Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    
      BTW,  who stuck the "Vote for a qualified board"  brochures
    in our internal mailboxes here at TAY?
    
    
    					-a
    

re:  .20

>      BTW,  who stuck the "Vote for a qualified board"  brochures
>    in our internal mailboxes here at TAY?

This is the second report I've heard today regarding "Qualified
Board" campaigning being done via internal mailboxes.

Has anybody else had this experience, or is this localized to
a particular site.

I'm glad that others are beginning to campaign - finally.  That's
the way things should be:  candidates getting the word out to 
the members, so that the membership can make informed decisions
based on good data.  I'm especially glad to see at least one of
the nominated candidates take time to write a thoughtful statement
of position and post in DCU notes.

Question:  Is an internal mailbox considered a work area?  How
           does the P&P speak to this issue?

./chris

    
    I have one, also at TAY.
    
    I also know that one of the nominated candidates specifically asked to
    be removed from this flier, or to have a statement added that they did
    not endorse the activity.
    
    The flier was attributed to "Members for a Qualified Board".
    

    RE: .-1 (Gillett)
    
    Since it is not work related, a person cannot put any type of campaign
    material into a DEC mailbox, IMO.
    
    	- mark

    
    I would agree with that. I assume that's why I've never found business
    cards for wedding cakes or fliers for the latest yoga class in my
    mail box.
    

.21> I'm especially glad to see at least one of the nominated candidates take
.21> time to write a thoughtful statement of position and post in DCU notes.

I have no idea whether these people (nominated candidates) are terribly busy or
don't want to bother providing me anything to post, but the one posted is the
only one I have received a statement to post at this time.  I even sent those
that I could reach via email stating to not 'fear' me, I am not a hostile DCU
member and not worry about my inquiry.  I was only trying to provide an unlimi-
ted length forum for their full statement of qualifications.

Yesterday, I was able to reach one other by phone and he agreed to provide a
statement, but nothing yet.  I will post it in #489 when I receive it.  I guess
I'll try calling all of them to ask for their status.  There are probably a
good number of members who would like to see a full statement from ALL the
candidates in one spot, the purpose of #489.

    Putting mail that is a DIRECT SOLICITATION TO VOTE for a particular set
    of candidates is a clear violation
    of Digital Policy (in my opinion). You can be assured that DEC
    personnel will be receiving an official complaint on this. I guess the
    people to complain about are the people named on the flier. Apparently
    the flier says it is endorsed by them. Should be interesting making a
    formal complaint about such high ranking people in Digital.
    
    As an aside no "REAL CHOICES" literature that solicits people to vote
    for a particul candidate has been put in a DEC work area. The
    literature talking about "REAL CHOICES" candidates is informational
    only.
    
    Dave

    Could someone post the contents of the "Vote for a Qualified Board"
    brochure?

re: .28

I don't think it's within the bounds of the P&P
to post it, as it makes a direct solicitation by
asking the reader to vote for 7 nominated candidates.

Mr. Moderator, what say you?

./chris

    Re .-1
    
    <Putting on my moderator cap>
    
    I agree with you. But if somebody were to post it with the solicitation
    piece censored out I'd allow it. I have no problem at all with this
    notesfile being used to provide information on each and every candidate
    that is running for the DCU Board.
    
    Any note posted that in my opinion violates Digital P&P will first be
    hidden and then probably deleted after conferencing with the poster.
    Solicitations most certainly fall into this category.
    
    Dave

    I was interested in it more on a level of how badly it did violate P&P,
    not so much the content.

    
    I'll take a stab, assuming this will quickly disappear if it is
    inappropriate.
    
    It is a double-sided pink sheet. My comments are in []. Again, it was
    placed in all the interoffice mailboxes in TAY1.
    
    The part about "DCU's independent Nominating Committee" was
    particularly humorous.
    
    ------------------
    

                             VOTE FOR A QUALIFIED BOARD!
                             ---------------------------

    Nominated Candidates for DCU's 1992 election will provide you, the
    member-owners, with:  * quality member services
                          * competitive savings and loan rates within sound
                            business practices
                          * fiscal safety and soundness
                          * full disclosure of audited financial reports
                          * ongoing communications

    WHY CHOOSE THE NOMINATED CANDIDATES?
    ------------------------------------

    They offer a DIVERSE background with PROVEN MANAGERIAL AND FINANCIAL
    EXPERIENCE, which is necessary to guide our $370 million institution through
    the coming years. They will bring to the board NEW IDEAS AND CHANGE so DCU
    will better meet our financial needs while providing the best and most
    services possible.

    Each of them was selected as BEST QUALIFIED to serve as Board Members by
    DCU's independent Nominating Committee. There are seven positions
    available, as voted on by the membership during DCU's Special Meeting, so
    take the time to VOTE. [two sentences of direct solicitation omitted]

    So you'll make an informed choice, their individual qualifications are
    listed below:

    [four people, with bullet lists of qualifications]
    
    [on flip side:]
    
    VOTE    VOTE    VOTE    VOTE    VOTE    VOTE    VOTE    VOTE    VOTE

    [five people, with bullet lists of qualifications]
    






                  Paid for by Members for a Qualified Board


    

    Yep, I'd say that pretty clearly violates P&P.

    
    The method of distribution is in CLEAR violation of P&P, if the
    statement is not.  Also, at least one of the candidates whose name
    appears on the document has NOT granted permission.  Again, a serious
    violation of P&P that needs to be addressed.  The document should not be
    posted until it is confirmed that all names on the document have
    consented to the use of their name.
    

    So, does this mean personel will be interviewing the names on the
    brochure to determine if they gave their permission and if they believe
    it is a violation of P&P's?
    
    Or am I just being silly and naive?

    
    RE: .33
    
    No, what is even more interesting is that the two incumbents names are
    listed as supporting 
    
    * competitive savings and loan rates within sound business practices
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    (where have they been in the past x years?)
    
    * fiscal safety and soundness
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    (loosing 2/3 of our equity is 'fiscal safety and soundness'?)
    
    * full disclosure of audited financial reports
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    (well then where were they the last 6 years?  And even NOW?)
    
    * ongoing communications
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    (Ongoing?  As in more of the same?  No complete and open disclosure?)
    
    How do these stances jive with an 'Information Protection Policy",
    incomplete and misleading annual report the last few years, the risky
    'investment' in Cape Cod real estate, (see posting about why changes
    are needed at DCU)?  They appear to have undergone a complete
    transformation.  Have they seen the light?  Are we all out of the
    woods?  I think NOT.  If the nominated candidates have indeed chosen to
    participate on this document (one has indicated they have not), they 
    have taken a big chance IMO. 
    
>    They offer a DIVERSE background with PROVEN MANAGERIAL AND FINANCIAL
>    EXPERIENCE, which is necessary to guide our $370 million institution through
>    the coming years. They will bring to the board NEW IDEAS AND CHANGE so DCU
>    will better meet our financial needs while providing the best and most
>    services possible.

    But we aren't voting for managers.  DCU already has a staff of
    managers.  We are electing leaders with goals, priorities and
    direction.  And did all the financial expertise on the current board
    do us any good?  As for new ideas and change, it's nice to see they 
    have been reading "REAL CHOICES" candidate statements.
    (Small correction, it appears DCU's assets are now down to $346 million 
     due to the policies and decisions of the current board).  
    
>    Each of them was selected as BEST QUALIFIED to serve as Board Members by
>    DCU's independent Nominating Committee. There are seven positions
>    available, as voted on by the membership during DCU's Special Meeting, so
>    take the time to VOTE. [two sentences of direct solicitation omitted]

    Independent?  Independent of what?  How independent is a committee with
    DCU's President on it?  How independent is a committee that was hand
    picked by the current Chairman of the Board?  Are two incumbents who
    presided over the loss of $15 million of our dollars "best qualified"
    according to this 'independent nominating committee'?  Wasn't past
    performance taken into account?
    
>	Paid for by Members for a Qualified Board
    
    I have concluded that this statement must be somebody's idea of a joke. 
    I can see how much of this applies to the nominated candidates (I
    disagree on 'best qualified' however).  But the incumbants?

>>	Paid for by Members for a Qualified Board
>    
>    I have concluded that this statement must be somebody's idea of a joke. 
>    I can see how much of this applies to the nominated candidates (I
>    disagree on 'best qualified' however).  But the incumbants?

	People can call themselves anything they want. That doesn't mean the
	name is automagicly a good description. :-) The think I would like
	to know is who is in this group? I think the "REAL CHOICES" candidates
	are pretty open about who they are. Their (our) supporters are also
	pretty open and clear about who they are. They support us under their
	own names and through public activities. Who are these "Members for
	a Qualified Board?" Is there a contact name on the flyer? Are they
	posting notes here? Are they meeting people in lunch rooms? One 
	assumes that if they believe what they are saying we'll see their
	notes here. And their candidates statements in 489. If on the other
	hand they are not interested in "ongoing communication" we will not
	see their notes or their candadates statements here. Actions speak
	louder then words.

		Alfred

    
    I plan to make the following statement available in locations where
    the "Members for a Qualified Board" flier was distributed. (But I'm not
    going to stuff it in interoffice mailboxes.)
    
    (This is based on a reply of mine elsewhere, in case it looks
    familiar.)
    
    ------------
    

                            What is "Qualified"?
                            --------------------

    The election for the DCU Board of Directors has raised many questions
    regarding who might give the best direction to the DCU.

    The nominating committee claims that it has selected the "most qualified"
    people, so we ask, what does it mean to be "qualified"?

    The "Members for a Qualified Board" (an anonymous group whose flier
    you may have received in your interoffice mailbox) suggest that the
    candidates "BEST QUALIFIED" to serve as directors are those chosen by
    "DCU's independent Nominating Committee." But what were the standards by
    which the Nominating Committee judged these candidates?

    One concerned person says, "It is at times like these I believe we need
    the most qualified members on our Board, people who possess the skills
    and experience to meet the challenges and uncertainties of the future."
    It follows, then, that "qualified" implies a certain set of skills and
    experience.
    
    The question then becomes: what skills and experience are best suited
    to making DCU a better member-owned credit union? The skills and
    experience related to banking and money management? Or the skills and
    experience related to listening to the needs and wishes of peers? Maybe
    those related to examining and questioning the operations of the staff in
    light of the goals and philosophy of a credit union? Or perhaps a healthy
    mix of all three?
    
    And I offer a corollary question:  What skills and experience were in
    place
 
     -  when previous president Richard Mangone ran off with our money?
     -  when we were told in an annual report that DCU growth was "on target
        at 0.8%", though the net income was actually 90% under the previous
        year's? 
     -  when we were offered checking account fees disguised as "MORE CHOICES"?
     -  when an "Information Protection Policy" was instituted in response
        to queries from members regarding the financial strength of DCU?
     -  when those members were labeled by DCU Directors as "witch hunters"?
     -  when the DCU bylaws were changed to increase the number of signatures
        required for another Special Meeting from 200 to 5000?
     -  when DCU board meetings and "educational" conferences were held in
        Nantucket, Maine, Anaheim and Bermuda?
     -  when the DCU president was selected as one of three members on "DCU's
        independent Nominating Committee"?
     -  when that nominating committee selected two incumbents and just seven
        new candidates to run for seven board seats, while previously nominated
        candidates were this time rejected?
    
    Answer these simple questions, and then choose your new board.
    
    But choose wisely :-)
    
    Bill Kilgore   508-597-6929

                [This document may be copied and distributed at will,
                provided that it is duplicated in its entirety]

    

    I have seen a copy of the flier described in .33, and understand
    that at least one nominating committee candidate did not consent
    to his inclusion - so where did the "Members for a Qualified BoD"
    (is that accurate?) get that fairly detailed biographical data on the 
    nominated candidates?  Does any noter know where such employee
    information might be available?  Only places that occur to me are
    DCU Nominating Committee or Digital Personnel.
    
    Sure like to be wrong about this.  Please.
    
    Jack 

    I strongly suggest that one or two of those who actually received the
    "Qualified Board" fliers in their mailboxes in TAY make a formal
    complaint through Personnel.  
    
    In such a position, I would ask:
    -	that this not be done at any DEC facility, and
    -	that a rebuttal be placed in all the mailboxes that the original
    	flyer was found in
    
    Bob

    I've heard some convincing reasons not to draw Personnel into this.
    Let's not do that.  It's too minor an issue - no real damage done,
    and they surely don't need the hassle.
    
    But I sure am curious about the committee's membership, its
    information source for those bios, and whether any of the 
    non-incumbents consented to this association with incumbents, saw
    a draft, or had any say in it.  Maybe one or more of the Nominating
    Committee nominated candidates would comment here (he inquire, ever
    hopeful)?
    
    Jack
    
    Jack

RE: .21

Send them polite mail asking them. Wouldn't hurt to see if they really favor
"open and honest" communications before we vote.. It would be a breath of
fresh air if someone DID respond..

Bryan

    Is it possible that this flier was some sort of prank or bad joke?
    Maybe some anonymous person was out to intentionally make the
    Nominating Committee and the proposed candidates look bad?  Wouldn't
    want to rule that out as a possibility since most Deccies are pretty
    sharp and would probably resent such a blatant violation of P&P.
    Just speculating ...
    
    Steve

    Sounds unlikely.  It would only make them look bad to people who have
    become very rule sensitive (for whatever reason).

    
    The flier doesn't seem to be limited to TAY - I just got a copy from my 
    husband who works in AKO. 
    
    

    
    RE: .25
    
    How was it distributed in AKO?  Mailboxes?
    

    
    
     re: 26
    
    It was in his mail slot, but from what he told me, he'd seen them all
    over the building (stacked on tables at different locations..etc.)
    
    

	I saw them on Friday in the BXC lobby.  They were sitting
	on the receptionist desk.  Unfortunately, she was very 
	busy and I was unable to ask where these were from...

REAL CHOICES candidates, and their supporters, have been 
working very hard to remain within the bounds of Digital's
policies regarding solicitation.  While I've no doubt that
our work has been imperfect, we've made best efforts to "do
the right thing" in getting the message out to members.

In my opinion, the individual(s) circulating the "Vote for
a Qualified Board" flier are not even attempting to stay
within policy.  Posting flyers in a site lobby?  Using
interoffice mailboxes?  Allegedly circulating a flyer without
gaining the consent of all the individuals whose names are
on it?  These are all questionable things, in my opinion.

All who desire to be on the Board of Directors should definitely
get out there and campaign, and make their views known so that
the members can make informed decisions.  But, I feel that 
everyone involved in DCU matters, or any other hotly debated topic
within the company, should be held to the same standards.

Of course, all this is in my opinion, and should in no way be
interpreted as attempting to cast aspersions on anyone, or 
question anybody's character.

./chris 

Deepak Goyal has been incorrectly (against his wishes) listed in this flier.
I received mail from him to this effect and have posted that retraction in
#489(.22).  Please do NOT associate him with the effort posed by that flier.
As stated in the mail, an apology has been made to him by the originator of the
flier.

    So now we have the names of the people violating Digital policy in
    the distribution of the flier?

    Deleted my last note.  Let me rephrase my question, given that the
    folks sponsoring the flier are a bit less anonymous.  Is the flier
    being distributed only at sites that have DCU offices in them?  I
    wonder if DCU employees may be distributing the flier under an
    assumption that they need not adhere to Digital P&P.
    
    Steve

I haven't seen any so called "qualified candidate" fliers in MLO.

    
    I keep getting a picture of two people flitting furtively from site to
    site in the dark of the night, stuffing pieces of paper into
    mailboxes...
    
    ...they just haven't made it to MLO yet.
    

    Has anyone brought this to Ron Glover's attention? Considering what has
    been going on and at what level, I'd strongly suggest that course of
    action.
    
    Tamzen

<donning my all-new flameproof non-asbestos underwear>

I can't find anything in the Policies and Procedures that would allow
me to guess whether or not an internal mailbox is a "work area".  Given
the role of your mailbox as an interface with the outside world, I would
guess that it does NOT count.  Based on what I can find in P & P, a
Digital employee would seem to be permitted to place DEFCU campaign
materials in your mailbox.  A non-Digital employee (for example, an
employee of the Credit Union) would NOT be permitted to do so (they could,
however, mail you just about anything the Post Office wouldn't forbid).

<changing back to more comfortable cotton>

That said, I don't think it's a good idea - I think most employees would
be annoyed at finding this sort of thing stuffed in their mailbox.  Also,
any appearance of the flyer in a work area is a clear violation of the
"No Solicitation" policy.

Judging from the description of the flyer posted in this Notes file, it
sounds like the flyer itself violates P&P on a number of counts.  I
gather Deepak's name was included against his wishes.  Also, the phrase
"DCU's independent Nominating Committee" is a provable lie - if the flyer
does say that, it is wrong.  Finally, the author(s) of the note are
indentified only by the phrase "Members for a Qualified Board".  If
this group is not registered with Digital as an employee interest group
with access to Digital facilities, why is this material being distributed
on Digital property?

    Re: .-1
    
    Here is a good test question.
    
    	"Would Personnel object if the REAL CHOICES literature
    	were stuffed into employee mailboxes?"

Re: .37

>    Here is a good test question.
>    
>    	"Would Personnel object if the REAL CHOICES literature
>    	were stuffed into employee mailboxes?"

Why would Personnel care?  I think the question you ought to as is,
"would YOU object if the REAL CHOICES literature were stuffed into
YOUR mailbox?"

If the answer were "YES", I'd say you would be honor-bound to object
to someone stuffing a "Vote For a Qualified Board" flyer into your
mailbox.  I just don't think that the specific act of placing
campaign materials violates Policy and Procedures all by itself.

				- - Steve

    Re: .-1
    
    Personnel *should* care because Personnel has already taken a
    considerable interest in the general issue of the campaign literature,
    and we all know that Personnel tries to be fair and equitable.  Right?
    
    Your original question of whether or not it is an effective campaign
    technique is a different question which also needs to be answered. I am
    not rejecting your suggestion that it is a bad idea.

    Today, on my way out of the lobby of COP, I was handed this now
    imfamous orangish flier.  The person handing it out is a Digital
    employee, and they were doing this on their lunch hour, as was pointed
    out.
    
    This flier (as described previously) was handed out in the lobby of a
    Digital only leased building.

    The flyer just appeared on the tables of the PK03 cafeteria...
    where petition candidates were discouraged from collecting
    signatures because it might somehow send an incorrect message
    to customers to who come for training, you may recall.

Re: .39

I think we may be down to quibbling over words.  Personnel is a corporate
function, not a human being.  "Personnel" can't "care" any more than this
VAX can.

Someone filed a formal complaint with Personnel regarding the campaign
literature distributed by the "Real Choices" candidates, so Personnel
acted according to Policy and Procedures and their own guidelines.

If you believe that the "Vote For a Qualified Board" materials violate
P&P, and you believe that a formal complaint is an appropriate response,
then it is your responsibility to file a complaint about that issue.

Let me just add that if I am subjected to a flyer like the one described
in this Note string in a work area, I'd object!!

				- - Steve

A digital employee(s) (unnamed by security and DCU) distributed the "Vote for a
Qualified Board" flyer onto each desk within the BTO facility this weekend 
(including the head of se
curity and personnel manager). Personnel says they
received the package of flyers last week, requesting distribution in the cafe.
They informed the local DCU manager that this was not to accordance with 
soliciation guidelines.  

I spoke with Donna Bogue, acting manager for local DCU branch, about the 
distribution of the flyer.  Here is the summary of the discussion:

Stew: "Did the flyers come from DCU?"
Donna: "No, they came from a group of Digital employees."
Stew: "Did DCU distribute the flyers?"
Donna: "No."
Stew: "Did anyone from the DCU office distribute the flyers?"
Donna: "No. That would be against policy."
Stew: "Who distributed the flyers?"
Donna: "Digital employees were asked to volunteer their time to distribute 
        the flyers."
Stew: "Who asked for these volunteers?"
Donna: "I did.  On my own time."
To which the DCU teller added: "Headquarters told us to solicit volunteers."
Donna: "That's correct.  On our own time."

Personnel and security is taking action at this time.

    I find it "interesting" that supporters of petition candiates are
    quite willing to sign their names and take responsibility for what
    they say, but those supporting the nominating committee candidates
    choose to hide their identities behind the facade of a committee name,
    "Members for a Qualified Board."

        +---------------------------+ TM
        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
        | d | i | g | i | t | a | l |           Interoffice Memo
        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
        +---------------------------+
                                                Date: March 16, 1992
                                                From: Steve Sherman
	To: Ron GLover                          Dept: LES ECAD Adv. Dev.
                                                Loc.: MSO2-1/21H
                                                Ext.: 223-3326
                                                Enet: ECADSR::Sherman

	Subject:  Apparent Violation of Digital Policy and 
		  Request for Retraction

	Ron,

	As I mentioned in our phone conversation, I am registering a formal
	complaint concerning the "Vote For a Qualified Board" flier being
	distributed.  As we agreed, I am the focal point for this complaint
	and will be happy to meet with you concerning this.  This memo also
	reflects the opinions of those who have signed with me.

	It has come to our attention that since March 13 and through the 
	present, Digital policy has apparently been violated by anonymous 
	persons with respect to this flier.
	
	This flier contains personal information of at least one Digital 
	employee (Deepak Goyal) who has indicated that he did not give consent 
	to such distribution.  His disclosure is attached, extracted from the 
	DCU notes where it was posted at his request.

	The flier also apparently violates Digital policy in that it solicits 
	Digital employees to vote for particular candidates in the election by
	endorsing them while being distributed in work places:

		"We believe that if you select any seven of the nine
		 NOMINATED CANDIDATES, you will be voting for a QUALITY 
		 BOARD."

	The flier has been placed in internal mail boxes, offices, lobbies
	and other work areas at AKO, BTO, BXC, COP, MRO3, TAY and WMO.  
	There may be other sites as well.  I have no objections to its
	distribution in non-work places at non-work times as has been done
	with other materials.

	This flier seems different from other materials we have seen (such
	as the "Real Choices" materials) which specifically inform Digital 
	employees about candidates and encourage general participation in the 
	elections but do NOT technically endorse particular candidates.  Such 
	materials, to the best of our knowledge, have been made available only 
	in non-work areas during break times in compliance with Digital policy.
	
	These other materials include contacts for more information and are
	therefore not done anonymously.  This flier contains no such contact 
	information.  The only reference to the originators is: "Paid for by 
	Members for a Qualified Board"  

	It is also disturbing that there is at least one site where this flier 
	was distributed while permission was denied for distribution of other 
	materials (see note 496.41 of the DCU notes).

	We do not know what persons are involved in this distribution.  But,
	per Deepak Goyal's memo, we feel that Mark Steinkrauss and Ray Schmalz
	may have more information.

	We would appreciate immediate rectification of this situation,
	including immediate retraction and cessation of distribution of this 
	flier.  

	Thank you for your attention.


					Signed,
			
					Steve Sherman
					Dave Garrod
					Chris Gillett
					Phil Gransewicz
					Bill Kilgore
					Paul Kinzelman
					Jim Syiek

                <<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 489.22                 No 150 word limit here...                   22 of 23
ERLANG::MILLEVILLE                                   47 lines  16-MAR-1992 09:31
                   -< Flier listing Deepak Goyal - BAD NEWS >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:	BLUMON::GOYAL        16-MAR-1992 09:27:07.28
To:	ERLANG::MILLEVILLE
CC:	
Subj:	Dan: Please add this note to my DCU Election Statement in the DCU Notes File.  Thanks . . . Deepak Goyal

                             CORRECTION ON

                  "VOTE FOR A QUALIFIED BOARD" FLIER



Dear DCU Members:

It has been brought to my attention that my name is listed on the
"Vote for a Qualified Board" campaign flier.  I DID NOT AND DO NOT
ENDORSE THIS CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY.

Approximately, 10 days back, Mr. Mark Steinkrauss and Mr. Ray Schmalz
contacted me to obtain my approval to include my name on their flier.
In a written note, I told them that I considered this kind of activity
improper, especially since it was being endorsed by a BOD Member.  The
role of a BOD Member is to promote a fair and open election.

I told them they had two options: either delete my name from their flier,
or add the qualifier "DOES NOT ENDORSE THIS CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY" against
my name.  My position on such activities is that if some group of members
wants to campaign for a particular set of candidates, then it is that
group's prerogative.  However, that group should first discuss the
planned activity with each candidate and incorporate any special instruc-
tions from a candidate in order to correctly project a candidate's
position and philosophy.

The organizers of the "Vote for a Qualified Board" are conducting their
campaign in a manner inconsistent with my instructions.  I am upset over
it because, per my election statement posted in the DCU Notes File, I do
not associate myself with any faction.  My Ray Schmalz called me this
morning to apologize for not incorporating my instructions in their 
campaign.

I hope you will cast your vote based on my Election Statement posted in the
DCU Notes File, and not based on campaign activity by any group.

Sincerely yours,

Deepak K. Goyal

March 16, 1992 

Further clarification on who is "Headquarters" (see .43).  Donna Bogue said,
"I was asked by my district manager to help in distribution of the flyers. 
This request was made during off hours and was purely voluntary, no issues or
pressure to job performance."

Re: .46
It sounds highly dubious to me for a boss to ask a subordinate (or
did I misunderstand what you wrote somehow) off hours to work on something
off hours and "purely voluntary" especially something as highly politicized
and emotionally charged as this election. I don't think this should be
allowed.

	So we have a two DCU employees taking an active part in the DCU 
	election, in direct violation of of DCU election guidelines...

				Tom_K

    Don't forget:
    
    
    	o take down other's campaign literature on Digital property
    	  (but only on personal time).

    
    
    Again, if there is complete disregard for rules and Bylaws at the top,
    you will surely see it through out an organization.  That explains all
    of what we are seeing to me.  Maybe that's why they are pulling all
    this to keep the reigns.  I dread to find out what has been going on at
    DCU if elected.  This is starting to get a bit scary.  It just seems to
    get worse day by day.  Just when you think they are straightening up,
    we find out their just mouthing the words will sharpening the dagger.
    
    The DCU membership cannot afford to turn their back.

I telephoned Patti D'Addieco today with regard to this matter.
She told me the following things:

    1.  DCU employees were instructed explicitly by written memo
        from President Cockburn that they are not allowed to
        participate in campaigning WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK.

    2.  DCU employees are allowed, while not at work, to campaign
        in a voluntary fashion for whomever they choose.  She said
        that DCU has no say in what employees can do on their own
        time, and that they are free to hand out literature, or
        do whatever campaigning they want while not at work.

    3.  Employees of DCU are free, according to Patti, to acknowledge
        their employment at DCU, and to use that affiliation in
        campaigning.  

My interpretation of what they are saying:

So, according to DCU, it would be appropriate,
on their own time, for someone to say, "I'm Vice President
in charge of all Vice Presidential Things and I think you should
definitely vote for John Doe for the Board."  But, they cannot
say "As Vice President in charge of all Vice Presidential Things,
I urge you to vote for John Doe."  A fine line, that one.

My belief is that ANY employee involvement in the election, other
than filling out and sending in the ballot may be, without casting
aspersions or impuning any individual here, incorrect.  Companies
CAN control what employees do on their own time.  When I joined
Digital, I signed a confidentiality agreement and asserted that
any invention or idea I had whilst there employee was Digital's
first and foremost.  So, DEC does control what I do when I'm not
working.  DCU could do the same thing to avoid participation in
the process.

What's going on is questionable in my mind, but we need to get
an interpretation from the NCUA ASAP.  Be it proper or not, I believe
that DCU is doing itself a great disservice in allowing its employees
to carry on in this fashion.

./Chris

    re: .45
    
    I just got back some response from Ron Glover.  I responded back with
    a request for information that I can post here.  I'm not sure if I'll
    be able to post much of the response.  But, I will say this about his
    response.  It was personal, it was fast, it was carefully thought out
    and it was very reasonable.  I am satisfied with the response and it
    has really helped me to restore some of my faith in "the system".
    
    Steve

    
    RE: .53
    
    Well what exactly is Digital's response to these very blatant
    violations of P&P?  Help restore our trust in the system too... 
    

.52>  I telephoned Patti D'Addieco today with regard to this matter.
.52>  She told me the following things:
.52>
.52>      1.  DCU employees were instructed explicitly by written memo
.52>          from President Cockburn that they are not allowed to
.52>          participate in campaigning WHILE THEY ARE AT WORK.
.52>
.52>      2.  DCU employees are allowed, while not at work, to campaign
.52>          in a voluntary fashion for whomever they choose.  She said
.52>          that DCU has no say in what employees can do on their own
.52>          time, and that they are free to hand out literature, or
.52>          do whatever campaigning they want while not at work.
.52>
.52>      3.  Employees of DCU are free, according to Patti, to acknowledge
.52>          their employment at DCU, and to use that affiliation in
.52>          campaigning.  


The applicable part of the "DCU ELECTION GUIDELINES" is Section III, which
appears on page 8.  Section III reads in entirety:

III.  Campaign Guidelines

    Ideally DCU elections should run smoothly, without acrimony or
    embarrassment to anyone.  Certain specific guidelines setting the
    standard election practices will help make this ideal a reality.

    The nominating committee serves as an early warning system for
    potential campaign irregularities, questionable practices, complaints,
    etc., and promptly informs the board, through the president, of any
    of its concerns.

    Everyone directly involved (the board, candidates and staff) must
    agree:

        A.  to avoid any misleading or deceptive practices

        B.  to refrain from public endorsement of, or any public
            comments on any other candidate

    Credit union employees, because of their influential positions,
    shall not be involved in an election other than to cast their own
    ballots.  Refusal to adhere to this guideline will result in
    disciplinary action.

       I just got a phone call from someone at ACO. The flyers showed up on
    their desks. There is no branch there. 
       None here at LTN yet.
                                               Denny

Re: .55

Yes, in response to my questions about what was going on in 
Vermont, Patti responded as I have documented.

Additionally, I told her that I was greatly concerned about how
the election was being conducted, and that there were strong
allegations that DCU's board chairman and one of the nominated
candidates were circulating materials in non-working areas, and
that they didn't have proper consent from all named parties to
even use their names.  She told me that I shouldn't spread rumors
like that and should check my facts more carefully.

Anybody want to help me check my facts?

./chris

I just checked the name of the person distributing the flier in the COP office,
in ELF.  It's interesting to note that they are from MSO.  I just called the
dtn listed, but their message indicates they are out of the office.  I find it 
interesting that persons outside the Washington D.C. area may be distributing 
fliers on behalf of the DCU nominated candidates.

    
    RE: .58
    
    When was this person distributing flyers?  Was it during work hours?
    In a work area?  I was specifically told by Ron Glover that we could
    not stand anywhere near entrances or exits of buildings for
    distribution.
    
    I urge ALL people who have witnessed violations of Digital P&P to send
    mail to Ron Glover and file a complaint.  Include as much info as
    possible.  If only one person complains, the scope of these violations
    will be missed.  We must document everything IMO.
    

For What It's Worth...

     I have calls in to the NCUA General Counsel's Office in
     Washington with regard to the issue of credit union employee
     involvement in the election.  It's important now to document
     everything that has gone on in this regard.

     I'll report back what I hear from them.  Hopefully, this will
     shed some light onto how this should be handled.

./chris

    	This morning I sent mail memos to Alfred and Phil explaining that I
    received the "Vote For Qualified Candidates" "blue" flyer with my
    paycheck last Thursday. After emptying my mailslot I went back later to
    find the flyer and my paycheck. All of the mail slots had the flyers.
    
    	I gave the flyer to Alfred and told Phil he could post my note but
    to do so without my name. Instead, I'm telling you this on my own
    behalf as to not make it appear that the candidates are playing any
    games of their own.
    
    	I will file a formal complaint with Ron Glover.
    
    
    Ken Upton
    NIO (Salem, NH) 

    When are they coming to ZKO?  I am still waiting!
    
    	- mark

    The fliers are now being handed out in Colorado Springs on both pink
    paper and white paper.
    
    I've taken a copy to Personnel (Hoffman), along with Goyal's statement
    as posted in 489.22, and Hoffman has said the fliers may not be posted
    or distributed in CXO.
    
    I don't know who was doing the distribution, but the fliers were being
    handed out openly in the CXO1 cafeteria at noon (but not when I went
    through there).  I have not seen any on bulleten boards or in employee
    mail boxes.

    Well  a  stack  of  blue  fliers was placed next to the mailboxes of my
    group  either  yesterday or today, I work on the other side of NIO from
    where my management resides and there wasn't any there on Monday.
    
    One  interesting  item  I  noticed  about  it  was  the  order  of  the
    Candidates listed, especially now that we know the  2  individuals  who
    are apparently behind this.  Ray Schmalz is listed  first  followed  by
    the  2  incumbents  with  the  rest  of  the  nominated  candidates  in
    alphabetical order with the exception of Deepak Goyal who was listed as
    last (must be since he didn't give his approval).  I only bring this up
    because of the know fact that those listed first tend to get the  votes
    when the voter are not informed.
    
    CLaude
    
    
    

    We here at ALF have not seen the (now infamous) flyer.  I have read
    the text that was input earlier but would like to know who was 
    BOLD ;-) enough to put their names to it.  Would someone please
    send me a list of the candidates names which appear on this
    document (minus Mr. Goyal's, of course).
    
    David
    

    All nine candidates nominated by the Nominating Committee are listed on
    this flyer. For a list sorted in a different order see 419.0.
    
    Claude

    
    No "flyers" have appeared at SHR.......but I'watching..

    I'm going to send Ray Schmalz a mail asking that he send me a copy of
    the 'solicitations'.  Seems like this will be the only way to get one.
    
    He resides on FIDDLE::SCHMALZ
    
    	- mark

    	What does Ron Glover do for this company besides attend to
    	people crying and pointing fingers at each other?  What else
    	does he have TIME to do?
    
    	I can't believe how "litigious" people in this company have
    	become!  Our first reaction today is to run to management, or
    	run to personnel, or run to Ron Glover, or run to legal, or
    	run to security.  What a blatant waste of time this all is!
    
    	Look at yourselves!  Can't you fight your own fights?  Can't 
    	you lead by example instead of getting someone else to do it
    	for you?  How many entries in this particular topic either
    	advocate "going to" personnel/legal/etc., or actually are
    	directly involved in the author going to authorities?  What
    	does this cost us as a company?  What does it cost us as
    	individuals?  What will it really get us?
    
    	Why am I wasting my time writing this...
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    Re the following:
    
    >	I can't believe how "litigious" people in this company have
    >	become!  Our first reaction today is to run to management, or
    >	run to personnel, or run to Ron Glover, or run to legal, or
    >	run to security.  What a blatant waste of time this all is!
    >
    >	Look at yourselves!  Can't you fight your own fights?  Can't 
    >	you lead by example instead of getting someone else to do it
    >	for you?
    
    
    Joe,
    	Do you have suggestions how people can as you put it "FIGHT 
    YOUR OWN FIGHTS"?  As I see it we have several violations.  What
    authority do we have to fight it, unless we go through proper channels? 
    	Are you saying we shouldn't go through proper channels, or that we
    should sit by as sheep and let this pass by?
    
    This is not meant as a flame.  I think people have no idea how to fight
    this without going through proper channels.  Most people want to do what
    is right, and do it the right way.  Please help us see the better way
    that you have suggested...
    
    Jim Morton

    	Well, Jim, I agree that there are some blatant violations
    	going on out there, and in reality that is the basic subject
    	of this topic.  Probably *SOME* of them need to be addressed
    	by authorities.
    
    	This topic just put me over the top regarding my distaste
    	for running to management.  "Call the NCUA!"  How many times
    	has that been entered in this conference?  "Call Ron Glover."
    	"Call security.  Call management."
    
    	Actually it's not just this conference.  You see it littering
    	the DIGITAL conference.  SOAPBOX.  So many others.  Sure, those
    	offices are in place for a reason.  I think that we as individuals
    	abuse them.  That's all.
    
    	How do we handle what we shouldn't be taking to authorities?
    
    	Simply grow up.  Or do we no longer "Do the right thing" in
    	this company?

    Joe,
    	Doing the right thing sometimes requires us to "tell the
    authorities".  I agree that we have a lot of cry babies.  Still this is
    an important issue.  It can't be ignored.  Millions have been lost. 
    	Also there is a principle here that has to be addressed.  When
    someone spends that type of money to sway votes, I think of it as
    trying to buy my votes.  Yes, I know its politics, but this is a VP
    that should be neutral, and he isn't.  Also influence was placed on the
    real choices people to be careful on what they say, via Ron Glover
    memo.
    	The way I see it, is that it is ok to spend money to play politics,
    as long as you play fair, and let the others use the same forum.  I see
    that this is not the case.  In order of fairness for this election.  I
    suggest that it be played by the rules.  Anyone who doesn't gets
    reported to the authorities...
    	One more thing, I also have a problem with calling the NCUA.  It is
    none of their business.  This is the business of Digital and DCU.
    
    Jim Morton

    	If you have a complaint and do not properly channel it, you could
    be in a peck of trouble. How often have you heard a manager or personnel
    person say "you have to go about this in the proper manner" or "this is
    best handled through the proper channels". Since we are not the proper
    channels, the only other thing would be to do something that may be
    against policy and end up branded as a malcontent.
    
    	The other option is to take it off DEC property. Are you suggesting
    that in your fight for yourself statement? I just asking not inferring.
    
    Ken....who carefully filled out his ballot today.
    
     

    In short, you have to give the system a chance to work.  That's why I
    am willing to work with Ron Glover, John Sims, Ray Humphrey, Senator
    Kerry or the NCUA or anyone that is in the system and whose responsibility 
    it is to render guidance and correction.  I've done that.  I've put 
    in my time and resources into trying to "do the right thing" here.  
    Financially, I'm sure I've joined the $100 club as far as expenses go.  
    That's one of the smaller costs.  There's also the risks associated with 
    putting yourself on the line throughout this whole series of events.
    And, I'm just one of many volunteers.  
    
    I can't change everything.  But, keeping the DCU as a valuable resource 
    ... that I can do something about.  I am doing what I can to work
    with the system to affect change.  It's the "right thing" to do.
    
    Steve

    
    Violations of any sort should be properly documented and reported to
    the proper authorities, whether they are the NCUA, Ron Glover or DCU.
    That IS part of their job.  Ignoring violations is asking for more
    violations.  Multiple violations should be treated more severely than a
    single random violation.
    
    Please don't ask or expect anybody to ignore blatant disregard of
    Digital P&P.  Having been the target of an anonymous complaint that
    came out of Ron Glover's office, I intend to make sure that Digital 
    applies its policies to ALL employees in the same manner.  They should
    NOT be selectively enforced depending on the offended or the offender.

Joe,
   I basically agree with you regarding personal responsibility and
attempting to deal with matters on ones' own.
   In matters regarding the DCU issue, however, I seem to note that this is,
unless I am mistaken, the third time that Mr. Sims has taken more than
an unbiased view on the side of the DCU BoD.
   The first was in his arrangement of a meeting between Messrs. Cockburn
and Steinkrauss and "the witchhunters" last fall prior to the special
meeting. The second time was when Mr. Sims published his late January
memo (posted elsewhere here) regarding conduct in employee interest
conferences, which specifically called out the "innappropriateness" of
making negative comments about "directors of organizations which may be
disfavored by the author" (hope I've got the quote about right), which
I could only conclude was aimed at a particular "set" of directors. The
third was in his recent letter to the DCU membership.
   I seem to conclude that Mr. Sims has carried out these actions due
to the fact that others may have "gone crying" to him for support. He is
the corporate officer for personnel. Ron Glover works for him. If others
in the corporation can "go crying" to John Sims, why shouldn't the rest of
us do likewise when he appears to be favoring others? I admit, it seems to
look a bit like "Mom likes you best", but John Sims isn't Mom, and neither
is DEC, and there should be some impartiality or fairness in this. It won't
be had if people don't bring things to the attention of the right people.
Once in a while you need to remind people that fair is fair.

-Jack

    A new twist, the  'Real  Choice'  tents  that  were  in  the  NIO  cafe
    yesterday, have been taken down  and  replace with the Blue 'Vote for a
    Qualified  Board'  this  morning.  Also  the  stack  of  'Real  Choice'
    leaflets that were on the condiments tables are now gone.
    
    Gee Sorry 'Members for a Qulified Board' you were just a little to late
    in influencing my vote, I mailed my Wife and my ballots last night. 
    
    A well and informed vote, oh what a feeling!
    
    Claude

>    A new twist, the  'Real  Choice'  tents  that  were  in  the  NIO  cafe
>    yesterday, have been taken down  and  replace with the Blue 'Vote for a
>    Qualified  Board'  this  morning.  Also  the  stack  of  'Real  Choice'
>    leaflets that were on the condiments tables are now gone.

	Fortunatly they left them where I could find them. Folding those
	little suckers is a pain in the neck. :-) They are up again. Along
	with more of the little leaflets.

			Alfred

      Last night I had the pleasure of dropping my ballot into the US
    Postal service bin OUTSIDE a Digital building......I look forward to a
    better DCU and only hope my vote means something!!!  I did not vote
    blindly but voted on the basis of FREE Choice!!!!! 

	Well, their here. The "VOTE for a Qualified Board" fliers have showed
up in the MKO1 cafeteria this morning as well as other places in the building.
A co-worker and I took a copy down to the personnel office and filed a
complaint. The personnel representative agreed that the flier violated Digital 
P&P and told us they would send someone around to collect them.

	Bob Lail

        Well, the  lunchtime  "rush"  is on and the flyers are all over
        MKO cafeteria, from  the  entry  to  the  hot  food line to the
        checkouts.
        

re: .81
Ya'mean that the personnel rep isn't snatchin' 'em up as quickly as they're
bein' laid down, as had been promised in .80 ????

Amazin'.
:^)
-Jack

Subj:	FYI

Phil, I don't want to post this information in the notefile since 
I don't really want to be very public about this.  However, I 
think someone needs this information and I know you've already 
been talking to the appropriate people about this.  Hopefully, 
this adds some details.

One of my coworkers was approached by a DCU teller (while at the 
branch) about distibuting information on the election.  She said 
she would.  She's been out for the last couple of days and when 
she checked her mail she had a big package full of the "Vote for 
a Qualified Board!" fliers.  A memo was with them with 
instructions on when and how to distribute the fliers.  It says 
"Limit your distribution to lunchtime, breaktime, smoking rooms 
or at site entrances before and after work."

It also says "If you have questions or need additional handouts, 
please contact Ray Schmalz or his secretary at DTN/223-7736."

The package had a return address of:

MRHA
41 Pleasant St.
Suite 607
Methuen, MA  01844
    

    the vote for qualified candidates hit TWO this morning.  Along with
    their arrival was the departure of my posters.
    
    
    Dirty pool?  You bet, but did I expect anything else from this group?
    No.  I went to the special meeting.  Do we need this to continue?  No.
    
    ed
    

    It seems to me the time, for messing around is over.
    
    Has anyone thought of bringing this up to Ken Olsen. This directly
    goes against his code of ethics.   ????? What to do next?
    
    Thanks Dave
    

       Someone mentioned it a couple days ago. HE said he'd talk to his
    wife and decide. If they agreed he was going to call Ken's secretary.
    Haven't heard anything since.
                                      Denny

	RE .81 & .82

	Yeah, I know. I thought I would give personnel a chance. I must admit I
never really expected anything to be done.

	Sigh

	Bob Lail

    Ray Schmalz called me, since I had sent him a copy of the complaint
    letter I sent to Ron Glover.
    
    1. I asked Ray who were the committee members of the group on the
    flier.  He said he didn't know.
    
    2. I asked him who his contact with the committee was, and Ray said
    he wouldn't give me that information without first getting the
    person to agree.
    
    3. Ray said that he and Steinkrauss put together the flier.
    
    
    I told him I didn't like this secrecy at all and that I believed it was
    inappropriate to the open way in which Digital has normally operated.
    
    twe

    This reminds me of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" where Jimmy Stewart
    is carrying on a filibuster on the floor of the Senate in hopes of 
    exposing the corruption that he's discovered.  
    
    Meanwhile back home, his "Boy's Camp" kids are printing the truth in
    their little newspaper and handing it out all over the district.
    
    When the goons sent by the party bosses start grabbing their papers and
    running their delivery trucks off the road he realizes he can't win
    against the system and collapses on the floor of the Senate chamber.  
    
    I won't tell you how the movie ends and I can't predict how this
    election will turn out, but I know that if the "goons" win this one, I'm
    not going to stick around for the sequel.
    

    
    RE: .90
    
    My collapse date is April 17, 5pm.  Until then, its full steam ahead.
    To have gone through all this and stop any time before would leave
    people with the impression we are masochists.  Then again, they
    probably already think it.

    So what's wrong with being a masochist on the side of truth, justice,
    and the American way?	:-)

    RE: .91.
        Why April 17?  The Annual Meeting is April 23.  Even if you don't
    get elected the Meeting is still an opportunity.
    
    		Danny

    
    RE: .93
    
    I figure after nearly 7 months of this, I could use a week off.

    	I haven't seen the "Vote for a qualified board" fliers yet and
    it wouldn't make a difference anyway I mailed my wives and my ballot
    2 days ago.  I believe that to many people are informed as to what has 
    been going on in DCU for the current board or anyone that they back to 
    be elected.  

    Joe

	Sorry Phil, I just couldn't resist.  Maybe you can the Board to hold
  their first meeting after the election in Bermuda? :-)

			Danny

    They're all over the MKO1 cafeteria this morning and no "Real Choices"
    material anywhere to be seen.
    

    RE: .-1 (Ahern)
    
    What candidate works in MKO?  When I looked, I only saw one.
    
    I have noticed a trend.  Where nominated people are, with ONE exception
    (ZKO), these flyers keep popping up.  
    
    	- mark

    re.98
    
         There is a petition candidate, Lisa Ross, at SHR.  No flyers
    have shown here.

    
    What has been confirmed:
    
    #1:
    It has been confirmed that Mark Steinkrauss and Ray Schmalz contacted
    Deepak Goyal about being part of this effort.  See Deepak's statement
    in the candidate note.
    
    #2:
    We have received a copy of the instruction sheet that is given with the
    flyers.  It says, "Limit your distribution to lunchtime, breaktime,
    smoking rooms or at site entrances before and after work."  The part
    about entrances is in violation of Digital P&P.
    
    #3:
    The instructions end with, "If you have questions or need additional
    handouts, please contact Ray Schmalz or his secretary at DTN/223-7736."
    The instruction sheet contains the name of the person receiving the
    materials as well as lines for the names of other people at the site
    that are participating.  If they wanted to stop the illegal flyer and
    tell people the correct way to distribute materials, they could do it
    in a minute.
    
    #4:
    We have documented a case of a Digital employee being solicited by a
    DCU employee at a branch during working hours.  We have also had
    reports of involvement by DCU employees at other sites.  In my mind it 
    is clear that this activity is sanctioned by senior DCU management
    since it has allowed to continue unabated.
    
    
    Is is prudent to have people, who flagrantly and repeatedly violate
    stated guidelines and policies, in charge of a financial institution
    that must always be above reproach to maintain its most valuable asset,
    TRUST.  If these people get on the Board, can we expect the same
    adherance to our Bylaws?  Or do they consider themselves above such
    things?  What good is "qualified" given this type of disregard?
    It's gone beyond disgusting, and is downright scary at this point.  

    I'm ready to throw open my (figurative) window and heave my (figurative)
    TV out.

    Who should I call or where should I send my mail?

    I realize that it may not do much good, but I'll feel better.

    -- Ward

>	"If you have questions or need additional handouts, please contact 
>	Ray Schmalz or his secretary at DTN/223-7736."


						Tom_K

    
    Ron Glover, Corporate Personnel, 223-9569, ICS::GLOVER, has also
    expressed an interest in this situation.
    

    Re: .95
    
    And just where did you "mail your wives", Joe?
    
    8)	8)	Steve

    
    "MEMBERS FOR A QUALIFIED BOARD" has been sending materials which
    violate Digital P&P to Digital employees for distribution.  Ever alert
    "REAL CHOICES" supporters snagged an entire shipment of these bogus flyers,
    including the instruction sheet and return address of the materials;
    "MRHA, 41 Pleasant St., Suite G07, Methuen, MA".
    
    Since it was such a nice day out there today, Chris Gillett and myself
    decided to dust off the ol' witchhunters broom and take her out for a 
    spin.  Before we knew it we were in beautiful downtown Methuen Mass.
    
    But where is 41 Pleasant St?  Not knowing where we were going didn't 
    hinder us at all.  Standard logic dictates the first street in any town
    is, of course, Main St.  The second is always Pleasant St.  So all we
    have to do is find the intersection of the two.  Minutes after entering
    Methuen we were parking the car and looking for #41, Suite G07.
    
    As we stood outside the door of Suite G07, I felt a bit like Morley
    Safer.  But being witchhunters, we are strictly low budget and lack
    funding for a camera crew.  Suite G07 is the office of "Mark Robinson
    Holland Asscociates" (MRHA).  Mr. Mark Robinson Holland was manning the
    receptionist's desk since she was out to lunch (according to him).  When
    we introduced ourselves and stated who we were, the response was a very
    noticeable SIGH.  We explained why we were there and asked about the
    distribution of the illicit flyer.  Mr. Robinson stated that his 
    receptionist, Melissa Hirsch, was the person who was "FAXing" a few
    things out concerning the election.  (The envelop we intercepted
    contained about 1000 flyers)  He stated Melissa's mother was a
    Digital employee.  He appeared to be aware of what was going on but
    indicated it was not his companies line of work.  They are an
    architectural design and environmental testing business.
    
    We thanked him and left a "REAL CHOICES" button for Melissa.  When I
    called back to speak with Melissa, I was told the office closed at noon
    and she was gone for the day.  Funny how that lunch turned into an
    afternoon holiday.
    
    Having accomplished the mission in record time, we jumped back on the
    trusty broom and concluded the "inquiry".  As reward for our efforts,
    we treated ourselves to lunch at Chez BK.  
    
    So it appears the "Paid for by Members for a Qualified Board" has been
    unmasked a little bit but still remains anonymous.  Tune in next week
    for the continuing saga of "If they're so dang qualified, why do they
    keep getting caught?".
    

re: .106, Phil

I love it!!!!

:^)
-Jack

Questions:

When the qualified board fliers are put out, do the real choices ones disappear?
When the real choices fliers are put back, do the qualified board ones go away?

Can't they both be out at the same time, or do they destroy each other when 
no one is looking? :^)

The only fliers I've seen in the cafeteria here (CX03) have been for real choices.

Steve

    .108> When the real choices fliers are put back, do the qualified board
    .108> ones go away?
    
    When leafleting in the Stow cafeteria w/ Paul Kinzelman, a "qualified"
    leafleter also appeared. I asked her if we could chat lunch, but she
    had to get back to MRO. We left her leaflets on the table.
    
    I've also stopped to ask a DCU employee if they felt there was a
    conflict between DCU employees & dissidents, but she seemed well
    prepared w/ statements supporting Chuck Cockburn.

re: .109, Weimin

> but she seemed well prepared w/ statements supporting Chuck Cockburn.

Umm - does this imply that Mr. Cockburn is also directly associated with
the "qualified candidates" effort?

-Jack

.109> but she seemed well prepared w/ statements supporting Chuck Cockburn.

.110> Umm - does this imply that Mr. Cockburn is also directly associated with
.110>the "qualified candidates" effort?

    Actually the DCU employee's words didn't indicate this. I felt that her
    words were echoing a possible DCU position on how to discuss the
    election w/ members. One reason I wanted to talk w/ her was because I
    feel the conflict is w/ management not the workers. The employee
    wouldn't reply to my query whether employees felt attacked by DECcies.
    If I recall rightly, she stated that the increase in member activity
    was good (since some past annual meetings had nearly no attendees);
    that there had been problems in the DCU's past but this had been dealt
    w/ by the new president. She also suggested that some continuity in the
    board would be helpful. I said that to me Susan Shapiro's fiscal
    statements were inaccurate but that I respected that SS was standing up
    for her point of view (the employee agreed w/ the latter view).

    There wasn't much time to discuss this; her friends were waiting to get
    lunch.

    Re: .110

    >> Umm - does this imply that Mr. Cockburn is also directly associated
    >> with the "qualified candidates" effort?

    Not that I know of.  (Nominated Candidate) Ray Schmalz told me last
    week that he and Steinkrauss were responsible for the Qualified Board
    flier.  Schmalz said he didn't know who the "Members for a Qualified
    Board" were, and he refused to tell me who his contact with that group
    is.

    Since that flier touts "ongoing communications", I am more than a bit
    dismayed at Schmalz's lack of openness.  I know I would never let
    myself be associated with a group whose members I didn't know.
    
    As far as I'm concerned, that disqualifies Mr. Schmalz as a candidate.
    I would be very concerned about "business as usual" if he were elected.

    RE:.105

    	Steve you ought to try it next time the girl in your life won't get
    off your case put her in the first postage paid envelope you can find
    and send her off.  This works well if you can find a large enough
    envelope.

    Joe

            <<< Note 496.99 by MIPSBX::thomas "The Code Warrior" >>>
                -< Two exceptions -- they aren't in LKG either >-

Claire Muhm, a nominated candidate, is in LKG1, first floor personnel.  I met
her, and I am impressed with her.  She personally expressed concern that the
nominating committee found only 9 candidates out of all the applicants.

As an update, the qualified bored flier showed up in the CX03 cafeteria yesterday.
I think that the name of the candidate that did not want to be on the flier was
gone, so they are probably 'legal'.

Steve

	Frankly any flyer which is not signed is not something that I would
  describe as 'legal'.  Why are they afraid to sign the flyer?  Do they have
  something to hide?  The flyer may not be illegal but the voters have the
  right to know who's putting it out.

			Danny

    Re: .115
    
    The fliers also showed up again in the CXO1 cafeteria and elsewhere,
    but these are the legalversion of the fliers.  I'll presume the ones in
    CXO3 are identical.
    
    The person distributing them in CXO is John E. Wilson.  I've talked to
    him and given him a copy of Schmalz's "cease and desist" request. I
    find it a bit ironic that this notes conference becomes the source of
    directions and procedures for the "qualified board" candidates'
    campaign.

    I have chosen not to put up literature in this election because I think
    there has been too much polorization in this election.  I have not, and
    will not take down anyone's literature promoting one group or the
    other.  The result, I believe, will be that more people will vote and
    vote for people that they think can best represent them on the BoD ...
    but I DID take down a copy of one group's literature that had a big red
    circle and line drawn on it.  If people want to support one group over
    another, than I think they need to do it based upon what they feel that
    group adds to the process.  We need people to articulate why they are
    supporting a specific person or group.  We should not be slamming other
    people because of association with a specific group.
    
    Everyone on the ballot, whether nominated or petition, is there (as far
    as I know) because they want to contribute to the future of the DCU. 
    You may question their motives, but they need to be commended (every
    one of them) for making an effort to participate.   I make this plea to
    everyone involved in both of the groupings of candidates ... please
    focus on what you will contribute to the BoD of the DCU and stop the
    campaign literature wars that are going on across the country.
    

    Re: .118

    Campaign literature with a big red circle and a line through it?
    As in "don't vote for <whoever>"?  In Colorado Springs where you are?

    I was ALL over ALL the Springs buildings putting up REAL CHOICES
    literature, and I didn't see anything like that.

    I believe you did see it, but I'm inclined to believe it was an
    individual (non-candidate's) isolated effort and not part of one of the
    two organized campaigns.

    If you think differently, I would be very interested in more details,
    either here or by VAXmail.

	Chuck, I agree with a lot of what you have to say. But I will 
	continue to try to get as much info as I can to the voters.
	I know you are doing what you feel is the right thing. I am, too.

				Tom_K

    re: 121
    
    Tom,  
    
    I think what you are doing is the right thing.  Getting more
    information out is good.  What I objected to was some of the games
    going on with fliers/literature, and I think that is what you are
    agreeing with.
    
    
    re: 120
    
    CX03/2-Q6  I don't think it is an organized effort but I do believe it
    is driven from the fever pitch this election has gotten to and I feel
    that, in the best interest of the DCU, it needs to be controlled by
    both sides.
    
    
    re: 119
    
    I am sorry you feel my comments are patronizing.  They were not
    intended to be ... but you can read into them what you want.

re: last few

I don't like to think of the distribution of flyers and literature
as being "games" but rather an attempt, by at least some candidates,
to get the word out about common beliefs and what is trying to
be achieved.  Yes, some people may be quite polarized by what has
been going on, but it's "don't vote for so-and-so" flyers that
contribute to polarization - flyers that say who people are and
what they stand for are informational.

Some have chosen to make the campaign process a game.  I think 
REAL CHOICES people have made a sincere effort at providing 
information.   Perhaps we've not been completely perfect in our
attempt, but we've worked very hard to remain within the bounds
of the P&P, and to distribute information about ourselves.

I agree with Bill Kilgore that we're just trying to do the right
thing.

./Chris

    	Reading through the last few entries, I got this image in my mind
    	of street gangs fighting over "turf", and that this notesfile is
    	the "base turf" of one particular gang.

    	Do you think that any of the "qualified board" nominees would ever
    	dare show his face here?  Look at what happens to a person who
    	holds the same ideal and values as the "home gang" but has has
    	chosen not to join the gang outright!  

    	.118's right, you know.  While DCU itself has been contemptible
    	in its past policies and current election actions, the gang that
    	has claimed this notesfile as its turf has been acting very, well,
    	very ganglike.  Unless you conform to the clique, you are OUT.
    	Heaven forbid that someone criticizes the REAL CHOICES effort!
    	You'd think that "REAL CHOICES" might accept some criticism and try
    	to improve their image or avoid that which was criticized.  But
    	no, instead you gang up on the outsider.  You take it as an
    	attack, and like a hill of ants you nip and bite until the
    	intruder runs away.

    	The REAL CHOICES faction *HAS* taken on the appearance of a
    	radical, renegade mob at times.  Or at least that is my impression.
	And when dealing with the public, impressions are as real as
	truth.

	I think it's a shame, because I really believe in the message
	and goals of the petition candidates.  I hope they are not hurting
	themselves in fomenting election conspiracy theories, talking of
	lawsuits, nurturing paranoia, etc.  Will they be just as unruly
	when they take over the board?  Do I really want a board FULL
	of this gang?  I already made my choice.  I held my nose and
	hoped for the best.  Perhaps after this has all settled, they
	will calm down.  Until now all that outsiders to the DCU could
	do was attack and tear down.  I really hope that once inside, a 
	new board will work to build back up again.

	Joe Oppelt

    	>.118's right, you know.  While DCU itself has been contemptible
    	>in its past policies and current election actions, the gang that
    	>has claimed this notesfile as its turf has been acting very, well,
    	>very ganglike.  Unless you conform to the clique, you are OUT.

    I disagree with the last sentence.  I have disagreed with REAL CHOICES
    at times and have said so, in mail and notes...  I am not out or in.  I
    have helped get the word out about the people who want to get on the
    board.  We made NO attempt to exclude anyone.  We gladly shared any and
    all information sheets that were given to us.

    	>Heaven forbid that someone criticizes the REAL CHOICES effort!
    
    I guess I am in trouble... :-)

    	>You'd think that "REAL CHOICES" might accept some criticism and try
    	>to improve their image or avoid that which was criticized.  But
    	>no, instead you gang up on the outsider.  You take it as an
    	>attack, and like a hill of ants you nip and bite until the
    	>intruder runs away.

    Again, I disagree, having done everything you said that would cause me
    to be an outsider, yet I am neither...  I just want to make the CU
    better and stronger.  It has taken a lot of work to show how many
    problems there are, by some dedicated people.

    IMHO, some people in DCU seem to be worried and are fighting people who
    are exposing problems...  Companies fire whistles blowers, but thank
    God that has not happened yet to the people who have exposed problems
    within DCU.
    
    I will say it does bother me about Chuck and his 'Trust Me, I'm the
    President' attitude, that was displayed to us when he visited ZKO.  In
    fact it bothered me MORE when he actually said, 'Trust Me'.

    	- mark

    re:125
    
    for clarification, could you please indicate which Chuck you are
    refering to ... I have not been to ZKO.
    
    

    >for clarification, could you please indicate which Chuck you are
    >refering to ... I have not been to ZKO.
    
    Chuckle... :-)  After reading it, I see what you mean!  The Chuck that
    is refereed to is our DCU president, not the member who is running for
    the BOD.  Sorry for the misque.
    
    	-mark

    	re .125
    
    	Of course you're not an outsider, Mark.  You're not a threat
    	to anyone.  Nor am I.  That's why I can enter what I did without
    	being afraid of getting mugged.  But Chuck Boutcher is a threat
    	to some REAL CHOICES candidate.  If he gets on the BOD, a
    	REAL CHOICES candidate gets left off.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

	I don't consider Chuck Boutcher a threat to an RC candidate.
	From what I can tell, the main reason the Chuck is *not* 
	an RC candidate is that Chuck doesn't want to be one, for
	reasons I understand and respect. If Chuck gets on the board
	it'll be with my congratulations and best wishes.

					Tom_K

>The RC folks may disagree with you in this file, but I support your right
>to say it in this file.
    
    	Thanks, Paul.  This is important to remember.  This is not the
    	REAL_CHOICES notesfile.  It's the DCU notesfile.  It would
    	certainly be great to have board members participating in here.
    	(That is a dream of us all once the election is done.)  But
    	as this conference stands now, it is hostile to outsiders.
    	Actually it has historically been a complaints notesfile.  A
    	dumping ground.  But recently it has turned downright hostile.
    
    	And yes, I agree that I haven't seen Paul Kinzelman personally
    	attacking opposition.  Or other REAL CHOICES candidates, really.
    	It's the mob mentality.  .119 in this topic is not a candidate
    	(is he?)  Nor .120 (although it's not a blatant attack, it still
    	seems like a veiled one to me.)  I fully expected .119 --
    	regardless of who the author was -- to attack .118.  The person
    	who eventually wrote it simply fulfilled my expectations.  If
    	he hadn't done it, someone else from the mob would have.
    	
    	That's what I'm talking about.  There is a pack of feral DCU
    	members in here who seem more intent on drawing blood rather
    	than correcting a problem.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    
    re .118 the poster with the circle and line thru it
    
    was this a poster that somenbody graffitied on, or was it printed that
    way?
    
    Simon

I too do not find anything patronizing about .118.  All I read into it was a
wish for a fair election and a candidate that wanted the best for DCU, whether
or not that meant his election to the board.

    
    Please let's not get carried away with claims of pamphlet wars,
    gangs and mobs.  You make it sound like hand to hand combat in the
    cafes.  It has been nothing of the sorts.  Volunteers understandably
    get frustrated as they watch DCU employees or others destroy materials
    that they have spent their own money to produce.  There are many DCU
    members out there that still don't know a lot about what has happened
    over the last year.  Should we leave them in the dark?  I don't think
    so because we have all seen the high cost of being kept in the dark.
    
    I think Chuck has every right to campaign or not campaign any way he
    wishes.  I don't think it unreasonable to expect that he not insinuate that
    those that *do* wish to be active are doing damage.  To each his own. 
    

       If the BoD and nominated candidates had any interest whatsoever in
    this notesfile, why weren't they in here before all the 'trouble'
    started last August. Why would you think anything would cahnge as far
    as their participation goes, if things were toned down in here? We got
    vague or no answers to questions posed in here long before all this
    started.
                                        Denny

    I'm not hostile to anybody, I don't believe; just extremely unimpressed
    by the actions of the current BoD.  I'd *love* to see notes from the 
    "establishment" candidates in here explaining some of their apparently
    very questionable activities.  If a current BoD member wrote a note and
    gave some clear answers to all the questions that have been raised, I 
    suspect the "real choices" candidates would be among the most pleased.
    I'd certainly be pleased.  Instead we get, in no particular order:
    1. Silence
    2. Trust me
    3. You're a bunch of witchunters
    4. Stonewalling
    5. Anonymous leaflets
    6. A very questionably moderated special meeting
    The actions of the current BoD suggest to me great efforts to hide
    "something."  Being naturally curious, my question is "What and why?"
    Perhaps there isn't anything being covered up.  But it sure LOOKS that
    way to this DCU member.  I'd love to have the current BoD - or somebody
    - putting some notes in this notesfile giving some straight answers.
    We aren't getting any.  I think we're entitled to some.  We get
    content-free answers, or "don't worry, be happy" answers.  They just
    don't cut it.

Joe,

I hear you.  Unfortunately, much of what you say is correct in
terms of impressions.

Fortunately, in my opinion, it will continue to be that way.
Why do I say that?  Because it is NOT a group that you are
complaining about - it is rather individuals who each think
through the issues for themselves, come to their own conclusions
and then - without necessarily asking anyone else's advice
about what to think or write - enter a note.

Because of the totally disorganized fashion notes are entered
here, anything that anyone wants to write goes in here.  Because
of the prevailing sentiment in this notesfile, it is very easy
for readers to lump 90% of the notes together and say "this is
what the REAL CHOICES candidates stand for" or "this is what
those who oppose the current BoD stand for".

In actuality, you can only say what individuals stand for.

I agree with you that some of the ideas that are entered into
this notesfile are not to my liking.  However, there are some
that I believe are quite worthwhile.  I reject the former and
accept the latter.  I freely admit that some (most?) people 
would get turned off at some of the suggestions that are made
here and label everyone associated with them as wrong.  That's
the price of having an open notesfile instead of a public relations
notesfile.

The alternative is to manage your image, the way the George Bush
did so successfully in the 1988 election (and Mike Dukakis,
likewise failed to do).  I prefer the current methodology.

Collis Jackson

    

.118>    I have chosen not to put up literature in this election because I think
.118>    there has been too much polorization in this election.  

.118>    I make this plea to
.118>    everyone involved in both of the groupings of candidates ... please
.118>    focus on what you will contribute to the BoD of the DCU and stop the
.118>    campaign literature wars that are going on across the country.

    
    	RE: .138
    
    Geesh, calm down Chuck.  Let's not go off the deep end here.  My
    statements were made based on the passages in your reply that I listed
    above.  Guess I missed the point you were trying to make.  Maybe if you
    use more specific words phrases like 'literature removal' instead of
    'literature wars' we'll all know what you mean.  But then the point of
    your reply would have been somewhat dulled by the use of less
    inflammatory words.  It is your perogative to use whatever words you
    want, but I think you give people the wrong impression of what is
    happening with emotionally charged phrases.  Have you been around the
    country to actually witness these 'wars' you claim are happening?  I
    doubt it. 
    
    As for your concern about being compared to Jim Baker, I saw nothing
    written that even remotely compared you to a criminal.  Jim Baker was
    also a preacher.  I believe that is what the author of .119 was
    referring to.  Funny how this got twisted around going from the tube to
    your eyes.  I'm getting sick of that happening too.  But it's one of
    the pitfalls of NOTES.  So much is left to the reader to fill in. 
    Sometimes the reader fills in the wrong answer.
    
    >Quite frankly, I think you will not because it is easier to hit and run.
    
    I will not post my thoughts on the above because it would not serve any
    useful purpose.  But if you wish to hear my opinion, please send me some
    mail.

    I have set notes .119, .138, and .139 hidden pending resolution
    of some problems.
    
    Tom Eggers, co-moderator

	I don't think petition candidates should worry about the "vote for a
	Qualified Board"  flyer  . . .   I would have voted for two nominated
	candidates  (NOT incumbents)  until I read the flyer and decided that 
	if they were campaigning together, they must have similar beliefs about
	how DCU should be run . . .

	I'm another one of those members who thinks DCU has the *potential* to
	be a great credit union.

    Re .118

        One thing I do see "going on across the country" are a few dozen 
    people doing their level best to work publicly, responsibly, and within 
    policy for the reform of DEFCU, and thousands of others quietly 
    supporting them.

        Since August of 1991, the membership had learned much of the 
    practices and performance of DCU over the last seven years, and now
    has the opportunity to participate in an election that offers us real 
    choices for change.

        I believe that we have gotten to this point through the 
    considerable courage, resourcefulness, and tenacity of a handful of 
    members who researched the history of participation loans and BoD 
    business practices, learned the charter, by-laws and policies of our 
    credit union, obtained and studied information from NCUA and DECFU, 
    consulted with attorneys, communicated with us, planned, petitioned and 
    participated in the Special Meeting, planned and conducted the 
    petitioned candidate drive and are now leading the election effort.

        At the front of that list are Phil Gransewicz, Chris Gillett, Paul 
    Kinzelman, Dave Garrod, Bill Kilgore, and Larry Seiler.  I believe
    that all of us who share a vision of an above-board, member-oriented,
    responsive and competitive credit union for Digital employees are in 
    their debt.

        And so, regarding his note at .118, I ask Mr. Boutcher:

      How do you propose to campaign for change without polarization?

      Whom do you observe not campaigning "based upon what they feel 
      that group adds to the process?"

      Who are the people who are not "articulating why they are supporting
      a specific person or group?"

      Who is "slamming other people because of association with a specific 
      group?"
    
      To whom are you pleaing. "please focus on what you will contribute 
      to the BoD of the DCU and stop the campaign literature wars that 
      are going on across the country?"

        I read your note as one man, who could not have gotten to the 
    point of being a candidate in this special election without the 
    effort and sacrifice of others, stepping to the microphone to 
    leapfrog those efforts and portray himself as quite above all that 
    uncomfortable confrontation.

        I have witnessed how hard and how carefully Phil, Chris, Paul, 
    Dave, Bill, Larry and others have worked to responsibly confront
    the practices and record of the current BoD.  Yes, taking on the
    standing BoD on their ground and under their rules does, by definition,
    require confrontation.  Mr Boutcher's comments strike me as missing 
    that reality.  The implied chastisement of those who possess the 
    courage to do the work of reform offends me.

        That leads to several more questions to him.

      Do you endorse the work that led to the Special Meeting?  

      Did you contribute to that effort?

      Do you endorse the investigative work that has been done to 
      understand what has happened and is happening in DEFCU?

      Do you endorse the work to communicate those findings to members?

      Do you think there is a need to reform DEFCU in any way, and, if
      so, what have you done to help in that work?

      
        My earlier reference to Jim Baker (.119 - since set hidden by
    the moderator) was to a person who believed himself to understand 
    truth better than the common man and who used the microphone to his 
    advantage.  I was not thinking of his legal record.  I am sorry that 
    the metaphor was extended in that direction.  I believe now that it 
    was a stronger image than warranted by .118.


       I do hope this election will set a new standard for DEFCU, both for 
    participation and for an informed electorate, validating the energies
    that have been put into it.


       Thanks for listening.


                                             Respectfully,

                                             Jack Hutchinson

    Re. 142
    Well done!!!!!
    
    
    Thanks to the people that kept us in the field informed.
    
    My hats off to you. Hopefully after the election the DCU will be a
    better place to have our money. Maybe they will work for the members.
    
    Dave
    

    
    
>>>      How do you propose to campaign for change without polarization?

	I think it is fairly simply ... you avoid destroying what you say
you want to help.  A campaign run on positive attibutes of what you bring
to the BoD will not polorize people.  It will help people better understand
your position and the actions you will take.  If you dwell on the negative
and guess as to possible negative outcomes, any positive message will get lost 
in the negative.  The only analogy I can think of right now if what Ron 
Brown has called Jerry Brown's campaign, a "scorched earth" campaign.  As in
your comments, this is only one person's opinion.

>>>      Whom do you observe not campaigning "based upon what they feel 
>>>      that group adds to the process?"

	The group(s) or individuals that are putting up others literature
with red "do not vote for" symbols on them and those that are taking
others literature away from public areas without allowing people to look at
what they have positive to say and making their own judgements on who
will best represent them.  If you don't fit in this catergory, don't worry
about it.  If you do, then you should consider what I had said earlier.

>>>      Who are the people who are not "articulating why they are supporting
>>>      a specific person or group?"

	same as #2

>>>      Who is "slamming other people because of association with a specific 
>>>      group?"

	same as #2
    
>>>      To whom are you pleaing. "please focus on what you will contribute 
>>>      to the BoD of the DCU and stop the campaign literature wars that 
>>>      are going on across the country?"

	everyone involved in campaigning for the DCU BoD

>>>      Do you endorse the work that led to the Special Meeting?  

	Yes

>>>      Did you contribute to that effort?

	No - and I have never claimed to ... but I fail to see what this has 
to do with my original comments.

>>>      Do you endorse the investigative work that has been done to 
>>>      understand what has happened and is happening in DEFCU?

	Some yes, some no.  You will have to be specific as to which actions 
you are asking me to comment on.  There were a lot of actions taken by a lot 
people and I can not read your mind.

>>>      Do you endorse the work to communicate those findings to members?

	Again, same as the answer to the prior question.  I get the feeling 
you are trying to challenge my right to run for the Board, but that can't be
because I know you believe in More/Better Choices.

>>>      Do you think there is a need to reform DEFCU in any way, and, if
>>>      so, what have you done to help in that work?

	Most definately, that is why I placed my name in nomination 
for the Board of Directors ... so that I can be in a position to effect
positive change for the DCU.  I believe I have stated this clearly in 
    prior entries.
      
>>>        My earlier reference to Jim Baker (.119 - since set hidden by
>>>    the moderator) was to a person who believed himself to understand 
>>>    truth better than the common man and who used the microphone to his 
>>>    advantage.  I was not thinking of his legal record.  I am sorry that 
>>>    the metaphor was extended in that direction.  I believe now that it 
>>>    was a stronger image than warranted by .118.


	You are correct here, your comments in .119 were inappropriate and 
I believe that this is a backward effort to get it back out into the notes
community.  You don't know me, but instead of only addressing my comments, you
would rather cast aspertions.  Anyone that KNOWS me would have difficulty
finding any similarities between myself and Jim Baker, no matter what
vailed reasons you provide.   That's a great way to get around the rules ...
slick move.


Chuck
    

    re: .144
    
>	I think it is fairly simply ... you avoid destroying what you say
>you want to help.  A campaign run on positive attibutes of what you bring
>to the BoD will not polorize people.  It will help people better understand
>your position and the actions you will take.  If you dwell on the negative
>and guess as to possible negative outcomes, any positive message will get lost 
>in the negative.
    
    I think you are making an invalid assumption here.  A campaign run on
    positive attributes only works if ALL the candidates statements are
    consistent with their past actions.  Unfortunately, there are
    candidates whose campaign statements state one belief and their past
    actions indicate the exact opposite.  If the inconsistencies between a
    candidates statements and actions are not brought to the members
    attention, how can one be expected to vote intelligently?  I don't know
    how to point out those inconsistencies without it sounding negative. 
    If you know how, I'm sure everyone here would be glad to use your
    method.
    
    Bob

    Bob,
    
    I think you have a good point.  Somewhere between pointing out
    inconsistancies and all the assumptions made about where the DCU is
    headed is a line where it begins to hurt the DCU and not help.  I am
    not sure exactly where that line is, but I think it is in everyone's
    best interest to be looking for that line.  Also, from a campaign
    standpoint, if you become too vocal about the negatives what ever
    positive message you bring to the table is lost.
    
    I agree that it is important to point out the inconsistancies and my
    statement that you quote may be somewhat inflexible on that point.  I
    will admit to that.  But I think we (WE) have to at least look at the
    possibility that the negative tone of much of what I have read and seen
    needs to be tempered against what the candidates and members hope to do
    on behalf of the DCU regardless of how the election turns out.
    
    

>    
>    I agree that it is important to point out the inconsistancies and my
>    statement that you quote may be somewhat inflexible on that point.  I
>    will admit to that.  But I think we (WE) have to at least look at the
>    possibility that the negative tone of much of what I have read and seen
>    needs to be tempered against what the candidates and members hope to do
>    on behalf of the DCU regardless of how the election turns out.
>

That is good to a point, but putting on rose colored glasses does NOT help
DCU in my opinion.  One can very well state what good they will do in the
future, but I feel they have a duty to tell what isn't for DCU (and why).
If that is not done, then history will indeed repeat itself.    
    

    Re: Jim Baker, since the subject has been brought up again.
    
    Jim Baker was discussed in a few of the notes I hid as moderator after
    a third party pointed out to me that the reference might have been to
    Jim Baker's criminal acts. A posted note also objected. If the
    reference was to criminal acts, then the note was inappropriate.
    
    When I asked the author via VAXmail, he said the reference was to a
    pious attitude and not to criminal acts.  I am not a mind reader, and I
    have no reason from context to doubt that explanation. Therefore I
    accept the author's explanation and will unhide his note after it is
    clarified. I strongly prefer that, in the future, proffered examples
    not be subject to such ambiguities.

    I suggest that the discussion in this topic NOT dredge up again who may
    have implied what and who may have inferred what regarding Jim Baker.
    I'm really not enthused about hiding more notes.  It takes considerable
    effort on my part, and it disrupts the flow of the discussion.
    
    Tom Eggers, DCU co-moderator

Re: .128
There are a few folks in this notes file that often don't agree with
some of the things that the RC folks (myself included) have done or said. I
don't agree with them, but I remember specifically saying that I welcome
their opposing viewpoint in this file so that it is more well rounded.

If the nominated candidates wish to appear in this file, I certainly wouldn't
be a part of an effort to run them out of this file. In fact, I would feel
a lot better about them if they *were* to take part in this file. The fact
that they *won't* participate in communicating with members has me worried
and is why I decided to run for the board in the first place.

The main danger I see is the efforts on the part of some folks to impede
the communications. If members were to get honest communications and
efforts at really cleaning up from the Mangone thing, I don't think this
whole brouhaha would have happened. I certainly wouldn't be spending my
time running. I'm only doing it because it wasn't getting done. DCU was
not telling us the truth.

The RC folks may disagree with you in this file, but I support your right
to say it in this file.