Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    
    
    Thanks for your input Mark. As someone who has approved the nomination
    of many members for the Board do you agree with the following
    statement?
    
    
              <<< BEIRUT::R7XBOK$DIA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;4 >>>
                                    -< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 343.0     DCU's BOD Responds to Mis-Information in Notesfile     57 replies
HYEND::SSHAPIRO                                     249 lines  29-OCT-1991 16:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         If the entire board is removed, there is a substantial 
         risk that a newly elected board would have NO experience 
         in management, finance, or understanding of the 
         credit union operations.  It is, therefore, extremely 
         important that members attend the Special Meeting and 
         show support for DCU's current board of directors.
         
         Signed,
             DCU's Board of Directors

    
    Thanks for your letter.
    
    INO, the incumbent thing is a nonissue.  Returning 
    incumbents to office is the norm in the vast majority
    of elections.  It shouldn't be a surprise.
    
    Steve
    
    
    
    

Mark,

Thank you for your insight into the Nominating Committee operation.  It would
appear that at least one member is using their head, instead of blindly
following the letter of the Bylaws.

Bob

    Mark,
            Thanks for letting us know your experience!  I was glad to
    hear that the BoD does not interfere in the Nominating Committee's
    duties!
    
    The only problem I have with the asterisk is that it lets too many
    voters off the hook with respect to their responsibility to check
    into the different candidates' qualifications.  It tends to make most
    voters vote for the incumbents when they are happy with the DCU and makes
    most voters vote against the incumbents when they are not happy.
    
    I guess it's just human nature.
    
    Don

    Mark,   Thanks for your information.   If only the BoD could talk with
    us, we might have avoided tonight.
    ed
    

    
    
    Yes, I do agree with Susan's statement as exerpted. Which is not to 
    say that there aren't highly qualified potential board members among 
    the DCU membership. There obviously are. 
    
    Mark 
     

I am also glad that you found time to enter this note before tonight's
meeting.  I think one of the unfortunate things about the current system
is that all the DCU membership knows about any candidate is what can 
fit into 100 words and an asterisc.  That is barely enough to cover
qualifications and a couple of words on future directions.  If the 
candidate thinks there is something wrong with policy at the DCU, 
there isn't room to make any kind of comprehensible statement about it.

Nor is there any other forum available to outsiders that reaches more 
than a fraction of the DCU members.  The unfortunate experience with 
LiveWire has shown how hard it is to use even Digital facilities to reach
a large audience with even a neutral message.  So the vast majority of 
DCU members have no effective way to find out more than 100 words about
the non-incumbent candidates, nor even to find out whether things that the
Board directly affects are going well or poorly.  At least, in a normal
election.  The incredible combination of events over the past 9 months may
make the next election different.  But the issues are important every year.

I don't see any justification for the 100 word limit as "a practical 
function of space."  You can fit about 7 sheets of paper in an envelope
and still pay the 1 ounce rate.  Compared to the price of the postage,
the cost of printing a few extra sheets is minor.  If the extra pages 
cause some members to not vote, that's their choice.  If some decide
to vote for the candidates with shorter bios, that's their choice, too.

When most of the means to communicate with the membership as a whole are
controlled by the incumbents, then I think it is no wonder that the
incumbents are usually re-elected.  The process *is* tilted in their
favor because they have a whole year of quarterly statements and the
annual report in which to communicate with the membership, whereas their
opponents have 100 words each.  Note that I'm not saying that the
incumbents are neccessarily deliberately manipulating information.
I'm saying that the communication process is biased and that bias
contributes to incumbents being re-elected.

A major part of the dispute that led to tonights special meeting is the
issue of open communication.  .0 makes a good case that having a nominating
committee does not contribute to re-election of incumbents, but a 100 word 
limit on the qualifications statement simply isn't enough to make the
election process fair and open.  I'd like to see the nominating committee
be proactive to increase communication by insisting on printing longer
statements from candidates.  

	Sincerely,
	Larry Seiler

    Mark, I also appreciate your taking the time to post the base note.
    However, in regard to .6, I'm having a hard time following your
    logic. If you think that the present nominating process works well,
    and that there obviously are other highly qualified potential board
    members among the DCU membership, how can you agree with Susan Shapiro
    that removal of the current board would present a substantial risk of
    unqualified replacements being elected? In case you've missed the notes
    that address the issue, candidates have not been put forward in this
    discussion. It is not the intention of the special meeting to replace
    the current board with some other predetermined slate. We simply
    believe that we should have a right to try to elect replacements,
    whomever they may be. Assuming that the current nominating process
    is used to select those candidates, therefore, why don't you think
    that qualified candidates will be selected? In my opinion, Susan's
    statement was both misleading and insulting to the DCU membership at
    large (in two ways: by its presumption that suitable candidates would
    not come forward, and by it's assumption that the membership is would
    not be capable of deciding who the best candidates are).
    

    Jim	

    
    Re: .8
    
    >and that there obviously are other highly qualified potential board
    >members among the DCU membership, how can you agree with Susan Shapiro
    >that removal of the current board would present a substantial risk of
    >unqualified replacements being elected? In case you've missed the notes
    
    Mark was asked if he agreed with her statement and he said yes AS
    EXCERPTED:
    
         >If the entire board is removed, there is a substantial 
         >risk that a newly elected board would have NO experience 
         >in management, finance, or understanding of the 
         >credit union operations.  It is, therefore, extremely 
         >important that members attend the Special Meeting and 
         >show support for DCU's current board of directors.
    
    All she really says is that there is a risk that they would
    have no experience specific to the running of a credit union.
    She's right about that.  Actually, I'd say it is quite likely
    that would be the case, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't
    be qualified and capable leaving the DCU in very good hands.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
         
    

    Re: -.1

	I don't know, Steve, I'd say that "NO experience  in management,
	finance, or understanding of the credit union operations" is a
	sweeping generalization to say the least. I also happen to think
	it's completely off base and incorrect, and IMHO, was clearly
	intended to dissuade (no, let's say scare) people from voting the
	current  board out. I also disagree that there is a likelihood that 
	inexperienced replacements will be elected if the current board
	is voted out. I think that a sufficient number of capable, qualified,
	and *experienced* candidates will surface out of a membership of
	88,000.

	But I guess there's little sense in debating the (what seems clear
	enough to me) intent of her message at this late date, or even what
	will happen if there's new elections. Let's wait and see what
	happens tonight, so we'll know if there *will* be new elections!

	Jim

    I agree with Susan's (actually, the board's) statement that 
    there is such a risk. That does not mean I believe that this
    risk would positively be realized. 
    
    The process of overseeing the credit union since the Mangone
    problem has been considerable, very important, and is probably 
    still at a critical stage. I happen to believe that disrupting 
    this process now could very likely be detrimental to the credit 
    union. The time and energy that have been invested by the board 
    in recent months is staggering. I don't think they've done a 
    terrific job at image management over this time, but I say that 
    having no idea how constrained they might be by ongoing litigation 
    in communicating as freely as they might like. As a member I'd 
    rather have my board focused on the task at hand than on public 
    relations (under ideal circumstance, which these aren't, I'd like 
    them focused on both). I think the extreme negative view that 
    people who contribute to this notes file seem to have of the board 
    is misguided and more a product of the snowballing inertia of a 
    crusade than of concern for the well-being of the DCU. People who 
    feel they've personally not been treated well or have not had 
    their myriad of questions fully answered are translating that 
    into a judgment on the board's performance. It's a translation I 
    don't share. 
    
    Mark 

    I can see how the BoD's time spent managing the consequences of the
    Mangone affair could be considerable.  One wonders under those
    circumstances how Mark Steinkrauss found time to suppress the posting
    of the special meeting notice in LiveWire.  I simply can't find any
    justification for that, and, as far as I know, no one has offered one.

These comments on qualifications to be a director strike me as quite
humorous.  I am a member of another credit union as an artifact of a
previous employer (Larger than Digital - Credit Union Smaller - but we
[still] get free credit cards, free traveller's checks, free checking,
free ATM cards). An interesting thing about this credit union, at least
when I was still an employee, was that the board of Directors had few
people with financial experience on it.  They were pretty much average
Joes: I remember a secretary, a staff accountant, a lab technician, a
programmer from our group, and yes a director (lower than a VP higher
than a manager).  I think the basic requirement was common sense to to
be willing to serve. 

Then again our credit union meetings were more like family picnics
(We always had a cookout lunch and things like door prizes at the end
where you had to be there to win) than trench warfare.  I must say I had
never heard anyone bitch about the credit union until I came to DEC. 

  RE: .11

	O.K., then Mark, I still appreciate your expressing your opinion,
	but I couldn't disagree with it more. I think the board's performance,
	or lack thereof, speaks for itself, and fully justifies the extreme
	negative view that is taken of it in this notes file. As many
	participants in this conference have stated, it's a view that they
	very reluctantly arrived at after long deliberation, and after
	countless incidents where the board's response to valid concerns
	of the membership was either nonexistent, insufficient, or
	unacceptable. I don't view that lack of responsiveness as "poor
	"public relations." I view it as unacceptable performance of a
	fiduciary trust. And I don't need years of experience in Credit
	Union operations to make that judgement. So let's just agree to
	disagree on that point.

	I think the conduct of tonight's special meeting (cutting off debate
	on the motion for recall of the board, the chairman of the board
	moderating a motion for his own dismissal, the counting of ballots
	by DCU employees, the attempt to suppress a vote on the motion for
	special elections when the motion to remove the board was not carried,
	on and on ad nauseam) was fully representative of the board's
	attitude, and as a result, I for one am hopeful that the "crusade"
	as you call it, to effect positive change at our credit union and
	to elect a board that doesn't view the relationship with its members
	as an exercise in "public relations," but an integral part of it's
	responsibilities, continues.

	Jim

re: .13

	That's interesting. After tonight's special meeting, and whatever
	"encouragement" that senior management may have provided for
	employees to attend the meeting and vote to support the board, one
	may think that part of the problem with the DCU board is that it
	does consist almost entirely of highly placed persons within the
	corporation. Although I do think that experience is an important
	consideration, I don't think that one's standing in the corporation
	should be a de facto prerequisite  for sitting on the board. I
	think a large part of the problem at this point is that much of
	the "rank and file" feels excluded from input to what is supposed
	to be a cooperative operation of the C.U. This would seem to be
	an indication that it is time to open up the election process and
	allow folks other than those hand picked by the incumbent board
	to run for a seat.

	Jim

    During lunch today (yesterday), Bob Leigh and I were discussing the
    petitioning for nominations.  We came up with the idea of doing an
    group signing.  Get a number of potential nominees and a petition
    for all of them at the same time.  A member could then sign all the
    mnomination petitions offered all at once.
    

	I will volunteer to collect signatures at ZKO for anyone
	who wishes to send me the appropriate forms, and instructions
	on how they are to be filled out.

	If persons at other sites would similarly volunteer, it would
	make collection of signatures relatively trivial.


					Tom_K

    
    I will volunteer to collect the information, signatures or anything
    else that will help us have more choices in the next election.
    
    Joyce Tomao
    BXC

    I'll do the same for Colorado Springs.

    
    I will also collect signatures for ANY candidate wishing to run by
    petition provided they supply a 1 page written statement of whatever
    they wish.  I'm at TTB.  In a building of 500 people, I got 100
    signatures for the petition.
    
    I will also send out all candidate writeups to distribution.
    

    I will collect signatures for anyone who is running, provided that
    their communications and adgenda match my expectations of a BoD member.
    Sorry, but if I'm going to expend the energy, I'm going to endorse the
    candidate.  I am in TWO.  Present BoD need not apply.
    ed

    
    I will happily assist Tom Krupinski at ZKO and since I'm moving to 
    GSF in Hudson, NH I'll do it there as well.
    
    Steve
    

	Now that Steve mentions it, my group is slated to move to GSF
	in the near future as well. If I am still in ZKO, I will
	collect signatures there, if I am at GSF, I will collect them
	there.

				Tom_K

    
    I would like to suggest that people offering to collect signature NOT
    be another Nominating Committee.  Let the DCU members read the
    write-ups (place them on a table a day or two ahead of signature
    collection) and decide who they want to sign for.  Personally, I'd feel
    uncomfortable passing judgement on who should or should be running.
    (Although banking experience would be high on my hit list!)

I concur.  I've said right along that I'll volunteer again to run a petition
table, including collecting petitions for every person expressing a willingness
to run.  Phil's idea of bio sheets nearby sounds good -- let each petitioner
decide.  Everyone working for the special meeting was working for openness;
no "committee" should now add the very restrictions the Framingham meeting
was called to eliminate.

Of course, individuals can also petition for anyone they choose.  But any
organized volunteer effort should equally support all comers.

	Right, as I said earlier, I'll collect signatures for *anyone*,
	even Mark Steinkrauss, should he request it. Collecting
	signatures, or even signing a nomination petition is in no way
	an endorsement. I have in the past signed nomination petitions
	for people or things I wouldn't dream of voting for, because
	I believe in the goodness of universal access to the ballot.

					Tom_K

    
    I hereby volunteer to collect signatures for any nominee.
    
    cbc

Sign me up for collecting signatures.  It was kind of fun the 
last time.  I did NRO (my work location) and LMO (close by).  If 
no one from LMO signs up I'll do both again.

Maryellen

I'll help in HLO.  *Please* no one ask anyone to sign a petition that has 
more than one name on it.  Each nominee should stand alone.

I'll place one restriction on who I'll help.  I'll only help get signatures
for candidates who provide a bio statement in sufficient detail to make
clear their qualifications, philisophy, and proposed actions on the BoD.
I place no restriction on the content, but I want the data to be there.
My message to anyone coming up to sign would be to please read the bios
and sign the petition for anyone you think should be on the ballot.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    I would like to ask that anyone who posts here be willing to circulate
    petitions for any and all candidates with no bias or preconceptions -
    offer equal access to the ballot to all.  If you want to be selective,
    then solicit that candidate offline.

         <<< Note 363.30 by LEDS::PRIBORSKY "I'd rather be rafting" >>>
                                 -< Fairness >-

.30>    I would like to ask that anyone who posts here be willing to circulate
.30>    petitions for any and all candidates with no bias or preconceptions -
.30>    offer equal access to the ballot to all.  If you want to be selective,
.30>    then solicit that candidate offline.


A reasonable request:  granted.  The constituency being served by the
petition process is the membership, not the petitioners.

    Question time...
    
    Does a current BoD have to get signatures to get on the ballot?
    
    Don

    It was pointed out that my comment "Present BoD need not apply" could
    be understood that I was saying that the current BoD should not run. 
    This is incorrect.  I believe that anyone who wishes to run, should be
    allowed to run.
    
    Circulating a petition at a small facility such as TWO 
    where everybody knows everybody, can be viewed as an endorsement.  As 
    such, I will expend energy on only those candiates I believe would 
    be best seated on the BoD.  
    
    	
    I understand the desire to be fair in the signature collection process.
    
    ed
    

[I received a MAIL message about 363.31.  My answer to it required a thought
or two that may belong here as well.]

-------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the "reasonable person" appellation.  Sometimes I'm not too
sure -- this DCU stuff does seem to have been pretty one-sided.

I understand your feeling about wanting to choose whom you'd work for in
collecting petitions.  And I feel the same, as far as individual efforts go.

The scenario I was speaking to was different from "working for" a petitioner;
perhaps that's why there may have appeared to be a difference.  I don't intend
to go around canvassing people for signatures for any candidate by name,
and I don't intend to endorse anyone.  I see that it's badly needed for some
mechanism to provide exposure to non-incumbents -- and this seems to lead in
the direction of a table in the cafeteria, like we did for the Special Meeting
petition.  If I'm going to ask DEC for permission to use company space (again),
I think the only way I'd feel comfortable (and the only way they SHOULD grant
permission) is if the effort can be characterized as being in the service of
the entire membership.  This would mean accepting petition signatures on
behalf of every candidate, yet actually soliciting NONE.

Curiously, it also seems to suggest that, if this venue were also to provide
for making available one-page campaign statements, my table would have to
include room for the incumbents to have equal space.  So I'd support that as
well.  (In fact, it strikes me as interesting to contemplate writing to the
Board and making the offer to display their campaign statements side-by-side
with all others.  I wonder what response we'd get.)

    
>    such, I will expend energy on only those candiates I believe would 
>    be best seated on the BoD.  
    
    Ed, could you please clarify this?  I want to make sure I'm not
    misinterpreting it.
    
    
    I think we must draw a line between carrying campaign statements and
    statements of candidates who are trying to get on the ballot as
    petition candidates.  I think there is a difference here.  I do not
    wish to campaign for anybody.  What I wish to do is provide petition
    candidates with help in getting on the ballot if enough other people
    agree they should run after reading their statement.  After they have
    gotten on the ballot, they can then "campaign" on their own with the
    help of their own supporters.
    

    I am willing to collect nomination petitions from anyone who will make
    public answers to some questions I have.  (I will not collect petitions
    from those who don't.)  I don't care what the answers are, but the
    answers have to be responsive to the questions I ask.
    
    I suspect that will exclude the present BoD members, but it is, of
    course, their choice.

I would suggest that someone post a sample nominating petition that
comforms to any guidelines in the bylaw here.

John

    I am also willing to collect signatures here at MET for ANY candidate,
    but I would prefer to do it in a block, as suggested earlier.

    Personally, this time I think it is preferable for serious candidates
    to get on the ballot via petition rather than through the nominating
    committee.  If nothing else, the act of collecting the signatures is an
    opportunity to distribute a statement which has not been censored.

    Also, they won't have the stigma of having been approved by the
    nominating committee. :-)
    
    	Paul

    I am concerned about many notes offering to collect signatures for
    "any" candidate.  I do not think it best for DECU to have many
    candidates on the ballot, but rather a few candidates who each have
    substantial support.  Many could result in an extreme candidate
    with a narrow following winning a plurality against many mainstream 
    opponents who split the votes of most members.
    
    I suggest that signing a petition should indicate endorsement of
    that candidate.  I suggest that circulating a petition and soliciting
    signatures should also.  I think the qualification process should
    be fair and available to all, but the hurdle should not be removed,
    and it should not be low.  Is not the petition requirement a part of 
    a fair and representative election process, rather than an obstacle to it?
    
    I wonder what others think of this?  Could we be heading toward
    a dozen candidates for each position with anyone who will ask the
    several volunteers in this conference able to win nomination?  Might
    a board be elected by as few as fifteen or twenty percent of those 
    voting?
    
    I would also not remove the incumbant designation - that is a
    meaningful attribute.
    
    I believe it also true that any director elected by the membership
    must then be reviewed or accepted by the NCUA before she is allowed to 
    take a seat.
    
    I am feeling a bit out of the mainstream here - is there something
    I am missing?  
    
    
    Jack Hutchinson
    

    I think what your note left out is there is a very strong feeling that
    the process has been more closed than open, and therefore people are
    trying to make it as open as possible.  That does have some of the
    negative effects you described in .-1.

Also, this one member expects that anyone who chooses to run at this point
in history would do so because they have the best interest of DCU at heart.
This might well mean, for instance, that if I were running, and found myself
one of 8 candidates, I would contact the other 7 with the intent of dropping
out and throwing my support behind one of them.

Board positions are uncompensated, remember.

Given that seven positions will be open, I would hope for something like 14
candidates in addition to the existing board members.  I will be quite
surprised if we even get that many.

While I will collect signatures for any candidate, I will not myself sign
them indescriminantly.  I expect to read whatever they choose to provide,
and sign based on that.  I think the people at my facility are smart enough
to decide for themselves which petitions they want to sign.

	Paul

    I hope for 7 candidates in addition to existing Board members.  It's
    because it is a tradeoff between limiting confusion on the part of
    shareholders and allowing shareholders the option of voting in a 
    completely new Board.
    
    If there are only, say, 3 additional candidates, there will be less
    confusion about the different candidates.  But, it is certain that Board 
    members will be re-elected by default.  This might not serve the interests 
    of shareholders who want a completely new Board.
    
    If there are, say 14 additional candidates shareholders may well become
    confused as to who to vote for.  Confusion leads to splits in voting
    with the margin tipping toward incumbents.  Again, I suspect that this
    situation might not serve the interests of shareholders.
    
    If there are only 7 additional candidates, then the choices for
    shareholders will be minimal, resulting in a minimum of confusion.
    But, it will also be possible for a completely new Board to be elected.
    This may provide opportunities for candidates to run one-on-one for
    existing positions, matching credential for credential, incumbency for
    a clean slate, and so forth.
    
    It may also be possible for a group of 7 candidates to operate as one
    unit during elections, conserving resources and allowing them to
    demonstrate how they work as a team during the elections.  At this
    time, I'm not aware of any such group of 7, but I would like to see
    some campaign process in place to reduce the field to this size,
    similar to what is done with primaries during political elections.
    
    These are just my own ideas.  I am not currently aware of any such
    effort already in progress.
    
    Steve

    RE: A few back...
    
    Yes...could someone please post a nomination form here or mail it to
    those of us who have volunteered to collect nominees. Also since I've
    never done anything like this I would appreciate some
    tips/pointers/direction on how the whole process works.
    
    Thanks,
    Joyce

    I received my nomination package.  It contained some (but not all)
    answers to some questions I asked, an invitation to come to the 
    nominating committee interviews on 11-Dec, and a form to fill out. 
    Here's an abbreviated version of the information requested on the
    form:
    
    	Standard stuff:  name, badge, home address, mailstop, work and home
    		phone numbers
    
    	Reason for running for the board:
    
    	Education
    
    	Recent work experience
    
    	Outside activites
    
    	"You authorize us to make whatever credit inquires that are
    	necessary in connection with this application for DCU's Board
    	of Directors".
    
    A request in the cover letter for a resume is relaxed a little in the
    form by saying "You're encouraged to submit a resume".  Since my resume
    has all the information requested, I'll just be submitting a cover
    letter with the answer to the first question ("reason...") and a resume
    to cover the rest.
    
    I don't understand the reason why credit inquiries are relevant to this
    process.
    

    
>    	"You authorize us to make whatever credit inquires that are
>    	necessary in connection with this application for DCU's Board
>    	of Directors".
    
    I find this more than mildly amusing.  That our credit union would ask
    BoD candidates to submit to a credit check, yet $18 million can go out
    the back door of DCU without a single one.
    
    I would suggest that all BoD candidates strike out this authorization
    until a reasonable explanation (or "business reason") is stated by DCU. 
    Also a statement of confidentiality should be included.  Who sees this
    credit report?
    

    I would guess that the credit check is required by the bonding agent
    for the BoD.  It is _very_ standard procedure for becoming bonded, and
    it would be very embarassing to have a new Board Member elected, but
    not be able to be bonded.
    
    	- Peter

    Well, while I find it amusing, it doesn't matter to me since I have
    nothing to hide.    I would be curious to know if this has been on the
    paperwork in prior years.
    
    The bonding requirement is clearly the motivation.  If a candidate
    can't be bonded, s/he shouldn't be allowed on the ballot.  In reality I
    believe this opens up more than credit checks.  In all likelihood,
    criminal background checks are in order as well.  Before you object on
    the grounds of rights of privacy, I would hope that you wouldn't allow
    an embezzler on!
    
    If I get asked personal questions about my position on gun control,
    abortion, drug testing, etc., I will respectfully decline.  

    
    Before jumping to conclusions on what this check is for, maybe BoD
    candidates should ask DCU to explain it.  If it is for bonding then
    fine.  That should be stated as well as confidentiality guarantees. 
    Does DCU also hire P.I.s for background checks?  Hard to believe
    embezzlers are going to be caught in a credit check.  Now "straw 
    borrowers", that's another story.
    
    And again, who sees this info, how is it used and disposed of?  This
    has nothing to do with hiding anything.  It has to do with a clear
    statement of what the info is used for.
    
    And it also begs the question, "Are credit checks or other inquiries 
    performed on current Directors, officers, committee members, etc. on a
    regular basis?"   Assuming these disqualifying conditions may exist
    only at the time of nomination may be very incorrect.
    

	Ideally, I'd like to see 7 non-imcumbents run. More than that,
	and the reform vote is diluted. Less than that, and you will
	have many reform voters voting for incumbents, rather than
	simply bullet voting the reformers.

	But, I refuse to be a "different" nominating committee. I see 
	collecting signatures for ballot access as a service to the 
	members, not a service to the nominees. 

					Tom_K

.49>    Well, while I find it amusing, it doesn't matter to me since I have
.49>    nothing to hide.


In the current environment I'd have no problem with candidates who had
reservations about submitting themselves to the inquisitiveness of the
current Board (or of the current Board's people).

The best approach, in my opinion, would be to submit your papers including or
witholding information as you see fit.  SOME potential candidates may be
rejected by the Nominating Committee.  For this one election, ALL potential
candidates are going to get a lot of help via petition.  We'll have to address
the bonding issue, but the Nominating Committee and its hurdles could very
well be irrelevant for this one election.

Don't do anything you don't want to do.

I called today to ask about the nomination kit and to understand the process
a bit more. I found out I had not understood the process, perhaps others
had the wrong impression too.

The main thing I learned was that if you get accepted by the nomination
committee, you *don't* have to collect the 500 signatures. The signatures
are only required if the nomination committee rejects you and you still
want to be on the ballot.

    re .53
    
    Paul, thanks for clearing that up!  I thought some people were
    incorrect when they mentioned that candidates needed signatures to
    run.
    
    Don

I was probably one of those who helped create the incorrect impression.
Sorry!

I was coming from a point of view that (cynically, perhaps) expected the
Nominating Committee to behave as friends of the incumbents and screen out
applicants not found to match the current requirements.  (There is some
language to that effect in the "official election guidelines" pamphlet;
obviously, however, everything depends on the caliber and motivation of
those named to the Nominating Committee.)  The Nominating Committee _is_
appointed by the Board.

I felt, and probably do still feel, that the Nominating Committee may turn
down some hopeful candidates.  What a number of people have been saying here
is that they will support ANY candidate who wishes to run by circulating
petitions, and the decision will then be up to the membership.  That means
that potential candidates, if they so chose, could bypass the Nominating
Committee entirely.  So there are three routes:

    1)  Make use of already-committed volunteer network to gather signatures.
        Proceed directly to elections.

    2)  Submit application to DCU and the Nominating Committee, be accepted:
        proceed to elections.

    3)  Submit application to DCU and the Nominating Committee, be rejected:
        proceed to 1), and thence to elections.

    
    RE: credit inquiry
    
>    	"You authorize us to make whatever credit inquires that are
>    	necessary in connection with this application for DCU's Board
>    	of Directors".
    
    Curiosity was killing me.  I had to ask DCU about this.  I got a call 
    back today.  They said the credit inquiry was NOT bonding related.  The 
    reports were used by the Nominating Committee.
    
    I have also corresponded with a person who has served on the Nominating 
    Committee prior to DCU's call back.  This person stated that the credit
    inquiries were NOT made known to them.
    
    So, which is it?  And who is seeing these reports?
    
    Still no word on a new date for the close of accepting applications for
    the BoD.  It is currently Dec. 2nd (next Monday!).  AGAIN, I would
    strongly urge all that are considering running to submit your
    application before Dec. 2nd.

    
    I'd like to clarify something concerning this credit check.  I'm not
    necessarily arguing for or against it.  Just the way it is presented on
    a preliminary application without any indication of who sees it, what
    it is used for, and that the information will remain confidential.  You
    know, the standard type of statement that you see on credit
    applications.
    
    As for a credit history revealing anything about "good moral
    character", that is a rat-hole deluxe.  I can believe this type of
    check (along with other much more thorough checks) would be performed
    for people applying for sensitive positions.  I have NOT heard that
    they are common practice for most types of employment.
    
    I do not consider a credit inquiry on an initial application to be a
    valid request in this case.  Applicants should go through a 2 phase 
    process.  The checking into financial status and character should be 
    done AFTER they have passed the initial interviews or whatever and
    there is interest expressed in the candidate.  This would preclude 
    the credit inquiries from being used as disqualifying information instead 
    of qualifying information.  "Screening" must be done at the correct
    time or it is not "screening", it could be considered a form of
    economic of financial discrimination.
    
    And the point I made earlier about these inquiries being made of
    sitting board (and even senior management) members still needs
    answering.  As we have seen very clearly, "good moral character" is not
    necessarily a static condition.
    

    I was told by Mary Madden that the date (DEC. 2nd) will slip.  Probably
    into Jan sometime.  Everyone who asked for a BOD application will be
    notified.
    
    I would suggest that you get the material in by Dec 2nd, but if you do
    not, it is not the end of the world.
    
    	- mark