| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 576.1 | | TOMK::KRUPINSKI | Repeal the 16th Amendment! | Wed Jul 08 1992 14:58 | 4 |
| How was it publicized to members?
What was the money spent on?
Tom_K
|
| 576.2 | Only for DCU employees | PLOUGH::KINZELMAN | Paul Kinzelman | Wed Jul 08 1992 15:58 | 4 |
| It wasn't publicized to members. Phil found it in the old minutes. It
turns out it was just for all DCU employees and it was something like a
dinner or celebration someplace. It was spent on food
and room rental and such.
|
| 576.3 | Sometime you need to hit me with a brick | 16BITS::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Wed Jul 08 1992 17:00 | 7 |
| re: .*
I'm confused. .0 states that it was for "members, officials, and employees"
but .2 says it was just for employees. Is, perhaps, .0 a quote from the
minutes which mistated the purpose of the gathering?
-Jack
|
| 576.4 | Sometimes I can use a brick too! | PLOUGH::KINZELMAN | Paul Kinzelman | Wed Jul 08 1992 17:12 | 7 |
| Woops! You're right. See? I *can* type in my sleep! :-)
I was told verbally that it was for employees (and BoDs of course)
only, not for members. I believe the BoD minutes that spoke of the
anniversary gathering said "members" also and so added to the confusion.
Hey, at least they came in well under budget!
|
| 576.5 | | TOMK::KRUPINSKI | Repeal the 16th Amendment! | Wed Jul 08 1992 17:21 | 14 |
| Which, if any of the following statements are accurate then?
o DECFU failed to inform members about this celebration.
o After members found out about this event, DECFU misled members
about it.
o The DECFU BoD failed to inform members about this celebration.
o After members found out about this event, the DECFU BoD misled
members about it.
Tom_K
|
| 576.6 | Speculation? | PLOUGH::KINZELMAN | Paul Kinzelman | Wed Jul 08 1992 17:43 | 13 |
| The following represents my personal opinion. I am not typing as a board
member...
Until now, the only pieces of information about this event we had were from
the minutes that we purchased. Neither the board nor DCU mislead us because
they didn't tell us anything as far as I know.
This is purely speculation on my part, but what might have happened was that
originally the celebration was for all DCU members. As a cost savings
measure, as well as it wouldn't have been fair to members outside the GMA,
they decided to make it only for GMA DCU employees. This would also tend to
explain why the budget was over $10K but they only spent a small fraction
of that.
|
| 576.7 | | FIGS::BANKS | This was | Wed Jul 08 1992 18:00 | 8 |
| So, DCU spent $4200 for a dinner for its employees to celebrate its 10th
anniversary? That's not such a high per-head cost for something that only
comes around once every ten years, and it's also something that was done for
the (presumably) entire staff of DCU, and not just some $20K excursion for 8
people. Is this a problem?
For perspective, one dinner every ten years probably costs a lot less than one
turkey every year for ten years.
|
| 576.8 | | 16BITS::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Wed Jul 08 1992 18:25 | 10 |
| I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with a 10th anniversary celebration
planned exclusively for DEFCU employees. I don't even have a problem with such a
gala affair planned for DEFCU employees and board members. I have an EXTREMELY
big problem with such an affair being stated as intended for employees, board
members _AND_ DEFCU members, and then the latter class never having been
informed about it or eligible to attend.
Call me peculiar - I value honesty.
-Jack
|
| 576.9 | | TOMK::KRUPINSKI | Repeal the 16th Amendment! | Wed Jul 08 1992 19:06 | 9 |
| Right, if DEFCU wanted to reward the employees that give us great
service, that's wonderful. I hope that such a celebration included
all employees.
What bothers me is that it appears to me that we, the members, were
misled about it, first, by not telling us, and second, by then
saying it was intended for members, as well as employees.
Tom_K
|
| 576.10 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Thu Jul 09 1992 03:39 | 2 |
| I'm willing to chalk this one up to a simple and unintentional mistake.
Let's drop this one.
|