow the vote, but
    they would have lost, there also.  The members voted and they(BOD) did not
    have a say in the matter.  They would like to, though.
    
    	- mark
    

Remember that my process proposal is only a straw proposal and can be
completely scrapped if that is what the concensus. I will argue for it,
but in the end if it's scrapped, that's OK. But let's have *some*
plan for discussion Thursday.

Re: .30
I think 4 is too small. In fact, if there were only 9 petition candidates
(as we started out the signature drive with) I'd be happy with that.

    Assuming all the petition candidates [will] have the requisite number
    of valid signatures to appear on the ballot, this discussion begs the
    question, "should they?"  To my mind, neither an ad-hoc "primary"
    election nor selection by lot would be appropriate.  That leaves it up
    to the candidates to thin their own ranks if they so desire.
    
    I share the concern that an excess of candidates will dilute the
    mandate for change that we saw at the special meeting.  At the same
    time, the election process must be preserved (even if slightly dented
    by the recommendations of the nominating committee).
    
    Perhaps it would be wise for the candidates by petition to meet.  On
    the other hand, any such meeting might be described as "collusion". 
    Therein lies the dilemma.
    
    My conclusion from all this is that I don't know what to recommend,
    except to say that several of the write-in candidates are well-known to
    those of us who've been concerned with bringing change to the DCU.  (I
    suspect that notoriety was an automatic black-ball when it came to the
    nominating committee, but the only evidence I have is circumstantial.) 
    I would HATE to have the candidates with "name recognition" choose to
    withdraw from the race -- they're our best chance to bring such change.
               

    
    I think we should NOT try to manipulate the process and trust it to
    work in our favor.  If we try to manipulate then we leave ourselves
    open to legitimate criticism.  I suggest at most we be aware of who
    the petition candidates are and encourage by all means possible that
    votes be cast for those candidates only.  There's nothing wrong with
    campaigning for favored candidates.
    
    Steve_who_will_be_happy_when_all_the_campaigning_in_NH_history
    

re .32

Although I did say "flip a coin", I also suggested that the candidates
who did this would see each other as equivalent.  A pair of candidates
could simply agree that one would withdraw, making a non-random choice.
Some candidates may see themselves as uniquely qualified.  They rightly
would not participate in this scheme at all.

What's important is to prevent dilution, to minimize procedural dithering
and to prevent the appearance of Bolshevism.  I feel entitled to kibitz
a little, but in the end I think the candidates can sort this out.

\Joe

collusion  n.  A secret agreement for a deceitful or fraudulent purpose.
	[American Heritage Dictionary]

I feel that the word "collusion" is as inapposite as the term "back room".
There isn't anything secret about the proposed process.  Nor is anything
in it deceitful or fraudulent.


re "get in line or get out of the way":

I agree, anyone who is not ready to give their best to the DCU should not
run for the Board.  I don't agree that that requires people to think that
they are the best possible candidates for the DCU.  Personally, I don't
want anyone to run if their ego is so big that they cannot imagine some
other person or group doing a better job, or if their desire to personally
be on the board is greater than their desire for a good Board to be elected.


re .20 (or was it .21?):

I'm sorry if I expressed my views too strongly.  I do agree that any effort 
by an outside group to limit those choices is great cause for concern, but 
I don't think that applies in this case.  

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    The communists use to present a selected list of cadidates because they
    belived the people did not have the sense to chose from a large and
    divers list of candidates. So we can CONTROL the elections ie we don't
    trust the DCU members. Same reason the communists did it! ALL PETITION
    CANDIDATES SHOULD RUN and should be so labelled on the ballot. A better
    method of making sure GOOD candidates are elected is by EDUCATING the
    electorate----thats the hard way----the easy way is to control the
    outcome----the same system we have worked so hard to change!
    
    Francis.

    The more I think about it, the more I realize that in the end we MUST
    trust the voting shareholders.  Even though 150 words may not be
    enough, the shareholder that votes must be trusted to pick the best 7
    candidates.  If the average shareholder cannot be trusted, we have a
    bigger problem than just the Board of Directors.  I'm not in favor of any 
    pressure to have any candidates withdraw.  I am, however, very much in
    favor of helping shareholders become informed beyond name recognition
    and high-level endorsement.
    
    I would appreciate seeing ALL (incumbents, nominated, petition) 
    candidates be invited to get together to determine how the average 
    shareholder might best become informed.  Even though only petition
    candidates showed up at the Petition Pizza Party, all candidates were
    invited.  I felt that was fair and reasonable.
    
    Steve

    Here is another choice.  A candidate could choose to use his 150 words
    to explain the issues instead of his own qualifications, and then say
    "Don't vote for me; please vote for one of the other candidates-by-
    petition."

    
    I believe others have read the elections guidelines and are convinced
    that the suggestion in .41 would not make it past those who control the
    contents of the election package.
    

    Yeah.  I forgot that those are also reviewed for acceptability.

   A quick summary of the meeting of tonight...

   Larry Seiler  will  post  a more detailed account of the procedings over
   the weekend to be available probably by monday in another base note.

   The concensus of tonight's meeting was to scrap my proposal of a process
   to  get  down  to  7  candidates.  We decided that the main thing we are
   fighting  against  is  the membership's lack of information due to DCU's
   lack of straight communication.  We will all work very hard (and welcome
   anybody  interested  in  helping)  to  inform everybody we can about the
   facts.

   9 people  wanting  to  be  candidate-by-petition  were  present, none by
   teleconference.  It was a good chance for all the petition candidates to
   get   together   and   meet   each   other.   In  addition,  there  were
   introductions, discussions, and questions by the non-candidates.  I left
   there  very  satisfied  that  any  of the people present would make fine
   BoDs.

    There is a "primary" process.  It's called the petition and the
    nominating committee.  If you were worried about diluting the vote, why
    did you rubber stamp petitions?

I was quite pleased to see the number of people who came to my petition
table and took the time to read 10 full page statements by the petition
candidates in order to decide who to sign for.  Neither they nor I
rubber stamped petitions.

On the other hand, a number of people told me that they firmly believe
that anyone who wants to be on the ballot should be on, and then signed
every sheet I had out.  They weren't rubber stamping either, they were
acting on their beliefs.

It's clear that knowledgable and well intentioned people can come to
dramatically different conclusions about what is the right thing to do
with the petitions, and with the campaign.  Even among those whom the
Board labeled as "witch hunters", nearly the full range of opinions is
represented.

There's been a lot of concern since the Special Meeting petitions came out
about whether there is some shadowy back room "committee" that is trying to
manipulate things behind the scenes.  If anyone thinks there is such a
"committee", then I challenge them to come to the next meeting.  But given 
what's been going on at the DCU, a certain degree of paranoia is only good 
sense.  The main point is that many people now mistrust limitations on what
sorts of people can be on the ballot, and that's good.  

My own decision was to help gather petitions for everyone who provided 
a page about their attitudes, opinions and qualifications, but to only
actively campaign for those whom I feel are both qualified for the Board
and ready to make the sorts of reforms that I feel are necessary in the DCU.
I'm mystified why people have said that I shouldn't choose who I campaign
for, but some have said that.  Now I'm told I shouldn't have helped as
many people petition.  Well, that's democracy in action!  :-)

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    Hmm.  Darned if you do and darned if you don't.  If you support all the 
    candidates you can you are branded as a "rubber stamper".  If you limit the 
    number of candidates you'll support, you're branded as a "conspirator".  
    This is actually a good thing.  Since I no longer have to worry about 
    pleasing everybody I can focus on what *I* think is the "right thing".  
    :)
    
    Steve

       I 'rubber stamped' ALL the petitions. I can decide later which ones
    I'd like to vote for in the election. I feel anyone who takes the
    effort has a right to be on the ballot. I liken it to all the David
    Duke controversy in the presidential game. He may be someone I'd NEVER 
    consider voting for, but he has every right in the world to be on the
    ballot. 
                                             Denny

    It's interesting to see mention of David Duke.  I was thinking of Duke
    as an example of why it might be necessary for the petition candidates
    to coalesce into a "party ticket" and thus avoid the dilution of votes. 
    As it turns out, I am inclined to believe that we don't have a problem
    here; there are 9 nominating committee candidates, and 9 petition
    candidates, so perhaps it will work out fairly (at least I hope so.) 
    But it is worth pointing out that there are implications to the way
    elections get decided.

    When we talk of "letting the system work", that suggests another
    question:  what system?  Let's put it another way:  how does the winner
    get decided?  If you have candidates running for just one position, is
    the winner decided by plurality, or is a majority required?  Both
    election results can be described as "democratic", because the decision
    is determined by who gets the most votes.  But the difference can be
    quite significant; that is why some multi-candidate elections require a
    runoff if no one gets 50% of the vote.  As I recall, that is is
    precisely what happened in Louisiana, by the way, which is why the
    David Duke reference is interesting.  I don't remember who got the
    plurality of votes in the Louisiana primary election, which then led to
    a runoff.  But it is certainly possible for a candidate to win a large
    multi-candidate election with only a tiny minority of votes, when a
    plurality is all that is needed to win.  In the case of Duke, had
    Louisiana election law been different, one can imagine an election with
    a large slate of anti-Duke people running, and no one willing to bow
    out because "everyone should run".  In the case of a plurality-decided
    election, when issues are at stake, the side of the fence that can
    coalesce behind a single candidate stands the best chance of winning.

    Coalitions form behind single candidates all the time in democratic
    elections.  There is nothing undemocratic about this, unless you are
    opposed in principle to the idea of political parties.  And this
    becomes acute if an election is decided by plurality.  My example of
    Duke assumes an election for a single post.  In this DCU election, we
    are talking about seven positions, not one.  I am assuming that the
    "winners" are simply those with the most votes, with no minimum
    percentage required.  Is this true?  If so, it is analogous with a
    plurality-decided election for a single post, and the problem of vote
    dilution occurs again.

    Opening up the election is certainly an issue, and I favor opening up
    the process.  That has been accomplished by the petition campaign. But
    in making my votes, the raw financial or administrative competence of
    the candidates is not the only factor that concerns me (and many
    others) in this election.  Another, is reforming the DCU board--and
    that means putting competent *reformers* onto the board.  An otherwise
    technically qualified candidate, who opposes putting reforms into
    place, will not get my vote.  I suspect that all nine of those selected
    by the nominating committee have a solid set of skills; but I also
    suspect that they were selected precisely because they are more likely
    to reflect the views of the current Board (perhaps I am wrong on this.)

    Why are we upset over the fact that only nine candidates were selected
    by the nominating committee?  Obviously, the lack of choices was an
    insult to the membership, but in retrospect, I think that is only part
    of the problem.  Suppose they had selected 20 candidates, none of whom
    favored putting any reforms into place, but instead wished to continue
    the old offensive activities, such as quietly making self-empowering
    back room by-law changes?  Would giving us 20 hand-picked non-choices
    have been any better than giving us 9 hand-picked non-choices?  The
    petition drive accomplished the goal of providing alternatives to the
    hand-picked successors of the current Board.  Now it is time to put
    onto the Board those who favor reforms.
     
    As I said, I am optimistic that we don't have a problem here.  I am
    glad to see that most of the petition candidates are willing to work
    together in a cooperative effort.  Those petition candidates who are
    don't want to go along with this are free to do so, and to go it alone
    if they wish.  However, I am unlikely to vote for those who do that.

    -- Mike

    
    RE: .49
    
    Excellent reply!
    
    As for this "party thing"...
    
    The Soviet Union (remember them?) used to have "elections" with several
    candidates on the ballot too.  IMO, a new "DCU Reformers" party may be
    just what DCU needs.  A party rooted in the true credit union philosophy 
    of what a credit union is and should be and all that this philosophy
    means in the day to day operation of the credit union (ie. see note
    concerning dividends at other credit unions).
    
    My impression (from the Nom. Comm. choices) is that DCU wishes to
    perpetuate a different philosophy, that of banking and a bottom line
    mentality.  Now, I wish I could hear more about the Nom. Comm. choices
    so I could determine if this gut feeling is right or wrong.  Absent
    that, I must rely on those gut feelings.  Has anybody heard anything
    from the nominated candidates???